Taxes should reflect expenses. Look what is happening in Greece, who thought otherwise. Low taxes are a gimmick, since debts cannot grow to the sky, eventually something will have to be done.
i
I vaguely remember reading an article that said if somehow the all the money the richest people had was redistributed evenly among the population of the country, the yield to each person would be surprisingly small. Does anybody have any clearer memory of that? Didn't get anywhere with Google so far.
Low taxes are not a gimmick, they are a really good way to make the economy boom. Don't forget the spending end of the equation. When they talk about "making tough choices" in politics, they are supposed to mean that they won't overspend, but the voters want it both ways.
Joe Gwinn
It's true. There just aren't enough filthy rich people.
As a practical matter, the middle class carries the burden, because the poor don't have the money, and the rich don't have the numbers.
I think the information is at the Bureau of Labor Statistics or the US Census. What you want is the distribution of income versus number of taxpayers at that income level. Ed Huntress probably know exactly where to look.
Joe Gwinn
The data on actual tax revenues is in the IRS statistics. Census is where I'd go first to find out how many people are making how much money.
This is not a hard one, and it's good practice for someone to see how to dig out facts. d8-)
How did the Census find out how much I make? After answering one on how many live at my residence, I stop filling out the form. Enumerated means counted in my book.
Wes
-- "Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller
Census does a lot more than count heads. Here's the personal income page. It explains how they get income data:
I remember reading that if all the present wealth was redistributed evenly, it would all be back in the hands of the original owners in a few years.
There is probably a lot of truth to that stament, but..
Then why are you worrying so much about your personal taxes?
i
That's the claim, but I doubt it.
To be sure the money/wealth would again be quickly concentrated into a few hands, but most likely these would be different hands.
In many cases, the founder of the fortune/dynasty passed on years ago, and his heirs have no real idea how he did it, only a collection of family myths/legends.
In other cases the socio-economic/cultural/political circumstances [and luck] that allowed the growth of the original dynasty/trust have completely changed, e.g. Rockefeller would be unable to re-establish an oil monopoly, Sam Walton would be unable to reestablish Walmart, etc.
Unka George (George McDuffee) .............................. The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there. L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author. The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).
Great point and it is something that I completely missed.
I remember how years ago, my girlfriend had a side job and worked at a house occupied by a rich family, with several adult siblings living together.
I was invited ones to look and was kind of impressed, these heirs lived a life of leisure, seemed very kind to one another, I remember how they sat in chairs and discussed civilly some latest developments of something. They were just very nice people all around. I would not terribly mind such life for my kids.
It seemed to be great in very many ways, but for sure they would not be able to re-earn their wealth, if it was redistributed.
I would invest, on the spot, into any business that Sam Walton would open, in this hypothetical scenario.
i
Don't you think your kids deserve the fruits of your labor more than the cheese-checkers? Why do you have ANY assets? There are people with nothing that DESERVE your stuff? Why should you work hard to provide for your family...somebody else will.
I once met a staunch Communist. I asked him how it works. "If you had four chickens and your neighbor had none, would you give him two chickens?" "Of course! That's how it works!", he said. "If you had two pigs and your neighbor had none, would you give him a pig?" "Of course! That's how it works!", he said. "If you had two cows and your neighbor had none, would you give him a cow?" "NO!" he said, "I HAVE two cows!"
How many "cows" do you have? I'm sure you have neighbors that don't have an air compressor or a lathe, or a mill or as much money as you.
On Apr 11, 12:38=A0am, F. George McDuffee
I think the claim may be right on. It isn't so much that those with wealth are so good at gaining wealth. But most of those that had little money before, would do the same things that caused them to have little money. Money would be spent with abandon by many of the population, so gaining wealth would be relatively easy.
I agree that among the wealthy, there would be some new faces. But Warren Buffet would still be one of the wealthy.
Dan
When you say "deserve", it implies some kind of a moral judgment.
So, I hate to say it, but I am not sure why my kids "deserve" this more than, possibly, somebody else's kids who might be better in some respects.
Would I like them to get fruits of my labor? Sure, I love them and want the best for them. I am not even sure, yet, if they are the kinds of people who would be helped, or hurt, by economic help from parents. I hope that they would be helped. If so, I would like to help them get started in life. All of that said, I would prefer if they could be self sufficient people who can do well on their own.
