The new version of poverty

#152
#152
I'd be interested to know whether the poor were actually getting poorer or there were simply more people joining the lower income ranks. It's most likely a combination of both but that doesn't change the underlying cause of why people become poor and stay poor. It has nothing to do with rich people keeping money away from the lower class people and everything to do with the personal decisions made by poor individuals and families. We have been seeing a general decline in our nations society. Bad decisions and examples are glorified and parents do not put the emphasis on education they once did.

There are currently fewer jobs available and more people seeking those jobs, when there is a high demand guess who loses out on better paying jobs?
 
#153
#153
bam15 said:
Cutting marginal rates at record levels is going to widen the gap.

The middle class isn't growing, while the top percentile is getting richer. It doesn't get any simpler, obviously what you are implicating couldn't have happened if the results have know evidence.


Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

The lower and middle class are paying less and less tax at record levels. Tax year 2008 set a record for the highest number of individuals with zero tax liability (51.6 million to be exact) as well as the highest non-paying earners in history (55K). As stated before, the wealthy pay an extremely large sum of federal taxes (top 5% pays over 60% of all individual income taxes and the top 10% pay 73%). I don't know how much more you expect to lower tax rates on the poor or, alternatively, raise tax rates on th wealthy. Clearly, it isn't tax policy that is causing the problems you are so concerned with. I'm inclined to believe that ever-increasing entitlement programs, government subsidies, and tax subsidies may have created a disincentive to work knowing there is such a large safety net to fall back on. Now, I'm not saying that is the sole reason, and I haven't looked at any empirical evidence on the matter, just my gut feeling at the moment.


tax2.jpg
 
Last edited:
#154
#154
volinbham said:
There are problems associated with income gaps but reducing them simply via tax policy doesn't count as wealth creation for the lower and middle class. I would suggest there is plenty of evidence that wealth transfers from one class to another via government payments and programs stifles growth in the middle and lower class rather than raising it.
Click to expand...

I don't deny marginal tax cuts have benefited the economy, however, they have continuously went down to scary low levels during normal economic times. There is no coincidence that a large gap has grown in wealth.

What you are suggesting is a philosophical difference.

I rest my case.
 
#155
#155
BeecherVol said:
Why?

Are you against a man working hard to build wealth?
Im not wealthy by no means, but how is fair to already take a VERY LARGE amount of wealth from someone who worked for it, and add to that?

I do wonder tho.
1. Why build wealth, if the government is gonna take more. (I.E. why invest/build bigger business that provides jobs)
2. Why strive to be more that what you are, when the government is gonna supply you more if your poor?

Basically we should strive to be average, and nothing more.
Click to expand...

No, I'm against the wealthiest percentage of Americans amassing wealth while the rest of the economy remains stagnant.

What? I'm not saying communism, I'm saying a reduction in the enormous gap.
 
#157
#157
BigPapaVol said:
You should brush up on history. Might not have met the definition of a recession, but a mild recovery from the dot com explosion was being fueled by the tax help.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I don't understand what you're insinuating. Taxes shouldn't be raised on any group during a recession. Mini-recession or recession, down turns still require investment, credits, cuts, etc. You should know this already.
 
#158
#158
paul1454 said:
The lower and middle class are paying less and less tax at record levels. Tax year 2008 set a record for the highest number of individuals with zero tax liability (51.6 million to be exact) as well as the highest non-paying earners in history (55K). As stated before, the wealthy pay an extremely large sum of federal taxes (top 5% pays over 60% of all individual income taxes and the top 10% pay 73%). I don't know how much more you expect to lower tax rates on the poor or, alternatively, raise tax rates on th wealthy. Clearly, it isn't tax policy that is causing the problems you are so concerned with. I'm inclined to believe that ever-increasing entitlement programs, government subsidies, and tax subsidies may have created a disincentive to work knowing there is such a large safety net to fall back on. Now, I'm not saying that is the sole reason, and I haven't looked at any empirical evidence on the matter, just my gut feeling at the moment.


tax2.jpg
Click to expand...

Wow, I just realized my iphone automatically corrected no to know.

Paul, I think much of this argument is coming down to philosophical differences - However, I don't think there should be any reason for a gilded age wealth gap. Regardless of tax rates, wealth has shifted to the top. First of all, I don't understand why the idea of raising taxes during a placid economy is so radical-besides the fact that it is difficult to win elections with tax hikes. The marginal tax rate for the wealthiest percentile has consistently went down.

I don't want communism or a sharing of the wealth. Having a gap between the wealthy and the middle class is good, if not, that wouldn't bode well for economic numbers. However, a gigantic gap is not good. Entitlement programs don't necessary apply to the middle class, where growth has remained stagnant, and I fundamentally don't see how that could encourage laziness and less work. I don't know about you, but I wasn't raised to live off entitlement programs, and I most surely do not believe that entitlement programs provide enough money to survive in the 21st century.

Here's the bottom line: about 32 percent of the tax cuts went to the richest 1 percent of Americans. About 53 percent of the tax cuts went to the top 10 percent of the population.
 
Last edited:
#160
#160
bam15 said:
No, I'm against the wealthiest percentage of Americans amassing wealth while the rest of the economy remains stagnant.

