The problem with the idea of paying teachers more than hedge fund managers is that if being a teacher paid better, the hedge fund manager would do THAT instead.... and the guy who is now the underpaid teacher wouldn't be a better paid teacher... instead he'd simply be an underpaid 'something else'.

It's pretty easy to attribute 'gains' to a hedge fund manager and pay him a portion of those proceeds. It's far more difficult to attribute 'gains' to a 3rd grade teacher (and dozens of other teachers who played a part in someone's success or failure)

Being a teacher is 'special' today because it doesn't pay very well.. so being a GOOD teacher means that you've sacrificed something for the betterment of others. I'd be fine and actually strongly support providing some sort of big back end reward for truly good teachers... It may not be the case anymore, but "Texas Teachers Retirement' as I understand it used to be inheritable... meaning that a 20+ year teacher could actually 'pass on' their retirement or at least a portion of it... maybe paying off the family home after their death, leaving a legacy and improving the lives of their children, much in the way the wealthy do. If being a teacher paid well, it wouldn't be 'special'. They don't get social security, so the 'game' used to be to do something that earned you social security in addition to being a Texas Teacher.... same with the military. I assume, but don't know that this is still the case for current teachers and career military.

Again, it all comes back to supply/demand and skillsets. You're trying to somehow increase the 'worth' of something that lots of people have without simply encouraging those with specific skills to engage in it as well. One answer, similar to the ideas I've espoused before, is to reward 'sacrifice'. But because the wealthy could ALSO sacrifice (and be far more comfortable while they did it) you can't focus on 'stopping' them from making money, but instead solely on encouraging others to make money as well.

Some of you focus far too much on what the wealthy make... and not on what the not wealthy COULD make. Envy vs opportunity.

(07-06-2016 11:21 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 08:53 AM)gsu95 Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 01:09 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  Why do you care how much someone, anyone, else makes? How does that possibly affect you if I'm dragging down 150(?)k a year?

Thats been done for centuries, since time began. Has it changed your own behavior, or your friends/family's in some way if your neighbor makes more money?

I'd humbly suggest you go talk to your neighbor...

You're right, of course, in a sense. What you make is your own business and good for you if you make a good wage. Congratulations. You win. You're important. You matter. You're special.

I think the root problem is there's too much wealth concentrated in too few hands. Nobody wins when that's the case. It's caused revolution, rebellion and chaos and eventually will again. Bad things go down when one segment of a society has all the money and controls all the resources.

On a related note, there's no way we pay people according to their real worth to society. A good teacher should make far more than a good athlete. A good firefighter or paramedic should make more than a salesman. A good cop should make more than a hedge fund manager. Our priorities in this country are off.
We as a culture value the wrong things.

I personally give a rat's ass what you make. And I'm a liberal. But if you expect me to think there's no problem with the way wealth is distributed in this country, you're wrong. There's no level playing field. If you're born comfortable, you have much more opportunity than you do if you're born in harsher circumstances.

Okay, since you decided to make a lame attempt to call me out, I'll reluctantly give you a proper public spanking.

Wait! Did I say "public"? Why yes I did.

As in, every single one of these hero worship occupations you think are somehow outside the order of market based influences and what the market will, and does bear, are amazingly (not really. at all ) "public employees". Read... Government workers.

With your emotional, simplistic view on this, who, instead of the market, should decide/establish what these various jobs are worth? If not the market, then is it left up to..... humans? peoples? Dare I guess politicians or bureaucrats? Who gave them the grace of superior knowledge above that of the natural order of things?

Oh. Right. Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and too many others to list. How's that worked out?

But that obviousness aside, what would you suggest the "hedge fund manager" or the athlete, or the salesperson, whomever, make? How do you come to that decision? More laws? A "scale" perhaps?

So, yea. Keep attempting to kill the private sector, tax those that net contribute to the wealth of this formerly great country instead of living off of it, then come back and scratch your head, and wonder how we became Greece.

if those salespeople, those hedge fund managers, those athletes and anyone else actually bringing money INTO the economy, whether it's selling pillows or buggy whips, were to disappear or be "punished" properly tomorrow, who pays the salaries of all those you "value" more?

*NewsFlash* Champ- We're well on our way to 21 TRILLION dollars in debt. You think our way out is grabbing ever increasing money from the private sector, and giving it over to government? What does government produce?

