Fixing Inequality through Taxes

It depends upon the type of tax. Excise, value added, and sales taxes can add to the cost of an item but income taxes do not.

Income axes are taken from profits and the profits are the excess above the costs of a product or service. If an enterprise adds the cost of the taxes to the sales price of the item they're really adding "more profit" to the cost of the item because the actual cost of producing the item or providing the service remains unchanged.

 

Since when does all the income earned in our country belong to "the nation"?

Well if they missed the boat and did not invest to build income producing wealth................

 

Total personal income in the nation equals the nation's income.

90% of Americans did just all of a sudden start "missing the boat" in 1981 which caused inequality to skyrocket.

Something else happened that year.

 

You're partially correct but it wasn;t really the trade policies and regulation that were to blame. It was the tax codes that provided favoritism to the corportation over the small sole-proprietorships that I refer to when I state that our tax codes create crony capitalism.

I can exemplify this because I ran the numbers a few years ago and while my memory is a little fuzzy, and my numbers may be off by a thousand dollars one way or the other the problem is still evident.

As sole proprietor with a net income of $100,000 pays somewhere $37,000 to $38,000 in combined federal income taxes.
A corporation with the identical net income of $100,000 pays somewhere between about $21,000 and $22,000 in combined federal income taxes.

That difference of about $15,000 between the federal taxes imposed on the sole proprietor and the corporation is a huge difference.

We can go one step further. The owner of a sole proprietorship is subject to a maximum tax rate of up to 39.6% while the owners of a corporation (i.e. the stockholders) are only subject to a maximum tax rate (based upon long term capital gains) of up to 20%.

The difference in the tax rates of 19.6% where the sole proprietor pays virtually double the tax rate of the stockholder is also huge.

It has been this huge disparity in treating the corporate entity and it's owners differently than the small sole proprietorship and it's owner in our tax codes that has been the primary reason small enterprises are at an econimic disadvantage and not the regulations and trade policies that effect both equally in most cases. .

 

A fine point must be established. When you refer to "the nation" are you referring to the government or the people?

Under the arguments for the "natural right of property" as put forward in his Second Treatise of Civil Government, Chapter 5, John Locke explains that all of the natural resources including minerals, plants, and animals belong to the "common" which is all of the people of society. All wealth is ulitimately derived from that which is mined (e.g. minerals, metal, and oil), raised (e.g. animals) or grown (e.g. plants) so all wealth of the nation, in effect, ultimately belongs to all of the people of the nation. In Locke's argument he does address how a person can take from nature and make it personal property for their "support and comfort" by their labor (i.e. sweat equity) but there is also the caveat that "enough, and as good" as must remain for all others in society.

So "all of the income" does belong to "all of the People" but it does not belong to the government. The issue is only about how that income is distributed in our economy to ensure that everone has "enough, and as good" as everyone else when it comes to providing for their "support and comfort" with their labor in our economy.

 

Considering that prices haven't really changed with taxing changes, I find this to be false. Not to mention its hard to outrun a percentage tax, if you're taxed 50% on your profit of $200, and you decide to sell it for 300 to make it up, you haven't gained anything because your higher price only replaces $50 and now you've just lowered the demand by overpricing a good. Government is a solution when there are clear failures in a free market, one of those failures is that the allocation of wealth rides to the top over time which creates a weak demand side because resources are not being used efficiently. Lets say I own a corn farm, I sell some of the corn and use some of it to plant more corn, each time I plant a bit more corn and have more seed left over, over time I could end up with a giant reserve of corn seed despite the fact people aren't really buying anymore corn then necessary. Now the govt steps in and takes some of my seeds and gives them away to those who have little, they start their own farms, make money off it, and can now afford to buy more of everyone's corn. The problem is that concentrated wealth doesn't recirculate on the demand side. I only need so many pairs of jeans, and I can invest all of my money i want into business but without a demand people will not buy from me. If the govt takes some of my money and spends it, the demand side is propped up. This applies to even welfare. Every $1 spent in food stamps grows into $1.70
If you give someone $20,000 in student grants, and they get a job and make 50k a year for 30 years, they'll spend 1.5 million dollars into the economy, which goes on to generate more wealth for everyone.
It doesn't matter if your "earned it and have a right to it". It's still bad for the economy to hog resources. Nobody is saying we need income equality, but the 90% need enough money to keep buying from the top 10% so they can keep giving us jobs and prospering themselves.

 

Great tirade, but all built on a false presumption, that it wasn't government that has caused the mess in the first place. The very thought of government stepping in and stealing from me to give my property to someone incapable of doing for themselves so they can become my competitor using my property is pure and simple theft.

And give someone money taken from another at the point of the government gun is still theft. It is this theft that has propagated the whole "crony" capitalism/socialistic system there is today.

And, all that matters is you earned it and have a right to it.

 

Taxation is not the way to provide equality. America is supposed to be about equal opportunity, anyway, not some goofy Communist idea of equal living standards no matter what you do and earn.

