Wealth Distribution in the US: Challenges and Solutions

[Galteeth]

Hmm, I wonder why then that so many from the right believe that tax reductions to the rich and big business creates jobs then? When all it really does is increase profits.

The theory is that the profit incentive motivates people to actually create and produce. If a businessman is making more profit, he commands more resource control as a "reward" for producing something people want and doing it efficiently.

Simply creating jobs is not always a worthy goal, one of the theoretical goals of progress is to reduce the total amount of labor necessary to produce the same standard of living. Remember what the origional Luddites were all about.

The basics of the arguments of spontaneous order arising from people following their self interest was laid out in The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith.

"By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention."

 

[Jasongreat]

You're missing something there. "Through the products they buy." This is the whole point of money, that it can be exchanged for goods and services. They are getting something in exchange for the money.

You are right as far as money being a tool to use to get goods and services, however the product has the same value as it did before only now it costs more, so the consumer's money is worth less. Why is inflating the value of labor any different than inflating the value of the dollar? Both reduce the value of money already in circulation, both hurt the people who have the least most and since that is who we are supposedly trying to help with re-distribution, I would think it more beneficial to increase the value of their labor not to de-value it(with inflation). IMO The best way to increase the value of their labor is to make their labor worth more, by learning more skills, not by arbitrarily giving them a pay raise, the raise will naturally follow the upgrade in skill's(might not be at the same company or even the same profession, but more money always follows more skills, since more skills add more value to a persons labor).

In the US, if you look at the price of house's in '51, you will find that the average cost was about $8500, which was about $4-$5 per square foot. At the same time the average wage was about $2,800/yr which would put the price of a house at about 3x earnings. Then look at the median house price in 2007, it was around $250,000 and the price per sq. ft. was a little over $99, the average wage was a little over $40,000 and that would make it about 6x earnings. If it is just about raising wages, why didnt the rising wages help people get into homes easier, was it because prices just keep rising right along with wages, sometimes even at a far higher rate(thanks to our buddies in wash.)? The only thing that arbitrarily raising wages does, is it inflates the market, if you raise them during an inflated market they sustain the inflated market and that's exactly what happens when we take from the rich and give to the poor we will inevitably inflate the market, the rich can handle the inflated prices, the poor can not, even with the pay increase since the market will readjust higher and they are in the same spot they started.

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/awi.html"
http://www.census.gov/const/newresales_200702.pdf"

 

[ray b]

Are you aware that the capital gains tax is an additional tax on wealth that has already been taxed? The same is true of dividends.

It's just silly to talk about the capital gains tax as if it's the only time tax is paid on corporate profit, when it's actually double-taxation on the same profit.

you speak of wealth being taxed
even double taxed
THAT IS WRONG
we in the USA never have taxed wealth
at the federal level
only earned income strangely is top rate taxed
billionaire's are never taxed on their billions
only stock sales gains are taxed and then at a low rate
and their CEO pay is taxed THATS IT FOR INCOME TAX


large amounts of stock are seldom bought
they are mostly created out of thin air
by guys like buffet or bill gates steve jobs ect

lets take bill gates for example
worth X billion dollars [mostly in MS stock]
any stock he gave himself is not taxed even once
at any income tax rate
and ONLY IF SOLD will be taxed at a LOW capital gains rate [15%]
the only taxed income bill gates has is his CEO pay [a million or so a year]
for a wealth gain to tax paid rate of less then 0.25% or less avg for the last 20+ years

but the neo-conned sheep will not stop bleating the rich are over taxed
or double taxed ect
the facts are out there pick a BIG CORPs FOUNDER or long time CEO
compute his tax rate from the CORPS doc's and run the numbers yourself

 

[WhoWee]

did they really
or was much of that accounting tricks
no tax credits ? I find that very very hard to believe
no deductions at all , again just not believeable

It ishard to believe that someone could pay $14 billion in taxes over 3 years and not be angry.LOL THAT's wealthy.

I posted the Berkshire Hathaway 10-K. They paid $14 billion in taxes in 3 years. Based on ownership percentage, Warren Buffet's share of the taxes is about $5,000,000,000. I consider that to be a fair amount. To then be upset that he doesn't pay a higher percentage on personal income after this tax, and to question his write-offs, is laughable.

