econ fagz, would estate tax solve income inequality? - page 2.

umair127

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Quote from: zolace on July 18, 2014, 12:01:16 PM

Quote from: sana8410 on July 18, 2014, 11:57:35 AM

Quote from: Rigon on July 17, 2014, 01:56:52 PM

It's such an emotional issue dependent on where you stand. You have people like the Hilton sisters who make people question whether they really deserve what they have for doing nothing. But these same people seem to have no issue with what Justin Beaver or LeBron James and others make. Nasty CEO's and their millions are just horrible people when so many of our citizens "deserve" a piece of their pie to make their lives so much easier.

Personally I'd rater see an increase in opportunity equality than simply focusing on income.

It isn't just about that though, it is also about tax inequality in terms of the rate at which we are effectively taxed. Ideally, it would be a bit progressive like our graduated income tax, in reality though the wealthy often have access to mechanisms that can effectively give them lower tax rates than some middle class households (the same goes for big businesses). I pay more in taxes than General Electric does for example (as a percentage).

If we simply removed loopholes would that work for you? What about loopholes that government has put in place giving tax breaks for job creation, etc?

GE gives back in the way of jobs and innovation. How many poor families can now afford refrigerators compared to the poor of the past? Same goes for cars, TV's, phones, etc. Sure, we can make them pay more but they have the capability of moving large portions of their infrastructure to other countries (global economy) which some say would hurt our poor (and hurt ever growing government coffers....and government keeps wanting more so who pays?) more than helping our economy.

GE "doesn't pay tax" because the tax structure in the US is stupid.

To bring overseas money home would require paying upwards of 30%, while most countries only require 0-3%. There have been plenty of CEOs in the news lately stating if the US fixed that issue they'd be more than happy to bring billions back and employ people here.

beetcoin

sr. member

Activity: 434

Merit: 250

wasn't john oliver the one who said that it would only affect .03% of the population.. because, you know, you can inherit up to $5ish million (per parent) without being taxed? so it's the same thing as taxing the wealthy. if i were inheriting, say 20 million dollars, and had to pay the taxes, i wouldn't love that fact but if it's a small percentage of my inheritance, then i won't be all up in arms over it.

noviapriani

sr. member

Activity: 350

Merit: 250

Quote from: sana8410 on July 19, 2014, 08:13:53 AM

Quote from: noviapriani on July 19, 2014, 08:04:02 AM

I am skeptical of campaign finance reform because all of the proposals I have seen greatly favor incumbency, which tends to favor entrenched interests. Besides, most regulatory bodies are run by bureaucrats and executive appointments, not elected officials. We can agree about Krugman. He is a grave disservice to everyone but himself.

Institution building and reform is a process, the legislative branch is generally a good place to start given the pressures and influences that they can have elsewhere and in terms of being able to highlight issues for national discussion (to say nothing of their law making abilities).

The problem is our legislative branches (at least federally) are flooded with incentive to make laws or set direction based upon what their "sponsors" want and not necessarily what is good for everyone as a whole. Regulatory laws that penalize one while enhancing a more "supportive" corporation or group seems to be the norm. It's going to be relatively impossible to really solve inequality (monetary or opportunity) if the regulators are bought and paid for.

sana8410

sr. member

Activity: 448

Merit: 250

Quote from: noviapriani on July 19, 2014, 08:04:02 AM

I am skeptical of campaign finance reform because all of the proposals I have seen greatly favor incumbency, which tends to favor entrenched interests. Besides, most regulatory bodies are run by bureaucrats and executive appointments, not elected officials. We can agree about Krugman. He is a grave disservice to everyone but himself.

Institution building and reform is a process, the legislative branch is generally a good place to start given the pressures and influences that they can have elsewhere and in terms of being able to highlight issues for national discussion (to say nothing of their law making abilities).

noviapriani

sr. member

Activity: 350

Merit: 250

I am skeptical of campaign finance reform because all of the proposals I have seen greatly favor incumbency, which tends to favor entrenched interests. Besides, most regulatory bodies are run by bureaucrats and executive appointments, not elected officials. We can agree about Krugman. He is a grave disservice to everyone but himself.

sana8410

sr. member

Activity: 448

Merit: 250

Quote from: noviapriani on July 19, 2014, 07:38:22 AM

Quote from: sana8410 on July 19, 2014, 07:33:30 AM

If we had an Bitcointalk book club I'd suggest "The Price of Inequality" by Joseph Stiglitz. Which deals with issues such as these. I've been meaning to read it ever since it came out, but haven't gotten to it yet.