Without those honest, hard working folks you deride, there ain' gonna BE the teachers, the firefighters, the men in blue or an EMT. Who on earth do you think PAYS them? Government?!?

We value precisely the right things in this Country, least we did.

"The business of America is business." We've, apparently, forgotten that in certain leftist circles, and it's a cancer.

What Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, Mellon, Gates, Kennedy, Lebron or Beyonce makes has had exactly ZERO impact on you, me, or anyone else on this forum or, frankly the face of the earth. Except, perhaps, those that have benefited from their success.

The sooner we get back to that which has made us the most prosperous and generous Country to ever exist, the sooner we will ALL be better off. As in, ALL.

The entire world.

best evah! fk'n A....

(07-07-2016 12:09 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  The problem with the idea of paying teachers more than hedge fund managers is that if being a teacher paid better, the hedge fund manager would do THAT instead.... and the guy who is now the underpaid teacher wouldn't be a better paid teacher... instead he'd simply be an underpaid 'something else'.

It's pretty easy to attribute 'gains' to a hedge fund manager and pay him a portion of those proceeds. It's far more difficult to attribute 'gains' to a 3rd grade teacher (and dozens of other teachers who played a part in someone's success or failure)

Being a teacher is 'special' today because it doesn't pay very well.. so being a GOOD teacher means that you've sacrificed something for the betterment of others. I'd be fine and actually strongly support providing some sort of big back end reward for truly good teachers... It may not be the case anymore, but "Texas Teachers Retirement' as I understand it used to be inheritable... meaning that a 20+ year teacher could actually 'pass on' their retirement or at least a portion of it... maybe paying off the family home after their death, leaving a legacy and improving the lives of their children, much in the way the wealthy do. If being a teacher paid well, it wouldn't be 'special'. They don't get social security, so the 'game' used to be to do something that earned you social security in addition to being a Texas Teacher.... same with the military. I assume, but don't know that this is still the case for current teachers and career military.

Again, it all comes back to supply/demand and skillsets. You're trying to somehow increase the 'worth' of something that lots of people have without simply encouraging those with specific skills to engage in it as well. One answer, similar to the ideas I've espoused before, is to reward 'sacrifice'. But because the wealthy could ALSO sacrifice (and be far more comfortable while they did it) you can't focus on 'stopping' them from making money, but instead solely on encouraging others to make money as well.

Some of you focus far too much on what the wealthy make... and not on what the not wealthy COULD make. Envy vs opportunity.

I would argue social media and real inflation as the root.....but yeah....and your root is solid

like I always try to display, "NOT ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL!"

(07-06-2016 02:17 PM)john01992 Wrote:  for me republicans need to stop doubling down on the exact same policies that caused income inequality in the first place. that would be a fantastic start. then I would say slowly undo all the policies that allowed this calamity to happen in the first place. this nation has had large tax rates on the wealthy before, and those were considered to be some of our best days as a nation. i'm not proposing anything radical like a socialist takeover or anything close to that. the wealthy will spew the same old BS of "I'm a unique talent that is why I'm rich" and/or "If you tax me any higher you will cause a talent flight." Sure some are truly talented, but for every talented rich guy you have a completely untalented rich guy who gets by because the game is rigged in his favor. whereas for every idiot on welfare who is too useless to do anything, there is someone who is incredibly talented but didn't have the opportunity to capitalize on that.

What if it isn't republican policies, but democrat or bipartisan policies, that caused the income inequality in the first place? What if it isn't the specific policies that you are attacking? What if the solutions you appear to be proposing would in fact make inequality worse?

I'm not asking these questions without substantial basis for them. What I really want to understand before wasting my time on a long drawn-out discussion is exactly where you are coming from--do you favor certain policies because you think they will reduce inequality (in which case I think we have some basis for discussion) or would you favor certain policies regardless of their impact on inequality (IE, are you devoted to the policies to the extent that you would favor them even if they made inequality worse, in which case we probably don't have any legitimate basis for discussion)?

I believe that heavily "progressive" tax rate structures (democrat idea) have the effect of making income and wealth dispersion more unequal, not more equal. I have substantial empirical support for that belief.

I believe that narrowly focused (democrat idea, apparently to appeal to specific voting blocs) and means-tested (republican idea, kind of their attempt to be democrat-lite) social welfare programs make income and wealth dispersion more unequal. I have substantial empirical support for that belief.

