Wealth redistribution

Quote: AZDuffman

The tipping point is coming. When you have to give more and more of the money you produce to those who produce nothing yet keep asking for more the end cannot be far behind.

While your point earlier in the post is somewhere valid, you do realize that wealth redistribution has very much been in the other direction over the last two decades, and money is moving into the hands of the few, rather than the unwashed, unemployed masses? The view I've heard that relatively even levels of wealth distribution (post war) may be an outlier, rather than a new normal.

So yes, there is a tipping point, but I suspect the tipping point will not be affecting the 1% of the 1%.

Quote: TheCesspit

While your point earlier in the post is somewhere valid, you do realize that wealth redistribution has very much been in the other direction over the last two decades, and money is moving into the hands of the few, rather than the unwashed, unemployed masses? The view I've heard that relatively even levels of wealth distribution (post war) may be an outlier, rather than a new normal.

So yes, there is a tipping point, but I suspect the tipping point will not be affecting the 1% of the 1%.

The 1% is not who is taking your wealth, it is the 47%. I give income to Steve Jobs (RIP) for an iPhone and I get a tool that lets me create more wealth for myself. I freely give my wealth in exchange for his goods. OTOH the government takes my wealth and gives a good part of it to people who refuse to work and I get nothing. Yes, the government uses some for productive things and some people are in need, but in any case the money is confiscated.

Lets use an easier example, though. I am currently getting started in rental properties and possibly some rehabs and new builds. If I get a few rentals and keep my day job a new-build gets harder to justify as the profit from it gets taxed at higher and higher rates as the party in power seems to think all capital gains are just lazy people trading stocks for guaranteed profit so they raise the tax rate there. To risk $175K to make $40K is not bad, the same risk for $20K is a non-starter. So I don't build, the contractor does not get hired, The Home Depot loses sales, the lumberjack gets less work (but more time to put on womens clothes and hang in bars), the trucker halls less, and multiplied on and on.

The 1% of 1% (eg: the Kennedys, Clintons, Gores, and Obamas of this world) will not have a loss in their living standards. But I am more worried about all of the 53%.

Look at 1031 exchanges, AZ and wait for a GOP government to come in and lower the Capital Gains tax again before you recognize your capital gains, though I am betting that the GOP wouldn't revert the Capital Gains tax back down to 15%.

And if you're lower income, the investment income rate is 0% and it's 23.8% (was 15%) when you make over $250K. So, pre 2013, if you make 40k on a 175K home, it means you actually sold your home for $222,059K (I'm not accounting for depreciation). If you sold that same home today for the same price, you would be making 35,858 instead of 40K (if you made $250K or more in ordinary income). The capital gains tax rate would have to be 57.5% to only make 20K on that home.

But you're in the distinct minority, AZ. Most Americans (Canadians too) are frustrated that their income isn't growing while the rich keep getting richer. They are tired of hearing the argument that minimum wage increases will hurt the employer, when in fact the employer is making huge sums of money by squeezing out the employees by farming everything it can overseas.

Now, is that Home Depot's fault? No. It is delivering value to its customers by getting goods from low-cost countries. People would rather buy a low-quality tool for $10 than spend $40 on a high-quality tool that lasts for a lifetime. People would rather buy toys and clothes made in Thailand for 25% of the cost over something that had high quality and made here. It's a throwaway society who doesn't think long term anymore. Home Depot also must deliver value to its shareholders too. But most Americans would like to see the executives say, "I've made my 10 million, let's take the excess and invest it in employees". I would rather see them have that VALUE than force a tax rate on them that would make them do that.

America's glory decades were arguably in the 50s and 60s when the marginal tax rates on the rich were 70% plus. Even during (the first six) Reagan years, the marginal tax rate on the rich was 50%.

Quote: boymimbo

And if you're lower income, the investment income rate is 0% and it's 23.8% (was 15%) when you make over $250K. So, pre 2013, if you make 40k on a 175K home, it means you actually sold your home for $222,059K (I'm not accounting for depreciation). If you sold that same home today for the same price, you would be making 35,858 instead of 40K (if you made $250K or more in ordinary income). The capital gains tax rate would have to be 57.5% to only make 20K on that home.

I am not going to discuss this as I have no idea what your numbers are about. I am talking buy or build a home, improve it, then sell right away for a profit. This is sometimes called "flipping." Additionally, there is no depreciation on a home unkless it is a rental. Laws in Canada may differ.

Quote:

But you're in the distinct minority, AZ. Most Americans (Canadians too) are frustrated that their income isn't growing while the rich keep getting richer. They are tired of hearing the argument that minimum wage increases will hurt the employer, when in fact the employer is making huge sums of money by squeezing out the employees by farming everything it can overseas.

The fact that I am in the minority shows so much of why the culture in the USA is a rotten mess. If your income is not growing it is up to you to do something to make it grow. You have to learn new skills and be willing to take those skills to a new employer. You have to consider having a "side-hustle" to get some extra cash. I deal cards and do notary work. A guy I work with paints parking lot lines. An old boss was a yoga instructor P/T. My brother does electrical work. Another guy I know does courrier work.

The common thread is none of us is expecting a yearly raise for doing the same job.

As to minimum wage, I don't make MW and assume you do not, either. Only a child would think raising the cost to the employer without a commensurate increase in productivity will not hurt said employer. IOW, If Obama or any other liberal wants to "give people a raise" they need to start or buy a business and give said raise. Should be easy to do as according to them businesses are making gobs of profit.

