Bill O on taxing the rich

[kalm]

If that ^ incredibly stupid human being is an accomplished Doctor...
Then I'm world renowned physicist Erwin Schrodinger

he is a brilliant brain surgeon by all accounts

I think that could be his only bailiwick, though

There's quite a few smart, dumb people in the world.

[LeadBolt]

It is easy to cure income inequality by bringing down the top earners with more progressive tax rates, but this does nothing to raise the standard of living for the poor, which should be the focus, imho.

I tend to agree that raising tax revenues to balance a budget is akin to putting a fire out with kerosene, but given the Federal governments propensity for deficit spending, I'm no longer sure, beyond the fact that increasing tax revenue without increasing income brings the whole house of cards down.

We need to do more to spur economic growth and provide jobs, rather than re-distributing wealth, imho. The economic pie is not static and this is not a zero sum game, or progressive arguments would make more sense.

Raising transfer payments to the poor, instead of creating jobs and providing effective training to them to get into better paying jobs, i have come to believe is just a cynical ploy to keep them enslaved to the status quo and a certain political philosophy.

I have recently done some study on FDR and JFK and I'm struck by how we have abandoned their philosophies for improving the lot of the economically disadvantaged through government jobs programs, training, cutting tax rates, and equal opportunity as opposed to increased government dependance and handouts.

I am much more in favor of the increase of self worth and pride among the economically disadvantaged by offering them opportunity to pull them selves up, as opposed to increased maintenance programs which lead to decreased self worth and pride that comes through increased government dependance.

Good post and I agree with much of it. A couple of questions...

If this is not a zero sum game, why are wages limited or off-shored?

I know it's the new "liberal", but why do you think progressive arguments are contrary to what you've suggested? I hear many progressives chiming the same bells.

What are the leading causes of income inequality?

OK, i'll bite and treat your questions as sincere:

1). Wages should be in theory related to the value imparted, therefore are not equal. They are limited or offshore to make products and services affordable in the market place, whether free or regulated. Value can be created or destroyed, it is not static.

2). I'm certainly not as familiar with progressive views, as you are and may not fully understand them, but I don't see those I believe to be progessives advocating a reduction of government transfer payments, except for the exception of means testing, or doing away with negative tax rates. C

3). I view income inequality as a red herring and immaterial. I am concerned with the plight of the poor and don't believe that reducing the top tier by excessively progressive taxation is a solution, but rather a detriment to doing so.

[CID1990]

he is a brilliant brain surgeon by all accounts

I think that could be his only bailiwick, though

There's quite a few smart, dumb people in the world.

And when they are conservatives it makes them all the more remarkable.

[kalm]

Good post and I agree with much of it. A couple of questions...

If this is not a zero sum game, why are wages limited or off-shored?

I know it's the new "liberal", but why do you think progressive arguments are contrary to what you've suggested? I hear many progressives chiming the same bells.

What are the leading causes of income inequality?

OK, i'll bite and treat your questions as sincere:

1). Wages should be in theory related to the value imparted, therefore are not equal. They are limited or offshore to make products and services affordable in the market place, whether free or regulated. Value can be created or destroyed, it is not static.

2). I'm certainly not as familiar with progressive views, as you are and may not fully understand them, but I don't see those I believe to be progessives advocating a reduction of government transfer payments, except for the exception of means testing, or doing away with negative tax rates. C

3). I view income inequality as a red herring and immaterial. I am concerned with the plight of the poor and don't believe that reducing the top tier by excessively progressive taxation is a solution, but rather a detriment to doing so.

1) But wages drive demand for products and services. If wealth is not finite, why are wages? I don't think the "piece of the pie" argument explains all that much when it comes to economic mobility which btw, the US is lagging behind other OECD countries in.

2) I was more referring to government efforts in jobs training, infrastructure projects, etc. You're right in that not enough on the left recognize the issues with generational dependency. David Cameron just got legislation passed that requires all able bodied welfare recipients to work. I think that's reasonable.

3) Fair point, but history doesn't indicate that it hurts the economy either, while helping to balance the budget. One can also make a case that the rich benefit from government largesse and the commons too. The whole economic extraction concept...

“Just as nuclear fuel will always be reactive, people will always be greedy. We need to enforce rules to balance natural greed with capital requirements so that greed can create productive risk taking and competition and not short-term extraction, otherwise known as theft.”
― Dylan Ratigan, Greedy Bastards

[JohnStOnge]

2. Personal income taxes on the rich haven’t gone through the roof. To the contrary, they’ve plunged. 60 years ago, the rich paid federal income taxes over twice today’s rate. In 1953, the top marginal income tax was 91% -- applied to earnings in excess of $1,522,595 (adjusted for inflation). In 2013, after new Obama higher taxes on the rich went into effect, the federal income tax rate on income over $1,522,595 was 39.6%.

I hate to defend O'Reily but he didn't say taxes on the rich have "gone through the roof." He said they ARE through the roof. The fact that the top marginal rate was higher in 1953 doesn't rebut the contention that taxes on the rich are through the roof now. Maybe they were MORE through the roof in 1953. But 39.6% is more than a third of the income above that level. I think that IS through the roof.