I am not entirely convinced that inequality is bad or good, per se. Again, I have substantial empirical support on both sides of that question, hence my uncertainty.

Despite that uncertainty, I am prepared to assume that more equal dispersion of income and wealth is a good thing, and starting from that point to undertake a reasonable discussion of how best to achieve that.

I believe that the best way to achieve greater equality of income and wealth is a lower and flatter and broader tax structure, including a consumption tax, funding a government that includes social welfare programs based upon the concept of providing a floor under every citizen rather than massive redistribution of wealth. I am prepared to discuss my reasoning behind each of these.

For now, I will only say that the tax and welfare structures which I am proposing are conceptually much closer to what Europe has than to what we have (particularly after adjusting for the fact that the government sector takes a lot more out of the economy in Europe than it does here), and their systems produce greater equality that ours does.

Lots of people don't understand that high tax brackets make 'tax shelters' more valuable...

meaning at 18% bracket, it's worth 18mm on 100mm to 'hide' or offshore that money.
at 80% bracket it's worth 80mm to do so. Said differently... at 18%, I'll only spend $17.9mm to fight paying it. At 80%, I'll spend $79.9mm.

Higher brackets were more effective when a) the rest of the world was more 'behind' us than they are today and b) moving money meant traveling with suitcases full of cash. Now it involves a few internet keystrokes and moments to move billions.

This is actually what creates part of the wealth gap. If it costs $10mm to set up a 'shell' company in the Bahamas, then only people who are looking to save $10mm in taxes by doing so can take advantage of such a loophole. If you raise the rate from 18% to 80, you have lowered the income threshold where such a move makes sense from $55mm to $12.5mm.

The reason this is important is NOT because I don't think you can tax the rich... of course you can... you just have to look at money like they do... and I know Owl has many ideas I agree with.... but because for those WITHOUT that capital trying to become wealthy, they need access to the cash that the wealthy have in order to make that happen... and our tax policies just pushed more of that risk capital offshore. You might be able to stop as many people from being 'poor' by such a move, but you aren't stopping the wealthy from getting far wealthier. Even a move to $15/hr as the minimum income in this country would still only be $30,000. The wealthy often make that in hours.

The SIDE EFFECT of a strong economy is that you can't get people to work unless you pay them $15/hr. The direct effect of an economy with lots of risk capital in it is that there is lots of supply to allow those with ideas or sacrifice to make it big... but the returns for the wealthy are actually lower because there is so much capital competing for those ideas and sacrifices.

I think the only reason the country has lasted as long as it has, is because the capitalists have had to cave in somewhat. Labor laws, progressive taxes, etc. Without that, you have a very restless, unhappy population - in the case of the US, an armed restless population. Don't think it can't happen if we let the rich have their way. In that sense, Marx may have been right - if the capitalist countries hadn't adapted.

As for the original question, I don't have an answer. I think it would be bad if inequality increased from where we are now, we already have more inequality than most modern Western countries. And while we have a good standard of living, we also have less of a safety net and far more crime (and I believe those are somewhat connected).

(07-07-2016 04:31 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I think the only reason the country has lasted as long as it has, is because the capitalists have had to cave in somewhat. Labor laws, progressive taxes, etc. Without that, you have a very restless, unhappy population - in the case of the US, an armed restless population. Don't think it can't happen if we let the rich have their way. In that sense, Marx may have been right - if the capitalist countries hadn't adapted.
As for the original question, I don't have an answer. I think it would be bad if inequality increased from where we are now, we already have more inequality than most modern Western countries. And while we have a good standard of living, we also have less of a safety net and far more crime (and I believe those are somewhat connected).

What if progressive taxes make inequality worse rather than better?

(07-07-2016 02:52 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Lots of people don't understand that high tax brackets make 'tax shelters' more valuable...

meaning at 18% bracket, it's worth 18mm on 100mm to 'hide' or offshore that money.
at 80% bracket it's worth 80mm to do so. Said differently... at 18%, I'll only spend $17.9mm to fight paying it. At 80%, I'll spend $79.9mm.

Higher brackets were more effective when a) the rest of the world was more 'behind' us than they are today and b) moving money meant traveling with suitcases full of cash. Now it involves a few internet keystrokes and moments to move billions.

This is actually what creates part of the wealth gap. If it costs $10mm to set up a 'shell' company in the Bahamas, then only people who are looking to save $10mm in taxes by doing so can take advantage of such a loophole. If you raise the rate from 18% to 80, you have lowered the income threshold where such a move makes sense from $55mm to $12.5mm.