 

[WhoWee]

you speak of wealth being taxed
even double taxed
THAT IS WRONG
we in the USA never have taxed wealth
at the federal level
only earned income strangely is top rate taxed
billionaire's are never taxed on their billions
only stock sales gains are taxed and then at a low rate
and their CEO pay is taxed THATS IT FOR INCOME TAX


large amounts of stock are seldom bought
they are mostly created out of thin air
by guys like buffet or bill gates steve jobs ect

lets take bill gates for example
worth X billion dollars [mostly in MS stock]
any stock he gave himself is not taxed even once
at any income tax rate
and ONLY IF SOLD will be taxed at a LOW capital gains rate [15%]
the only taxed income bill gates has is his CEO pay [a million or so a year]
for a wealth gain to tax paid rate of less then 0.25% or less avg for the last 20+ years

but the neo-conned sheep will not stop bleating the rich are over taxed
or double taxed ect
the facts are out there pick a BIG CORPs FOUNDER or long time CEO
compute his tax rate from the CORPS doc's and run the numbers yourself

You do realize that when the market drops in value, you can't take a loss? You can borrow against an asset, but you don't realize a profit or loss until you sell it.

 

[Jasongreat]

That has not been my experience at all, in fact, I believe that in many cases, the lower the income, the harder the work. I think the exact opposite may be true in many cases, that the more cushy the job, the lazier the worker...unless, of course, you think that a business meeting at a fancy restaurant, golf course, or strip club is really hard work?

I think it would be more accurate to say, the lower the wage the more physical(less skilled) the labor, the higher the wage the more mental(more skilled) labor.

 

[Al68]

you speak of wealth being taxed
even double taxed
THAT IS WRONG
we in the USA never have taxed wealth
at the federal level
only earned income strangely is top rate taxed

I was referring to the tax on the wealth when it was made, not repeated taxation of existing personal wealth. You must have known that.

billionaire's are never taxed on their billions
only stock sales gains are taxed and then at a low rate
and their CEO pay is taxed THATS IT FOR INCOME TAX

It is taxed twice at the federal level. If I own stock in a company, my share of the profit is taxed as corporate income tax, then distributed to me as a dividend or as a capital gain, then I must report this after-tax income as personal income and pay the additional tax.

large amounts of stock are seldom bought
they are mostly created out of thin air
by guys like buffet or bill gates steve jobs ect

lets take bill gates for example
worth X billion dollars [mostly in MS stock]
any stock he gave himself is not taxed even once
at any income tax rate
and ONLY IF SOLD will be taxed at a LOW capital gains rate [15%]
the only taxed income bill gates has is his CEO pay [a million or so a year]
for a wealth gain to tax paid rate of less then 0.25% or less avg for the last 20+ years

This is simply nonsense.

but the neo-conned sheep will not stop bleating the rich are over taxed
or double taxed ect

Personal attacks and hatespeech are not conducive to honest debate and violate forum rules.

the facts are out there pick a BIG CORPs FOUNDER or long time CEO
compute his tax rate from the CORPS doc's and run the numbers yourself

I recently posted real facts about who pays taxes from the CBO. Yes, the facts are available, but most people ignore them in favor of the hateful nonsense of power hungry politicians.

 

[Al68]

Also the top of the class would be more like a 10.0 not a 4.0 and many of them got their good grades from copying off the homework of the "C and D" students.

Yep, that's how I got my A's: copying off the "C" and "D" students.

Hmm, I wonder why then that so many from the right believe that tax reductions to the rich and big business creates jobs then? When all it really does is increase profits.

This is seriously backward logic. Tax cuts are not government "giving" anyone anything. That being said, profit motive is the reason for every private sector job in the country.

Reducing profit motive by confiscating part of it costs jobs, causes higher prices for consumers, inflation. It's a lose-lose for everyone except power hungry politicians and the few that benefit at the expense of others.

We need some government, but we don't need to be fooled into thinking it's free.

 

[Jasongreat]

It's interesting that you argue this, since historically when there were higher taxes on wealthier people, there tended to be less of a divide between the wages the top executives of companies were being paid and what their employees were being paid.

So let me get this right, the reason we are re-distributing wealth is to bring the top down, the bottom up, and then all of us will have the same stuff? Or are we trying to help the poor raise themselves up out of poverty by having those that have help those that dont? What if one of these poor people wants to become rich? Wouldnt the same obstacles you want the now rich to overcome also affect the ones trying to become rich next?

This seems to indicate that if you put a higher tax rate on higher levels of income, those executives will not simply jack up their wages;

First off your implying the wages of executives are jacked up and not at all based on their value, I would agree in some instances(big corporations) but for the most part I would disagree(I would whole-heartedly disagree when talking of small buisinesses). What it does show is that if you raise the tax rates people will just choose to make less or at least show less on paper, and that would lead to less wealth for the government to pass around.

rather the opposite effect occurred, and lowering the top tax rates led executives to more aggressively push their compensation upwards (at the expense of the people who buy products from the companies of course, as you yourself say)[/

QUOTE]

I think if you look into it a little further you will find that it was because of the tax rates that executives started to get creative with their compensation packages, moving away from a salary and into the golden parachute types of bonuses. So in the end, the rich kept their way off life, but the government lossed thiers(tax revenue), and we all paid for it and will be paying for it for years to come.

