Raising Taxes On The Rich Would Reduce Income Inequality

Y

Yoda

New member
Capping the earnings of the likes of Mark Zuckerberg or Bill Gates would do little to actually boost the poor and middle class, Summers, a former economic advisor to President Obama and the treasury secretary from 1999 to 2001, argued in a Washington Post op-ed Sunday. But closing tax loopholes that largely benefit the wealthy -- like the capital gains exemption, certain estate tax provisions and corporate tax breaks -- could help middle-class and poor Americans, he wrote.

“Today’s tax code allows a far larger share of the income of the rich to escape taxation than the poor or middle class,” Summers wrote. “Closing loopholes that only the wealthy can enjoy would enable targeted tax measures such as the earned-income tax credit to raise the incomes of the poor and middle class more than dollar for dollar by incentivizing working and saving,” he continued.


Still, some studies have backed up Summers' idea that reforming the tax code could make a dent in income inequality. According to a 2013 study from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, when you consider things like sales and state and local taxes, the poor fork over a larger share of their income to Uncle Sam than their richer counterparts.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/17/taxes-rich-larry-summers_n_4804285.html
 
Yoda said:
Capping the earnings of the likes of Mark Zuckerberg or Bill Gates would do little to actually boost the poor and middle class, Summers, a former economic advisor to President Obama and the treasury secretary from 1999 to 2001, argued in a Washington Post op-ed Sunday. But closing tax loopholes that largely benefit the wealthy -- like the capital gains exemption, certain estate tax provisions and corporate tax breaks -- could help middle-class and poor Americans, he wrote.

“Today’s tax code allows a far larger share of the income of the rich to escape taxation than the poor or middle class,” Summers wrote. “Closing loopholes that only the wealthy can enjoy would enable targeted tax measures such as the earned-income tax credit to raise the incomes of the poor and middle class more than dollar for dollar by incentivizing working and saving,” he continued.


Still, some studies have backed up Summers' idea that reforming the tax code could make a dent in income inequality. According to a 2013 study from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, when you consider things like sales and state and local taxes, the poor fork over a larger share of their income to Uncle Sam than their richer counterparts.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/17/taxes-rich-larry-summers_n_4804285.html
Click to expand...

Isn't this all a no-brainer! I guess such thinking has become counter-intuitive in the current "common sense" regarding the 19th century gilded age ideological model of the "identity of interests" between capital and labor that held that income inequality was better for both owners and workers. We are back to this ridiculous logic today. I guess eventually Americans will grow tired of the sheer injustice of this way of thinking and rise up in revolution, nah, not here! It will never happen no more. There is no viable oppositional model to finance capitalism.

We'll just slowly devolve into a third world country, where the states, counties and cities can't even afford to fix the road damage caused by a harsh winter. While the few continue to accumulate their billions and we all wait with our gruel bowls for just a little more because we all have an "identity of interests," which means when Bill Gates and Warren Buffet gain another twenty billion dollars each I am better off! And so are you! So take your gruel bowel and celebrate another increase in the federal minimum wage!
 
Dantès said:
Isn't this all a no-brainer! I guess such thinking has become counter-intuitive in the current "common sense" regarding the 19th century gilded age ideological model of the "identity of interests" between capital and labor that held that income inequality was better for both owners and workers. We are back to this ridiculous logic today. I guess eventually Americans will grow tired of the sheer injustice of this way of thinking and rise up in revolution, nah, not here! It will never happen no more. There is no viable oppositional model to finance capitalism.

We'll just slowly devolve into a third world country, where the states, counties and cities can't even afford to fix the road damage caused by a harsh winter. While the few continue to accumulate their billions and we all wait with our gruel bowls for just a little more because we all have an "identity of interests," which means when Bill Gates and Warren Buffet gain another twenty billion dollars each I am better off! And so are you! So take your gruel bowel and celebrate another increase in the federal minimum wage!
Click to expand...

If Bill Gates makes another $20 billion, do you lose money? If so, how?
 
Yoda said:
Capping the earnings of the likes of Mark Zuckerberg or Bill Gates would do little to actually boost the poor and middle class, Summers, a former economic advisor to President Obama and the treasury secretary from 1999 to 2001, argued in a Washington Post op-ed Sunday. But closing tax loopholes that largely benefit the wealthy -- like the capital gains exemption, certain estate tax provisions and corporate tax breaks -- could help middle-class and poor Americans, he wrote.

“Today’s tax code allows a far larger share of the income of the rich to escape taxation than the poor or middle class,” Summers wrote. “Closing loopholes that only the wealthy can enjoy would enable targeted tax measures such as the earned-income tax credit to raise the incomes of the poor and middle class more than dollar for dollar by incentivizing working and saving,” he continued.


Still, some studies have backed up Summers' idea that reforming the tax code could make a dent in income inequality. According to a 2013 study from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, when you consider things like sales and state and local taxes, the poor fork over a larger share of their income to Uncle Sam than their richer counterparts.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/17/taxes-rich-larry-summers_n_4804285.html
Click to expand...

Why are you so concerned with what other people earn? How are you personally being harmed by what Mark Zuckerberg earns?

If Bill Gates earns a nickel, is a nickel taken from you?
 
Dantes im all for capitalism, im not for this new unbridled greed by americas richest and corporations. There was a time not to long ago that The rich and corporations gladly shared some with the people that worked to make them rich. They gave them enough to live and gave them enough security to feel safe. THEN CAME MY GENERATION OF GREEDY P's OS the babyboomers.
When they came of age and started to take over beginning somewhere around 1978 the greed proliferated. Their attitude is pay them less then we keep more, pay them less raise the bottom line on them we get bigger bonus.

