Income Inequality
- Thread starter BigRedBuster
- Start date
methodical
New member
I was going to include that in my post, but ended up deleting it because compensation type really isn't the issue in either case. Cash or not, without loopholes it's still taxable income. The issue is that taxes are a linear function at the top and are always a linear function when you are talking about capital gains which is how wealth is made and stored, but that wealth is gained exponentially. It simply makes sense for people after a certain level of income to focus on gaining wealth/net worth. They don't need more cash to fund their lifestyle and wealth grows as investments with time but loses value as cash.
It's funny, at least to me, that republicans seem so enamored with 1950s society in their "return to greatness", but that they never mention the tax policy in place that funded that society where income tax brackets went up to basically 90%, so the burden was spread much more equitably across the board as a percentage of an individual's total income.
In any case, we deserve what we get when we go to the polls and vote the people in that make promises of giving us all more money without understanding the details or consequences of such policies or fall for overly simplistic arguments against things when we don't take a minute to look at who actually benefits the most from whatever they are pedaling and why their benefactors would be pushing for that.
Tax policy is how we've made the inequality of our times not only possible, but the inevitable outcome. As a society, until we can stop being short sighted when it comes to fairly basic mathematical principles our own greed will continue to be used against the majority of us for the benefit of the few.
Last edited by a moderator:
RedDenver
Active member
There's tons of loopholes in that plan, like the large companies will simply make all their employees contractors instead of employees or outsource all their work that would require employees. And that's before considering that the vast majority of their wealth doesn't come from a salary that can be capped.
Big Red 40
New member
I liked the general idea of it , but of course they people at the top will find ways to get around it .
Big Red 40
New member
Isn’t the tax code full of advantages for rich people / business owners etc too? They can hire good accountants and use creative bookkeeping, write offs , and loopholes to bring their tax liability down to nothing?
methodical
New member
Of course, although if you are running a business obviously you'd be silly to not take advantage of it and it's not like society sees no benefit from things like buildings being built or equipment being purchased then depreciated or charitable giving (although some charities are questionable) and lowering someone's tax liability. It's when you get into things like offshore money in tax havens that tax avoidance starts to be malicious to the society someone lives in, in my mind at least.
Last edited by a moderator:
VectorVictor
Donor
teachercd
Well-known member
Yeah...we have that part...now some want a salary cap.
This is not just for you but how much is "rich"?
How much, per month, does everyone feel is rich?
RedDenver
Active member
I'm somewhat picking a number out of a hat, but "rich enough" is IMO about 100x as much money as needed for basics like food, water, shelter, healthcare, etc. (edit: I'm roughly guessing $30k/year in US), which would put that number around about $3M/year in the US.
Last edited by a moderator:
funhusker
Active member
Zero nights sleeping outside (unless you're camping)
Zero visits to the doctor/hospital
3 meals a day
My 3 kids.
I'm happy with that :thumbs
NUance
New member
teachercd
Well-known member
Oh man...trust me...this was not my idea nor my way of thinking.
That is kind of an interesting way to think about it. So like, 25K a month. I could handle that!
methodical
New member
You'd start to actually see the advantages with income beyond 500k/year after you hit the upper bracket of taxes, so I'd probably say around there. So around 42k/month is probably actually rich on the income scale.
Obviously it's possible to become wealthy making far less than that and building it smartly over time, or being insanely lucky, but you aren't getting into super rich territory, ever, on even a high earner's salary. Nor are you seeing the tax advantages before that.
RedDenver
Active member
I've never understood this way of thinking. Does putting pictures of Hitler or Mussolini up every time capitalism is mentioned change anyone's opinions?
Edit to add: Dictators and authoritarians suck no matter the economic system.
Last edited by a moderator: