NYT op-ed video on DL living wage

[tidefan]

To add to the prior post: I'm not saying that there aren't issues, what I am saying is that there aren't easy fixes to them. There are tradeoffs to every policy...

 

[KaptKaveman]

Google is your friend here.

I googled it and 340,000,000 results came back. Which one is the official answer? Seems like it might be hard to define. Perhaps we should leave it up to the individual to decide. Then they can tailor their skills, availability, location, etc. to what fits for them.

 

[middlechild]

unless there is a mistake in understanding, the subsidy referred to in earlier posts is the government benefits paid directly to workers, such as food stamps or SNAP. The idea is without these government payments to workers, they could not afford to continue to work there, forcing them to leave and the business short handed. This reasoning means that without food stamps, big box retailers would be left with empty shelves, Disneyland without pushcart vendors, hotels without clean sheets, buses without drivers, etc. By scheduling workers to be less than full time and therefore bereft of benefits by 20 hours per week, and paying minimum wage, then the true cost of that employee is not paid by the corporation but by government subsidy.

Who walked in to guidance during high school to ask for a course of study to result in abject poverty?

 

[YesterDark]

Just a point...

I always hear that the "Rich" should pay their "fair share" to which I ask, 1) Define "Rich", and 2) Define "Fair Share". I often see the statistics above mentioned, but, conversely, the top 1% of wage earners also pay 40% of Federal Income Tax. In fact, after tax credits, now, over half of the population pays no income tax at all. I think Margaret Thatcher summed it up best when she said that "eventually, you run out of other people's money"...

Just some facts for you:
The top 1% of earners own around 40% of the total wealth in the US.
The top 1% of earners own MORE than the bottom 90% of earners in the US.
The bottom 80%! own just 7% of the wealth in the US.

Top 1% starts at $450,000 a year.
Top 5% starts at $215,000 a year.
Top 10% starts at $133,000 a year.

Average median household income in the US? $56,000.

I think you're rich if you're in the top 5% of the earners in the country. The top earners, at least before the latest tax cut payed somewhere int he 25-27% range? And probably less if you're money is all market based and you're in the top 1% of the 1% area.

Historically over the last century, we had top rates in the 80% range and dropped to mid 20%s before the crash in 1929 before the Great Depression. They spiked back up to the 80%s and 90%s during World War 2 and maintained that level until the 60s when JFK historically cut them to 70% range. Then Reagan cut them again in the 80s and again in the late 80s until we got in the 20%s range before Bush raised them again the early 90s to the 40% range. That where we were until recently though we have had small reductions and increased during the Obama and Bush2 years.

That's just income tax rates and not capital gains tax rates where are a different thing and where most of the wealth is kept in this country.

So what's a fair rate? Probably increasing capital gains to match income. Probably raise the top rates to the 40-50% range again. I am however not an economist or an expert in any of this stuff. I just know that there is massive inequality in this country and people want to blame poor and uneducated people and those that grew up in horrible or unstable conditions rather than the greedy, the corrupt and the powerful who spend more money than anyone here makes just to maintain their massive wealth by buying influence in Washington.

Also...

The reason why the bottom half don't pay an income tax (they do pay state and local taxes (maybe), sales tax, property tax, gasoline taxes, payroll taxes, social security, medicare etc.) is because they simply don't earn enough money. They still pay taxes and contribute to society but they don't pay income tax. A lot of these people are people that are disabled (and disabled veterans), elderly, single parents, college students, military personnel.

EDIT:
With the latest tax cuts that drastically reduced rates for Corporations and top individuals the country's deficit (not debt) has increased!!!! by!!! 33%!!!!! in one ****ing year to peak $1,000,000,000,000 2 year ahead of schedule!

EDIT2:
So I have no sympathy for "rich" people who whine about paying taxes. I also get aggravated by people who either defend that whining or stick up for them and then blame poor people for being stupid and lazy. Sorry if I have offended anyone, but these are just the facts of the society we live in.

 

[dlavender]

Just some facts for you:
The top 1% of earners own around 40% of the total wealth in the US.
The top 1% of earners own MORE than the bottom 90% of earners in the US.
The bottom 80%! own just 7% of the wealth in the US.

Top 1% starts at $450,000 a year.
Top 5% starts at $215,000 a year.
Top 10% starts at $133,000 a year.

Average median household income in the US? $56,000.

