Income distribution illustrated

[ryjamsan]

There is a reason the rich are rich and get richer. Its got nothing to do with income inequality
People who have money are usually smarter and know how to invest. They also invest etc etc. I've never been employed by a poor person

With that said how would you like income to be made equal? Set caps on income? Tax the rich at 100% on income over say $1 million? Restricted atheltes income? Actors? Ect ect? Set a $20 per hour minimum wage?

Please Adept how does a socialist like you want to distrubute the income of the US? Of Finland? Of the world?

Really I want to hear what is fair in your mind

What isn't talked about is that the top 1% also pays iirc 40% of all income taxes in the us. The top 5% pays iirc 60% and the top 10% pays 80%. The bottom 50%......yes the bottom 50% pays NO Income tax. In fact they get money back each year that they never earned

[Viscur]

QUOTE (ryjamsan @ Oct 9 2013, 11:06 PM) What isn't talked about is that the top 1% also pays iirc 40% of all income taxes in the us. The top 5% pays iirc 60% and the top 10% pays 80%. The bottom 50%......yes the bottom 50% pays NO Income tax. In fact they get money back each year that they never earned

You are right, that is a problem. The entire populous should be in a position where they can contribute so that the safety nets created are catching only a small fraction of the people instead of the significantly larger number you seem to be not willing to admit exist.

Honestly, I would be a pretty big fan of income caps that can be reasonably scaled with various market factors, what logic is there to making 20 mil+ a year anyway?

[ryjamsan]

QUOTE (Viscur @ Oct 9 2013, 11:25 PM) Honestly, I would be a pretty big fan of income caps that can be reasonably scaled with various market factors, what logic is there to making 20 mil+ a year anyway?

I giess the fact that they "earned it" by working or investing or by lwning a buisness which provides products or services to people and by which employs people. Why should we let them keep it. Give it to the welfare mom with 15. Kids by 15 baby daddy is a far better use for that money than to let the earner keep it and reinvest it into his buiesness so he can hire morker workers and grow his buiesness. Or even if he uses it to buy that G5 or fancey yacht which was built by some other rich guys workers etc etc. How dare he earn tom
uch money

[Raveen]

Has every employer of yours been cleverer than you? Well, in this case that's maybe not a valid question but I'm sure it makes the point.

Obviously having a system where 50% of the population don't pay income tax is stupid, but on the other hand nobody has ever suggested that the USA Tax system isn't stupid so I think we can all agree there.

The way I would redistribute wealth is by progressive taxation. You pay low tax on your first £10k, medium tax on the next £15k and so on. At no point is anyone "punished" for earning too much, and everyone contributes. You can combine this with a sales tax if you like, but I think I'd actually rather keep it simplistic and simply tax income. You'd also want to tax corporations, obviously (because they aren't people, only a retard would think that they are) and I would do that in much the same way. If you want to use taxes to modify behaviour (like making tobacco, alcohol of petrol expensive) then tax it in the corporation taxes, or by extraordinary sales taxes. Finally inheritance taxes, I know they are a pain but the thing that Ryj has completely missed is that you don't need to be successful to be rich if you had rich parents. So I'd, in an ideal world, set a relatively low inheritance cap. Let people inherit enough money to do something, not so much that they can do nothing (to paraphrase Warren Buffet). It might make it more palatable to ensure that the excess inheritance is given to charity rather than taken by government and you choose the charity when you set up your will.

So how would this be spent? What i would be striving for is equality of opportunity.

At the moment in the UK, if you are born in to the upper classes there is a very good chance that you'll stay there. Look at how many of this county's leaders went to public school (public schools are the top tier of private education in the UK). The middle classes too are very good at keeping themselves middle class, they have the ability to move to where the best schools are and pay for their kids to have extra opportunities. The lower classes tend to get stuck. If you live in a @#(!ty area, good luck selling your house, good luck getting decent qualifications at Arse Kickers Lane Secondary Modern, good luck scraping together enough cash to drag yourselves up.

Those aren't absolutes obviously, but if you want to be rich then you stand far and away the best chance if you start off rich or at least upper middle class. So spend the money on education, pay teachers better, they should be among the best paid and most respected individuals. Schooling will be free all the way up to degree level and beyond ideally, the better funded our universities are, the better the country can innovate and generate wealth in future. Health care, again, equality of opportunity. If you're poor you shouldn't be prevented from working because you can't afford healthcare. If you're wealthy you should be entitled to the very best of care, but so should everyone else.

That's a very brief manifesto, and I'm sure that it could be picked apart by anyone who wanted to, but the aim is to ensure that the same amount of work, vision and dedication, bring the same rewards, no matter your starting point.

[Vortrog]

QUOTE (ryjamsan @ Oct 10 2013, 04:04 PM) I giess the fact that they "earned it" by working or investing or by lwning a buisness which provides products or services to people and by which employs people. Why should we let them keep it. Give it to the welfare mom with 15. Kids by 15 baby daddy is a far better use for that money than to let the earner keep it and reinvest it into his buiesness so he can hire morker workers and grow his buiesness. Or even if he uses it to buy that G5 or fancey yacht which was built by some other rich guys workers etc etc. How dare he earn tom
uch money

I think the issue is the median or middle class here Ryjam. I don't think Adept was suggesting stealing.

Taking from the rich and giving to the poor isn't the solution.

Allowing more flexibility to innovate from any class is a serious problem. Its called regulations and law and its become a barrier to a lot of entrepreneurs kicking sandbagging entrepreneurs from the past out of their cumfy chairs and allowing new kids on the block.

