Inequality in American Income ... Something Wrong Here.

[ballen0351]

You not only insulted me, you insulted my intelligence and the intelligence of the other members of the forum.

My words "Big yachts" your words "crying about the big fancy boat".
My word "CEO" your words "Big bad evil CEO" and "rich CEO".
My words " ........." your words ".. demand the Govt take it away from them split it among the people". Did I really suggest that?

Sounds like someone needs thicker skin if your so "insulted" by that.

And, yes I used the CEO as an example of the excesses in the community. If you are telling me that a guy like (Sol Trujillo you can Google him) can come in on a huge package, stuff one of Australia's biggest companies and leave with a $14,000,000 golden handshake to get rid of him, is entitled to that sort of treatment, then it is no wonder this inequality is allowed to persist.

So what how does that concern you? If thats what the shareholders decided was adequate for him to leave then so be it. Unless the Govt decided to bail out the company with Tax payer dollars then thats a different story. Now truth be told hes not the first CEO to fail and get paid yet he was your example. Hmm could it be that he insulted your country and your people and thats why your upset and it has nothing to do with his bonus.

I can understand that you reckon your work is worth about 1% or less of their's but that is your call. I believe for the rest of the population it in iniquetous.

Sorry Guess Im a realist I dont believe everyone should make the same wage no matter the job. I dont believe its immoral for a CEO to make more then the cleaning lady. I dont find it crazy for a Doctor or Lawyer or CEO to make more then I do since Im only a police officer. Im happy with my life. Maybe if people stopped worrying about what everyone else has and what they dont and just be happy with life.

Sorry, where am I bitter?

I'm not bitter, I'm just putting forward an opinion on Caver's post.

Your entire post was bitter

If you believe that jealousy is the only problem with the wealth gap then that makes you part of the problem. Sorry, unless the populace can say enough is enough you will end up with a discordant society as has happened in some other parts of the world such as Egypt.

Enough is enough so whats your solution? Set wage caps on jobs? Take from the rich give to the poor? Who gets to decide who has made too much? Who too rich?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I understand your pov. And it should be true.
However, some genius coined the phrase 'too big to fail'. Large companies will be bailed out with your (and my) tax money. Which they used in part for bonus money

Yes, and as I said, that offends me and I don't have a problem with any future laws passed that would prohibit either the bailout or the excessive payouts with taxpayer money. I have no objection to that.

Otherwise, I just don't see what can be done that doesn't subvert our system.

 

[Bruno@MT]

You are correct. There is not a lot we can do about it today.
I just wanted to point out that for many people the issue is not jealousy but injustice.

 

[Steve]

They already give back more then their fair share. Top 5% of all wage earners pay over 50% of all taxes. How much more do they need to give?

The top 1% owns almost 40% of the stock, over 60% of the financial securities and over 60% of all business equity in the USA.

This same top 1% has a total of just shy of 40% of the privately held wealth in the USA.

The top 10% wealthiest individuals in the USA own almost 90% of investment assets in the USA, while the bottom 90% have over 70% of the debt.

The top 20% comprises 85% of the total net worth in the USA.

So, yeah. As a matter of fact, I'd say they could give... just a bit more.

 

[Empty Hands]

We are shocked when a CEO makes (I won't even say 'earns') 200 or 2000 times more than the average salaried worker at his company. And I agree, it is shocking. I can't imagine what the board of directors must be thinking.

There is a mutual back-scratching culture between the Boards and officers of many companies. They sit on each others' boards, and reward each other. In fact, they subvert the entire purpose of the Board as defined by law, often to the detriment of the company itself - which remember, is not privately owned for the companies we are discussing. Perhaps stringently enforcing the conflict of interest rules on Boards of Directors, with the ability to incorporate at stake for violations (all corporations must qualify in the states in which they do business) would help the problem without, again, redistributive taxation or salary caps. Indeed, it would be better for the business itself and help return the Board to what it is supposed to be.

What gets me about this discussion is that there are many potential, creative solutions that do not involve the dread "socialism", salary caps, redistribution, or anything else. People respond to incentives and pressure, and they don't have to take the form of outright control by the government.

 

[celtic_crippler]

It is HISTORICALLY INEVITABLE what happens when the gap between the "rich" and the "poor" increases to the point where the middle class is pretty much eliminated.

All throughout the threads regarding this article, everyone has voiced their opinions based on thier personal perspectives which in turn are based on such things as their upbringing, values, and/or socio-economic status. I'm not debating whether these opinions are either right or wrong; I am saying that the statistics presented are based on non-partisan, non-biased data and should be taken seriously. Why? Because if the trend continues, the results are inevitable and that means your particular situation WILL CHANGE.