 

[Jasongreat]

Hmm, I wonder why then that so many from the right believe that tax reductions to the rich and big business creates jobs then? When all it really does is increase profits.

Although I don't consider myself as part of the right(unless you are taking about my arguments,lol), let me try to explain:
Capital can either stay in the buisiness and possibly expand and hire more workers(or god forbid be taken as profit), or capital can be taken by the government where it can't be used at all by the company and that equals no expansion and no new jobs(at least none of value).

 

[CRGreathouse]

That has not been my experience at all, in fact, I believe that in many cases, the lower the income, the harder the work. I think the exact opposite may be true in many cases, that the more cushy the job, the lazier the worker...unless, of course, you think that a business meeting at a fancy restaurant, golf course, or strip club is really hard work?

At my income level, business meetings at a fancy restaurant would be nice -- free food is free food. But I don't think that this is considered a perk by many who have to go to the meetings! I have a relative who works a job that requires many dinners and the occasional golf outing. Of course not counting those questionable perks (he'd prefer to do neither) he works 75 hours a week; with those, he sometimes hits 90. By contrast, I'm liable to complain if I put in more than 45...

As for lower-income jobs, I've had mixed experiences. I put myself through college working in a warehouse; everyone there worked very hard (and for fairly long hours -- I only put in 44-48 per week, but most did 50+). They had no "lazy and unmotivated" workers (as TheStatutoryApe put it) except possibly some temps, but those would quit fairly quickly. On the other hand, I'm amazed at the lack of productivity in my local Wal-Mart. Any motivated worker could be at least half again (!) as efficient. The upscale grocery store a mile from the Wal-Mart might pay its workers $4 / hour more, but they probably don't spend much if any more per item on the checkout.

 

[drankin]

If minimum wage is a living wage, then the motivation to get out of a minimum wage job is diminished. Not every job available should make you enough money to live on. I've worked my share of minimum and low wage jobs. And I'm glad I barely made a living working them or I might just still be working those crappy jobs! LOL! It took about ten years of working crappy jobs to convince me to get back to school and get a career. I am much much more productive doing what I do now than back then. Increasing minimum wage to a living wage could very well cripple the productivity of our nation by diminishing the incentive for people to improve their education and better their marketable positions.

 

[DavidSnider]

Let's just assume that everyone were guaranteed a basic "comfortable" living. 3 hots, a cot and basic medicine.

You think there is a significant amount of people who would just live the rest of their life like this and never desire to produce anything?

Even people who are independently wealthy seem to have a desire to work.

 

[WhoWee]

Hmm, I wonder why then that so many from the right believe that tax reductions to the rich and big business creates jobs then? When all it really does is increase profits.

If you saved $1,000 in cash working at a part time job.

Would you

1.) put it in the bank to draw interest at 4%
2.) invest it in the stock market with a potential 15% return
3.) lend it to a friend (who may or may not re-pay it)
4.) lend it to a stranger who promises to repay with 20% interest
5.) invest it in something you can re-sell to triple your investment
6.) invest it in a small family business that promises to pay you $200 per year for the rest of your life (and you own stock in the business)
7.) donate 35% to a homeless person and spend the rest on recreation
8.) invest in a variable annuity

and why?

 

[WhoWee]

You don't truly believe that a business that provides healthcare to its employees does so out of the kindness in their hearts do you? The costs are passed on to the consumer (many of which have no healthcare themselves because they can't afford it).

Given this analysis, who do you think will pay for single payer (Government) health care?

 

[n9xr]

Why the talk about single payer? Who, besides the conservatives right now, are talking about single payer?

 

[WhoWee]

you speak of wealth being taxed
even double taxed
THAT IS WRONG
we in the USA never have taxed wealth
at the federal level
only earned income strangely is top rate taxed
billionaire's are never taxed on their billions
only stock sales gains are taxed and then at a low rate
and their CEO pay is taxed THATS IT FOR INCOME TAX


large amounts of stock are seldom bought
they are mostly created out of thin air
by guys like buffet or bill gates steve jobs ect

lets take bill gates for example
worth X billion dollars [mostly in MS stock]
any stock he gave himself is not taxed even once
at any income tax rate
and ONLY IF SOLD will be taxed at a LOW capital gains rate [15%]
the only taxed income bill gates has is his CEO pay [a million or so a year]
for a wealth gain to tax paid rate of less then 0.25% or less avg for the last 20+ years

but the neo-conned sheep will not stop bleating the rich are over taxed
or double taxed ect
the facts are out there pick a BIG CORPs FOUNDER or long time CEO
compute his tax rate from the CORPS doc's and run the numbers yourself

They say ignorance is bliss ray b - but there are limits.

