Traitors.

[LV426]

The Laffer curve is based on a very real phenomenon.\

Except that it wasn't because there has never been a time in this country when taxes were so high that they harmed economic growth. Laffer just assumes that high taxes harm growth because of his prejudices, yet we had high taxes in the 1950's and before Clinton raised taxes in the 90's, that was the longest period of economic expansion in the modern history of the US...with a top tax rate of 90%.

We do have a history of low taxation harming economic growth, and that history is very recent to this century...first, the Bush Tax Cuts and then the 2018 Russia Tax Cut. Both tax cuts prompted economic collapses. Bush the Dumber even tied his tax cuts to the housing market in 2004...the same housing market that would collapse 2-3 years later.

But the reality is that borrowing is always based on a belief that it can and will be repaid at a later date either through tax revenues or through more borrowing. Ultimately there can come a time when lenders no longer believe that revenues can keep pace with borrowing and money becomes too expensive to borrow. At that point there are other mechanisms that can be used but without a faith in government and its eventual ability to pay its lenders on time the final result could end up being economic collapse caused by collapse of the monetary system.

Except that time will never come...if borrowing rates would be affected, we would have seen it by now. But here we are, 10 years removed from the last Financial collapse, and borrowing rates continue to be at or near-zero for the government. What that says to me is that now is the time for the government to borrow to fund large spending programs that get people employed, educated, and get them health care. What's been proven is that kind of stimulus helps stave off recessions because the government is making up for the drop in consumer/private spending.

When you cut government spending, but don't replace it in the economy with other spending, you contract the economy because the only way an economy grows is by spending. That's why targeted stimulus to those at the bottom of the income range are always the best stimulus; poor people spend more than rich people.

Saving doesn't grow an economy...it contracts it.

 

[LV426]

Borrowing at a low rate only occurs if the lender buying the debt believes they will be paid back their principle and interest. At some point the debt load can become so high that lenders no longer believe that which causes the price of borrowing to increase.

The US has not defaulted on any of its debt obligations for about 200 years...and there's no reason to believe it will any time soon.

Thing is, we have the money in our economy to meet these obligations, it's just all collected among a very few people at the top.

 

[LV426]

You mean all the Lefty, Democratic Socialist economists favor a 50-70% tax rate?

I don't want to speak for anyone else, but the consensus is 50-70% is the range, and I don't disagree with that. We've had those tax rates before and there were still rich people in country clubs from 1950's-1970's.

The tax rate needs to be raised because just increasing the national debt isn't good for anyone except the rich living today.

I mean, the National Debt is just a scorecard of how much money the government has spent in the economy. That's all it is. It doesn't really have much more to do with anything beyond that. Now, reasonable people can disagree over the size of that debt, but the size is really immaterial to how that money was spent.

If most of it was spent creating jobs, then hooray. If most of it was spent meeting obligations, that's also OK.

But if most of it was spent on tax cuts, then that's not OK because there's no multiplier from tax cuts...they don't generate enough economic activity to make up for the shortfall in revenues they cause.

For everyone except the wealthy, tax cuts lead to an increase in household debt and a decline in personal savings...and we want the opposite, right? We don't want rich people saving their money, hoarding it away from the economy, do we? If they're going to be getting all the income gains, they need to spend those gains in the economy to keep it moving, right? The alternative is having lower income people borrow in order to spend in the economy, increasing personal and household debt, because their wages aren't growing.

But the 1%'s wages are growing and have more than doubled in 10 years.

If they're just going to hoard that money, then they're damaging the economy.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

.....I mean, the National Debt is just a scorecard of how much money the government has spent in the economy. That's all it is. It doesn't really have much more to do with anything beyond that. Now, reasonable people can disagree over the size of that debt, but the size is really immaterial to how that money was spent. ....

There's no doubt in my mind you are 100% serious.

What is your opinion of the 2010 Greek debt crisis? https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-the-greece-debt-crisis-3305525

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Except that it wasn't because there has never been a time in this country when taxes were so high that they harmed economic growth. Laffer just assumes that high taxes harm growth because of his prejudices, yet we had high taxes in the 1950's and before Clinton raised taxes in the 90's, that was the longest period of economic expansion in the modern history of the US...with a top tax rate of 90%.

The top tax rate of 90% was not really 90% because personal expense writeoffs were allowed at that time making the effective rate much lower than 90%. To get an idea of the taxation you can't simply look at the highest tax bracket. You have to look at effective tax rates.

