Tax reform is needed, but I don't think the marginal rate necessarily needs to be over 40% (though I've argued for as high as 50%), mostly because state income taxes can push you pretty close to a 50% marginal rate. I think the special deductions and credits should just be eliminated period. Too many of them, and often design to help specific companies or projects.
Its not impossible, what I would like to point out is that just because you're down on your luck at one point of your life doesn't have to be that way for your whole life. It seems like those income unequality graphs are freeze frames about moments in time. What are the statistics about people moving up and out of lower income brackets?
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/u...ise-from-lower-rungs.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 But many researchers have reached a conclusion that turns conventional wisdom on its head: Americans enjoy less economic mobility than their peers in Canada and much of Western Europe.
No, it was to tax capital gains the same as wage/salary for logical reasons. That's how it used to be set up until we decided we valued capital more than labor in the 1980's. That was a stupid change.
You said this: I think investing is difficult and requires a lot of time and effort. That, and the component of risk, is why I don't mind the long-term capital gains tax rate being lower than regular tax rates. You said, along with difficulty and risk, that time and effort are reasons that LTCG should be taxed at a lower rate. Regardless of the risk or difficulty of investing, it simply doesn't take nearly as much time or effort as a normal 40-hour per week job. And it's generally not as difficult or as risky as starting a business (nor does it take as much time or effort).
No youre not and you never will be because you polish his shoes and daydream like a browbeaten peasant. The chains aren't so loose in your case though. Did it ever occur to you that many of the people discussing things in this thread aren't a bunch of poor folks trying to get theirs, and may have substantially more disposable income than you? Not that it's remotely relevant to the policy question of course.
You beat me to it. The assumption of poverty or middling economic situations is amazing... and speaks more about the poster than anything else.
The above article is the most awesome article I have ever seen. It posts all the number that the author wants to present, and the data gets repeated often. It then posts a small print disclaimer at the very bottom of the article. "Most of the studies end with people born before 1970, while wage gaps, single motherhood and incarceration increased later. Until more recent data arrives", he said, “we don’t know the half of it.”
All I have to do is quote what you just said. People risk everything they have to start a business. I have seen people mortgage their homes and spend their life savings to open a business. There are few economic activities more risky than starting a business. Most people who invest have the resources to do so. Very few mortgage everything they ever owned to buy stock.
Interesting. Mathematically, this is how you're trying to argue. "Wekko says that (1+2+3) > 5. However, (1+2) isn't greater than 5, and (2+3) isn't greater than 5. Therefore, Wekko must be wrong." In any case, it depends on your level of investing. I get the impression you view investing as a passively buying and holding mutual funds. There are investors who consistently stay on top of world news, screen stocks, look at individual stocks' MPT statistics, chart patterns, fundamental values, etc... So based on that, I think you're underestimating the time and level of critical thinking (difficulty) required. And regarding whether or not investing is riskier than starting your own business, I've already proven it is through my tax example.
My bad, I thought you were trying to make an apples to apples comparison. Basically, this is what your argument sounds like: "People who mortgage everything they own to start a business face greater risk than people who invest using disposable income they can afford to lose." That's an obvious statement, and if that was your intent, then you are correct. I thought you argument was something along the lines of ""People who spend $50k to start a business face greater risk than people who invest that $50k in the stock market."
Thank you for the article. I wonder what the absolute numbers of people studied were and why women were left off the survey. They seemed to target education as a major reason for the economic immobility. However just because one has access to private education doesn't give them a huge advantage. State schools like A&M have low tuition rates that can be paid for by grant money and they have great recruiting services and career days. Maybe people should look at state spending on public schools and increase the level of high school graduates? That way they can make a decision between trade schools and universities?
Are you a native English speaker? "I do not think this means what you think this means" That's not a disclaimer, that quote means it's going to look even worse for later generations.
Looking even worse for later generations? That, I have no doubt about. Article on wealth inequality with data on single motherhood? Seems legit.
Wages need to be higher. Minimum wage is not a livable wage in America anymore. It used to, but with inflation the minimum wage has not kept up.
It's not impossible, our stories are very similar (and probably the same for a lot of Asians that came here in the 80's/early 90's). Except for the med-school thing (undergrad in Engineering then started working). But here's what we should realize: 1) The Asians that came to U.S. at the time are probably the top 1% in their respective homelands in terms of drive and determination. To pack up their bags and go to a completely foreign land, sometimes giving up being a college professor or lawyer to come and wait tables and scrub toilets because they have a plan. 2) For a lot of them, creating a better life for you and themselves were a goal, and they sacrifice a lot but never lose the sight of the ball. There are exceptional individuals that are likely to do exceptional things, but we should always ask what about the majority of population? We should agree that the current environment is not conducive for most people to achieve more wealth. We could also wonder for some of the people that have "moved up", how much more successful they could have been in a better environment. Also it the situation is moving in a reverse direction. That's what we should be concerned with. It's not the lack of upward mobility or wealth inequality that worries, it's that the direction it's going getting worse. That's when you might be alarmed. If hardwork equal's having a better life 100% of times, that's great. If it's 50%, it might not be bad. But if it was at 50% but has decreased to 25% and it's more likely to be 10% instead of 50% again, then you want to be worried.
