|
Banned
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by djtestudo
All I will say right now is to ask for statistics on the distribution of wealth throughout American history to
1) Compare to see how different eras had their wealth distributed and
2) See if there are any patterns moving towards equality or inequality, and how they correlate with perceptions of quality of life and politics throughout our history.
Until then, simply stating that "10% holds 70%" and building scenarios off of that is not worth discussing.
|
and to BOR and dksuddeth, I thank you for your willlingness to have a serious discussion. My point is that the inequity trend will be stopped, when it reaches a level that triggers reactionary response...either planned and orderly...via the ballot box, or chaotic and in the streets.
I'm surprised that it is not obvious that "the haves" <h3>do not have the choice to pursue their politics, where ever "the free market" takes them</h3>, as far as their cornering of existing assets, i.e. "the pie". Why do you think that "old Europe" is now the way that it is, as far as it's socialist bent and much more equal wealth distribution than we enjoy?
Isn't it because the wealthiest are more pragmatic because of their awareness of history? They have to live somewhere, just like everyone else. They can live prosperously and peacefully, without fear, or they can endure kidnappings of loved ones, and sabre rattling from "the rabble".
djtestudo here's some re-posted support for the trend towards greater wealth concentration:
Quote:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...962533,00.html
Playing the New Tax Game
Monday, Oct. 13, 1986 By STEPHEN KOEPP.
....America's beloved loopholes are suddenly closing fast. That chilling realization hit home for millions of U.S. consumers last week as they confronted the most sweeping federal income tax overhaul in more than 40 years. Overwhelmingly approved late last month by the House (292 to 136) and the Senate (74 to 23), the bill is expected to be signed into law by President Reagan within the next week or so.......
...By and large the new tax code will be kind to consumers. It will entirely remove approximately 6 million low-income earners from the tax rolls. The overhaul will reduce taxes for about 60% of taxpayers, largely by simplifying and lowering the rate structure. The highest effective rate will drop from 50% to 38.5% next year and 28% after that. To finance those reductions, many tax preferences will be eliminated.
<h3>One of the casualties is the break on long-term capital gains, which has made taxpayers eager to cash in their profits on investments, ranging from stocks to real estate. The current top rate for taxing such gains is effectively 20%, but after this year, those profits will be taxed as regular income at higher rates....</h3>
|
...but...the compromise that resulted in lowering the top tax bracket....in 1986, has yielded to newer tax breaks for the wealthiest:
Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax
.......United States
Main article: Capital gains tax in the United States
In the United States, individuals and corporations pay income tax on the net total of all their capital gains just as they do on other sorts of income, but the tax rate for individuals is lower on "long-term capital gains," which are gains on assets that had been held for over one year before being sold. <h3>The tax rate on long-term gains was reduced in 2003 to 15%,</h3> or to 5% for individuals in the lowest two income tax brackets. Short-term capital gains are taxed at a higher rate: the ordinary income tax rate. The reduced 15% tax rate on eligible dividends and capital gains, previously scheduled to expire in 2008, has been extended through 2010 as a result of the Tax Reconciliation Act signed into law by President Bush on May 17, 2006. In 2011 these reduced tax rates will "sunset," or revert to the rates in effect before 2003, which were generally 20%....
|
<h3>So the wealthiest ten percent....the elite who own more than 70 percent of all US assets....succeeded in achieving both a dramatically lower top tax bracket...compared to the rates in the early 1980's, and...over time....they also received a huge break on the capital gains taxes they pay....receiving the break that they traded away in 1986 to obtain the lowered top tax bracket.....</h3>
I originally posted this on a thread in this forum on 01-09-2007:
Quote:
<h2>....My problem is that you refuse to react to the US wealth redistribution trend.</h2> I've described the problem, with the data that supports the disturbing trend, below. The solution was not to shift the tax burden even more heavily onto those who "enjoy" a steadily shrinking portion of total US wealth, and wage stagnation, to the benefit of those who have experienced a doubling in their annual incomes, between 1979 and 2003.
Your sentiments are a prescription for turning the US into a place like Mexico City....kidnappings of the wealthy, the expense of body guards and heavy security to shield the "haves" from the "have nots", and the lessening of the ability of the "haves" to come and go as they please.
People get angry when the wealthy become too successful at concentrating the wealth, and hence the political and financial leverage of a country. When the "have nots" get to the point where they decide that they have nothing to lose, they begin to act like it. If you do not have anything to add to this discussion, kindly stop reposting the Ron Adams article.
Instead, please tell us how "tax reform" that shifts the tax burden, in any way, to the people who have benefitted the least from economic growth and prosperity, and away from the people who have a virtual "lock" on the increased wealth, is of any benefit, to anyone. Tell us how the growing disparity can be slowed or reversed, without political interference. Tell us how people who experience the loss of representative government, because it has been bought and co-opted by the richest, will sit still, trusting that the "system" will solve the problem...no matter how bad things get for them.
In a hunter gatherer society, if one hunting unit developed a weapon that allowed that unit to take...say 8 out of ten of the game kills on every hunting trip, and that unit refused to share it's bounty, and it became more and more difficult for every other hunting group to find and kill enough game, even to subsist, what do you think would happen to the unit with the superior hunting weapon that refused to share it's out of proportion food supply with the less successful units. We enjoy the resource that the hunter gatherers did not have. We have a government that can respond to inequities in the social structure, especially if the inequity is influenced by the buying of the power and influence of the government, by the wealthiest few.....
