4 ms·

taxes in the US are far more progressive than they used to be. there are however many new avenues to follow to increase wealth. those below a certain income lev

taxes in the US are far more progressive than they used to be. there are however many new avenues to follow to increase wealth. those below a certain income level are more likely to get eaten up by embedded taxes, regulatory fees and government service fees. then throw in we are bombarded every day continuously to buy this,buy that, go here, do that. We get told every day of wonderful stuff available for pennies or dollars a day. we have tv shows and advertisements implying status for owning certain products. besides managing their money we fail to teach kids in school just how well marketing manipulates them into believing what is needed to have them spend money. still regulation has become the go to tool to prevent competition and when that doesn't work the fear of exploitation of the poor or under privileged is brought to the foreground. the simple fact is we have too much government for it to be effective for the regular person, it only serves those who can afford to operate on its level

tryitnow 9y ago
Really? Could you be more specific on how regulatory fees and government service fees are a bigger problem than massive, gaping wealth inequality and the power differentials that go along with it? And what's the solution? Deregulation? Wouldn't that just make consumers even more vulnerable to the predations of the powerful? In fact, it seems that powerful interests generally lobby for more regulation, not less, so I'm not really sure what your point is here. And your statement about "too much government" is vague and abstract. How exactly is "too much government" contributing to wealth and power inequality. Historically, it has been government intervention that has acted as a counterweight to concentrated power. In fact, people who have been complaining about too much government became influential in public policy about the EXACT time a lot of these trends in wealth inequality started (the late 1970s). Sorry to be so critical, but I think a major contributor to our problems is people who make blanket statements about that are vague and imprecise and do not articulate any real policy goals.
- CodeWriter23 9y ago
  In response to your first question, my go to answer would be the government's favorite rent seeking apparatus: parking enforcement. Parking tickets are a regressive form of taxation that disproportionately affects the poor. I'm not talking about exceeding your time at the meter. I'm more referring to Street Sweeping violations on a weekly basis, when they hardly ever actually send a street sweeper down your block. Another example is how LA Sanitation continued to charge myself and thousands of other apartment dwellers the monthly flat rate, despite our landlord hiring a private service, and the fact that the city collected our cans and the city trucks didn't collect trash. They refused to refund my money, citing a City Council Resolution on the matter. The city was eventually sued and this policy was repealed. If I refused to pay, since DWP does the billing for Sanitation, my electrical service would have been terminated. Don't even get me started on CA's solution to Sacramento's refusal to curtail spending by passing a $.20/gallon gasoline tax. CA residents already pay more gas tax than most other states. And last but certainly not least, CA Senate Bill 18/2017 which thankfully was crushed by activists. This "Children's Bill of Rights" did not increase safety nor the welfare of children in general. It did however insinuate the State of California as your child's new parent, whilst mandating a new level of services to be provided by the billionaire author of the bill, Jim Steyer (Common Sense Media). Funded by your tax dollars, of course.
grasshopperpurp 9y ago
"taxes in the US are far more progressive than they used to be." How do you figure? Between 1936 and 1989, the tax rate for the top income bracket varied between 63% and 91%. https://qz.com/74271/income-tax-rates-since-1913/ https://qz.com/74271/income-tax-rates-since-1913/
- Shivetya 9y ago
  because tax rate on income is meaningless when they don't have income and when tax rates were high their incomes vanished. that is the true history and true facts
  - grasshopperpurp 9y ago
    Post I responded to said, "taxes in the US are far more progressive than they used to be." A progressive tax rate is one that increases as the taxable amount increases. So, I could be missing something, but I don't see how your post addresses my response. Saying it's meaningless doesn't change the definition of a progressive tax rate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_tax
- opo 9y ago
  The "top marginal rate" means very little by itself. What matters is the effective rate which takes into account the credits/deductions that are allowed, the other lower tax rates, etc. For example, the top 10% paid 49% of taxes in 1980 and paid 70% in 2014. (http://www.ntu.org/foundation/page/who-pays-income-taxes http://www.ntu.org/foundation/page/who-pays-income-taxes)

tryitnow 9y ago

Really? Could you be more specific on how regulatory fees and government service fees are a bigger problem than massive, gaping wealth inequality and the power differentials that go along with it? And what's the solution? Deregulation? Wouldn't that just make consumers even more vulnerable to the predations of the powerful? In fact, it seems that powerful interests generally lobby for more regulation, not less, so I'm not really sure what your point is here. And your statement about "too much government" is vague and abstract. How exactly is "too much government" contributing to wealth and power inequality. Historically, it has been government intervention that has acted as a counterweight to concentrated power. In fact, people who have been complaining about too much government became influential in public policy about the EXACT time a lot of these trends in wealth inequality started (the late 1970s). Sorry to be so critical, but I think a major contributor to our problems is people who make blanket statements about that are vague and imprecise and do not articulate any real policy goals.

CodeWriter23 9y ago
In response to your first question, my go to answer would be the government's favorite rent seeking apparatus: parking enforcement. Parking tickets are a regressive form of taxation that disproportionately affects the poor. I'm not talking about exceeding your time at the meter. I'm more referring to Street Sweeping violations on a weekly basis, when they hardly ever actually send a street sweeper down your block. Another example is how LA Sanitation continued to charge myself and thousands of other apartment dwellers the monthly flat rate, despite our landlord hiring a private service, and the fact that the city collected our cans and the city trucks didn't collect trash. They refused to refund my money, citing a City Council Resolution on the matter. The city was eventually sued and this policy was repealed. If I refused to pay, since DWP does the billing for Sanitation, my electrical service would have been terminated. Don't even get me started on CA's solution to Sacramento's refusal to curtail spending by passing a $.20/gallon gasoline tax. CA residents already pay more gas tax than most other states. And last but certainly not least, CA Senate Bill 18/2017 which thankfully was crushed by activists. This "Children's Bill of Rights" did not increase safety nor the welfare of children in general. It did however insinuate the State of California as your child's new parent, whilst mandating a new level of services to be provided by the billionaire author of the bill, Jim Steyer (Common Sense Media). Funded by your tax dollars, of course.

grasshopperpurp 9y ago

"taxes in the US are far more progressive than they used to be." How do you figure? Between 1936 and 1989, the tax rate for the top income bracket varied between 63% and 91%. https://qz.com/74271/income-tax-rates-since-1913/ https://qz.com/74271/income-tax-rates-since-1913/

Shivetya 9y ago
because tax rate on income is meaningless when they don't have income and when tax rates were high their incomes vanished. that is the true history and true facts
- grasshopperpurp 9y ago
  Post I responded to said, "taxes in the US are far more progressive than they used to be." A progressive tax rate is one that increases as the taxable amount increases. So, I could be missing something, but I don't see how your post addresses my response. Saying it's meaningless doesn't change the definition of a progressive tax rate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_tax
opo 9y ago
The "top marginal rate" means very little by itself. What matters is the effective rate which takes into account the credits/deductions that are allowed, the other lower tax rates, etc. For example, the top 10% paid 49% of taxes in 1980 and paid 70% in 2014. (http://www.ntu.org/foundation/page/who-pays-income-taxes http://www.ntu.org/foundation/page/who-pays-income-taxes)