>> ^HaricotVert:

"Taken literally, the top 1 percent of American households had a minimum income of $516,633 in 2010 — a figure that includes wages, government transfers and money from capital gains, dividends and other investment income."


..Well then this 1% thing is bullshit.

The difference between $500k and $250m (romney) is more than 400 times bigger than between a working man's $40k and this so-called 'millionare'.

And of course Romney is small fry begging for the gaudiness of public office compared to the big boys. (And I dont mean Gates & Buffet and 'new money').

Guess it's more like 0.1%. or 0.01% or 0.001%.. Hey we're talking about 30 guys here! We need a list of names!!

"Taken literally, the top 1 percent of American households had a minimum income of $516,633 in 2010 — a figure that includes wages, government transfers and money from capital gains, dividends and other investment income." -Washington Post

In the video, Romney and the interviewer are specifically using the term "millionaires," so I have to take their exchange at face value as meaning anyone with a net worth of at least 1 million dollars. They could have a salary of $1 for all I know, but somewhere they have assets and cash available to them summing to a million dollars.

I'd be envious of an income of $500,000 all the same, since I could become a millionaire in under 3 years by just continuing to live as I do now.

>> ^cosmovitelli:

>> ^HaricotVert:
I should have clarified. The absolute definition of "millionaire" would describe anyone whose net worth is greater than $999,999.99. Many people who have barely over the $1,000,000 threshold lead rather reasonable lives, as in they don't drive Lamborghinis or own private islands or have yachts.

Surely a million doesn't get you into the 1%? Maybe in 1990.. At a guess I'd say you needed at least $5 million to qualify, no? And probably invested in a dozen properties so the 'envious' can pay off your mortgages..
Btw well done QM he's black and has big ears! Well spotted, again. Now let adults talk.

Just because one clip focuses on it doesn't mean that the entire movement is fixated on one stat.

All I ever see from the liberal left's ProgLibDytes are clips that focus on the 'wealth disparity' between the rich and poor. I've never seen the ProgLibDyte clip that focuses on something like median income. That's because focusing on median income tells a completely opposing story. The point is that ProgLibDytes and and left as a whole focus only on a narrow band of stats that drives thier agenda-based narrative. They ignore huge vistas of other facts, studies, research, thought, and evidence because it cuts the legs out from under thier world view and makes them look like idiots.

Barak Obama himself is a CLASSIC example of this narrow-minded kind of agenda-driven cherry-picking of reality. Every time that specimen opens his mouth it is to say, "The experts I have spoken to agree with me..." And what about the bazillions of experts he DIDN'T speak to which all disagree with him, or contradict him? Of course is his empty noggin such people don't exist - or don't matter. The same issue plagues neolib leftists across whole spectrums. Global Warming, Abortion, Economics - you name it - the left picks a tiny slice of carefully selected grain of sand to tell a story, and ignores whole beaches of sand that says the opposite.

Not that the right doesn't suffer from the same problem. It is not an issue limited to only the left. However, the left is more aggressively self-important, pious, and arrogant about their narrative - and far more inclined to try to base bad legislation on it.

How is raising the marginal tax rate on the super rich a few percentage points "communist" or even "socialist" on an objective scale?

The US tax rate (both corporate and private) is already one of the highest in the world. I counter your question with another. "What good is raising the marginal tax rate on the super rich a few percentage points going to do?" You could confiscate every penny the top 10% of America has and it would not get America's government out of the red even for one year - let alone for the 15 trillion we have in debts - and the SIXTY-FOUR TRILLION we have in 'unfunded liabilities' such as Social Security. There isn't enough money in the entire economy to pay for all the spending the government is doing and/or proposing with its leftist big-government agendas. The economic problem is one of spending - not taxation.

But you're pretending that the income gap between super rich and poor is static, which misses the entire point. It's not static. It fluctuates.

Irrelevant. The gap between the top 1% and the bottom 5% means nothing. It is immaterial statisitically speaking. If I earn a million a year compared to a guy that earns 30K then he makes 3% of what I do. A year later I am earning 1,050,000 a year and he is earning 28K for a new adjusted difference of 2.66% of what I earn. Head for the hills, Ma Barker! Since when is this -0.34% shift of any value. Or let's go the other way and now I'm only earning 950,000 and he's earning 32,000 for a 3.25% How is that helping either the rich guy OR the poor guy? Or let's take the real world situation that Barak Obama brought us and BOTH of them go down while the government's income skyrockets. Wow - that's really benefiting society isn't it?

