The Top Fifth

[Moiraine]

What dude said.

 

JJ - what you're doing isn't on par with funneling money to politicians to get you another couple billion on top of the 100 billion you already have and in so doing, possibly cost people their livelihoods and/or health and/or lives.

[Mavric]

 

So what is "too high"?

This. This is too high. I'm happy to hear your rebuttals in defense of the status quo.

 

When you talk about tax policy, do you ask for a golden number, too? Every time someone proposes that taxes be lowered, do you require a target number or is the mission statement enough?

 

Do you have an ideal number of your own? Inaction is much the same as action -- unless you aren't arguing that the status quo is at an optimum so much as expressing your resistance to the direction of the proposed change, and searching for the easiest ways to try and discredit the author.

 

Again, it's easy to make vague assertions. But unless you have a target that you'd like to work toward, how do you know if you've ever accomplished it?

 

Which, I suspect, is largely the point of arguing in generalities. You don't actually have to come up with a workable plan to get there and make it hard to have a meaningful discussion about whether that is reasonable or not.

[zoogs]

Again: do you require this in every tax discussion? Those numbers, at least, do not exist. Do you require fiscal policy to be guided by mythically ideal debt-to-GDP ratios? I don't think the numbers you are looking for exist in the literature, but I am not an economist. If you are, please enlighten. Otherwise, this seems like a convenient way for inconvenient conversations to never happen.

 

--

The thesis here is relatively straightforward. We're asked to consider two questions:

 

1 - Should we help the disadvantaged?

2 - Who's in the category of "should help" and who's in the category of "disadvantaged, needs to receive help"?

 

The author makes the claim that currently, groups of people in the former category see themselves as in the latter, and this gets reflected in what is politically untouchable and what's viable. I think there's some solid evidence presented in favor to support this interpretation, but I'd welcome rebuttals.

 

--

It's possible, by the way, there exist plans with detailed target levels. I would agree that there are different degrees of plans moving in the same direction that could, in turn, be evaluated on their respective merits.

[zoogs]

I'd also be more than happy to have a debate regarding what the literature says about current income inequality levels in the United States and their effects. I'm, of course, not steeped in this reading either -- but I think we share a suspicion that further examination wouldn't be too kind to your side of it.

[JJ Husker]

What dude said.

JJ - what you're doing isn't on par with funneling money to politicians to get you another couple billion on top of the 100 billion you already have and in so doing, possibly cost people their livelihoods and/or health and/or lives.

I agree, those are quite different things. But my point is that they are done in self interest. I guess maybe we need to weed out which self preservation actions are okay and which aren't. I would bet the very rich look at those things in much the same way I did about selecting schools. Most everyone will do whatever is in their power to control.

[zoogs]

I think self-preservation is fine! At least, the plea here is not that people should act in less self-preserving ways individually.

 

It's to recognize the effects collectively and consider remedies in order to limit the blows. For example, if there's a tax loophole accessible to a select few, they should be making use of it. But perhaps we should close that loophole so that nobody can anymore (after a careful consideration of where that lands cumulative tax policy relative to specific numeric targets, if you will).

 

In the case of schools, maybe, as Moiraine suggested earlier, we should change the way public school funds are distributed. Or make some of those gating practices less accomplishable globally. Or subsidize poorer districts directly with new taxes. There are many ways to attack a problem once it's recognized. Some are good ideas, some are not. And some problems are more tractable than others. Few things come without trade-offs. It's the ones we choose.

[Mavric]

Again: do you require this in every tax discussion? Those numbers, at least, do not exist. Do you require fiscal policy to be guided by mythically ideal debt-to-GDP ratios? I don't think the numbers you are looking for exist in the literature, but I am not an economist. If you are, please enlighten. Otherwise, this seems like a convenient way for inconvenient conversations to never happen.

Sorry, I realized later I didn't answer your question when you asked it before. Didn't get past your first paragraph.

 

Yes, you absolutely have to talk about real numbers when discussion tax policy. Just saying "we have to lower taxes" doesn't get anyone anywhere. It has to be "the top bracket should be changed by X% because..." or whatever. If you're just talking in generalities, you're more than likely just complaining or stirring the pot. If you don't have an actual plan to change something, nothing is going to get changed.

 

The thesis here is relatively straightforward. We're asked to consider two questions:

 

1 - Should we help the disadvantaged?

