Well then, you should move to Venezuela/Cuba where you won't have to worry about it. Wealth Disparity... It's what America is all about. It's what made America the formerly great country it once was. America has always been about OPPORTUNITY... not "outcome". I don't want to see government "redistribute wealth". I want the tax code to be fair and non-prejudiced... and that means FLAT TAX!!! (If I make 10X what you make, I should pay 10X what you pay in taxes.. not 50X.)
or you could just spend some time in Mexico, where the wealth of the whole nation is locked up in the hands of a few powerful businessmen (crooks) and if you dare go against them you can kiss your sorry ass goodbye.
If you are going to discuss the tax code, can you at least have the discussion not just in the context of who pays what, but of who gets what benefits? As far as I know, Table 1 in this document is the one attempt to not only allocate tax payments, but tax benefits, by income decile http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr172.pdf Now, if that table is correct, there is no question that the "middle class" actually gets more in benefits than the "top 5%". So, what's the actual problem here? According to that table, the "top 5%" pay at least $50K more a year in taxes than they get back in benefits. You can say they can afford it, but if that's the best argument you can make, please do everyone a favor and stop sounding like you are some kind if high-minded noble savior of the middle class because "they can afford it" is the argument of an envious thug. People talk and talk about where tax revenue gets generated, but you see almost nothing about where the government spending that revenue generates goes. Well, it appears that it goes to Joe and Jane 6-Pack in the form of whatever it is the government allegedly does for us. Unless you assume that all tax revenues go to Washington and then get ladled out in huge dollops to the "top 5%", then you have to assume that the Feds are doing things that benefit the broad majority of people, to the actual financial detriment of the "top 5%". But, you'd have to show me DATA which support that hypothesis before I'm going to just throw away the conclusions I draw from that table. You may now return to your regularly scheduled uninformed bashing of the rich.
the money goes to Washington, that's why a poor Arkansas governor can blow 2 milllion on his daughter's wedding. It aint the rich against the poor, it's the people against the government. If I as and investment professional put together something like Social Security or Medicare, they would throw me in jail for robbing from the people. Yeah, you get a big benefit at first, until the ponzi scheme finally comes home to roost. There's no way you can take even all the money from the rich and give it to the poor, and then take all the money from the poor and give it to the rich for very long without eventually the government (the transfer agent) going broke due to lack of funds. Otherwise, we would all go into the transfer business. But the government seems to always have just enough money to keep it going somehow. I'm all for taxing the rich, so let's start with the US Federal government, since they have trillions and most of us just have millions.
The tax code is made by the government. The government is run by corporations. The corporations create laws to stifle competition. The corporations are run by the super rich. The super rich create super rich advantaged tax laws. The super rich create a debt ponzi. The super rich invest in inflation resistant items like stocks and houses. The super rich get richer. P.S. A flat tax is simple. A progressive tax is also simple. Input numbers in software, output your tax bill. Easy a child can do it.
The fact that AMT screws over middle class earners and doesn't touch upper class earners is just another example of what is completely fubar about the US tax code. The fact that politicians can't even agree to abolish the AMT or index it to inflation just shows you how ridiculous our system is.
I think you hit on a slightly different issue here, which is where does the value that gets transferred from high-income taxpayers go? Does it go to low-income beneficiaries of those transfers or is it primarily skimmed off the top by the transferring functionaries. That would require a more detailed analysis, but, when you consider that, controlling for education and experience, it does appear that Federal employees are overpaid relative to their private sector counterparts, it probably is the case that the actual primary beneficiary in these income transfer transactions is the Federal employee base. http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-mon...16-percent-more-than-private-sector-cbo-finds The market for government workers is just a subset of the overall labor market, subject to the exact same rules and incentives. Basically, as more analysis of that market comes out, it turns out they are not the "best and the brightest", they are basically mediocre, but the protective barrier that being in an industry without any natural competitors and the distance between them and those paying the bills has enabled them to run a nice little scam on taxpayers. That all worked until the economy went into the crapper. So, when a middle-class beneficiary of government programs gets $20K in benefits from those programs, those same programs probably would only cost $15-18K if delivered by the private sector equivalent. If there is no private sector equivalent and the program represents a public good, that's at least somewhat justifiable, in theory, because that's what government's most legitimate role is, the provision of public goods. If there is, or could be, a private sector equivalent, then society as a whole would be better off eliminating the government's role in providing that program. That would free up from $2-5K for investment or consumption elsewhere. As it is now, whatever that cost discrepancy is is what's known as a "dead weight loss". As for Clinton, he made most of his money after he left office or from book sales while he was in office, which, at least, is a reflection of his free market value. Why anyone would want to read a book penned by the guy is a different story. I'd rather re-read Caesar's book on the Gallic Wars again than read Clinton's blatherings.
This is, in my opinion, a very important question. It is a question that unfortunately lends itself to a knee jerk answer. But those answers would often be illogical when examined further. Consider that the total pie has a finite size. For normal, healthy individuals the size of each slice would ideally be in rough proportion to ones productivity -- which can be very broadly defined. If one takes a slice, for whatever reason, much greater than warranted by ones productivity, it is likely that someone else - the middle class in this case -- is going to have to get by with slices that are too meager relative to their productivity. This will only be true if the premise that the pie is of finite size is true. Of course the total size of the pie can grow both through productivity and inflation, but what is critical are the relative sizes of the slices for any given finite pie size. By the way, if it is an American pie, then obviously it is a cherry pie. If you are one who does not think that the size of your slice of pie should be related to your productivity, i.e., the situation in the ideal meritocracy, then, of course, you have little interest in the above argument.
This is a little off topic, but I can't resist commenting. Social Security and Medicare are two favorite topics because there are so many incorrect myths about both these entitlement programs. The quote above is wrong.
i live in one of those states. you are under the mistaken assumption that they dont get their needed revenue in some other way. in our case they get it from high real estate taxes. high taxes on real estate are far worse than income taxes because if you have a bad income year you owe still the full tax where with an income tax state no income = no tax.