|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
trueblue
Joined: 15 Jun 2014
Location: In between the lines
|
 Posted: Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:29 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
| How much have you given to charity this year? |
It is not necessarily the amount one gives...it is the act of giving that counts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 8:55 pm Post subject: Re: Inequality - not simply Poverty - harms society |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
The defenses of incredible wealth existing in the hands of a few are pretty weak. One might suggest that they can use that hoarded wealth to donate philanthropically, but the wealthy donate a smaller percentage of their earnings to charity than the middle class, which implies a broader and more affluent middle class would produce more donation than the current breakdown. One might suggest that the wealthy are necessary for investment purposes, but collaborative investment models mean that people all across the economic spectrum can easily pool their resources to invest in worthwhile projects without problem, and they'll probably suck less back out of the system in the bargain... |
While I do find myself agreeing with the rest of your argument I feel this part is fairly weak.
Yes it may be true that the wealthy donate a smaller percentage but that smaller percentage is likely greater in monetary terms to the people in the middle class. Hypothetical situation here. Let's say I earn around 1 million dollars a year and you earn $50,000. You give 10% of your income and I give 1%. Even though you gave more as a percentage (10 times more) I gave double the amount of money you did. Which means that (assuming the money is used effectively), that I assisted more of the poor than you did. If I gave say 5% of my income it would take 10 people earning the same as you and giving 10% apiece to equal the amount of money I gave.
Also your link states
| Quote: |
| Even though wealthier Americans donated a smaller share of their income, the total amount they gave increased by $4.6-billion, to hit $77.5-billion in 2012, using inflation-adjusted dollars. |
So they may be reducing the percentage...but they are actually giving more....a lot more to the tune of 4.6 billion.
As for your second argument there have been numerous articles and studies that show that the average person does not really save or invest that much. For example let's look at a popular and well-known retirement plan the 401K.
Many if not most people are simply unable to invest the maximum in their 401K plan let alone invest in other "collaborative investment models"
http://thefinancebuff.com/roth-401k-for-people-who-contribute-max.html
| Quote: |
| According to a study by Vanguard, only 10% of people contribute the maximum. It’s not surprising because in order to contribute the maximum, you need either a high income, a high savings rate, or both |
http://www.cnbc.com/id/
Also as regards investment the wealthy are likely to make better investment decisions (that's why they are wealthy) or at least have access to specialized professionals who make the actual investments. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chellovek
Joined: 29 Feb 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 9:05 pm Post subject: Re: Inequality - not simply Poverty - harms society |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
The defenses of incredible wealth existing in the hands of a few are pretty weak. One might suggest that they can use that hoarded wealth to donate philanthropically, but the wealthy donate a smaller percentage of their earnings to charity than the middle class, which implies a broader and more affluent middle class would produce more donation than the current breakdown. One might suggest that the wealthy are necessary for investment purposes, but collaborative investment models mean that people all across the economic spectrum can easily pool their resources to invest in worthwhile projects without problem, and they'll probably suck less back out of the system in the bargain... |
While I do find myself agreeing with the rest of your argument I feel this part is fairly weak.
Yes it may be true that the wealthy donate a smaller percentage but that smaller percentage is likely greater in monetary terms to the people in the middle class. Hypothetical situation here. Let's say I earn around 1 million dollars a year and you earn $50,000. You give 10% of your income and I give 1%. Even though you gave more as a percentage (10 times more) I gave double the amount of money you did. Which means that (assuming the money is used effectively), that I assisted more of the poor than you did. If I gave say 5% of my income it would take 10 people earning the same as you and giving 10% apiece to equal the amount of money I gave.
Also your link states
| Quote: |
| Even though wealthier Americans donated a smaller share of their income, the total amount they gave increased by $4.6-billion, to hit $77.5-billion in 2012, using inflation-adjusted dollars. |
So they may be reducing the percentage...but they are actually giving more....a lot more to the tune of 4.6 billion.
As for your second argument there have been numerous articles and studies that show that the average person does not really save or invest that much. For example let's look at a popular and well-known retirement plan the 401K.
