Income inequality in America...I want your thoughts on this.

It's been that way for a LONG time. In the 1960's I read The Power Elite by C.Wright Mills, Who Rules America by G. William Domhoff, and the mammoth sized Rich and the Super Rich by Ferdinand Lundberg. These all described the horrendous income inequality in America then, and it's gotten much worse since then.

 

Sure but that won't happen by HIS rules. It happens by the rules of others. Right now, normal taxation would be the MO.

 

Yes it certainly IS. HA HA. Oh isn't that cute how you just changed my words in to YOUR criteria, and than said I'm wrong. No, you don't get to do that. I said the last 95 years, not 100 years. I'm counting since after World War I, since that is considered to be the modern period in American economics. From 1918 to 2013 is 95 years, and for that period (even including the past 33 post-Reagan years) there were 49 years of over 70% tax on the top bracket.
49/95 = 51.58 % (rounded off to 52 %) You stand CORRECTED. Egg on your face.

PS - in 1981, the top tax was 69.125%, so with just less than 1% more for that year, it would have been a neat 50 years (or 53%).

Game, Set, Match. [/QUOTE]

 

Your link in Post # 16 of the Republicans Are NOT Conservatives thread was a mile long. You think anybody in this forum is going to read all that ? If you have a point to make just say it in your own words, and not cowardly hide behind a gigantic link that you know no one is going to read (if you have your thinking cap on).

As for your post # 26, I don't need your hot-shot study to know that taxation in America is improper, with the rich receiving far too much while the poor suffer, as well as that the top rate is far below what it has been for most of the past 95 years.
That's all I need to know. I don't give a rat's ass what other countries are doing, and if you examined a comparison of taxation between the US, France, Germany, and the Scandanavian countries, the US tax system would be the least progressive tax system, by far. All you're doing with your study, is cherry -picking a criteria that favors what you want to say, and then using it. Like we haven't seen that before ? Not impressive at all.

I need go no further. You appear to be disingenuous, and I would advise you to not give up your day job in deference to con jobbing.

EARTH TO DEPROGRAMLIBERALISM: You can find a study to show ANYTHING. You might want to keep that in mind for your next "deprogramming" effort.

 

Your talking about using the government's gun to steal money from another. I'm talking about creating something of value that people willingly trade their gold for, but that requires effort on your part. To put it another way, I grow the pie and you just want to eat it.

 

Its simple, you work hard and try to get what you want out of life.

Not sit on your ass and (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) and complain

 

I posted the relevant excerpt. It wasn't "a mile long" and it destroys your 70+% argument.

The rich don't "receive". The "top rate" means nothing in terms of comparison because of many other factors noted in post #16.

Actually, I give a lot of other evidence in the essay I linked to, but that would require some effort by you, and apparently, that is above your pay grade.

Wow! You have a stronger scoff reflex than many liberals I've encountered.

 

Revealing that you view people with ONE of the highest per capita and median incomes as being hosed.

 

It doesnt matter how many times you have heard it. What matters is that you understand it and that you use this information in assessing the situation. You keep implying that taxation on the high end has went down significantly, when in fact, the effective rates that they pay havent changed appreciably one way or the other. The only thing that matters is what is the effective rate that they pay. I would analogize it to a furniture store that wants to sell a sofa at $1000. Some stores may mark it at $2000, and tell you that it is half off for $1000, and some stores may mark it directly at $1000. The end result is the same. You are getting caught up in the minutia, and somehow concluding that marking the sofa up to $2000 then selling it at half off is somehow better.

 

In the Microsoft "Print Preview" your MILE LONG link shows up as 32 pages in 100% size which could be a bit small for some people. Raising the size to a more readbable 125%, it is 48 pages long.

EARTH TO DL: It would be long if it were 10 pages. How about you just tell us why you think marginal tax rates from different time periods can't be compared, instead of hiding behind a link you know (if your brains are intact) nobody is going to read ? What's the matter ? Don't you have the courage of your conviction ? That's unofficially required around here, in case you didn't know, Newbie boy. As for my 70%+ argument, it is perfectly intact, and you have destroyed nothing other than any possible respect as a poster you might have in this forum. This is a tough neighborhood here. You don't get by with the kind of scam job you're trying to pull.

WHAT ??? "The rich don't receive" ? Are you all right ? I mean really. Oh no, the rich don't receive. They just receive multimillions and billion of $$$$$, that's all. Pheeeeeeww !! Has this guy been drinking ?

