4 ms·

The top 20% of earners tax rates isn't the problem, it's the tax rates on the .01%, which starts at around 1.9mm/yr Even better, the .001%, which starts at aro

by zajd 11y ago

The top 20% of earners tax rates isn't the problem, it's the tax rates on the .01%, which starts at around 1.9mm/yr Even better, the .001%, which starts at around 10.2mm/yr Not that people making $150k couldn't afford to pay more taxes (I'm one of them), but the issue really isn't with the top 20%. Even worse, the fact that capital gains aren't treated as income and the fact that we let parents pass billions on to their children (for no societal benefit) is a much larger problem. Cute statistic though, spoken like a true facebook comment

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
brandonmenc 11y ago
2000 people earn over $10M a year. Let's say you take $100M from each of them. That's $200B. The Federal budget is $3.8T. So you increased the budget by just 5%. It seems that the desire to tax the rich is simply to bleed them down to a normal level, not because we really need their money. I get that it's a desire to get back to 1950s level income equality, but that time seems to be an historical accident due to the US economy being the only one left standing after WW2. Sure, white guys in the United States were all earning at relative parity, but global poverty was far, far worse than it is today, women here weren't allowed to work, etc. And are the rich getting richer while the poor get poorer? Doesn't seem so. Rockefeller's net worth was $400-$600 billion in today's dollars, while our current richest person, Bill Gates, is worth a paltry $80B. Globally, the poor are earning more than ever. Correct me if I'm wrong, but when people talk about restoring income equality, at least in this country, they're unintentionally pining for the days when the United States middle class earned more, at the expense of the rest of the working world. > Cute statistic though, spoken like a true facebook comment Was this comment facebook-ey enough for you?
- zajd 11y ago
  2000 people earn over $10m a year because capital gains aren't considered income. If you consider capital gains income, that number changes significantly. Also, why would you use $100m per person? It should be 90% of earnings over $1m and 95% of earnings over $4m. Your comments are typical drivel that go on top of a meme. You should consider applying to work in Fox News' statistic department > Correct me if I'm wrong, but when people talk about restoring income equality, at least in this country, they're unintentionally pining for the days when the United States middle class earned more, at the expense of the rest of the working world. You are wrong. I'm not talking about restoring anything back to the 1950s. I'm talking about real solutions to the problems we face today, like ensuring education is affordable and available to everyone. Ensuring that every citizen has the right to have access to our healthcare system. etc. etc. It's not about having the middle class earn more, it's about the poor not being treated like complete shit in the US. The proper measure for a society is how we treat those who cannot provide for themselves. We're failing bigtime in America.
  - brandonmenc 11y ago
    > it's about the poor not being treated like complete shit in the US We actually agree on this. I just think we can do it by modifying the way we spend and distribute what we already collect, not necessarily by collecting more.

by zajd 11y ago

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

brandonmenc 11y ago

2000 people earn over $10M a year. Let's say you take $100M from each of them. That's $200B. The Federal budget is $3.8T. So you increased the budget by just 5%. It seems that the desire to tax the rich is simply to bleed them down to a normal level, not because we really need their money. I get that it's a desire to get back to 1950s level income equality, but that time seems to be an historical accident due to the US economy being the only one left standing after WW2. Sure, white guys in the United States were all earning at relative parity, but global poverty was far, far worse than it is today, women here weren't allowed to work, etc. And are the rich getting richer while the poor get poorer? Doesn't seem so. Rockefeller's net worth was $400-$600 billion in today's dollars, while our current richest person, Bill Gates, is worth a paltry $80B. Globally, the poor are earning more than ever. Correct me if I'm wrong, but when people talk about restoring income equality, at least in this country, they're unintentionally pining for the days when the United States middle class earned more, at the expense of the rest of the working world. > Cute statistic though, spoken like a true facebook comment Was this comment facebook-ey enough for you?

zajd 11y ago
2000 people earn over $10m a year because capital gains aren't considered income. If you consider capital gains income, that number changes significantly. Also, why would you use $100m per person? It should be 90% of earnings over $1m and 95% of earnings over $4m. Your comments are typical drivel that go on top of a meme. You should consider applying to work in Fox News' statistic department > Correct me if I'm wrong, but when people talk about restoring income equality, at least in this country, they're unintentionally pining for the days when the United States middle class earned more, at the expense of the rest of the working world. You are wrong. I'm not talking about restoring anything back to the 1950s. I'm talking about real solutions to the problems we face today, like ensuring education is affordable and available to everyone. Ensuring that every citizen has the right to have access to our healthcare system. etc. etc. It's not about having the middle class earn more, it's about the poor not being treated like complete shit in the US. The proper measure for a society is how we treat those who cannot provide for themselves. We're failing bigtime in America.
- brandonmenc 11y ago
  > it's about the poor not being treated like complete shit in the US We actually agree on this. I just think we can do it by modifying the way we spend and distribute what we already collect, not necessarily by collecting more.