 

Absolutely!!

"All men are created equal, it is only men themselves who place themselves above equality."

--David Allan Coe

 

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

It has nothing to do with communism or socialism or whatever idiotic drivel the right is scared of, capitalism is the best economic system, however it is fatally flawed, as with every economic system, to the point where eventually it becomes so efficient at generating wealth that nobody has any jobs, or decent jobs, the wealth is concentrated into the hands of a very few, and we have constant crashes because the 90% can't sustain growth without enough spending power. Lack of government intervention and regans trickle down garbage is what got us here in the first place. 34% of Americans make less then 40k a year, that's barely liveable, I couldn't support myself and a spouse (admittedly disabled and unable to work) at 32k. What you see happen now is every economic growth you see now disproportionately flows to the top. Our government doesn't have a spending problem, it has a REVENUE problem. Austerity and cutting taxes will only make this worse. Especially if the rich get the cuts. For every republican point you argue fiscally, I can find you data to dismantle it.

 

Sir, I would say, first, you should learn what capitalism really is, your view is so far distorted as to have left reality many miles back. Yes, government does have a spending problem, big time but that is the symptom, not the cause of the ills.

However,you may pay all the taxes your little heart desires but the criminal act is the support of stealing from another to generate revenues, for what? Not for my benefit. It all boils down to the one true divide.

The one true divide that separates humanity into two distinct types of individuals. The criterion for the divide is whether or not an individual believes in "authority" and therefore believes that there is legitimacy to slavery, Statism, the brilliant idea that we give a small group of people the right to kidnap, imprison, harass, steal from and kill people, so that we can be protected from people who kidnap, harass, steal and kill people.

A statist is an individual who erroneously believes that there is such a thing as "authority" vested in certain human beings magically giving them the "right to rule" over other people. This "authority" means that certain people who we call "government", have the "moral right" to issue commands to those whom they rule (those under their "jurisdiction"), and that their "subjects" (slaves) have a "moral obligation" to obey the arbitrary dictates set by their masters. Most simply put, a statist is someone who believes in the legitimacy of slavery.

But what you are implying is pure and simple socialism, steal from those that have to give to those that don't deserve, the entitlement crowd. But not to worry, this mess is self correcting and correction time is upon us.

 

Inequality only changed when the government became a bigger nanny. Most Americans have been dumbed down to serfs, while the government robs them of wealth building funds to fund Ponzi schemes.

A good compromise would be for the government to privatize retirement accounts. This could be done through mandated IRA's. People need to participate in their wealth building. Forced Ponzi schemes do not achieve this.

 

The Govt didn't become a "bigger nanny" in 1981 when inequality started skyrocketing:



In fact, if anything, under Reagan it became less of one.

No, something else happened that year.

 

Alright, then lets get rid of our police force, our military, we won't make any more repairs to roads, our grid, or anything else taxes fund. Nobody will privately fund this because there isnt an immediate profitability. The city where I live is a major metropolitan area, the public transit growth in this city has been very retarded because the state refuses to fund it through a statewide tax, causing the actual economic growth to stall because companies can't do business here without decent mass transit. During recessions, we can cut off all things like food stamps and unemployment and just let our economy dry out to non existant. Also you do realize your idolized Thomas Jefferson frequently spoke about the dangers of income inequality and even forced a fishery to split profits with workers once? Statism is either fascism or communism, where the state controls economic resources instead of a market. Socialism is a loosely defined term. Market based socialism has been proven to work in many countries. This is still not statism. A free market without intervention will never create or sustain a middle class.

 

A truly outstanding concept but the privatized retirement accounts in the current environment will not work. Just ask any baby boomer about the results.

 

Because history shows time and again that when the disparity of wealth becomes too great that violent revolution follows. Every. Time.
That is why it is bad.

I had one of the worlds 100 richest men tell me that he felt in most cases that taxes were cheaper than body guards.

 

Now you are just being stupid but let's play. Yes get rid of the police force and return to the constitutional sheriff, all that is needed in non-statist world. Military, the forefathers knew that was the most dangerous thing outside of a central bank system that could happen and they have been more than correct. After all what good is a military if you can't use them. That is why a militia is necessary for a free state.

Roads, are you really that ignorant? All road funds come from taxes on fuels, a voluntary fee that I gladly pay as it keeps the wear and tear on my conveyance to a minimum traveling on that nice smooth surface.

Grid, what grid? Are you referring to the electrical grid, paid for by the electrical rates? But the robbery comes from those taxes that are added on to steal from the public that uses power. Personally, I am looking to disconnect from the grid, until then I will protest the taxes and may even consider a law suit.

Good for your state for not robbing those that don't use public transport to provide for those that do. If it can't pay for itself, then it doesn't need to be done. And what economic growth are you insinuating? Robbing one set of individuals to pay for others to be transported so as to get a lower wage earner to take the job of those paying for them to get there. And then one wonders why there are no good paying jobs.