While I have not read that book, I have read a lot by Stiglitz. I will read the book, but Stiglitz seems to get it wrong more than he gets it right. During the financial crisis he was bemoaning the system of privatized gains and socialized losses that the bailouts created. But, before the crisis, he was in favor of explicit government guarantees of institutions like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I am not sure I can take him seriously.

Weather you agree with him or not in everything, one thing that I like about Stiglitz is that he is very analytical and willing to elaborate on his opinions. No one is always going to be right, that's not how economics works, but I find Stiglitz pretty useful for his analysis and breakdown abilities. He is useful for sparking discussion and is much better to read than someone presenting an emotive argument on the subject. He's an infinitely better writer than Paul Krugman for example.

noviapriani

sr. member

Activity: 350

Merit: 250

Quote from: sana8410 on July 19, 2014, 07:33:30 AM

If we had an Bitcointalk book club I'd suggest "The Price of Inequality" by Joseph Stiglitz. Which deals with issues such as these. I've been meaning to read it ever since it came out, but haven't gotten to it yet.

While I have not read that book, I have read a lot by Stiglitz. I will read the book, but Stiglitz seems to get it wrong more than he gets it right. During the financial crisis he was bemoaning the system of privatized gains and socialized losses that the bailouts created. But, before the crisis, he was in favor of explicit government guarantees of institutions like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I am not sure I can take him seriously.

sana8410

sr. member

Activity: 448

Merit: 250

If we had an Bitcointalk book club I'd suggest "The Price of Inequality" by Joseph Stiglitz. Which deals with issues such as these. I've been meaning to read it ever since it came out, but haven't gotten to it yet.

sana8410

sr. member

Activity: 448

Merit: 250

Quote from: noviapriani on July 19, 2014, 07:16:11 AM

Quote from: sana8410 on July 19, 2014, 07:07:49 AM

Quote from: umair127 on July 18, 2014, 12:14:19 PM

There is a lot I do not understand about the "inequality" crowd. For one, what equality are they concerned with? Equality of opportunity or equality of outcomes? In my view, no form of government or economy has ever designed a way to provide for equality of outcomes, and those that have tried have failed miserably. And market capitalism, especially American market capitalism, has proven time and time again to provide the best equality of opportunity while at the same time increasing general prosperity.

The other thing I do not understand is what I will call the "Pinketty solution." Pinketty correctly identifies a problem: return on capital is higher than general growth (r>g), so the rich get richer while the laboring classes' wages do not increase as quickly. But his solution is perverse: a punitive tax (80%) on all income over $500,000. I think we can all agree that this will have the effect of reducing the number of capitalists in the world. How can this be a good thing? If returns on capital exceed general growth, shouldn't the goal be to create more capitalists, not less?

One thing that is inseparable from this subject and has a lot to do with inequality is the fact that financial power within our society tends to translate into political power and that can be a self reinforcing fact of life. So we are left with wealthy individuals who are better able to influence law making to best suit their desires over those of us in the middle and lower income classes. That is a very visible aspect of our society and I think it (rightfully) angers people when they feel like they have no voice or that their voice is getting drowned out by a wave of money coming from a 1%.

That's another part I do not understand about this debate. It appears to me that most of the people clamoring for government to address "inequality" are also in favor of more expansive government. Won't that just lead to more regulatory capture? Doesn't more government just create more opportunities for manipulation and crony capitalism?