2 - Who's in the category of "should help" and who's in the category of "disadvantaged, needs to receive help"?

 

The author makes the claim that currently, groups of people in the former category see themselves as in the latter, and this gets reflected in what is politically untouchable and what's viable. I think there's some solid evidence presented in favor to support this interpretation, but I'd welcome rebuttals.

 

--

It's possible, by the way, there exist plans with detailed target levels. I would agree that there are different degrees of plans moving in the same direction that could, in turn, be evaluated on their respective merits.

With all due respect, I think you'd like to think that's what the article is about. But it's not.

 

The answer to the first is obvious - and again, posited in the extremely general. Who are the disadvantaged? Is everyone not in the 1% disadvantages to some extent? The article is making the case that everyone not in the 20% is disadvantaged. Thus, I must need more help.

 

The second question is a much better one. I'd be curious to know how you answer it. There is already a significant amount of help being given. Obviously you think it should be more. So how much more?

 

But that's not what the article is saying. The author is saying he's disappointed that the top class is actively trying to prevent others from joining. But he wraps it up in a nice little bow of platitudes.

[RedDenver]

 

 

I think entitled is the perfect word to use for people who get benefits based solely on their circumstance. Not sure what else to call it when they do nothing in return for receiving it. It is simply handed over because of their situation.

I like this quote because, while it's intended to describe the poor on welfare, it exactly states why I have issues with inherited wealth.

 

Somewhat tangential question:

 

For those who advocate for "less income inequality", what would be the "ideal" discrepancy between, say, those in the 80th percentile and those in the 20th?

I don't think it's about the distribution of the wealth, but rather the effects of that distribution. For example, if all children had equal opportunities growing up (food, shelter, education, healthcare), then I don't think the distribution matters. The problem IMO is when those who have the money can create a system in order to keep their money (e.g. pay less taxes) at the expense of the opportunities of others.

 

"Pay less taxes" than what?

 

The amount necessary to accomplish the things I listed.

[zoogs]

I don’t think so. I think you can make problem statements that aren’t themselves policy proposals. It's possible for taxes to be high enough, for example, to present evidence that current levels are stifling growth. Such an article not being a policy paper would not be to its discredit. Similarly, we can discern direction without being absolutely certain of magnitude.

 

We could turn this discussion towards the present state of inequality in the United States and the merits or dangers of that. I doubt this would be a favorable discussion for your side, but you’re welcome to present that case. Or we could evaluate whether the separation at the top is actually occurring, and whether wealth is as sticky and economic mobility as limited as claimed. If you're saying these points aren't true, then support it. Else, your criticisms are as vague and generic as you suggest this article is.

 

—

My position is that the wealthy and much of the middle don’t need to be paying less in taxes. This is contrary to strong (and bipartisan) political messaging, which consistently tells the middle they ought to be first in line for more benefits. Thus I think this was a worthy argument to see presented. I'd probably have more to say about degrees of each if the political debate before us weren't a matter of "maintain/expand" vs "eviscerate".

[knapplc]

 

...some poor people are going to get out of it, and some are going to stay poor because they suck at life. We can't all be wealthy.

Huh. I'm surprised.

 

Surprised? Really? Don't you live in a large population center? I thought you did, and if so, you should know that's true. You would interact with a LOT of different types of people, and you'd know they're all different (better, worse, other).

 

I'm not being harsh. I'm being realistic. In the same way that I can't play basketball because I can't dribble or shoot, some people just are not good at "life." In fact, we're all variably good at it. I'm OK, some people are better, some are worse. Some start higher up on the ladder than I did, some start lower. Some who want to consolidate their stuff make it harder for those who are lower to climb, some who are able to make it easier for others to climb. Different people have different skills. Some people suck at driving, some suck at golf, some suck at math.

 

Some suck at "life." It happens. We can still try to help them, but like a bad drill well, if it ain't producing, at some point you have to cap it off and move on.

 

That's not shocking, right?

[zoogs]

You're right that people vary in their abilities. I'd argue that the initial dice roll is a more relevant factor. We do not largely happen to be born into "good at life" levels commensurate with income.

 

What's "cap it off and move on" mean?