I think you're rich if you're in the top 5% of the earners in the country. The top earners, at least before the latest tax cut payed somewhere int he 25-27% range? And probably less if you're money is all market based and you're in the top 1% of the 1% area.

Historically over the last century, we had top rates in the 80% range and dropped to mid 20%s before the crash in 1929 before the Great Depression. They spiked back up to the 80%s and 90%s during World War 2 and maintained that level until the 60s when JFK historically cut them to 70% range. Then Reagan cut them again in the 80s and again in the late 80s until we got in the 20%s range before Bush raised them again the early 90s to the 40% range. That where we were until recently though we have had small reductions and increased during the Obama and Bush2 years.

That's just income tax rates and not capital gains tax rates where are a different thing and where most of the wealth is kept in this country.

So what's a fair rate? Probably increasing capital gains to match income. Probably raise the top rates to the 40-50% range again. I am however not an economist or an expert in any of this stuff. I just know that there is massive inequality in this country and people want to blame poor and uneducated people and those that grew up in horrible or unstable conditions rather than the greedy, the corrupt and the powerful who spend more money than anyone here makes just to maintain their massive wealth by buying influence in Washington.

Also...

The reason why the bottom half don't pay an income tax (they do pay state and local taxes (maybe), sales tax, property tax, gasoline taxes, payroll taxes, social security, medicare etc.) is because they simply don't earn enough money. They still pay taxes and contribute to society but they don't pay income tax. A lot of these people are people that are disabled (and disabled veterans), elderly, single parents, college students, military personnel.

EDIT:
With the latest tax cuts that drastically reduced rates for Corporations and top individuals the country's deficit (not debt) has increased!!!! by!!! 33%!!!!! in one ****ing year to peak $1,000,000,000,000 2 year ahead of schedule!

EDIT2:
So I have no sympathy for "rich" people who whine about paying taxes. I also get aggravated by people who either defend that whining or stick up for them and then blame poor people for being stupid and lazy. Sorry if I have offended anyone, but these are just the facts of the society we live in.

Very well laid out.

It displays what I’d call a “going concern”......

Seems to me like 80% of the population needs to “pull themselves up by their bootstraps”....

Or in our system only 20% somehow know what to do? Not sure how it’s not obvious there is a problem when 80% of the population can’t break through.....

 

[middlechild]

@YesterDark "The top 1% of earners own around 40% of the total wealth in the US."
This statistic means total wealth as in owning stocks, real estate, boats, cars, paintings, etc and not just 40% of the cash in circulation, yes? And no mention of how they got this wealth, whether it was bequeathed to them through trusts, by sitting on corporate boards, etc? Born into it?

 

[TheMaxRebo]

So what's a fair rate? Probably increasing capital gains to match income. Probably raise the top rates to the 40-50% range again. I am however not an economist or an expert in any of this stuff. I just know that there is massive inequality in this country and people want to blame poor and uneducated people and those that grew up in horrible or unstable conditions rather than the greedy, the corrupt and the powerful who spend more money than anyone here makes just to maintain their massive wealth by buying influence in Washington.

Except it isn't an all or nothing ... yes, many, many people in the lower brackets/poor want to not be poor, want to work hard, etc. - but not 100% I have many family member who work in the government aid offices and some of the stories they tell are ridiculous - families throwing parties when their kids are old enough to collect their own welfare checks, people just not showing up for meetings or work that was established for them because there are no penalties, etc. Are they in the minority? Yes but they do exists (and that is a fact as well)

And same thing with the top - are their greedy and corrupt people in the top bracket? Of course - are there others that worked their butts off to get there and now give a ton back to their communities and other charitable causes? absolutely

It shouldn't be viewed as a negative to be successful - yes you should pay what you owe - and that is what I have an issue with regarding taxes in this country is all the loopholes that enable those with highest levels to avoid paying the taxes they should. Same thing with corporations, our corporate tax rate was too high compared to other countries - but many companies didn't pay what they should through various accounting tactics, etc. If all the loopholes were closed I think things would be much simpler and you wouldn't need to tax anyone 50% or whatever

 

[YesterDark]

@YesterDark "The top 1% of earners own around 40% of the total wealth in the US."
This statistic means total wealth as in owning stocks, real estate, boats, cars, paintings, etc and not just 40% of the cash in circulation, yes? And no mention of how they got this wealth, whether it was bequeathed to them through trusts, by sitting on corporate boards, etc? Born into it?

It's total wealth or net worth, the numbers don't care where it comes from. So yes.

To put it into some context, there is a wide range in the top 1%.

