There should not be any federal income tax at all.Government can
function on a flat tax on imports, and exports.Just that simple.
To "SG in SLC" you still cannot ever have a system that is "more
fair" or "optimally fair". You are still basing the tax system on
the opinion of a person or group of people. At best you can have a system that
most people think is fair. Again, by using "fairness" as the measure,
that is not quantifiable. How do you quantify happiness? You are trying to
quantify an emotion.To "LDS Liberal" you are confusing. You
say that you are for a flat tax, then you express you desire for a progressive
tax. You do know that a flat tax means that everybody is taxed at the same
rate, regardless of income. That means that the poor would also be taxed at the
same rate as the billionaire.
Despite the political non-sense, we have a highly progressive tax system (all
the data proves this) with people with higher incomes paying the vast majority
of tax revenues government receives. What is unfair is that nearly 50%
don't pay a dime in taxes. We should not have so many living off of others.
The tax base should be broadened. The lower 50% should be paying something.
Maybe not much, but they should be contributing something.
"Also, dont forget, Many of the working poor also pay payroll taxes of 15%.
Mitt did not pay that.Nor did Mr Buffet. They made their money off of
investments."Unlike others on this forum, I don't pretend
to know the intimate details of Mr. Romney's tax returns. Even though he
made the bulk of his money in investments, I am willing to bet that he had at
least $100K in ordinary income that was subject to the FICA tax that all us
working stiffs pay too.Rich people pay a lot of taxes, but they also
get a number of tax deductions that ordinary people can't take advantage
of. A simple flat tax on all income (wages, investments, interest, etc.) above a
certain level ($25K?) would be the most fair. Sure you could find some poor
people who would end up paying more taxes and a few rich people who might be
paying less under such a system, but overall everyone would be paying a more
I thought Obama was going to have all this fixed by now.
Inequality is because people are different.Some strive for
excellence, and some could care less.Look into a classroom. Some
strive for good grades. The honor roll.Some are happy for the
lowest passing grade.Don't punish the achievers.
You're asking for a solution to income inequality? ANY solution would be
chimerical, because the financial elites and their central bank cronies have
totally rigged the economic system in the way SEY has described in a comment
this morning.Consider: Andrew Huszar, the Federal Reserve official
responsible for implementing $1.25 trillion of quantitative easing, apologizes
to the American public for being a part of the fleecing known as QE: "I can
only say: I’m sorry, America. As a former Federal Reserve official, I was
responsible for executing the centerpiece program of the Fed’s first
plunge into the bond-buying experiment known as quantitative easing.The
central bank continues to spin QE as a tool for helping Main Street. But
I’ve come to recognize the program for what it really is: the greatest
backdoor Wall Street bailout of all time....The final results confirmed that,
while there had been only trivial relief for Main Street, the U.S. central
bank’s bond purchases had been an absolute coupfor Wall
Street."When a Federal Reserve insider admits that the game has
been rigged, how can there be any viable solutions to income inequality?
I*'m good with a flat tax...There were several years in a row
before I moved back to Utah that I actually max'd out my FICA and Social
Security...didn't have to pay a dime after that, and it was the time I
could MOST afford it.A flat tax means those making over $100K would
continue to pay a flat % rate on those as well....Could you imagine
the Millionaires and Billionaires having to pay an addition 20% on EVERYTHING
over and above their $100K ???[Ya, THAT'S why the uber-rich and
wealthy rich do not want a flat tax...]
As long as some Americans are duped into thinking welfare is freedom, there will
always be inequality. Teach them how to work. Dont just give them a monthly
Yeah, right, it's the tax code. What most people forget is that the only
thing that can be accomplished with the tax code is to make everybody equally
poor. I'm not sure that's a desirable outcome, but I guess it does
eliminate the inequality.The most often overlooked source of income
inequality is that the economy is in decline due to rising energy prices. When
energy prices go up, the economy cannot support as many white collar workers. So
we have a lot of unemployed white collar workers who will never find a job
unless they go back to the farm or we fix energy prices. The really sad thing is
that there are a lot of people who think high energy prices are a good thing and
are doing everything in their power to artificially raise them.I
second von Mises and Rothbard. The former's "Socialism" is also
something our friendly neighborhood socialists ought to study carefully.Capitalism - which is another name for freedom - works only when people
are moral. A nation of liars, cheaters, and thieves make freedom unworkable.
