Taxes

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Progressive Tax - A tax that takes a larger percentage from the income of high-income people than it does from low-income people.

Now I have never said that our system wasnt nor has that fact taken away from the point I have been trying to make. The progressive tax is a complaint of mine. Under some of the presidents that were brought into office because of there conservitive Ideas made a move in the right direction by removing some of that burden on the wealthiest but was it still progressive, well yes but it was a move in the right direction.

About the fictional baseball player, both could benefit under both of our examples. My point was that rather it be Joe who had more money in his pocket because of the way our tax system works and was able to buy those shoes for his kids or it be the the Joe that had more business to his auto shop because more rich baseball players were buying expensive cars thus giving Joe more money to buy shoes for his kids and maybe a little something for his wife. My point was that the Joe in my example would benefit more because he didn't have the government in the equation. The government is wasteful and has very little accountability. I think the more money we keep in the private sector the better off society will be.

So let me get this straight - you (regular Joe) would rather not get a $1,200 back of your hard earned income in the form of a tax cut so that MLB players making 5 million can keep a little more of their money?

[_Simpson_ 250]

Progressive Tax - A tax that takes a larger percentage from the income of high-income people than it does from low-income people.

Now I have never said that our system wasnt nor has that fact taken away from the point I have been trying to make. The progressive tax is a complaint of mine. Under some of the presidents that were brought into office because of there conservitive Ideas made a move in the right direction by removing some of that burden on the wealthiest but was it still progressive, well yes but it was a move in the right direction.

About the fictional baseball player, both could benefit under both of our examples. My point was that rather it be Joe who had more money in his pocket because of the way our tax system works and was able to buy those shoes for his kids or it be the the Joe that had more business to his auto shop because more rich baseball players were buying expensive cars thus giving Joe more money to buy shoes for his kids and maybe a little something for his wife. My point was that the Joe in my example would benefit more because he didn't have the government in the equation. The government is wasteful and has very little accountability. I think the more money we keep in the private sector the better off society will be.

So let me get this straight - you (regular Joe) would rather not get a $1,200 back of your hard earned income in the form of a tax cut so that MLB players making 5 million can keep a little more of their money?

Yes I would because of the bigger picture, If MLB players and other rich people were buying more cars that need my service I could make more than that $1,200 and considering I could move up the ladder easier because Im not a victim of the tax bracket system I could have a chance to move out of the middle class and provide more for my family. I am saying that taxing the top 2%affect average joe too.

People who earn there money are more likely to spend it wisely than those who don't earn it, so with that said its a hard sell to think that this money is going to do me better if it goes thru the government first.

Edited March 6, 2009 by looking_up

[Peikko 1,575]

Trickle down theory in action - somewhat forgetting the fact that it's the sale of cars to ave Joe that really effects the marketplace not those half douzen jaguars to the top 2%.

[_Simpson_ 250]

Trickle down theory in action - somewhat forgetting the fact that it's the sale of cars to ave Joe that really effects the marketplace not those half douzen jaguars to the top 2%.

Trickle down theory was brought up already in this debate.

So your talking about the car he was able to buy with the money he earned from all the car buyers that came into his shop to have there vehicles serviced. So does Joe buy a two door economy car or the 4 door family car. The purchase of the 4 door would do more for the marketplace and considering now that Joe is getting a lot more income because of more mlb/rich players bringing in there overpriced cars to have serviced he is able to buy the 4 door. So YES that does affect the market place and NO Im not forgetting about it. Theres a bigger picture here.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Here's an interesting interview with a professor of economics on wealth and income inequality.

link

Some highlights:

MM: How do economists measure levels of equality and inequality?

Wolff: The most common measure used, and the most understandable is: what share of total wealth is owned by the richest households, typically the top 1 percent. In the United States, in the last survey year, 1998, the richest 1 percent of households owned 38 percent of all wealth. This is the most easily understood measure.

There is also another measure called the Gini coefficient. It measures the concentration of wealth at different percentile levels, and does an overall computation. It is an index that goes from zero to one, one being the most unequal. Wealth inequality in the United States has a Gini coefficient of .82, which is pretty close to the maximum level of inequality you can have.

MM: What have been the trends of wealth inequality over the last 25 years?

Wolff: We have had a fairly sharp increase in wealth inequality dating back to 1975 or 1976.

Prior to that, there was a protracted period when wealth inequality fell in this country, going back almost to 1929. So you have this fairly continuous downward trend from 1929, which of course was the peak of the stock market before it crashed, until just about the mid-1970s. Since then, things have really turned around, and the level of wealth inequality today is almost double what it was in the mid-1970s.

Income inequality has also risen. Most people date this rise to the early 1970s, but it hasn’t gone up nearly as dramatically as wealth inequality.

...........

The redistribution of wealth upwards into the richest 2 percent of population was at it's peak right before the last Great Depression and right now. Coincidence? I doubt it.