Our budget deficit is currently $1.4 trillion.
No, we added 1.4 trillion in 2009 alone, this year we are projected to add another 1.5 trillion, we're currently at $641.3 billion for this year. Our TOTAL budget deficit, not just how much we're adding to it each year is, 14.1 TRILLION. Your wrong by a factor of 10.
U.S. Budget Deficit Expanded to Monthly Record $222.5 Billion in February - Bloomberg
Federal Budget Spending and the National Debt
U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time
Part of the solution to getting that down is having the economy rebound. Another part is cutting spending in several areas. And another part is raising taxes.
This statement taken by itself, is ok.
I'm sorry you don't see 15% of the budget deficit as a big deal.
Your numbers are wrong, the 200 billion in extra taxes is, .014% of the current total deficit.
200,000,000,000 / 14,000,000,000,000 = .01428571
That particular point is not important, considering I can make the same argument without using it.
Talking about your proposed taxes not hurting job creating classes, I would think it pretty important to establish via data, what classes exactly create the most jobs.
Wow, you give an explanation like that, and then try to claim that I'm the one who doesn't understand how our economy works? Wow...
What specifically do you have issue with. If I'm a business owner with 10,000 dollars, and you take away 5,000, that only leaves me with 5,000 to reinvest into my business and hire more people. That tax rate has an opportunity cost of lost jobs or investments.
If this is just going to turn into a "I'm right your wrong" discussion with no data or evidence, I'll have to quit because thats pointless.
I thought that was obvious. Because it leads to a better overall country. That way, you get a better standard of living for everyone, and a more stable economy.
The US is the most stable economy on the planet, with one of the highest standards of living. Our poor people live better than most of the world.
Really? You don't already understand why you don't want to live in a country where almost all of the wealth is held by a tiny group of people while everyone else has trouble making ends meet, like some African countries and countries like France before their revolution?
Show me data "most people" are having trouble "making ends meet." Sure, the guy working part time flipping burgers, or the high school drop out can't afford really nice things... is it the governments job to make up for poor life decisions? Do you think that is "most people?"
Yes, they are two separate things. But tell me this: if everyone in the country makes the same amount of money and has the same amount of wealth, is it possible to improve your economic status?
Yes, income can be in total equilibrium, but if we still have a free enterprise economy, nothing is stopping someone from getting a raise and throwing off the equilibrium. You could mandate all wages paid will be exactly the same, but if the mechanisms for getting more money are still there, it won't stay equal from long. I could get a raise, work more hours, invest my money wisely etc etc etc...
The Gini index only indicates whether economic mobility is possible.
Try reading things first.
While the Gini coefficient measures inequality of income, it does not measure inequality of opportunity. For example, some countries may have a social class structure that presents barriers to upward mobility; this is not reflected in their Gini coefficients.
Gini coefficient - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
They are connected in that, as I said above, if everyone is completely equal financially, there's no such thing as moving up or down economically.
Wrong, the mechanisms that control upward mobility are not the same mechanisms that control income equality.
Another myth. Actually some other countries have better economic mobility than we do.
Some, maybe, which is why I said, "one of the most."
Also, the claim that if you work hard and go to school, you'll improve your situation is false. It certainly doesn't hurt your chances, but it's not nearly a guarantee of success. That's part of the problem.
Where does this idea of some guarantee of success come in? Yeah, you could go to school get a degree, then get addicted to crack and screw your life up... of course education is not a guarantee of success, nothing is. Are you saying the government should guarantee some sort of increased wages over life to all its citizens?
What kind of guarantees do you want from society? How much should one have to put in to receive these guarantees? How much will it cost tax payers?
Plus, you should be able to just work full-time and be able to afford a relatively good standard of living. That's not even the case.
Show me some data. I highly disagree with that. Can you define "good standard of living?" does that mean owning a home? New car? T-bone for dinner every night? Should I be able to land a job as a janitor, then just give up and be set for life? Or, should I keep working for more, get a job as a janitor, and try to work up to manager of all the janitors?
And I'm not talking about taxing away rich people's money. Again, if you stop mischaracterizing things and just let yourself understand what I'm saying, this would go much easier. Sure, if I was arguing to take away all of rich people's money, you'd have something to argue against. However, I'm only arguing to raise their taxes. That means taking an extra maybe 10% of their income. I'm pretty sure, they'll still have income next year to take taxes out of too.
An extra 10% from the top 1% will not make a dent in balancing the budget, and if you used it to try and balance the budget, instead of redistributing it, it will have ZERO effect on income inequality. Even if you forgot about the deficit, and send checks to the lower 10% of people to increase their income, it will do little to effect income inequality... Your mischaraterizing your own arguments. I'd saying your doing it dishonestly, trying to hide your true intentions, but I honestly don't think you understand.
It would help, if you'd at least try to understand. I'm not talking about going from making $800,000 to making $3 million. I'm not even talking about going from making $400,000 to making $800,000. While it should be possible to do both of those things, economic mobility is about much more than that. Mainly it's about the ability to improve your situation. That means, if your parents are poor, being able to get out of poverty. If your parents are lower middle class, you can move up to middle class or even upper class. I'm not as concerned about being able to go from the top 1% to the top .5%. I'm more concerned about being able to go from the bottom 50% to the 50-75% range.
It happens all the time, look up the bios of some of the top paid CEOs.
