patrick.net

mell says

The government not only turned a blind eye but teamed up with the Fed and handed them freshly minted fiat as a rewards for fraud and failure. No wonder people refuse to pay more taxes.

Turned a blind eye? They tried to stop the bonus payments, and have been investigating Wall St. since 2008 to try to find a way to prosecute. Did you see the JP Morgan proposed settlement? I wouldn't call that doing nothing.

Because in the 1960's, the cost of living was derived from peoples wages. You didn't need a 30yr mortgage to overpay for your shelter. Necessities weren't commoditized in the way that they are today. Oil was 8$ per barrel.

The problem today isn't that people don't make enough in wages. For chrissakes, me and my young 30 something buddies make 50k a friggin year. If housing costs were what they were in the 60's, we'd all be near retirement. Instead, I still owe the bank another 345 months of rent payments,,,,for my house that was built back in 1961. And paid for. Yet now, the bank holds the lein and I owe them a lifetime of labor

Another example of government inefficiency.
Let's hope it does not take 5 years to weave a website capable of taking ACA applications....

tatupu70 says

mell says

The government not only turned a blind eye but teamed up with the Fed and handed them freshly minted fiat as a rewards for fraud and failure. No wonder people refuse to pay more taxes.

Turned a blind eye? They tried to stop the bonus payments, and have been investigating Wall St. since 2008 to try to find a way to prosecute.

SoftShell says

Quite simply, robots are now consuming the larger share of the labor budget.

Automation has taken the biggest bite out of the middle class wage pool.

How to rectify this without sacrificing efficiency is the mystery question.

It's not difficult at all. There is more than enough wealth to go around.

Please forgive me the stories of how people will flee when they only get to make 60% on their investment rather than 80%.

I forgot to add the asian labor pool. Between that and automation, the american lower to middle class doesn't stand a chance...

tatupu70 says

SoftShell says

Quite simply, robots are now consuming the larger share of the labor budget.

Automation has taken the biggest bite out of the middle class wage pool.

How to rectify this without sacrificing efficiency is the mystery question.

It's not difficult at all. There is more than enough wealth to go around.

Please forgive me the stories of how people will flee when they only get to make 60% on their investment rather than 80%.

thunderlips11 says

debyne says

@thunderlips

Wow...and that's a bad thing? You want to take that away from someone who achieves that through hard work, discipline and being smart? Our country is screwed.

Nice move. First we spoke about how almost all of the 10 richest people in the US inherited their wealth, being born in the top 1%. Then you asked me for a defintiion of wealthy.

Now you're asserting, without proof, the hard work/discipline/smart BS a second time.

I can't have an honest debate with someone who just inherently believes that someone with any sort of wealth didn't earn it or that it doesn't belong to them.

SoftShell says

I forgot to add the asian labor pool. Between that and automation, the american lower to middle class doesn't stand a chance...

Not with continued Republican policies, I agree.

debyne says

I can't have an honest debate with someone who just inherently believes that someone with any sort of wealth didn't earn it.

That's good. Because nobody here believes that.

Try again and actually use logic this time.

Reality says

There is no such thing as "the current US implementation of capitalism." The government can only implement government control, whatever the name such control is.

U.S. does not equal "U.S. government". There most certainly is such a thing as the current U.S. implementation of capitalism. And that implementation has severe constraints that is hindering progress and real wealth creation.

Reality says

Monopoly and Oligopoly are usually the result of government intervention in the market place.

Incorrect. Corporations will inevitably create monopolies and oligopolies through mergers unless prevented by government. Game Theory predicts this and history confirms this fact.

Corporations don't like competition because competition lowers profits. Any system that maximizes profits, by definition, minimizes the efficiency of markets. There are conflicting goals in economics, therefore, no economic philosophy is ideal.

Reality says

Crony Capitalism, aka Corporate Welfare

I would say that cronyism and corporate welfare, although they may overlap, are distinct ideas.

tatupu70 says

debyne says

I can't have an honest debate with someone who just inherently believes that someone with any sort of wealth didn't earn it.

That's good. Because nobody here believes that.

Try again and actually use logic this time.

Wait, so you believe they earned it and it belongs to them, or you don't believe that?

debyne says

Wait, so you believe they earned it and it belongs to them, or you don't believe that?

I take that back. I may have misunderstood you. Yes, I think there are people that have wealth that didn't earn it. Not all people with wealth, but there are certainly folks that didn't earn their fortunes.

debyne says

For purposes of how taxes, laws and rights apply to them, is there any other
way to think about it? Oh wait, let's form a government committee to assess who
really earned their wealth and who didn't, and then we can apply different
rights and taxes accordingly.