[Adept]

A system of rules that results in massive wealth piling on a tiny minority, and a lot of underprivileged people is very inefficient. It means a _lot_ of people never have a chance to find theor potential. A lot of bright young things don't have access to decent schools, and definitely can't get to higher education, which dumber but richer ppl have access to. The result is a lot of missed innovation and development, not to mention a lot of frustrated people stuck in poverty.

Amusing how any talk on this subject is "socialism" to some. Apparently in Ryjamsan's world there is no level of inequality that could be a bad thing.

If nothing else I found this guy to be excellent at explaining the statistics nvolved.

[notjarvis]

QUOTE (ryjamsan @ Oct 10 2013, 07:04 AM) I giess the fact that they "earned it" by working or investing or by lwning a buisness which provides products or services to people and by which employs people. Why should we let them keep it. Give it to the welfare mom with 15. Kids by 15 baby daddy is a far better use for that money than to let the earner keep it and reinvest it into his buiesness so he can hire morker workers and grow his buiesness. Or even if he uses it to buy that G5 or fancey yacht which was built by some other rich guys workers etc etc. How dare he earn tom
uch money

Which would be a fine argument if everyone started from exactly the same start point, or had the same opportunities.

Unfortunately the facts say that if you are born in a wealthy/middle class household you are far far more likely to end up in a wealthy/middle class background. In fact, your parent's situation has a great impact on your educational attainment


If you factor in 50% of jobs are estimated as being dependent on family, friends or other acquaintances, you can surely understand why people don't believe that all of the richest truly "earned it".

The other "minor" point is that rich people don't "create jobs/employment" demand for services does. Demand only grows when people are earning enough to buy goods and services.

Business owners do not magically create jobs out of thin air with no demand.
Frankly sensible people should support a larger middle -> lower-middle class as it creates a ton more demand and will help businesses grow across the country.

[takingarms1]

QUOTE (Raveen @ Oct 10 2013, 03:06 AM) The way I would redistribute wealth is by progressive taxation. You pay low tax on your first £10k, medium tax on the next £15k and so on.

I'm confused as to how this is different than what is in place in the USA now.

QUOTE (Raveen @ Oct 10 2013, 03:06 AM) At no point is anyone "punished" for earning too much, and everyone contributes.

Under your proposal the more you make, the higher your effective tax rate. That is generally what people are referring to when they say you get "punished" for earning too much.

QUOTE (Raveen @ Oct 10 2013, 03:06 AM) You'd also want to tax corporations, obviously (because they aren't people, only a retard would think that they are) and I would do that in much the same way.

Again, that's what we do here exactly. We also have inheritance taxes, although clever lawyers have been finding ways around that for literally hundreds of years.

I actually think we have a pretty good progressive income tax system in place in the USA right now, and I generally agree with a progressive income tax system. The poor pay very little, and the rich pay most of the taxes. The stupid part of the system is all the deductions and the social policy as tax legislation. However, I don't think that's going anywhere anytime soon.

[Raveen]

If you have a situation where 50% of people aren't paying income tax, then you don't have a progressive tax system, you have a farce. Admittedly that's based on another post here rather than independent research. You also have sales taxes, a ridiculous system of deductions and a load of accumulated fiddles that seemed like a good idea at the time. Time to wipe the slate clean?

What a lot of people seem to interpret by progressive tax is that you can earn more and have a lower income due to paying more tax. I know that's not your current system but there are those who will insist that this is the case when it isn't.

I think it's important that every contributes and is invested in society. It may not be much but it's something.

[takingarms1]

Yeah the 50% figure is probably fudged. There are a high number of people who end up paying little to no taxes after you factor in deductions, but those people typically still pay into medicare and social security from what I understand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States

We do not actually have a federal sales tax. Some states impose sales taxes, but some don't. Most towns have property taxes. We have this weird federalist system with 3 levels that each impose their own set of taxes, but typically state and local taxes are smaller. So for instance in MA the sales tax is only about 6%, although we also have an additional 5% income tax. I pay property taxes on my home also which amounts to about 3-4% of my income. My federal effective tax rate after deductions and such and figuring in the various graduations usually ends up being 15-20% of my income. Like most middle class people though, I get huge deductions for my 401k/retirement contributions and for interest that I pay on my mortgage.

The system of deductions has gotten out of hand because after 50 years, congress has continued to add @#(! that they think is a good idea. I can't speak to what stupid people think progressive tax means. I don't speak their language, I'm afraid.

QUOTE (Adept @ Oct 10 2013, 04:17 AM) A system of rules that results in massive wealth piling on a tiny minority, and a lot of underprivileged people is very inefficient. It means a _lot_ of people never have a chance to find theor potential. A lot of bright young things don't have access to decent schools, and definitely can't get to higher education, which dumber but richer ppl have access to. The result is a lot of missed innovation and development, not to mention a lot of frustrated people stuck in poverty.

I guess I agree with your premise but I don't think that's what we have in the USA right now. Almost anyone here can go to college if they really want to. You might have to take loans, but there are tons of federal and state programs to help people with both grants and loans particularly for underprivileged and/or poor people. The people that tend to get really screwed are the unintelligent poor, or those who just don't have the wherewithal to figure out the system enough to make it work for them.

I'm all for equal distribution of the riches, especially if I get some, but it needs to happen in a way that doesn't destroy the basic motivation to work hard and try to get ahead in the first place.