Keep in mind that I am still not subject to estate tax, so this is all abstract. I hope that I will be, later.
I feel that I owe this country for my success because I could never be as well off, even relatively, where I came from. So, I think, at the very least, I should not object to sharing some of what I earn or gain.
I do not think that perpetual dynasties of rich people would help this society to become better.
Estate tax or not, at this time, will have no effect on how hard I work.
Did you really meet that person or did you make it up?
I cannot know, maybe my neighbors are wealthier than me. It is hard to tell. The book "The millionnaire next door" was a big revelation to me, as it showed that most millionaires live a middle class lifestyle. Of course, these days, being a millionaire does not amount to much, due to rise in living standards and inflation.
The bottom line is that I have no objection to some reasonable level of estate taxes.
i
============
Don't set up a straw man.
The discussion was about the reconcentration of wealth by a few owners.
As indicated, even if the money/wealth {i.e. productive assets} were equally distributed, in very short order these would again become concentrated.
My suggestion is that these would most likely be different owners/controllers, for several reasons, among which are that the original founders of the large American fortunes/dynasties have for the most part passed, and their heirs generally have no idea how the fortune/dynasty was founded.
It should be noted that different personalities are required at different stages of estate development. The entrepreneur that founds the fortune is likely not the person best suited to the maintenance/growth of the dynasty. Conversely, individuals that may do very well in the maintainer/management of great wealth may be poorly suited to the creation of the original wealth.
Another problem is that there must be a match between the [personality of the] founder of a fortune/dynasty and the times/locations in which they live, in addition to the very important factor of luck. While "chance may indeed favor the prepared mind," it is still chance, and how many times can you draw to an inside straight? One example is Sam Walton/Wal-Mart. If Sam had been born and raised in a large urban area such as NY, Chicago, or LA, would/could he have created Wal-Mart?
Now for the straw man. You do however raise an interesting point, and one that brings into focus the problem that what is "fair" for the individual may be unfair and even harmful for society in the long-term or aggregate.
"Mortmain" {literal "dead hand"} has been a legal problem back into at least the middle ages, and refers to the control of property by the long dead through the conditions of their wills and trusts, such as entailed estates that could not be divided among several heirs, but had to pass as a unit to a new owner.
In the United States the rule against perpetuities has been abolished by statute in Alaska, Idaho, New Jersey, and South Dakota. Twenty-eight other U.S. states have adopted the Uniform Statutory Rule Against Perpetuities, which validates non-vested interests that would otherwise be void under the common law rule if that interest actually vests within 90 years of its creation.
It should be noted where economies have become dominated by "mainmort" "trusts" and other pools of inherited wealth, progress of any kind is very slow, wealth distribution tends to become increasingly unequal, and social stability is increasingly marginal, e.g. Mexico and most of Latin America.
Unka George (George McDuffee) .............................. The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there. L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author. The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).
Very well said! I think we understand each other's points. And yes, that Communist story is real...and telling.
Old money disappears if it is not handled shrewdly, there is a built-in mechanism to extract it from stupid people. Being a millionaire is nothing anymore, one had better be if one has any hope of a retirement that doesn't include endless meals of cat food and beans and rice, medical trips to the free clinic and living in squalor in a bad part of town.
It seems that you, and most people think of wealth as a finite thing. I believe that it is NOT! More and more wealth CAN be created. When all the talk is about cutting up the pie...I say make a bigger pie. Yet look at all the politically motivated restraints on new wealth creation. Why is that? I see it as schadenfreude by those in power and a way for them to control political power. They have no power if the masses are prosperous.
Did you find the answer you're looking for?
I searched around a bit and went to bed but your post reminded me to look again.
Now how they get the data, looking at your link and learning a couple key words I googled up this:
I tried to make sense of some of the data but when they use $250,000 and up for the last group, so I don't have anything to work with, especially when that is a median number that tends to exclude the outliers and the really big ones on the right side of the chart is what I was interested in. IIRC, the topic is how would redistributing the income of the wealthy would affect the poorer members of society.
Wes
An equally interesting one is how it would affect the wealthy. I know it's counterintuitive but letting the Bush era tax cuts expire would actually get top earners back on the stick. All of the talk you might hear about dissincentives is just BS. That isn't how the world works if you are taxed at the marginal rates American's are.
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.