We do have a history of low taxation harming economic growth, and that history is very recent to this century...first, the Bush Tax Cuts and then the 2018 Russia Tax Cut. Both tax cuts prompted economic collapses. Bush the Dumber even tied his tax cuts to the housing market in 2004...the same housing market that would collapse 2-3 years later.

There is no discernible correlation between tax rates and economic growth. Tax cuts don't increase growth. Tax increases don't restrict growth. Economic collapses aren't tied to the tax rates. There are many reasons for them and most of them have nothing to do with taxation. Correlation is not causation when it comes to 2 economic crashes happening after tax cuts were enacted years before.

Except that time will never come...if borrowing rates would be affected, we would have seen it by now. But here we are, 10 years removed from the last Financial collapse, and borrowing rates continue to be at or near-zero for the government. What that says to me is that now is the time for the government to borrow to fund large spending programs that get people employed, educated, and get them health care. What's been proven is that kind of stimulus helps stave off recessions because the government is making up for the drop in consumer/private spending.

Just because the time hasn't come doesn't mean it will never come. Much of investing is based on confidence. People are not rational. They can think something is a good investment even if it is not and they can think something is a bad investment even if it is a good one. Panics happen even without valid cause. We never saw a pandemic for almost 100 years but that doesn't mean one could never come again and it finally did. Currently we are artificially stimulating the market to prevent panic. Something that wasn't done early in 2008. Yes, borrowing when costs are low can be a good thing as long as the money is spent in a way that benefits society and even more if it has long term capital investment effect. This requires a long term view which seems to be in short supply in this country. The interstate system was a great investment as it helped businesses move goods. At this point a major repair of our infrastructure would also be a good investment since we will still need to be moving goods for the next 30 years. The key is usually to find investments that will increase productivity and thus drive up GDP per capita which in turn increases tax revenue per capita. Not all borrowing is good and not all debt is bad. Both borrowing and debt can be good or bad. It all comes down to what it is used for. Return on Investment applies to the government just as much as it applies to business. The problem is that the return on government spending isn't always readily visible to everyone.

When you cut government spending, but don't replace it in the economy with other spending, you contract the economy because the only way an economy grows is by spending. That's why targeted stimulus to those at the bottom of the income range are always the best stimulus; poor people spend more than rich people.

Yes government spending is part of the economy but it can't be the entire economy. 18-22% of GDP is about the normal for government contribution to GDP. Taxation is by it's very nature a redistribution of wealth. The best tax policy would seem to be a trickle up tax policy. Tax the wealthy. Give it to the poor who spend it so it trickles back up to the wealthy.

Saving doesn't grow an economy...it contracts it.

We are back to the magic numbers again that allow us to hit that sweet spot. Saving is required for money being available to lend. Saving is required to have money to spend in retirement. Ideally there is a sweet spot where savings and spending both can grow in a healthy economy.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

The US has not defaulted on any of its debt obligations for about 200 years...and there's no reason to believe it will any time soon.

Thing is, we have the money in our economy to meet these obligations, it's just all collected among a very few people at the top.

Donald Trump floated the idea of defaulting on US debt. Republicans in Congress have certainly put that in play now and again in their rhetoric in support of their ideas. Actual default doesn't even have to happen to panic investors. They only need to think it could happen even if that is an irrational fear.

 

[LV426]

There's no doubt in my mind you are 100% serious.

I am never insincere.

What is your opinion of the 2010 Greek debt crisis?

Caused by Bush the Dumber. He tanked the global economy with his shitty tax cut and shitty deregulation, and it ended up hurting everyone in the end JUST LIKE WE SAID IT WOULD.

The Greek Debt Crisis has nothing to do with socialism and everything to do with Vulture capitalism. Greece's economy is tourism-dependent, and during global recession, tourism declines. Then the ECB -backed by Wall Street- forced horrible terms on Greece to get a bridge loan, terms they knew Greece wasn't going to be able to meet. So instead of working with Greece to lessen the impact of the terms of those dumb loans, they forced Greece into austerity from which it still hasn't recovered. That was 10 years ago, and Greece is still struggling today.

The lesson from Greece isn't about socialism, it's about capitalism. A country that relies on tourism dollars as a significant chunk of its economy is going to be in for tough times during a global recession.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I am never insincere.




