Glass-Steagall isn’t an income re-distribution mechanism. It just isn’t.
Lowering the capital gains tax under Bush and Clinton raised overall tax revenue. And, yes, the higher the tax on businesses (in the aggregate) the less jobs there will be.
Tax away, brother! But taxes will not get us out of this deficit mess. Both sides have their nonsensical, “no pain” strategy. “Eliminate waste!” is the right’s. “Tax millionaires!” is the left’s. Both will not put more than a minor dent in the deficit. If we tax the top 1% at a 100% rate, for example–what do you suppose the impact will be on our deficit?
That is really a disingenuous statistic though. Most experts seem to agree that capital gains tax cuts lower revenue over the long-term. Even though there was a temporary increase, the net result in the long-term will be negative.
This is not true in an absolute sense either. You are making the assumption that individual businesses will utilize the money more efficiently than the government would, and/or that said money would go towards hiring more people, as opposed to capital expenditures, paying down debt, overseas expansion, nicer offices for the CEO, or a host of other things that don’t (directly) create jobs here.
It was probably not intended as such, and it does not directly transfer money from one group to another. But if it enables investors to realize larger gains, then it does play a role in income disparity. The more money you have to invest, the more the act benefits you.
In that sense, the Occupy protesters have been promised jobs. The government has been cutting taxes on the rich for thirty years with the explanation that it would stimulate the economy and produce jobs, JOBS, JOBS! Well, where are they? The protesters can hardly be called self-entitled if they’re just asking for what they were told was coming, and for which the bill has already been paid.
There is no simple, single answer for balancing the budget. That’s why I said it will take sacrifice from everyone. So I’ll ask again, what have the rich been asked to sacrifice? What would you have them give up?
Indeed. Putting Glass-Steagall back into place has nothing to do with income inequality. It has to do with market stability, and ensuring that the major banks don’t pull another 2008 on us. This doesn’t mean it’s a bad idea; in fact, it’s fucking insane to not do it! It’s just one more ridiculous past economic decision that needs to be reversed so that big banks can’t essentially gamble with tax-insured money.
Yes. Taxes are at an all-time low, especially in the upper, corporate, and capital gains brackets, and it’s not helping unemployment one bit. There’s reason to believe that things like higher corporate tax would actually encourage hiring people, because it would mean more money going into reinvestment, rather than taxes.
Do me a favor and compare that to the amount of actual wealth and income that they have.
At what point will conservatives stop trying to deceive people about the relative tax burden? The practice of selectively injecting federal income tax figures into tax discussions is the new Godwin’s Law. It’s inevitable. Unsurprisingly if you look beyond the nation’s major progressive tax things don’t seem so lopsided. In fact the richest Americans pay only a slightly higher percentage their incomes in taxes than the middle class.
What is deceptive about discussing the federal income tax burden? The states all have their idiosyncrasies, and it’s absurd to think that the federal government should try and mitigate that.
It’s deceptive because it’s just one tax, among the many taxes that people pay, that happens to be more progressive than most. As I am sure you know, when you look at ALL taxes, the system as a whole is only slightly progressive. When making isolated statements about the total percentage of federal taxes rich people pay in order to make a point about them caring a large burden, you ignore the percentage of wealth they have, and the percentage of income they take home. It also fails to account for the myriad other regressive taxes that tend to even out the percentage of income people across the spectrum pay in taxes.
I’m sorry but I find the Socratic method terribly inefficient in real life.
Perhaps you could simply explain your objection to the CTJ report?
Discussing the federal income tax burden is perfectly legitimate, so long as that is the topic. What is objectionable is how often stats from that single tax are inserted into discussions of the general tax burden or the overall American economic system. How Stratocaster pulled off the bait and switch is typical. He dismissed the objection that the rich are not paying their fair share by singling out the nation’s major progressive tax.
I’m not sure where you are going with having the federal government try to mitigate the varied and often far more regressive state tax burdens. The point is not that the federal goverment should do something about it. The point is that far too often the anti-tax crowd tries to trick people into agreeing with them. Or to trick themselves into reaffirming their own preconceived notions, depending on how you look at it. In any case, it is a disreputable practice and should be called out every single time.
