Page 7 of 16 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 160
Thanks Tree108Thanks

Thread: UpInequality

  1. #61
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    35,146
    Thanks
    27864

    From
    On a hill
    Quote Originally Posted by publius3 View Post
    The average American does invest. First there is Social Security, that IS an investment, not a good rate of return, but it is still an investment. Bound that the average American invests, and we will ignore the primary residence, in 401k type plans and of course IRAs

    As far as the mutual funds are concerned, they invest in different thing but most are invested in the 'economy at large' -- companies that obviously employ people
    I am pleased that you recognize SS as an investment in our country, as well as a retirement vehicle for the common folk.

    As for investment in the market:

    ownership has slipped during that same period. According to Gallup, 52 percent of U.S. adults owned stock in 2016. Since Gallup started measuring this in 1998, that's only the second time ownership has been this low. These figures include ownership of an individual stock, a stock mutual fund or a self-directed 401(k) or IRA.

    Dow Hits 21,000, Trump Touts Stock Market Success, But Many Left Out Of Gains : NPR

  2. #62
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    35,146
    Thanks
    27864

    From
    On a hill
    Quote Originally Posted by bajisima View Post
    Not all. Lots of young people generally who have huge amounts of student debt don't feel its fair. We had one who spoke up who was over 100K in student debt and still living with their parents. Her friend got married and had kids right away and has all sorts of tax deductibles. She thought that was punishing her. She was the farthest thing from a libertarian. I remember a former poster here, Cicero, who also felt child deductions weren't fair. He wasn't a libertarian.
    I agree with her, it isn't fair.

    It also doesn't help the economy to saddle young people with debt right off the bat.
    Thanks from Babba and Panzareta

  3. #63
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    35,146
    Thanks
    27864

    From
    On a hill
    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    Stiglitz spouts standard populist rhetoric. The vague references to bad rich people are endless.

    "we have a political system that gives inordinate power to those at the top" - Specifically what has been "given?" And who, specifically, are "those at the top?"

    "In a sense, that should be obvious: economic laws are universal, but our growing inequality— especially the amounts seized by the upper 1 percent" - More propagandist reference to the faceless "1%." And what was "seized" and how?

    This leftist rhetoric is cloyingly generic and chanted ad nauseam with the simple aim of creating and inflaming a feeling and perception of social and economic injustice. You hear the same message repeated more often than references to God and the Bible at church. These Media Matters talking points are more dogmatic than religion itself, which is an apt comparison. Leftists are methodically attempting to beat these talking points into people's heads until they are universally accept them as absolute truth, as economic gospel.
    Tax cuts. Why should the wealthy pay a lower rate than the average joe?

    How about rents extracted from the lower and middle classes without concomitant raises?

    Or maybe you really think that trump is deserving of the billions he claims to have.

  4. #64
    Veteran Member bajisima's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    46,213
    Thanks
    28225

    From
    New Hampshire
    Quote Originally Posted by labrea View Post
    I agree with her, it isn't fair.

    It also doesn't help the economy to saddle young people with debt right off the bat.
    Agree. I think now with the debt burden from college the way it is, many are changing their views on taxes. Nobody that spent 100K on education is going to want to pay higher taxes for their chosen careers while others who chose a different path get all the tax breaks. Originally I believe it was set up this way due to most women staying home. Tax deductions helped them have a nice home and two cars. But now, I don't know, maybe that's all outdated.
    Thanks from Babba

  5. #65
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    27,496
    Thanks
    6980

    From
    midwest
    Quote Originally Posted by labrea View Post
    1. Average Americans don't have money to invest.

    2. The companies likely to be in a mutual funds portfolio aren't apt to be the same companies responsible for job growth.
    Incorrect.

    Average Americans DO have money they can invest.

    When you consider that an investor can start with as little as a hundred bucks in some mutual funds.

    A lot of average Americans spend more than that in booze, cigarettes and lottery tickets each month.

