The Terrible Truth About Income Equality

azmastablasta

New member
The terrible truth about income inequality
By Peter Morici Published May 12, 2014

Economic inequality has emerged as the central political challenge of the 21st Century. Left wing academics and politicians are quick with quack remedies -- higher taxes on the wealthy that will only send more investment abroad and smother growth.

For most Americans, good-paying jobs are scarce, and many feel powerless to improve their lot. Yet, for those at the very top of business and in a few charmed professions things have never been better.

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders (I) recently asked Federal Reserve Chairwoman Janet Yellen “are we still a capitalist democracy or have we gone over into an oligarchic form of society in which incredible economic and political power now rests with the billionaire class?”

Yellen deflected, saying she preferred not to assign labels, but Sanders struck a nerve.

Russia’s oligarchy has two salient characteristics. The government uses its power to regulate markets to concentrate wealth in the hands of an influential few, while most of its citizens stay poor by western standards.

In recent decades, the federal government has enabled monopolization in many industries—for example, in cable TV and high speed Internet, banking and health care—by failing to use its antitrust and regulatory powers to curb abusive practices.

Comcast enjoys monopoly access to most homes it services. Each year, it raises rates for cable TV bundled with high-speed Internet faster than the rate of inflation, because federal policies prohibit local governments from regulating cable prices as those do for electric and water utilities.

Its fee structure discourages subscribers from purchasing only high-speed Internet and independently obtaining entertainment content over the Net. Now Comcast proposes to acquire Cox and establish a virtual national monopoly, giving it huge bargaining leverage with content providers, such as ESPN, Turner and Fox , even though it already owns NBC.

Comcast is transforming a public utility into an international media giant on the backs of overtaxed subscribers. Yet federal regulators will likely approve its acquisition of Cox, because it has “close ties” with the Obama White House.

Similarly, Dodd-Frank financial reforms impose regulatory costs so onerous that small banks are selling out to bigger ones. In the bargain, small business loans and mortgages are tougher to obtain, and grandma can’t get a decent rate on CDs. Bank executives pull down huge bonuses but also make generous contributions to political candidates.

ObamaCare has effectively monopolized many local markets for health insurance and hospital care, and reinforces pharmaceutical companies’ ability to charge higher drug prices than prevail in other wealthy countries like Germany and Holland.

To salve the masses, Washington politicians exempt nearly 50 percent of voters from income taxes, and offer subsidized health care, food stamps and the earned income tax credit for lower income Americans.

All are great vote buying schemes financed by heavy taxes on most upper income Americans.

But those politicians skillfully exclude from those high taxes the very top of the one percent—the oligarchs in communications, finance and other industries are often paid in stock options, which are subject to much lower capital-gains tax rates.

A recent Wall Street Journal poll found the majority of Americans view the economic and political system stacked against them and dissatisfied with Obama’s handling of the economy.

Meanwhile, the economics profession—composed mostly of left leaning academics—is enamored with French economist and author Thomas Piketty’s thesis, in the new bestseller, "Capital in the Twenty-First Century," that growing inequality is the natural outcome of capitalism and confiscatory taxes are the answer.

Both notions are wrong.

Washington corruption -- in the pattern of Vladimir Putin -- is driving inequality and sinking family incomes. Higher taxes may catch your family doctor in the near future but politicians will still find a way to exempt their supporters among the very wealthy.

Politicians offering ordinary voters a free ride on taxes, subsidized health care and other enticements are really picking their pockets by giving the country away to the oligarchs.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/05/12/terrible-truth-about-income-inequality/?intcmp=latestnews
 
When 10% of the people pay 90% of the bill and there are still poor people then i don't know what they are going to do to make it "fair."

For the life of me, i can't think of one society that is "Equal"

Even an African tribe in Kenya isn't all equal, the tribal Elder doesn't live the same or have the same as the others. The same could be said in the Native American tribes.

My best comment to ask people that support this non-sense, is do you think your Doctor should make the same ammount each month as the kids working at the McDonalds?
That thought is just abusrd.
I then tell them that those in power that are pushing this non-sense are not going to make sure that everyone has the same power as they do, and should only make the same as the same kid at McDonalds. Do you really think that when they impliment these new rules they will apply to them as equally as they apply them to you? DO you really think they will exempt you for supporting them?
 
So why did the author leave out the Keystone Pipeline and Obama's known meetings with Warren Buffet before his purchase of Burlington Northern???

Why did the author leave out Obama and the EPA trying to shut down coal fired power plants when Warren Buffet is now heavily invested in solar energy??? Along with Harry Reid, the Clinton's, Ted Turner, and others.
 
Originally Posted By: Tbone-AZWhen 10% of the people pay 90% of the bill and there are still poor people then i don't know what they are going to do to make it "fair."




For the life of me, i can't think of one society that is "Equal"

Just wait, it wont be long before 10% are paying for the 90%.
You are 100% right. There never has been, and will never be. That's one of the biggest fallacies ever fabricated by the socialists.

 
Last edited:
Saw that there was another vote on energy yesterday and the Senate wasn't able to get enough votes to push through the Energy bill with the Keystone pipeline.