Many if not most people are simply unable to invest the maximum in their 401K plan let alone invest in other "collaborative investment models"
http://thefinancebuff.com/roth-401k-for-people-who-contribute-max.html
| Quote: |
| According to a study by Vanguard, only 10% of people contribute the maximum. It’s not surprising because in order to contribute the maximum, you need either a high income, a high savings rate, or both |
http://www.cnbc.com/id/
Also as regards investment the wealthy are likely to make better investment decisions (that's why they are wealthy) or at least have access to specialized professionals who make the actual investments. |
Ahh TUBs.
Contributing according to your ability is meaningful, putting in a sum that is meaningful relative to your income. Putting in a few quarters would maybe yield great gains in some place, but I'd be a real mean-spirited piece of crap if I thought it was the same as someone who had genuinely foregone something to throw something in the bowl.
As for the investment thing, you do realise that there's a huge dose of luck involved? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 10:44 pm Post subject: Re: Inequality - not simply Poverty - harms society |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
The defenses of incredible wealth existing in the hands of a few are pretty weak. One might suggest that they can use that hoarded wealth to donate philanthropically, but the wealthy donate a smaller percentage of their earnings to charity than the middle class, which implies a broader and more affluent middle class would produce more donation than the current breakdown. One might suggest that the wealthy are necessary for investment purposes, but collaborative investment models mean that people all across the economic spectrum can easily pool their resources to invest in worthwhile projects without problem, and they'll probably suck less back out of the system in the bargain... |
While I do find myself agreeing with the rest of your argument I feel this part is fairly weak.
Yes it may be true that the wealthy donate a smaller percentage but that smaller percentage is likely greater in monetary terms to the people in the middle class. Hypothetical situation here. Let's say I earn around 1 million dollars a year and you earn $50,000. You give 10% of your income and I give 1%. Even though you gave more as a percentage (10 times more) I gave double the amount of money you did. Which means that (assuming the money is used effectively), that I assisted more of the poor than you did. |
Let's use some basic math with your figures. We'll suppose our rich donate 1% of their income to charity, and our middle class donates 10% of its income to charity. This means that if you take one million dollars and give it to the rich, ten thousand dollars will be donated (one percent of one million), while if you take the same million dollars and distribute it among the middle classes, a hundred million dollars will be donated (ten percent of one million). The actual figures are not such a stark distinction, but they're still a distinction, and one with clear implications: heaping money on the wealthy results in less total donation. It's not about whether a particular individual is greedy or not; about whether an individual person helped more than another individual person. It's about the donation patterns which arise from certain distributions. Heaping money on the wealthy results in less donation, statistically, at least given our current cultural climate.
And as far as investment goes, whether or not one meets one particular arbitrary criteria (investing the absolute maximum allowed into your 401k) is completely irrelevant to whether members of the middle class can and do invest (they can, and they do). And as for the wealthy making 'better investment decisions,' they might, but only insofar as 'better decisions' are defined as decisions which personally profit them more. I even admitted as much when I suggested middle class investors would leech less back out of the system, after all: profit which is directed towards investors is a loss to the target of the investment, and I don't see why anyone would try to equate social utility with individual abilility to leech wealth out of the broader economy. Indeed, a lot of those 'better decisions' are actually nothing more than wealth transfers from less savvy middle class investors to more savvy upper class investors who invest professionally. Pushing the latter out of the investment market in favor of the former would be a positive thing; the abolition of "quants" and other chicanery would benefit broader society at the expense of a few unproductive individuals.
Have a nice day. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plain Meaning
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2015 4:18 am Post subject: Re: Inequality - not simply Poverty - harms society |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
As for your second argument there have been numerous articles and studies that show that the average person does not really save or invest that much.
|
The rent is too high, student loans are an increasing burden (pdf), incomes are stagnant, the average person cannot really save or invest that much even if he or she wanted.
Also, people invest who believe they have a future, and many poor Americans do not believe they have a future, so they spend whatever surplus they have on a transient pleasure. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 05, 2015 11:14 am Post subject: Re: Inequality - not simply Poverty - harms society |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
The defenses of incredible wealth existing in the hands of a few are pretty weak. One might suggest that they can use that hoarded wealth to donate philanthropically, but the wealthy donate a smaller percentage of their earnings to charity than the middle class, which implies a broader and more affluent middle class would produce more donation than the current breakdown. One might suggest that the wealthy are necessary for investment purposes, but collaborative investment models mean that people all across the economic spectrum can easily pool their resources to invest in worthwhile projects without problem, and they'll probably suck less back out of the system in the bargain... |
While I do find myself agreeing with the rest of your argument I feel this part is fairly weak.