Actually let me flip-flop on that last part a bit. The practice is disreputable and should be called out but that’s not the main thing here. The point is that we should dismiss Stratocaster’s objection as irrelavent to the discussion at hand. The superrich are not massively overtaxed and can reasonably be expected to contribute more in taxes.
(Though the advice of Dean Baker, helpfully provided by waterj2 is helpful here. Stratocaster has offered a false dilemma. Raising taxes on the superrich is not the only way to reduce the income disparity.)
Adam Corolla is no different from every other under-educated person who grew up in in relative poverty and made good later in life. They have an almost allergic reaction to anything even slightly leftward leaning when it comes to economic policy. His opinions are neither original nor interesting.
Observations that the top 1% pay around 50% of taxes in California has him outraged? This guy does not understand how taxes work. What, he thinks tax payments should be on a per-capita basis, everyone paying a set lump sum regardless of their income? Then the top 1% would pay 1% of the taxes. Is that what he wants? No more government services?
Some of the things he says in the video are flat-out, balls-to-the-wall, stupid:
“For the most part, it’s the best system we have.”
“Something that’s come up in this country that didn’t used to exist. Envy.”
He is totally misguided about what’s happening. It was a slow burn ever since the Enron fiasco (maybe even earlier?). Not everyone who unfairly profited from that venture was brought to justice. The whole idea that privatising the energy sector would be more economically efficient was a complete fabrication that only a blind person could not see through. They, as a company, lied about what they were doing and what their intentions were, they drove prices up on purpose and people like Lou Pei ran off with hundreds of millions of dollars that was cheated out of the average Joe. Yet there are still people to this day who defend what that company did as just capitalism in action.
So too, the people who thought up the idea of re-packaging bad loans into investment instruments are fundamentally dishonest and I think people are upset that there are no repercussions for these people despite their dishonesty. The details are complex, so its the primary reaction for most people to throw up their hands and say - “that’s just capitalism, deal with it”. Yes, the details are complex, but the fundamental dishonesty is readily apparent. Yet again, no one is punished and people are wondering what is wrong with the system when the bad guys profit at the expense of the rest.
It sounds as though you didn’t even listen at all to the link. No where is he outraged that the top 1% pay around 50% of taxes. His point is that other people are outraged that the top 1% aren’t paying more. His point is “50% isn’t enough???” Agree or disagree with him, fine, but I’m going to glaze over reading anything you say after that sort of mischaracterization.
Yes, I foolishly assumed that in discussing Federal law and tax policy, that we were discussing Federal law and tax policy. The real bait and switch is to assert that Federal income taxes on the richest needs to increase, and then say that this really isn’t a discussion on Federal income tax.
So, is the answer, then (at least in part) to reduce the non-Fed taxes? Not sure how this non-fungible re-direction of tax magic will occur, seriously.
I don’t see that the left-leaning anti-corporation opinions are particulary original, interesting or correct either.
I don’t believe that Adam’s blue collar sensibilities would make him a proponent of over-privileged Ivy League educated corporate executives coming up with more and more elaborate accounting tricks to pay themselves more money.
And I don’t know ANY business/economics educated people corporate America who think Enron or the 2008 debt crisis are “just capitalism, deal with it”.
Compare the figures of how much the top 1% are taxed relative to the rest of the country to the figures of how much they earn relative to the rest of the country. 40-50% is not that unreasonable as far as progressive tax rates go when they’re making around 24% of the total income.
@**msmith: **
Wouldn’t this follow from typical libertarian teachings?
There may be an actual debate about tax policy and and influence on our elected officials, but for the majority of people actually protesting this is more about property rights in public parks and stand-offs with law enforcement: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2011-12-04/occupy-wall-street/51646606/1 This movement is a joke to about 80% of the public.
The only use of the term “federal” in the thread before you referred to the federal income tax was a handful of references to federal oversight in posts you did not respond to.
Pardon, I’m trying to determine if you find the mechanism is a valid way to measure the relative burdens. While I have several issues with the underlying CTJ data and how it’s used and not used, I don’t dispute that you can add rates (assuming they’re against the same totals).
For instance, if one quintile had the rates of -8% and 10%, you’d be okay with using 2% as a measure of that quintile’s burden. I only ask since there’s a lot of bobbing and weaving when discussing who’s paying what. As a quick example, is it reasonable to attribute property tax payments to the person living in housing for which they receive assistance of some sort?