$3.7 Trillion

[Kazuya Mishima]

There's not much you can do for 3rd+ generation welfare recipients who have no concept of getting up in the morning to go work a job or sticking around in order to raise kids that their unbound lust propelled into the world.

Culture is king.

[Grandpa's Spells]

I want to increase taxes (confiscation) from that group by reigning in deductions and other politico-corporate kleptocracy schemes while demanding some level of accountability from the welfare industry.

Yep, some of that is certainly necessary, and depending on the rates in the simpler tax code could get it done.

How would increasing income taxes on the rich impact their wealth?

For example, my income is x, my wealth is roughly 5x. How would increasing the proportion of x the govt takes annually impact the latter at this point? It will increase the rate of increase going forward to a degree, but not the current amount?

EDIT: As a specific example, with tax increases at the fed and state level that kicked in this year, we maxed out my 401k contribution, which decreased my taxable income but will, over time, increase my wealth.

Right, taxing income alone won't get it done. Plenty of these people get by with zero salary. So, you have to:

Tax capital gains more like we did pre-1997, for the folks at the high end, so when the extremely wealthy sell those stocks/bonds/etc., they aren't paying <20% taxes on it.

Get rid of most tax deferments created in the last 30 years. As Donk alluded to, there are a lot of these.

Tax large inheritances. People can do whatever they want with their money, but if the plan is keeping it in the family, the kids receiving that income pay taxes on it.

[Freki]

I want to increase taxes (confiscation) from that group by reigning in deductions and other politico-corporate kleptocracy schemes while demanding some level of accountability from the welfare industry.

Yep, some of that is certainly necessary, and depending on the rates in the simpler tax code could get it done.

How would increasing income taxes on the rich impact their wealth?

For example, my income is x, my wealth is roughly 5x. How would increasing the proportion of x the govt takes annually impact the latter at this point? It will increase the rate of increase going forward to a degree, but not the current amount?

EDIT: As a specific example, with tax increases at the fed and state level that kicked in this year, we maxed out my 401k contribution, which decreased my taxable income but will, over time, increase my wealth.

Right, taxing income alone won't get it done. Plenty of these people get by with zero salary. So, you have to:

Tax capital gains more like we did pre-1997, for the folks at the high end, so when the extremely wealthy sell those stocks/bonds/etc., they aren't paying <20% taxes on it.

Get rid of most tax deferments created in the last 30 years. As Donk alluded to, there are a lot of these.

Tax large inheritances. People can do whatever they want with their money, but if the plan is keeping it in the family, the kids receiving that income pay taxes on it.

Would like to know more about the impact on capital formation as capital gains aren't just paid on stocks/bonds/etc by rich folk, but in general I'd agree.

Pretty much.

So let's say my grandmother owns several 100 acres of farmland. I have no idea what it's all worth, but let's say it's $5 million. We're going have to pay tax on that large "inheritance" when she passes, even though there's little cash on hand, the same as a trust fund kid in NYC/LA/Chicago/wherever, who has the cash on hand? Same potential scenario for a small business, not all rich folk are rich.

[Grandpa's Spells]

So let's say my grandmother owns several 100 acres of farmland. I have no idea what it's all worth, but let's say it's $5 million. We're going have to pay tax on that large "inheritance" when she passes, even though there's little cash on hand, the same as a trust fund kid in NYC/LA/Chicago/wherever, who has the cash on hand? Same potential scenario for a small business, not all rich folk are rich.

The farm/small business scenario represents a small minority of these situations, minuscule from a total dollars scenario. You could completely exempt it.

The wealth isn't concentrated in the hands of retirees with $5M of assets, which as you point out, is not a ton of money. It's the guys who have an order of magnitude more

[Turdacious]

Not trying to snipe at you, but:

Get rid of most tax deferments created in the last 30 years. As Donk alluded to, there are a lot of these.

Once you factor out the very wealthy, retirement plans and homes are probably the biggest deferments out there. Both are sacred cows.

Tax large inheritances. People can do whatever they want with their money, but if the plan is keeping it in the family, the kids receiving that income pay taxes on it.

Cash, businesses, or land? The devil is in the details here.

[Grandpa's Spells]

Not trying to snipe at you, but:

Get rid of most tax deferments created in the last 30 years. As Donk alluded to, there are a lot of these.

Once you factor out the very wealthy, retirement plans and homes are probably the biggest deferments out there. Both are sacred cows.

Cap them, even if it means a high cap. 401ks and such are already capped. Nobody is ending up with $50M by using the tools of the middle class.

[Pinky]

Not trying to snipe at you, but:

Get rid of most tax deferments created in the last 30 years. As Donk alluded to, there are a lot of these.