Redshirt1701,I appreciate your civil and carefully thought out
response. You make some interesting points, though I would modify a couple of
your statements a little, from my perspective.First, I would say
that there is no such thing as a "perfectly fair" or "absolutely
fair" tax, and would add that the objective is a "more fair" or
"optimally fair" tax system.Second, to your statement about
outgrowing the concept of fairness, I would counter that for most of us, our
understanding of the concept of fairness evolves and matures as we grow older,
that we begin to think of fairness in terms of justice, reasonableness, and
consequences (also abstract concepts, but with perhaps better defined and
agreed-upon criteria), and that this evolved concept of fairness becomes the
ideal, rather than the expectation.A flat tax is undeniably more
equal, but arguably NOT more fair.
As long as we're adding economic treatises to recommend, let's not
omit Ludwig von Mises' Human Action and Murray Rothbard's Man, Economy
and the State. They both demolish Marxian fallacies and Keynesian fantasies, and
explain how economies actually function.
Fred,the problem with upping the income against which FICA is taxed is you
also up the benefit they get on the back end. but FICA is a different story
than income tax, it goes into a separate trust fund, noit the general fund.GaryO,since you ADMIT it was a dem congress that reagan worked
with, why do you blanme him alone and NOT the dems? the debt could not have
increased without Tip O'neal and the dems going along. I recall a lone GOP
voice in the senate early in reagan's administration arguing against an
increase in the debt ceiling, but all the dems shouted him down. But since you
mentioned the increase in debt, it has increased more under BO than reagan ever
dreamed of, quite unnecsesarily with all his pork projects for his friends and
cronies and the oil boom that fell into his lap.all the luck that
fell into reagan's lap? you mean the stagflation and general malaise he
inherited from Carter, the worst president ever until BO? what luck are you
talking about?we have all the liberals touting BO because of, and
not inspite of, his total incompetence.
To "SG in SLC" there is no such thing as a "fair" tax. For
example, if you base taxes on disposable income, then you are taxing the wealthy
and retired at a higher rate than the poor who may pay no taxes. Is it fair to
tax one group more than another. Before you say that they are the rich, imagine
you are rich and you find yourself paying 50% of you own in taxes.A
flat tax isn't fair either because those that can least afford to pay taxes
are paying them.A flat tax is an equal tax. If you say 15% of all
income is to be taxed, then that is equal.Fair is a concept that
most people grow out of when they are in elementary school. Fair is not
something that can be measured and is dependant on what an individual thinks is
fair, not always what is equal. Think of giving out jellybeans to
kindergarteners as a reward. You will always have a naughty kid cry that it
isn't fair that the good kids got more reward.
marxist,I would include two additional economic works:"The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money" -John Maynard
Keynes"The Affluent Society" -John Kenneth Galbraith
I have been following the "flat tax = fair tax" debate between *2 bit*
and *JoeBlow* with great interest.I have always felt that, in a
"big picture' sense, tax fairness needed to take into account ability
to pay and impact on disposable income, but maybe 2 bits is onto something;
though, to be truly fair, capital gains would need to be taxed at the same rate
as earned income, and payroll taxes (FICA & unemployment taxes) would need
to be levied on ALL income with no income level caps. On the bright side,
payroll tax rates could be lowered, the solvency issues for Social Security and
Medicare would go away, and means-testing for those programs would be off the
table. But on the other hand, this would also mean that sliding-scale
"transfer payments" from the government would need to go to the poorest
20-25% of the population (taxable at the flat tax rate, of course).I
hope you're good with that whole proposal, 2 bits; otherwise, I don't
see how you can call the flat tax truly fair.