Worry about what you are making, not what the "rich guy" is making and your life will be happier.

Quote:

America's glory decades were arguably in the 50s and 60s when the marginal tax rates on the rich were 70% plus. Even during (the first six) Reagan years, the marginal tax rate on the rich was 50%.

Please explain how someone else paying more in income tax is better for you. I have never grasped this concept. As to the "glory days" the USA had recessions in 1953, 1958, and 1960 with 1958 being the harshest post-war recession until 2008 excepting for the end-of-war recession in 1945. I don't call it "glory years" at all.

Quote: AZDuffman

The 1% is not who is taking your wealth, it is the 47%.

You clearly still haven't understood who that 47% is yet. Until you do, you'll just fail to understand why Romney took a bath on the issue. And why it's actually just down right offensive to many people, many people who have

Quote:

Lets use an easier example, though. I am currently getting started in rental properties and possibly some rehabs and new builds. If I get a few rentals and keep my day job a new-build gets harder to justify as the profit from it gets taxed at higher and higher rates as the party in power seems to think all capital gains are just lazy people trading stocks for guaranteed profit so they raise the tax rate there. To risk $175K to make $40K is not bad, the same risk for $20K is a non-starter. So I don't build, the contractor does not get hired, The Home Depot loses sales, the lumberjack gets less work (but more time to put on womens clothes and hang in bars), the trucker halls less, and multiplied on and on.

Ah, the great hope of trickle down economics. I won't disagree that the US taxation system is screwed, but it's the marginal rates at the middle classes that are screwed. Next, I am sure, we will hear a cry for a flat taxation system. More ways to prime the economy via 'trickle down' wealth redistribution. I'll believe it when we get rid of corporate welfare at the same time.

Quote:

The 1% of 1% (eg: the Kennedys, Clintons, Gores, and Obamas of this world) will not have a loss in their living standards. But I am more worried about all of the 53%.

No, the last three are NOT the 1% of the 1%. I see you just -have- to list Democratic politicians. Cos Bush (Jr. and Sr.) didn't make any money ever, did they? But the people I am thinking of, are not politicians, and probably don't give a fig about democrat or republican.

Money is been accumalated into the hands of the very few. The issues you mention... they are a smoke screen to keep the right wing battling the liberals. While the liberals get smoke blown in their eyes to avoid the realization that we are all getting boned.

Quote: TheCesspit

You clearly still haven't understood who that 47% is yet. Until you do, you'll just fail to understand why Romney took a bath on the issue. And why it's actually just down right offensive to many people, many people who have.

Romney took a bath on the issue because the media made a big deal of a true statement. Either side is going to get 45-47% of people no matter who they run. The bottom 45-47%, by coincidence, pay no or effectively no income tax. The top 1% pays about 35% of all income taxes. Yet to liberals it is still not enough. Maybe it is offensive because it is showing liberals to be the greedy and selfish people they are acting like?

Quote:

Ah, the great hope of trickle down economics. I won't disagree that the US taxation system is screwed, but it's t,he marginal rates at the middle classes that are screwed. Next, I am sure, we will hear a cry for a flat taxation system. More ways to prime the economy via 'trickle down' wealth redistribution. I'll believe it when we get rid of corporate welfare at the same time.

I'm all for ending subsidies to solar and wind power. But anytime I see "corporate welfare" used I wonder just what the term is supposed to mean. I don't consider tax beaks "welfare."

Quote:

No, the last three are NOT the 1% of the 1%. I see you just -have- to list Democratic politicians. Cos Bush (Jr. and Sr.) didn't make any money ever, did they? But the people I am thinking of, are not politicians, and probably don't give a fig about democrat or republican.

Sorry, but the Clintons, Gore, and Obama are far into the 1%. Heck, Clinton and Obama never stopped bragging about it. Yes, I just listed Democrats as liberals are the ones who have a problem with someone earning money. Please read my sig to see my position o the issue.

The top 1% also earned about 20% of all income.

Quote: Dalex64

The top 1% also earned about 20% of all income.

Misleading. Many in the "Top 1%" are there one year only or just a short time. Might be an inheritance. Might be short term industry boom like mortgages in 2004-5 or when they build the Alaska Pipeline. The farm might have had a boom year or in today's case the farmer got a mineral lease bonus payment.

The best thing would be if more people stopped worrying what the "Top 1%" made and started thinking how they can better their own lives.

Quote: AZDuffman

Misleading. Many in the "Top 1%" are there one year only or just a short time. Might be an inheritance. Might be short term industry boom like mortgages in 2004-5 or when they build the Alaska Pipeline. The farm might have had a boom year or in today's case the farmer got a mineral lease bonus payment.

The best thing would be if more people stopped worrying what the "Top 1%" made and started thinking how they can better their own lives.

If saying the top 1% earned 20% of the income is misleading, why is saying that the top 1% paid 35% of the income tax not equally misleading for the same reasons?

Quote: Dalex64

If saying the top 1% earned 20% of the income is misleading, why is saying that the top 1% paid 35% of the income tax not equally misleading for the same reasons?

Because liberals say the top 1% "doesn't pay their fair share." By any logical measure, they do. But the point is people move in and out of said 1% year in and year out. People move in and out of all income groups year in and year out.