If you happen to be unfamiliar with the historic trend, it ALWAYS leads to a serious collapse. Most often the changes that occur are quite violent actually. What you have NOW will not amount to a hill of beans THEN. Perhaps then, your point of view will change... but hopefully it will before hand because only through an active effort can the collapse be avoided.

Good work values and ethics are not nearly enough to deal with this issue. I think it goes much deeper than that and is much more complicated than whether an individual is willing to educate themselves or not.

I am not nearly educated or knowledgeable enough to provide a solution. Obviously, neither are our leaders or else they would not be allowing this to occur yet again. I suppose they may think that they will be dead and gone by the time our nation collapses so they don't care? Who knows... I do know what will happen if these facts are ignored, and we continue to avoid seeking active solutions because we feel we do our part and it's the "other guy" that needs to work harder. Why? Because it's historically inevitable.

Personally, I endorse an educational approach. I feel that everyone needs a skill and/or a trade. If, by a certain age, a person does not show an aptitude for higher education then they should be taught a technical skill needed in society. And, if an aptitude is shown for higher education then, as a culture, we should support that. I did research over a decade ago for a Political Science term paper and found that the number of people graduating for a secondary education has a direct impact on GDP. So, education does have an impact on the entire nation. It probably won't "fix" all our problems, but I think it would be a hell of a start and go a long way to avoiding the "inevitable".

 

[Twin Fist]

they already give between 1/3 and 1/2

do you get that?

i mean, REALLY get it

how would you feel if every time you made $5 i took $2.50 because i think i need it more than you do?

cuz that is what you are supporting

The top 1% owns almost 40% of the stock, over 60% of the financial securities and over 60% of all business equity in the USA.

This same top 1% has a total of just shy of 40% of the privately held wealth in the USA.

The top 10% wealthiest individuals in the USA own almost 90% of investment assets in the USA, while the bottom 90% have over 70% of the debt.

The top 20% comprises 85% of the total net worth in the USA.

So, yeah. As a matter of fact, I'd say they could give... just a bit more.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

It is HISTORICALLY INEVITABLE what happens when the gap between the "rich" and the "poor" increases to the point where the middle class is pretty much eliminated.

I don't think that's true. A quick search of Google Books for the 'gap between rich and poor' shows that it's a perennial complaint, and the dire predictions of imminent collapse are always made; and yet we are here and it doesn't seem to have happened. It seems to come up every couple generations; but we don't have complete destruction every couple generations. So my thought is that this is just a claim that is not backed up by facts, and the sky is not falling.

 

[ballen0351]

The top 1% owns almost 40% of the stock, over 60% of the financial securities and over 60% of all business equity in the USA.

This same top 1% has a total of just shy of 40% of the privately held wealth in the USA.

The top 10% wealthiest individuals in the USA own almost 90% of investment assets in the USA, while the bottom 90% have over 70% of the debt.

The top 20% comprises 85% of the total net worth in the USA.

So, yeah. As a matter of fact, I'd say they could give... just a bit more.

So how much more should they give? Who gets to decide how much is too much?

 

[Steve]

I'm all for fairness in taxation. They should give as much, proportionally, as everyone else. They don't. I've said many times on this board that a flat tax on ALL income is as fair as it gets. Dividends, royalties, honoraria, wages, interest, capital gains, gambling... the works.

In my opinion, that's fair.

Ballen, congress gets to decide and the President gets to sign the document.

 

[Empty Hands]

I'm all for fairness in taxation. They should give as much, proportionally, as everyone else. They don't. I've said many times on this board that a flat tax on ALL income is as fair as it gets. Dividends, royalties, honoraria, wages, interest, capital gains, gambling... the works.

That is true. As much as the top 1% provide for the total revenue, they do not provide as high a proportion as those in the middle. As Warren Buffet once famously said, he pays a lower percentage of his income in taxes than his secretary does. It's just that the amounts are so huge, that even a lesser percentage still outweighs the higher percentages of more moderate incomes. It's definitely good to be an investment banker - they managed to get their entire yearly incomes to be taxed as capital gains and dividends rather than income. Sweet deal, if you can get it.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Carol, I've had similar discussions.
Most people want a job. A j.o.b. You know, "Just over Broke" or "jackass of boss" or similar title. I want a career. That's different, though most don't understand that. But most people aren't equipped to be on their own, they need someone to tell them what to do. That was taught to them, in school. That place where you go to learn to communicate where you are punished for talking, texting, typing or passing notes. Where you can graduate yet still be unable to read, write or think. Where you aren't taught basic life skills like budgeting or how to balance a check book. Etc. We turn out ill equipped clones by the millions, who have been taught to conform, then cry we lack innovation and motivation.

