News Wealth Distribution in the US: Challenges and Solutions

[ray b]

They paid $14 billion in taxes.

did they really
or was much of that accounting tricks
no tax credits ? I find that very very hard to believe
no deductions at all , again just not believeable

 

[Al68]

I don't see anything fair about working people being required to pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than me, and am at a loss as to why so many working people defend it.

Who is advocating that? Here's some real data from CBO (2005):

Total Federal taxes paid as a percentage of their total income. These are Effective tax rates of total income, not marginal tax rates after deductions, and includes SS taxes:

Top 20%...25.5%
Second 20%...17.4%
Middle 20%...14.2%
Fourth 20%...9.9%
Bottom 20%...4.3%

These numbers also include the employer paid portion of SS taxes as paid by the employee instead. The numbers are even more progressive for the income tax alone, even negative rates for the lowest two groups, reflecting refundable tax credits.

Source: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8885/EffectiveTaxRates.shtml

if the large corporations raised the price of their products, that would open up a window for smaller companies to better undercut them and hence promote start-ups.

This is true, unless the price increase is due to the same government action that provides a huge barrier for competitors to enter the market.

 

[Al68]

mr Buffet didNOT get his billions from earned income
his wealth came from gain in the stock price
untaxed unless sold and if sold not subject to progressive taxes
only to capital gains tax at it's lower rate 15% vs 35%

Are you aware that the capital gains tax is an additional tax on wealth that has already been taxed? The same is true of dividends.

It's just silly to talk about the capital gains tax as if it's the only time tax is paid on corporate profit, when it's actually double-taxation on the same profit.

 

[BoomBoom]

How much do/did you talk to the people in your class? Many people study day and night, have almost no social life, and try every possible way to earn more marks but end up failing because they weren't smart enough. Hard work can only compensate for stupidity to a limited extent.

Careful that when discussing an analogy (and an poor analogy at that) that you don't take the analogy so literally, that you lose site of what it is supposed to represent. We are not talking about grades here, but earned wages.

My point was that I think anyone that works a full time job should make enough in wages to supply basic living needs (food, shelter, etc.).

 

[BoomBoom]

In the example of the grades of 4.0, 4.0, 3.8, and 3.2 where they should all be forced to share with their under-achieving classmates - is .2 each fair, or should the 4.0's give more?

Again, this is a poor analogy that was brought up, but I take exception you your portrayal of low income wage-earners as "under-achievers". Also the top of the class would be more like a 10.0 not a 4.0 and many of them got their good grades from copying off the homework of the "C and D" students.

Has this analogy been adequetly been beaten to death yet?

 

[BoomBoom]

The only reason to open a business is to earn sustained profits. Nobody (except politicians and charities) risks capital to create employment.

Hmm, I wonder why then that so many from the right believe that tax reductions to the rich and big business creates jobs then? When all it really does is increase profits.

 

[BoomBoom]

He is absolutely right, the consumer pays a company's taxes, not the owner of the company.

The consumer is also paying for everyones high healthcare costs as well...and many of those consumers have none themselves. Is it really fair for the poor and uninsured to pay for healthcare of those much better off?

 

[BoomBoom]

I laughed out load (yes LOLed) the first time I heard about 'trickle down economics' but the fact is that there is something to the idea. While the idea may not have been implemented well previously, and it may not be something you can simply have faith in, it would seem undeniable that the more prosperous people are the more likely they are to be benevolent to the disadvantaged.

What we have is more like trickle-up economics... trickle down really never happens, which is why I am a fan of irrigation.

Not to make any uninformed judgments about you but have you ever had to live off of earnings from a low earning job? Have you ever had to work with the people in such jobs? I can say that the vast majority of the people I have worked with in my low income professions have been lazy and unmotivated.

That has not been my experience at all, in fact, I believe that in many cases, the lower the income, the harder the work. I think the exact opposite may be true in many cases, that the more cushy the job, the lazier the worker...unless, of course, you think that a business meeting at a fancy restaurant, golf course, or strip club is really hard work?

 

[Galteeth]

The consumer is also paying for everyones high healthcare costs as well...and many of those consumers have none themselves. Is it really fair for the poor and uninsured to pay for healthcare of those much better off?

Huh?

 

[BoomBoom]

Huh?

