The new version of poverty

#51
#51
bam15 said:
The poor today have more purchasing power, but considering wealth, the divide between the poor and the wealthiest percent has if anything enlarged.
saez07.png
Click to expand...

What's wrong with an increase of the wealthiest percentile? That just means more tax revenue even at a constant tax rate.
 
#52
#52
volinbham said:
How are tax cuts wealth redistribution? The government did not take MORE from the low end to give to the high end. Taxes were cut across the board so whose wealth was redistributed? Allowing someone to keep more of their wealth is not redistribution.
Click to expand...

I find it simple. My definition of redistribution may be different than your definition, however, over time concentrated tax cuts on one percentile of Americans eventually leads to a enlarged divide.

Now, across the board tax cuts happened, but say Clinton's plan would obviously give more tax relief to the Middle class, thus allowing them to keep more money.

If anything, I would rather have a larger middle class. Not Communist/Socialist levels, but the ever growing extremely large separation of wealth is frightening.
 
#53
#53
IBlvNTmWrk said:
What's wrong with an increase of the wealthiest percentile? That just means more tax revenue even at a constant tax rate.
Click to expand...

I don't have any problem with a increase in the wealthiest percentile.

However, when the middle class and lowest percentile is falling far behind, that's not a good sign.

Gilded Age 2.0
 
#54
#54
Claiming tax cuts = redistribution of wealth means that zero income tax would be the ultimate redistribution of wealth!
 
#55
#55
bam15 said:
I find it simple. My definition of redistribution may be different than your definition, however, over time concentrated tax cuts on one percentile of Americans eventually leads to a enlarged divide.

Now, across the board tax cuts happened, but say Clinton's plan would obviously give more tax relief to the Middle class, thus allowing them to keep more money.

If anything, I would rather have a larger middle class. Not Communist/Socialist levels, but the ever growing extremely large separation of wealth is frightening.
Click to expand...

How do you define wealth redistribution?

Whose wealth was taken and how was it given to the rich?
 
#56
#56
bam15 said:
I don't have any problem with a increase in the wealthiest percentile.

However, when the middle class and lowest percentile is falling far behind, that's not a good sign.

Gilded Age 2.0
Click to expand...

But heavy tax credits to equalize the incomes between rich and poor create extremely high marginal tax rates on the poor. If you think it seems silly to argue that a government subsidy makes someone worse off, you are right in a sense. However, the marginal tax rate can be viewed as a measure of one's disincentive to work as a result of tax policy. When one's marginal tax rate reaches the upper 60th percentile (as it does with many recipients of the Earned Income Credit), incentive to produce additional income is diminished greatly. You'll get a kick out of this, because I'm sure you would bet I would not disagree with this guy, but the Earned Income Credit and other tax subsidies were based on Milton Friedman's suggested policies. Unfortunately, he could never get past the negatives of the high marginal tax rates.
 
#57
#57
volinbham said:
How do you define wealth redistribution?

Whose wealth was taken and how was it given to the rich?
Click to expand...

And how do we even begin to give a tax break ONLY to the highest earners? Seems to me that the scale only works in one direction. Maybe bam hasn't paid enough taxes to understand how that works.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#58
#58
volinbham said:
How do you define wealth redistribution?

Whose wealth was taken and how was it given to the rich?
Click to expand...

When you tax one percentage of Americans much higher or lower than another percentage. Republican administrations have taken tax relief from lower income groups and redirected it to the higher income groups. Now, I know you will say this doesn't add up with across the board tax cuts, however percentage wise Bush/Regan have given much larger tax relief to the wealthiest percentile while ignoring large tax relief for lower income groups.

It's reverse engineering.

Republicans shift wealth to the top.
 
#59
#59
BigPapaVol said:
And how do we even begin to give a tax break ONLY to the highest earners? Seems to me that the scale only works in one direction. Maybe bam hasn't paid enough taxes to understand how that works.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Out of the darkness, BigPapaVol appears.
 
#60
#60
paul1454 said:
But heavy tax credits to equalize the incomes between rich and poor create extremely high marginal tax rates on the poor. If you think it seems silly to argue that a government subsidy makes someone worse off, you are right in a sense. However, the marginal tax rate can be viewed as a measure of one's disincentive to work as a result of tax policy. When one's marginal tax rate reaches the upper 60th percentile (as it does with many recipients of the Earned Income Credit), incentive to produce additional income is diminished greatly. You'll get a kick out of this, because I'm sure you would bet I would not disagree with this guy, but the Earned Income Credit and other tax subsidies were based on Milton Friedman's suggested policies. Unfortunately, he could never get past the negatives of the high marginal tax rates.
Click to expand...

Actually, that is interesting on Milton Friedman. I don't want the Wealthiest percentile and lowest percentile to equalize, I want the difference between the two to be lower. Expanding the middle class would be a step in the right direction.
 
#61
#61
bam15 said:
Out of the darkness, BigPapaVol appears.
Click to expand...

Again, how does this fantasyland scenario of yours work? Our progressive tax code makes your gibberish little more than rehashed class warfare.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#62
#62
bam15 said:
When you tax one percentage of Americans much higher or lower than another percentage. Republican administrations have taken tax relief from lower income groups and redirected it to the higher income groups. Now, I know you will say this doesn't add up with across the board tax cuts, however percentage wise Bush/Regan have given much larger tax relief to the wealthiest percentile while ignoring large tax relief for lower income groups.

It's reverse engineering.

Republicans shift wealth to the top.
Click to expand...

So basically what you are saying is there is no reason to strive to be wealthy because the goverment should be able to take your already high taxes and make them higher?
 
