Did you know that in the 40s East Asians IQ was considered low? what happened for it to increase? We are talking genetics here...
True, Ashkenazi Jews are quite an exception and my impression from various reads is that most of them excel in their chosen fields, though such fields often comprise the arts, academia, and science rather than becoming financiers (or today's version of financiers, such as bankers, venture capitalists, investors,...).
You're not responding to my question and instead keep talking about random unrelated subjects. So let's leave our discussion, as it's rather pointless.
As I said a couple of hundred posts ago, ET is not the place to discuss this since so many have become rewired by FoxNews, but, no, taxing the wealthy would have no effect on inequality. The wealthy have been around for millennia. What have changed over the past thirty years or so are the barriers to advancement. Can the governmental actions during this period (by Republicans AND Democrats) be reversed? Probably not. What can be done instead? Who knows? But exchanging rants -- which is where we are currently stuck -- will not move us any closer to possible solutions. Are you an American living in England or are you native-born English?
I sorta agree and disagree both... The issue is complicated and just taxing the wealthy isn't the solution, by any means. That's why I am trying to concentrate on a specific issue, i.e. the death/inheritance taxes. I find the idea interesting, although there are certainly questions about implementation. Moreover, I am intending personally to act on the basis of my views. Finally, I am neither an American ex-pat nor a native-born Englishman.
something I summed up many many pages ago "less opportunities for advancement for the hard working and intelligent sub-group of the middle class". You have an extremely small number of individuals who reach the stratosphere but otherwise relatively less people who meaningfully push up their career and hence income and life style. Sure, LCD displays (representative for living standard) get cheaper but many other items that are actually costlier (such as housing) are way more expensive while real wages have declined over the years.
The bell curve will always exist, that is the way nature works. Government policy can alter the skew and kurtosis of the distribution, but can not change the fundamental normal distribution of wealth. Communist theory tries for a uniform distribution, but that never really happens does it.
Govt is huge. The entire Public Sector entities of the US of A have budgets totaling more than half the GNP. This is not sustainable yet the voters keep saying "more govt puulllllleeeeezzzzzeeeeee" and the elected officials are only happy to provide it in quantities far exceeding what can ever be paid for. So, for awhile at least, it's over for the US of A. Does anybody really give a rat's ass? I want my home grown veggies a lot more than all the industrial shit the US of A used to be about...
1. first of all when the Govt is running trillion dollar deficits anyway... personal income tax is really just stealing money from the tax payers who earned it. Why not just let us keep the money we earn and distribute the monopoly money they have created as they see fit. They are no longer constrained by a balanced budget. The correct move would eventually limit the size of govt... increase our economy massively and eventually balance the budget. Capping spending where it is now... and eliminating income tax entirely is far more fair... than just taking big chunks of the working class' money and spending like hell anyway. By capping the current spending levels and eliminating income tax... the economy would boom. Our companies would be more profitable everyone would be "incentivised to work" Govt expenditures would go down as people went back to work. Govt revenues from the other tax sources would boom. Inflation would take care of the rest until the budget balanced. the economy and gdp would boom. Those in washinton would be forced to rework their now limited budget in a manner which is truly useful since and they would be more free to do it because far fewer would be lobbying for tax breaks. We would get back to a debate about real tradeoffs and real values... defense or or amnesty expenses... etc...? I would also not some of the most import functions of govt you mentioned are carrried out at the state and local level, which have separate revenue sources. Finally, we don't need probably half of what Washington D.C. does. The sequester illustrated that and its why the establishment had to find a way to get rid of the sequester.
to martin... I did respond to the question you asked... with an explanation of how the system works... But, again I will it out... because I can see you have a few fan boys that that have been conditioned into drone thought. Income inequality comes about because the cronies get to accumulate all the assets...virtually everybody else has their assets taxed away within a generation or 2. The death tax... is a catch all that cements the inequality created by the progressive tax system. The tax system is designed to prevent an individual from saving a great deal of cash during his life and trading or investing with it. The death tax is a massive road block to generational savings and the accumulation of capital by the smaller non cronies. Most families can't even keep houses past one generation yet alone hold onto compounds like the cronies. The death tax typically forces the sale of potentially large assets like houses. Death taxes prevent the accumulation of capital by those who don't accumulate such a large amount of assets that they can afford to set up the tax avoidance schemes the cronies take advantage of. In other words it makes it close to impossible for the children of small guys to become cronies over time. You either hit it big going public through a wall street deal or you make your money working for the banks on wall street. Otherwise, your money will be drained and your progeny will be back to worker drones within a generation or 2. Its a brilliant method for allowing the cronies connected to the money printing group to control to gather in all the assets and purchase all the politicians. If you have a really big business idea and you really needs gobs of cash or you want to go public... you have to become cemented in with the cronies because they have the money. Its not all spread out evenly throughout society... the massive income tax, inflation and the death tax takes care of that. I am sure you are aware are top .02% own something like 40% of all the assets. Because of the way cumulative voting rights work... that ownership probably allows the cronies to control close to 90 percent of all the assets. Now this is not much different than the answer I gave you before.... if you still insist I am not answering your question... you are just being dense. Quote: Originally Posted by Martinghoul View Post I am really curious... How do "death taxes" create income inequality, jem? What's the exact mechanism?