This is INCOME:
Average annual income for the top 1% is $1.5 million
Average annual income for the top 0.1% is $35 million
Average annual income for the top 0.01% is $152 million.

If you're at the bottom of the 1% you're earning $480,000 a year. So you can see the range is quite large and you can begin to see the scope of where all the money is going in the country for the most part.

 

[KaptKaveman]

Just some facts for you:
The top 1% of earners own around 40% of the total wealth in the US.
The top 1% of earners own MORE than the bottom 90% of earners in the US.
The bottom 80%! own just 7% of the wealth in the US.

Top 1% starts at $450,000 a year.
Top 5% starts at $215,000 a year.
Top 10% starts at $133,000 a year.

Hey could you also post some facts about what percent of the federal tax burden the top 1%, 5% and 10% shoulder every year? Also how about some facts about how long we could fund the federal govt if we confiscated all the wealth from the top 1%? These are conspicuously missing from the facts posted here.

I think you're rich if you're in the top 5% of the earners in the country.

Now we are going to make tax/monetary policy based on what we think is rich? Serious question.... if I am in the top 10% what percent of my income should I be forced to pay, is there a cap on this or is it a sliding scale based on feelings? If I am expected to be taxed at 90% why did I bother starting work at 15, why did I work 50 hours a week while going to college full time? Why did I decide to go to night school when I found that my degree from Tech wasn't adequate to land the job/pay check I wanted? You see the issue here? If we are going to work hard to achieve only to be taxed at 90% or whatever the majority of people think is "fair" why bother.

 

[KaptKaveman]

This is INCOME:
Average annual income for the top 1% is $1.5 million
Average annual income for the top 0.1% is $35 million
Average annual income for the top 0.01% is $152 million.

If you're at the bottom of the 1% you're earning $480,000 a year. So you can see the range is quite large and you can begin to see the scope of where all the money is going in the country for the most part.

How did the people in these income brackets make it there? Were they placed there by a cosmic force, did they win the lottery? I have to believe some of them worked hard to get there from nothing. Would you like to make it into that earning bracket some day? I know I would. That is the beauty of the American Dream anyone can make it there but if you decide to arbitrarily tax them at 90% or whatever is "fair", then what incentive does anyone have to work hard and get to this level of achievement?

 

[YesterDark]

Except it isn't an all or nothing ... yes, many, many people in the lower brackets/poor want to not be poor, want to work hard, etc. - but not 100% I have many family member who work in the government aid offices and some of the stories they tell are ridiculous - families throwing parties when their kids are old enough to collect their own welfare checks, people just not showing up for meetings or work that was established for them because there are no penalties, etc. Are they in the minority? Yes but they do exists (and that is a fact as well)

And same thing with the top - are their greedy and corrupt people in the top bracket? Of course - are there others that worked their butts off to get there and now give a ton back to their communities and other charitable causes? absolutely

It shouldn't be viewed as a negative to be successful - yes you should pay what you owe - and that is what I have an issue with regarding taxes in this country is all the loopholes that enable those with highest levels to avoid paying the taxes they should. Same thing with corporations, our corporate tax rate was too high compared to other countries - but many companies didn't pay what they should through various accounting tactics, etc. If all the loopholes were closed I think things would be much simpler and you wouldn't need to tax anyone 50% or whatever

No offense to you, but I'm not going reply to anecdotal stories of welfare queens and the few people who abuse social programs or lax work environments. They are a minority that are taking out so little wealth and productivity out of the system that any discussion of them in the grand scheme of the US GDP and economy is like take a few billion dollars out of the Pentagon's budget to take care of grub infestation in the White House garden.

In fact there is so little money and productivity lost in those situations that it's actually CHEAPER to allow that to go on than to put this people on the streets and pay for their care completely when they are homeless and in the hospital or the cost of their incarceration when they turn to criminal activity.

I mean the whataboutism is a terrible way to argue the point. The levels of magnitude of the impact of wasteful or corrupt spending on poor people compared to the corrupt/wasteful spending of the top bracket? Please. If you increased taxes on the top 1% to levels they were during JFK's time in the 60s you can send everyone in the bottom 70% of this country to college for that amount.

I won't even touch your misconceptions on corporate tax structure. You want to make an argument for small businesses and their tax burden? Go ahead, I'll probably agree with most of what you are saying.

