How is that so, given the inter-generational impact? Now I appreciate Americans will often love the idea of inheritance. They're Britain's children after all.
The fact that there are those who possess wealth provides the creative with boundless opportunities to extract a share of that wealth.
If you accumulate that much or more, it means you have sheltered money in overseas tax free account. This means you did NOT pay taxes on that money and makes you a welfare leech. Elitists like that should have to pay their share like everyone else does.
I guess the fact that the percentage of total wealth held at the top keeps increasing drmonstrates that the " creative " either don't exist, or are not doing a very effective job.
Obviously they do exist, the number at the top is constantly growing with new millionaires as well as new billionaires.
And let me guess...you believe the total wealth of the lower and middle classes has not increased? And a question you will refuse to answer; Explain precisely how any of our wealthy people are preventing you from gaining more wealth??
Sorry but I am not the issue. I am in the top 5% and the Trump plan will benefit myself and my heirs immensely. The current system vastly favors those with capital and I have it and benefit from the current system and will continue to do so. And if the Tax changes go through it will be to my benefit. To answer your first question in constant dollars the wealth of the lower and middle class has not gained significantly in about thirty years.
So you were born into the top 5% and complain about it? You are free to donate and/or spend as much of your unearned wealth as you wish and become a member of the 10% or lower but would appear to be incapable of choosing to do so without government imposition.
Nice try. First I earned being in the top 5%. Born into a good family that provided me motivation and a very good education but worked very hard for twenty year and invested every cent with a high degree of focus coupled with some excellant luck. And no I am not complaining about where I am. But I am saying that the rich don't need even more gifts that will blow up the defecit, do little to stimulate the economy, and will cost the bottom 65% more in taxes and lost medical insurance.
Gifts? I don't have any data on the bottom 65% but the bottom 50% paid an average of $540 each in 2014, while the next 49% paid an average of $11,610 each or about 21.5 times the bottom 50%, while the top 1% paid an average of $388,816 each or 719 times the bottom 50%. The top 1% paid the equivalent of more than 1 billion bottom 50% earners. And government is spending about $12,000 per person.
The living standards of lower and middle class Americans are much greater today than they were 30 years ago. The potential to gain more income and wealth is much greater today than 30 years ago. As long as people compare themselves to others they will likely be unhappy. Any person in the USA who works hard, avoids crime, gains applicable education/skills, and makes good decisions how to manage their lives, will do just fine. Those who do not will forever be jealous of others including whining about how a few wealthier people get some advantage in a death tax or other tax cuts. At least 100 million Americans do not pay their fair share of taxation to fund the governments which they demand...IMO they have no room to whine...
How do you define living standards? Thirty years ago both parents did not have to work to support a family. Children growing up had a parent at home. A family didn't need to have two or three cars. Children went to college and graduated got good jobs and didn't graduate with crushing debt. People worked and got retirement income and actually could live well on company retirement and SS. It is inarguable that the income of lower and middle class families has not gained inflation adjusted in thirty plus years so assuming your measure of living standards in material goods the only way that could be occuring is increasing levels of debt.
And so if you believe all that how do you explain that the top 1% is gaining an ever increasing share of America's wealth while the lower and middle class share is declining.
The figures are a result of what was provided by our government. Are you insinuating that government is lying to us? Whats there to explain, our money is like a living organism, constantly growing in size, and with a growing number of those at the very bottom of the wealth scale finding government willing to raise their standard of living through income redistribution, they have no need of acquiring a share of the total wealth that exists and the responsibilities that go along with it. Those who have nothing of their own have little to lose but their life, and tax and spend politicians love them.
You are pretending I was questioning the tax numbers which is disingenuous. My point was if the tax burden is so skewed towards the top how come the top keeps owning a higger and bigger sharebof the wealth of America? Could it be because income from investment is taxed at a lower rate than earned income. And the stepped up basis of inheritance and about a whole lot of other provisions that actually allow wealth to accumulate without being taxed.