    And there are so many different kinds of mutual funds that invest in so many kinds of companies that everyone can find a fund they are comfortable with.

    Many "social funds" exist, that avoid tobacco, or guns and ammo companies, or booze.

    Others only invest only in companies that have lots of women and minorities in management, or have good environmental policies.

    There are funds for everyone...

  6. #66
    Veteran Member Madeline's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    56,806
    Thanks
    32688

    From
    Cleveland, Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by publius3 View Post
    It was originally designed to ensnare 'Rockefeller' money but since then it has ensnared millions of upper middle class American families.

    It is not 'easily avoided' --- its threshold based. If your income is high enough, you're 'in the AMT' -- yes, you can avoid it in the sense that people can simply avoid having income by deciding not to sell a stock. But if your AGI is in the range, the AMT starts chipping away at the benefit of deductions. Then especially high incomes are just stuck with a higher rate ANYWAY. So essentially what happens is that the taxpayer hits the window where deductions are throttled, he or she comes out the other end and then just gets whacked for a higher rate.

    So when Babba writes this:



    That is wrong because tax deductions do NOT favor the wealthy, as one gets wealthier the benefit of tax deductions is basically phased out.

    In fact deductions tend to favor middle to upper middle income families with children in mortgaged homes. Not exclusively of course, but that really is the meat of it.
    Absolutely not. It is meant to work that way, and does not. After 40+ years, tax lawyers can evade it.

    The Code is not static. It seeps more and more money over time, as those with the money pay experts to finagle ways to combat the government's attempt to impose the tax burden fairly.

  7. #67
    Veteran Member Madeline's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    56,806
    Thanks
    32688

    From
    Cleveland, Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by OldGaffer View Post
    Simple, tax inheritance income like winning the lottery income, it is the same principal.
    Inheritance tax was never intended to create federal revenue. It was meant to prevent concentrations of wealth across generations. It is not good for our country that we have 5th generation DuPont billionaires.

    The problem is, writing that tax code and enforcing it is extremely difficult. The IRS and Congress must spend as much or more time and brain power to protect the inheritance tax as the income tax.

    It feels like a pointless exercise.

  8. #68
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    15,323
    Thanks
    4090

    From
    Boise, ID

    UpInequality

    Quote Originally Posted by labrea View Post
    Tax cuts. Why should the wealthy pay a lower rate than the average joe?
    They don't. Which tax rates, by the way?

    How about rents extracted from the lower and middle classes without concomitant raises?
    Nice vocab. Which "rents," specifically?

    Or maybe you really think that trump is deserving of the billions he claims to have.
    I can't say what he does or doesn't "deserve."

  9. #69
    Cat-tastic Babba's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    68,609
    Thanks
    50511

    From
    So. Md.
    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    They don't. Which tax rates, by the way?



    Nice vocab. Which "rents," specifically?



    I can't say what he does or doesn't "deserve."
    What do you have to say about OldGaffer's comment in post #47?

    Why should being lucky enough to be born into a particular family mean you pay a lower tax rate?
    Thanks from labrea and Panzareta

  10. #70
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    35,146
    Thanks
    27864

    From
    On a hill
    Quote Originally Posted by Miller47 View Post
    Incorrect.

    Average Americans DO have money they can invest.

    When you consider that an investor can start with as little as a hundred bucks in some mutual funds.

    A lot of average Americans spend more than that in booze, cigarettes and lottery tickets each month.

    And there are so many different kinds of mutual funds that invest in so many kinds of companies that everyone can find a fund they are comfortable with.

    Many "social funds" exist, that avoid tobacco, or guns and ammo companies, or booze.

    Others only invest only in companies that have lots of women and minorities in management, or have good environmental policies.

    There are funds for everyone...
    Perhaps someday you'll make contact with life one planet earth.
    Thanks from Babba

Page 7 of 16 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed