Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

nationaljournal.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 229 posts

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#81

Post by splinterofchaos »

waterlesscloud wrote: post #65
georgieporgie wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's also worth noting that the US already gets 70% of all its taxes from the top 10% Why is that worth noting? That only further demonstrates the income inequality in the United States. Furthermore, wealth is far more important to take into account than income in any discussion of taxation or inequality. Also, I have yet to hear anyone make an argument that sounds anything like "simply being rich is wrong."

"That only further demonstrates the income inequality in the United States. " So is this the basic issue, then? That there's income inequality? Because that's always going to be the case. Even in the most socialist nations, or even communist nations. There is always a strong disparity of income and power. Always. And there always will be.

That is not to say that the level of inequality is not greater than it was before or is elsewhere. The extent of inequality has grown in the states (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequalit...) and compares unfavorably with other countries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equ...).

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#82

Post by spamizbad »

muhfuhkuh wrote: post #48
webXL wrote: post #9

Another rich guy trying to persuade average folk that all our problems would be solved if people like him were taxed more. Never mind that the Buffet-rule (minimum 35%) would net $31 Billion over the next 11 years versus $7 Trillion in estimated deficits. ( http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74232.html ) Another reason this idea is so wrong-headed is that there can never be enough superrich Americans to power…

"(See the Department of Education, TARP, Medicare, war, etc.)" TARP money has been paid back almost in full, depending on who you talk to. The DoE budget is like an eyedropper full in the wake of an ocean, compared to the DoD and elderly entitlements. And, if you want $FAVORITE_CANDIDATE to touch Medicare and Social Security, you go right ahead. I'm quite positive they will smile and move on, knowing where their cons…

Targeting medicare and social security is silly anyway. They are funded via a separate tax (FICA/SECA) that only applies to the first 200K/250K of income.

And the only reason why SS/Medicare are running out of money is because the government frequently borrows against social security surpluses. You may remember, back in 2000, one of Al Gore's campaign promises was to put social security into a "lock box" with the hopes of stopping this (IMO it likely would not have buy-in from congress but it's still a good idea).

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#83

Post by eli_gottlieb »

Arelius wrote: post #54
aeturnum wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Though I support the idea that wealthy people should pay high taxes, perhaps even higher taxes than they do now, I think it's also worth noting that the US already gets 70% of all its taxes from the top 10%[1]. As long as we're keeping capitalism, I don't buy the argument that simply being rich is wrong. I'm also fairly skeptical of set limits on income, as setting those limits is very hard. What goes into it? How mu…

>Though I support the idea that wealthy people should pay high taxes, perhaps even higher taxes than they do now, I think it's also worth noting that the US already gets 70% of all its taxes from the top 10%[1]. You do realize that if you make about $80K/year, you are already in the top 10% right? With that perspective, I feel that 70% of taxed income is absurdly low, the fact that 30% of all US tax dollars come from…

Your point doesn't stand. Read the rest of the data. Namely, notice that according to this data, the median AGI of the United States is $32,396/year.

So half the population is making less than $32k/year. Yes, the top 10% and the top half of the population are taking on almost all of the income-tax burden.... because they (we, in my case) have almost all the income.

There's nothing fair about demanding tax money from people who are just plain poor. You tax the rich, because rich people have money.

Now, we could talk about distributing the tax burden "fairly" across the rich and the middle class, but that assumes we have large, broad middle class. Which we don't: making a "middle-class salary" like, say, $66,193/year already puts you on the border of the top 25% of the country.

And then notice that to get from the top 25% to the top 10%, you have to make almost twice as much money. Top 10% to top 5% isn't that large of an increase, but top 5% to top 1% requires more than doubling your income.

So, to be clear:

To go from median to top 25%, you need to roughly double your income. To go from 75th percentile to 90th percentile, you need to almost double your income. To go from 95th percentile to 99th percentile, you need to more-than-double your income. We're operating a tax system designed for a bell-curve income distribution when what we actually have is a power-law income distribution.

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#84

Post by webXL »

splinterofchaos wrote: post #68
webXL wrote: post #9

Another rich guy trying to persuade average folk that all our problems would be solved if people like him were taxed more. Never mind that the Buffet-rule (minimum 35%) would net $31 Billion over the next 11 years versus $7 Trillion in estimated deficits. ( http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74232.html ) Another reason this idea is so wrong-headed is that there can never be enough superrich Americans to power…

Actually, the facts back him up. Look at this article analysing the deficit (specifically, the graph near the top): http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3490 This shows tax cuts as the largest cause in our deficit. I won't argue that getting rid of tax cuts will get rid of the deficit, but every tax season, the money lost from these cuts doesn't go towards reducing dept. Worse, the amount lost from cuts grows…

The tax cuts weren't just for the wealthy though. You're basically just doing the Buffet-rule by only removing Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. Not going to help much.

