There’s nothing the US government can do to fix income inequality.
3 Likes
Could they not tax any income above say $200,000 (or even less) by 90-100%?
Actually, I would happily return to the days of extremely high tax rates for mega wealthy people. I would also go back to being able to write all kinds of things off for the same rich people. Why? because that caused really rich people to spend their money which created jobs.
1 Like
What effect do you think that will have on the schools?
That would depend on your definition of fair. Most people don’t see equity as being as fair as equality.
How? Are those two emotions compatible without diminishing the person in question?
Good post.
I’d like to see the evidence of that please.
Are there more or less children of boomers attending college percentage wise? Seems like more to me.
1 Like
Are you mega wealthy?
Nope, but I still believe that was a better system.
Easy for us to be happy with doing things to other people when they don’t affect us.
1 Like
True, of course for it to actually become law it would have to be passed by mostly rich people. Certainly not all, but most people in Washington take a “pay cut” to go there.
1 Like
If you look at salary. If you look at compensation not hardly.
1 Like
Absolutely, power, influence and outside money must be a hell of a drug.
1 Like
Since the 1970’s, the redistribution of wealth has dramatically favored the wealthy.
A full-time worker whose taxable income is at the median—with half the population making more and half making less—now pulls in about $50,000 a year. Yet had the fruits of the nation’s economic output been shared over the past 45 years as broadly as they were from the end of World War II until the early 1970s, that worker would instead be making $92,000 to $102,000. (The exact figures vary slightly depending on how inflation is calculated.)
Far too many of the “fixes” seek to bring down the successful people rather than to lift up those who are not successful.
My definition of redistribution of wealth is the government taking from the wealthy and giving to the poor.
And that’s been going on for decades with the progrtams I listed. So again, I ask – how has that been working out? How much as it helped? has it made a segment of the population relient on the programs?
1 Like
Well, it works both ways.
Numbers do not lie.
Read the Rand piece. It clearly spells it out.
They do not offer how to fix it…they just show the numbers.
I wonder if large companies that employ people at wages that qualify them for federal and state benefits, while making billions in profits is a factor.
When we are talking about the government TAKING from the wealthy by way of taxes or a wealth tax to give to those that are poor – that’s the re-distribution we should be talking about. that’s NOT the government’s job and shouldn’t be it’s function (why do you think a lot of large cities vote dem – they KNOW they will be the recipients of the free free free money).
And how is the government responsible for that?
Why?
…
No.
…
The government is responsible for how the economy is managed. They (we) set the rules of commerce. The invisible hand tends to screw the middle class and below, so as a representative republic, we have have the power, through legislation to manage the economy for the best desired result.
Note I said manage, not control.