You don't truly believe that a business that provides healthcare to its employees does so out of the kindness in their hearts do you? The costs are passed on to the consumer (many of which have no healthcare themselves because they can't afford it).

 

[Galteeth]

Hmm, I wonder why then that so many from the right believe that tax reductions to the rich and big business creates jobs then? When all it really does is increase profits.

The theory is that the profit incentive motivates people to actually create and produce. If a businessman is making more profit, he commands more resource control as a "reward" for producing something people want and doing it efficiently.

Simply creating jobs is not always a worthy goal, one of the theoretical goals of progress is to reduce the total amount of labor necessary to produce the same standard of living. Remember what the origional Luddites were all about.

The basics of the arguments of spontaneous order arising from people following their self interest was laid out in The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith.

"By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention."

 

[Jasongreat]

You're missing something there. "Through the products they buy." This is the whole point of money, that it can be exchanged for goods and services. They are getting something in exchange for the money.

You are right as far as money being a tool to use to get goods and services, however the product has the same value as it did before only now it costs more, so the consumer's money is worth less. Why is inflating the value of labor any different than inflating the value of the dollar? Both reduce the value of money already in circulation, both hurt the people who have the least most and since that is who we are supposedly trying to help with re-distribution, I would think it more beneficial to increase the value of their labor not to de-value it(with inflation). IMO The best way to increase the value of their labor is to make their labor worth more, by learning more skills, not by arbitrarily giving them a pay raise, the raise will naturally follow the upgrade in skill's(might not be at the same company or even the same profession, but more money always follows more skills, since more skills add more value to a persons labor).

In the US, if you look at the price of house's in '51, you will find that the average cost was about $8500, which was about $4-$5 per square foot. At the same time the average wage was about $2,800/yr which would put the price of a house at about 3x earnings. Then look at the median house price in 2007, it was around $250,000 and the price per sq. ft. was a little over $99, the average wage was a little over $40,000 and that would make it about 6x earnings. If it is just about raising wages, why didnt the rising wages help people get into homes easier, was it because prices just keep rising right along with wages, sometimes even at a far higher rate(thanks to our buddies in wash.)? The only thing that arbitrarily raising wages does, is it inflates the market, if you raise them during an inflated market they sustain the inflated market and that's exactly what happens when we take from the rich and give to the poor we will inevitably inflate the market, the rich can handle the inflated prices, the poor can not, even with the pay increase since the market will readjust higher and they are in the same spot they started.

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/awi.html"
http://www.census.gov/const/newresales_200702.pdf"

 

[ray b]

Are you aware that the capital gains tax is an additional tax on wealth that has already been taxed? The same is true of dividends.

It's just silly to talk about the capital gains tax as if it's the only time tax is paid on corporate profit, when it's actually double-taxation on the same profit.

you speak of wealth being taxed
even double taxed
THAT IS WRONG
we in the USA never have taxed wealth
at the federal level
only earned income strangely is top rate taxed
billionaire's are never taxed on their billions
only stock sales gains are taxed and then at a low rate
and their CEO pay is taxed THATS IT FOR INCOME TAX


large amounts of stock are seldom bought
they are mostly created out of thin air
by guys like buffet or bill gates steve jobs ect

lets take bill gates for example
worth X billion dollars [mostly in MS stock]
any stock he gave himself is not taxed even once
at any income tax rate
and ONLY IF SOLD will be taxed at a LOW capital gains rate [15%]
the only taxed income bill gates has is his CEO pay [a million or so a year]
for a wealth gain to tax paid rate of less then 0.25% or less avg for the last 20+ years

but the neo-conned sheep will not stop bleating the rich are over taxed
or double taxed ect
the facts are out there pick a BIG CORPs FOUNDER or long time CEO
compute his tax rate from the CORPS doc's and run the numbers yourself

 

[WhoWee]

did they really
or was much of that accounting tricks
no tax credits ? I find that very very hard to believe
no deductions at all , again just not believeable

It ishard to believe that someone could pay $14 billion in taxes over 3 years and not be angry.LOL THAT's wealthy.