As for your other factors noted in Post # 16, do you think this is the first time I, et al, have heard this slop ? Nothing in that post counters anything I've said, one iota. Who the hell cares what the rich of past eras paid or didn't pay ? The simple fact is that the gap between the rich and poor is astronomical and growing, and high taxation on the rich is needed to offset it.
You think we don't know about loopholes ? Do you think for a second that closing every loophole and escape hatch in sight (Cayman Islands or wherever they are) isn't part of my scenario ? And as new ones arise we close them continually. That's what "our" congresspeople are getting paid for, and it's our job to "hold their feet to the fire". Get it ?

As for your OECD, here's what THEY say about the gap between the rich and the poor TODAY >> http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500395_162-4535488.html

I have no need to expend that effort. I, et al, have heard all this stuff before. You're new here. You might want to doing a good bit of reading through threads to get an idea of whom you're talking to, before you come bursting in here with piles of studies that we've all heard before. Again, your posts appear disingenuous, and seem to be aiming to scam PF readers (at which you won't even come close to succeeding). For example, you blab about recessions in the 25 years after World War II, apparently trying to give the impression that this relatively high taxation period was a period of poor economy. That is utter NONSENSE. Those very brief recessions were like pimples on the body of a star athlete. That period was one of great prosperity, and if you like studies so much how about the ones of GDP and Job Growth during all the years after World War II, matching them up with periods of high and low taxation (on the rich). They (from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics and Tax Policy Center & US Dept of Economic Analysis, Tax Policy Center) clearly show that these were best when top bracket taxes were at 75-80%. A close second is when they were at 69-75%, and also good during the 91-92% years. Although taxes were only 40% during the Clinton years, this also was a time of good GDP and Job Growth, while taxes were raised above the Bush (41) level of 31%.

In contrast, the 28-31% of the Reagan/Bush years were some of the worst GDP and Job growth years on record.

You just keep taking Newbie, and you'll dig yourself a hole you can't climb out of (if you haven't already). In these links , check the charts (I couldn't extract them out of the articles)

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/06/20/249061/chart-taxes-economic-growth/

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/20...er-taxes-on-the-rich-dont-lead-to-job-growth/

I am similar to liberals in economics (as are all REAL Conservatives), but as a REAL Conservative, I'm nowhere near being a "liberal", as you called me. I support the death penalty, gun rights, strong national defense, strong military, strong homeland security (FBI, DEA, ICE, etc) and I strongly oppose unecessary abortion, gay marriage, Islamization, affirmative action, and immigration (both legal and illegal). You are a perfect example of the mixed up mentality of young people regarding Conservatism, that I wrote about in the thread you alluded to >> Republicans Are Not Conservatives. You are maybe too young to remember the REAL Conservative Eisenhower days of BIG STRONG GOVT with lots of national security in sharp contrast to the small, weak govt and resulting lesser, weaker military and national security we have now.

 

I'm 66 years old and retired. I worked and paid taxes for 50 years, served 5 years in the military, went to college, and owned my own business for 12 years. I created and grew lots of pies. Now yes, I'll sit back and collect Social Security, that's right (and have no compunctions about it whatsoever) That's our American system created and supported by the American people. If you don't like it, there's other countries you could go to (Syria, Saudi Arabia, LOL) Bon Voyage.

PS - the corporate rich "use the government's gun" to steal money from their workers, every day, by underpaying them.

 

And you think they're not. Have you ever got to be kidding. Want to take a job at Target at $7.25 an hour ?

 

Effective rate my ass. Dude, nobody cares about a marginal vs effective argument. All that matters is that the gap between the rich and poor is way too wide, and getting wider. Way to stop it ? Higher taxes on the rich (with every loophole closed) as is supported by the overwhelming majority of the American people. Case closed.

http://www.capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/2292/americans-support-higher-taxes-really

 

That's not my criteria. That is what is listed in your own source. I'm going by the evidence you have presented. If you don't like your evidence being used against, you do better research next time.

You don't get to pick and choose what the facts are. That's just intellectual dishonesty.

It doesn't matter what you want to count. The income tax has been levied since 1913. Your source starts from 1913 You said that for majority of the years since the Federal Tax has been levied, the top marginal rate has been 70% and above. That is clearly not the case. You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts. Your intellectual dishonesty doesn't change that.

Still having problems with basic addition I see.

 

Wages shouldn't be mandated in the first place. And so many people shouldn't be relying on Government Services.

Evidently you are not even aware of the spending that goes on in your own State.

No wonder you're a failed business owner. Maybe this was new to you but employers tend to hire employers to perform specific task. Whether it's to decrease your workload slightly, or to perform a job so you don't have to, or to run your business so you don't. This is what employment entails: A contract in which both parties seek to make themselves better off. If you don't like the terms of your employment, you can quit and find a better job. Or try being your own boss and see how far it will get you (again). Your boss owes you nothing.