#63
#63
bam15 said:
Actually, that is interesting on Milton Friedman. I don't want the Wealthiest percentile and lowest percentile to equalize, I want the difference between the two to be lower. Expanding the middle class would be a step in the right direction.
Click to expand...
Gov't engineered class sizes? Sounds awesome. Investors would flock to American ideas.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#64
#64
A problem here is that poor is relative and poverty is subjective. I reject the notion that some number of folks in the US must always live in poverty, but of course, there will always be those who are poor relative to their rich counterparts.
 
#65
#65
BeecherVol said:
So basically what you are saying is there is no reason to strive to be wealthy because the goverment should be able to take your already high taxes and make them higher?
Click to expand...

Plus the corollary: your low taxes should be lower since we can raise someone else's.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#66
#66
bam15 said:
When you tax one percentage of Americans much higher or lower than another percentage. Republican administrations have taken tax relief from lower income groups and redirected it to the higher income groups. Now, I know you will say this doesn't add up with across the board tax cuts, however percentage wise Bush/Regan have given much larger tax relief to the wealthiest percentile while ignoring large tax relief for lower income groups.

It's reverse engineering.

Republicans shift wealth to the top.
Click to expand...

How have they taken tax relief from lower income groups?

Redistribution implies taking wealth from one group and delivering it to another.

If top marginal rates go down and no other rates do (not what happened but I'm playing along), the government still has not taken wealth from the low end and given it to the high end. They've simply allowed the high end to keep more of the wealth they earned.

Now, look at the Bush tax cuts. Rates were cut across the board. The low end gave less to the government than prior to the tax cuts. In fact, many were in a negative tax situation where they received money back even though none had been paid. The high end kept more of the wealth they generated (as a percentage) than before but it was not taken from tax dollars of others.
 
#67
#67
TennTradition said:
A problem here is that poor is relative and poverty is subjective. I reject the notion that some number of folks in the US must always live in poverty, but of course, there will always be those who are poor relative to their rich counterparts.
Click to expand...
They'll simply be DEFINED as living in poverty, not living in it.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#68
#68
bam15 said:
When you tax one percentage of Americans much higher or lower than another percentage. Republican administrations have taken tax relief from lower income groups and redirected it to the higher income groups. Now, I know you will say this doesn't add up with across the board tax cuts, however percentage wise Bush/Regan have given much larger tax relief to the wealthiest percentile while ignoring large tax relief for lower income groups.

It's reverse engineering.

Republicans shift wealth to the top.
Click to expand...

But you can't make tax cuts across the board. The lowest two quintiles paid less than 0% as of 2006 (i.e., they received more in tax credits than they paid in). The middle quintile had an average tax rate of 3%. I assume your beef is the bush tax cuts (mainly dividends and capital gains). Sure it didn't cut taxes for the lowest three quintiles, but they have no taxes to be cut. I just don't get how you can bash them for it. If they want to cut taxes, it would be impossible for them to make an across the board tax cut that is anything more than in name only.
 
#70
#70
TennTradition said:
A problem here is that poor is relative and poverty is subjective. I reject the notion that some number of folks in the US must always live in poverty, but of course, there will always be those who are poor relative to their rich counterparts.
Click to expand...

The old measure fits this scenario much better. The new measure ensures someone will always be defined as living in poverty.
 
#71
#71
bam15 said:
Actually, that is interesting on Milton Friedman. I don't want the Wealthiest percentile and lowest percentile to equalize, I want the difference between the two to be lower. Expanding the middle class would be a step in the right direction.
Click to expand...

Yea, I didn't assume you meant complete equality - just a reduction in the difference.
 
#72
#72
paul1454 said:
But you can't make tax cuts across the board. The lowest two quintiles paid less than 0% as of 2006 (i.e., they received more in tax credits than they paid in). The middle quintile had an average tax rate of 3%. I assume your beef is the bush tax cuts (mainly dividends and capital gains). Sure it didn't cut taxes for the lowest three quintiles, but they have no taxes to be cut. I just don't get how you can bash them for it. If they want to cut taxes, it would be impossible for them to make an across the board tax cut that is anything more than in name only.
Click to expand...

Any tax relief has to apply most heavily to those paying the largest sums, period. There isn't another way to do it.

Funny how the liberals forget about the progressive tax code as they use politically driven idea like equivalency of tax relief.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#73
#73
BigPapaVol said:
They'll simply be DEFINED as living in poverty, not living in it.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, agreed...I was just complaining.

Of course, defining poverty is not a straightforward endeavor. It could be the ability to put a house over your head (rented or owned, depending on the circumstances) and meals on the table, but then you could argue what constitutes a meal, what kind of food, etc.

The idea that, as the standard of living in the US increases, we could change our perception and definition of poverty is OK with me in general....but to constitute that this definition must change with increasing standard of living is the notion I reject.
 
#74
#74
TennTradition said:
Oh yeah, agreed...I was just complaining.

Of course, defining poverty is not a straightforward endeavor. It could be the ability to put a house over your head (rented or owned, depending on the circumstances) and meals on the table, but then you could argue what constitutes a meal, what kind of food, etc.

The idea that, as the standard of living in the US increases, we could change our perception and definition of poverty is OK with me in general....but to constitute that this definition must change with increasing standard of living is the notion I reject.
Click to expand...

The idea that poverty is about relative wealth is simply bastardizing the term for future political use. It changes nothing.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#75
#75
What's the old story about the USSR showing a propaganda movie about the US that feature the poor? IIRC the goal was to show the evils of capitalism but it backfired because Soviet citizens saw that the poor had homes, TVs, cars, phones --- things they didn't have.

Not sure if this is true or Urban Myth
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top