Well big businesses already have a lot of regulatory capture. I imagine (I can't speak for them) that the desire is to use government to change the system in a way that would limit such capture and reduce current capturing abilities (like through campaign finance reform initiatives).

noviapriani

sr. member

Activity: 350

Merit: 250

Quote from: sana8410 on July 19, 2014, 07:07:49 AM

Quote from: umair127 on July 18, 2014, 12:14:19 PM

There is a lot I do not understand about the "inequality" crowd. For one, what equality are they concerned with? Equality of opportunity or equality of outcomes? In my view, no form of government or economy has ever designed a way to provide for equality of outcomes, and those that have tried have failed miserably. And market capitalism, especially American market capitalism, has proven time and time again to provide the best equality of opportunity while at the same time increasing general prosperity.

The other thing I do not understand is what I will call the "Pinketty solution." Pinketty correctly identifies a problem: return on capital is higher than general growth (r>g), so the rich get richer while the laboring classes' wages do not increase as quickly. But his solution is perverse: a punitive tax (80%) on all income over $500,000. I think we can all agree that this will have the effect of reducing the number of capitalists in the world. How can this be a good thing? If returns on capital exceed general growth, shouldn't the goal be to create more capitalists, not less?

One thing that is inseparable from this subject and has a lot to do with inequality is the fact that financial power within our society tends to translate into political power and that can be a self reinforcing fact of life. So we are left with wealthy individuals who are better able to influence law making to best suit their desires over those of us in the middle and lower income classes. That is a very visible aspect of our society and I think it (rightfully) angers people when they feel like they have no voice or that their voice is getting drowned out by a wave of money coming from a 1%.

That's another part I do not understand about this debate. It appears to me that most of the people clamoring for government to address "inequality" are also in favor of more expansive government. Won't that just lead to more regulatory capture? Doesn't more government just create more opportunities for manipulation and crony capitalism?

sana8410

sr. member

Activity: 448

Merit: 250

Quote from: umair127 on July 18, 2014, 12:14:19 PM

There is a lot I do not understand about the "inequality" crowd. For one, what equality are they concerned with? Equality of opportunity or equality of outcomes? In my view, no form of government or economy has ever designed a way to provide for equality of outcomes, and those that have tried have failed miserably. And market capitalism, especially American market capitalism, has proven time and time again to provide the best equality of opportunity while at the same time increasing general prosperity.

The other thing I do not understand is what I will call the "Pinketty solution." Pinketty correctly identifies a problem: return on capital is higher than general growth (r>g), so the rich get richer while the laboring classes' wages do not increase as quickly. But his solution is perverse: a punitive tax (80%) on all income over $500,000. I think we can all agree that this will have the effect of reducing the number of capitalists in the world. How can this be a good thing? If returns on capital exceed general growth, shouldn't the goal be to create more capitalists, not less?

One thing that is inseparable from this subject and has a lot to do with inequality is the fact that financial power within our society tends to translate into political power and that can be a self reinforcing fact of life. So we are left with wealthy individuals who are better able to influence law making to best suit their desires over those of us in the middle and lower income classes. That is a very visible aspect of our society and I think it (rightfully) angers people when they feel like they have no voice or that their voice is getting drowned out by a wave of money coming from a 1%.

sana8410

sr. member

Activity: 448

Merit: 250

I don't either. I also think though, that the national dialogue is rather driven by such people who, as you mentioned, tend to rely on emotive one liners or reduced and distilled talking points which are easier to understand, but leave a lot out leading to misconceptions and bad information.

umair127

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

There is a lot I do not understand about the "inequality" crowd. For one, what equality are they concerned with? Equality of opportunity or equality of outcomes? In my view, no form of government or economy has ever designed a way to provide for equality of outcomes, and those that have tried have failed miserably. And market capitalism, especially American market capitalism, has proven time and time again to provide the best equality of opportunity while at the same time increasing general prosperity.