Had a discussion with my nephew. He wanted money. I told him, take the lawn mower, go knock on some doors, go cut some grass and charge them $20 a lawn. He never even knocked on 1 door. When I did it, I made $100 that day. But that was more effort than he wanted to expend. Most people do as little as possible.
Minimum wage right now is $7.25/hr in NY right now. The McDonalds down the street from me is hiring at $8/hr. A Burger King by a local mall is at $8.75/hr.
My wife does hiring at a national chain...they start at about $8.50/hr, says they have trouble getting people to even turn in an application.
You know, during this huge no-jobs period, where wages are depressed.
Companies here have to pay over min wage, and even then can't even get people to turn in applications to fill positions that are immediately available.

Why's Bubba Broke again?

 

[celtic_crippler]

I don't think that's true. A quick search of Google Books for the 'gap between rich and poor' shows that it's a perennial complaint, and the dire predictions of imminent collapse are always made; and yet we are here and it doesn't seem to have happened. It seems to come up every couple generations; but we don't have complete destruction every couple generations. So my thought is that this is just a claim that is not backed up by facts, and the sky is not falling.

It's true, especially if you bother to research it past a basic google search. Though I recognize that denial is a natural coping mechanism LOL

The historic inevitability was addressed by Yale Historian Paul Kenedy in his book "The Rise and Fall of Great Powers" printed way back in 1988.

Of course, a few well known and simple examples would be France in 1789 and most recently the former Soviet Union. It doesn't matter if you think it's "true" or not... it happened and it can happen in the good ole USA as well.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I'm ok with a flat tax...as long as all exemptions are dropped and -everyone- pays.
15% across the board.
Oh wait, that means the poor people will actually pay taxes, and those evil rich will again, pay less.
You guys do realize that the only taxes about a third of the US population pays are Social Security/Medicaid/Unemployment and sales tax right? That they don't pay any income tax, and often get more back in their refunds than was even deducted?

Those are the ones who want the actual tax payers to pay even more, then argue about fairness.

 

[Twin Fist]

Qft

i'm ok with a flat tax...as long as all exemptions are dropped and -everyone- pays.
15% across the board.
Oh wait, that means the poor people will actually pay taxes, and those evil rich will again, pay less.
You guys do realize that the only taxes about a third of the us population pays are social security/medicaid/unemployment and sales tax right? That they don't pay any income tax, and often get more back in their refunds than was even deducted?

Those are the ones who want the actual tax payers to pay even more, then argue about fairness.

 

[Steve]

I'm ok with a flat tax...as long as all exemptions are dropped and -everyone- pays.
15% across the board.
Oh wait, that means the poor people will actually pay taxes, and those evil rich will again, pay less.

If everyone's paying, I doubt it would need to even be that high.

You guys do realize that the only taxes about a third of the US population pays are Social Security/Medicaid/Unemployment and sales tax right? That they don't pay any income tax, and often get more back in their refunds than was even deducted?

Just to clarify, all three of the programs you're talking about are from completely different pots of money. The only one that is directly funded by general revenue tax dollars is medicaid. Also, you're talking about the bottom of the wealth scale, but you're also on board with removing the exemptions at the top, as well. Right?

Those are the ones who want the actual tax payers to pay even more, then argue about fairness.

It's both sides, Bob. As you say that the poor should pay, so too should the rich. And they don't either. If you acknowledge this, I think we're pretty much in agreement.

Personally, I believe that one of the greatest "achievements" of the modern conservative message has been to convince bottom third percentage wage earners that the richest among us are the victims. That's an amazing feat, and for me, a head scratcher.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

After having thought about it a long time, I think I actually prefer a national sales tax instead of an income tax of any kind.

The main reason is that a tax on wages depends very much on people having jobs and earning traditional wages. That's the only way an actual flat tax can work and the only way I've heard it described. A tax on revenue is much more tricky because of all the different ways people can earn revenue besides by working. And from what I've read, most of the very rich are not wage-earners, they're owners, investors, and so on. It's hard to break out their revenue; hence the actual convoluted tax system we have today. In other words, you can't do a simple flat tax on revenue. It must by nature be complicated.

