Raising Taxes On The Rich Would Reduce Income Inequality

SmarterthanYou said:
you're saying that we had unfettered capitalism from the run up to the great depression?
Click to expand...

Certainly more unfettered than there is today - and the abuses and income inequality was pretty horrific.

Unfettered capitalism doesn't work. It doesn't take much of a brain to figure out that income inequality will just continue to get worse, even in the present system.
 
Thing1 said:
Certainly more unfettered than there is today - and the abuses and income inequality was pretty horrific.

Unfettered capitalism doesn't work. It doesn't take much of a brain to figure out that income inequality will just continue to get worse, even in the present system.
Click to expand...

seeing as how we've continually increased the regulations and regulatory oversight on capitalism only to see the divide between the wealthy and poor grow, it would seem that regulating capitalism has failed utterly.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
seeing as how we've continually increased the regulations and regulatory oversight on capitalism only to see the divide between the wealthy and poor grow, it would seem that regulating capitalism has failed utterly.
Click to expand...

Historically, what we have actually seen is even more abuse and trend toward inequality with less regulation.

The mere idea that removing regulations & allowing for true unfettered capitalism would somehow lead to less income inequality is actually painfully stupid. It's hard to comprehend how any student of history could arrive at such a conclusion.
 
Thing1 said:
Historically, what we have actually seen is even more abuse and trend toward inequality with less regulation.
Click to expand...
historically, we've seen the trend towards income inequality with both actions.

Thing1 said:
The mere idea that removing regulations & allowing for true unfettered capitalism would somehow lead to less income inequality is actually painfully stupid. It's hard to comprehend how any student of history could arrive at such a conclusion.
Click to expand...
I don't recall anyone, least of all myself, ever claiming that we should go back to unfettered capitalism. I do, however, think that limiting regulation to certain areas of criminal activity with HEAVY and dire penalties would go a very long way in to allowing people the unfettered opportunity to become wealthy again.
 
Celticguy said:
Raising taxes will do nothing to change income differential. This is nkt rocket science.
Click to expand...

no. it is basic arithmetic. If Person A has income of $1000 and Person B has income of $100, there is a pre-tax income differential between them of $900.

If Person A has his income taxed at 75% and person B has his income taxed at 20%, the post-tax income differential is only $170.

Raising the top end marginal tax rate WILL change (reduce) the income differential between those in that top tax bracket and those not in it.
 
maineman said:
no. it is basic arithmetic. If Person A has income of $1000 and Person B has income of $100, there is a pre-tax income differential between them of $900.

If Person A has his income taxed at 75% and person B has his income taxed at 20%, the post-tax income differential is only $170.

Raising the top end marginal tax rate WILL change (reduce) the income differential between those in that top tax bracket and those not in it.
Click to expand...

Not in our current tax code system. It will have minimum effect. 70k pages of tax deductions and loopholes worked into the system. You want to truly be progressive, then you eliminate the corporate tax code (as it is highly regressive), then tax all income sources for individuals at set rates (ie... my flat tax with high standard deduction example). No more special breaks for cap gains and some dividends.
 
Superfreak said:
So if the regulatory schemes that came about AFTER the crash... the regulations did not exist BEFORE the crash. Not much governing any industry back then.
Click to expand...

my statement was really more in regards to the claim of unfettered capitalism before the great depression, but maybe I digress. and unless i'm mistaken, there were government regulations on commerce dating all the way back to the early 1800s, so that makes your claim of unfettered sort of moot, does it not?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
my statement was really more in regards to the claim of unfettered capitalism before the great depression, but maybe I digress. and unless i'm mistaken, there were government regulations on commerce dating all the way back to the early 1800s, so that makes your claim of unfettered sort of moot, does it not?
Click to expand...

As I stated... there were some and thus my use of the words 'as close you will find in history'

It was far more unfettered than it was at any point after the Great Depression.
 
Fettered is a weird word and I'm not sure why we use "unfettered" in the context of an economic system given the definition of fettered.
 
Thing1 said:
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.
Click to expand...


1) Show me where this "unfettered" capitalism exists in the United States. I would really love to see it

2) You say that those in the bottom and middle need to be "lifted up". Great. I agree. But, the how does confiscating the property of another individual lift up someone else? How is taxing the rich more lifting someone else up? How does that work?
 
Thing1 said:
Certainly more unfettered than there is today - and the abuses and income inequality was pretty horrific.

Unfettered capitalism doesn't work. It doesn't take much of a brain to figure out that income inequality will just continue to get worse, even in the present system.
Click to expand...

You keep bringing up this "unfettered capitalism". Where does it exist? Is it just a word that is used that has no real meaning?
 
I Love America said:
1) Show me where this "unfettered" capitalism exists in the United States. I would really love to see it

2) You say that those in the bottom and middle need to be "lifted up". Great. I agree. But, the how does confiscating the property of another individual lift up someone else? How is taxing the rich more lifting someone else up? How does that work?
Click to expand...

We've already talked on this thread about a period where capitalism was basically unfettered.

And I don't believe in taxing more, and have said so many times. I only see that the growing disparity in wealth IS a problem - for both the rich & poor and everyone in between. I simply don't know what the solution is, and I haven't heard anyone propose anything that sounds like a good solution.
 
maineman said:
no. it is basic arithmetic. If Person A has income of $1000 and Person B has income of $100, there is a pre-tax income differential between them of $900.

If Person A has his income taxed at 75% and person B has his income taxed at 20%, the post-tax income differential is only $170.

Raising the top end marginal tax rate WILL change (reduce) the income differential between those in that top tax bracket and those not in it.
Click to expand...


OK. So you are changing the differential. But, the real question is how is Person B better off? How is his life materially improved by what you describe? How has his income increased?

All you have done is increased the coffers of the gobblement. You haven't improved the life of the person you claim to care about.
 
Thing1 said:
We've already talked on this thread about a period where capitalism was basically unfettered.

And I don't believe in taxing more, and have said so many times. I only see that the growing disparity in wealth IS a problem - for both the rich & poor and everyone in between. I simply don't know what the solution is, and I haven't heard anyone propose anything that sounds like a good solution.
Click to expand...

I do believe that several of us Libertarians on here have suggested quite a few times that easing the regulations for allowing newer entrepreneurs to enter the business market would most certainly help. I guess easing regulations of any sort is not what you establishment types want though.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
I do believe that several of us Libertarians on here have suggested quite a few times that easing the regulations for allowing newer entrepreneurs to enter the business market would most certainly help. I guess easing regulations of any sort is not what you establishment types want though.
Click to expand...

I'd be all for that, and for anything that makes it easy on small business owners & startups.

I just don't see that as a solution. It may have some marginal effect and slow the trend somewhat, but the disparity will keep growing regardless.
 
I Love America said:
OK. So you are changing the differential. But, the real question is how is Person B better off? How is his life materially improved by what you describe? How has his income increased?

All you have done is increased the coffers of the gobblement. You haven't improved the life of the person you claim to care about.
Click to expand...
If government can then provide services that formerly were paid for by person B, then his disposable income DOES increase.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top