Yes it may be true that the wealthy donate a smaller percentage but that smaller percentage is likely greater in monetary terms to the people in the middle class. Hypothetical situation here. Let's say I earn around 1 million dollars a year and you earn $50,000. You give 10% of your income and I give 1%. Even though you gave more as a percentage (10 times more) I gave double the amount of money you did. Which means that (assuming the money is used effectively), that I assisted more of the poor than you did. |
Let's use some basic math with your figures. We'll suppose our rich donate 1% of their income to charity, and our middle class donates 10% of its income to charity. This means that if you take one million dollars and give it to the rich, ten thousand dollars will be donated (one percent of one million), while if you take the same million dollars and distribute it among the middle classes, a hundred million dollars will be donated (ten percent of one million). The actual figures are not such a stark distinction, but they're still a distinction, and one with clear implications: heaping money on the wealthy results in less total donation. . |
Two things. First with regard to your figures you mean a hundred thousand, not a hundred million.
Secondly (getting away from hypotheticals and back to facts) as your own link states the wealthy gave more not less. Less as a percentage yes, but more in dollar totals
| Quote: |
| Even though wealthier Americans donated a smaller share of their income, the total amount they gave increased by $4.6-billion, to hit $77.5-billion in 2012, using inflation-adjusted dollars. |
So your claim that "heaping money on the wealthy results in less total donation" is not supported by the link you gave. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 05, 2015 3:52 pm Post subject: Re: Inequality - not simply Poverty - harms society |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
Two things. First with regard to your figures you mean a hundred thousand, not a hundred million. |
This is true, thank you.
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Secondly (getting away from hypotheticals and back to facts) as your own link states the wealthy gave more not less. Less as a percentage yes, but more in dollar totals. |
Percentages are all that matter with regards to my case. This is such incredibly simple math that there's simply not much discussion to be had here.
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
Secondly (getting away from hypotheticals and back to facts) as your own link states the wealthy gave more not less. Less as a percentage yes, but more in dollar totals
Quote:
Even though wealthier Americans donated a smaller share of their income, the total amount they gave increased by $4.6-billion, to hit $77.5-billion in 2012, using inflation-adjusted dollars.
So your claim that "heaping money on the wealthy results in less total donation" is not supported by the link you gave. |
I bolded the part of that quote which is relevant to my argument. The fact that an increase in upper class incomes was accompanied by an increase in donations is irrelevant to the question of whether or not we would have achieved even-greater levels of donation had we instead directed that productivity into middle or lower class incomes (which mathematically, yes, we would have). It's easy for the common man to be dazzled by large dollar figures, and in being dazzled, forget to put them in their proper context, but context is important here.
Whether or not you want to acknowledge your error is up to you, but based upon my experience with you, you will never back down after having made such a mistake, so I don't see the profit in continuing this exchange. People who understand basic mathematics will see the virtue of my position, and people who do not are not positioned to opine on the matter at all.
Have a nice day. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plain Meaning
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 19, 2016 9:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
62 people hold as much wealth as 3,500,000,000 people
| Quote: |
[T]he 62 richest people in the world[;] Collectively, this ultra-wealthy group controls $1.76 trillion, which is about the cumulative worth of the poorer half of the world’s population, or around 3.5 billion people. And since 2010, wealth has become more and more concentrated in favor of the richest of the rich while those on the lower rungs of the economic ladder have seen their positions worsen, according to a new report (.pdf) from Oxfam International.
|
Occupy Wall Street was right, y'all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 08, 2016 10:43 pm Post subject: Re: Inequality - not simply Poverty - harms society |
|
|
| chellovek wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
The defenses of incredible wealth existing in the hands of a few are pretty weak. One might suggest that they can use that hoarded wealth to donate philanthropically, but the wealthy donate a smaller percentage of their earnings to charity than the middle class, which implies a broader and more affluent middle class would produce more donation than the current breakdown. One might suggest that the wealthy are necessary for investment purposes, but collaborative investment models mean that people all across the economic spectrum can easily pool their resources to invest in worthwhile projects without problem, and they'll probably suck less back out of the system in the bargain... |
While I do find myself agreeing with the rest of your argument I feel this part is fairly weak.
Yes it may be true that the wealthy donate a smaller percentage but that smaller percentage is likely greater in monetary terms to the people in the middle class. Hypothetical situation here. Let's say I earn around 1 million dollars a year and you earn $50,000. You give 10% of your income and I give 1%. Even though you gave more as a percentage (10 times more) I gave double the amount of money you did. Which means that (assuming the money is used effectively), that I assisted more of the poor than you did. If I gave say 5% of my income it would take 10 people earning the same as you and giving 10% apiece to equal the amount of money I gave.
Also your link states
| Quote: |
| Even though wealthier Americans donated a smaller share of their income, the total amount they gave increased by $4.6-billion, to hit $77.5-billion in 2012, using inflation-adjusted dollars. |
So they may be reducing the percentage...but they are actually giving more....a lot more to the tune of 4.6 billion.
As for your second argument there have been numerous articles and studies that show that the average person does not really save or invest that much. For example let's look at a popular and well-known retirement plan the 401K.
Many if not most people are simply unable to invest the maximum in their 401K plan let alone invest in other "collaborative investment models"
http://thefinancebuff.com/roth-401k-for-people-who-contribute-max.html
| Quote: |
| According to a study by Vanguard, only 10% of people contribute the maximum. It’s not surprising because in order to contribute the maximum, you need either a high income, a high savings rate, or both |
http://www.cnbc.com/id/
Also as regards investment the wealthy are likely to make better investment decisions (that's why they are wealthy) or at least have access to specialized professionals who make the actual investments. |
Ahh TUBs.
Contributing according to your ability is meaningful, putting in a sum that is meaningful relative to your income. Putting in a few quarters would maybe yield great gains in some place, but I'd be a real mean-spirited piece of crap if I thought it was the same as someone who had genuinely foregone something to throw something in the bowl.
As for the investment thing, you do realise that there's a huge dose of luck involved? |
In regards to your first paragraph I never said it was the same...I was simply pointing out (aside from projected hypotheticals) that the amount the wealthy contributed had increased. I for one would think it was mean-spirited to say "Ah well, they could have afforded to give more, so why didn't they?" I should think that ANY increase should be applauded...which seems too subtle a point for some to grasp.
As for the investment thing I'm not sure where "luck" comes into it. I specifically referred to the 401K which doesn't rely that much on luck. If you are talking about other investments like the stock market then yes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2016 12:51 pm Post subject: Re: Inequality - not simply Poverty - harms society |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| chellovek wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
The defenses of incredible wealth existing in the hands of a few are pretty weak. One might suggest that they can use that hoarded wealth to donate philanthropically, but the wealthy donate a smaller percentage of their earnings to charity than the middle class, which implies a broader and more affluent middle class would produce more donation than the current breakdown. One might suggest that the wealthy are necessary for investment purposes, but collaborative investment models mean that people all across the economic spectrum can easily pool their resources to invest in worthwhile projects without problem, and they'll probably suck less back out of the system in the bargain... |
While I do find myself agreeing with the rest of your argument I feel this part is fairly weak.
Yes it may be true that the wealthy donate a smaller percentage but that smaller percentage is likely greater in monetary terms to the people in the middle class. Hypothetical situation here. Let's say I earn around 1 million dollars a year and you earn $50,000. You give 10% of your income and I give 1%. Even though you gave more as a percentage (10 times more) I gave double the amount of money you did. Which means that (assuming the money is used effectively), that I assisted more of the poor than you did. If I gave say 5% of my income it would take 10 people earning the same as you and giving 10% apiece to equal the amount of money I gave.
Also your link states
| Quote: |
| Even though wealthier Americans donated a smaller share of their income, the total amount they gave increased by $4.6-billion, to hit $77.5-billion in 2012, using inflation-adjusted dollars. |
So they may be reducing the percentage...but they are actually giving more....a lot more to the tune of 4.6 billion.
As for your second argument there have been numerous articles and studies that show that the average person does not really save or invest that much. For example let's look at a popular and well-known retirement plan the 401K.