However, people spend their money on goods and services. Rich and poor, they buy things. So that seems to be a good place to capture the revenue for tax purposes in a fair manner. If one wishes to avoid a regressive tax that unfairly penalizes the poor, then have the tax lower on staple items like food and higher on luxury items like boats and houses over a certain price and so on.

This also has the advantage of capturing the revenue earned by illegal aliens when they work non-tax-collecting (under the table) jobs and drug lords and others who work off the books in a variety of fields. You'd even collect tax revenue from the mob - everybody spends money, no matter how they make it. So tax it where they spend it, you get nearly everyone.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

If everyone's paying, I doubt it would need to even be that high.Just to clarify, all three of the programs you're talking about are from completely different pots of money. The only one that is directly funded by general revenue tax dollars is medicaid. Also, you're talking about the bottom of the wealth scale, but you're also on board with removing the exemptions at the top, as well. Right? It's both sides, Bob. As you say that the poor should pay, so too should the rich. And they don't either. If you acknowledge this, I think we're pretty much in agreement.

Personally, I believe that one of the greatest "achievements" of the modern conservative message has been to convince bottom third percentage wage earners that the richest among us are the victims. That's an amazing feat, and for me, a head scratcher.

I agree with most of your points, we're mostly in agreement.


My whole thing is, I don't hate the rich, I want to be the rich.
I got everything but the money part down.

 

[Ken Morgan]

The problem with a consumption tax Bill is that it breeds barter and doing business off the grid. Where as a payroll tax takes your money, and gives it straight to the government straight away. If you’re the government which one would you want?

For the most part those who are in that top % of wage earners worked their way to those positions, therefore to me any excess taxation on these people is a tax on hard work, creativity and education. Seems a bit paradoxical that we “punish” those who have succeeded, while those who haven’t, and assuming we are all responsible for our own success or failure, we do little about.

Many of us have become snobs when it comes to jobs, myself included at times, we think of ourselves not as being above work, though those people do exist, but being above certain types of work or above a certain wage level.

Someone once said that you have to pile up the failures in order to find success. I’ve come to believe that over the past few years.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

The problem with a consumption tax Bill is that it breeds barter and doing business off the grid. Where as a payroll tax takes your money, and gives it straight to the government straight away. If you’re the government which one would you want?

Again, most of the highest income earners are not wage-earners. So no, the government is not getting their payroll taxes; they don't have any.

Consumption taxes *do* breed barter and off-grid purchasing; and that would have to be addressed. However, it's hard to buy groceries, new cars, and the day-to-day purchases we all make off the grid. It's like black-market cigarettes (escaping use taxes). They exist, and it's a problem caused by the use tax itself, but it's much smaller than the total of cigarettes sold overall.

And income-hiding is (in my non-scientific opinion) much more rampant. The various crime organizations such as drug cartels and mafia and others don't pay taxes because they hide their sources of income very well. The very wealthy might hide income overseas and so on. But everybody buys things; from food to movie tickets to television sets to cars and houses.

For the most part those who are in that top % of wage earners worked their way to those positions, therefore to me any excess taxation on these people is a tax on hard work, creativity and education. Seems a bit paradoxical that we “punish” those who have succeeded, while those who haven’t, and assuming we are all responsible for our own success or failure, we do little about.

The traditional argument against flat taxes is that they are regressive; that is, they put a higher burden on the poor than the rich even when the percentage is the same. 10% of a billionaire's money isn't much to him, but 10% can be the difference between buying food or paying rent to a poor person.

A sales tax can be regressive too, but it can be addressed (to be fair, so can a flat tax) by having a sliding tax based on the items purchased (or based on income for the flat tax). The goal is generally to have a progressive tax that does not put an undue burden on the poorest segment of society.

Many of us have become snobs when it comes to jobs, myself included at times, we think of ourselves not as being above work, though those people do exist, but being above certain types of work or above a certain wage level.

Someone once said that you have to pile up the failures in order to find success. I’ve come to believe that over the past few years.

I think luck plays as big a part as nearly anything else, and I think there are lots of variables that are out of the average person's personal control. But yes, I feel that there are a lot of variables that are under the person's control, and they should strive to get control of their own success to the extent that they can.

But I'm not a rah-rah, anybody can get rich, kinda guy. There are winners and losers and sometimes it's nobody's fault that a given person loses. However, I'm also not a believer in conspiracies. I don't think the world is out to get me (or anyone), nor do I believe I'm being 'kept down' by anyone or anything. That kind of talk is the kind losers make when they don't want to accept that they lost due to just plain bad luck, or maybe it was their fault.