Equality?

[DuncanONeil]

I think "allowed to control" is kind of awkward. It seems to suggest society should basically forcibly take away this money at the point of a gun.

I think from a societal perspective such a massive accumulation of wealth in the hands of so few is very bad. For instance, it has been shown to radically increase crime and cause other problems.

I think the question is more: How can one justify decreasing taxes on the rich at the expense of the poor and middle class when the income disparity is so extreme?

When taxes are decrease how is that you see this only as taxes decreased for the "rich" at the "expense" of the "poor & middle class"?

In my parents generation the major corporate CEO's earned 20 times what the average worker did. There are CEO's now that earn more in a minute than a minimum wage job holder earns in a year. And if that's what their skills justify than fine. But keep that in mind when you suggest cutting that guys taxes and paying for it by raising taxes on that minimum wage earner.

Show me a time when taxes were cut for the "rich" and raised on the minimum wage earner?

Also from the earned perspective, why does it make sense to slash inheritance taxes, it seems to me inheritance is by definition unearned wealth.

Inheritance comes from three sources; wages, investment, or prior inheritance. In all of these instances these funds have already been taxed. Why then should it be taxed again?? In many cases there is a family business involved that suddenly becomes the property of someone else!

Lastly, why have we chosen to tax investment income at a lesser rate than income earned through labor. A long line of those who are claimed to be champions of conservative economics was strongly opposed to this, the likes of which include Adam Smith and Andrew Mellon. The liberal economists have always been against it. Warren Buffet ripped the US government because he paid a lower % on his income than his secretary did, despite earning way more, because investment income is taxed so lightly.[/QUOTE]

[SadisticNature]

I think from a societal perspective such a massive accumulation of wealth in the hands of so few is very bad. For instance, it has been shown to radically increase crime and cause other problems.

When taxes are decrease how is that you see this only as taxes decreased for the "rich" at the "expense" of the "poor & middle class"?

Show me a time when taxes were cut for the "rich" and raised on the minimum wage earner?

Inheritance comes from three sources; wages, investment, or prior inheritance. In all of these instances these funds have already been taxed. Why then should it be taxed again?? In many cases there is a family business involved that suddenly becomes the property of someone else!

Lastly, why have we chosen to tax investment income at a lesser rate than income earned through labor. A long line of those who are claimed to be champions of conservative economics was strongly opposed to this, the likes of which include Adam Smith and Andrew Mellon. The liberal economists have always been against it. Warren Buffet ripped the US government because he paid a lower % on his income than his secretary did, despite earning way more, because investment income is taxed so lightly.

[/QUOTE]

Because historically what has been done with tax decreases for the top brackets is adjusting the lower brackets upwards to keep government revenues high. Thus those who have $0 in income that is in the top bracket but have income in lower brackets are taxed at higher rates than they were before.

Time when taxes were cut for the rich and raised for a minimum wage earner include 1988 When the taxes on the bottom bracket were raised from 11% to 15% to pay for a cut on the top bracket from 38.5% to 28%.

The net result was:

In 1971: Bottom bracket 14% Top Bracket: 70%
In 1990: Bottom Bracket 15% Top Bracket: 28%

I don't have easily available data on the 2nd and 3rd lowest brackets but suspect the trend is similar. The primary reason tax revenues equal out when the top bracket is lowered is that other brackets are raised.

My point about inheritance being unearned wealth, is that it is money that you get because you happen to be related to someone who did well, and is completely independent of your own abilities, successes or failures. If you want a meritocratic system taxing inheritances heavily seems to be a good start.

[DuncanONeil]

In '71 there were 25 different rates.
In '90 three. In '71 74.6 million returns $903.5 billion in income - AGI of $742.8 billion. In '90 113.7 million returns $4878.6 billion in income - AGI of $3798.4 billion. With the top one percent being over the top rate entry point at a total of 1.3 million there is no way those at the bottom could make up the difference based on rates.
Also between '71 and '90 there were there reductions in both the top and bottom rate!
Appears population growth had more to do with income than tax rates. I still say that for tax policy we should dispose of the IRS and institute the FairTax!

Because historically what has been done with tax decreases for the top brackets is adjusting the lower brackets upwards to keep government revenues high. Thus those who have $0 in income that is in the top bracket but have income in lower brackets are taxed at higher rates than they were before.

Time when taxes were cut for the rich and raised for a minimum wage earner include 1988 When the taxes on the bottom bracket were raised from 11% to 15% to pay for a cut on the top bracket from 38.5% to 28%.

The net result was:

In 1971: Bottom bracket 14% Top Bracket: 70%
In 1990: Bottom Bracket 15% Top Bracket: 28%

I don't have easily available data on the 2nd and 3rd lowest brackets but suspect the trend is similar. The primary reason tax revenues equal out when the top bracket is lowered is that other brackets are raised.

My point about inheritance being unearned wealth, is that it is money that you get because you happen to be related to someone who did well, and is completely independent of your own abilities, successes or failures. If you want a meritocratic system taxing inheritances heavily seems to be a good start.[/QUOTE]