And maybe this was also new to you when you were trying (I use the term trying loosely) to run a business, employees are an expense. Just like anything else when it comes to running a business. You as the boss are not paid until all of your bills and expenses are paid, which includes employees. Then and only then can the boss make a profit. This doesn't guarantee that you will make a profit at all.

There are moronic people everywhere and there are moronic beliefs. It doesn't trouble me. I'm just pointing out how moronic your post are.

America doesn't have a common language, it has many languages and many cultures.

I don't care.

No, you were just caught in a lie and are merely just back tracking.

Irrelevant. You've pretty much already been caught distorting the truth about the federal grants in your own state. Ironically, this was at the same them you claimed to know about the tax laws in your own state. Also, you've pretty much ignored that Florida is 23rd on the Federal Aid queue. So why exactly would you even believe that Florida receives $60 billion in Medicare a funds? Clearly to make up a point you didn't have. You've already lost whatever credibility you didn't have.

 

Why don't you try to make me leave? Your the one who sounds like you want to live in a totalitarian state.

I hope you planned for your retirement and are not dependent on SS to survive. I'll retire in 15 years at 50 years old and don't expect to receive a dime from SS, it will be insolvent before I get there. I've laid a solid financial foundation that will provide for my children's children.

Businesses pay market value for people's skills. If one job doesn't find another one that does. If a person has limited skills they will only receive a limited pay. It is up to the individual to acquire the skills necessary to move from one income bracket to another.

As a business owner did you pay the janitor $30,000 more a year than any other business or did you pay them the going rate for janitors?

 

100 years is YOUR criterea. Mine is 95 years and my conclusion is, was, will always be correct. You still stand CORRECTED. Egg on your face.

"The facts" are that for most of the past 95 years top bracket taxes were 70%+. Notice how you keep giving me the opportunity to say it again ?

Now who's resorting to " intellectual dishonesty". You may now apologize to me for attempting to put words in my mouth that I didn't say. I did NOT say "of the years since the Federal Tax has been levied", YOU said that. I've lost count now with how many times you have said that I said something that I never said. Whew !!! There was "waiting". Then there was the fire Extinguisher thing. Then there was the Underwriters laboratories one where you implied I said there would be no quality standards without the Government. I made no such statement, and I never imply, insinuate, or infer ANYTHING EVER. And so now, we've got you saying I said "true taxation" (when YOU are the one who said that), and now you're putting this "Federal Tax has been levied" thing on me. Whoooooo!! We're going to have to watch you, we are.
And I am entitled to my own opinion AND the FACT that for most of the past 95 years, top bracket taxes were 70%+.

I have no problem with it.. Do you ?

 

HA HA HA HA. You've got it all figured out, huh ? Problem is, junior......if I had a $10 bill for every guy who 30 years ago said everything you're saying now, and now is broke and subsisting on social security , I'd be out buying a brand new Cadillac. You don't "expect" do you ? Well, let me give you the voice of experience OK ? There is only ONE THING that you can "expect" in America over the future >> THE UNEXPECTED.

And if you ever get to realize 1/4 of your high hopes, you'll be immensely lucky.

As for the janitor thing, my branch managers and sales reps were their own janitors (and me too). We only had small professional offices. But I paid my sales reps commissions that were equivalent to $150/hour ($310.hour now)

 

Wages wouldn't have to be mandated if employers weren't such a bunch of underpaying, cheapskate, greed freaks. People wouldn't have to rely on Govt services if employers would pay them a proper living wage.

I'm aware of much of it. I'm also aware that there's not nearly enough of it (for AMERICANS that is, not illegal aliens and other immigrant parasites))

WOW !!! Where and HOW did you come up with that ???? For your edification, my business was immensely successful. I expanded operation to 4 branch office s in 4 counties, and was still expanding rapidly when I decided to sell the business and move from the hellhole of California to the better place >> Florida. This rates multiple eye rolls >>

 

You presented a source which starts from 1913. Your conclusion is based on a faulty premises and made up history.

That's irrelevant. The Federal Income Tax has been around for 100 years. You want to discard 5 of those years simply because if you actually consider reality, you would be wrong. So you have to edit history and create your own standards to justify your failed ideology. You are simply taking out the years you don't like. Counting all the years which coincide with your opinion. It's fine. I've already come to terms with people who cannot live by the truth.

You did say that. Nothing intellectual dishonest about it.

No, I asked you if there would be no quality standards. I never implied anything.

