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

101–110 of 229 posts

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#101

Post by Florin_Andrei »

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.

Asking Grover Norquist for advice on economics is like asking Pat Robertson to explain what causes hurricanes and earthquakes (hint: he says it's something about the sexual orientation of some people).

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#102

Post by mtjl79 »

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #95
mtjl79 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Countries are the largest companies that exist on the planet.

Quite simply, no. The goal of a country is not to amass wealth in the government.

Not all companies that operate are for profit.

BUT, The goal of a country is to amass wealth, is it not?

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#103

Post by nikcub »

muhfuhkuh wrote: post #97
nikcub wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

because it doesn't give you the answer you want

What answer would that be? Because looking here[1], the effective tax rate during our largest job growth (Clinton Administration) was also when we saw the largest effective tax rates for the 10, 5, and 1%. I guess I have to correlate until we run out of data, then checkmate or something. [1] http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Doc...

this debate is so complicated that you can easily take data to support any side of the argument

for eg. the effective rates don't match up for the 80s but they do for the 90s. they also don't take into account capital gains, which is what most of the top 5, 1% etc. pay

then if I was arguing the other side of the debat I would say that this data hasn't been normalized for purchasing power

etc. etc. ad nauseam

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#104

Post by webXL »

gnaritas wrote: post #62
donzimmer wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Never mind that the Buffet-rule (minimum 35%) would net $31 Billion over the next 11 years versus $7 Trillion in estimated deficits." Yes. Tony Robbins did a great deconstruction of this in a video, "Is taxing the rich enough? Will that solve our problems?": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jboTeS9Okak (Regardless of what you think of Tony Robbins personally, this is an excellent video. I love how he breaks down exact…

Taxing the rich isn't about solving the budget problems, it's about solving the fairness problem. It doesn't matter that it isn't enough to make a fiscal difference, people want to feel the laws are fair and the rich are paying at least as much of a percentage of their income as the middle class. That's what the Buffet rule tries to address, equality.

Can you solve this fairness issue:

"the US already gets 70% of all its taxes from the top 10%"

The rich are getting richer not because they pay too little in taxes, they're getting richer because they rig capitalism with the help of their buddies in D.C.. Level the playing field of commerce, and you'll start to see some redistribution of wealth.

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#105

Post by splinterofchaos »

webXL wrote: post #84
splinterofchaos wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I realize that, but the tax cuts disproportionately benefit the rich, still (http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/03/news/economy/income_inequali...). Low income houses would still pay low taxes, just not no taxes.

Plus, the idea that ending the Bush tax cuts and giving a break to the poor are mutually exclusive is a false dichotomy. The power exists to do both.

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#106

Post by mchusma »

nooneelse wrote: post #80
johndbritton wrote: post #45

Is it possible that by not publishing the talk they'll draw more attention to it? He should re-record and publish the talk on his own and use the "Streisand Effect" in his favor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

He should also use that re-record as a chance to put in more data to support his point. And flesh out his thinking. For instance, that bit about: > "If the typical American family still got today the same share of income they earned in 1980, they would earn about 25% more and have an astounding $13,000 more a year. Where would the economy be if that were the case?" I would love to see some stabs (pessimistic, median,…

I would also say any attempt to discuss causation would be great. It's very light on that, and doesn't address any of the huge macro issues to contend with.

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#107

Post by muhfuhkuh »

webXL wrote: post #92
muhfuhkuh wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"(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…

It's easy to pay TARP back in full when you can borrow at the Fed at 0% and lend at 5%. Favor. Education performance has stagnated ever since the DoEducation was created. Who benefited? Not me or my kids! And the fact that we have third-rail (untouchable) programs in this country is NOT a strong argument in favor of more "investments".

"Education performance has stagnated ever since the DoEducation was created. Who benefited? Not me or my kids!"

Education performance lagging in the US is not the fault of it being federated. The shining education systems by competency in Math, Science, and Reading comprehension (S. Korea, Finland, Canada, New Zeland, and Ireland) all have federated education systems. FWIW, though, I love the idea of the Finnish 7-16 compulsory school then switching to academic (university) track or vocational (tech school/apprenticeship) track. That is something we can and should do here in the states.

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#109

Post by gnaritas »

mtjl79 wrote: post #102
eli_gottlieb wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quite simply, no. The goal of a country is not to amass wealth in the government.

Not all companies that operate are for profit. BUT, The goal of a country is to amass wealth, is it not?

No, it is not. GDP is not a measure of the happiness of the people.

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#110

Post by gnaritas »

webXL wrote: post #104
gnaritas wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taxing the rich isn't about solving the budget problems, it's about solving the fairness problem. It doesn't matter that it isn't enough to make a fiscal difference, people want to feel the laws are fair and the rich are paying at least as much of a percentage of their income as the middle class. That's what the Buffet rule tries to address, equality.

Can you solve this fairness issue: "the US already gets 70% of all its taxes from the top 10%" The rich are getting richer not because they pay too little in taxes, they're getting richer because they rig capitalism with the help of their buddies in D.C.. Level the playing field of commerce, and you'll start to see some redistribution of wealth.

There's nothing wrong with the rich getting richer as long as they're paying an equivalent share of their income to taxes and not getting special treatment. Crony capitalism is a different problem entirely.

And there's nothing unfair about the top 10% paying 70% of the taxes, in fact that statistic doesn't include the relevant data to even see if it's fair. It's not their share of total taxes that is relevant, it's what percentage of their income vs the percentage ordinary people pay that matters.

For example, if that 70% only represents 20% of their income, then 70% isn't enough, they aren't paying a fair share.

Post reply on HN