Wealth distribution in the US
 

This graph is telling. The rich? I think maybe they're rich enough.
http://img.slate.com/media/89/100927...althChart2.jpg

From this article.

I got a kick out of Ben Stein whining about the expiring tax cuts, on Sunday Morning. Whining about how after he pays his agent and taxes, he ends up with only 31% of his earnings.

1- the agent is a tax deduction.
2- much of the taxes he is paying, are property taxes on numerous multi-million dollar properties he owns.

No wonder he was a Nixon speech writer. :rolleyes:

Zero Liability Voters will always support income redistribution. As long as someone else is paying your way why should anyone care. The slate article only reinforces wealth envy and supports wealth redistribution.

Yeah, because it would be unfair to ask 20% of the population to pay 80% of the taxes just because they have 80% of the money. Riiiiight.

How old is that? Its comparing Bush and Kerry voters.

It doesn't matter how old, it only gets worse from there on.

Fresh Air today. Robert Reich same subject...

With so many extremists hyping myths, it becomes difficult to learn reality.

Taxes as a percentage of income increases as annual incomes increase to $250,000. Then something strange happens. As incoming increase further, the taxes drop dramatically.

Warren Buffet was quite blunt about this. He paid less taxes than his receptionist. And said so repeatedly including to Ted Koppel, live on Nightline. If you are a politician bought and paid for by certain people, then will say anything to avoid that reality.

Economies that have serious fundamental problems have most of their wealth in among the 2%. In America, such destructive wealth distribution has only existed once previously - just before the 1929 stock market crash. So much wealth among so few results in realties such as less job creation. Welcome to an economy advocated and achieved over the past decade. A problem that, ironically, America's richest people (Gates, Buffet, Turner, Soros, etc) have spoken out strongly against. Why would the richest of the rich speak about things against their own interests? Because this unequal wealth distribution is a serious part of America's problem - and is a source of massive campaign contributions to the most wacko extremists in government today.

Same people who wanted corporations to buy elections. Same people who took liberties with the Constitution to subvert American power to that advantage of the richest - at the expense of all others. Ironic. Those who complain about liberal judges are the same wacko extremist conservation who promoted liberal interpretation of the Constitution - to increase this unhealthy wealth distribution.

Also some good discussion here

Who should get the other 69% that he earned, and what did they do to earn it?

It's just a simple Pareto distribution.

Those are found all the time in nature.

They're organic.

I should, but that ain't happening.
The various government entities he pays it to should, and do, get it.
I would guess 36%(after deductions, loopholes, and all the other taxes are deducted), plus SS, to the feds
Whatever the CA income tax is to the state.
10/15/20%? to his agent, which is deductible.
The rest to the communities where his real estate holdings are, just like you and myself.

As I've said before, wealthier people pay less than their share of taxes. From class's link

I saw that too and all I could think was welcome to the country that made it possible for you to earn that much money. :rolleyes:

Yup. And wealthy fucks will always support their right to pay an insignificant drop from their ocean of wealth as taxes. As long as the rest of us are prepared to pay substantial chunks of our meagre earnings to keep the country running why would they care?

The slate article 'reinforces' wealth envy, but that envy is alreayd there to begin with, and frankly, I think that envy is justified. The obscene extremes of wealth and privelege that provoke that envy in the first place: that's unjustifiable.

I've got a pitch fork and a torch. I'm ready to rise up.

Well now I know where my pitchfork went. Mr Gothic is very angry.

I'm not wealthy by any financial measure, but those who came from modest lives and earned their own wealth are the ones with the "do it yourself" attitude. The fuckers who inherited their wealth and/or have had it all their lives and know nothing other than that insane lifestyle have no clue about how the rest of us live.

The problem is the group that makes say $250,000 to $500,000. They are not in that insanely wealthy group. I don't thing its fair to lump them in with the multi-multi millionaires and billionaires.

This is just another reason for some type of tax reform.

$250,000 to $500,000 income or gross adjusted income?

for the sake of the argument - income

Bruce, do you only keep 36% of what you earn?

I wish I could keep 36% of my income, but since I'm not rich I have to use it to survive.

If you're still feeling sorry for poor Ben, he doesn't keep 36%, he pays 36%, and that's only on adjusted gross income after he invokes all the tricks and loopholes afforded the wealthy.