The three great defining works of economics:"The Wealth of
Nations" Adam Smith"Theory of Political Economy and Taxation"
David Ricardo"Capital " Karl Marx.Theoreticians and
writers come and go, but there remains the big 3. We need to consult them.
Hey lost in DC -“ . . . what you call voodoo economics under
Reagan was enacted by a dem congress.”I didn’t name it Voodoo
economics, HGW Bush did, and he was RIGHT ON.Yes, Ronald Reagan cut
deals with member of Congress, promising to sign pet Pork Barrel projects into
law if they would do a little something for him . . . Like okay his lavish
spending on Star Wars and cutting taxes for his high-earning friends. Ronnie Regan was quite the politician who succeeded in TRIPLING the national
debt completely unnecessarily, even though the plummeting price of world oil
(that dropped to 1/3 the price it had been during the Carter administration)
caused the economy to thrive.In spite of all the luck that fell into
his lap, Reagan could not capitalize on it. And now he is regarded as a hero
to “Conservatives” because of, not in spite of, his amazing
incompetence as President.
You got me 2 bits. I had forgotten that Mitt was able to get his tax liability
so low. As for Buffet? He might still get a tax cut.According to
the tax foundation (2010 data), the top 5 % paid an average of 20.6%.The
bottom 50 percent paid an average of 2.4%So, with a 15% flat tax,
using averages, the highest earners in the US would get a 25% tax cut and the
average poor American would get a 600% increase. And Mitt would also get a tax
increase. Probably around 10%.Also, dont forget, Many of the
working poor also pay payroll taxes of 15%. Mitt did not pay that.Nor did
Mr Buffet. They made their money off of investments.
To "airnaut" go back and read the results of the poll. The problem is
the socialism/communism that is allowed to mix with capitalism. The GOVERNMENT
has created the inequality. Why do you want to give them more power? It only
feeds the corruption the more power that you give them through the addition of
socialism/communism.If communism or socialism is so great, why is it
that it cannot exist on its own, yet Capitalism can? Doesn't that in
itself show you that government enforced collectivism is a path to failure?I hope that someday you realize that in your ideal government, that is
where the greatest corruption takes place. It is nothing more than a repeat of
when the Israelites went from Judges to a monarchy or when the Nephites elected
men who wanted to be kings. Giving more power to a central government is always
a failure. You sound like the people who told Samuel they wanted a king. See 1
Samuel 8:5-20. Why repeat history when we know that it is a path to failure?
2 bit with your flat tax are we still paying FICA? If so will the those making
over $100,000 be paying tax on their full earnings? If so I could come closer
to buying a flat tax especially if we tax any increase not just salary.
@2 bitsA flat tax would increase taxes on some wealthy people but the
average wealthy person is still paying north of 20% in federal income taxes so
the 15% flat tax may increase things for Romney, but for the average wealthy
person it's a tax cut.
@dn subscriber. "Democrats are low information voters." What a great way
to bring people together.
To the liberals out there, did you look at the results of the poll? They find
that among both Republicans AND Democrats they put the biggest blame for income
inequality on the government.Both the Democrats and Republicans
blame the tax code as being one of the biggest contributors to the inequality.
Since the tax code is written by politicians, do you really trust them to fix it
without giving their cronies some loopholes to exploit?Did you also
notice that the #2 problem identified by both parties was Congress/Government
Policies. What does that say to you?The only way to fix the problem
is to purge congress of the career politicians. There may be some that are
good, but the best solution is to vote out all current members of congress and
replace them with honorable men and women.Think of it this way.
When was the last time somebody said the phrase "truthful or honorable
politician" and wasn't telling a joke?
