What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Wealth inequality (1 Viewer)

To me the easiest solution would be:

Get rid of different income sources having different tax rates No more capital gains, just income. 

A continuous tax rate formula for any dollar amount, making it so every dollar is taxed slightly higher than the dollar before it. By the time someone is up to their billionth dollar it should be taxed at 99.9%. I do not remember enough about making some continuous formula to come up with one, but I envision people making around 100k or less paying less taxes, 100k-300k somewhat similar to now, maybe a millionth dollar taxed around 45-50%? Just spit balling numbers. 

 
There are some studies that indicate his wealth tax plan would impact the middle class as well. Mainly the trickle down theory. If you squeeze the pockets of the rich, they are going to offset that with worker benefits.

https://reason.com/2020/01/28/bernie-sanders-wealth-tax-would-be-bad-for-workers/
That article is just a lot of words in support of trickle down theory as you mentioned, which I guess should be expected from a libertarian mag. Using their logic we could never tax the rich, because any dollar lost from a rich person would be the worst thing in the world for the economy. Reality has shown that these people are obligatorily wrong about everything economically related. We have essentially been under trickle down theory low taxes for the rich for 40 years, but maybe this time will finally be the time when the money actually trickles down instead of getting stored in some offshore bank account. All the pearl clutching about Seattle raising minimum wage a few years back about how it would drive businesses bankrupt and then Seattle's economy outpaced the rest of Washington state (though obviously multiple factors are present for that). It is like they just ignore reality and keep proposing ideas that have already happened as the next big thing. These economic theories are more a religious belief than something supported by math or evidence. There are 0 circumstances where the proponents will change their opinion in the face of new evidence. Economy good? Lower taxes. Economy bad? Lower taxes. Wealth inequality? Lower taxes. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
To me the easiest solution would be:

Get rid of different income sources having different tax rates No more capital gains, just income. 

A continuous tax rate formula for any dollar amount, making it so every dollar is taxed slightly higher than the dollar before it. By the time someone is up to their billionth dollar it should be taxed at 99.9%. I do not remember enough about making some continuous formula to come up with one, but I envision people making around 100k or less paying less taxes, 100k-300k somewhat similar to now, maybe a millionth dollar taxed around 45-50%? Just spit balling numbers. 
okay, comrade.

That's ridiculous.  You think Democrat billionaires are going to go for this?  You're out of your mind.  The "rich guys" are always the guys making more than you.

 
okay, comrade.

That's ridiculous.  You think Democrat billionaires are going to go for this?  You're out of your mind.  The "rich guys" are always the guys making more than you.
Bernie has 3 houses but wants everyone else to pay more.   :lmao:

The Dems have had plenty of chances to fix the tax code and all the loopholes.  They seem to think they are going to control things after the upcoming elections.  I bet they don't do crap to fix the issues

 
To me the easiest solution would be:

Get rid of different income sources having different tax rates No more capital gains, just income. 

A continuous tax rate formula for any dollar amount, making it so every dollar is taxed slightly higher than the dollar before it. By the time someone is up to their billionth dollar it should be taxed at 99.9%. I do not remember enough about making some continuous formula to come up with one, but I envision people making around 100k or less paying less taxes, 100k-300k somewhat similar to now, maybe a millionth dollar taxed around 45-50%? Just spit balling numbers. 
What about proposals of a flat tax and tax purchases, not income? 

 
There are some studies that indicate his wealth tax plan would impact the middle class as well. Mainly the trickle down theory. If you squeeze the pockets of the rich, they are going to offset that with worker benefits.

https://reason.com/2020/01/28/bernie-sanders-wealth-tax-would-be-bad-for-workers/
Piss on my leg and tell me it’s rain, the trickle down theory. I’m tired of hoping wealthy people will be less greedy and “trickle down” some wealth while our schools are underfunded and our roads and bridges crumble.

 
Bernie has 3 houses but wants everyone else to pay more.   :lmao:

The Dems have had plenty of chances to fix the tax code and all the loopholes.  They seem to think they are going to control things after the upcoming elections.  I bet they don't do crap to fix the issues
No one ever noticed that Sanders used to rail on millionaires as being the problem.  When he himself became a millionaire then it was the "billionaires" that were the problem.  Bernie ain't givin' up his, but you're going to give up yours.  That's how it works in leftist policy.