Why can't you get it though your fucking head everything he pays over that is his choice? The feds don't force him to pay an agent, but if he does it's deductible business expense. The feds don't force him to buy several multi-million properties, so he has to pay property taxes on them... at the same rate as everyone else in that town. The fed doesn't force him to buy lots of expensive shit, which incurs sales tax. Choices, rich people have lots of them.

Oh, lucky Ben. He gets to pay for his business expenses and his investments. I bet he even got to pay for his college loan. Why can't you get it thru your fucking head that it's his money, not yours, Obama's or anyone else's. When the government takes money or liberty from anyone, it is taking from us all. No wonder you can't keep enough for anything but expenses.

But spud, why is your tax money not yours then? Ben pays a lower percentage of taxes than you do. The question here is not "should we take money" from the rich or anyone else, it's "why do we take proportionally MORE money" from spudcon instead of Ben Stein?

I haven't had that proven to me. The original post was that Ben was whining about only being able to keep 31% of his income. I keep a larger percentage. The question still stands, What does someone else do for that 69%? I have no problem if he pays the same percentage as a person making less than him.

Which are deductions, non taxed.
Uh, like everyone else?
Yes they are, through a graduated system most feel is the fairest way, for the last hundred years.

Now what exactly are you bitching about? What do you want to happen? Do you want Ben to pay less than 36% (on part of his income), so you can pay more? A flat rate rather than graduated system?
Or do you want to do away with taxes entirely, don't let the government collect anything. What?

As far a Ben goes, he went on the air and whined about the feds, while totally lying through his teeth with misinformation and distorted numbers, in an attempt to make people feel sorry for him (and his rich buddies), and ultimately fool people into supporting a tax break for him.
He's a lousy actor and proved it Sunday morning.

Now if your real bitch, is where and how the government spends tax revenues, that's a whole different kettle of fish, and has nothing to do with whether they raise Ben's taxes 3% or not.
If starting tomorrow, the government could only spend money on things you approve of, they should still raise Ben's taxes 3%, because they still has to pay for that trillion dollar Iraq war, and 2 or 3 hundred billion for the savings&Loan fiasco, and 9 years in Afghanistan, and bailing out Wall street, and, and, and... plus interest.

I would love to see the graduated income tax and the IRS abolished. I wouldn't mind a flat tax, or a sales tax, as long as the said taxes weren't above 18%, and no other hidden taxes added to it. I would also like to see the Feds spending money on what they have the constitutional right to spend, and leave the states and the people to do the rest. But if it's 18% for you, it is only fair that it's 18% for everyone, millionaires, union workers, drug dealers, illegal aliens.

I would have loved to pay only 18%, it would have given me a huge raise over the years, but the states would have upped their taxes so I probably would have paid more. And much of that more would have been in property taxes that Ben feels are so unjust.

So you'd do away with Social Security, medicaid, medicare, and federal contributions to welfare, education and unemployment, first off. Then the Interstate Highway Fund, all those power dams, flood control projects, river & harbor dredging, and air traffic controllers.
Oh yes, and definitely OSHA, the EPA, FDA, and all of those busy bodies.

Boy we sure could make the country a great place to live without all that federal meddling. Yup, you'll be a lot healthier, if you put on your coonskin caps, and hunt your dinner.

C'mon Spud, we both know the federal government spends a ton on stupid shit, and wastes more than we can count, but your solution is a ridiculous over reaction, borne of frustration. It's not Obama's fault, nor was it Bush's. It's the dirty motherfuckers that we allow to run the government, the congress critters and the lobbyists/corporations. But replacing them with fools like Christine O'Donnell and Rand Paul, who have both sold out to Karl Rove, is stupid beyond belief.

The Republicans have promised small government and lower taxes, forever. But when they were in power, they did exactly the opposite... they lied.
The Democrats lied too, they're all liars. They promised more federal help to the states/people, and while they did give us a federal surplus, they immediately started bickering how they were going to spend it, instead of paying down debt and saving us interest.
They both give us more government, but the Republicans take care of the wealthy, and the Democrats do better by the rest of us. Either way smaller government is a pipe dream, we're not getting rid of them, so the best we can do is hold their feet to the fire, pressure them to do more good.

There was a poster recently, only made one post. He was collecting a huge government pension, I don't remember exactly how much. Well I checked him out on the net, as I do for all the new members I can. He was in two other forums trying to find out how he could screw his credit card company out of thirty odd thousand dollars, and get away with it.
The world is fucked up I tell ya, but don't throw out the baby with the bath water.