Capitalism with NO regulation, little Government and hardly any taxes = Somalia,
Columbia, etc. The rich get richer, The poor get poorer.THIS is the direction the GOP is taking us.Capitalism with a
balance or Socialism -- more regulations, bigger Government and higher taxes =
Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Germany, England, Japan, Korea, Israel.You know
-- our Friends & Allies.The direction the Democrats are taking
us.Oh -- and one more...Communism with a little Capitalism --
aka, Red China -- Where the party members are getting richer,
and the poor are staying poor. also another direction the
Republicans are taking us.
Screwdriver"It's an old human logic problem. The poor are
considered outsiders, unclean, undesirable and deserving of their station."What it really is, is tribalism, unholy judgement and self
preservation. The very anti-Christ in human psychology."-----Very true. "Perhaps thou shalt say: The man has brought
upon himself his misery; therefore I will stay my hand, and will not give unto
him of my food, nor impart unto him of my substance that he may not suffer, for
his punishments are just-- But I say unto you, O man, whosoever doeth this the
same hath great cause to repent; and except he repenteth of that which he hath
done he perisheth forever, and hath no interest in the kingdom of God."
(Mosiah 4:17-18 Book of Mormon)And while there may be various
factors contributing to the ever-widening gap, certainly the principal factor is
GREED, though many deny it. Jesus foresaw that Greed would be a
major problem in our day. No wonder he said:"And again I say
unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a
rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." (Matthew 19:24)
@JoeBlow,Re: "Show me a flat tax scenario of your choosing where a
middle class family doesn't get a tax increase while the wealthiest 5%
don't get a tax cut... I cannot fathom one"...That you
can't even fathom one... doesn't surprise me in the least.===One...Mitt Romney exposed his tax returns in 2011... he
paid an effective tax rate of 14.1 percent in 2011 (Note: Romney also opted not
to deduct millions in charitable contributions from his tax bill in order to
maintain a pledge from August that he has paid at least 13 percent in federal
income taxes for each of the past 10 years.). So he would be
paying 15%... at tax increase! And the government would get WAY more than $6000
out of his paying just 1% more I can assure you.===Another..."Warren Buffett says even though he and other top earners
are paying higher taxes this year, he thinks he's still paying a lower rate
than his secretary"...If we had a FLAT-rate... he would pay the
SAME rate as his Secretary (who probably also makes six figures). But BOTH
would pay SAME rate (which = "fair" IMO).
There are three ingredients that produce tremendous wealth:1. Hard
work2. Intelligence - ie, it's not enough to simply work hard, you
have to work smart. If you're REALLY smart, in our system you can
accomplish the same amount of work done by thousands and thousands of people.3. Good fortune, ie, "luck", knowing the right people, etc.Our economy is like a massive game of Monopoly where 32,000 people are
playing, but one of the players has more money than everyone else... combined.
When my kids were young, they wanted to play checkers all the time,
and I got tired of playing it for hours, so I used an additional row of pieces
(from another checkers set we had). So, I could make lots of mistakes and still
easily, every time. After awhile, my kids didn't want to play checkers
anymore. They got tired of losing, even when it appeared they started off well.
It should surprise nobody that some people are giving up and
deciding the economic game is rigged.
My wife's sister and her husband are on welfare. They have no desire to
work. They would rather stay home and play x box all day. This my friends is why
the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. The government has
made it possible to get by without working. People don't want to work. They
would rather be poor than go to work. They go around and ask for jobs in the
most ridiculous way to cover their obligations. If they get hired it lasts for a
couple weeks then they get sick of it and try to get fired. Then they do it all
over again. I would love to see better paying jobs, but too bad this
administration hasn't done a thing to help that. It's been the POTUS
strategy all along. Ever notice who his voting base is. Heaven forbid these
people might have to pay taxes. They would get furious and might become
Dems say the tax system is unfair? They want to the poor to pay more?It is abundantly clear the inequality has accelerated under the BO
misadministration. When you remove the incentives to work, when you remove
incentives to succeed, when the majority of jobs created during your reign of
ineptitude are low wage service jobs because you are anti-business, what do you
expect?GaryO,What you call voodoo economics under Reagan was
enacted by a dem congress.And how are we giving more money to the
rich? Oh, I know, we are giving joey biden social security payments IN ADDITION
to his $230,700/year salary.BTW, NOT taking their money is NOT the
same thing as GIVING money to the rich.I guess thou shalt not covet
has no meaning to liberals.Lou Montana,All Utahans are racist?