The wealth gap is utterly irrelevant - static or dynamic. And for the record - I never assume ANY economic stat is static except for one. Government growth. Government baseline budgeting has created an untenable economic drag on the nation because it continues to grow at 8% to 10% Year over Year no matter what the economy is doing. That's the only static economic stat out there - and it is not a good one.

(BTW, what a good person you are to say whose jobs are of value and whose aren't!)

Right back at you Clyde. Who are you to decide what an inside-trader's job should or shouldn't be worth? The IT generates real profit for his company, and they compensate him to keep him doing it. Who are you - or Cunk - or any other ProgLibDyte to come along with the cheek to say they don't deserve it?

I'm advocating the gov't make it moderately more equal by raising the rich's taxes, and ease up on the poor and middle class.

The mistake you and the left make is that for some reason you think that 'taxes' make things 'more equal'. They don't except in one way... Taxes make everyone equally miserable. Money goes into government and dissappears. Taxing the rich doesn't make things better for the poor or the middle class. It only gives government more power - which is the last thing our bloated federal system needs right now. The poor pay virtually no income taxes - so it is quite impossible to 'ease up' on them except at the state & sales tax level. The middle class? Hey - anything helps but in the average budget we're talking a few hundred bucks a year. I don't have a problem with the rich paying thier 'fair share' (as leftists so vaguely love to put it). But the rich already ARE paying thier fair share and then some. If they jacked 'the rich' tax rate up to 90% it wouldn't do jack-squat for 'the poor' or the middle class.

Tax capital gains like it's income, subject to the same brackets, etc.

America's captial gains taxes are already the #2 highest in the world. Gapital gains are treated differently for a reason. This is another thing that most leftists prove themselves woefully ignorant about whenever they talk about it. And again - even if we did that how exactly is that going to 'help' anyone? All that does is provide you lefties with an ephemeral, meaningless sense of shadenfruede which you can suckle on as you trudge back to your government-mandated hovels - properly pacified with the meaningless knowledge that a rich guy is getting taxed some more. That is until you realize he's still rich, you're still poor, and only the government got something out of the deal. How leftists can be so stupid on the subject of economics I will never know, but I can only tip my hat to the depths of human gullibility.

They're not just focusing on income inequality or ownership of resources. Just because one clip focuses on it doesn't mean that the entire movement is fixated on one stat. There are a lot of stats the left are focused on, such as unemployment to name another. And it's not a stupid statistic to focus on. If there is too much stratification of wealth, and there is such a thing, then what other statistic would illustrate that it's gotten out of hand?! For the good of the economy, for everyone across the income range, if the rich possess too much wealth, there won't be enough people with money to purchase goods and services being produced. This hasn't a thing to do with the little orphans you helped in Mexico.

Is it being trumped to the point it's being played like an emotional dagger instead of being analyzed rationally? Of course. But come on, if you're gonna sit there and say that only the left is guilty of that, then you're being partisan. How is raising the marginal tax rate on the super rich a few percentage points "communist" or even "socialist" on an objective scale? Or even using those words to elicit a knee jerk reaction by people to say it's bad just because of the word instead of rationally discussing the policy? Or when anyone suggests raising taxes on the rich, it's automatically "class warfare"? Or you using derogatory terms like "NeoProgLibNaziCommunistSocialist" blah? Give me a break.

And yes, some wealth stratification is good. You want the people who work hard or are more talented to have more income. It keeps incentives in the system. I have no problem with that. But you're pretending that the income gap between super rich and poor is static, which misses the entire point. It's not static. It fluctuates. We're too the point now where it's getting absurd to the point that it's hurting the economy. You're also pretending that the stats only illustrate the gap between the super-rich and the poor, and that's not the case. The stats are showing the gap between the rich and everyone else, including middle class, which is being decimated.

