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

111–120 of 229 posts

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#111

Post by djloche »

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #83
Arelius wrote: post #54

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]. 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…

FYI, when you look at individual median income instead of household, it's worse:

individual median income: $26,680/yr, single: $18,881/yr, married: $32,033/yr, divorced: $28,668/yr, widowed: $18,485/yr

Half the population is making less than $26,680.

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#112

Post by webXL »

splinterofchaos wrote: post #105
webXL wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I never implied the rich didn't disproportionately benefit or you couldn't end the Bush tax cuts and help the poor at the same time. However, the net effect of that new tax structure wouldn't help the economy much, and therefore wouldn't help tax revenue.

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#113

Post by v21 »

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.

This is a special case of that.

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#114

Post by smsm42 »

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…

See here: http://projects.propublica.org/bailout/main/summary TARP spent: 414bn TARP returned: 346bn So "almost" here is a bit of a stretch. But if we look at bigger picture, of all bailouts, it's 602bn spent and 387bn returned so far. That's 214bn still out there.

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#115

Post by usefulcat »

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…

A business is like a machine whose function is to produce profit. Anything else that it may happen to produce (products, services, jobs, taxes, environmental damage, whatever) is really only a side effect.

So no, a country (or government) is not the same as a business.

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#116

Post by rayiner »

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.

You're assuming that "capitalism" doesn't naturally lead to the rich getting richer. There is absolutely no evidence on which to base the idea that capitalism doesn't naturally lead to massive wealth inequality.

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#117

Post by rayiner »

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…

So the spending will not stop, and your suggestion is more spending?

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#119

Post by Tycho »

wvenable wrote: post #79
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?

The issue is that a very small number of very wealthy people are holding onto a very large amount of money. Any money that isn't being used to buy, sell, or invest in something is effectively just taken right out of the economy. Everyone is poorer because this money is "gone" from the system. All this wealth is locked away as a number in a computer.

If the money is in bank accounts, then it is contributing to the economy. One of the worst economic problems of recent years has actually been the lack of money just sitting in reserve to give the banks stability.

Re: Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

#120

Post by apenwarr »

donzimmer wrote: post #41
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…

"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…

Something is wrong with the math there. To net $31 billion over 11 years, you merely have to tax a million people an extra $2818 per year. $234/month. Surely there are a million people in the U.S. (that's about the top 0.4%) rich enough to not even notice that. You could go much higher before they even feel a pinch.

To put the $7 trillion in perspective, over 11 years, that's about $2500/year in extra tax per American citizen. Now, most citizens definitely can't afford that, it's true. But looking at it in per capita per year amounts makes the numbers look a lot more tenable to me.

When someone quotes values "over the next 11 years" I can't help but wonder about their objectivity.

Post reply on HN