Open minded,Where do you get the $250k and $300k figures?
Are you talking income or NW? And what area of the country are you referring
to? $250k doesn’t cut it in San Francisco, but you’re a prince in
Jackson MS. Please elucidate.
Well 2 bits.My "hypothetical sympathetic family" was not an
unusual case and was not meant to instill fear in anyone. It's
not like I came up with some freaky case.But, I agree that a flat
tax is fair. Although, some could argue that it would be even more fair if
we all pay the same Dollar amount.So, fine. You didn't like
my hypothetical family.Pick yours and make your case.Show me a flat tax scenario of your choosing where a middle class family
doesn't get a tax increase while the wealthiest 5% don't get a tax
cut.I cannot fathom one.
Economics is becoming the new "statistics." To paraphrase Mark
Twain,"There are lies, big lies, and economists predictions."
Polls such as this are just about worthless, except to politicians trying to
figure out if their class warfare rhetoric is working. It is.This
poll is nothing more than a current events quiz which asks people to give
answers which for the vast majority (i.e.- low information voters and Democrats,
but I repeat myself) is to see if they have been getting the message parroted by
the news media for the last six years.Oh, and coincidentally, Harry
Reid is just about to call up the absurd minimum wage increase bill for a vote
in the Senate. Coincidence, or coordinated strategy with a well known leftist
polling group?The real question is why the Deseret News lends
credibility to this propaganda campaign by publishing it as "news."
JoeBlow,My thoughts on it are... if it's "fair"... it's
fair.A flat percentage is not biased towards... OR against ANYONE.
That's "fair".===IF making the tax code
"fair" results in somebody losing their advantage... they need to
realize they were lucky before... because the tax-code was "unfair" in
their favor. But that benefit may go away by making it really
"fair".===Your tactic... pointing out that the
current (unfair) tax-code benefited someone... so we can't change it.... is
using FEAR of tax increases to keep us from making progress towards a more
"fair" tax-code (because you present a hypothetical case where it would
not benefit a hypothetical sympathetic family).Arguments like yours
just instill uncertainty that a sympathetic family (or even MY family) may see a
tax increase IF we change. And uses that fear of losing that advantage... to
shoot down the more fair tax-code.These type or arguments are
generally used by Democrats to shoot down flat-tax proposals.It may
also raise taxes on the wealthy... but they never mention that... because they
aren't sympathetic figures. So the FEAR and sympathy tactics don't
To explain what is going on, Karl Marx must be consulted. But there are two
problems with that 1) Marx is by no means easy to read - one should read Marx in
consultation with somebody else who's familiar with Marx and 2) most higher
ed economics departments are COMPLETELY unfamiliar with Marx.
@JoeCapitalist2"Why do all the studies about "income
inequality" completely ignore the movement of people between classes? People
move up or down all the time."Actually they do look at that
(income mobility) too and the U.S. also scores near the bottom of industrialized
nations in that too.
@Happy Valley Heretic,Who cares what the wealthy want?If
it's fair... then we should be for it... not AGAINST it (Democrats).====Not all "Wealthy" are Republicans you know...There are wealthy Democrats out there too.====And if you think the wealthy don't like a flat-tax... how do you think
they felt about Obama's plan...?I would think they would like a
flat tax better than what we have today (which can change on them whenever
politicians want to, or the majority wants to, at the drop of a vote).Tax rates can change. They are not bad today. But they have been bad in
the past... and they can go there again IF the government gets into
trouble...This is a quote from Wikipedia..."During 1944
and 1945, the top rate was its all-time high at 94% applied to income above
$200,000"....Do you think they want THAT Heretic? Paying 94
cents of every dollar they earn to the Government.... and only keeping 6 cents
of every dollar they earn???