</b>
Quote:
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache...s&ct=clnk&cd=4
<b>January 29, 2006
NEW, UNNOTICED CBO DATA SHOW CAPITAL INCOME HAS
BECOME MUCH MORE CONCENTRATED AT THE TOP</b>
<b>begins on page 2:</b>
Prior to 2001, the share of
capital income that was
received by the top one
percent <h3>never exceeded 50
percent and typically was
well below that mark.
•
In other words, prior to
2001, the top one percent
received less than half of the
capital income. Now it
receives significantly more
than half of such income.</h3>
Accordingly, the degree to
which the highest-income
households benefit from
efforts to reduce taxes on
capital income has increased
as well.
Capital Gains and Dividend Tax Cut Would Exacerbate General Growth in Income Disparities
Depicted by the CBO Data
The capital income that CBO analyzed consists of four sources: interest, dividends, rents, and
capital gains. The CBO data do not separate out capital income by source. The CBO data reflect
interest income that is subject to taxation as well as tax-exempt interest income (such as interest earned
on municipal bonds); however, the data only consider capital gains and dividend income that is subject
to taxation. All capital income in tax-exempt retirement accounts is not reflected in the data. As a
result, for the most part the CBO data only reflect capital income subject to taxation.
Although the CBO do not break out trends by the specific source of capital income, the general
trend depicted by the data strongly suggests that policies that reduce taxes on capital gains and
dividend income are of growing benefit to high-income households, since such households are
receiving an increasing share of capital income.
Adding to concerns over the increasingly regressive effects of extending lower taxes on capital gains
and dividend income, the CBO data also show a dramatic widening in overall income disparities during
the past two and one half decades. From 1979 (the first year for which CBO has compiled these data)
to 2003 (the most recent year for which the data are available):
<b>The average after-tax income of the top one percent of the population more than doubled, rising
from $305,800 to $701,500, for a total increase of $395,700, or 129 percent. (CBO adjusted these
figures for inflation and expressed them in 2003 dollars.)
•
By contrast, the average after-tax income of the middle fifth of the population rose a relatively
modest 15 percent (less than one percentage point per year), and the average after-tax income of
the poorest fifth of the population rose just 4 percent, or $600, over the 24-year period.</b>
Extending lower tax rates on capital gains and dividend income would exacerbate the long-term
trend toward growing income inequality.
The Unnoticed CBO Data
The data described here are from a CBO report released in December 2005. The findings related to
the concentration of capital income have gone unnoticed, in part because readers of this report and
similar past CBO reports tend to focus on the trends that these reports depict in federal tax burdens
and in overall income inequality. The findings also have gone unnoticed because of how the
information appears in the report.
Table 1B of the CBO report shows the share of corporate income tax liabilities paid by various
income groups. Because corporate tax returns are filed by corporations while taxes are ultimately
borne by individuals, CBO must distribute corporate taxes liabilities to individual taxpayers based on
information about taxpayers’ sources of income. In keeping with a widespread consensus among
economists, CBO distributes corporate income tax liabilities to households based on their shares of
capital income.
Because of CBO’s methodology, CBO’s findings regarding the distribution of corporate tax liabilities
are a reflection of its findings regarding shares of capital income.
2
<b>That is, CBO’s finding that 57.5
percent of corporate income tax liabilities in 2003 were paid by the top one percent is simply a
reflection of CBO’s estimate that 57.5 percent of capital income in 2003 was received by the top one
percent.</b> It is presumably because the information on the share of capital income going to various
groups is never presented directly in the CBO report that the trend described in this analysis has not
previously come to light.
Table 1. <b>Share of Capital Income Flowing to Households in Various Income Categories
Income Category</b>
Year _____1979______2003
Lowest
Quintile 1.8%____ 0.6%
Second
Quintile 4.1%____ 1.6%
Middle
Quintile 6.7%____ 4.3%
Fourth
Quintile 10.5%____ 6.1%
Highest
Quintile 76.5%____ 85.8%
Top
10% _____66.7% ____79.4%
Top
5% ______57.9% ____73.2%
<b>Top 1% __37.8%_____57.5% </b>
|
<b>The findings above are supported by data available of the CBO.gov website:</b>
Quote:
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5746&sequence=1
Effective Federal Tax Rates Under Current Law, 2001 to 2014
August 2004
Section 2 of 4
Effective Federal Tax Rates
Under Current Law, 2001 to 2014
<b>Table 2.
Effective Federal Tax Rates and Shares Under Current Tax Law, Based on 2001 Incomes, by Income Category, 2001 to 2014</b>
<b>Share of Total Federal Tax Liabilities</b>
Lowest _______2001____________2006_____2007___2008
Quintile________1.1___________1.1_____1.1______1.1
Second _______2001____________2006_____2007___2008
Quintile________5.0___________5.2______5.2_____5.2
Middle _______2001____________2006_____2007___2008
Quintile________10.0___________10.3_____10.4____10.4
Fourth_ _______2001____________2006_____2007___2008
Quintile________18.5___________19.0_____19.1____19.2
Highest _______2001____________2006_____2007___2008
Quintile________65.3___________64.2_____64.0____63.8
_______________2001____________2006_____2007___2008
Top 10 Percent 50.0___________48.7_____48.5____48.3
_______________2001____________2006_____2007___2008
Top 5 Percent 38.5___________37.3_____37.0____36.7
_______________2001____________2006_____2007___2008
Top 1 Percent 22.7___________21.3_____21.1____20.7
|
|
Graphics displaying trends at this link:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...5&postcount=29 |