Why don't we start with defining what wealthy is? I don't know a single wealthy person personally, but my definition of wealthy is $50 million.

A $50 million, even at todays low interest rates, a guy can make $100k per month after taxes investing in risk free treasury bonds. Thats wealthy. You'd have to really try to spend that much.

When someone has so much wealth that it takes effort to not compound even after a high level of consumption to support himself and his family, thats wealth.

$1 million is not wealthy. A bum on the street who panhandled $101 is closer in net worth to a millionaire than that millionaire is to a billionaire.

The title of the thread is "Income inequality questions"

And here we are confusing/conflating wealth inequality with income inequality. The two are almost completely unrelated.

People that have to work for their incomes, are not wealthy

I'm not even certain that income inequality is a "bad" thing. Different peoples laborings, have different worth's.

I'm not certain that wealth inequality is a "bad" thing either. Depending on how it comes to pass

control point says

$1 million is not wealthy

$1 mil can generate $50,000 in passive income at 5% dividend yield. That will put a family in the ballpark of median american household income. While it may not result in a life of luxury depending on location and if kids are in the household a retirement may be in the works. If I could generate $50,000 passively, I would seriously consider hanging it up and trading in my work for unlimited resource of time.

dublin hillz says

control point says

$1 million is not wealthy

$1 mil can generate $50,000 in passive income at 5% dividend yield. That will put a family in the ballpark of median american household income. While it may not result in a life of luxury depending on location and if kids are in the household a retirement may be in the works. If I could generate $50,000 passively, I would seriously consider hanging it up and trading in my work for unlimited resource of time.

Yeah - It's just that it's pretty hard to get that 5% yield these days unless you buy every fucking dip in the stock market ;) Let's stop the money printing and get reasonable interest rates going again. Also let's not forget that these passive "earners"/investors make room for others looking for a job in their previous field(s).

tatupu70 says

Who cares?? Other than being nostaglic, all that matters is real income and
productivity. Both of which have risen significantly since the 1940s. Fiat money
is a red herring that diverts people from the real issue. It's almost
meaningless in the big picture.

LOL, now you want to pretend distribution is not a problem so long as the whole pie is growing . . . aren't you sounding like what you accuse the trickle-down guys of? Fiat Money is the worst trickle-down scheme: give gobs of money to the banksters on Wall Street, and somehow some of the money would trickle down to the little guys on Main Street. In reality, that doesn't happen in terms of purchasing power. Unlike low taxes that promote higher productivity that grows the pie, whereas given a existing level of production, printing money and giving it to some cronies is a zero-sum / negative-sum game at the expense of the rest of the population.

dublin hillz says

control point says

$1 million is not wealthy

$1 mil can generate $50,000 in passive income at 5% dividend yield. That will put a family in the ballpark of median american household income. While it may not result in a life of luxury depending on location and if kids are in the household a retirement may be in the works. If I could generate $50,000 passively, I would seriously consider hanging it up and trading in my work for unlimited resource of time.

There is no safe and risk-free investment right now that can return 5%. So you'd still have to work on safe-guarding and investing that $1mil wisely. That's still work, probably more strenuous than many government jobs.

errc says

I'm not even certain that income inequality is a "bad" thing. Different
peoples laborings, have different worth's.

Exactly! If outcome is always the same, why would anyone be working at all? Sex and drugs are much more fun life style if there were no bad consequences.

I'm not certain that wealth inequality is a "bad" thing either. Depending on
how it comes to pass

Once again hitting the nail on the head! The lefties are trying to displace free market social mobility lubricated by money with heriditory previleges enforced through politics.

tatupu70 says

I take that back. I may have misunderstood you. Yes, I think there are people
that have wealth that didn't earn it. Not all people with wealth, but there are
certainly folks that didn't earn their fortunes.

No kidding! That's why a free market is necessary for the rest of the society to have a chance to chip away at those already wealthy through market competition.

Dan8267 says

Reality says

There is no such thing as "the current US implementation of capitalism." The government can only implement government control, whatever the name such control is.

U.S. does not equal "U.S. government". There most certainly is such a thing as the current U.S. implementation of capitalism. And that implementation has severe constraints that is hindering progress and real wealth creation.