The other thing I do not understand is what I will call the "Pinketty solution." Pinketty correctly identifies a problem: return on capital is higher than general growth (r>g), so the rich get richer while the laboring classes' wages do not increase as quickly. But his solution is perverse: a punitive tax (80%) on all income over $500,000. I think we can all agree that this will have the effect of reducing the number of capitalists in the world. How can this be a good thing? If returns on capital exceed general growth, shouldn't the goal be to create more capitalists, not less?

zolace

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 250

Quote from: sana8410 on July 18, 2014, 12:05:51 PM

Quote from: zolace on July 18, 2014, 12:01:16 PM

Quote from: sana8410 on July 18, 2014, 11:57:35 AM

Quote from: Rigon on July 17, 2014, 01:56:52 PM

It's such an emotional issue dependent on where you stand. You have people like the Hilton sisters who make people question whether they really deserve what they have for doing nothing. But these same people seem to have no issue with what Justin Beaver or LeBron James and others make. Nasty CEO's and their millions are just horrible people when so many of our citizens "deserve" a piece of their pie to make their lives so much easier.

Personally I'd rater see an increase in opportunity equality than simply focusing on income.

It isn't just about that though, it is also about tax inequality in terms of the rate at which we are effectively taxed. Ideally, it would be a bit progressive like our graduated income tax, in reality though the wealthy often have access to mechanisms that can effectively give them lower tax rates than some middle class households (the same goes for big businesses). I pay more in taxes than General Electric does for example (as a percentage).

If we simply removed loopholes would that work for you? What about loopholes that government has put in place giving tax breaks for job creation, etc?

GE gives back in the way of jobs and innovation. How many poor families can now afford refrigerators compared to the poor of the past? Same goes for cars, TV's, phones, etc. Sure, we can make them pay more but they have the capability of moving large portions of their infrastructure to other countries (global economy) which some say would hurt our poor (and hurt ever growing government coffers....and government keeps wanting more so who pays?) more than helping our economy.

President Obama has suggested closing some loopholes, the problem of course is that Verizon for example has much stronger lobbying power in Congress than I do. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't have to pay taxes, or that I should have to have a heavier tax burden than they do. In fact you were JUST referencing the concept of entitlement negatively in your previous post. But suddenly you are relying on it to justify tax inequalities against the middle to lower income class?

Lobbying and "paid for" politicians is quite an issue.I agree they should pay taxes and I'm not justifying one over the other. It's a complex issue and I don't really have the knowledge level to say which one is right or not.

sana8410

sr. member

Activity: 448

Merit: 250

Quote from: zolace on July 18, 2014, 12:01:16 PM

Quote from: sana8410 on July 18, 2014, 11:57:35 AM

Quote from: Rigon on July 17, 2014, 01:56:52 PM

It's such an emotional issue dependent on where you stand. You have people like the Hilton sisters who make people question whether they really deserve what they have for doing nothing. But these same people seem to have no issue with what Justin Beaver or LeBron James and others make. Nasty CEO's and their millions are just horrible people when so many of our citizens "deserve" a piece of their pie to make their lives so much easier.

Personally I'd rater see an increase in opportunity equality than simply focusing on income.

It isn't just about that though, it is also about tax inequality in terms of the rate at which we are effectively taxed. Ideally, it would be a bit progressive like our graduated income tax, in reality though the wealthy often have access to mechanisms that can effectively give them lower tax rates than some middle class households (the same goes for big businesses). I pay more in taxes than General Electric does for example (as a percentage).

If we simply removed loopholes would that work for you? What about loopholes that government has put in place giving tax breaks for job creation, etc?

GE gives back in the way of jobs and innovation. How many poor families can now afford refrigerators compared to the poor of the past? Same goes for cars, TV's, phones, etc. Sure, we can make them pay more but they have the capability of moving large portions of their infrastructure to other countries (global economy) which some say would hurt our poor (and hurt ever growing government coffers....and government keeps wanting more so who pays?) more than helping our economy.

President Obama has suggested closing some loopholes, the problem of course is that Verizon for example has much stronger lobbying power in Congress than I do. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't have to pay taxes, or that I should have to have a heavier tax burden than they do. In fact you were JUST referencing the concept of entitlement negatively in your previous post. But suddenly you are relying on it to justify tax inequalities against the middle to lower income class?

LostDutchman

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 250

Quote from: spazzdla on July 17, 2014, 03:02:12 PM

Quote from: LostDutchman on July 17, 2014, 02:59:04 PM

Quote from: umair127 on July 17, 2014, 01:36:45 PM

john oliver brought up income inequality on his show, but i thought it was bizarre that he suggests the way to fix it is to raise estate taxes.

i personally find estate taxes to be morally repugnant, so i think he's a cunt for peddling it, especially since his call to action is to make it more severe.