Once you factor out the very wealthy, retirement plans and homes are probably the biggest deferments out there. Both are sacred cows.

Some sacred cows need to be sacrificed. The home mortgage deduction, employer tax credits for health insurance, all farm support, Medicare, the defense budget,....There's a lot of blood that fiscal conservatives should be willing to shed, even though most are not.

[Swamp Fox]

Spells seems to think that if we can just get these people to confiscate more $$ from the rich that we'd advance a more equal society.

I'm saying growing inequality is a serious problem and there are very few ways of dealing with it. You can throw words like "confiscation" around, but raising taxes is something that was a perfectly legitimate move for Republicans until very recently.

When the problem is raised, and that solutions are limited, there seem to be a few responses:

1. Stealing from the rich won't make the poor or middle class (unproven and irrelevant, the serious problem is the nation's wealth in the hands of the extreme few, which taxation will solve easily)
2. Raising taxes will slow economic growth (current economic growth overwhelmingly benefits the rich. Slow growth is not in itself a problem, particularly if it solves the inequality problem, which is unsustainable)
3. Inequality isn't the main problem right now, it's X.

Reagan certainly seemed to have the right economic answers in 1979, but economic realities have changed, and the Tea Party would call Reagan's policies economic slavery today. Tri-Cone Clown Posse's 15 minutes are just about up, and they'll go the way of the Reform Party circa 1997.

Spells,

I agree that inequality is a problem, but explain to me what would keep the very rich from taking their money and moving it to a tax haven.

[Turdacious]

Not trying to snipe at you, but:

Get rid of most tax deferments created in the last 30 years. As Donk alluded to, there are a lot of these.

Once you factor out the very wealthy, retirement plans and homes are probably the biggest deferments out there. Both are sacred cows.

Some sacred cows need to be sacrificed. The home mortgage deduction, employer tax credits for health insurance, all farm support, Medicare, the defense budget,....There's a lot of blood that fiscal conservatives should be willing to shed, even though most are not.

That's because they have to run for reelection. No economist has ever made a compelling enough case, either to politicians or the public, to get these ideas any traction.

[Turdacious]

Not trying to snipe at you, but:

Get rid of most tax deferments created in the last 30 years. As Donk alluded to, there are a lot of these.

Once you factor out the very wealthy, retirement plans and homes are probably the biggest deferments out there. Both are sacred cows.

Cap them, even if it means a high cap. 401ks and such are already capped. Nobody is ending up with $50M by using the tools of the middle class.

Very few people have $50m.

[Grandpa's Spells]

Spells,

I agree that inequality is a problem, but explain to me what would keep the very rich from taking their money and moving it to a tax haven.

They still have to get the money out to spend it, upon which time it is taxed as income. Or they pass it on, when it will be taxed as inheritance. If we're talking about tax deferments invented in the last 30 years, you get rid of those.

The "take the ball and go home" scenario typically involves actually fleeing the country. This historically has not happened in periods of high taxes.

[Grandpa's Spells]

Not trying to snipe at you, but:

Get rid of most tax deferments created in the last 30 years. As Donk alluded to, there are a lot of these.

Once you factor out the very wealthy, retirement plans and homes are probably the biggest deferments out there. Both are sacred cows.

Cap them, even if it means a high cap. 401ks and such are already capped. Nobody is ending up with $50M by using the tools of the middle class.

Very few people have $50m.

I think you're underestimating how much money those very few people have. Bear in mind that to be in the top 1% you "only" have to have a household income of around $350K. Much more of the wealth is concentrated in the .01-.1% range.

[Batboy2/75]

1) "The Poor" have no choice in being poor. Their circumstances have been imposed upon them.
2) The belief that "The rich" (i.e. those that work, save, create or invest) have some how stolen or lucked out in their position in life.
3) The belief that "The Poor" only need more handouts or some program, i.e. the state, via taxing the rich and give to the poor.
4) That "The Rich" will continue to work, save, create and or invest when 40-50-6-70% of their income is stolen to feed government handout programs.

The entire lefitst belief system listed above, is built upon a total Ignorance of (or blatant disregard for) human nature and a total lack of belief in freedom.

[Grandpa's Spells]

1) "The Poor" have no choice in being poor. Their circumstances have been imposed upon them.
2) The belief that "The rich" (i.e. those that work, save, create or invest) have some how stolen or lucked out in their position in life.
3) The belief that "The Poor" only need more handouts or some program, i.e. the state, via taxing the rich and give to the poor.
4) That "The Rich" will continue to work, save, create and or invest when 40-50-6-70% of their income is stolen to feed government handout programs.