A lot of comments today talking about the wealthy. Our poor today have more
security than at any other time in history. Do I think the poor are
lazy? No. I think that they have skill sets that are not worth much in the
free-market. We see this happening in many professions. As a cabinet maker
(hobbyist only) I appreciate the craftsmanship that many of our talented
woodworkers have. Unfortunately those skills just are not in high demand as we
prefer the prefab IKEA garbage instead. The answer? Evolve. I am a
software developer. I hate my profession. I would much rather be using my
original degree and teaching US history. Doesn't pay enough. Should
society be forced to pay me more than what I am worth so I can go teach? Nope.
I had to adapt. So do the poor.
2Bits,Lets look at the flat tax and put some numbers to it. Given
the widening income gap, lets look at the effects of a flat tax.I
assume that by flat tax, we are talking about one tax rate that everyone pays,
regardless of income.I have heard lots of different numbers, but
lets just look at a 15% flat tax rateA family of 4 making $40,000
per year is certainly struggling. While they probably pay no federal income tax,
they do pay payroll taxes.So, they get an $6000 tax increase.Now look at a family of 4 making $250,000. Most likely they are going
to get a tax cut.This just does not seem reasonable to me. What are
@LOU MontanaRedefineRedistributeRecreateReeferThe Four R's of "success" in Colorado.
You know who doesn't want a flat tax? The wealthy, who are able to
use those 1000's of loopholes, and deductions, that no average American
would ever use, to make their tax burden lower than someone a dollar above
ScrewdriverCasa Grande, AZIt's an old human logic problem. The
poor are considered outsiders, unclean, undesirable and deserving of their
station. What it really is, is tribalism, unholy judgement and self
preservation. The very anti-Christ in human psychology.8:12 a.m.
April 30, 2014======= Agreed.Some look for
the Anti-christ in a man.Some think it may be a computer.Lately, with the Citizens United and McCutcheon Supreme Court rulings granting
"Corporation" entities Consitutionally guaranteed "rights' --
it appears to me that perhaps the Anti-Christ is in fact a
Re: "26 percent of Democrats believe an unfair tax system is to blame for
rise of economic inequality"...So if the tax system being unfair
is to blame... WHY did Democrats campaign AGAINST a flat tax??And if
the tax system being "unfair" is to blame... why did Obama campaign on
making it MORE un-equal??===IF Democrats can define what
"Fair" is... and what rate would be "Fair" to tax some people at
(while others pay ZERO Federal Income Taxes).... we could find out if we agree
that what THEY think is "Fair" is fair to us... and vote for it (or
against it).===I honestly don't see how anything
but a flat percentage of your income can be considered "Fair".And yet... Democrats fight tooth-and-nail AGAINST any flat tax proposals
Republicans bring before Congress.They claim they want a
"FAIR" tax system... What is "FAIR" to them???A
small group of Americans paying... while others pay zero or get money FROM the
tax system??? That seems to be what they campaign for each election...They certainly don't want a "FLAT" tax (which is most
@JoeCapitalist2Orem, UTWhen I was a kid, our family was poor.
Now I am either in the upper middle class or the lower upper class (I don't
know where the line is).========You are not as
"rich" as you think your are -- Upper middle class =
$250KLower Upper class = $300KThe 1% of the 1% increased their
wealth by a staggering 54% last year, did your portfolia do that well?And if you want to talk "Law of the Harvest", then getting
money from stocks and investments is not "WORK".So, in
reality -- the rich are even much lazier (idle) than the wokring poor.
It's an old human logic problem. The poor are considered outsiders,
unclean, undesirable and deserving of their station. What it really
is, is tribalism, unholy judgement and self preservation. The very anti-Christ
in human psychology.