Why should there be income equality?

Bill gates born in africa would of never achieved anything, that is why.

I look at everything on a Global scale, the idea of countries is disgusting.. Oh how we take advantage of people because of invisible boarders.

I think you mean "borders".

zolace

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 250

Quote from: sana8410 on July 18, 2014, 11:57:35 AM

Quote from: Rigon on July 17, 2014, 01:56:52 PM

It's such an emotional issue dependent on where you stand. You have people like the Hilton sisters who make people question whether they really deserve what they have for doing nothing. But these same people seem to have no issue with what Justin Beaver or LeBron James and others make. Nasty CEO's and their millions are just horrible people when so many of our citizens "deserve" a piece of their pie to make their lives so much easier.

Personally I'd rater see an increase in opportunity equality than simply focusing on income.

It isn't just about that though, it is also about tax inequality in terms of the rate at which we are effectively taxed. Ideally, it would be a bit progressive like our graduated income tax, in reality though the wealthy often have access to mechanisms that can effectively give them lower tax rates than some middle class households (the same goes for big businesses). I pay more in taxes than General Electric does for example (as a percentage).

If we simply removed loopholes would that work for you? What about loopholes that government has put in place giving tax breaks for job creation, etc?

GE gives back in the way of jobs and innovation. How many poor families can now afford refrigerators compared to the poor of the past? Same goes for cars, TV's, phones, etc. Sure, we can make them pay more but they have the capability of moving large portions of their infrastructure to other countries (global economy) which some say would hurt our poor (and hurt ever growing government coffers....and government keeps wanting more so who pays?) more than helping our economy.

sana8410

sr. member

Activity: 448

Merit: 250

Quote from: Rigon on July 17, 2014, 01:56:52 PM

It's such an emotional issue dependent on where you stand. You have people like the Hilton sisters who make people question whether they really deserve what they have for doing nothing. But these same people seem to have no issue with what Justin Beaver or LeBron James and others make. Nasty CEO's and their millions are just horrible people when so many of our citizens "deserve" a piece of their pie to make their lives so much easier.

Personally I'd rater see an increase in opportunity equality than simply focusing on income.

It isn't just about that though, it is also about tax inequality in terms of the rate at which we are effectively taxed. Ideally, it would be a bit progressive like our graduated income tax, in reality though the wealthy often have access to mechanisms that can effectively give them lower tax rates than some middle class households (the same goes for big businesses). I pay more in taxes than General Electric does for example (as a percentage).

LostDutchman

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 250

Quote from: spazzdla on July 17, 2014, 03:02:12 PM

Quote from: LostDutchman on July 17, 2014, 02:59:04 PM

Quote from: umair127 on July 17, 2014, 01:36:45 PM

john oliver brought up income inequality on his show, but i thought it was bizarre that he suggests the way to fix it is to raise estate taxes.

i personally find estate taxes to be morally repugnant, so i think he's a cunt for peddling it, especially since his call to action is to make it more severe.

Why should there be income equality?

Bill gates born in africa would of never achieved anything, that is why.

I look at everything on a Global scale, the idea of countries is disgusting.. Oh how we take advantage of people because of invisible boarders.

Oh, OK.

spazzdla

legendary

Activity: 1722

Merit: 1000

Quote from: LostDutchman on July 17, 2014, 02:59:04 PM

Quote from: umair127 on July 17, 2014, 01:36:45 PM

john oliver brought up income inequality on his show, but i thought it was bizarre that he suggests the way to fix it is to raise estate taxes.

i personally find estate taxes to be morally repugnant, so i think he's a cunt for peddling it, especially since his call to action is to make it more severe.

Why should there be income equality?

Bill gates born in africa would of never achieved anything, that is why.

I look at everything on a Global scale, the idea of countries is disgusting.. Oh how we take advantage of people because of invisible boarders.

Topic: econ fagz, would estate tax solve income inequality? - page 2. (Read 2321 times)