Why wait for a recession, cut them all off now. If you don't earn it, you don't get it. Return charity back to where it belongs, private hands, not the guns of the "government".

Jefferson also completed the Louisiana purchase, an act he constitutionally was not able to do. And what does Thomas Jefferson and splitting profits with employees have to do with taxes? Grasping at straws?

statism the principle or policy of concentrating extensive economic, political, and related controls in the state at the cost of individual liberty. It has nothing to do with Fascism or Communism, just the mistaken assumption that one without authority can somehow delegate what they don't have to another called government and somehow they have authority.

Socialism has never worked, anywhere, it is but the failure of that other myth, democracy. Your control of language is atrocious. Please explain how something can be free and have intervention at the same time, they are moral opposites. Please, get a clue.

 

Sure and my sugar mama is Oprah.

 

Well no you are wrong about history and have failed to prove cause and effect.

 

Ever looked at Norway, Sweden, Denmark? Ever stop to think that more then just low wage earners ride public transit? Did you pay for your high school or children's high school out of pocket? Graduate from an entirey private university? You realize road taxes aren't voluntary right? Can you actually give me an economic reason why we should dismantle taxes and government spending? Time has shown over and over again that cutting taxes does virtually nothing for job creation. If your only reason is simply because you don't wanna pay your share in taxes, well that's just too bad. Neoliberal and lassiez faire economics doesn't work the magical way you think it does.

 

You're drooling to pop this earth shattering news out so just get it over with.

What ever it is incomes in a free market are irrelevant. Affordability is the only factor that matters and free market forces provide the greatest prosperity for the masses. This is proven over and over again by countries who have too much government intrusion.

Property rights(including wages) are essential to liberty and prosperity. Attempting to narrow the gap of earnings by controlling earnings or wage laws does nothing to change affordability. This is why there is never a high enough minimum wage.

Be honest, if wage controls worked why wouldn't the government just make 100k the minimum wage?

 

Overnite, no. And yes, boomers are the problem. Unfortunately, most Americans are oblivious to the damage these programs are causing from generation to generation.

Wealth disparity is primarily a government unintended consequence caused by the nanny mentality. Americans have been gradually turned into serfs.

 

So what, they have nothing to add at all but socialism on a massive scale, but if you like them so much, apply for immigration. Then you can be where you want.

Why would I even care? If it was so good, then why is it "public"? Because it's not so good and without someone with a gun to commit robbery, they would be bankrupt. Did you ever stop to think?

Really? I have paid for me, my children, your children and every other person's children for the government to purposely dumb down the masses. Boy, have they been overly successful.

Graduate from an entirey private university? Paid cash for every course as I took them, used Master Card because I thought it hilarious that I could charge it. The difference being I paid Master Card when the bill arrived, had no debt the first day of class, all paid for.

Of course they are, why do you continually bring up things you have no clue about? When you buy fuel, you pay the tax to use the road. But then you are implying your vehicle registration, I don't do that. I own my conveyances outright and don't use them in commerce.

Less crime with the government not stealing from everybody. People have more money for themselves and not their neighbor. Can you give me any sound reason whatsoever why the theft should continue?

Time has shown nothing other than how large a mass of idiots occupy space in this once great nation. And you really should educate yourself before committing to a stand on something you know little about. I have no share of taxes to pay. I have not paid taxes for almost two decades. I do not hide, I challenged the IRS in court. I am not a taxpayer, period.

Again speaking of what you do not know, economics do not work period. It is but the delusional dream of some bureaucrats that think they can maneuver and control capitalism which in reality makes it not capitalism at all. It is exactly as I think, doesn't work at all not matter what twist or name you try to give it. To support my point, I give you Volcker, Greenspan, Burnanke with the worse yet to be Yellen, by the time she is done, the yelling will be loud amongst the crying.

 

Boomer aren't the problem, they are the ones stuck with the current problems. The large majority of the boomers built huge nest eggs for a comfortable retirement. Then came 9/11 and all the crap since that has destroy a huge portion of the principle with a near zero time span to recover. Add to that the current interest rates on savings and now they are stuck with living on the principle, dangerous at best, doubtful at lasting for the full life span.

Now add in all that QE action that has added to inflation at a rate greater than interest earnings and you have a whole generation that is in serious trouble with being able to retire.

Now I am against the social media ponzi scheme called social security. No future generation nor anyone young enough to do so should ever have to pay into that scheme, they will never, ever, collect. If one were to save 12.4% of income over a lifetime, retirement would be a breeze, even without interest. It doesn't need to be privatized, it just needs to have the government out of it. It needs to be the responsibility of the individual to look after one's self, without a nanny.

 

No, neoliberal and lassiez faire economics don't work, or at least not very well. You're just butt hurt you have to pay taxes. Here's what happens when you follow this kind of garbage. Georgia isn't the only red state to have this same problem. http://m.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/01/whats-wrong-with-georgia/384101/