Bill Gates on Wealth

DA60 said:

The reason for the wealth inequality is primarily due (certainly since 2000) to the continued and ever growing government/central bank meddling in the economy.

Click to expand...

You're confusing apples with oranges.

The above is untrue, Wealth Inequality is derived from Income Inequality - which in the US is purely and simply a matter of Income taxation (above family incomes of $100K) at a flat-rate. Meaning the more you earn, the more you keep and up it goes from After-tax Income into Wealth.

I repeat, any nation with a flat-rate taxation system is just shifting Income up into Wealth benefitting the rich and super-rich. The US flat-rate taxation starts at about $100K:


Why should Trump get along so well with Putin? Because it is entirely possible the Putin is actually richer than Trump, and both pay flat-rate taxation of upper incomes. Russia has a flat-rate tax of only 13%. (See here.) The oilygarchs like Putin are raking it in.

Progressive Taxation is more fair because taxing more income is only fair and equitable - which, I suspect, is an argument lost on you. More importantly, however, is the fact that for as long as upper-income taxation is so low (as it is), it will continue to motivate some people to "work the system" and by doing so they create anomalies like the Sub-prime Fraud. (Which sparked the Great Recession in 2010, from which we are only starting to exit after seven long years ...)

Any discussion of taxation which lumps the top 1% into one category is flawed. The income needed to reach the bottom of the top 1% is roughly $500K, which only qualifies someone as affluent rather than rich, whereas the income at the top of the top 1% can reach $1 billion or more. So the income and wealth inequality within the top 1% is far wider (more than three orders of magnitude) than the income and wealth inequality across the other 99% (less than three orders of magnitude).

TurtleDude said:

another rant about others having too much wealth. Why does anyone else owe you anything?

Click to expand...

Because he is obviously not rich, probably resents those who are, is French and thinks his (****ed up, imo) country is wonderful with free this and free that for everyone - and he has been brainwashed (imo) by various authors into thinking that the magic cure for all this is tax the damn rich.

TurtleDude said:

unfair taxation-being charged more for your citizenship benefits than others pay. that means if you pay more than the average tax payer, you are being treated unfairly. Progressive taxation is clearly unfair. Even a flat tax is unfair.

Click to expand...

You got the "Tax Bug". Oh, how sad!

You expect government services to be free, gratis and for nothing?

Persuasive arrgument in favor of progressive taxation: Progressive tax is the fair solution, excerpt:

The statement "A flat tax is good for growth because it doesn't penalize those who work hard and add value to our economy" (which seems to equate hard work with wealth) is also questionable. Low-income earners have a higher "Marginal Propensity to Consume," which means that they spend a greater percentage of their overall income on consumption. High-income earners, on the other hand, will save more. In fact, the very rich in our country have put much of their money into mansions, yachts, jewels, and art.

This is not to say that people don't deserve to keep what they earn. The key word is "earn." Over the past 30 years, according to IRS data, the richest 1 percent has TRIPLED their share of America's total income, AFTER TAXES, while the bottom 90 percent has seen their share drop over 20 percent. If this had not happened, the average middle-class family would be making $45,000 a year instead of $35,000.

Click to expand...

And why "over the past thirty years"? Who was PotUS thirty years ago? Reckless Ronnie, your "Saint Ronnie". Why "saint"?

Because he introduced excessively low rate taxation on upper-incomes - the consequence of which is shown here (Source. Dept. of the Treasury*):


The top Taxable Earners are in the percentile above 10% of taxpayers, and their average is 10 to 15%!

And why is that "not fair"? Because it is not "progressive", meaning the upper-incomes benefit from a flat-tax rate that is unfairly constant. It should "progress", as does taxation for the lower income-classes.

*Tax rates have not changed radically since 2000. Watch Trump reduce them even further, and thus enhancing their unfairness!

Every time we've tried supply side Reaganomics it's failed us utterly. Conservatives need to accept that our budget crisis developed from Bush cutting taxes, starting two wars, and growing a housing bubble that propped up his economy. Then they need to accept that Obama wasn't a horrible guy who hated America in a turban. They need to accept that the deficit has decreased every single year since Bush's last budget so we can all get on with our lives.

What we need right now is a progressive overhaul of our tax code. Enough tweaking of the tax code to catch some of the lost revenue without scaring rich people off. Here are a few ideas that would improve our economy.

• Tax capital gains at 40%
• Raise the cap on taxable income
• Increase the velocity of money for the middle class by 1T
• Cut defense
• Invest in education; an educated workforce can fill robust revenue generating positions in an economy
• Expand SSC benefits; seniors spend their SSC checks

Lafayette said:

Because what they have they got from Unfair Taxation upper-income taxation.

You don't likely know the Pew Research center, but (though dated) here is an interesting paper regarding our tax-system: Tax System Seen as Unfair, in Need of Overhaul - excerpt:

Click to expand...