You have very little patience when you hear a college-age son's of yuppies whining about they only earn $30K/yr for their liberal art major degree? What about me, the son of a solid middle class family who got one of those horrible liberal art degrees (Master's in Education, Bachelor's in History, Minor in International Studies) and got a "fake job" as a history teacher in a public school? Are you kidding me with this? (BTW, what a good person you are to say whose jobs are of value and whose aren't!) What I did for a living for four years combined produced less value than a commodities trader did in one year, whose job is essentially speculation that artificially drives up prices on the things they trade? You don't find something extremely absurd about that?

Let's do the math. At those salaries, a public school teacher is producing less than 10% of the value of what a commodities trader does, and a commodities trader isn't even required to have a college degree, and we're not even including the better benefits and bonuses. I'm not naive enough to think a public school teacher would ever be paid that well, but when the gap is getting wider, and wider, and wider, and you're seeing a public school teacher's benefits getting reduced, particularly retirement, I'm sorry, but something is horribly wrong here. The market is failing to address a basic societal problem. I'm not advocating a state controlled economy (aka Communism) to even it out. I'm advocating the gov't make it moderately more equal by raising the rich's taxes, and ease up on the poor and middle class. Tax capital gains like it's income, subject to the same brackets, etc.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Or is that a typo for "ProgLibDytes"
As with "neolibs" it is a word of my own creation which I used to describe the crazed, hardcore, insane left-wing liberal denizens of the world. Neolib was my default for a long time, but lately the vitriol of the left has gotten so prone to hate, anger, and insanity that I have moved to defaulting with "ProgLibDyte" to describe them. It is perfect because it is so close to "Troglidyte" (cave dweller) and covers "Progressives" and "Liberals" together. ProgLibDytes. Cave dwelling political liberals and progressives. Brevity is the soul of wit.
Which one should we obsess over?
How about not picking just one, and looking at all of them - or at least a LOT of them? Regardless, examining only the gap between the ultra-rich and the poor is about one of the stupidest metrics one could examine when it comes to economics. It means absolutely nothing in terms of either real income, economic trending, or any other meaningful metric. Such a myopic stat serves only one purpose, and that is to angry up the blood of the lower class.
There are always going to be really rich people who have so much money that they could eat gold bricks and crap diamonds. These guys are always going to exist in the same nation as people so poor they scrape the very bottom of the economic barrel. The difference between the top 0.1% and the bottom 5% is utterly meaningless. It is pure nonsense to get mad about the difference between Bill Gates and the guy who pumps gas. It tells nothing about anything.
I personally donate my time to help the poor. I've helped the poorest of the poor in US cities and I thought I knew what 'poor' was. Then I volunteered to help little towns in Mexico. When kids and widows weep in your arms just because you came to them with a few bags of cement to put a small concrete slab in thier one room dirt-shanty then you know you've hit the real thing.
In the US, even those who live in so-called 'poverty' have cars, TVs, homes, cable, internet, clothes, and money to spend at McDonalds on a lark. So I have very little patience when I hear college-age son's-of-yuppies whining about the fact that they only earn $30K a year (with benefits) for thier liberal-art's major compared to Wall-Street guys (who are actually performing a real job) earning 300K plus cash bonuses. Boo-freaking-hoo.

@NetRunner Honestly, I'm unimpressed. Peter Schiff may not be John Nash, but you sound like Chris Matthews. Do you get your economic wisdom from Mother Jones or HuffPo?


So the response to "I doubt he's really paying 50% in taxes" is not to recount even a hypothetical example of how someone could wind up paying a sum total of 50% in taxes, but instead to just argue that the dubious statement might feel true because there are many various taxes someone might be paying?

Hypothetical example (which I thought I outlined for you): Peter Schiff owns/runs a business as his primary mode of income. That business pays a 35% corporate tax rate on their profits. The remaining profits translate into capital gains, which are then taxed at 15%. While obviously the tax rates aren't perfectly additive (15% of 65% is smaller than 15% of 100%), you can still see how one could quickly approach 50% in taxes. I haven't even included any local taxes or consumption taxes. These aren't dubious statements. These are facts about the tax code which progressives should learn to wise up to. There is a valid point there about streamlining the tax code. Like you said... Meh.