Bruce, I agree with you about Republicans and Democrats both being irresponsible jerks, but voting the good old boys out of office has to be a good thing. I'd rather have someone in office who has at least had a real job, or owned their own business than a career politician from any party. Those career pols have no idea about the real world.

I'd rather have someone in office who knows how the process works and is knowledgeable about laws. Who has gotten the education necessary to be a leader and write/read the bills that go through congress and be able to understand them at least fundamentally. Yes, I know they have staff for that, and realistically I understand that not all congress members can be 100% proficient in interpreting the laws. The biggest problem with our political system (as it is) is that only the wealthy can usually afford to run for office. I'd like to see that changed so that there are either limits on what can be spent to campaign or money for campaigning comes from a public fund that is evenly distributed. That is the real way to take control of our government from the wealthy, lobbyists and corporations. That makes the campaigners/politicians completely responsible to only the normal taxpayers and voters - us.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

By the time a politician runs for a state-level office, he has sold his soul, and his idea about the real world is long gone.

Unfortunately, the folks who would have to pass that legislation are very happy with the way things work now.:(

When I get rich spex, I'll run for office and change all of it. I promise!
Now, who wants to contribute to my campaign fund?

I have a spare pitchfork and torch for you to auction off at a golf fund raiser - just don't tell Shawnee where I you got them. ;)

I agree.
Unfortunately.

Don't agree with me. And stop stalking me. :ghost:

:eyebrow:

:tinfoil:

This is why third parties will never be the "solution" to our two party system. It all comes down to power. There are a lot of people who have stake in what the government does and will go to great extents to make sure a third party candidate won't take actions against their interests. So if a third party candidate gets elected they will either be useless because they are not all powerful, thankfully, and have almost everyone working against them or they will have to sell out and then becomes part of the current political system.

I'm just going to sell out a little bit, just enough to get some power, then I'll do really good shit, I promise.

Rand Paul has already sold out to Karl Rove, and he hasn't even been elected yet.

I think a hell of a lot of politicians start out in their careers with good intentions. The machine of politics soon beats that out of them though :P

Quoting Nick Clegg at the Liberal Democrat conference earlier this year.

:thumb: :thumb:

All you rich people say that... except Warren Buffet. :p:

You mean most as in the majority who support it but don't pay it.

I don't think he won over any converts. He just sounded like a whiner. No one feels sorry for him, well except maybe the millionaires in Congress.

Hard to argue with that, we are in it deep. But that doesn't mean we can go on spending like whores with an openended check book and ignore those facts.

A flater tax makes everyone invested in the system. Do away with the loopholes. Hell start a VAT if that is what it takes, with some exceptions for food and income.

Warren at least had the balls to stand up and say it, I'm guessing him and Ben are no longer friends.

If everyone pays the same percent of income there is no substantial difference in the chunks of what you earned.

Oh, I see the TARP program looks like it will actually end up making a profit for the government. That's nice.

Last I heard they were going to be in the hole for 65 bil or something, the amount that was never going to be paid back.

That's not what I've been reading this week. Not all the alloted money was spent, so if you add what was left, to what's coming back, it will be at least even and more likely a profit.

So what happens to the money not spent? History tells us that Congress just sees it as another pot of money to redirect, rarely put back into paying down the deficit.

The money not spent and the money coming back, but that is beside the point.

George got lucky. . .

George will get no credit.

Of course not. Nothing is ever blamed on or credited to (or even attributed to) the president. It's all the congresswhores isn't it? Depending on which side is doing what, right? I wish there were a flowchart as to who to blame and credit. I got lost with Clinton's zero deficit, lo those many years ago. :confused:

I have stated all along that Congress is the bigger problem in this country. But of course it depends on which flow chart you want to believe. There are charts for Clinton too. :3eye:

I was pointing out a stream that runs both ways. Wade on in, the water's fine.

I think all the demoncrats that Rhammed this through should all get a bonus from whatever money is left. :haha: (I know he wasn't around then)

I don't know about that but it would not surprise me if they tried to redirect it toward pork projects.

See the :haha: smilie?

THAT WAS A JOKE!

He is still having difficulty because TARP may have made a profit. It contradicts what extremist politicians have been preaching for years. A bridge loan called TARP may have literally saved the American economy ... and earned a profit. It may have been one of the better investments that Republican made. (So why did those same extremists blame the Democrats? Or will they now take credit for creating TARP?)