[Mavric]

Here are some numbers involving income inequality and help given to "disadvantaged":

 

In 1967 (oldest data available here), the mean household income for the second fifth of the US population (20th to 40th percentile) was $27,513 (adjusted to 2015 dollars). The mean income for the fourth fifth (60th to 80th) was $61,461. Thus the fourth made 223.3% as much as the second (adjusted for inflation). In 2015 (newest data available), the mean for the second was $32,631 while the mean for the fourth was $92,031 - 282.0% as much. So there was an increase of income inequality by about 60% or about 1.2% per year. The reason I bring up the per year number is because a lot of that is simply a function of math. If you start with two different numbers and increase both by the same percentage, the difference gets bigger. So, since the numbers are already adjusted for inflation, the increased difference would be the same as both parties getting a 1.2% wage increase above inflation for all those years. So would that be treating both fairly if they both got the same raise? Or do you have to give the lower earner a bigger raise to keep from exaggerating the income inequality?

 

Now, as far as helping the disadvantaged, let's look at US expenditures Medicare and Income Security (other than Social Security) over the same time period. I'm sure that's not a perfect set to look at but those were two major categories that would seem to be mostly a redistribution from the top half to the bottom half. In 1967, those categories totaled $13,009M dollars which, using the same inflation factor as above, would adjust to $80,739M in 2015 dollars. In 2015, those same categories totaled $1,055,045 in spending. That is an inflation-adjusted 1,306.7% increase or 27.2% per year.

 

So the increase in those programs to help the disadvantaged increased 21 TIMES AS MUCH as the income inequality increased. Now that would be somewhat skewed by the population increase which is 61.5% but even then, it the spending increase would be an 803.6% increase in per capita spending over that time frame.

 

So the questions should be:

Is looking at income inequality really telling the whole story?

Has increasing the redistribution by that amount got us closer to the goal?

Is simply looking to increase the redistribution going about it the right way?

Edited June 13, 2017 by Mavric
Edited wording

[Mavric]

 

 

 

I think entitled is the perfect word to use for people who get benefits based solely on their circumstance. Not sure what else to call it when they do nothing in return for receiving it. It is simply handed over because of their situation.

I like this quote because, while it's intended to describe the poor on welfare, it exactly states why I have issues with inherited wealth.

 

Somewhat tangential question:

 

For those who advocate for "less income inequality", what would be the "ideal" discrepancy between, say, those in the 80th percentile and those in the 20th?

I don't think it's about the distribution of the wealth, but rather the effects of that distribution. For example, if all children had equal opportunities growing up (food, shelter, education, healthcare), then I don't think the distribution matters. The problem IMO is when those who have the money can create a system in order to keep their money (e.g. pay less taxes) at the expense of the opportunities of others.

 

"Pay less taxes" than what?

The amount necessary to accomplish the things I listed.

 

Argued perfectly in the abstract. As expected.

[Mavric]

I don’t think so. I think you can make problem statements that aren’t themselves policy proposals. It's possible for taxes to be high enough, for example, to present evidence that current levels are stifling growth. Such an article not being a policy paper would not be to its discredit. Similarly, we can discern direction without being absolutely certain of magnitude.

 

We could turn this discussion towards the present state of inequality in the United States and the merits or dangers of that. I doubt this would be a favorable discussion for your side, but you’re welcome to present that case. Or we could evaluate whether the separation at the top is actually occurring, and whether wealth is as sticky and economic mobility as limited as claimed. If you're saying these points aren't true, then support it. Else, your criticisms are as vague and generic as you suggest this article is.

 

—

My position is that the wealthy and much of the middle don’t need to be paying less in taxes. This is contrary to strong (and bipartisan) political messaging, which consistently tells the middle they ought to be first in line for more benefits. Thus I think this was a worthy argument to see presented. I'd probably have more to say about degrees of each if the political debate before us weren't a matter of "maintain/expand" vs "eviscerate".

 

Of course you can make problem statements that aren't policy proposals. But then you're just talking about this utopia that you'd like to live in and not really working toward a solution other than trying to get others to agree to a Utopian ideal. Considering there are going to be "winners" and "losers" in any change, it would seem that you would need to define, at least within some approximation, where the lines would need to be drawn or what you're trying to get to. Otherwise, it would seem that the focus is not on solving a problem but complaining about the situation or trying to demonize those who don't agree.

 

Is anyone actually calling for evisceration? I'd like to know who or see some examples. I can't imagine they are in any serious numbers.

[Mavric]

Also, the spending numbers I listed above span a timeframe where the top income tax bracket was cut roughly in half. So obviously reducing tax brackets is far, far, far from the same thing as cutting support to disadvantaged.