They didnt earn what they have because of "unfair taxation" they earned it by earning it.

Ya want to be wealthy? Come up with an innovative way of doing something, have just one good idea, then labor tiresly until youre wealthy.

Lafayette said:

Because what they have they got from Unfair Taxation upper-income taxation.

You don't likely know the Pew Research center, but (though dated) here is an interesting paper regarding our tax-system: Tax System Seen as Unfair, in Need of Overhaul - excerpt:

Click to expand...

What is unfair about taxing all income above a reasonable and truly standard deduction at a single rate? What makes the current FIT system "unfair" is all of the social engineering nonsense (basing income taxation upon how, and upon who, it was later spent) to make the tax burden differ for two people making the same gross income.

IMHO, a fair income tax system would have only two numbers: a truly standard deduction (of say $30K) and a single tax rate (of say 20%) applied to income from all sources above that amount. The idea that how, or upon who, that income is later spent makes taxation fair is ridiculous as is the idea that taxation rates should vary based upon how one's income was obtained.

UNFAIRNESS = BEYOND WHAT IS PROPER OR FITTING

ttwtt78640 said:

What is unfair about taxing all income above a reasonable and truly standard deduction at a single rate? What makes the current FIT system "unfair" is all of the social engineering nonsense (basing income taxation upon how, and upon who, it was later spent) to make the tax burden differ for two people making the same gross income.

Click to expand...

Everybody can think up a reason for paying fewer taxes. All of them very selfish.

In fact, here is what Americans think, the result of a Pew Research study:


Resumé:
*There is a combined agreement that Income Disparity has increased amongst most Americans (nearly 70%).
*The Replicants are far less favorable that the government should do anything about it. (Aka, "selfishness".) Whilst Democrats are convinced something should be done.

MY OPINION

Here:
*We live in a "collective", that is, a market-economy where we all depend upon one another for both its Output and the distribution of Income. Which does not mean that we should all earn the same income. After all, a market-economy is based upon risk-taking in order for Supply to meet the Demand (for goods/services) of its members.
*When that collective is threatened, for any reason, our Constitution allows the government to take all defensive measures necessary to protect it, including the sacrifice of lives at war.
*Why then should it therefore allow the grave discrepancy in Incomes-that-become-Wealth to exist? That is, 0.1% of the population's household obtain the luxury of owning the same amount of Wealth as the other 90%. (See here.)
*Where is the fairness of that outcome?

There is none.

Neither should all Wealth be owned equally amongst all members of the "collective economy". So, what would be "equitable" (fair, decent, honest) as a distribution of Wealth?

That is the question that needs answering.

ANSWERING THE RIGHT QUESTION

Because what exists as a distribution of Wealth is horribly, horribly unfair*. Why should those families at the 90th percentile own 12 times as much Wealth as those at the 10th percentile**? What are they going to DO with all that wealth, if not hand it down from generation to generation - which means it does not reenter the economy, and simply sits in a bank-account somewhere obtaining an interest-rate return?



*Moreover, below the 10th Percentile there exist also those who are totally indebted and therefore their Net Income is negative.
**Given that from bottom to top the distribution of Wealth were presented in "percentiles".

Thumper said:

They didnt earn what they have because of "unfair taxation" they earned it by earning it.

Ya want to be wealthy? Come up with an innovative way of doing something, have just one good idea, then labor tiresly until youre wealthy.

Click to expand...

But, how many people do you know DID EXACTLY THAT ON A DESERTED ISLAND? None!

To become fabulously Wealthy, you can only do so in a "collective economy". So, what is the sense of accumulating so much Wealth that you cannot possibly enjoy all of it - and you leave it to either charity or you children.

Meaning this: In the latter of the two above alternatives, the Wealth does not return from where it came - the market-economy - and thus its value drains that common economy thereby perpetuating abject poverty.

Lafayette said:

But, how many people do you know DID EXACTLY THAT ON A DESERTED ISLAND? None!

To become fabulously Wealthy, you can only do so in a "collective economy". So, what is the sense of accumulating so much Wealth that you cannot possibly enjoy all of it - and you leave it to either charity or you children.

Meaning this: In the latter of the two above alternatives, the Wealth does not return from where it came - the market-economy - and thus its value drains that common economy thereby perpetuating abject poverty.

Click to expand...

So because he benefited from his labor and ideas you believe he owes society because they decided to buy the products his labor and ideas created?

So you believe it is society's duty to steal from him under the threat of violence that which he earned?

I say he enhanced society already by the products that make out lives and labor easier and through the jobs his ideas have created. So no theft is necessary.