Like I said, with the left, the "rich guy" is always the guy making more than you.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
To me the easiest solution would be:

Get rid of different income sources having different tax rates No more capital gains, just income. 

A continuous tax rate formula for any dollar amount, making it so every dollar is taxed slightly higher than the dollar before it. By the time someone is up to their billionth dollar it should be taxed at 99.9%. I do not remember enough about making some continuous formula to come up with one, but I envision people making around 100k or less paying less taxes, 100k-300k somewhat similar to now, maybe a millionth dollar taxed around 45-50%? Just spit balling numbers. 
We probably agree on almost nothing politically. However, except for the 99.9% part I agree with the premise above. Politicians never address the taxation system in this manner. They merely make the case for marginal rate changes which never truly impact the taxes those on the high end pay. This type taxation plan would eliminate the whole Warren Buffet paying a lower rate than his secretary scenario. I have no problem with progressive taxation on rates but do think your top rate can’t be anything that high because you do still want to incentivize success and in turn job creation. The problem such a high rate creates is who is going to put any money at risk if they are only keeping say ten cents or so on the dollar.   If there is diminished capital investment it does hurt the very workers the plan is designed to ostensibly help. 

 
Bernie has 3 houses but wants everyone else to pay more.   :lmao:

The Dems have had plenty of chances to fix the tax code and all the loopholes.  They seem to think they are going to control things after the upcoming elections.  I bet they don't do crap to fix the issues
Exactly. Our politicians have no incentive to truly fix this because they and their donors benefit the most.  The lip service to marginal rates isn’t going to make a dent in anything. 

 
To me the easiest solution would be:

Get rid of different income sources having different tax rates No more capital gains, just income. 

A continuous tax rate formula for any dollar amount, making it so every dollar is taxed slightly higher than the dollar before it. By the time someone is up to their billionth dollar it should be taxed at 99.9%. I do not remember enough about making some continuous formula to come up with one, but I envision people making around 100k or less paying less taxes, 100k-300k somewhat similar to now, maybe a millionth dollar taxed around 45-50%? Just spit balling numbers. 
Laffer has a point when you start talking about super high rates. We do need the wealthy to pay more in taxes. I agree with treating all income the same. Payroll taxes need to be modified as well. 

 
IMO inequality isn’t the problem. The problem is that people need to be able to make enough to pay for the stuff they need, and right now there’s a lot of folks who can’t. 
 

But so long as I am earning enough to feed and house my family and enjoy life, I really don’t care that somebody else is a billionaire. More power to them. 

 
What about proposals of a flat tax and tax purchases, not income? 
It would do nothing to change wealth distribution.  The 99 percent of the filthy wealthy wealth is sitting in stocks, which as long as they hold on to will not owe any flat tax or consumption tax.  Bezos owns over $100 billion in Amazon stock.  How is that taxed?  Hint, it is not nor will be until he sells.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
UBI is probably the best answer. 
I think it is. It astounds me and impresses me greatly that Milton Friedman reached this same conclusion over 50 years ago. He foresaw that eventually technology would lead us to a situation where we have more people than necessary jobs. We seem to have reached that tipping point.  

 
IMO inequality isn’t the problem. The problem is that people need to be able to make enough to pay for the stuff they need, and right now there’s a lot of folks who can’t. 
 

But so long as I am earning enough to feed and house my family and enjoy life, I really don’t care that somebody else is a billionaire. More power to them. 
The best way for billionaires to convince people not to do anything about this problem is to convince people that it isn't a problem at all.

 
It would do nothing to change wealth distribution.  The 99 percent of the filthy wealthy wealth is sitting in stocks, which as long as they hold on to will not owe any flat tax or consumption tax.  Bezos owns over $100 billion in Amazon stock.  How is that taxed?  Hint, it has not.
This is a little simplistic though. Presumably a flat tax should affect Amazon itself and not just Jeff Bezos. So Amazon would pay x percent of it’s gross earnings every year to the government, which would be a substantial amount. 
 

A consumption tax, on the other hand, would actually hurt poor people more than it would rich, I would think. 