I did no such thing, you brought up the bottom 65% in your post that I was responding to "and will cost the bottom 65% more in taxes", so I posted some figures provided by our government showing the average tax cost to the bottom 50% as I found no government source of the bottom 65%, and compared their average tax contribution to that of the next 49% and the top 1%. Do you deny that the bottom 50% and even without including the next 15% that the tax burden is greatly skewed toward the top? If so, who is being disingenuous? Two persons earning identical incomes, one spends heavily on needs and wants saving a very small amount while the other lives a frugal life spending on needs and doing without many wants saving much more. One saves and invests $100 each year while the other saves and invests $1000 each year. Both invested their savings into the same investment with a fixed return of 8% per year and over the next 30 years. They are both paying tax at the 14% bracket. Initially with one investing $100 and the other $1000 of their "after tax income' a wealth disparity of $900 exists between them. At the end of 30 years the wealth of the first would have grown to $9,980.60 after having paid a total of $1,120.10 in taxes on the interest earned while the others wealth would have grown to $99,805.95 after having paid a total of $11,200.97 in taxes on the interest earned, and a wealth disparity of $89,825.36 would then exist between them, yet their income had remained equal over the previous 30 years. Do you need a big screen TV, microwave oven, iPad, iPhone, etc., etc., etc., or perhaps a little more frugal spending and wise investment would be a more rational use of some of your earnings? Living in perpetual debt does not often result in the acquisition of greater wealth over time. And living off government assistance does not, or at least should not produce any wealth gain at all. Government assistance programs have created for many an artificially high standard of living. We consume more than we produce.
Only the top .2% of households face the estate tax and pay an average rate of only 17%. The estate tax only affects 80 small farms and businesses which is an incredibly tiny number. The reasoning behind this tax is that when the super-rich hand down their wealth to their children this wealth is often undeserved and is basically a form of capitalistic nobility. Wealth is best earned not inherited. With that said I support rolling the estate tax into the income tax in the top tax brackets the estate tax effects. I also support rolling the social security and medicare/medicaid taxes into the income tax as well and greatly simplifying it.
Yes, it is part of the income tax return along with a ton of other nonsense especially for richer individuals and companies. I would greatly simplify things and roll up all those deductions and taxes into our tax brackets and make taxation simple. It makes absolutely no sense to create a new tax to pay for a new program. By that reasoning we would have a NASA tax, NPR tax, Food Stamp Tax, etc. Lets just have one tax that has the same impact as our hundreds of thousands of pages and laws worth of taxes. Plus we can have the IRS calculate your taxes and just send you the bill instead of us having to pay 400 billion per year in tax preparation services to do it ourselves.
The simplest method of taxation would be for Congress to pass a budget, and bill each State, District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico for their proportionate share of the total population. That would result in 51 bills sent, one to the governor each of the 50 States and Puerto Rico, and perhaps the Mayor of DC? That would make a balanced budget easily accomplished, and likely result in voters demanding State and local control over many Federal redistribution programs which would greatly reduce the size of Federal government employees and spending, while putting pressure on each of the States governments as well as local, to be run more efficiently and responsibly.
So let's see if I can understand what you are trying to imply. It's ok to steal from you throughout your life but in death you object to any additional thefts. So what part of the price of slavery do you fail to understand? So I would dare to say that you have discovered the meaning of that little passage does not include you.
Unpatriotic, what a strange point of view, often used by those of anti-social behavior against those that do not accept their little dictates. According to this, there were 21,955,000 federal, state and local government employees needing to steal from others to have a grand lifestyle with benefits (especially medical care and retirement) well beyond a large portion of the population, and this was 2015. So it is those that desire to take care of their and their families prosperity that are unpatriotic, that is sick. On July 4, 1776, a group of true patriots declared war against a tyrant and pledged life, fortune and honor to fight to be free men. In 1878, a group of 55 men (37 lawyers) met in Philadelphia to renew the shackles of slavery. If you want to accept your ownership by another and bow in humility as half your life is claimed, by all means, go for it. But to tell another that to not accept depravity, accept theft, and be deprived of property that is rightfully theirs, they should then be deported to a land not of their heritage is morally evil.
So if I buy a house for $30,000 when gold is selling for $161.10 and after 40 years I sell for $200,000 when gold is $1286.00, where is the profit? Can I bill the government for the 30+ ounces of gold I have lost?
