NYT op-ed video on DL living wage

[YesterDark]

It is, I just don't think painting the picture that everyone at the bottom is entirely there because of things outside their control and everyone at the top is there because they are greedy and corrupt - that's not a fair narative

Many people that are well off donate tons of sums of money and even at the recent tax cuts are still paying a much larger percentage, so contributing more to society .... but that is why to me it is more important/better to fix the loopholes that let people at the top stash money is tax havens, and avoid paying the taxes the *should* pay vs just raising the rates on everyone towards the top as then you get people in sort of that upper middle layer overpaying their share as they can't utilize the loopholes as well as those at the very top

I agree with that. The idea of people on the lower ending have a harder time is that they start off life on the lower rung than say someone born to a middle class family than say to someone born to a wealthy family.

How affluent your family is, how educated they are, how much time they can freely spend at home raising children, race and gender all have factors in how successful you can become. There are always stories of people rising to the top or lifting themselves out of poverty to a middle class life. Those are great stories, but for the sake of this argument we have to look at this in a context that this country has over 300 million people in it.

 

[dlavender]

I’m really inspired from this thread, and not in my usual sarcastic ways.

@TheMaxRebo pointed out earlier that this discussion has been way more civil and pointed than we normally see out there.

I think we’ve discussed more in depth than the people who are supposed to be discussing it. Lol

 

[YesterDark]

I’m really inspired from this thread, and not in my usual sarcastic ways.

@TheMaxRebo pointed out earlier that this discussion has been way more civil and pointed than we normally see out there.

I think we’ve discussed more in depth than the people who are supposed to be discussing it. Lol

Cheers to that.

 

[tidefan]

I missed this in my previous post. In any case, I don't care how people make it there, I'm only discussing statistics. To sustain a functioning society and government, people need to be taxed. People from today until the world explodes will always argue how much tax it too much and how much is too little. Currently with the way our budget is set up on the federal level, we are currently taxing certain groups of our citizens and corporations too little because our deficit is growing way too fast over the last year.[/QUO

Anyone can make it, but only 1% do....seems contradictory, doesn’t it?

Depends on if being in the top 1% is your definition of "making it"....

Well, I am definitely NOT in the top 1%, however, I'd like to think that I'm doing pretty well...

 

[KaptKaveman]

Honestly I don't think you know how taxes and tax brackets work. First no one is suggesting a 90% tax bracket.

You sure NO ONE is suggesting this? Okay Okay, then what percent of my income should the govt. be entitled to take? Will it be capped at that? For instance if the govt. blow through that money and still runs deficits(as they always do) can they come back and help themselves to a higher percentage?

Who's looking to confiscate all the wealth? What kind of hyperbole is this? I'm only showing you historical data of where we've been in the past 100 years. You'll see that when wealth inequality hits these marks, bad things tend to follow them.

Not hyperbole just a illustrations that there is a finite pool of free money to be had by taxing the top wage earners. When the fed govt blows through that(as they always do) where will the money come from?

Anyone can make it, but only 1% do....seems contradictory, doesn’t it?

No the top 1% or top 10% doesn't have a static membership, you realize. Some drop out of the top 1%, others rise up. Just like some rise up from the bottom 50% and others fall into it. That would tend to suggest it is not contradictory. Anyone CAN do it, few people DO.

LONG STORY SHORT!
You would never have to worry about the top tax bracket because frankly you'll never earn that much to worry about it.

With that attitude I wouldn't but pardon me if I will strive to achieve it.

I missed this in my previous post. In any case, I don't care how people make it there, I'm only discussing statistics.

I know but the people who worked hard to achieve do care how they got their.

 

[tidefan]

@tidefan

Right, when you get to that point of wealth earnings you really don't give a damn about income tax brackets because your money is not classified as income and it's capital gains. You quoted my income numbers though, that's actual earned income per year. That's selling stock, selling real estate, earning money from a paycheck. Whatever.

As far as investment is concerned, companies like Apple are sitting on a quarter TRILLION dollars in cash. Cash. A lot of the investments these days is money that is taken out of the general economy in to things like futures that drive up the value of oil or spread out in hedge funds that just raise the prices of the market. That money doesn't typically trickle down on to "Main Street". That's the main reason for the argument of income disparity or wealth distribution.

Actually, they are sitting on about $245 Billion in cash (which, granted is still a lot of money). The rest of it is in their investment portfolio (stock price, etc.). A lot of this is due to the fact that their stock price isn't $4/share like it was when Pepsi was thinking of taking them over (can you imagine that?).

So, a lot of that money just exists on paper when it's in the market in stocks/bonds, etc. If we had another market correction like 2008, half of it could be gone in an instant.

My general point is that an INCOME tax is a terrible way to tax WEALTH. You mention Capital Gains, but that is a two-way street. Not everyone is a "winner" in the stock market. You can lose a lot of value too, so you can have "Capital losses" as well. Something like a VAT gets at "wealth" much better than an income tax.

Also, how do you measure "wealth", and is it different in different places? We talked about "Making it" earlier and a lot of people define that partially by the ability to own a home. If you look at home ownership rates (from Q2 2017 - US Census Bureau - https://www.businessinsider.com/homeownership-rate-state-map-2017-7) you'll notice that here in Alabama, almost 70% of the people own a home. In South Carolina, the highest home ownership rate, it's almost 76%. Compare that to California (53.8%) and New York (50.7%). I would guess that most people would say New York and California are "wealthier" than Alabama or South Carolina, but as mentioned before, that has to be adjusted by the cost of living. So, what is "rich" or "wealthy" in one area may be very different in another.

So, this is an example of what I see as the rub in the current political climate. What is happening in places like New York or California are not happening in places like Alabama or South Carolina, therefore you get two very different views of what is going on. The problem is that both sides want one-size fits all solutions...

You brought up the estate tax. That's a whole other argument that I'm not sure we want to have right now! But it's a good one to have because it's interesting the macro effects it has over time on a society. It's one way wealth can become concentrated at the top.

It can, but what would happen if you had a heavily penal estate tax? Most people would divest their funds before they died, or, more likely in today's climate, take it overseas. But even granting that, is it immoral for someone to work hard and want to leave a better life to one's children and grandchildren? Not saying one way or another, just that it's a complex issue that isn't cut and dry...

 

[fatmanatee]

Really don't want to keep making a stink of the "there's nothing we can do, this is the free market" thing but... sometimes you have choices and sometimes those choices include "make as much money for yourself as you can". An example of this is here. You don't have to do that! But to this guy's credit he's at least honest about it.

He also defended the actions of Martin Shkreli, who became infamous in 2015 for his decision to raise the price of an Aids and cancer drug from $13.50 to $750 per tablet. Shkreli was jailed earlier this year on unrelated fraud charges. “I agree with Martin Shkreli that when he raised the price of his drug he was within his rights because he had to reward his shareholders,” said Mr Mulye.
​

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[YesterDark]

You sure NO ONE is suggesting this? Okay Okay, then what percent of my income should the govt. be entitled to take? Will it be capped at that? For instance if the govt. blow through that money and still runs deficits(as they always do) can they come back and help themselves to a higher percentage?


Not hyperbole just a illustrations that there is a finite pool of free money to be had by taxing the top wage earners. When the fed govt blows through that(as they always do) where will the money come from?

No the top 1% or top 10% doesn't have a static membership, you realize. Some drop out of the top 1%, others rise up. Just like some rise up from the bottom 50% and others fall into it. That would tend to suggest it is not contradictory. Anyone CAN do it, few people DO.

With that attitude I wouldn't but pardon me if I will strive to achieve it.

I know but the people who worked hard to achieve do care how they got their.

The government is can take take everything from you if it's voted in to law, entitlement has nothing to do with it. That's how government works. Will it be capped? As in a constitutional amendment stating maximum tax brackets? The US government has both raised and lowered taxes in many forms over it's history. I don't understand your point.

I mean it is hyperbole. You're stating "confiscating all your wealth". Like what does that even mean? Tax collection is not confiscation.

This isn't a personal argument, it's an economic one. Personal stories don't mean anything when you're dealing with 300 million people. You can't make policy based on one or two happy stories or sad ones. I know you care how you succeed, but I don't. The government doesn't unless you're breaking the law. So if you succeed, good for you. It has no relevance to this discussion.

Every year that you make an argument to protect "rich" people from paying more taxes, that just makes it even more difficult for you to get to the top. It's a slow burn over years and decades. This isn't something that happens immediately or that you can measure over the course of months or a single term of a President. It's decades. Job mobility, healthcare, US markets and interest rates, inflation, global economic stability etc. all are influenced by how efficient the government functions by use of military might, trade power, currency strength, and regulation. The more in debt the country goes, the worse those factors get until something just slips away.

If things keep trending this way, things will get worse. Better get yours now.

 

[YesterDark]

Actually, they are sitting on about $245 Billion in cash (which, granted is still a lot of money). The rest of it is in their investment portfolio (stock price, etc.). A lot of this is due to the fact that their stock price isn't $4/share like it was when Pepsi was thinking of taking them over (can you imagine that?).

So, a lot of that money just exists on paper when it's in the market in stocks/bonds, etc. If we had another market correction like 2008, half of it could be gone in an instant.

My general point is that an INCOME tax is a terrible way to tax WEALTH. You mention Capital Gains, but that is a two-way street. Not everyone is a "winner" in the stock market. You can lose a lot of value too, so you can have "Capital losses" as well. Something like a VAT gets at "wealth" much better than an income tax.

Also, how do you measure "wealth", and is it different in different places? We talked about "Making it" earlier and a lot of people define that partially by the ability to own a home. If you look at home ownership rates (from Q2 2017 - US Census Bureau - https://www.businessinsider.com/homeownership-rate-state-map-2017-7) you'll notice that here in Alabama, almost 70% of the people own a home. In South Carolina, the highest home ownership rate, it's almost 76%. Compare that to California (53.8%) and New York (50.7%). I would guess that most people would say New York and California are "wealthier" than Alabama or South Carolina, but as mentioned before, that has to be adjusted by the cost of living. So, what is "rich" or "wealthy" in one area may be very different in another.

So, this is an example of what I see as the rub in the current political climate. What is happening in places like New York or California are not happening in places like Alabama or South Carolina, therefore you get two very different views of what is going on. The problem is that both sides want one-size fits all solutions...



It can, but what would happen if you had a heavily penal estate tax? Most people would divest their funds before they died, or, more likely in today's climate, take it overseas. But even granting that, is it immoral for someone to work hard and want to leave a better life to one's children and grandchildren? Not saying one way or another, just that it's a complex issue that isn't cut and dry...

I agree with a lot of what you're saying, I really think this is a good post.

As far as the estate tax goes, there's a line where it's too much and too little. I'm not an expert so I can't say what that is. Immoral is a tricky word though when you talk about these things. If you have a massive fortune, your family and future family are still going to be extremely well off. It's not like they are taking everything.

 

[TwoMisfits]

Just some facts for you:
The top 1% of earners own around 40% of the total wealth in the US.
The top 1% of earners own MORE than the bottom 90% of earners in the US.
The bottom 80%! own just 7% of the wealth in the US.

Top 1% starts at $450,000 a year.
Top 5% starts at $215,000 a year.
Top 10% starts at $133,000 a year.

Average median household income in the US? $56,000.

I think you're rich if you're in the top 5% of the earners in the country. The top earners, at least before the latest tax cut payed somewhere int he 25-27% range? And probably less if you're money is all market based and you're in the top 1% of the 1% area.

Historically over the last century, we had top rates in the 80% range and dropped to mid 20%s before the crash in 1929 before the Great Depression. They spiked back up to the 80%s and 90%s during World War 2 and maintained that level until the 60s when JFK historically cut them to 70% range. Then Reagan cut them again in the 80s and again in the late 80s until we got in the 20%s range before Bush raised them again the early 90s to the 40% range. That where we were until recently though we have had small reductions and increased during the Obama and Bush2 years.

That's just income tax rates and not capital gains tax rates where are a different thing and where most of the wealth is kept in this country.

So what's a fair rate? Probably increasing capital gains to match income. Probably raise the top rates to the 40-50% range again. I am however not an economist or an expert in any of this stuff. I just know that there is massive inequality in this country and people want to blame poor and uneducated people and those that grew up in horrible or unstable conditions rather than the greedy, the corrupt and the powerful who spend more money than anyone here makes just to maintain their massive wealth by buying influence in Washington.

Also...

The reason why the bottom half don't pay an income tax (they do pay state and local taxes (maybe), sales tax, property tax, gasoline taxes, payroll taxes, social security, medicare etc.) is because they simply don't earn enough money. They still pay taxes and contribute to society but they don't pay income tax. A lot of these people are people that are disabled (and disabled veterans), elderly, single parents, college students, military personnel.

EDIT:
With the latest tax cuts that drastically reduced rates for Corporations and top individuals the country's deficit (not debt) has increased!!!! by!!! 33%!!!!! in one ****ing year to peak $1,000,000,000,000 2 year ahead of schedule!

EDIT2:
So I have no sympathy for "rich" people who whine about paying taxes. I also get aggravated by people who either defend that whining or stick up for them and then blame poor people for being stupid and lazy. Sorry if I have offended anyone, but these are just the facts of the society we live in.

To be fair, the greatest reasons the deficit is going to be that high are interest rates (due to the rising economy) and our full debt (based on decades of precious administrations) causing interest payments on our debt to skyrocket AND previous promises made to the public in the form of entitlements or maybe better called "mandated expenses", like Social Security, Medicare, etc, are also skyrocketing...

Our debt doubled from 2008-2017, but we didn't feel the interest expense pain b/c we had a floundering economy, so we stayed around the same payment/year. Now, it's doing well, so it's gonna sky up. We also now have baby boomers retiring in force, so those costs are just gonna keep going up, unless we choose to make changes.

Fiscal Year Interest on the Debt Interest Rate on 10-Year Treasury Public Debt Percent of Budget
2008 $253 3.7% $5,803 8.5%
2009 $187 3.3% $7,545 5.3%
2010 $196 3.2% $9,019 5.7%
2011 $230 2.8% $10,128 6.4%
2012 $220 1.8% $11,281 6.2%
2013 $221 2.4% $11,983 6.4%
2014 $229 2.5% $12,780 6.5%
2015 $223 2.1% $13,117 6.0%
2016 $240 1.8% $14,168 6.2%
2017 $263 2.7% $14,824 6.8%
2018 $310 2.6% $15,790 7.4%
2019 $363 3.1% $16,872 8.2%
2020 $447 3.4% $17,947 9.7%
2021 $510 3.6% $18,950 10.7%
2022 $568 3.7% $19,946 11.4%
2023 $619 3.7% $20,809 12.0%
2024 $658 3.7% $21,495 12.4%
2025 $688 3.7% $22,137 12.5%
2026 $717 3.6% $22,703 12.5%
2027 $740 3.6% $23,194 12.4%
2028 $761 3.6% $23,684 12.2%
(Sources: "Historical Tables, Table 3-1," Office of Management and Budget. "FY 2019 Budget," Office of Management and Budget, February 12, 2018.)


The tax cuts haven't "cost" us tax revenue, so it's not really in the discussion. Our deficit (and thus our overall debt) isn't skyrocketing b/c we cut taxes, b/c in the end, we are still getting the same or more tax revenue. It's b/c we have a disconnect overall between revenues and expenses...and have had that disconnect for decade upon decade (b/c we have made promises we knew would eventually burn us from a deficit perspective, but we made the short term decisions anyway)...