Caused by Bush the Dumber. He tanked the global economy with his shitty tax cut and shitty deregulation, and it ended up hurting everyone in the end JUST LIKE WE SAID IT WOULD.

The Greek Debt Crisis has nothing to do with socialism and everything to do with Vulture capitalism. Greece's economy is tourism-dependent, and during global recession, tourism declines. Then the ECB -backed by Wall Street- forced horrible terms on Greece to get a bridge loan, terms they knew Greece wasn't going to be able to meet. So instead of working with Greece to lessen the impact of the terms of those dumb loans, they forced Greece into austerity from which it still hasn't recovered.

The lesson from Greece isn't about socialism, it's about capitalism. A country that relies on tourism dollars as a significant chunk of its economy is going to be in for tough times during a global recession.

ROLFLMAO. Of course! Why didn't I already know you'd blame the Republicans for the fucking Greek socialist failures of government. Awesome.


The reality is you, who believe balancing your checkbook is simply scorekeeping, do not understand how Greece put themselves in that position. Obviously you didn't read the link.

 

[LV426]

The top tax rate of 90% was not really 90% because personal expense writeoffs were allowed at that time making the effective rate much lower than 90%. To get an idea of the taxation you can't simply look at the highest tax bracket. You have to look at effective tax rates.

Do you? Because there weren't nearly as many write-offs in 1955 as there are in 2020. The increase in write-offs since is probably having the effect of keeping the effective rate artificially low.

And BTW - a 1% or 2% difference on the effective rate translates to hundreds of billions of revenue today.

But that's if you're concerned about the debt and deficit, which you shouldn't be because those numbers have no real material impact on anything. They just sound scary.

There is no discernible correlation between tax rates and economic growth. Tax cuts don't increase growth. Tax increases don't restrict growth. Economic collapses aren't tied to the tax rates. There are many reasons for them and most of them have nothing to do with taxation. Correlation is not causation when it comes to 2 economic crashes happening after tax cuts were enacted years before.

No, tax cuts definitely decrease growth because it's money being pulled out of the economy and placed into savings....for the rich. For everyone else, lower taxes means higher out of pocket spending because you're cutting funding to make up for the gap that comes from the drop in revenue. This was most clear in Kansas in the 2010's when Brownback cut taxes, and the State Board of Regents had to raise tuition costs for State schools, as well as increasing OOPE for those on Medicaid.

Tax cuts prompt recessions and here's how they do that; since most tax cuts are directed toward the very top, the lions' share of income ends up in a savings account or offshore, collecting dust and not being spent in the economy. An economy only grows by spending, not saving. So if the people you think are the ones who are more likely to spend because they're rich, you're thinking wrong because the wealthy do not spend more when they get more money. But poor people do. So if you target your tax cuts so much so that they benefit only those at the very top, all that revenue you starved is not being circulated in the economy. It's sitting outside the economy, where it doesn't create jobs or wealth.

And more and more wealth sitting outside the economy will have what effect on the economy's overall growth? The top 1% has doubled their wealth since 2010, yet GDP growth can't seem to get above 3%. Why do you think that is?

 

[gfm7175]

There is no compromising with Conservatism.

There is no compromising with lying, manipulating, cheating, thieving, corrupt, sick, abusive, perverted, pedo-loving, globalist, tyrannical, suppressive, Satanic, demonic, occult-loving Demokkkrats.

It is an anti-democratic cult.

The USA is not a Democracy. The DEMOKKKRATS are against democratic elections.

Its members have no loyalty to the country, just to their race

The Demokkkrats have no loyalty to the USA... only to China and globalism. Fuck them.

Conservatism is not a race, moron.

 

[BattleofHodow]

There is no compromising with lying, manipulating, cheating, thieving, corrupt, sick, abusive, perverted, pedo-loving, globalist, tyrannical, suppressive, Satanic, demonic, occult-loving Demokkkrats.


The USA is not a Democracy. The DEMOKKKRATS are against democratic elections.


The Demokkkrats have no loyalty to the USA... only to China and globalism. Fuck them.

Conservatism is not a race, moron.

You misspelled Trump as Demokkkrat.

 

[LV426]

Just because the time hasn't come doesn't mean it will never come.

That is, by far, the worst economic and fiscal take I've ever read...and I sat next to real-life supply-siders while getting my advanced degree.