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#85

Post by eli_gottlieb »

mtjl79 wrote: post #70

I'm sorry but, higher taxes aren't going to solve anything. At the end of the day, our spending will just not stop. We are just adding fuel to the fire. We need to: • Invest in the future: We need to invent, produce, and export new renewable energy sources. We need to invest in robotic manufacturing because cheap people labor is not sustainable in any country - robotic is where it will go. • We need to heavily tax im…

At the end of the day, a country is a business.

No, it's not. It needs to manage its finances responsibly, but that is quite different from being a profit-generating business.

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#86

Post by aliston »

georgieporgie wrote: post #60
muhfuhkuh wrote: post #31

So, when does one prove causation? Because by any economic metric, the times when we've been fiscally strong is when the top marginal tax rate was higher than 36% currently. When they lowered it in 2001 from 40% while going to war , it created net zero jobs during the entirety of the Bush administration (and starting leaking jobs en masse during the crisis in 2008). One could argue that Reagan's administration saw so…

I've heard a number of people (Grover Norquist included) make the claim that although the top marginal tax rates were higher, there were a far greater number of tax exemptions available. I have no idea how true this is, and I'm not aware of anyone who's studied the actual income, wealth, and taxes of America's rich over the decades.

In addition, the point at which the top tax rate kicks in has varied quite a bit throughout the 1900's. For instance, in the 1950's, when we had a top marginal tax rates over 90%, the top bracket also kicked in at 400k, which would be nearly 4 million in todays dollars. That's why merely looking at the top marginal rate is kind of misleading.

http://ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.ht...

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#87

Post by eli_gottlieb »

gadders wrote: post #18

Inequality is a stupid measure. What matters is absolute poverty. If I have a comfortable standard of living, what do I care if Bill Gates has a million times more money than me?

Half the taxpayers of the United States make less than $32k/year. How's that a comfortable standard of living?

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#88

Post by potatolicious »

jakubmal wrote: post #36
ender7 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, Social Darwinism. Still alive after so many years.

Right, don't back up. Just diss.

I've been just watching this discussion unfold up till now - and I've been impressed at the level of analysis coming from both sides - arguments that are at least in some minor way backed up by numbers.

But your comment is offensive. Dangerously so.

Your view is actually incredibly typical throughout history - its latest incarnation is Social Darwinism, where one mistakenly applies a biological and genetics principle to economics and morality.

Social Darwinism has been the tool with which countless people have been oppressed, abused, and killed. The pro-slavery crowd used that argument - that colored people were genetically inferior, and that if they were meant be to free, they'd already be. This line of thinking was also popular amongst the Eugenics movement in the early 20th century, which had clear and strong ties to the Nazi party (boy this argument just Godwins itself).

With its colorful history, social Darwinism is nowadays inseparable from racism and fascism.

But your claim is even more specious than this lot of despicable people. At least the slavers and the Nazis made arguments that certain races deserved their lot due to "inferior" genetics, but your appeal to Darwin/evolution doesn't even involve the least bit of biology. It's just pure hand-waving by applying one completely unrelated field to another, with zero facts to even attempt to back it up.

Shame on you.

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#89

Post by recursive »

Karunamon wrote: post #66
mccon104 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I call bullshit on your malarkey. I get not liking "the 1%" but you do the exact same thing by using the word "handouts". You swapped one co-opted term for another. One can only assume you really mean "welfare" when you say "handouts", and that to me means you have no idea what welfare is or what it does for the families and people that need it.

I call shenanigans on your bullshit. You swapped one co-opted term for another. With this logic, there won't be any words left to describe anything that haven't been "co-opted". A handout is a handout.

The 1% is the 1%.

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#90

Post by mtjl79 »

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #85
mtjl79 wrote: post #70

I'm sorry but, higher taxes aren't going to solve anything. At the end of the day, our spending will just not stop. We are just adding fuel to the fire. We need to: • Invest in the future: We need to invent, produce, and export new renewable energy sources. We need to invest in robotic manufacturing because cheap people labor is not sustainable in any country - robotic is where it will go. • We need to heavily tax im…

At the end of the day, a country is a business. No, it's not. It needs to manage its finances responsibly, but that is quite different from being a profit-generating business.

Countries are the largest companies that exist on the planet.
Post reply on HN