The reason this is important is NOT because I don't think you can tax the rich... of course you can... you just have to look at money like they do... and I know Owl has many ideas I agree with.... but because for those WITHOUT that capital trying to become wealthy, they need access to the cash that the wealthy have in order to make that happen... and our tax policies just pushed more of that risk capital offshore. You might be able to stop as many people from being 'poor' by such a move, but you aren't stopping the wealthy from getting far wealthier. Even a move to $15/hr as the minimum income in this country would still only be $30,000. The wealthy often make that in hours.

The SIDE EFFECT of a strong economy is that you can't get people to work unless you pay them $15/hr. The direct effect of an economy with lots of risk capital in it is that there is lots of supply to allow those with ideas or sacrifice to make it big... but the returns for the wealthy are actually lower because there is so much capital competing for those ideas and sacrifices.

simpletons don't understand the concept of money nor cause/effect.....

the bottom line is w/o the wealthy, there would only be a fight for food in the residual of chaos....

the main problem today that needs to be challenged is too many are subsidized....that's the ship that has to start changing....

the current path is a loser every day and the eighth one....

I've asked the question about "progressive" taxes making income and wealth inequality greater at least twice as a hypothetical, and gotten no takers, so let me take it out of the hypothetical range by explain how and why.

At first blush, it seems reasonable that if we take money from the "rich" and redistribute it to the "poor," greater equality will result. But that assumes that things are statics and remain the same. We look at a guy making $100 million and paying $20 million in taxes, and think that gee, we could create more equality by taxing him $50 million and redistributing the extra $30 million.

Here's why that doesn't work in reality. That guy doesn't want to pay $30 million more in taxes. And he can move that income to somewhere that he only has to pay $20 million on it. There are many countries where he can do that, including even "socialist" Sweden. So instead of making that $100 million in the US, he takes it overseas. Instead of tax revenues going up $30 million, they go down $20 million. But that's just the tip of the iceberg. The real impact is that nobody gets really wealthy without reading opportunities for lots of other people to get wealthy too. To move that income overseas, he moves investment overseas and creates jobs overseas. The jobs that would have gone to middle class Americans now go to middle class Europeans, or to create a middle class in third world countries. Their middle class gets bigger, ours gets smaller, and that's where income and wealth equality tilt in their favor.

It's called capital flight, and I've seen a number of people arguing that it won't necessarily happen here if we raise taxes on the "wealthy" and corporations. Umm, it's happening now. Jobs are going overseas now. It's a large part of how our hypothetical guy was paying only $20 million in taxes on $100 million in income to begin with. Some to China and the third world because of cheap labor and loose regulation, to be sure. But many are going elsewhere for many reasons, including the fact that $2/day workers lack the knowledge and skill sets to execute many of those jobs. So we are also losing jobs to places where the wage and regulatory differences are not so great. Taxes are not the only consideration in those moves, so don't build that straw man. But taxes are ONE consideration, and more often than not a major consideration. Tax impacts can be calculated very precisely,whereas many of the other factors are measured in much softer numbers.

At the end of the day, if our choices to be competitive in world markets are starvation wages, lax regulation, or lower taxes, which do you prefer?

you'll get crickets on that owl...

Too many don't see wealth as the wealthy do. They see themselves working for someone else... they see having to 'be there' to have your money there, and especially to MAKE money there. Oddly, they think that for some reason nobody would ever want to take their money from the US, and ignore that even billionaires who live here only spend a relatively small portion of their money in the US. They never learned the lesson John Kerry tried to teach them (and that was just state taxes).

Our tax system is designed to allow companies to deduct from their income, the money it costs to generate that income. That seems inherently fair, and you can't really get away from that principle under our current system. How do they plan to close that 'loophole'

(07-08-2016 10:00 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  you'll get crickets on that owl...

Too many don't see wealth as the wealthy do. They see themselves working for someone else... they see having to 'be there' to have your money there, and especially to MAKE money there. Oddly, they think that for some reason nobody would ever want to take their money from the US, and ignore that even billionaires who live here only spend a relatively small portion of their money in the US. They never learned the lesson John Kerry tried to teach them (and that was just state taxes).

Our tax system is designed to allow companies to deduct from their income, the money it costs to generate that income. That seems inherently fair, and you can't really get away from that principle under our current system. How do they plan to close that 'loophole'

I know, unfortunately. I just wish that those who disagree would be open minded enough to engage in legitimate discussion.

Then again, maybe what I really wish is that one or both of our major political parties would drop the political posturing long enough to address the real issues.

(07-08-2016 03:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Then again, maybe what I really wish is that one or both of our major political parties would drop the political posturing long enough to address the real issues.

But why should they? Their job is to win votes and get elected... and 'solutions' don't fit on bumper stickers. Someone honest and intelligent enough to actually explain things to people would never get elected to anything significant.

(07-08-2016 03:27 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-08-2016 03:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Then again, maybe what I really wish is that one or both of our major political parties would drop the political posturing long enough to address the real issues.

But why should they? Their job is to win votes and get elected... and 'solutions' don't fit on bumper stickers. Someone honest and intelligent enough to actually explain things to people would never get elected to anything significant.

Have we really fallen that far?
Maybe we have.
If we have, then we truly deserve every bad thing that can happen to us.

(07-07-2016 12:31 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 11:21 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 08:53 AM)gsu95 Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 01:09 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  Why do you care how much someone, anyone, else makes? How does that possibly affect you if I'm dragging down 150(?)k a year?

Thats been done for centuries, since time began. Has it changed your own behavior, or your friends/family's in some way if your neighbor makes more money?

I'd humbly suggest you go talk to your neighbor...

You're right, of course, in a sense. What you make is your own business and good for you if you make a good wage. Congratulations. You win. You're important. You matter. You're special.

I think the root problem is there's too much wealth concentrated in too few hands. Nobody wins when that's the case. It's caused revolution, rebellion and chaos and eventually will again. Bad things go down when one segment of a society has all the money and controls all the resources.

On a related note, there's no way we pay people according to their real worth to society. A good teacher should make far more than a good athlete. A good firefighter or paramedic should make more than a salesman. A good cop should make more than a hedge fund manager. Our priorities in this country are off.
We as a culture value the wrong things.

I personally give a rat's ass what you make. And I'm a liberal. But if you expect me to think there's no problem with the way wealth is distributed in this country, you're wrong. There's no level playing field. If you're born comfortable, you have much more opportunity than you do if you're born in harsher circumstances.

Okay, since you decided to make a lame attempt to call me out, I'll reluctantly give you a proper public spanking.

Wait! Did I say "public"? Why yes I did.

As in, every single one of these hero worship occupations you think are somehow outside the order of market based influences and what the market will, and does bear, are amazingly (not really. at all ) "public employees". Read... Government workers.

With your emotional, simplistic view on this, who, instead of the market, should decide/establish what these various jobs are worth? If not the market, then is it left up to..... humans? peoples? Dare I guess politicians or bureaucrats? Who gave them the grace of superior knowledge above that of the natural order of things?

Oh. Right. Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and too many others to list. How's that worked out?

But that obviousness aside, what would you suggest the "hedge fund manager" or the athlete, or the salesperson, whomever, make? How do you come to that decision? More laws? A "scale" perhaps?

So, yea. Keep attempting to kill the private sector, tax those that net contribute to the wealth of this formerly great country instead of living off of it, then come back and scratch your head, and wonder how we became Greece.

if those salespeople, those hedge fund managers, those athletes and anyone else actually bringing money INTO the economy, whether it's selling pillows or buggy whips, were to disappear or be "punished" properly tomorrow, who pays the salaries of all those you "value" more?

*NewsFlash* Champ- We're well on our way to 21 TRILLION dollars in debt. You think our way out is grabbing ever increasing money from the private sector, and giving it over to government? What does government produce?

Without those honest, hard working folks you deride, there ain' gonna BE the teachers, the firefighters, the men in blue or an EMT. Who on earth do you think PAYS them? Government?!?

We value precisely the right things in this Country, least we did.

"The business of America is business." We've, apparently, forgotten that in certain leftist circles, and it's a cancer.

What Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, Mellon, Gates, Kennedy, Lebron or Beyonce makes has had exactly ZERO impact on you, me, or anyone else on this forum or, frankly the face of the earth. Except, perhaps, those that have benefited from their success.

The sooner we get back to that which has made us the most prosperous and generous Country to ever exist, the sooner we will ALL be better off. As in, ALL.

The entire world.

best evah! fk'n A....

Yeah, that's a proper capitalism rant there.