I posted the Berkshire Hathaway 10-K. They paid $14 billion in taxes in 3 years. Based on ownership percentage, Warren Buffet's share of the taxes is about $5,000,000,000. I consider that to be a fair amount. To then be upset that he doesn't pay a higher percentage on personal income after this tax, and to question his write-offs, is laughable.

 

[WhoWee]

you speak of wealth being taxed
even double taxed
THAT IS WRONG
we in the USA never have taxed wealth
at the federal level
only earned income strangely is top rate taxed
billionaire's are never taxed on their billions
only stock sales gains are taxed and then at a low rate
and their CEO pay is taxed THATS IT FOR INCOME TAX


large amounts of stock are seldom bought
they are mostly created out of thin air
by guys like buffet or bill gates steve jobs ect

lets take bill gates for example
worth X billion dollars [mostly in MS stock]
any stock he gave himself is not taxed even once
at any income tax rate
and ONLY IF SOLD will be taxed at a LOW capital gains rate [15%]
the only taxed income bill gates has is his CEO pay [a million or so a year]
for a wealth gain to tax paid rate of less then 0.25% or less avg for the last 20+ years

but the neo-conned sheep will not stop bleating the rich are over taxed
or double taxed ect
the facts are out there pick a BIG CORPs FOUNDER or long time CEO
compute his tax rate from the CORPS doc's and run the numbers yourself

You do realize that when the market drops in value, you can't take a loss? You can borrow against an asset, but you don't realize a profit or loss until you sell it.

 

[Jasongreat]

That has not been my experience at all, in fact, I believe that in many cases, the lower the income, the harder the work. I think the exact opposite may be true in many cases, that the more cushy the job, the lazier the worker...unless, of course, you think that a business meeting at a fancy restaurant, golf course, or strip club is really hard work?

I think it would be more accurate to say, the lower the wage the more physical(less skilled) the labor, the higher the wage the more mental(more skilled) labor.

 

[Al68]

you speak of wealth being taxed
even double taxed
THAT IS WRONG
we in the USA never have taxed wealth
at the federal level
only earned income strangely is top rate taxed

I was referring to the tax on the wealth when it was made, not repeated taxation of existing personal wealth. You must have known that.

billionaire's are never taxed on their billions
only stock sales gains are taxed and then at a low rate
and their CEO pay is taxed THATS IT FOR INCOME TAX

It is taxed twice at the federal level. If I own stock in a company, my share of the profit is taxed as corporate income tax, then distributed to me as a dividend or as a capital gain, then I must report this after-tax income as personal income and pay the additional tax.

large amounts of stock are seldom bought
they are mostly created out of thin air
by guys like buffet or bill gates steve jobs ect

lets take bill gates for example
worth X billion dollars [mostly in MS stock]
any stock he gave himself is not taxed even once
at any income tax rate
and ONLY IF SOLD will be taxed at a LOW capital gains rate [15%]
the only taxed income bill gates has is his CEO pay [a million or so a year]
for a wealth gain to tax paid rate of less then 0.25% or less avg for the last 20+ years

This is simply nonsense.

but the neo-conned sheep will not stop bleating the rich are over taxed
or double taxed ect

Personal attacks and hatespeech are not conducive to honest debate and violate forum rules.

the facts are out there pick a BIG CORPs FOUNDER or long time CEO
compute his tax rate from the CORPS doc's and run the numbers yourself

I recently posted real facts about who pays taxes from the CBO. Yes, the facts are available, but most people ignore them in favor of the hateful nonsense of power hungry politicians.

 

[Al68]

Also the top of the class would be more like a 10.0 not a 4.0 and many of them got their good grades from copying off the homework of the "C and D" students.

Yep, that's how I got my A's: copying off the "C" and "D" students.

Hmm, I wonder why then that so many from the right believe that tax reductions to the rich and big business creates jobs then? When all it really does is increase profits.

This is seriously backward logic. Tax cuts are not government "giving" anyone anything. That being said, profit motive is the reason for every private sector job in the country.

Reducing profit motive by confiscating part of it costs jobs, causes higher prices for consumers, inflation. It's a lose-lose for everyone except power hungry politicians and the few that benefit at the expense of others.

We need some government, but we don't need to be fooled into thinking it's free.

 

[Jasongreat]

It's interesting that you argue this, since historically when there were higher taxes on wealthier people, there tended to be less of a divide between the wages the top executives of companies were being paid and what their employees were being paid.