So what is the "current US implementation of capitalism" if you are not referencing current legal framework? How is it different from that of yesterday and that of tomorrow? What makes you think your vision of "progress" is not "regress" in the eyes of another? and your "real wealth" is atavistic Ludditism in the eyes of another?

Reality says

LOL, now you want to pretend distribution is not a problem so long as the whole pie is growing .

That's not at all what I'm saying. I'm saying I don't care whether inflation is 0% or 100% as long as wages grow faster.

Reality says

Unlike low taxes that promote higher productivity that grows the pie

Bullshit. How do low taxes promote higher productivity?? They discourage investment.

Reality says

printing money and giving it to some cronies is a zero-sum / negative-sum game at the expense of the rest of the population.

And that's a nice strawman--nobody is advocating giving money to cronies.

Reality says

Exactly! If outcome is always the same, why would anyone be working at all? Sex and drugs are much more fun life style if there were no bad consequences.

And surprise, surprise. Another strawman. Nobody is advocating that everyone's salary be equal.

Reality says

No kidding! That's why a free market is necessary for the rest of the society to have a chance to chip away at those already wealthy through market competition.

If I have $100 billion dollars--how is competition going to "chip" away at that? Please share how that works.

tatupu70 says

Reality says

Unlike low taxes that promote higher productivity that grows the pie

Bullshit. How do low taxes promote higher productivity?? They discourage investment.

I call reverse bullshit on this one. Easily disproven mathematically: The number of investments converge to zero if taxes converge towards 100%. Vice versa you don't have that trend. Higher taxes may discourage realizations of gains and therefore lengthen the time of investments, offset by a decline of new investments. But that has nothing to do with "encouraging" investments. The best way to keep investments going while discouraging flipping/speculation is to have a lower tax rate for long-term investments, independent of what the actual numbers for short and long-term investment taxation are.

Dan8267 says

Reality says

Monopoly and Oligopoly are usually the result of government intervention in the market place.

Incorrect. Corporations will inevitably create monopolies and oligopolies through mergers unless prevented by government. Game Theory predicts this and history confirms this fact.

The "Game Theory" that you refer to explicitly postulates repeating game involving the same set of players in a non-changing market. The theory simply wouldn't hold at all if different player keep coming and going and new technology introduces new players while making old players obsolete. The mutal trust necessary to maintain an oligopolistic trust wouldn't be there (without government enforcement through price setting and licensing requirement).

Corporations don't like competition because competition lowers profits. Any system that maximizes profits, by definition, minimizes the efficiency of markets. There are conflicting goals in economics, therefore, no economic philosophy is ideal.

It's not just corporations that want to maximize profits; individuals too! A big part of maximizing profit is reducing expenses, which means reducing someone else' profit. The two-way freedom of choice is what maximizes efficiency.

Whereas in a government controlled economy, the bureaucrats also want to maximize their own personal profits . . . while the average Joe and Jane would have no alternative bureaucrats to shop. Each Bureaucrat is by definition a geographical monopoly.

mell says

I call reverse bullshit on this one.

I called bullshit on the claim that lower taxes promote productivity, but regardless--I will agree that as taxes approach 100%, investment will decline. I, obviously wasn't extending my thought to the extreme.

mell says

Higher taxes may discourage realizations of gains and therefore lengthen the
time of investments, offset by a decline of new investments. But that has
nothing to do with "encouraging" investments

I'd argue that the same logic that causes companies to lengthen the time of investments would also cause them to make new investments.

tatupu70 says

LOL, now you want to pretend distribution is not a problem so long as the
whole pie is growing .

That's not at all what I'm saying. I'm saying I don't care whether inflation
is 0% or 100% as long as wages grow faster

Whose wage? The Wall Street wages have been growing fast in the 4 decades of pure fiat era since 1971. 99% of the rest of the society has been witnessing real wages declining (except for short trend reversals in the mid 80's and late 90's).

tatupu70 says

Bullshit. How do low taxes promote higher productivity?? They discourage
investment.

People are more willing to work when taxes are lower and they get to keep more of the fruits of their labor. . . fairly simple concept outside the socialist mind warp. Why would low taxes discourage investment? On the contrary, high taxes is what makes people stop investing altogether and going John Galt!

tatupu70 says

I'd argue that the same logic that causes companies to lengthen the time of
investments would also cause them to make new investments.