Tax Receipts
FY 2019 - $3.422 trillion, estimated.
FY 2018 - $3.34 trillion, estimated.
FY 2017 - $3.32 trillion.
FY 2016 - $3.27 trillion.
FY 2015 - $3.25 trillion.
FY 2014 - $3.02 trillion.
FY 2013 - $2.77 trillion.
FY 2012 - $2.45 trillion.
FY 2011 - $2.30 trillion.
FY 2010 - $2.16 trillion.
FY 2009 - $2.10 trillion.
FY 2008 - $2.52 trillion.
FY 2007 - $2.57 trillion.
FY 2006 - $2.4 trillion.
FY 2005 - $2.15 trillion.
FY 2004 - $1.88 trillion.
FY 2003 - $1.72 trillion.
FY 2002 - $1.85 trillion.
FY 2001 - $1.99 trillion.
FY 2000 - $2.03 trillion.
FY 1999 - $1.82 trillion.
FY 1998 - $1.72 trillion.
FY 1997 - $1.58 trillion.
FY 1996 - $1.45 trillion.
FY 1995 - $1.35 trillion.
FY 1994 - $1.26 trillion.
FY 1993 - $1.15 trillion.
FY 1992 - $1.09 trillion.
FY 1991 - $1.05 trillion.
FY 1990 - $1.03 trillion.
FY 1989 - $991 billion.
FY 1988 - $909 billion.
FY 1987 - $854 billion.
FY 1986 - $769 billion.
FY 1985 - $734 billion.
FY 1984 - $666 billion.
FY 1983 - $601 billion.
FY 1982 - $618 billion.
FY 1981 - $599 billion.
FY 1980 - $517 billion.
FY 1979 - $463 billion.
FY 1978 - $399 billion.
FY 1977 - $356 billion.
FY 1976 - $298 billion.
FY 1975 - $279 billion.
FY 1974 - $263 billion.
FY 1973 - $231 billion.
FY 1972 - $207 billion.
FY 1971 - $187 billion.
FY 1970 - $193 billion.
FY 1969 - $187 billion.
FY 1968 - $153 billion.
FY 1967 - $149 billion.
FY 1966 - $131 billion.
FY 1965 - $117 billion.
FY 1964 - $113 billion.
FY 1963 - $107 billion.
FY 1962 - $100 billion.
FY 1961 - $94 billion.
FY 1960 - $93 billion.
FY 1789-1959 - $1.1 trillion. (Source: "Table 1.1—Summary of Receipts, Outlays, and Surpluses or Deficits (-): 1789–2018," OMB.)

 

[Moliphino]

Really don't want to keep making a stink of the "there's nothing we can do, this is the free market" thing but... sometimes you have choices and sometimes those choices include "make as much money for yourself as you can". An example of this is here. You don't have to do that! But to this guy's credit he's at least honest about it.

He also defended the actions of Martin Shkreli, who became infamous in 2015 for his decision to raise the price of an Aids and cancer drug from $13.50 to $750 per tablet. Shkreli was jailed earlier this year on unrelated fraud charges. “I agree with Martin Shkreli that when he raised the price of his drug he was within his rights because he had to reward his shareholders,” said Mr Mulye.
​

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Wow, I don't think that guy knows what "moral" means.

 

[EdmondD]

The tax cuts haven't "cost" us tax revenue, so it's not really in the discussion. Our deficit (and thus our overall debt) isn't skyrocketing b/c we cut taxes, b/c in the end, we are still getting the same or more tax revenue. It's b/c we have a disconnect overall between revenues and expenses...and have had that disconnect for decade upon decade (b/c we have made promises we knew would eventually burn us from a deficit perspective, but we made the short term decisions anyway)...

It's not clear to me what you mean by "in the end, we are still getting the same or more tax revenue."

Without pointing fingers, what we all really need to be concerned about is that with an economy that's humming along, the federal deficit is still soaring. Typically when the economy is going well, we use that opportunity to reduce our annual deficit. In those halcion days of 2000, we actually didn't have a deficit for the only year in something like the last 40 years, for example. Running such high deficits when times are good is alarming. Something is going to hit the fan we need to be ready for - a 9/11, a bank crisis... a hurricane headed for the Carolinas.

As a percentage of GDP the standing debt is hovering around we-could-be-screwed territory. Neither party is showing fiscal responsibility.

 

[tidefan]

Really don't want to keep making a stink of the "there's nothing we can do, this is the free market" thing but... sometimes you have choices and sometimes those choices include "make as much money for yourself as you can". An example of this is here. You don't have to do that! But to this guy's credit he's at least honest about it.

He also defended the actions of Martin Shkreli, who became infamous in 2015 for his decision to raise the price of an Aids and cancer drug from $13.50 to $750 per tablet. Shkreli was jailed earlier this year on unrelated fraud charges. “I agree with Martin Shkreli that when he raised the price of his drug he was within his rights because he had to reward his shareholders,” said Mr Mulye.
​

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Just a point here...