Much of investing is based on confidence. People are not rational. They can think something is a good investment even if it is not and they can think something is a bad investment even if it is a good one. Panics happen even without valid cause. We never saw a pandemic for almost 100 years but that doesn't mean one could never come again and it finally did. Currently we are artificially stimulating the market to prevent panic. Something that wasn't done early in 2008. Yes, borrowing when costs are low can be a good thing as long as the money is spent in a way that benefits society and even more if it has long term capital investment effect.

Which is why I said that the debt/deficit is merely just a scorecard of government economic activity. The amount of that activity is immaterial to what that activity actually was. So if we spend $1T but have 5,000,000 jobs to show for it, then the economics of that employment will take care of the revenue gaps because employed people spend money in the economy. If we spend $1T on a tax cut and have nothing to show for it, then we can judge that money was poorly spent.

The interstate system was a great investment as it helped businesses move goods. At this point a major repair of our infrastructure would also be a good investment since we will still need to be moving goods for the next 30 years. The key is usually to find investments that will increase productivity and thus drive up GDP per capita which in turn increases tax revenue per capita. Not all borrowing is good and not all debt is bad. Both borrowing and debt can be good or bad. It all comes down to what it is used for. Return on Investment applies to the government just as much as it applies to business. The problem is that the return on government spending isn't always readily visible to everyone.

Totally agree 100%. Money spent on infrastructure, education, and health care is money we will see back in the economy almost immediately. Money spent on defense and tax cuts is not money we see back in the economy. A tax cut doesn't employ a single person. A bomb dropped halfway around the world doesn't benefit a worker in Wisconsin. But giving everyone health care does.

Yes government spending is part of the economy but it can't be the entire economy. 18-22% of GDP is about the normal for government contribution to GDP. Taxation is by it's very nature a redistribution of wealth. The best tax policy would seem to be a trickle up tax policy. Tax the wealthy. Give it to the poor who spend it so it trickles back up to the wealthy.

I agree, and most Democratic Socialists like me don't think government should make up the entire economy...we believe in seizing some of the means of production, but not all of them. Things like health care, education, energy...these are things every person needs to participate in the economy, so they should all be publicly owned and funded.

We are back to the magic numbers again that allow us to hit that sweet spot. Saving is required for money being available to lend. Saving is required to have money to spend in retirement. Ideally there is a sweet spot where savings and spending both can grow in a healthy economy.

Normally, I would agree, however the last decade has really proven that it's not rich people's savings that are being used to lend out to consumers, since their accumulated wealth has doubled in the last 10 years.

As a whole, we need the majority of consumers to spend, not save. But people are only going to spend if a) they feel safe and b) if they have the money to spend. For 20 years, we haven't increased wages...instead, we've borrowed in order to consume.

As you correctly stated, the poors are the ones who spend in the economy when they get money moreso than the wealthy. If a poor person gets a check for $1,000, they're going to spend every last penny of that money in the economy. If a rich person gets a tax cut of $50,000, they're not going to spend every last penny of that money in the economy. In fact, they probably won't spend much more than the poor person would. They may buy more expensive things, but they aren't consuming more. At least, not enough to justify a tax cut.

 

[LV426]

Donald Trump floated the idea of defaulting on US debt. Republicans in Congress have certainly put that in play now and again in their rhetoric in support of their ideas. Actual default doesn't even have to happen to panic investors. They only need to think it could happen even if that is an irrational fear.

Yeah, so when Conservatives threaten to not increase the debt limit, or threaten not to pass a budget, they are sending that message to the investors for purely political reasons.

 

[LV426]

ROLFLMAO. Of course! Why didn't I already know you'd blame the Republicans for the fucking Greek socialist failures of government. Awesome.

I can't help it if you're too lazy and too indifferent to understand complex fiscal issues.

What happened with Greece is precisely as I described it...the country got hit hard because a large portion of its economy was based on tourism...and during a global recession, tourism is going to decline. So Greece wasn't getting the customary revenues it was used to getting because no one could afford or wanted to take a trip to Greece to see the sights.

So Greece had budget obligations it had to meet, and the only way it could was to get a loan from the ECB since Greece doesn't control its own sovereign currency (they use the Euro). The ECB put unreasonable conditions on that emergency loan, that Greece was forced to accept because there was no other entity it could borrow that much from. Instead of revising the terms of that loan, the ECB doubled down on them and demanded austerity.

It was austerity that really killed Greece's budget. And guess what? The austerity didn't fucking work.