Free-market capitalism isn't the only way an economy can be organized, but it's the system which dominates the world today. I agree that the system produces "unfair" outcomes in the sense of rewards for those near the top being too high relative to what they put into the system and the risks they take. The rapidly changing and increasingly globalized nature of our capitalistic system also tends to the change who wins and loses, and widens the gap between winners and losers. Then you also have the factor that those near the top can and will rig the system to work in their favor, which widens gaps further.

There's no objective way to define or measure what counts as "fair". But I'd say that people with incomes of $1M and well beyond are probably being rewarded too much (and thus taking too much out of the system), while people who work full-time jobs but can't support their families at the most basic level aren't getting enough enough out of the system.

So redistributing wealth from the very top (say top 0.5%) to the bottom probably makes sense in terms of being fair and making society function better overall. People who are more middle class in the US are probably already getting a relatively fair deal, and if they're not making progress in terms of real income growth, that may have something to do with the US becoming increasingly less competitive compared to other countries.

LessBiased? said:

Free-market capitalism isn't the only way an economy can be organized, but it's the system which dominates the world today. I agree that the system produces "unfair" outcomes in the sense of rewards for those near the top being too high relative to what they put into the system and the risks they take. The rapidly changing and increasingly globalized nature of our capitalistic system also tends to the change who wins and loses, and widens the gap between winners and losers. Then you also have the factor that those near the top can and will rig the system to work in their favor, which widens gaps further.

There's no objective way to define or measure what counts as "fair". But I'd say that people with incomes of $1M and well beyond are probably being rewarded too much (and thus taking too much out of the system), while people who work full-time jobs but can't support their families at the most basic level aren't getting enough enough out of the system.

So redistributing wealth from the very top (say top 0.5%) to the bottom probably makes sense in terms of being fair and making society function better overall. People who are more middle class in the US are probably already getting a relatively fair deal, and if they're not making progress in terms of real income growth, that may have something to do with the US becoming increasingly less competitive compared to other countries.

Click to expand...

Thing is we don't have a truely free market economy. We have a heavily restricted economy and chrony capatalism. There is a huge difference.

Where is the incentive if you cap what people can make before their income is so heavily taxed and redistributed that it becomes pointless to try to reach that level? Do any of you actually know what is involved in making a million a year? Fifty million a year? Ect adnasume.

Crovax said:

The top 10% pay a larger share of income tax now than they ever have, taxing them further will not fix income inequality

Click to expand...

France already tried this.

France waves discreet goodbye to 75 percent super-tax | Reuters
so this is a real life example of why his argument is already a bust.
everywhere this has been tried is fails.

Lafayette said:

UNFAIRNESS = BEYOND WHAT IS PROPER OR FITTING

Click to expand...

according to who? you? sorry arbitrary arguments are not arguments.

Everybody can think up a reason for paying fewer taxes. All of them very selfish.

Click to expand...

Not really I work for my money to support my family. I don't work to give it away to someone else.

MY OPINION

Click to expand...

your right your opinion not fact. that pretty much settles your argument.

*Where is the fairness of that outcome?

Click to expand...

Not all outcomes can be fair. that is why we strive for opportunity.

*Moreover, below the 10th Percentile there exist also those who are totally indebted and therefore their Net Income is negative.
**Given that from bottom to top the distribution of Wealth were presented in "percentiles".

Click to expand...

Less bias sources other than the urban institute might support your argument more.

ttwtt78640 said:

What is unfair about taxing all income above a reasonable and truly standard deduction at a single rate? What makes the current FIT system "unfair" is all of the social engineering nonsense (basing income taxation upon how, and upon who, it was later spent) to make the tax burden differ for two people making the same gross income.

IMHO, a fair income tax system would have only two numbers: a truly standard deduction (of say $30K) and a single tax rate (of say 20%) applied to income from all sources above that amount. The idea that how, or upon who, that income is later spent makes taxation fair is ridiculous as is the idea that taxation rates should vary based upon how one's income was obtained.

Click to expand...

that pretty much matches my system.

you pay 0 tax up to a poverty level Ie your SD of 30k.
anything after that you pay 10% up to 1m.
after 1m you pay 20%.

so a guy that makes 10m non-capital gains
will pay 10% from 30k -1m. so that is 70k
he will then pay 20% on every thing from 1-10m.

capital gain will still be taxed at 15%. I think that is a solid number that seems to keep
things from spiraling out of control.

ludin said:

that pretty much matches my system.

you pay 0 tax up to a poverty level Ie your SD of 30k.
anything after that you pay 10% up to 1m.
after 1m you pay 20%.

so a guy that makes 10m non-capital gains
will pay 10% from 30k -1m. so that is 70k
he will then pay 20% on every thing from 1-10m.

capital gain will still be taxed at 15%. I think that is a solid number that seems to keep
things from spiraling out of control.

Click to expand...