Many if not most people are simply unable to invest the maximum in their 401K plan let alone invest in other "collaborative investment models"
http://thefinancebuff.com/roth-401k-for-people-who-contribute-max.html
| Quote: |
| According to a study by Vanguard, only 10% of people contribute the maximum. It’s not surprising because in order to contribute the maximum, you need either a high income, a high savings rate, or both |
http://www.cnbc.com/id/
Also as regards investment the wealthy are likely to make better investment decisions (that's why they are wealthy) or at least have access to specialized professionals who make the actual investments. |
Ahh TUBs.
Contributing according to your ability is meaningful, putting in a sum that is meaningful relative to your income. Putting in a few quarters would maybe yield great gains in some place, but I'd be a real mean-spirited piece of crap if I thought it was the same as someone who had genuinely foregone something to throw something in the bowl.
As for the investment thing, you do realise that there's a huge dose of luck involved? |
In regards to your first paragraph I never said it was the same...I was simply pointing out (aside from projected hypotheticals) that the amount the wealthy contributed had increased. I for one would think it was mean-spirited to say "Ah well, they could have afforded to give more, so why didn't they?" I should think that ANY increase should be applauded...which seems too subtle a point for some to grasp.
As for the investment thing I'm not sure where "luck" comes into it. I specifically referred to the 401K which doesn't rely that much on luck. If you are talking about other investments like the stock market then yes. |
How does a 401(k) not rely much on luck? In the next sentence you say the stock market relies on luck. You realize that the vast majority of 401(k) funds are in the stock market right? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adam Carolla
Joined: 26 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 12, 2016 2:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The proper response is: "what's a fucking moron say, Alex?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2016 1:47 am Post subject: Re: Inequality - not simply Poverty - harms society |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| chellovek wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
The defenses of incredible wealth existing in the hands of a few are pretty weak. One might suggest that they can use that hoarded wealth to donate philanthropically, but the wealthy donate a smaller percentage of their earnings to charity than the middle class, which implies a broader and more affluent middle class would produce more donation than the current breakdown. One might suggest that the wealthy are necessary for investment purposes, but collaborative investment models mean that people all across the economic spectrum can easily pool their resources to invest in worthwhile projects without problem, and they'll probably suck less back out of the system in the bargain... |
While I do find myself agreeing with the rest of your argument I feel this part is fairly weak.
Yes it may be true that the wealthy donate a smaller percentage but that smaller percentage is likely greater in monetary terms to the people in the middle class. Hypothetical situation here. Let's say I earn around 1 million dollars a year and you earn $50,000. You give 10% of your income and I give 1%. Even though you gave more as a percentage (10 times more) I gave double the amount of money you did. Which means that (assuming the money is used effectively), that I assisted more of the poor than you did. If I gave say 5% of my income it would take 10 people earning the same as you and giving 10% apiece to equal the amount of money I gave.
Also your link states
| Quote: |
| Even though wealthier Americans donated a smaller share of their income, the total amount they gave increased by $4.6-billion, to hit $77.5-billion in 2012, using inflation-adjusted dollars. |
So they may be reducing the percentage...but they are actually giving more....a lot more to the tune of 4.6 billion.
As for your second argument there have been numerous articles and studies that show that the average person does not really save or invest that much. For example let's look at a popular and well-known retirement plan the 401K.
Many if not most people are simply unable to invest the maximum in their 401K plan let alone invest in other "collaborative investment models"
http://thefinancebuff.com/roth-401k-for-people-who-contribute-max.html
| Quote: |
| According to a study by Vanguard, only 10% of people contribute the maximum. It’s not surprising because in order to contribute the maximum, you need either a high income, a high savings rate, or both |
http://www.cnbc.com/id/
Also as regards investment the wealthy are likely to make better investment decisions (that's why they are wealthy) or at least have access to specialized professionals who make the actual investments. |
Ahh TUBs.
Contributing according to your ability is meaningful, putting in a sum that is meaningful relative to your income. Putting in a few quarters would maybe yield great gains in some place, but I'd be a real mean-spirited piece of crap if I thought it was the same as someone who had genuinely foregone something to throw something in the bowl.
As for the investment thing, you do realise that there's a huge dose of luck involved? |
In regards to your first paragraph I never said it was the same...I was simply pointing out (aside from projected hypotheticals) that the amount the wealthy contributed had increased. I for one would think it was mean-spirited to say "Ah well, they could have afforded to give more, so why didn't they?" I should think that ANY increase should be applauded...which seems too subtle a point for some to grasp.