The response to my argument about the impact of marginal tax increases on employment is to make some argument about Schiff's personal labor/leisure preferences? That has nothing to do with it at all. If Schiff is the entrepreneurial capitalist he claims to be (and not just the F-list media personality he seems to be), then he doesn't really do any direct labor, he just makes choices about allocations of capital -- he makes investment decisions, and business deals where all the real work is done by other people.

He's making the case that if he has to pay a few more percentage points in taxes, he's going to start walking away from making investment deals that would have made his company money and employed people. Hell, he goes so far as to say that he would dissolve his ostensibly profitable business and fire all his employees, rather than sell it to someone else who still likes making money, even if they have to pay taxes.

Making investment deals and business decisions isn't quite like arguing on the internet and playing video games. You have to meet people, negotiate, spend basically all day on the phone or in a plane. You don't have much time for your family (though I don't know if he has one). While it may not be coal mining, it's certainly work. It's at least as much work as the people typing things into excel between trips to the water cooler are doing. It's quite possible that if he were to decide to leave, or cut back his hours worked (because of government disincentive), the firm would downsize or even fail. All those workers whose paychecks depended on his profitable decision making could be out of work. Now like I said, someone else might hire back those same workers (e.g. if he sold the firm), however there is no guarantee the business will be as profitable without their greatest profit engine (Schiff himself). Like I further argued, if there were someone equally capable of running the firm as profitably, they would likely already be a competitor.


As for the "buying labor low" argument, which sector is doing that? Right now what they're doing is shedding lots of employees, not paying out raises, cutting health benefits, and hoping that if/when they need more labor, the extended period of unemployment will provide them with a pool of desperate talent willing to work for far less than they would have pre-2007.

Right, because the government won't let the labor market correct. They keep propping everybody up with prolonged unemployment (I've known somewhat skilled people that wouldn't take jobs because unemployment pays better), and direct government employment. It is happening within some sectors, particularly highly skilled labor. Perhaps you've heard of the skills gap in the current employment picture? For example, the university I'm at is shedding lecturers, and poaching high-valued researchers from struggling institutions. There have been plenty of proposals to bridge this skills gap in more industrial sectors as well, e.g. turning unemployment benefits into vocational training. But instead you took a left turn towards "the mean corporations won't do things that are against their interests."


It's true that once upon a time, back when we had a lot of unionization, a lot of companies hoarded talent in exactly the manner you describe, so they could potentially enter into the expansion with a competitive advantage. But that's the old way of thinking, back when labor was broadly considered a valuable company resource, and not simply a fungible commodity to be purchased or discarded as needed. Offshore contractors, anyone?

Now you're a protectionist? Have you heard of "cost centers" and "profit centers?" Profit centers (valued labor) don't get outsourced. Cost centers (commoditized, fungible, unskilled, expensive labor) do. With regard to unions, it has often been their own inflexibility with their contracts (not that executives aren't equally guilty with bonuses) that has resulted in layoffs as opposed to shared pain (evenly spread hour reductions).


Lastly about the "leave the money where the market put it" -- that's a good one! You seamlessly pivoted from "economics as a theory for understanding the world" to "economics as a system of moral justice". Nicely done, you're pretty good at talking like a conservative!

Thanks. I think it's important to be able to see all sides rather than just cheerlead. Also, "economics" is theory, "the market" is the most efficient system for allocating resources with respect to individual preferences known to man. We can talk about our favorite flawed microeconomic assumptions if you want, but it's a tough case that "because I said so" is going to be more efficient than voluntary exchange.


Still it doesn't address my basic economic argument at all -- that our high unemployment is fundamentally a function of a lack of demand. Lots of people don't have money to spend, even on things they desperately need. The handfuls of people who do have money don't see any way to employ that money in a profitable way, so they're just sitting on it. There's a few ways to try to solve that problem, but cutting (or maintaining existing) taxes on the top income earners won't help.

(I get nauseous arguing against the Keynesian point so I won't directly). What I'll say is that it isn't clear drastically raising taxes on the rich will help either. What might help is a more efficient allocation of the government revenue we already have (like the vocational training instead of unemployment I outlined above). The other thing that I, and I think many others would like to see is an increase in the standard of living of individual business proprietors. They've been doing worse than "traditional labor" over the past few decades in case you haven't noticed.