So let me get this right, the reason we are re-distributing wealth is to bring the top down, the bottom up, and then all of us will have the same stuff? Or are we trying to help the poor raise themselves up out of poverty by having those that have help those that dont? What if one of these poor people wants to become rich? Wouldnt the same obstacles you want the now rich to overcome also affect the ones trying to become rich next?

This seems to indicate that if you put a higher tax rate on higher levels of income, those executives will not simply jack up their wages;

First off your implying the wages of executives are jacked up and not at all based on their value, I would agree in some instances(big corporations) but for the most part I would disagree(I would whole-heartedly disagree when talking of small buisinesses). What it does show is that if you raise the tax rates people will just choose to make less or at least show less on paper, and that would lead to less wealth for the government to pass around.

rather the opposite effect occurred, and lowering the top tax rates led executives to more aggressively push their compensation upwards (at the expense of the people who buy products from the companies of course, as you yourself say)[/

QUOTE]

I think if you look into it a little further you will find that it was because of the tax rates that executives started to get creative with their compensation packages, moving away from a salary and into the golden parachute types of bonuses. So in the end, the rich kept their way off life, but the government lossed thiers(tax revenue), and we all paid for it and will be paying for it for years to come.

 

[Jasongreat]

Hmm, I wonder why then that so many from the right believe that tax reductions to the rich and big business creates jobs then? When all it really does is increase profits.

Although I don't consider myself as part of the right(unless you are taking about my arguments,lol), let me try to explain:
Capital can either stay in the buisiness and possibly expand and hire more workers(or god forbid be taken as profit), or capital can be taken by the government where it can't be used at all by the company and that equals no expansion and no new jobs(at least none of value).

 

[CRGreathouse]

That has not been my experience at all, in fact, I believe that in many cases, the lower the income, the harder the work. I think the exact opposite may be true in many cases, that the more cushy the job, the lazier the worker...unless, of course, you think that a business meeting at a fancy restaurant, golf course, or strip club is really hard work?

At my income level, business meetings at a fancy restaurant would be nice -- free food is free food. But I don't think that this is considered a perk by many who have to go to the meetings! I have a relative who works a job that requires many dinners and the occasional golf outing. Of course not counting those questionable perks (he'd prefer to do neither) he works 75 hours a week; with those, he sometimes hits 90. By contrast, I'm liable to complain if I put in more than 45...

As for lower-income jobs, I've had mixed experiences. I put myself through college working in a warehouse; everyone there worked very hard (and for fairly long hours -- I only put in 44-48 per week, but most did 50+). They had no "lazy and unmotivated" workers (as TheStatutoryApe put it) except possibly some temps, but those would quit fairly quickly. On the other hand, I'm amazed at the lack of productivity in my local Wal-Mart. Any motivated worker could be at least half again (!) as efficient. The upscale grocery store a mile from the Wal-Mart might pay its workers $4 / hour more, but they probably don't spend much if any more per item on the checkout.

 

[drankin]

If minimum wage is a living wage, then the motivation to get out of a minimum wage job is diminished. Not every job available should make you enough money to live on. I've worked my share of minimum and low wage jobs. And I'm glad I barely made a living working them or I might just still be working those crappy jobs! LOL! It took about ten years of working crappy jobs to convince me to get back to school and get a career. I am much much more productive doing what I do now than back then. Increasing minimum wage to a living wage could very well cripple the productivity of our nation by diminishing the incentive for people to improve their education and better their marketable positions.

 

[DavidSnider]

Let's just assume that everyone were guaranteed a basic "comfortable" living. 3 hots, a cot and basic medicine.

You think there is a significant amount of people who would just live the rest of their life like this and never desire to produce anything?

Even people who are independently wealthy seem to have a desire to work.

 

[WhoWee]

Hmm, I wonder why then that so many from the right believe that tax reductions to the rich and big business creates jobs then? When all it really does is increase profits.

If you saved $1,000 in cash working at a part time job.

Would you

1.) put it in the bank to draw interest at 4%
2.) invest it in the stock market with a potential 15% return
3.) lend it to a friend (who may or may not re-pay it)
4.) lend it to a stranger who promises to repay with 20% interest
5.) invest it in something you can re-sell to triple your investment
6.) invest it in a small family business that promises to pay you $200 per year for the rest of your life (and you own stock in the business)
7.) donate 35% to a homeless person and spend the rest on recreation
8.) invest in a variable annuity

and why?

 

[WhoWee]

You don't truly believe that a business that provides healthcare to its employees does so out of the kindness in their hearts do you? The costs are passed on to the consumer (many of which have no healthcare themselves because they can't afford it).

Given this analysis, who do you think will pay for single payer (Government) health care?

 

[n9xr]

Why the talk about single payer? Who, besides the conservatives right now, are talking about single payer?

 

[WhoWee]

you speak of wealth being taxed
even double taxed
THAT IS WRONG
we in the USA never have taxed wealth
at the federal level
only earned income strangely is top rate taxed
billionaire's are never taxed on their billions
only stock sales gains are taxed and then at a low rate
and their CEO pay is taxed THATS IT FOR INCOME TAX


large amounts of stock are seldom bought
they are mostly created out of thin air
by guys like buffet or bill gates steve jobs ect

lets take bill gates for example
worth X billion dollars [mostly in MS stock]
any stock he gave himself is not taxed even once
at any income tax rate
and ONLY IF SOLD will be taxed at a LOW capital gains rate [15%]
the only taxed income bill gates has is his CEO pay [a million or so a year]
for a wealth gain to tax paid rate of less then 0.25% or less avg for the last 20+ years

but the neo-conned sheep will not stop bleating the rich are over taxed
or double taxed ect
the facts are out there pick a BIG CORPs FOUNDER or long time CEO
compute his tax rate from the CORPS doc's and run the numbers yourself

They say ignorance is bliss ray b - but there are limits.

Have you ever heard of the SEC - they don't allow ("large amounts of stock are seldom bought they are mostly created out of thin air by guys like buffet or bill gates steve jobs ect") the activity you describe.

Are you familiar with personal property taxes?
http://dor.wa.gov/docs/Pubs/Prop_Tax/PersProp.pdf

How about luxury taxes?
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/06/17/business/senate-unit-kills-luxury-tax-on-items.html

I'll also assume the concept of estate taxes have not been a priority on your research list.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estate_tax_in_the_United_States

As for Bill Gates GIVING himself stock - are you talking about his original founder's shares that were issued when he invested in the company or stock options or perhaps stock in lieu of cash? Please describe the stock he "gave" himself.

If you'd like to learn about stock options
http://www.salary.com/advice/layouthtmls/advl_display_nocat_Ser56_Par125.html

In the mean time - please support your post or retract the nonsense.

 

[WhoWee]

Why the talk about single payer? Who, besides the conservatives right now, are talking about single payer?

Hello n9xr - I see this is your first post.

Let me be the first to welcome you to Physics Forums.

Would you care to tell us all a little about your background and experience?

 

[Jasongreat]

Let's just assume that everyone were guaranteed a basic "comfortable" living. 3 hots, a cot and basic medicine.

Everyone is guaranteed the right to acquire these things, they are just required to put in some work towards that end.

You think there is a significant amount of people who would just live the rest of their life like this and never desire to produce anything?

I do think that there is a number of people that would, why wouldn't they, they are getting all that they need, but of course their wants may get them moving. Oh, wait why isn't that motivating them now to produce anything?

Even people who are independently wealthy seem to have a desire to work.[/

QUOTE]

Thats what I believe separates the rich from the poor, desire,drive and education. I think you will also find that most rich people enjoy what they are doing and the money comes second, kind of like a bonus. I don't think there are many rich people that started with just the desire to make money. When we look at what I think separates the poor from the rich, the poor say they have the desire, but we can see from the evidence that they don't have the education or drive, if we could give them the drive to go with their desire and then give them better education they will leave poverty behind and it is for that reason I say we should quit taking away that drive by giving them free money(well free to them).

 

[n9xr]

Hello n9xr - I see this is your first post.

Let me be the first to welcome you to Physics Forums.

Would you care to tell us all a little about your background and experience?

I'm employed as a field engineer. Graduated from Pittsburg State U in 1980. Looks like a real thought provoking forum. Thank you for the kind welcome.

I am a technical representative for quartz crystal timing devices.