From your link:
However, 42% of children born in the bottom quintile are most likely to stay there, and another 42% move up to the second and middle quintile
Half don't improve, half get educated and move up. It happens all the time, my wife is a prime example. Grew up poor, to a single mom, put herself through school with loans/scholarships and part time jobs. Now she is an exploration geologist at an oil and gas firm making $56,000 a year. Her older brother did drugs instead of school, every job he ever had he quit, he's homeless now. Should the government guarantee her brother the same life she has worked to attain, just because he managed to land a job or two, (but never stayed at?)
And I'm not talking about taxing away rich people's money. Again, if you stop mischaracterizing things and just let yourself understand what I'm saying, this would go much easier.
"Just give in and agree with me?"
Look these aren't "mischaracterizations" they are counter arguments. I understand what you are saying, but I don't agree.
I'm not sure what the problem here is. The rate they pay is unfair. That is not their fault. They are following the rules. I'm not accusing them of the wrong-doing (well, some of them I am). The problem is in the system. For instance, if it's OK for an NFL defender to knock down a receiver and hold him on the ground before the ball is thrown, it's kind of an unfair way to play the game, but the defender isn't the problem, the rule or lack thereof is.
In that case, if a defender did exactly that, I wouldn't have a problem with him. I'd only have a problem with the rule.
Whats "fair" is about whats "right" which is about morality. Weather you think the person is unfair or the system, your still making a moral judgement. I want the moral reasoning as to why you think the current tax rate is "unfair" but an extra 10% from the top 1% (that wouldn't effect the debt or income inequality) is "fair."
Again, your not really making an argument that the tax rate is "unfair" your saying the inequality itself is "unfair." You want to use taxes to fix that. That leads to, whats the source of the inequality.
You said its not unfair a doctor makes more than a janitor. And its not unfair a family with 2 working adults makes more than a family with one part time worker. So, what is the source of this "unfair" inequality? Or is all inequality "unfair" no matter the source? If so, you would have to revise your statement its ok that a janitor makes less than a doctor.
There are multiple facets to this argument. The main thing is that part of better wealth equality is a higher top tax rate.
An extra 10% from the top 1% will not decrease their large incomes, it will only decrease what they get to keep. And it will not increase anyone in the lower x%'s income, unless you write them checks.
Another part of the problem is other things like regulations, subsidies and deregulations all that help the rich get rich, but don't help the lower classes at all.
Do you know what the number one payout for the US government currently is? Greater than military spending, greater than SS spending... its Medicaid/Medicare. That goes to lower income, disabled or elderly people. Entitlements, are a HUGE expense by the government.
There are two things. The wealth isn't distributed very well in this country, and the rich don't pay their share of taxes. They are intertwined. Better wealth equality would imply everyone paying their share of taxes, or at least closer to it.
This is what I mean by you don't understand your argument. Raising taxes on the rich isn't going to magically make incomes equal. Tax a guy making 5 bazillion dollars a month at 80%, he's still making the same amount of money, your just taking more away. A doctor will make more than a janitor no matter what the tax rate... but if you tax him too much, he may quit being a doctor because its not worth it.
Taxes are not a means to control income equality. There is not some magic tax number that if everyone was paying suddenly income would be in some magical "fair" distribution ratio.
Tax are a means of funding the government and services provided. Income inequality has nothing to do with taxes... but your arguing we use taxes to redistribute income. Your intertwining them, you want taxes to be the tool used to redistribute wealth. This is not some intrinsic economic property of taxes, its you wanting to use them to fix what you claim is an unfair distribution of income.
BTW, whats the magic income distribution that is then "fair?" How do we measure it? How do when know when we've gotten there?
See, this is exactly the kind of misunderstanding (even after repeated explanations of my actual point) that leads me to believe you're just never going to listen. Yes, a doctor should make more than a janitor. Again, a doctor making $250,000 while a janitor makes $45,000 is OK with me. I understand that arguing against strawmen is a lot easier, and with your opinions, about the only way you can continue to argue, but it isn't very productive.
You seem to accept income inequality of some sort is fair, so how do we separate what is fair inequality and unfair inequality? Is there some magic number or ratio? How do we calculate it? How do we measure if we've meet that standard or not?
Also, what is the source of our "unfair" inequality? If its not the fact, some people work harder, get better educations, make better life decisions, invest money better, etc etc... what is the source? What makes some inequality fair and others unfair?
As I've said, the reasons for the wealth inequality are certain regulations and deregulations and a bad tax system.
The poor pay 0 taxes, and get more government money and assistance than any other class, I don't agree with your claim. Should we give poor people more money? Or should we take more away from rich? Both? Whats the ratio we're trying to get to?
The overall reason for the inequality is the ease of getting richer when you're already rich, and the relative difficulty of improving your situation when you're not rich.
I don't think that has much to do with income tax rates. It has more to do with how your raised and the choices you make in life, among other things. If your raised by a single crack addicted mom, who doesn't instill in you a good work ethic and importance of education, your chances are low. Thats sad, and it sucks for those kids, but it has nothing to do with income tax rates. I think income inequality in the US, is more of a cultural thing.
That being said, there is not much structural impediment for a poor minority to get a good education, get scholarships to college and become a doctor or engineer, I've seen it happen many many times. Again, poor people who stay poor have cultural problems, not income tax problems keeping them there.
Looking at your mobility wiki again,
However, 42% of children born in the bottom quintile are most likely to stay there, and another 42% move up to the second and middle quintile
The 42% that stayed in the bottom quintile, do you think thats because of tax code, or cultural things? You think their parents forced them to do good in school? Taught them to work hard? What about the 42% that moved up to the second and middle quintiles? Did they achieve that because of US Tax brackets? Or did they work hard and make good choices?