That's nice. But your opinion that 70% is the normal taxation is false. Since the Federal Income Tax was enacted, the top marginal tax was lower than 70%. The normal taxation in America is less than 70%. You can cherry pick the years and move the goal post all you like. You are wrong.

Yes, you do. Going by your faulty standards, there were 47 years in which the marginal tax rate was above 70%, not 49. You can't even change the facts without being wrong about that. That's some sort of special talent there...

 

For the latter part American history, the minimum wage has never been a problem. Ironically, it's only been a problem since you've mandated one in 1937.

You didn't even know how much federal aid Florida receives in Medicare. I didn't even know, nor did I look up that information. But somehow I already knew you were lying by that lame figure you tried to pedal off.

You evidently have no problem with Americans leeching of other Americans. Why is it only wrong with illegal aliens do it?

Those who can't do, teach. Remember?

Funny how all these successful people waste majority of their time talking about how successful they are on an internet forum. It's not like they have better things to do with their money, time or retirement or anything... Your anecdotal claims won't convince anyone that you are credible. Either way, I'm done taking your word for it. Since your business is pretty large, it must be easy to find. I also have a lot of clients in Florida. Give me the brand name of the company and I'll determine whether or not it's successful myself.

 

I see your problems now. First, you don't actually comprehend very well. I said "I posted the relevant excerpt". There was no need for you to read any more than that. It was only one paragraph. I gave the link as citation reference and for those who might be curious.

Second, you are inconsistent. You first argue "Who the hell cares what the rich of past eras paid or didn't pay?" And then later you go to great lengths to explain that what they paid back then is the base of your argument. Make up your mind.

In fact, the real GDP growth rates of the 1950s were both positive and negative as related to the recessions.

This OECD study that you link to has the same problems as directly comparing marginal tax rates from different eras. Too many factors are left out. For instance, does the OECD account for the much higher incarceration rates in the U.S.? I couldn't find anything. What about the high level of illegal immigrants? Again I could find nothing. What about the high incidence of single-parenthood in the black community? Again, nothing. Did they account for the fact that in the last thirty years the proportion of overall taxes that the rich pay has gone up significantly, and the amount for the poor has dropped significantly? Again, I found nothing. Did they account for Food Stamps? What about the death tax?

During the Reagan years, once Reagan got his tax cuts in 1983 the GDP growth rate didn't go negative again until 1991. After Bush's tax cuts were fully implemented in 2003 the GDP never showed negative growth until the housing bubble bust, which had nothing to do with tax rates. As mentioned above, and in contrast to Reagan and Bush, the fifties were a mixed bag of negative and positive growth rates.

After Reagan's tax cuts, up to 1990, 21 million net jobs were created. After Bush's tax cuts were fully implemented in 2003, over eight million net jobs were created in just four years until the housing bubble bust (again, which had nothing to do with tax rates). Over the entire decade of the 1950s only less than 11 million net jobs were created. Still pretty good, but certainly not better than the low tax years of Reagan and Bush.

I have already debunked the nonsense in your ThinkProgress links. I am not going to do it again.

And one more time with your comprehension problem. I didn't call you a liberal.

 

What objection can there be to solving simple poverty in the US through recourse to existing laws and existing infrastructure, at the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage that simply "purchases" that labor as surplus for the benefit of the private sector and the residual labor pool, under the concept of eminent domain and that form of public sector intervention in private sector markets?

 

No such thing as luck gramps. Bruce Lee said luck is the intersection of preparedness and opportunity. This "junior" doesn't expect anything except to apply what I've learned and do the best i can. But without a plan we're just walking around in the dark.

I'm using time proven techniques to generate wealth, it doesn't take reinventing the wheel or the next facebook. Smarter peolpe than me can up with the systems i'm using to create my wealth. I make money when I buy or I don't buy. As far as the unexpected, well let it come. True investors make money when the economy is good and bad. Market crash of 08 has result in unbelievable opportunities for those who know where to look.

Although, over the next 2 years I'll be dumping a large portion of my wealth into my new startup. I'm using as much of other peoples money as possible to limit my exposure. Don't worry they know the risk, I'm not trying to take anyone for a ride. The market and tech conditions are be coming together to create one hell of an opprotunity for this particular under served segment. I'd love to take it public and get some of that Ford, Rockefeller, Gates or Zuckerberg money but that's a long shot. Hey with the right team you never know. I'm aware of the statistical likely hood of that happening but I've got the opprotunity and the tools to do it so I got to try. I'll be young enough that if I loose my shirt I should able to recover and still retire a wealth man.

Damn sorry for the long winded post.

 

Sound like one of the Soviet Union's five year plans.