A simple, but radical solution would be for the Fed to simply buy up everyone's mortgages, and then release the leins on everyone's deeds. In other words, just have Uncle Sam pay off everyone's mortgage with freshly-printed money. I suspect consumer spending would return if we did that!

I do too! I bet everyone would go leverage themselves to the gills buying houses knowing full well that when they can't cover the debt the government will bail them out! Sure, stopgap coverage, renegotiation, all that would be great (much better than bailing out the banks directly IMO), but a full fledged free money party only exacerbates the delusion. It's a recipe for currency debasement. People need to be allowed to demonstrate and feel the consequences of their lack of creditworthiness. Also, those that were creditworthy should be appropriately rewarded. It's sort of like the OWS girl that wants rich people to pay back her 100gs in student loans, but all those people that saved for college, worked for scholarships, held a job through school, well they're probably just fine the way they are.


As for my closing quip, I'm quite serious -- Schiff doesn't deserve any respect or deference. It's not classy to be deferential to the expertise of people who don't actually have any; it's foolish.

You don't find common ground, build coalitions, or change minds with ridicule.

@NetRunner @dystopianfuturetoday

I'm looking for debate too, but I'm not going to find it if I argue the progressive angle. I'll be Lucifer's lawyer on this one.


A few things. First, I'm with those of you who doubt the truth of Schiff's statement that he's paying 50% of his income in taxes. I demand to see his tax return!

I'm potentially sympathetic to Schiff here. As we all know income taxes, and even capital gains taxes aren't the only taxes that exist. Schiff is a business owner. I suspect his issue is with the "double taxing" of profits. His business makes a profit which is then taxed. That taxation thus reduces the value of his business. Further, the remaining profits are taxed again (in the form of capital gains) when he decides to liquidate his stake in the company. So if you basically make your money by creating value in businesses in exchange for an ownership stake, that value is taxed twice before you even see it. Now of course this comes from someone that frequently makes disingenuous claims like the majority of Americans "don't pay taxes," considering the substantial share of their income they pay in consumption taxes; but his point stands on its own. I wish we had a more streamlined tax system that did away with loopholes as well as double taxation of value creation (like a VAT).


Secondly, even if it were 50%, and it went up to 65%, in what universe is it ever in Schiff's interest to stop making money? In fact, wouldn't it be an incentive for him to work harder? If he's used to a lifestyle of consumption of $1 million a year, and suddenly he's only able to consume $800k/yr, wouldn't that mean he'd redouble his efforts and try to make more money if he couldn't accept such austerity? He certainly wouldn't dismantle his businesses and cut off the source of his income.

You clearly don't value your time. Schiff's input/brand is probably the core asset of his ventures (in fact that's something you always have to remember about the guy, he's selling himself). That means he probably leads a fairly stressful life, and might choose to exchange some of his labor for the leisure time he could clearly afford in either case. That means generating less business, and thus requiring fewer "cost centers" (like staff). One argument might be that if he does dismantle his business, someone else will just fill the void in the marketplace, and hire (possibly that same) staff. However, if it was the case that there was someone willing to do what Schiff does for substantially less than Schiff, it's likely they'd already be competing with him under the favorable tax rates.


Thirdly, on jobs, like dft said, employers hire exactly as many people as they need to produce the amount of goods (or services) they're able to sell, and not a single person more. They're not going to hire more people to produce more goods if they can't sell all of what they're currently producing, that would just be pure loss to them.

This isn't always true. Businesses often use recessions to "buy labor low" to prepare a competitive advantage for the next cycle. Propping up the labor market arguably never lets the labor market reach a valuation in which this market based counter-cyclic mechanism can take place. It's further arguable that if you allowed that mechanism to take place, the resulting employment allocation may be more efficient/sustainable than, e.g. taking a census. I'm a bleeding heart, so you don't have to tell me about breadlines and old people in the streets, but part of me feels as though the youth has become soft. They don't want to learn. They don't create with what they have. They play video games and argue on Videosift.


Putting more money into the hands of the suppliers isn't going to boost employment for exactly that reason. Employers will only hire new people if they need to produce more goods, and they're only going to produce more goods if their sales increase. You really need to put more money into the hands of people who want to consume, not those who want to produce. You need to find a large group of people who want to buy more things, but can't because they don't have the money. In other words, you need to put money into the hands of poor people, not rich factory owners.