As far as I am concerned, the Republicans should run adds that say the Dems want your higher Gas prices. The Dems can't say they want to lower gas prices and make us Energy independent from the middle east, if they won't even sign a bill to allow for the building of the pipeline.

I think based on the EPAs repeated study that says there is going to be no impact, If i was a Gov. in one of the states this thing is supposed to go through, I would vote on a bill to sell bonds and use the rainy day fund to build the pipeline from my state line to the other state line, and tell the Oil company that we are going to charge a toll to the oil that passes through until the bonds are paid for, then we will charge a nominal fee to maintain the pipeline, or allow the Oil Company to do so, and pay land use fee's for the land that it uses.
If a couple of them do this, that pipeline would be built fast and each state could do the same and the Feds can go pound sand.
 
Originally Posted By: Rocky1So why did the author leave out the Keystone Pipeline and Obama's known meetings with Warren Buffet before his purchase of Burlington Northern???

Why did the author leave out Obama and the EPA trying to shut down coal fired power plants when Warren Buffet is now heavily invested in solar energy??? Along with Harry Reid, the Clinton's, Ted Turner, and others.


I had an e-mail today regarding this. Apparently BNSF could lose 2 billion per year in rail fees if the pipeline is built.
 
I'm in favor of "income equality"!!
thumbup1.gif


We'll take the income of these idiots who support this idea, include my income, then average it out.
thumbup.gif


What do you want to bet, this is not what they have in mind?

Kind of odd, how these solutions to all the problems NEVER include the "Elite" changing the way they live!!!
mad.gif
 
So, I have to ask some opinions; would a flat tax be better?
If everyone paid 10% in taxes( on income) would the amount of revenue generated be the same?

I have seen where IMO, stock options were a bad deal for many workers, while any position of Chief Executive made out like bandits..literally. Many, many workers who spent all their working lives for a
telecommunications company, slowing gaining in their 401k and retirement plans over the course of thirty years, some with well over a million dollars, and wind up at retirement with 100k or less.

When I look at my pay stub and see a third of it taken out each payday, I consider how would I feel if the Government showed up once a week to claim a third of my garden veggies.The next revolution might very well start in my back yard. lol
 
I read some time ago that Buffet was buying a lot of RxR. They got cheap when the coal dried up,then we started producing shale crude. Funny how things work out sometimes.
 
Originally Posted By: HookedSo, I have to ask some opinions; would a flat tax be better?....

No, get rid of the income tax and property tax all together, go to a national sales tax and then EVERYONE pays tax. Why should only those who worked hard to buy a home or have a job period be the only ones who are taxed?
Lets tax the drug dealers every time they shop.
Lets tax the whores every time they shop.
Lets tax the illegals every time they shop.
Lets tax the liberals every time they shop.
 
I agree C.Jay. The revenue missed just on those you mentioned alone would likely increase .gov coffers, not to mention money saved by removing the IRS. Here's an explanation.

2/11/2013 @ 8:00AM 12,612 views
Is a National Sales Tax Really Fair?

A progressive income tax threatens our liberty and prosperity. It punishes the productive by taxing them the highest amounts, reduces employment by increasing the cost of employees and reveals our personal finances and thus invades our privacy.

A popular suggestion is to eliminate the income tax and replace it with a national sales tax, called the fair tax. The idea is that everyone pays their fair share based on what they spend rather than what they earn. Taxing consumption rather than productivity would encourage saving and investment, in turn stimulating production and economic growth.

The national sales tax would fall between 23% and 30%. It could replace the income tax and the 6.2% employee portion of the Social Security tax.

If the income tax was eliminated, the Internal Revenue Service, as well as thousands of pages of the tax code, would be obsolete. You would not be required to report your personal financial information to the government, which would both protect your privacy and reduce falsification on tax returns.

Critics suggest that a national sales tax is regressive, favoring the rich. This criticism depends on how you measure rich, that is, what you use as a denominator. If you measure dollars spent per dollars of income, the tax is regressive. The poor spend a greater percentage of their income. Advocates try to address this issue by providing a prebate of taxes up to the poverty level.

But income is only one measure of rich. It measures your productivity and the value of your yearly labor. Advocates of the fair tax suggest this should not be the deciding factor of how you ought to be taxed.

Another measure of rich would be those who have a higher standard of living. Those who live rich would have to pay tax on whatever portion of their assets they choose to spend. For wealthy individuals who are spending amassed fortunes, the change would be much more progressive. Wealthy individuals may have little income and yet have a very high standard of living.

These are three very different measures of rich: accumulated wealth, annual production and consumer lifestyle. A flat sales tax is exactly in proportion to this third factor, a lavish consumer lifestyle. If you use dollars spent as your measure of rich, the tax is fair and exactly proportional so those who spend more pay more.

Claims of “fair” or even “regressive” or “progressive” depend very much on what is used as the denominator. You can argue that your lifestyle spending–lavish or frugal–is at least a measure of how rich you live. And it is easy to make the case that how rich you live should determine how much you should be taxed.

Taxing income decreases productivity. Taxing consumption will similarly decrease spending. Less demand for consumer goods will reduce prices and also consumer debt. Families will be encouraged to have capital to save and invest as the tax burdens are removed on investments.