 
The best way for billionaires to convince people not to do anything about this problem is to convince people that it isn't a problem at all.
Right. But that’s not my argument. I’m convinced we do have a problem, a big problem and we’d better work on solving it. But we don’t need to demonize the wealthy or “cut them down to size.” We simply need to make things a little more equitable. Currently taxes are too low. We were at our most prosperous as a society during the 1950s, when income tax was significantly higher. That’s not coincidental. 

 
There are some studies that indicate his wealth tax plan would impact the middle class as well. Mainly the trickle down theory. If you squeeze the pockets of the rich, they are going to offset that with worker benefits.

https://reason.com/2020/01/28/bernie-sanders-wealth-tax-would-be-bad-for-workers/
Wealth taxes also failed in Europe.

https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2019/02/26/698057356/if-a-wealth-tax-is-such-a-good-idea-why-did-europe-kill-theirs#:~:text=The experiment with the wealth,Europe had a wealth tax.

 
Bernie has 3 houses but wants everyone else to pay more.   :lmao:

The Dems have had plenty of chances to fix the tax code and all the loopholes.  They seem to think they are going to control things after the upcoming elections.  I bet they don't do crap to fix the issues
We’ll get to find out.

 
This is a little simplistic though. Presumably a flat tax should affect Amazon itself and not just Jeff Bezos. So Amazon would pay x percent of it’s gross earnings every year to the government, which would be a substantial amount. 
 

A consumption tax, on the other hand, would actually hurt poor people more than it would rich, I would think. 
Technically we currently have a flat tax on corporations of 21%.  It is not producing the results you claim.  It will all depend on how you define income, but that is different than the flat vs. progressive debate.  

 
Bernie has 3 houses but wants everyone else to pay more.   :lmao:

The Dems have had plenty of chances to fix the tax code and all the loopholes.  They seem to think they are going to control things after the upcoming elections.  I bet they don't do crap to fix the issues
Is Bernie trying to make himself exempt from paying more taxes?

 
Bernie has 3 houses but wants everyone else to pay more.   :lmao:

The Dems have had plenty of chances to fix the tax code and all the loopholes.  They seem to think they are going to control things after the upcoming elections.  I bet they don't do crap to fix the issues
I'm not sure i follow the point you're trying to make.

 
America, we have a problem

Great article. We are going to reach a tipping point soon, IMO. 

Unfortunately, it's a great description of the problem but nothing there on a solution.
First step is to stop crushing the pay scale at the lower end.  That means cutting down on immigration dramatically and changing how we import people.  This is 101 stuff, blatantly obvious.

I like Bernie Sanders' idea of an annual tax on extreme wealth.  

https://berniesanders.com/issues/tax-extreme-wealth/
Unconstitutional without apportionment.  This is a nice political taking point, but it's not happening without an amendment analogous to the 16th. 

 
The Democrats controlled the Presidency, the Senate, and the House from 2008-2010.  It wasn't that long ago and this issue isn't brand new.
I mean this issue has been going on for centuries so hard to fix in a few years. I think it's fair to say the Democrats have done more historically than Republicans.

 
I mean this issue has been going on for centuries so hard to fix in a few years. I think it's fair to say the Democrats have done more historically than Republicans.
It's more accurate to say that fairly high inequality has been the norm.  WWII and it's aftereffects changed that dynamic for a number of decades, which are now waning.

 
The Democrats controlled the Presidency, the Senate, and the House from 2008-2010.  It wasn't that long ago and this issue isn't brand new.
To be fair we were dealing with a massive recession at the time. I don't expect Trump to work on the tax problem during Covid or Bush during 9-11. I do agree in principle though. I don't really think either side is interested in changing the tax laws much and pissing off their big donors. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
They picked trying to expand the number of Americans who have healthcare. 
My personal view is hanging the country on a new entitlement was not a good thing.  But it would be intellectually dishonest to suggest that because they passed a healthcare bill they couldn't' do any kind of tax reform had they had the will to do so.  Again, they had control of both chambers and the Presidency.  It was their decision alone and they had no interest. 