This was all during the "Growth in the Time of Debt" mishegoss I dragged you about earlier. The idea that once debt reaches a certain percentage of GDP the economy "falls off a cliff"...yeah, that's a load of horseshit, and it's horseshit because they had to fake and fudge numbers in order to get that conclusion.

So that's why I have no respect for the austere or anyone who tries to blame things like Greece on socialism as they fake and fudge numbers to arrive at a bullshit conclusion.

BTW - in 2015-16, Texas did the exact same fucking thing, only it didn't have to implement austerity to get its bailout.

 

[LV426]

The reality is you, who believe balancing your checkbook is simply scorekeeping, do not understand how Greece put themselves in that position. Obviously you didn't read the link.

All you can do is lie about what I say because you can't stand the fact that I know more about this subject than you.

What I said was that the deficit and debt are the scorecard of what the government has spent in the economy, and I articulated why that is different from a personal checkbook.

You keep going back to the personal of it all because those are the only terms in which you can think. That's because you're an egomaniac, and also because you just plain don't know shit about this subject. That's why you posture on JPP. You make this personal when you prove to me that you're incapable of not making it personal.

And that's weird when it comes to you whining about personal ad hominems...I mean, dude, you make it personal all the time because you can only think in terms of yourself.

There's a word for someone like that...

 

[LV426]

do not understand how Greece put themselves in that position.

Greece didn't put themselves in that position, BUSH THE DUMBER did.

Greece was fine before the 2008 Conservative Tax Cut-fueled Economic Collapse.

The reason it had to get a loan from the ECB was because the global recession destroyed tourism, which Greece relies on year-round. The ECB used the fact that Greece didn't have it's own currency to demand arbitrary austerity. THAT is what prompted the debt crisis...the ECB's unreasonableness.

It was almost exactly the same problem Texas faced in 2015-16 when the price of oil dropped. Texas relied on oil revenues in oits budget, but if the price per barrel of oil drops as much as it did in 2015-16, Texas would collect significantly fewer oil revenues. So it would be like Greece if Texas went to the Federal Reserve and asked for a bridge loan, but The Fed gave them a loan that had unreasonable terms that Texas could not meet, even if oil revenues came back (they didn't). So it would be like The Fed telling Texas they have to cut all their state systems (like Medicaid, education, etc.) to get the loan to bridge them during a recession, where safety net programs are MORE NECESSARY than if the economy is not in a recession.

And BTW - Greece did its austerity and it didn't fucking work. So it was never about Greece's budget. It was about the state of the global economy and the terms the ECB forced on them. Unreasonable terms. Terms that didn't have the effect they thought they would.

It's been a decade and Greece has still not recovered from the austerity forced on it 10 years ago.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Greece didn't put themselves in that position, BUSH THE DUMBER did.

Greece was fine before the 2008 Conservative Tax Cut-fueled Economic Collapse.

The reason it had to get a loan from the ECB was because the global recession destroyed tourism, which Greece relies on year-round. The ECB used the fact that Greece didn't have it's own currency to demand arbitrary austerity. THAT is what prompted the debt crisis...the ECB's unreasonableness.

It was almost exactly the same problem Texas faced in 2015-16 when the price of oil dropped. Texas relied on oil revenues in oits budget, but if the price per barrel of oil drops as much as it did in 2015-16, Texas would collect significantly fewer oil revenues. So it would be like Greece if Texas went to the Federal Reserve and asked for a bridge loan, but The Fed gave them a loan that had unreasonable terms that Texas could not meet, even if oil revenues came back (they didn't). So it would be like The Fed telling Texas they have to cut all their state systems (like Medicaid, education, etc.) to get the loan to bridge them during a recession, where safety net programs are MORE NECESSARY than if the economy is not in a recession.

And BTW - Greece did its austerity and it didn't fucking work. So it was never about Greece's budget. It was about the state of the global economy and the terms the ECB forced on them. Unreasonable terms. Terms that didn't have the effect they thought they would.

It's been a decade and Greece has still not recovered from the austerity forced on it 10 years ago.

Wow. If that were true it means "BUSH THE DUMBER" wasn't so dumb. LOL

Bush doesn't have control of the EU's economy. Yes, there's a connectedness, but not even Clinton or Obama could control it.

 

[LV426]

Wow. If that were true it means "BUSH THE DUMBER" wasn't so dumb. .

You're desperate now.