See Schiff would say DON'T give money to the employers. Stop giving money to ANYBODY. Leave the money right where the market put it. Doing anything else just allows some asshole to hoodwink the whole damn country rather than just their clients. Personally I feel there needs to be some initial breaking up of the oligarchy if you really want to pursue that line of reasoning (i.e. sorry Schiff, we're taking your gold with our pitchforks), but that's just me.


Schiff doesn't seem to know all this stuff, which is why everyone should laugh in his face when he says he knows anything about economics.

Come on, we're classier than that.

I would like a true accounting as much as the next guy. I want to know where the failout money went, every last penny. I want arguments with real facts and figures, and we don't have them. (Example: Outsourcing. Is it really a problem? How many jobs were actually outsourced? In what fields)?


I agree with you 100%, and I think most people would too. It's my money too dang nab it; true capitalism has no bailouts. The problem today is that we have a corporate-socialist-capitalist government. In other words, the banks got a bailout and the people didn't. I speak for myself here when I say that any amount of money spent on somebody else's greed (whether it's personal buying a house, or corporate buying toxic mortgages) was a waste of money. People talked about the real-estate bubble bursting since 2004; everyone had 3 years to get their act together (capital gains on homes is 2 years, so they had plenty of time to refinance or sell), yet some actually paid attention and limited their losses, and others believed that during recession (2001) it still made sense that house prices were on the rise.


Everything is political. Everything. When the cleverer politicos "respond" to these mobs, the "solutions" will be far worse than the original problems. That's government in action.


I agree with you here as well. I like the practice of democracy and I don't have an issue with these people voicing their concerns, and like I said before, I don't see this problem solved by any existing politician today. I have no faith in the federal government, Democrat or Republican. So far I am liking the movement, I am giving them the benefit of the doubt, like I did with the Tea Party. The moment I see the OWS people align with an existing corrupt party (choose your flavor), then I'll polarize against it.

Good day to you.

>> ^quantumushroom:

I appreciate the work that went into your response and I read all of it. "Leaderless" movement? Don't believe it.

I would like a true accounting as much as the next guy. I want to know where the failout money went, every last penny. I want arguments with real facts and figures, and we don't have them. (Example: Outsourcing. Is it really a problem? How many jobs were actually outsourced? In what fields)?

Everything is political. Everything. When the cleverer politicos "respond" to these mobs, the "solutions" will be far worse than the original problems. That's government in action.



>> MonkeySpank:[snip]

Indeed we can't all be educated.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^vex:
>> ^Trancecoach:
The Top 1% also pays nearly 40% of the Federal Income Tax
>> ^ghark:
Some interesting facts about the top 1%:
The Top 1 Percent Of Americans Owns 40 Percent Of The Nation’s Wealth
The Top 1 Percent Of Americans Take Home 24 Percent Of National Income
The Top 1 Percent Of Americans Own Half Of The Country’s Stocks, Bonds, And Mutual Funds
The Top 1 Percent Of Americans Have Only 5 Percent Of The Nation’s Personal Debt
The Top 1 Percent Are Taking In More Of The Nation’s Income Than At Any Other Time Since The 1920s
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/10/03/334156/top-five
-wealthiest-one-percent/


The initial facts and your rebuttal don't mean a whole lot without knowing how much of the whole is actual income and how much is capital gains.

We can't all be educated Vex.

>> ^vex:

>> ^Trancecoach:
The Top 1% also pays nearly 40% of the Federal Income Tax
>> ^ghark:
Some interesting facts about the top 1%:
The Top 1 Percent Of Americans Owns 40 Percent Of The Nation’s Wealth
The Top 1 Percent Of Americans Take Home 24 Percent Of National Income
The Top 1 Percent Of Americans Own Half Of The Country’s Stocks, Bonds, And Mutual Funds
The Top 1 Percent Of Americans Have Only 5 Percent Of The Nation’s Personal Debt
The Top 1 Percent Are Taking In More Of The Nation’s Income Than At Any Other Time Since The 1920s
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/10/03/334156/top-five
-wealthiest-one-percent/


The initial facts and your rebuttal don't mean a whole lot without knowing how much of the whole is actual income and how much is capital gains.


We can't all be educated Vex.

