What if the debt continues

[bjurasz]

@FOOLME45

The math is what it is, unless you can explain it to me otherwise.

Nobody is saying this will be the complete and final solution to the problem. You appear to be saying “it won’t solve the whole problem so we shouldn’t do this at all”.

[FOOLME45]

@bjurasz

You appear to be saying “it won’t solve the whole problem so we shouldn’t do this at all”.

No, that’s not what I am saying at all.

1. There is an argument that increasing the tax rates on the very wealthy will materially change the concentration in wealth. It won’t and more importantly it doesn’t matter, IMO.

2. If one wants to propose tweaking tax rates on the upper end to address the deficit, closing the ability to borrow rather than take gains to fund lifestyles, it is a reasonable objective and we should consider it with the objective of reducing the debt and deficit. But, it won’t solve the larger complaint about either disparity in income or overall wealth. To @DrBob2 point, for additional programs or further subsidize the lower class, it will, as it has in Europe, work its way into much higher tax rates on the middle class.

If your goal is debt and deficit reduction and shoring up Social Security and Medicare, I’m on board with it as part of the solution. But, the thread was discussing extreme concentration of wealth and tax rates won’t really change it.

[Hawkwin]

@FOOLME45

You did by stating the concentration is extreme.

Good grief. How it concentrates is not the same as the level of concentration.

I want to change the level of concentration. I have no desire to make it so that it no longer concentrates.

@FOOLME45

There is a much smaller % earning in income north of 1mil a year.

Valid, and I should have been specific as to income - which is what I meant.

@FOOLME45

Once you include state, local, ACA surcharge and Federal, the marginal tax rate hits 60% in some areas of the US.

Stop using the worst case scenario to make your example. What a state may tax is not relevant to the discussion as that is a state specific problem and not one related to the federal debt or deficit. If CA tax is too high, let that individual move to Tennessee - it doesn’t change, nor should it, how federal income tax is determined.

@FOOLME45

Almost nothing, when you pick up a calculator and start doing the math, it just doesn’t move the needle in terms of changing the dynamic between the haves and has less.

I am quite positive I have stated this to you before? “Perfect is the enemy of good.”

I am not looking for a perfect solution - one does not even exist. You would appear to take a position that anything short of perfect is not worth doing. I disagree - and I think you do too* but perhaps you just want to be argumentative.

*I have seen you post more than once in support of increasing taxes on the wealthy. Even in this thread:

We need to have a serious reckoning on allowing for the wealthy to borrow against holdings without treating that as a transfer. It needs to end and provides a disproportionate advantage.

So you clearly think things should change; that wealth concentrates, dare I say, in the extreme.

Moving on.

[FOOLME45]

@Hawkwin

I want to change the level of concentration. I have no desire to make it so that it no longer concentrates.

Let me make this as clear as I can. Your proposed strategy will make no measurable difference to where wealth is concentrated, why bother focusing on it?

@Hawkwin

I am not looking for a perfect solution - one does not even exist. You would appear to take a position that anything short of perfect is not worth doing. I disagree - and I think you do too* but perhaps you just want to be argumentative.

No, what I am saying is that moving up the tax rates in some scenarios is a perfectly reasonable discussion. It won’t have an impact on wealth concentration. It’s not a suggestion to do nothing or that some increase won’t help. My point is almost all the same dynamics will exist, including the debt and deficit. Think of this way, we’re in the desert and you have found a few pieces fruit to squeeze a little bit of water to survive for the next few days. Fine, let’s go ahead and squeeze but what do you plan to do long term to fix the overall situation? At some point, you either have to begin to broadly tax the lionshare of the population or begin substantial austerity measures. So, let’s have that conversation rather than this constant droning about income inequality and concentration of wealth.

@Hawkwin

So you clearly think things should change; that wealth concentrates, dare I say, in the extreme.

I think the tax code should be fair and it is unfair that passive income is treated differently in some ways than earned income. Allowing someone to benefit further from the accumulation of property by borrowing against, it creates a further divide that crosses the line. It violates in my mind the Economic Benefit Doctrine that serves as the operating principle for when taxation should occur. We should fix it because it is the right thing to do. I don’t have any expectation that it will change the concentration of wealth nor is the underlying reason for my position. The reason is most people will accept differing outcomes, so long as the system is fair. I’m seeking fairness in the treatment of income and wealth not whether the concentration changes, even a little. Does that make sense to you?

[Leap1]

@WendyBG

The result is inflation because the supply of money is growing faster than the supply of real goods and services.

There is another avenue, and its happening. Raise interest rates, run us into a recession as of next year(after November), decrease the money supply, and thereby cut inflation.

Less money in circulation, the dollar appreciates, and no crisis should go to waste.

Oh blame the FED. Claim an I told you to lower rates.