Let's assume they have both chambers and the Presidency again in 2020, and it's very possible if not likely right now.  Let me know when they close some of the loopholes and special interests in our tax code and I'll happily come back and admit I'm wrong.  I suggest to you that they'll never take the stance that huthut proposed.  It's no shock that the nuance of the code benefits the very people who have the power to change it.  They have no real interest in it because it's against their personal self interest and the people who finance their campaigns will never go for it.  I'd put money on the standard playbook, "the rich aren't paying their fair share so we are going to raise the rates on these top couple of tax brackets" approach. It's great fodder politically because the vast majority of voters don't understand what income derives tax revenue and how the rates can differ.  They just want the "rich" to pay more, even though the highest income folks won't get a glove laid on them in such a scenario.

 
Glad you posted this article. Income inequality is one of the most important political issues for me and is a big reason why I don’t feel like I belong in either party. The ultra-rich are so under taxed right now while millions of Americans are barely getting by + hundreds of thousands of Americans have no home to go back to and neither party seems to want to do anything about it.

 
IMO inequality isn’t the problem. The problem is that people need to be able to make enough to pay for the stuff they need, and right now there’s a lot of folks who can’t. 
 

But so long as I am earning enough to feed and house my family and enjoy life, I really don’t care that somebody else is a billionaire. More power to them. 
I agree somewhat in that railing on the rich is not going to improve the railing person's lot in life.  some are limited by intelligence, some by opportunity, some by environment, some by laziness.  I've seen people from all of those succeed except the lazy has to rely on inheritance..

success can be much more than being the richest guy on the block.   IMHO

 
My personal view is hanging the country on a new entitlement was not a good thing.  But it would be intellectually dishonest to suggest that because they passed a healthcare bill they couldn't' do any kind of tax reform had they had the will to do so.  Again, they had control of both chambers and the Presidency.  It was their decision alone and they had no interest. 

Let's assume they have both chambers and the Presidency again in 2020, and it's very possible if not likely right now.  Let me know when they close some of the loopholes and special interests in our tax code and I'll happily come back and admit I'm wrong.  I suggest to you that they'll never take the stance that huthut proposed.  It's no shock that the nuance of the code benefits the very people who have the power to change it.  They have no real interest in it because it's against their personal self interest and the people who finance their campaigns will never go for it.  I'd put money on the standard playbook, "the rich aren't paying their fair share so we are going to raise the rates on these top couple of tax brackets" approach. It's great fodder politically because the vast majority of voters don't understand what income derives tax revenue and how the rates can differ.  They just want the "rich" to pay more, even though the highest income folks won't get a glove laid on them in such a scenario.
Well, it's great read meat for Democrats during election year anyways.  They fall for it 100% of the time, EVERY time.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
My personal view is hanging the country on a new entitlement was not a good thing.  But it would be intellectually dishonest to suggest that because they passed a healthcare bill they couldn't' do any kind of tax reform had they had the will to do so.  Again, they had control of both chambers and the Presidency.  It was their decision alone and they had no interest. 

Let's assume they have both chambers and the Presidency again in 2020, and it's very possible if not likely right now.  Let me know when they close some of the loopholes and special interests in our tax code and I'll happily come back and admit I'm wrong.  I suggest to you that they'll never take the stance that huthut proposed.  It's no shock that the nuance of the code benefits the very people who have the power to change it.  They have no real interest in it because it's against their personal self interest and the people who finance their campaigns will never go for it.  I'd put money on the standard playbook, "the rich aren't paying their fair share so we are going to raise the rates on these top couple of tax brackets" approach. It's great fodder politically because the vast majority of voters don't understand what income derives tax revenue and how the rates can differ.  They just want the "rich" to pay more, even though the highest income folks won't get a glove laid on them in such a scenario.
I disagree completely. Obama spent all his political capital to get ACA passed. It cost them the midterms. They could not have got any other large measures passed. 

I also completely disagree with your assessment of healthcare. I believe all US citizens should have a right to basic healthcare. 

 
First step is to stop crushing the pay scale at the lower end.  That means cutting down on immigration dramatically and changing how we import people.  This is 101 stuff, blatantly obvious.
It’s a lot more complicated than that. Immigrants do increase labor supply, but by spending and consuming just like the rest of us, their presence also increases demand—making the wage effect much more nebulous. According to this meta-analysis, about half of immigration/wage research papers find a small negative effect on native wages in the short run, while half find a small positive effect, averaging out to roughly zero. If we’re looking for policies to increase low wages, crushing immigration is not a slam dunk at all.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top