You're citing arguments nobody makes except for Republicans fantasizing about their enemies. It's the usual "hate them for their success" argument. Nobody hates Bill Gates.

Mentioned here before:
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/ ... s-unhappy/
A similar lesson emerges from a classic experiment conducted by Franz de Waals and Sarah Brosnan. The primatologists trained brown capuchin monkeys to give them pebbles in exchange for cucumbers. Almost overnight, a capuchin economy developed, with hungry monkeys harvesting small stones. But the marketplace was disrupted when the scientists got mischievous: instead of giving every monkey a cucumber in exchange for pebbles, they started giving some monkeys a tasty grape instead. (Monkeys prefer grapes to cucumbers.) After witnessing this injustice, the monkeys earning cucumbers went on strike. Some started throwing their cucumbers at the scientists; the vast majority just stopped collecting pebbles. The capuchin economy ground to a halt. The monkeys were willing to forfeit cheap food simply to register their anger at the arbitrary pay scale.

This labor unrest among monkeys illuminates our innate sense of fairness. It’s not that the primates demanded equality — some capuchins collected many more pebbles than others, and that never created a problem — it’s that they couldn’t stand when the inequality was a result of injustice. Humans act the same way. When the rich do something to deserve their riches, nobody complains; that’s just the meritocracy at work. But when those at the bottom don’t understand the unequal distribution of wealth — when it seems as if the winners are getting rewarded for no reason — they get furious. They doubt the integrity of the system and become more sensitive to perceived inequities. They start camping out in parks. They reject the very premise of the game.

To be clear: A monkey gets this.

[Turdacious]

Not trying to snipe at you, but:

Get rid of most tax deferments created in the last 30 years. As Donk alluded to, there are a lot of these.

Once you factor out the very wealthy, retirement plans and homes are probably the biggest deferments out there. Both are sacred cows.

Cap them, even if it means a high cap. 401ks and such are already capped. Nobody is ending up with $50M by using the tools of the middle class.

Very few people have $50m.

I think you're underestimating how much money those very few people have. Bear in mind that to be in the top 1% you "only" have to have a household income of around $350K. Much more of the wealth is concentrated in the .01-.1% range.

Confiscating wealth from those most able to effectively fight it is a difficult task.

[Batboy2/75]

1) "The Poor" have no choice in being poor. Their circumstances have been imposed upon them.
2) The belief that "The rich" (i.e. those that work, save, create or invest) have some how stolen or lucked out in their position in life.
3) The belief that "The Poor" only need more handouts or some program, i.e. the state, via taxing the rich and give to the poor.
4) That "The Rich" will continue to work, save, create and or invest when 40-50-6-70% of their income is stolen to feed government handout programs.

You're citing arguments nobody makes except for Republicans fantasizing about their enemies. It's the usual "hate them for their success" argument. Nobody hates Bill Gates.

Mentioned here before:
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/ ... s-unhappy/
A similar lesson emerges from a classic experiment conducted by Franz de Waals and Sarah Brosnan. The primatologists trained brown capuchin monkeys to give them pebbles in exchange for cucumbers. Almost overnight, a capuchin economy developed, with hungry monkeys harvesting small stones. But the marketplace was disrupted when the scientists got mischievous: instead of giving every monkey a cucumber in exchange for pebbles, they started giving some monkeys a tasty grape instead. (Monkeys prefer grapes to cucumbers.) After witnessing this injustice, the monkeys earning cucumbers went on strike. Some started throwing their cucumbers at the scientists; the vast majority just stopped collecting pebbles. The capuchin economy ground to a halt. The monkeys were willing to forfeit cheap food simply to register their anger at the arbitrary pay scale.

This labor unrest among monkeys illuminates our innate sense of fairness. It’s not that the primates demanded equality — some capuchins collected many more pebbles than others, and that never created a problem — it’s that they couldn’t stand when the inequality was a result of injustice. Humans act the same way. When the rich do something to deserve their riches, nobody complains; that’s just the meritocracy at work. But when those at the bottom don’t understand the unequal distribution of wealth — when it seems as if the winners are getting rewarded for no reason — they get furious. They doubt the integrity of the system and become more sensitive to perceived inequities. They start camping out in parks. They reject the very premise of the game.

To be clear: A monkey gets this.

Good, go be a monkey. I have all of recorded human history and you have one study with monkeys.

Socialism is a failure every time it is tried. The West is downing in debt and fiat money trying to put off the day of reckoning. Only a monkey would believe in a free lunch.

