The Economist - "Inequality or middle incomes: which matters more?"

"CARRIED INTEREST" BOONDOGGLE

Here.

Excerpt:

The Tax Boondoggle that lessens Income Taxation of the "upper-incomes plutocrat-class" reduce effective taxation far bellow its already low 30% level as stipulated by Reckless Reagan's revision of the tax-code in the 1980s.

DON'T BELIEVE IT?

Neither did Milt Romney, when he admitted to paying "only 17%" in overall taxation. It's all about the "capital gains rate, including carried interest".

Read more about how America's Collossal Carried Interest Boondoggle reduces upper-income taxation: Why Mitt Romney & Other Wealthy Investors Pay Less Taxes

Now tell me how it isn't so that, since the Reagan's Administration in 1980s, it is not a tax boondoggle (Carried Interest) that is responsible for a huge part of the percentage growth shown in red in the above infographic.

MY POINT?

When a taxation system perversely and continuously benefits only the upper classes of a country, then sooner or later, something has to give. You don't want to be around when that happens - the aftermath is very ugly ...

 

Further on in this article, excerpted:

 

What will be happened if the billionaires in the world will purchase things with their all wealth?

 

Uncle Ferd hopes dat basic income goes through so's he can get cable TV...

One of Nation's Wealthiest Men Criticizes Wealth Inequality, Plugs Universal Basic Income
May 26, 2017 | In a speech to Harvard graduates on Thursday, Facebook Founder, Chairman and CEO Mark Zuckerberg said it's not enough for young people to find their own purpose in life -- they should "create a world where everyone has a sense of purpose."

 

Don't taxes harm every person who has to pay them? How does being taxed benefit a person?

 

I recently heard a documentary about the rise of socialism and communism in Europe and it kinda changed my mind on wealth inequality. I actually think something needs to be done to help those that are in poverty to get out of it.

I have yet to hear anyone take a position that I think would help.

 

Longshot wrote: Don't taxes harm every person who has to pay them? How does being taxed benefit a person?[/b]

Taxes pay for common goods...

... such as infrastructure (roads, bridges, etc.)...

... defense, (military)...

... and law and order expenses (police, courts, prisons, etc.)

... among other things that keep this country running.

 

But having money taken from you harms you, no?

 

Not as much, for the poor, as being assessed for one's share of the cost of the common goods expenses.

 

America and Americans are far too accented upon "success" as a measure of comparative level-of-existence by obtaining one helluva-lotta-moulah.

Those times are over, as history will show. The world is a far different place than the early years of the Information Age that began in the 1990s (with the advent of the Internet without which these "self-made millionaires" would be "ordinary joes").

Zuckerberg "lucked out" - with the most popular and useless web-site in history.

We should be far more concerned not about the Amount of Wealth generated but by its Distribution. Particularly in a nation where 14% of the population is incarcerated below the Poverty Threshold (annual revenue of $24K for a family of 4).

That's about 43 million Americans - or the populations of California and Oklahoma combined ...

 

America's middle and upper middle class is better off than those in Europe (except for Luxembourg which has a relatively small population to be calling itself a nation)

 

Define "better off". Define "middle and upper class".

Iow, get factual instead of hiding behind unsubstantiated one-liners ...

 

Inequality doesn't matter at all.

Middle incomes is politically very important as it governs the majority of the populace. It's where the votes all are.

 

wrong, it does matter that idiotic liberal policies have needlessly created inequality or people without much money on which to survive!!

 

No it doesn't. If I have enough, it doesn't matter how much more than me you have.
Inequality is irrelevant.

A well paid soldier is loyal to the Queen. It is enough to have enough. Equality is not required.

 

well if you have increasing inequality leading to poverty and eventual starvation caused by idiotic liberal policies it is a problem

 

Why do you feel inequality leads to poverty?

Rich people have more work for me. I prosper amongst them.

 

It's not so much how much they're worth, it's how much that goes to the top, and never recirculates back around again.

 

Correct. The heart-throb of any market-economy is the outcome to society. Is it rich, is it poor - is the distribution of income fair? Not equal, but equitable.

We do not ask those questions enough in the US. Because we are satisfied with knowing "who's da winnah?" Whyzzat?

Because we treat a market-economy as if were a sport. if you don't win, your a loser? (Brainless idiocy.)

Anyone who thinks the market-economy is a sports-game - with only winners and losers - should have their head examined.

Or stand for PotUS ... it helps!

 

I'll also point out the folly of sucking up all the productivity gains of the last 70 years and re-investing them in polices states like Red China and further gutting the domestic economy hasn't been any help either, except for Wall Street, as all labor racketeering schemes do, including looking the other way to massive illegal alien influxes.

 

Investing in China helped me.
I spent the proceeds here.

My country does a lot of trade. Lot of lot of trade. government takes a skim out of all of it.
And the reason we are one of the biggest trading economies in the world despite not being very many of us, is this. We are all rich.
We all have money to spend. Surplus money.
Rich people can afford to buy my I phone. Poor people cannot. I cannot make money when there are not enough resources to go round. I want to work where the rich people are. I want to sell, to rich people.
I want to be their gardener, their kids teacher, their plumber and their computer engineer because they have money to pay me and poor people don't.

Rich people can afford to invest in my business. Their money is not sitting idle. They are rich because they are good with money.
They have loaned to banks. Invested it in companies. Put it to work.

That which they have sitting idle, sits idle for good reason. As insurance or ready to buy a once in a lifetime bargain.

Velocity of money. The only people who profit from the increased velocity of money are those who operate a skim.
The banks charge a % per transaction. Velocity of money means more money for them. The taxman operates on a % of each transaction. Velocity of money means more money for him.

For everyone else we don't want velocity of money. We want it to get to us and then stop. I don't want to be making trades all day.
I want to buy something for myself and then have it. Use it. Keep it. Eat it, drink it, smoke it.Take it out of the economy.

 

lol ... anecdotal stories on the innernetz are wonderful; you can imagine all kinds of things; too bad they're useless for determining a national economic policy, as are ideological homilies.

 

Anecdotal stories allow for the application of "the common sense test".

Once you get too far up your own arse, you can't see for the poo.

National statistics don't mean dick because almost none of the people looking at them have studied statistics. They don't know what it means. They see a bar graph but don't read the small print and recognise what the words mean. It is not common knowledge it is a higher level expertise.

and each person plays the statistic to reinforce their theory.

With so many conflicting studies to choose from, the only real way we have to validate the truth in what we are told is to test it. To see it for ourselves.
So if an economic theory or study says one thing, but all the evidence of your eyes says another, doubt that theory.

It has failed the common sense test.

The common sense test:

We already know that 1,000 x 1,000 = 1,000,000
What does, 986 x 952 = ?

What ever answer you calculate, common sense says it will be close to 1,000,000. If your answer is over 1,000,000 or not close to one million, it is wrong.

So in order to apply the common sense test we need to have examples to work from. Life experience.

 

I don't need to define anything or get factual. Pew already did that. Since you getting factual largely consists of declaring everyone else wrong, I will let you google that study on your own.

 

Police, fire, ambulance, roads, schools, airports, to name a few.