Deferred consumption, money not spent, is the textbook definition of capital. And because a sales tax is a consumption tax, more people will defer consumption and have capital to invest instead. Money invested earns more money. Increased savings and investing help create a healthy country with better economic growth.

One benefit of eliminating a progressive income tax is that it can accidentally tax people it doesn’t intend to burden. Many economic incidents can artificially inflate your income for a single year, pushing you into the highest tax bracket. For example, selling a house in California is the easiest way to be part of the top 1% and get hit with tremendous taxes. With a sales tax, one year of extraordinary spending would at least be taxed at a flat rather than a progressive rate. Every dollar spent would be treated the same for tax purposes.

Tax evasion would still be a problem. Currently unreported income in the United States is estimated to be about $2 trillion. This is distinct from illegal economic activity. Moving the tax from an income tax to a sales tax may or may not change this dynamic. Contractors may be just as tempted to offer discounts if you pay in cash and promise to keep quiet about it.

Similarly, Internet sales and goods from overseas would need to have a sales tax applied. Otherwise online orders from foreign countries could be another method of dodging the tax. A foreign sales tax acts the same as an import tariff.

Tariffs were the main source of federal revenue from the founding of the United States until the passage of the Sixteenth Amendment providing for an income tax in 1913. The Constitution gave Congress the power to collect duties, imposts and excise taxes but prohibits taxes between the states. Proponents of the fair tax suggest repealing the Sixteenth Amendment and replacing it with a sales tax provision.

Although a sales tax would be better than an income tax, we might easily make do with just the constitutional provision for import tariffs if the government functioned with a smaller budget.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidmarotta/2013/02/11/is-a-national-sales-tax-really-fair/
 
Thanks for that read AZ. It makes sense to me.
While 23-30% sounds like a high number, I think I`d be better off, and like mentioned would indeed encourage more saving.
 
Saving first before spending will be the most effective way on increasing your savings account. Having an investment too will be you asset to be financially secure in the future. However, for the past couple of years, there has been a lot of discussion about how Americans aren't saving much money or at least not putting it aside. Even if people were to up the rate of savings, inflation rates have practically made it an unnecessary exercise.
 
Originally Posted By: HookedSo, I have to ask some opinions; would a flat tax be better?
If everyone paid 10% in taxes( on income) would the amount of revenue generated be the same?



Yes, a flat tax would be better for people. If it applied to corporations as well, they would fight it tooth and nail, however, because currently most of them pay no tax.

But a consumption tax (VAT or national sales tax, whatever you want to call it) is MORE fair IMO. That way everyone is on equal footing. Also, I like the idea of rewarding INCOME.

Either of these two options would give tremendous satisfaction in terms of being able to fire thousands of IRS lawyers and bureaucrats and rid Americans of IRS tyranny. The IRS would be reduced to a clerical function and eventually could be totally terminated or folded into another agency.

Grouse
 
Originally Posted By: The Famous GrouseOriginally Posted By: HookedSo, I have to ask some opinions; would a flat tax be better?
If everyone paid 10% in taxes( on income) would the amount of revenue generated be the same?



Yes, a flat tax would be better for people. If it applied to corporations as well, they would fight it tooth and nail, however, because currently most of them pay no tax.

But a consumption tax (VAT or national sales tax, whatever you want to call it) is MORE fair IMO. That way everyone is on equal footing. Also, I like the idea of rewarding INCOME.

Either of these two options would give tremendous satisfaction in terms of being able to fire thousands of IRS lawyers and bureaucrats and rid Americans of IRS tyranny. The IRS would be reduced to a clerical function and eventually could be totally terminated or folded into another agency.
Grouse



Abolishing the IRS will never happen, the states that have sales taxes have their own bureaucracies to collect the sales taxes. The businesses that would be required to collect the taxes will have a few that would fail to pay the amounts and also cheat on the amounts that should be paid. Just like income tax, most people will pay the tax bill and be pretty accurate at paying close to the amount, but there are the few that feel they are exempt and cheat on their taxes, those are the ones that keeps the IRS fully staffed.
 
I prefer the fair tax:

www.fairtax.org

A flat tax would be better by far than what we have not. a VAT tax scares me as I see us ending up with both that & the current income tax system.
 
The tax that is killing this country is the Corporate tax which currently is 39.1%, the highest in the world. Any CEO would be a fool to start a business in this country when he can go to any other country and pay 2/3rds or less taxes. Until we get competitive on our corporate tax rate we are toast.
 
We should keep the import tax, drop the corporate tax, dump the investment taxes, and go to a fair 10% tax on final product sales.

The Government will just have to adjust and live within it's means and deal with it. We would need a lot less IRS agents. They should also ban barrowing money unless it's for a war, and then only for a War. Ban foreign aid, and time limit social programs.

If 10% is good enough for god, the Government will have to make due.
 
There has always been income inequality, and always will be. Since the beginning of time, there have always been those people who are willing to work harder than others, and therefore make more money. I have never believed in punishing a person for their hard work, and actually I think they should be rewarded, and not penalized by over taxing them.
 
Back
Top