 

[TheMaxRebo]

No offense to you, but I'm not going reply to anecdotal stories of welfare queens and the few people who abuse social programs or lax work environments. They are a minority that are taking out so little wealth and productivity out of the system that any discussion of them in the grand scheme of the US GDP and economy is like take a few billion dollars out of the Pentagon's budget to take care of grub infestation in the White House garden.

In fact there is so little money and productivity lost in those situations that it's actually CHEAPER to allow that to go on than to put this people on the streets and pay for their care completely when they are homeless and in the hospital or the cost of their incarceration when they turn to criminal activity.

I mean the whataboutism is a terrible way to argue the point. The levels of magnitude of the impact of wasteful or corrupt spending on poor people compared to the corrupt/wasteful spending of the top bracket? Please. If you increased taxes on the top 1% to levels they were during JFK's time in the 60s you can send everyone in the bottom 70% of this country to college for that amount.

i was just countering as you were speaking in absolutes which isn't true for either side of the equation either

 

[YesterDark]

Hey could you also post some facts about what percent of the federal tax burden the top 1%, 5% and 10% shoulder every year? Also how about some facts about how long we could fund the federal govt if we confiscated all the wealth from the top 1%? These are conspicuously missing from the facts posted here.



Now we are going to make tax/monetary policy based on what we think is rich? Serious question.... if I am in the top 10% what percent of my income should I be forced to pay, is there a cap on this or is it a sliding scale based on feelings? If I am expected to be taxed at 90% why did I bother starting work at 15, why did I work 50 hours a week while going to college full time? Why did I decide to go to night school when I found that my degree from Tech wasn't adequate to land the job/pay check I wanted? You see the issue here? If we are going to work hard to achieve only to be taxed at 90% or whatever the majority of people think is "fair" why bother.

Well first, I never claimed you were incorrect that the top percentage owners pay the majority of the income tax from a total revenue standpoint. I mean they have almost all of the money, so of course they are going to pay a large percentage of the total income tax revenue. I mean that makes sense right?

Second of all, income tax is not the only source of federal revenue. Every single American with a job pays payroll taxes which are completely regressive. For example Social Security is capped at 125k or something like that. If you earn more than that, you are taxes at all after your first 125k.

Who's looking to confiscate all the wealth? What kind of hyperbole is this? I'm only showing you historical data of where we've been in the past 100 years. You'll see that when wealth inequality hits these marks, bad things tend to follow them.

You make tax monetary policy based on statistics. We've had some form of progressive tax system in this country since income taxes were put into law. You tax people in the lower brackets less because they need that money to buy food, goods and services into the economy and to live. The vast majority of their earnings are returned to the market. The more money you make, the more you are taxed. I'm not here to argue how many tax brackets we need and how much each bracket should pay as a percentage. I'm not an economist. But in my opinion it's WAY too low right now on the higher brackets.

Honestly I don't think you know how taxes and tax brackets work. First no one is suggesting a 90% tax bracket. Second, that fictional 90% tax bracket is not on everything you earn. All your money is taxed just like everyone else's throughout the different brackets. Thirdly, given your story, you wouldn't EVER have to worry about being taxed at the highest level because you're not earning over $470,000 a year in income because that's the top tax bracket. So if the fictional top income tax bracket was 90% then every penny over $470,000 will be taxed at that fictional rate.

And in reality, if you are to be so lucky to join the 1% of households in this country to earn more than $470k a year, you're probably doing so via the market and income tax brackets wouldn't even apply to you.

LONG STORY SHORT!
You would never have to worry about the top tax bracket because frankly you'll never earn that much to worry about it.

 

[YesterDark]

i was just countering as you were speaking in absolutes which isn't true for either side of the equation either

Fair, perhaps I should of said "the greedy, the corrupt OR the powerful", because you're going to be one of those three at least when you have that much money. But yes, there are never absolutes and always exceptions. Thought that was obvious.

 

[dlavender]

How did the people in these income brackets make it there? Were they placed there by a cosmic force, did they win the lottery? I have to believe some of them worked hard to get there from nothing. Would you like to make it into that earning bracket some day? I know I would. That is the beauty of the American Dream anyone can make it there but if you decide to arbitrarily tax them at 90% or whatever is "fair", then what incentive does anyone have to work hard and get to this level of achievement?

Anyone can make it, but only 1% do....seems contradictory, doesn’t it?

 

[fatmanatee]

Just a point...