Do you not realize "lengthen the time of invest" by delaying realization of gains is merely an accounting gimick trying to legally avoid tax while tax rate is high in anticipation of lower taxes in the future? Are Keynesians really that short-sighted, that they don't see beyond their own noses? BTW, even in this short term, lower taxes to let corporations and individuals realize gains now instead of making marginal investments is a sensible cure for "overcapcity." The realized gains then would be invested by a different set of businesses with a different approach in new lines of business as result of consumers spending those gains. That's how "overcapacity" in existing industries and high unemployment can get resolved in economic adjustment.

Reality says

People are more willing to work when taxes are lower and they get to keep more
of the fruits of their labor

Nice try. Productivity is output/hours worked. Working more time doesn't increase productivity.

tatupu70 says

printing money and giving it to some cronies is a zero-sum / negative-sum
game at the expense of the rest of the population.

And that's a nice strawman--nobody is advocating giving money to cronies.

Unless you postulate that government officials are all selfless gods that have no need for food, shelter, clothing, sexual desires or families and friends to take care of . . . letting any human being deciding where to forcibly direct someone else' wealth would inevitably lead to giving money to cronies. Power corrupts.

tatupu70 says

Reality says

People are more willing to work when taxes are lower and they get to keep more
of the fruits of their labor

Nice try. Productivity is output/hours worked. Working more time doesn't increase productivity.

Nice try at switching topic. I was talking about Economic productivity and societal productivity, not hourly worker productivity. Hourly worker productivity is not a meaningful statistic by itself when a $100/hr minimum wage law would instantly raise hourly worker productivity to above $100/hr on paper by not counting all those losing jobs paying less and having to turn to drug dealing, theft and prostitution that make far less. Hourly worker productivity is not a meaningful number when a significant chunk of the working age population is unemployed or paid under the table one way or another.

Reality says

letting any human being deciding where to forcibly direct someone else' wealth
would inevitably lead to giving money to cronies. Power corrupts

Luckily that's not what anyone is advocating either. The government obtains revenue through taxation which is spent according to the budget set forth by Congress and the President. Nobody is forcibly directing anyone's wealth.

tatupu70 says

Reality says

letting any human being deciding where to forcibly direct someone else' wealth
would inevitably lead to giving money to cronies. Power corrupts

Luckily that's not what anyone is advocating either. The government obtains revenue through taxation which is spent according to the budget set forth by Congress and the President. Nobody is forcibly directing anyone's wealth.

What do you think the Congress and the president do? They forcibly direct taxpayer's wealth. Do you pay taxes because you volunteer or are you forced into paying it due to threat of violence being committed against you?

Reality says

What do you think the Congress and the president do? They forcibly direct
taxpayer's wealth. Do you pay taxes because you volunteer or are you forced into
paying it due to threat of violence being committed against you?

I pay taxes because it's the law. It's the price of living and doing business in the United States. And enjoying the benefits thereof.

Reality says

What do you think the Congress and the president do?

They do the job that they are entrusted with. US citizens elect them to decide how best to govern the country. Part of which involves taxation and part of which involves spending decisions.

Reality says

Nice try at switching topic. I was talking about Economic productivity and
societal productivity, not hourly worker productivity

Economic productivity and societal productivity are extremely vague. Is your denominator just # of workers then? I suppose you could do it that way, but it's not typical.

Here's what the BLS measures as US productivity:

"Labor productivity, or output per hour, is calculated by dividing an index
of real output by an index of hours worked of all persons, including
employees, proprietors, and unpaid family workers."

Reality says

Hourly worker productivity is not a meaningful statistic by itself when a
$100/hr minimum wage law would instantly raise hourly worker productivity to
above $100/hr on paper by not counting all those losing jobs paying less and
having to turn to drug dealing, theft and prostitution that make far less.
Hourly worker productivity is not a meaningful number when a significant chunk
of the working age population is unemployed or paid under the table one way or
another.

So, if you can create a ridiculous hypothetical then it means a very widely reported and watched measure is meaningless? OK, got it..

tatupu70 says

I pay taxes because it's the law. It's the price of living and doing business
in the United States. And enjoying the benefits thereof.

"The price of living"? Do you work for some kind of slave indoctrination corp? Where in the "Right to Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness" is a "Price of Living" written? Which feudal lord should have the right to collect it?

tatupu70 says

They do the job that they are entrusted with. US citizens elect them to
decide how best to govern the country. Part of which involves taxation and part
of which involves spending decisions.

They are distrusted by the overwhelming majority of the population in every single election! Merely half of the eligible voters vote, and few office holders get much more than half the votes. That's like, 70-80% of the population did not vote for them! every single one of them!