[Turdacious]

1) "The Poor" have no choice in being poor. Their circumstances have been imposed upon them.
2) The belief that "The rich" (i.e. those that work, save, create or invest) have some how stolen or lucked out in their position in life.
3) The belief that "The Poor" only need more handouts or some program, i.e. the state, via taxing the rich and give to the poor.
4) That "The Rich" will continue to work, save, create and or invest when 40-50-6-70% of their income is stolen to feed government handout programs.

You're citing arguments nobody makes except for Republicans fantasizing about their enemies. It's the usual "hate them for their success" argument. Nobody hates Bill Gates.

Mentioned here before:
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/ ... s-unhappy/
A similar lesson emerges from a classic experiment conducted by Franz de Waals and Sarah Brosnan. The primatologists trained brown capuchin monkeys to give them pebbles in exchange for cucumbers. Almost overnight, a capuchin economy developed, with hungry monkeys harvesting small stones. But the marketplace was disrupted when the scientists got mischievous: instead of giving every monkey a cucumber in exchange for pebbles, they started giving some monkeys a tasty grape instead. (Monkeys prefer grapes to cucumbers.) After witnessing this injustice, the monkeys earning cucumbers went on strike. Some started throwing their cucumbers at the scientists; the vast majority just stopped collecting pebbles. The capuchin economy ground to a halt. The monkeys were willing to forfeit cheap food simply to register their anger at the arbitrary pay scale.

This labor unrest among monkeys illuminates our innate sense of fairness. It’s not that the primates demanded equality — some capuchins collected many more pebbles than others, and that never created a problem — it’s that they couldn’t stand when the inequality was a result of injustice. Humans act the same way. When the rich do something to deserve their riches, nobody complains; that’s just the meritocracy at work. But when those at the bottom don’t understand the unequal distribution of wealth — when it seems as if the winners are getting rewarded for no reason — they get furious. They doubt the integrity of the system and become more sensitive to perceived inequities. They start camping out in parks. They reject the very premise of the game.

To be clear: A monkey gets this.

Monkeys cannot be trusted, this is clearly.

[baffled]

^racist^

Looking forward to Kaz getting back in here...

[Grandpa's Spells]

Socialism is a failure every time it is tried. The West is downing in debt and fiat money trying to put off the day of reckoning. Only a monkey would believe in a free lunch.

More fantasy. Capital gains tax is not socialism. You'd think the USSR won the cold war to hear the far right describe things.

Is your position that growing inequality isn't a problem?

[Herv100]

Taxing/regulating inheritance is wrong and the opposite of freedom. IDGAF how it can fit into some plan to fix "inequality"

[Grandpa's Spells]

Taxing/regulating inheritance is wrong and the opposite of freedom.

You are stretching the definition of freedom considerably. Telling Sam Walton's great grand-kids that they're going to have to settle for a $10M inheritance is not slavery.

IDGAF how it can fit into some plan to fix "inequality"

Why are you putting inequality in quotes? Measured in dollars, it's real and growing. What's the alternative plan?

[Batboy2/75]

Socialism is a failure every time it is tried. The West is downing in debt and fiat money trying to put off the day of reckoning. Only a monkey would believe in a free lunch.

More fantasy. Capital gains tax is not socialism. You'd think the USSR won the cold war to hear the far right describe things.

Is your position that growing inequality isn't a problem?

I never mentioned the capital gains tax. I mentioned the underlying issues with progessives, liberals, socialists and other same thinking shit birds.

The only problems I see are run away envy and ignorance. This inequality crap is nothing more than socialist drivel. The only people getting rich at anyone's expense is politicians and their cronies.

Also, if you are poor in the USA it's because you are (1) stupid and or (2) lazy.

[johno]

When the rich do something to deserve their riches, nobody complains; that’s just the meritocracy at work. But when those at the bottom don’t understand the unequal distribution of wealth — when it seems as if the winners are getting rewarded for no reason — they get furious. [/i]

I agree with this quote. That's why Obama & Co. promote, "You didn't build that," - to remove the moral claim to wealth in the US.

Spells, what % of citizens think the winners are getting rewarded for no reason? (This is different from the "fair distribution" question in your video.)

[milosz]

Eh? Sweden has lowered it's tax rates to positive effect; France has raised theirs and is having all sorts of problems.

Sweden's top marginal rate is 57%.

[Turdacious]

Eh? Sweden has lowered it's tax rates to positive effect; France has raised theirs and is having all sorts of problems.

Sweden's top marginal rate is 57%.

See here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderic ... tax-gurus/

Sweden has lowered it's top rate because it was too high-- they were getting declining rates of revenue and economic growth. There is a point where raising rates hurts economic growth, and that rate varies from country to country.