As for the investment thing I'm not sure where "luck" comes into it. I specifically referred to the 401K which doesn't rely that much on luck. If you are talking about other investments like the stock market then yes. |
How does a 401(k) not rely much on luck? In the next sentence you say the stock market relies on luck. You realize that the vast majority of 401(k) funds are in the stock market right? |
The rules and regulations regarding a 401 (k) are clearly laid out. For example you can shelter a certain amount from taxes depending upon the amount of your contribution. As opposed to simply picking some high performers in the stock market outside of a 401 (k) and hoping they do well.
But 401(k) are not simply limited to holding stock market funds or shares. They can also hold GICs. And shares of an ETFs which in addition to holding stocks, also hold bonds and commodities.
Yes a 401(k) that is heavily weighted towards the stock market would require some more luck.
But I was assuming that someone who holds a 401(k) also had the benefit of a competent advisor who is not going to put all their eggs in one basket. Maybe that was too much of an assumption. So let's close with this quote.
| Quote: |
Is A 401(k) Better?
The 401(k) is an actual retirement plan, sponsored by a person's place of work. Usually private corporations offer the 401(k) option for employees. Essentially, an employee chooses to have part of his or her paycheck transferred to the 401(k) fund - or retirement savings account. People can even use their 401(k) plan in combination with mutual funds. An advantage of the 401(k) plan is that funds diverted to the retirement account are tax-deductible! Additionally, earnings from a 401(k) savings account (interest, etc) are not subject to taxation. Only when a person begins to withdraw the funds for retirement or other needs, is he or she responsible for taxes.
There are lots of facets to the 401(k) plan that further complicate it but financial advisors often boast that it is a much more secure investment than simply putting money toward even the most conservative of investments such as mutual funds. A 401(k) is a savings plan, so it is reliable. |
(bolding mine)
http://www.investorguide.com/article/11756/mutual-funds-v-401-k-for-retirement-igu/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plain Meaning
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 27, 2016 5:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Republican Presidential Tax Plans (Trump and Cruz) Would Mark Largest Redistributions to the Rich in American History
| Quote: |
1. Trump’s proposed cut would reduce the top tax rate from 39.6 percent to 25 percent – creating a giant windfall for the wealthy (at a time when the wealthy have a larger portion of the nation’s wealth than any time since 1918). According to the Center for Tax Policy, the richest one tenth of one percent of taxpayers (those with incomes over $3.7 million) would get an average tax cut of more than $1.3 million each every year. Middle-income households would get an average tax cut of $2,700.
2. The Cruz plan would abandon our century-old progressive income tax (whose rates increase as taxpayers’ incomes increase) and instead tax the amount people spend in a year and exclude income from investments. This sort of system would burden lower-income workers who spend almost everything they earn and have few if any investments.
3. Cruz also proposes a 10 percent flat tax. A flat tax lowers tax rates on the rich and increases taxes for lower-income workers.
4. The Republican plans also repeal estate and gift taxes – now paid almost entirely by the very wealthy who make big gifts to their heirs and leave them big estates.
5. These plans would cut federal revenues by as much as $12 trillion over the decade – but neither Trump nor Cruz has said what they’ll do to fill this hole. They both want to increase the military. Which leaves them only two choices: Either explode the national debt, or cut Social Security, Medicare, and assistance to the poor. Bottom line: If either of these men is elected president, we could see the largest redistribution in American history from the poor and middle-class of America to the rich. This is class warfare with a vengeance. |
Very extreme. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Titus2
Joined: 06 Sep 2015
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 08, 2016 8:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Talk about taxation on income and capital gains w/r/t inequality functions merely to keep the less clever somewhat engaged in the regime narrative.
The oligarchs are not oligarchs because of tax rates and taxation will not diminish their relative standing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plain Meaning
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
|
| Posted: Wed May 11, 2016 1:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Its true that the oligarchs* will not be effected by higher tax rates, the Panama Papers illustrate that. Nonetheless, income mobility can be increased by taxing even the top 5% more. And even Trump is open to compromise, apparently.
*Titus2 may mean a particular ethnic group, but I mean literally the richest and most politically powerful; i.e the 65 richest and a couple more of thousand-on-down. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
