It makes sense not to tax them until they are sold. It also depends on what type of stock compensation we're talking about. Generally tax laws necessitate stock compensation due to how any salary over $1 million per year is taxed. Stock compensation is a way around that. Obviously there's a lot more that goes into the subject, but I'm trying to keep it brief. 15-20%. Most likely 15%. It's the smart thing to do. The money's already been taxed. It makes no sense to tax money you've already earned if you want to just transfer it to your family. And yes, I am aware of Gift Taxes. Which is why QE has been beneficial to the rich.
Then they'll invest some of that money where their gains will be taxed at 20% not counting other taxes or deferrals.
I think it's a mistake to look just at wealth distribution and say there's more inequality than there was before. We should be looking at why there is more inequality. It is because the number of people increased, impoverished people flooded in from the third world. This also had the effect of driving down wages and increasing rent/housing costs for everyone else. It's no surprise the owners benefit and the workers lose. That's probably why other countries are stuck in a perpetual state of poverty: because there a simply too many people, and wages will never rise. You can't increase the minimum wage either because people would starve, there would not be enough demand for all these poor struggling to eek out a living if the cost of labor were to increase.
Let's not blame them and just rail against "the wealthy" while continuing to take in mass poverty from the third world and see what happens... Don't be surprised if your grandchild commits suicide because there are no jobs and he can't afford any place to live.
There are always jobs. Jobs are just problems people want help solving, and there are always problems. Not being able to find a job isn't a reflection of society lacking something, it's a reflection of people being unwilling to take on the challenges of that society.
People fall on every nano-spot of the bell curve and this will never change. It makes no difference the topic being explained by the bell curve. Some people will always earn minimum wage while others will earn maximum wages while some never accumulate wealth and others accumulate lots of wealth...and everything in between. Meddling and/or manipulating the private sector will never solve these perceived political and social issues. IMO most people don't wish to know the 'why' which encourages wealth/wage inequality. The truth will show that those who desire more must take personal steps to achieve more. My question is 'why' do so many people today feel they don't need to take any personal steps to achieve more and simply demand that government solve 'their' personal problems?
Perhaps, but the bell curve can drastically shift depending on exterior economic conditions, and I dare say the type of population group itself... It's an issue of personal responsibility versus societal responsibility. Obviously there needs to be a balance. You can't put all the blame on the individual for factors beyond his control, and similarly it's important to plan ahead for the future, and I mean it's important for the society to plan ahead... "In our every deliberation, we must consider the impact of our decisions on the next seven generations." — from the Great Law of the Iroquois Confederation
The bell curve is definitely effected by external sources but no matter people fall on all parts of the bell curve. The bell curve only shows the diversity which exists while the reasons for this diversity are myriad. I have no problem with a government looking after it's people. Whatever a government wishes to do, as long as it's citizenry agree with it's path and are willing to fund that path, I'm fine with it. What I do not accept is government and people and politics meddling and manipulating the private sector to solve non-private sector problems...
Blame is a judgement that someone did something wrong. There's a subtle difference between blame and responsibility. You can be responsible for something, regardless of whether anyone did anything wrong. And society just means your neighbors. Your neighbors are not responsible for your success in life. Even when you have to adapt to things beyond control. You are. Saying that doesn't require placing any blame at all.
"Responsibility" can be a difficult and subjective word to try to define. Clear responsibility only exists in a completely fair system.
Blame is just credit given a negative connotation. Both of which can be equated to saying that one was responsible for an event or events which have already occurred,... but not to be confused with duty or obligation, denoting events which one is responsible for seeing to execution some time in the future. Perhaps then to avoid confusion we ought not use the term responsibility at all, and simply use blame, credit, duty, or obligation to describe what we mean? -Meta
IMO the primary reason for inflation you are ranting about is the reckless use of credit spending. If people earn $50K but are credit spending $100K what else would you expect?
Clearly you have no understanding of jobs, nor the kind of economy that we have and have had. We have a consumption based economy. The way, the only way that you provide enough jobs for our population is that you have to allow the people here to make what they consume. And to provide most of the services. NOW, if you take away the productionl of those goods, and if you take away those services, by offshoring them to poor nations who work for cents on the dollar, you no longer have jobs here. For all of the jobs will always serve the consumption. And you cannot weasel out of that law. So when you do not allow the people within the economy to make what the society consumes, you will never have enough jobs, period, end of story. This is not rocket science. It is a mathematical certainty. I am astounded that so many people, both left and right, are clueless as to the basic mechanics of a consumption based economy and jobs. It is unbelievable what these people think or rather, cannot grasp. But it is the most basic thing in the world, and it's very simple.
My making something your neighbors might want to consume (here or elsewhere) does not mean you're not allowed to make something they might want to consume. People are allowed to produce. The prohibition you imagine exists doesn't exist.
In bold above, how would you propose that Americans produce clothes and shoes...both of which are almost entirely produced outside of the US today? Assuming the current average clothing costs $30 and shoes cost $30, both imports, when your Americans are producing these items, what will be their costs? Do you find any logic whatsoever in the concept that when using less expensive offshore production that Americans can buy shoes for $30...but if you produce those shoes in the more expensive US production that Americans will find those shoes now cost $60? How do you reconcile this...
Funny how the USA is a nation that calls itself "Christian" but wealthy elites refuse to pay their taxes by sheltering their $30+ trillion in resources overseas tax free accounts and by failing to give it all to the poor as is required in their Bible.