The reason someone COULD do this (not if they should or not) has a lot more to do with government patent law than anything else. If someone were allowed to make a generic equivalent, then there would be competitive pressure, however, we set an arbitrary time period of monopoly. Now, I understand why that is. If you've ever been involved in clinical trials to get FDA approval for a drug, it is extremely expensive. Plus, for most drug firms, only a certain percentage of drugs will attain approval, but you still spend the R&D money on all the ones you develop, so I do think it is reasonable to expect to try to recoup some of that R&D cost, which is what patent law is designed to do. However, like anything else, it can be abused, and you get the situations above...

 

[TheMaxRebo]

It's not clear to me what you mean by "in the end, we are still getting the same or more tax revenue."

Without pointing fingers, what we all really need to be concerned about is that with an economy that's humming along, the federal deficit is still soaring. Typically when the economy is going well, we use that opportunity to reduce our annual deficit. In those halcion days of 2000, we actually didn't have a deficit for the only year in something like the last 40 years, for example. Running such high deficits when times are good is alarming. Something is going to hit the fan we need to be ready for - a 9/11, a bank crisis... a hurricane headed for the Carolinas.

As a percentage of GDP the standing debt is hovering around we-could-be-screwed territory. Neither party is showing fiscal responsibility.

The theory was that if we accelerate the economy then people spend more and thus more taxes are collected that way and if more people are employed and getting paid more you would collect in absolute $ even if % per person is lower

I'm not saying it is going to work - I think the amount of money is just too extreme to fully work - but that is the idea

(also part of it was supposed to come from getting ride of Obamacare and thus lowering how much money the government is paying - but that didn't happen)

 

[tidefan]

I mean it is hyperbole. You're stating "confiscating all your wealth". Like what does that even mean? Tax collection is not confiscation.

Some no, but maybe some yes. For instance, the US Government takes a big chunk of my salary out for FICA. For the OA (old age) part, i.e., social security, the government is more of less forcibly taking my wages to fund their approved savings account. I have no say in the matter. I would prefer to take my wages and control my saving myself. Now, I could choose to not pay, but what would happen to me then? Well, I'd be put in jail. One definition of government is an entity with the power to force an individual to comply at the threat of force.

As for Social Security (and Medicare), what is really going on isn't that "I'm funding my future savings or medical care" it's more that "I'm funding someone else's savings and medical care with the hope that in the future, another generation will fund mine" (and based on the actuarial models these were built on, those assumptions they had aren't necessarily the way things are now, especially demographically)...

 

[EdmondD]

The theory was that if we accelerate the economy then people spend more and thus more taxes are collected that way and if more people are employed and getting paid more you would collect in absolute $ even if % per person is lower

Ah, I'm sorry, I didn't realize he was making the old trickle-down argument.

I used to believe in this - it seemed to make sense and I agreed with it philosophically. Then I went to grad school. And read a lot. And chose not to ignore reams worth of data.

 

[Moliphino]

Just a point here...

The reason someone COULD do this (not if they should or not) has a lot more to do with government patent law than anything else. If someone were allowed to make a generic equivalent, then there would be competitive pressure, however, we set an arbitrary time period of monopoly. Now, I understand why that is. If you've ever been involved in clinical trials to get FDA approval for a drug, it is extremely expensive. Plus, for most drug firms, only a certain percentage of drugs will attain approval, but you still spend the R&D money on all the ones you develop, so I do think it is reasonable to expect to try to recoup some of that R&D cost, which is what patent law is designed to do. However, like anything else, it can be abused, and you get the situations above...

That guy is selling the generic equivalent.

 

[tidefan]

That guy is selling the generic equivalent.

Seems to me then a great opportunity for another company to market a generic drug, sell it a lot cheaper and put this guy's company out of business...

 

[TheMaxRebo]

Ah, I'm sorry, I didn't realize he was making the old trickle-down argument.

I used to believe in this - it seemed to make sense and I agreed with it philosophically. Then I went to grad school. And read a lot. And chose not to ignore reams worth of data.

well, it's like a lot of economic theories - on both ends of the spectrum ... they work "in theory" and potentially on a small scale - but human nature gets involved in the real world and things don't always/often go as the theory would dictate

 

[TheMaxRebo]

Seems to me then a great opportunity for another company to market a generic drug, sell it a lot cheaper and put this guy's company out of business...

If it's the case I know of the issue was a competitor had gotten theirs pulled or had to pull some or something like that .... so basically there was competition but then it went away and even to create a generic version doesn't happen overnight