Income gap more complicated than we might suppose - Page 3 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Botnst · #31 12-09-2013, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honus

Not really. I think what I'm saying is pretty mainstream economic stuff. That doesn't make it right or wrong, but I don't think I'm proposing anything unusual.

For example: Diamond and Saez: High Tax Rates Won't Slow Growth - WSJ.com

Fact Versus Fiction in Latest Supply-Side Debate | Center for American Progress

I'll put aside Center for Am Progress and threaten you with Cato Institute but not post it.

Let's say that high tax rates won't slow growth. That's good if we like the flaccid growth rate of the past year or so.

I suspect most people would like increasing the growth rate over the recent past, not continue the growth rate of an ancient mollusk.

In a consumer economy such as the USA, money that doesn't go into the hands of consumers won't fuel the economy.

Botnst · #32 12-09-2013, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spdrun

Because no one seems to want to buy the affordable places -- outside of maybe Miami, FL has a glut of foreclosures sitting on the market...

Besides, everyone calls what they build "luxury" even if it ain't -- what are builders gonna do, call it "proletarian projects"? Or maybe "ghetto garages"? "Shabby shacks"?

Hahahaha!

spdrun · #33 12-09-2013, 08:20 PM

Problem is that we're already glutted with stuff. Who needs a 2nd iPad or a 3rd laptop if the current items work almost as well? I may also add that there's a lot of cheap, lightly-used stuff on the second-hand market.

What's wrong with a growth rate that basically keeps up with population? Why do we need to spend more, save less, and work harder, just to say that we're the "best" and better than the Joneses, Jellineks, or Joons?

Anyway, the things that are sorely lacking (like repairing crumbling infrastructure) can't be done by "the average consumer," and basically need government involvement even if it's via a public-private consortium.

Dubyagee · #34 12-09-2013, 08:25 PM

Cheap appliances, 2X4 studs and 1/2" drywall is not luxury. No matter how close to the wetlands (swamp) it is.

kerry · #35 12-09-2013, 08:43 PM

I'd settle for both the 1950's tax rates and growth rates.

CHART: Since 1950, Lower Top Tax Rates Have Coincided With Weaker Economic Growth | ThinkProgress.

Botnst · #36 12-09-2013, 08:45 PM

To get those conditions you'd need a world war and complete destruction of the industrial base of Europe, Russia, China, and Japan.

Go for it.

Honus · #37 12-09-2013, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

I'll put aside Center for Am Progress and threaten you with Cato Institute but not post it.

Let's say that high tax rates won't slow growth. That's good if we like the flaccid growth rate of the past year or so.

I suspect most people would like increasing the growth rate over the recent past, not continue the growth rate of an ancient mollusk.

In a consumer economy such as the USA, money that doesn't go into the hands of consumers won't fuel the economy.

All of which argues in favor of higher marginal tax rates and increased government spending in the short term.

Hatterasguy · #38 12-09-2013, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spdrun

My friend from university works with social services up in the north country -- St. Lawrence County. Poor is poor there. People living in rental houses which the landlords don't maintain, so no working stove, sometimes no heat in winter. 20-30 miles to the nearest decent grocery, with no reliable car. Electricity cut off frequently.

A lot of what you say is a myth, at least for people in certain areas. I think you're more thinking "lower middle class" than "poor."

I'm thinking about ghetto's in Bridgeport, East Hartford, Fair Haven, and DC I have been in.

Than real poverty I saw in Jamaica of people living in shacks with no running water, no shoes, no access to medical care, no jobs, etc.

Hatterasguy · #39 12-09-2013, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

To get those conditions you'd need a world war and complete destruction of the industrial base of Europe, Russia, China, and Japan.

Go for it.

Some hawks on Fox probably could be sold on that idea.

spdrun · #40 12-09-2013, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatterasguy

I'm thinking about ghetto's in Bridgeport, East Hartford, Fair Haven, and DC I have been in.

Than real poverty I saw in Jamaica of people living in shacks with no running water, no shoes, no access to medical care, no jobs, etc.

Rural poverty in the US can be pretty close to what you've described. Urban poor have the advantage of at least having services nearby.

Hatterasguy · #41 12-09-2013, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honus

Speak for yourself. I don't make that much, but I do OK. People in my bracket and the brackets above me are way under taxed.That describes some poor people, but ignores the a more serious problem with income inequality. The more serious problem, IMHO, is that we have people who work their tails off who will never get ahead.

What percentage is fair?

Hatterasguy · #42 12-09-2013, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spdrun

Rural poverty in the US can be pretty close to what you've described. Urban poor have the advantage of at least having services nearby.

I don't travel in the flyover states very often. The poor people around here are very well kept with lots of socials services and voting power to get them.

Most poor peoples rentals I have seen, like my uncles that for some reason he bought 5 years ago, have awesome TV's and usually pretty nice late model cars.

Poor people are poor for a reason, if you give them $1m they will be back at square one in five years.
A Framework for Understanding Poverty 4th Edition: Ruby K. Payne: 9781929229482: Amazon.com: Books

Ruby K. Payne explains it very well, and is also a good way to understand how lower income renters think.

jcyuhn · #43 12-09-2013, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honus

Why would I want to post that here?The tax rates from the 1990s would be a good start, though they were probably too lenient on the rich.Nosy much? I hold up my end when it comes to charity.I do, but that's beside the point. The point is that the lack of government revenue hurts our economy and our country.

Interesting choice of the word lenient. Is there a connotation in your statement that high tax rates exist to punish high incomes?

Are you aware the current top tax rates of 36% and 39% are the Clinton rates? At this point in time, going back to the 1990s entails massive tax increases on the middle and lower classes, both of whom are paying far less than at anytime in recent history.

I was rather hoping you would pull a number out of the air so that we could get a feeling for just what percentage of a mans labor, in your world view, the government is entitled to confiscate; in other words the most that you think is "fair."

Botnst · #44 12-09-2013, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honus

All of which argues in favor of higher marginal tax rates and increased government spending in the short term.

I am so confused!! How do taxes get money in the hands of consumers more efficiently than a private enterprise J.O.B.?

Hatterasguy · #45 12-09-2013, 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jcyuhn

Interesting choice of the word lenient. Is there a connotation in your statement that high tax rates exist to punish high incomes?

Are you aware the current top tax rates of 36% and 39% are the Clinton rates? At this point in time, going back to the 1990s entails massive tax increases on the middle and lower classes, both of whom are paying far less than at anytime in recent history.

I was rather hoping you would pull a number out of the air so that we could get a feeling for just what percentage of a mans labor, in your world view, the government is entitled to confiscate; in other words the most that you think is "fair."

10% is IMHO fair. Enough to pay for basic government functions. IE some military, treaty negotiation, and law enforcement.