Capital gains, if taxed at all, should be indexed for inflation. If I buy X for $100, keep that X for 20 years, and then sell that X for $200 that is not a net gain of $100. The X was purchased at fair market value and then (20 years) later sold for fair market value. After the sale of X then one has only enough to buy that single X - not enough to buy 2 Xs.

ttwtt78640 said:

Capital gains, if taxed at all, should be indexed for inflation. If I buy X for $100, keep that X for 20 years, and then sell that X for $200 that is not a net gain of $100. The X was purchased at fair market value and then (20 years) later sold for fair market value. After the sale of X then one has only enough to buy that single X - not enough to buy 2 Xs.

Click to expand...

that is way to complicated that is why it is not done like that.

ludin said:

that is way to complicated that is why it is not done like that.

Click to expand...

Indexing for inflation is not that complicated - Social Security does that with your "contributions" in order to compute your retirement benefits. There are several inflation calculators available online.

https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm

Crovax said:

The top 10% pay a larger share of income tax now than they ever have, taxing them further will not fix income inequality

Click to expand...

That's provably not true. When income tax was first established, only the top 1% paid any income tax at all - thus they paid 100% of income taxes and the bottom 99% paid nothing.

imagep said:

That's provably not true. When income tax was first established, only the top 1% paid any income tax at all - thus they paid 100% of income taxes and the bottom 99% paid nothing.

Click to expand...

didn't fix income inequality did it? nope.

Lafayette said:

...
So Bill thinks he pays too much in taxes? Poor me, poor me!

How many times must I put up this Saez/Zucman* infographic pulled off the Economist newsmag for us to understand where all the after-tax "Income" generated in the US is going as "Wealth", here:

And why is it gushing up in huge amounts? Because the ludicrously-low levels of Upper-income Taxation permits the rich (like our new PotUS) to accumulate mountains of Wealth!
...

Click to expand...

The beginning and middle of the end:
But I hope we can Reverse somewhat the Class Warfare Viciously Waged and won by Ronald Reagan-omics.
Who lowered top marginal income tax rates from 70% in 1980, to 28% in 1988, as evidenced on your chart.
Note app 1986 being the Turning point.

Including
Tax Reform Act of 1986 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ludin said:

Not really I work for my money to support my family. I don't work to give it away to someone else.

Click to expand...

Wakey, wakey! You are dreaming.

You live in a collective-economy and your "work" depends upon the demand of others for goods/services, just as theirs depends upon your necessity for goods/services.

You may not like that definition but YOU ARE ON A ECONOMICS FORUM!

If you want BS, go elsewhere on this site. You've found the wrong place ...

Thumper said:

So because he benefited from his labor and ideas you believe he owes society because they decided to buy the products his labor and ideas created?

So you believe it is society's duty to steal from him under the threat of violence that which he earned?

I say he enhanced society already by the products that make out lives and labor easier and through the jobs his ideas have created. So no theft is necessary.

Click to expand...

Enhancing society is rare. Inventions do it. Even the evolution of public sentiment. (Women can get abortions without the fear of death nowadays.)

You one and only yardstick is muney, muney, muney. As if that was the end-all and be-all of life in a market-economy. It isn't.

Most of us are not Bill Gates - we have families and we eke out a living as best we can. Still others rise to the top and "think" they have the right to massive Income just because Reckless Ronnie reduced upper income taxation in the 1980s.

One of the worst calamities to have ever occurred in the nation - because it convinced people like you that "the sky is the limit".

It aint, not with 40 million* men, women and children living below the Poverty Threshold on less than $24K a year ...

*Btw, that's the population of the states of California and Idaho combined ...

Lafayette said:

Wakey, wakey! You are dreaming.

You live in a collective-economy and your "work" depends upon the demand of others for goods/services, just as theirs depends upon your necessity for goods/services.

You may not like that definition but YOU ARE ON A ECONOMICS FORUM!

If you want BS, go elsewhere on this site. You've found the wrong place ...

Click to expand...

wow. this has nothing to do with what I said at all.
I do not live in a collective that is your first mistake.

I am an individual. my work is my work not someone else's.
someone else cannot own my work.

You don't have a definition of anything other than what you pull out of no where.

Lafayette said:

Enhancing society is rare. Inventions do it. Even the evolution of public sentiment. (Women can get abortions without the fear of death nowadays.)

You one and only yardstick is muney, muney, muney. As if that was the end-all and be-all of life in a market-economy. It isn't.

Most of us are not Bill Gates - we have families and we eke out a living as best we can. Still others rise to the top and "think" they have the right to massive Income just because Reckless Ronnie reduced upper income taxation in the 1980s.

One of the worst calamities to have ever occurred in the nation - because it convinced people like you that "the sky is the limit".

It aint, not with 40 million men, women and children living below the Poverty Threshold on less than $24K a year ...

Click to expand...

yep and raising taxes has nothing to do with that at all.
you can raise taxes 100% and they will still be below the poverty line.

they evidently do not have the skills or knowledge to earn more.