The Federal Reserve's zero interest-rate policy (ZIRP) has been the
greatest gift to the super-wealthy imaginable. Wealthy investors can borrow
money at an almost zero interest rate and invest in stocks, bonds and real
estate, causing what is now probably the largest asset bubble in our history.
ZIRP has enticed ordinary Americans to borrow until they hit their limits in
trying to keep up with the wealthy, but they often end up losing in those asset
casinos. Meanwhile, the super-wealthy make more in a single hour or single day
than the rest of us make in our lifetimes. As long as ZIRP exists, the spread
between the wealthy and the rest of us will continue to grow.
Forty years ago 60% of GDP went to the wages of the bottom 99% of the
population. Today that figure has shrunk to 50%. The 10% of GDP that used to go
to the bottom 99% has gone to corporate profits and into the bank accounts of
the 1%.That's the biggest reason for inequality, jobs no longer pay what
they once did. Working hard is no longer a guarantee of economic security.(As a comparison 10% of GDP is more than we spend on social security,
medicare, and medicaid put together)
There are lots of reasons, many of which go beyond politics, such as changing
technology and demographics. There is a shifting supply and demand for people
who can do different things, and people ultimately get paid what they can
negotiate, not necessarily what the true economic value of their labor is.I want to live in a country with a large and strong middle class. The
trickle-down economic policies of the last 35 years haven't helped.
According to the poll, Republicans are also just as likely to believe that
inequality stems from a bad work ethic among the poor ======= This just proves how clueless Republicans really and truley are...This shows they think that 99% of us are all a bunch of lazy mooches,
whilst the upper crust 1% who OWN 85% of the welath are the ones out
busting the behinds doing all the production...Rush Limbaugh, Sean
Hannity and Glenn Beck have them all brainwashed.
Why do all the studies about "income inequality" completely ignore the
movement of people between classes? People move up or down all the time. Many of
the wealthiest people today come from middle class families and some come from
poor families. Likewise, some very poor people (homeless, prisoners, etc.) come
from families who at least once had financial means.When I was a
kid, our family was poor. Now I am either in the upper middle class or the lower
upper class (I don't know where the line is). I still have aspirations of
being even better off in the future, although I know the opposite can happen.Yet every time a discussion about wealth is raised, the same mantra
about "the rich are becoming richer and the poor are becoming poorer" is
trotted out about how unfair our society is. I guess it just fits someone's
political agenda to convince everyone that we are all stuck in some kind of
caste system even though facts prove otherwise.If anything limits a
persons ability to be successful, it is most likely government interference.
“Democrats believe an unfair tax system is to blame for rise of economic
inequality . . . Republicans believe inequality stems from
congressionally enacted policies.”Both are right.Reagonomics/Voodo Economics/Trickle Down Economics/Supply Side Economics could
NEVER have been enacted without congressional approval.OBVIOUSLY,
congressionally enacted tax policies that reduced taxes for the rich on the
premise that money would trickle down to the middle class is the culprit,
because it DOES NOT WORK. Think about it.The Problem:
The richer get richer and the poor and middle class do not.The
Solution: Give more money to the rich.Conclusion: The Reagonomics
solution is ridiculous on its face.
It is abundantly clear that income (and wealth) inequity has widened in the last
10 years. And in the last 20 years. Anyone who thinks differently has just not
looked objectively at it.And it is not because of one thing. But there is a bigger question.If this inequity keeps on the
pace it is going, what is the effect for America going forward?Look
at the countries with income inequities greater than ours and see if that is
what you think we should be striving for.
I have noticed that many Republicans (and some Democrats) falsely judge the poor
as to why they are poor. Some even "despise the poor" accordingly,
based on that misjudgment. A very interesting article in this
regard, entitled, "How the rich view the poor," by John Hoffmire and
Adam Turville, published in the Deseret News last December.