I am not jealous, I have more than enough and I live a better than average lifestyle. Having said that when just 6 humans have more than the entire bottom 44% of all americans that is sickeningly out of whack.

The top 2% is still only 2% but they OWN far more than they did 20 yrs ago. There is no denying that the middleclass has shrunk considerably the number of poor has risen dramatically and weve never had this many unemployed for so long.

The robbed all americans of their home equities by creating and causeing the housing crash. American middleclass is on its knees.
When the middleclass is totally destroyed then the corporations can stick all the chinese shit they make in their ass, there will be no one to buy it.
 
Yoda said:
Dantes im all for capitalism, im not for this new unbridled greed by americas richest and corporations. There was a time not to long ago that The rich and corporations gladly shared some with the people that worked to make them rich. They gave them enough to live and gave them enough security to feel safe. THEN CAME MY GENERATION OF GREEDY P's OS the babyboomers.
When they came of age and started to take over beginning somewhere around 1978 the greed proliferated. Their attitude is pay them less then we keep more, pay them less raise the bottom line on them we get bigger bonus.

I am not jealous, I have more than enough and I live a better than average lifestyle. Having said that when just 6 humans have more than the entire bottom 44% of all americans that is sickeningly out of whack.

The top 2% is still only 2% but they OWN far more than they did 20 yrs ago. There is no denying that the middleclass has shrunk considerably the number of poor has risen dramatically and weve never had this many unemployed for so long.

The robbed all americans of their home equities by creating and causeing the housing crash. American middleclass is on its knees.
When the middleclass is totally destroyed then the corporations can stick all the chinese shit they make in their ass, there will be no one to buy it.
Click to expand...


So you have enough, but you are just worried about everyone else? How noble and magnanimous of you. Here is a thought experiment. Since you have "more than enough" and "live better than the average lifestyle", why don't you voluntarily give up some of YOURS and then you don't have to be concerned about someone else's.

You see, it is extremely easy to call for the government to confiscate the property of others while exempting yourself. That isn't a really courageous stance in my book. For some reason those on the left think that demanding gobblement confiscation of another citizens property makes them noble. I do not. I think it makes them statists.

Voluntarily give up your own money and then come talk to me. Otherwise, just mind your own business.
 
Did anyone see "Elysium"? Great flick - and very plausible. It's not hard to envision a future where a very small % of people basically have everything, while the rest really struggle to get by and get basics like medical care & food.

It's where the trend is headed, pretty much unabated. It's a tough one, because taxing more heavily at the upper income levels just seems punitive.

There's a solution out there somewhere, but no one has thought of it yet.
 
is it beyond the ability of liberals to think that they can affect the bottom line of the wealthy by refusing to buy the products that their companies make??????
 
Thing1 said:
Did anyone see "Elysium"? Great flick - and very plausible. It's not hard to envision a future where a very small % of people basically have everything, while the rest really struggle to get by and get basics like medical care & food.

It's where the trend is headed, pretty much unabated. It's a tough one, because taxing more heavily at the upper income levels just seems punitive.

There's a solution out there somewhere, but no one has thought of it yet.
Click to expand...


I guess "punitive" is a relative term. I mean, as compared to, say, the French Revolution, taxing more heavily at upper income levels doesn't seem too bad.
 
Darla said:
How is the middle class "way better off" today than 20 years ago? What metrics are you using here?
Click to expand...

They arent thats one of the teaparties favorite empty talking points, all the facts show the middle class has shrunk considerably incomes and pays have stagnated in the last 20 yrs and theres more on unemployment. Dude is living the teaparty dream.
 
Thing1 said:
Did anyone see "Elysium"? Great flick - and very plausible. It's not hard to envision a future where a very small % of people basically have everything, while the rest really struggle to get by and get basics like medical care & food.

It's where the trend is headed, pretty much unabated. It's a tough one, because taxing more heavily at the upper income levels just seems punitive.

There's a solution out there somewhere, but no one has thought of it yet.
Click to expand...


Actually, there is a solution. It has been thought of. It was actually instituted for a brief period of time. It is called free markets and the United States Constitution. Unfortunately, both have been rejected by a large swath of people who are uneducated and jealous of others. Then there are the charlatans who capitalize on those feelings of resentment to further their political goals of control.

It isn't complicated. There will ALWAYS be the haves and have nots. Lefties are fine with themselves being THE HAVES, but they care very little about the HAVE NOTS other than to use them as pawns in their never ending acquisition of political power
 
I Love America said:
Actually, there is a solution. It has been thought of. It was actually instituted for a brief period of time. It is called free markets and the United States Constitution. Unfortunately, both have been rejected by a large swath of people who are uneducated and jealous of others. Then there are the charlatans who capitalize on those feelings of resentment to further their political goals of control.

It isn't complicated. There will ALWAYS be the haves and have nots. Lefties are fine with themselves being THE HAVES, but they care very little about the HAVE NOTS other than to use them as pawns in their never ending acquisition of political power
Click to expand...

That's not correct. Unfettered capitalism would & has led to even worse trends in income inequailty.

What the rich don't realize is that it benefits everyone if those at the bottom & in the middle are lifted up. The current model of the rich getting richer, while wages stagnate for everyone else, is not sustainable, or good for the economy as a whole. It's only a matter of time before something gives - as history has shown us time & again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top