What? I'm not saying communism, I'm saying a reduction in the enormous gap.
Click to expand...
So you do begrudge a man for being successful.

Our tax rates are unfair. Those who build their own wealth pay a higher percentage in taxes.
 
#161
#161
Do you think the government should crack down on able bodies that leach off the government? Or just continue to let them take money that was earned by someone else.

You think that would ease the burden on the middle class? I would say that would be better overall for the economy, instead of taking money from those who spend more.
 
Last edited:
#162
#162
bam15 said:
Real revenue per capita:

taxes-and-revenues.png
Click to expand...

I didn't think we were arguing whether a decrease in taxes would decrease revenues. I just assumed that were clear (unless the idea was that we started from a point on the other side of the laffer curve). Did I misinterpret the argument along the way?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#163
#163
BeecherVol said:
Do you think the government should crack down on able bodies that leach off the government? Or just continue to let them take money that was earned by someone else.
Click to expand...

I may be in a minority on this, but I think those who get government help because they are unable to work should have to exercise, eat right, and abstain from smoking and drinking. They should be actively trying to improve their health so they can become self supporting.

And have vasectomies or their tubes tied, as appropriate. If you ain't able to work you don't need to be bringing mouths into this world to feed.

As you may be thinking - and I tend to agree - it is a good thing that I don't run this world. :)
 
#164
#164
BeecherVol said:
So you do begrudge a man for being successful.

Our tax rates are unfair. Those who build their own wealth pay a higher percentage in taxes.
Click to expand...

And having a multi-millionaire pay the same rate as a single parent is fair?
 
#165
#165
BeecherVol said:
Do you think the government should crack down on able bodies that leach off the government? Or just continue to let them take money that was earned by someone else.

You think that would ease the burden on the middle class? I would say that would be better overall for the economy, instead of taking money from those who spend more.
Click to expand...

First of all, those able bodies are not living the high life, that's the very bottom, I wouldn't want to live off of entitlement programs, I don't know about you.

Second of all, I don't have a problem with what you are suggesting, however, there is just as many struggling people who need these programs as bums. I honestly wouldn't have a problem with mandatory drug testing to receive gov't funding.
 
#166
#166
paul1454 said:
I didn't think we were arguing whether a decrease in taxes would decrease revenues. I just assumed that were clear (unless the idea was that we started from a point on the other side of the laffer curve). Did I misinterpret the argument along the way?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

We weren't, I was suggesting that tax cuts don't always lead to a increase in revenues, especially when taxes are sent towards the top. I also think that it's further proof, that cutting taxes alone during down turns-early 2000's isn't nearly enough action, of course you could argue that the two wars helped in a sense.
 
#167
#167
bam the problem I have with your argument is that while you want the middle class to grow your solution is to slow growth among the upper class.

making the rich less rich may close the income gap but it doesn't do so by improving the lot of the middle class unless you want to grow entitlements for the middle class.

If you favor growing entitlements to the middle class as a way to create growth there then I disagree strongly that it will work.
 
#168
#168
bam15 said:
Real revenue per capita:

taxes-and-revenues.png
Click to expand...

What's missing from this graph is economic conditions. Notice the huge upswing then downswing during Clinton's time? Presumably tax rates didn't change in 99-00 but income took a nose dive.

The first B tax cut put an upward bump in that downward trend but not enough to counter the effects of the economy. Looks like the second one moved us off the bottom.

In short, the graph is an incomplete explanation of the impact of tax cuts on real income.
 
#171
#171
bam15 said:
First of all, those able bodies are not living the high life, that's the very bottom, I wouldn't want to live off of entitlement programs, I don't know about you.

Second of all, I don't have a problem with what you are suggesting, however, there is just as many struggling people who need these programs as bums. I honestly wouldn't have a problem with mandatory drug testing to receive gov't funding.
Click to expand...

I disagree with that.

I agree with your last statement.

Those bums that you speak of have more to do with the middle class struggles, than the business man that employs the middle class.
 
#172
#172
volinbham said:
bam the problem I have with your argument is that while you want the middle class to grow your solution is to slow growth among the upper class.

making the rich less rich may close the income gap but it doesn't do so by improving the lot of the middle class unless you want to grow entitlements for the middle class.

If you favor growing entitlements to the middle class as a way to create growth there then I disagree strongly that it will work.
Click to expand...

That would sum it up pretty well.
 
#173
#173
the graph also shows we are at or above the real revenue per capita peak with lower tax rates.

so what's the argument for higher rates? they can't be linked to growth since real revs both grew and shrank with the same higher rates. in fact, real revenues fell almost back to levels prior to Clinton's tax hike.
 
#174
#174
bam15 said:
And having a multi-millionaire pay the same rate as a single parent is fair?
Click to expand...

Of course it's fair. We don't do it, but there is no fairness in progressive taxes. The ridiculous notion that it is tells just how indoctrinated you are in the "rights" of Americans. Fairness would mean same rate for everyone, period.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#175
#175
the idea that lowering rates for "rich" americans is somehow transferring wealth into their hands is the one that is incomprehensible to me.... they earn it both through hard work and savvy investing.... and many of the "rich" (small businesses) assume the risk of running a business so that other people can have jobs..

it is saying the govt will let you have what it thinks you should have.....
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top