|
|
Post by shakedown on Sept 28, 2015 18:28:30 GMT -5
is this guy just sayin anything to get a vote ?
i hope his poll numbers jump and forces the repubs
to start a new tune
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Page on Oct 5, 2015 12:46:33 GMT -5
the pressing dynamic is that close to 50% of those who vote believe anything that is said by folks they perceive are about 'low taxes and small government'. Sort of like the issue of gun control, the costs and consequences of low taxes or small government matter little, even to those most directly in position to suffer or benefit from whether such a value is adopted.
As I get older, and start thinking about my post-retirement goals and objectives, coming up with an information or education platform for more clearly assessing such claims and propaganda is increasingly something I think about.
Just look at the staying power of 'trickle down economics'. Or 'the job creators' as a basis for not imposing a fair share tax burden on those best positioned to afford it. If the 80% of conservatives who would stand to benefit and are not part of the 1% understood the consequences and costs of their beliefs, I do wonder whether we'd be paralyzed like we are in dealing with some of the intractable problems we face as a nation.
|
|
|
|
Post by shakedown on Oct 5, 2015 13:34:41 GMT -5
very true I was a sucker and thought when bush{spit}
wanted to privatize social security it was a great idea
but looking back at the to big to fail market crash
I would have lost everything I know my 401 took a huge hit
what do you think about a flat tax?
to me it sounds fair
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Page on Oct 5, 2015 13:55:25 GMT -5
If you were to read Thomas Piketty's work Capital, he fleshes out the evidence supporting his hypothesis that income and wealth concentration are a function of the relationship between returns on equity, and economic growth.
In short, where the average or society-wide return on equity is a multiple of society's rate of economic growth, (say average returns on equity are 6% and the rate of growth in the economy is 1%) that a concentration in both wealth (what people own) and income (their earnings, both from wages as well as from capital or stock holdings)is bound to result.
Since 1980, the U.S., and most of the developed world, is in that very situation; equity returns have increased, in large measure due to favorable laws limiting the strength of unions and employee rights, as well as reductions in tax rates on capital income, or capital gains tax rates. Growth in economic activity is far less susceptible to intervention and has slowed considerably from what was the case from 1946 - 1979.
The U.S. and its states already have a roughly flat or even regressive tax structure when you take into account sales taxes and property taxes as well as social security and medicare.
When you take all of this into account, it's easy to understand why the U.S. has fallen from being similar to western European nations in terms of income inequality in 1979 and quality of life, to something closer to Mexico and Brazil as we are now.
The change has been driven by changes in tax rates which have almost exclusively benefitted the wealthiest, and employee rights laws being weakened or dismantled. The change in income (and wealth, which is more difficult to discuss due to the lack of solid trend and time-series data) inequality highlights the need for progressive tax levels.
|
|