I always hear that the "Rich" should pay their "fair share" to which I ask, 1) Define "Rich", and 2) Define "Fair Share". I often see the statistics above mentioned, but, conversely, the top 1% of wage earners also pay 40% of Federal Income Tax. In fact, after tax credits, now, over half of the population pays no income tax at all. I think Margaret Thatcher summed it up best when she said that "eventually, you run out of other people's money"...

The top 1 percent pays 40 percent of all income taxes because they have 40 percent of all the wealth.

As for running out of other people's money... well, like I said, the rich own 40 percent of everything. It sounds like they're doing great, plenty of yachts to go around.

 

[YesterDark]

How did the people in these income brackets make it there? Were they placed there by a cosmic force, did they win the lottery? I have to believe some of them worked hard to get there from nothing. Would you like to make it into that earning bracket some day? I know I would. That is the beauty of the American Dream anyone can make it there but if you decide to arbitrarily tax them at 90% or whatever is "fair", then what incentive does anyone have to work hard and get to this level of achievement?

I missed this in my previous post. In any case, I don't care how people make it there, I'm only discussing statistics. To sustain a functioning society and government, people need to be taxed. People from today until the world explodes will always argue how much tax it too much and how much is too little. Currently with the way our budget is set up on the federal level, we are currently taxing certain groups of our citizens and corporations too little because our deficit is growing way too fast over the last year.

 

[tidefan]

It's total wealth or net worth, the numbers don't care where it comes from. So yes.

To put it into some context, there is a wide range in the top 1%.

This is INCOME:
Average annual income for the top 1% is $1.5 million
Average annual income for the top 0.1% is $35 million
Average annual income for the top 0.01% is $152 million.

If you're at the bottom of the 1% you're earning $480,000 a year. So you can see the range is quite large and you can begin to see the scope of where all the money is going in the country for the most part.

So I was about to reply to your other post, but I see someone else already made the point. Most of wealth of these individuals ebbs and flows with the stock market. Also, if you really look at it, one of the biggest wealth factors is the value of real estate owned. However, the problem with that is that they aren't realized gains until they are sold. That's where capital gains comes in, but those assets aren't routinely sold (or else you'd be paying capital gains over and over again).

I don't begrudge the rich for being rich, even if it is inherited. I would love to know that when I pass away that the efforts from my labor could be left to my children (and I do not consider myself rich). Statistically, you are always going to have outliers, some of which in your table above being people like Bill Gates, LeBron James, and Warren Buffet (and Jimmy Buffett!). However, using Jimmy as an example, they don't just sit on that pile of money like some metaphorical Smaug, they invest it. Looking at Jimmy Buffett, he has created lines of clothing, restaurants, resorts, frozen foods, appliances, and apparently today, he is getting into Medical Marajuana. So, he is investing his wealth. What does that create? Tons of jobs, to begin with. Bill Gates gives millions away in charitable giving. Are all people like this? Perhaps not, but you can't lump all "rich" people into one nice bow-tied package...

 

[TheMaxRebo]

Fair, perhaps I should of said "the greedy, the corrupt OR the powerful", because you're going to be one of those three at least when you have that much money. But yes, there are never absolutes and always exceptions. Thought that was obvious.

It is, I just don't think painting the picture that everyone at the bottom is entirely there because of things outside their control and everyone at the top is there because they are greedy and corrupt - that's not a fair narative

Many people that are well off donate tons of sums of money and even at the recent tax cuts are still paying a much larger percentage, so contributing more to society .... but that is why to me it is more important/better to fix the loopholes that let people at the top stash money is tax havens, and avoid paying the taxes the *should* pay vs just raising the rates on everyone towards the top as then you get people in sort of that upper middle layer overpaying their share as they can't utilize the loopholes as well as those at the very top

 

[YesterDark]

@tidefan

Right, when you get to that point of wealth earnings you really don't give a damn about income tax brackets because your money is not classified as income and it's capital gains. You quoted my income numbers though, that's actual earned income per year. That's selling stock, selling real estate, earning money from a paycheck. Whatever.

As far as investment is concerned, companies like Apple are sitting on a quarter TRILLION dollars in cash. Cash. A lot of the investments these days is money that is taken out of the general economy in to things like futures that drive up the value of oil or spread out in hedge funds that just raise the prices of the market. That money doesn't typically trickle down on to "Main Street". That's the main reason for the argument of income disparity or wealth distribution.

You brought up the estate tax. That's a whole other argument that I'm not sure we want to have right now! But it's a good one to have because it's interesting the macro effects it has over time on a society. It's one way wealth can become concentrated at the top.