Essentially all we need is to eliminate the double standard in which short term capital gains are taxed as ordinary income and long term capital gains are taxed at 15% no matter how much you make. Tax it all as ordinary income.

>> ^Trancecoach:

The Top 1% also pays nearly 40% of the Federal Income Tax
>> ^ghark:
Some interesting facts about the top 1%:
The Top 1 Percent Of Americans Owns 40 Percent Of The Nation’s Wealth
The Top 1 Percent Of Americans Take Home 24 Percent Of National Income
The Top 1 Percent Of Americans Own Half Of The Country’s Stocks, Bonds, And Mutual Funds
The Top 1 Percent Of Americans Have Only 5 Percent Of The Nation’s Personal Debt
The Top 1 Percent Are Taking In More Of The Nation’s Income Than At Any Other Time Since The 1920s
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/10/03/334156/top-five
-wealthiest-one-percent/



The initial facts and your rebuttal don't mean a whole lot without knowing how much of the whole is actual income and how much is capital gains.

TLDR: Lump capital gains together with personal income for the purposes of personal income tax, and voila.

They need to figure out something better to do with the capital gains tax. I'm not sure a straight out raise in the rate would help much.

To me the goal of a capital gains tax shouldn't be to generate revenue for the government but to control the volatility of the market. From my perspective a lot of stock value has nothing to do with the profitability of a company or its longer term prospects, but a completely artificial betting game played by computers.

Millionaires and Billionaires reap the benefits of this because they have the enough money to actually influence the market, plus they're constantly moving their money around. Regular folk with 401Ks aren't likely to move their money around a lot because they're too busy actually working on something other than analyzing market trends, plus they don't have enough money to make it worthwhile moving their money from one stock that's going to drop a point to another that's predicted to increase a few points.

Maybe they can tax large sums at a higher rate (maybe they already do), and/or a higher rate for selling off from a performing stock.

You may now eviscerate me on my ignorance of the market.

I checked your statement, Warren Buffett Salary is a fixed $100,000/year. It's been that salary forever. He should be paying very little taxes at that bracket compared to his actual income.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^quantumushroom:
The 'factory owner' paid for all those tax-paid services (military, police, fire protection, roads) at a higher rate than the average taxpayer.
No, he didn't. Capital gains taxes are lower than income taxes.
For average taxpayers, payroll tax is the biggest share of their tax burden, followed by sales tax, followed by income tax.
For the wealthy, their tax burden is mostly split between income tax and capital gains, and since capital gains is significantly lower than income tax, they do their best to rearrange their income so it comes in as capital gains.
That's how Warren Buffet's secretary winds up paying a higher effective rate than Warren Buffet.

This is BS. Utter BS. Underlying social contract? - I think the government broke that contract a long damn time ago!!!
I hire workers that paid way to damn much for their college education.
I, and their parents, paid taxes for them to get a crappy public education before that.
I ship product on poorly maintained roads, where the person standing with the stop/go sign gets more per hour than my warehouse workers.
My employees pay taxes on the money I pay them, which I have paid taxes as well.
I pay taxes on every cent I earn and my employer pays taxes on every product we sell.
I pay for every damn thing I use and pay taxes on every damn thing I buy.
If I should happen to work my a$$ off and get rich, guess what I did it by my own damn self DESPITE the government - not because of. And it's not luck - it's hard damn work. You make your own luck.
As far as incentive's for investing by giving a lower tax rate - yep that's what we do and there is nothing wrong with that. I make money and pay taxes on it. I buy something and I pay taxes on it. I save money and I pay taxes on the interest. I put some of what I have left in the Stock market - I TAKE RISKS on investing in companies which promotes their growth and the strengthening of our economy and IF I should happen to make money off of it then that is the reward for taking the risk. I shouldn't have to pay the same tax rate as if I had gotten it from my employer. My job doesn't incur risk, investing does. If you don't give an incentive to someone for taking risk, then you have no investment. I'd just buy government bonds at some crappy interest rate- just not in California or Illinois.
Yet we all focus on the part where she mentions capital gains tax and not the other part where she mentions Medicare, Medicaid, and 2 wars? How about we focus on changing those first couple of things and get our government to run EFFICIENTLY and then come back asking for more money.