News Is a Progressive Tax System Really the Answer to Reducing Wealth Inequality?

[member 5645]

Kerry wasn't saying rich people are the problem, he was saying that Executives, who pretty much get to decide their own salary, are getting more and more money, which takes away from profit the company makes and money their employees could earn.

Executives are paid what the market will bare. They do NOT decide their own salary, the corporations board does. A companies internal parate is created by that company, and with the exception of minimum wage, are not dictated by the government.
As such, Kerry is no position to demonize them because he can't/won't/shouldn't add any legislation that will affect the salaries of the CEO's.
If the CEO's performance isn't worth the price, the board will vote them out, and they are fired.
Kerry's pathetic demonizing of those that are making millions in a recession is immoral and disgusting. It's just one of the many things that it actually stopping me from voting for him just outright. He's still on the plate, but I'm happy to be critical of him and his hyporcisy.

Atleast Bush made the "The call you the have's and the have more's...I call you my base" Partially true, but atleast he doesn't act as if he's not one of the same a la Kerry and his workman's jacket.

 

[Gokul43201]

Kerry's stance on rich versus poor is just the cliche that is always trotted out during election years.

"The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer."

"The gap between the rich and the poor is widening."

"America's middle class is vanishing."

...

It may be cliche', but that doesn't make it untrue, or irrelevant :

The wealthiest 20 percent of households in 1973 accounted for 44 percent of total U.S. income. Their share jumped to 50 percent in 2002. For the bottom fifth, the share dropped from 4.2 percent to 3.5 percent.

Source : US Census Bureau

 

[kat]

It may be cliche', but that doesn't make it untrue, or irrelevant :

The wealthiest 20 percent of households in 1973 accounted for 44 percent of total U.S. income. Their share jumped to 50 percent in 2002. For the bottom fifth, the share dropped from 4.2 percent to 3.5 percent.

Source : US Census Bureau

Can you tell me where the income of the top 20 percent of americans begins at?

 

[Gokul43201]

About $88,000, and the bottom 20 percent ends at (ie : the 20 percentile income) a little below $18,000

 

[russ_watters]

It may be cliche', but that doesn't make it untrue, or irrelevant :

The wealthiest 20 percent of households in 1973 accounted for 44 percent of total U.S. income. Their share jumped to 50 percent in 2002. For the bottom fifth, the share dropped from 4.2 percent to 3.5 percent.

Source : US Census Bureau

But that only addresses one of the cliche's (the second). The first cliche' is, in fact, false. The third is a product of the second and is largely irrelevant, since the middle class is getting smaller because people are moving up and out of it.

I also read a pretty compelling criticism of the use of "hoseholds" in income stats: It gives the false impression that the bottom 20% of "households" is the bottom 20% of the population. It isn't. I'm single and I'm a household. A family of 4 is also a household. Households toward the bottom are generally smaller than households at the top, so that bottom 20% of households is actually significantly less than 20% of the population while the top 20% of households is significantly more.

Ok, Kerry is rich, does that mean he's incapable of helping poor people? I get your point about his argument being somewhat phony by not admitting he's filthy rich, but it doesn't negate the fact that he wants to help poor people out.

Kerry is a politician and Bush is a politician. Politicians, first and foremost, are interested in votes (yes, I really am this cynical). Kerry isn't necessarily interested in helping the poor, he's interested in getting the poor to vote for him. To that end, its not solutions that Kerry wants (if the poor people become rich, he loses that voter base), but its complaining about problems without fixing them.

 

[GENIERE]

If a progressive tax system is thought to be a means of reducing wealth inequity, think again. EU countries except for England have only seen a modest improvement after decades of socialist policies but inequity is still increasing for most countries. England has a higher percentage of inequity than the US. England has the strongest economy in the EU; is there a connection? France mysteriously provides no data for the 90’s; wonder why? The remnant French colonies, having strong economic ties with France, fair much worse than those remnant colonies of the US and England. Chirac visited Algeria, begging them not to increase trade with the US. Chirac is probably the most fiscally conservative president that France is likely to elect. With government employees totaling 20% of the French “work” force; what hope does that country have? If one wishes to accept unemployment figures of 10%, by all means tax and distribute. Let the 10% eat cake. I suggest a smaller piece of a much larger pie is superior to a big piece of a tart. Should a means be introduced to minimize inequity? Absolutely! Via a progressive tax system? Absolutely not!