Bush the Dumber created the recession that destroyed Greece's economy and forced them into seeking bridge loans from the ECB, which was the only entity that could give it the loans it needed. Greece couldn't do what we did which was simply print more money because their currency was the Euro, they had no sovereign currency.

To get those loans, Greece had to implement austerity. 10 years after doing so, Greece's status is still just as precarious as it was in 2010. So the budget was never the problem. The problem was the global economy, which was destroyed in 2008 because of Bush the Dumber.

Like I said, Texas went through almost the exact same thing in 2015-6, but unlike Greece, Texas didn't get conditions placed on its budget assistance.

 

[LV426]

Bush doesn't have control of the EU's economy.

His recession sure as shit did.

So now you have to go further with the sophistry (by pretending I said Bush was in control of EU's economy when I never said that) because you're realizing that this subject is one you're not very well-versed in, and you can't stand the fact that I'm making you feel stupider because of it.

And it shows.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Do you? Because there weren't nearly as many write-offs in 1955 as there are in 2020. The increase in write-offs since is probably having the effect of keeping the effective rate artificially low.

Write offs disappeared during the Reagan Tax cut which is part of how they sold that tax cut. You can no longer write off 100% of the cost of going to a strip club thanks to the Reagan tax cut.
Other deductions that disappeared:
You can no longer deduct interest paid on a personal car loan or other personal loan.
There was no threshold to meet before writing off medical expenses prior to the Reagan tax cut so you could write off 100%.
If a vacation had a business purpose you could write off 100% of the travel. (Go to Vegas, spend an hour at a shareholder's meeting for a company you own stock in and write off the entire trip.)

And BTW - a 1% or 2% difference on the effective rate translates to hundreds of billions of revenue today.

Yeah? Never said it didn't. 1% of 11 trillion is 110 billion.

But that's if you're concerned about the debt and deficit, which you shouldn't be because those numbers have no real material impact on anything. They just sound scary.

Sounding scary is what can create irrational panic in investors.

No, tax cuts definitely decrease growth because it's money being pulled out of the economy and placed into savings....for the rich. For everyone else, lower taxes means higher out of pocket spending because you're cutting funding to make up for the gap that comes from the drop in revenue. This was most clear in Kansas in the 2010's when Brownback cut taxes, and the State Board of Regents had to raise tuition costs for State schools, as well as increasing OOPE for those on Medicaid.

Anecdotal evidence which is nothing more than anecdotal. There are also instances where tax cuts increased growth which is why I don't rely on anecdotal evidence but instead look at the yearly US numbers for a statistical analysis. Cherry picking a year here or there is not the way to find out what really happens.

Tax cuts prompt recessions and here's how they do that; since most tax cuts are directed toward the very top, the lions' share of income ends up in a savings account or offshore, collecting dust and not being spent in the economy. An economy only grows by spending, not saving. So if the people you think are the ones who are more likely to spend because they're rich, you're thinking wrong because the wealthy do not spend more when they get more money. But poor people do. So if you target your tax cuts so much so that they benefit only those at the very top, all that revenue you starved is not being circulated in the economy. It's sitting outside the economy, where it doesn't create jobs or wealth.

Let's look at your statement in comparison to reality. If tax cuts result in an economy not growing then we should see a down turn in GDP growth every time we have a tax cut. That isn't in the data. The average GDP growth after a tax cut isn't any different from when taxes stay the same or when taxes are raised. The increase in wealth isn't coming out of GDP growth.

And more and more wealth sitting outside the economy will have what effect on the economy's overall growth? The top 1% has doubled their wealth since 2010, yet GDP growth can't seem to get above 3%. Why do you think that is?

Wealth isn't a zero sum game. Wealth is the value of what people own which is affected by many things other than GDP growth. Wealth can grow much faster or much slower then GDP because it is not really tied to GDP. Much of US wealth is tied into owning real estate or companies. Those values can be all over the place. Tesla would be a good example. The company has no profit but the stock has gone through the roof. That creates a lot of wealth compared to its small contribution to GDP from buying parts and selling cars. The flip side of that might be GE which has lost a lot of wealth while contributing more to GDP than Tesla does.

One of the problems with the income tax system is as it was originally set up the intention was to help tax wealth because most wealth earns income through rents or manufacturing. Income is no longer as tied to wealth as it used to be. It is possible to retire on $200K a year and not pay a dime in income tax because the wealth is protected.