Have you ever heard of the SEC - they don't allow ("large amounts of stock are seldom bought they are mostly created out of thin air by guys like buffet or bill gates steve jobs ect") the activity you describe.

Are you familiar with personal property taxes?
http://dor.wa.gov/docs/Pubs/Prop_Tax/PersProp.pdf

How about luxury taxes?
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/06/17/business/senate-unit-kills-luxury-tax-on-items.html

I'll also assume the concept of estate taxes have not been a priority on your research list.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estate_tax_in_the_United_States

As for Bill Gates GIVING himself stock - are you talking about his original founder's shares that were issued when he invested in the company or stock options or perhaps stock in lieu of cash? Please describe the stock he "gave" himself.

If you'd like to learn about stock options
http://www.salary.com/advice/layouthtmls/advl_display_nocat_Ser56_Par125.html

In the mean time - please support your post or retract the nonsense.

 

[WhoWee]

Why the talk about single payer? Who, besides the conservatives right now, are talking about single payer?

Hello n9xr - I see this is your first post.

Let me be the first to welcome you to Physics Forums.

Would you care to tell us all a little about your background and experience?

 

[Jasongreat]

Let's just assume that everyone were guaranteed a basic "comfortable" living. 3 hots, a cot and basic medicine.

Everyone is guaranteed the right to acquire these things, they are just required to put in some work towards that end.

You think there is a significant amount of people who would just live the rest of their life like this and never desire to produce anything?

I do think that there is a number of people that would, why wouldn't they, they are getting all that they need, but of course their wants may get them moving. Oh, wait why isn't that motivating them now to produce anything?

Even people who are independently wealthy seem to have a desire to work.[/

QUOTE]

Thats what I believe separates the rich from the poor, desire,drive and education. I think you will also find that most rich people enjoy what they are doing and the money comes second, kind of like a bonus. I don't think there are many rich people that started with just the desire to make money. When we look at what I think separates the poor from the rich, the poor say they have the desire, but we can see from the evidence that they don't have the education or drive, if we could give them the drive to go with their desire and then give them better education they will leave poverty behind and it is for that reason I say we should quit taking away that drive by giving them free money(well free to them).

 

[n9xr]

Hello n9xr - I see this is your first post.

Let me be the first to welcome you to Physics Forums.

Would you care to tell us all a little about your background and experience?

I'm employed as a field engineer. Graduated from Pittsburg State U in 1980. Looks like a real thought provoking forum. Thank you for the kind welcome.

I am a technical representative for quartz crystal timing devices.

 

[WhoWee]

I'm employed as a field engineer. Graduated from Pittsburg State U in 1980. Looks like a real thought provoking forum. Thank you for the kind welcome.

I am a technical representative for quartz crystal timing devices.

The PF can be very thought provoking and lively.

As for the single payer post, BoomBoom is concerned the cost of health care is passed on to consumers.

Accordingly, I'd like his opinion on mandated health insurance coverage. The specifics of single payer/universal/employer based group/individual/co-op exchange really wasn't important.

The expansion of insurance coverage for up to 46 million people will have a cost. I want to know who he thinks will pay for it - given his comments.

 

[drankin]

You think there is a significant amount of people who would just live the rest of their life like this and never desire to produce anything?

Yes, I've worked with many of them! I have worked at many low paying jobs where my working peers worked harder at NOT working than if they just did what they were payed to do. Why? They make just enough to get them by at a job they hate. And many of them have made it their career to do as little as possible and still maintain their position. If we were to guarantee a living minimum wage, we would foster this lifestyle to the detriment of our productivity as a nation.

It's un-American to pay people to NOT progress. Un-American in a historical sense that we've never paid people to not perform competively in the market as a policy.

 

[n9xr]

If we look at those who are uninsured right now, a large percentage of that group are young and single not really running up a large medical bill. These persons will be a large portion of those picking up the tab. As it is, these folks can get sick and go bankrupt for not having coverage. But as it is, I pay for the healthcare costs for me, my family, those who are uninsured, politicians, military personnel, and old folks.

Time for someone else to pick up the tab for a change.

 

[bleedblue1234]

The only good solution to healthcare IMO is to go all out single payer or to completely take government out of the picture...

 

[n9xr]

The only good solution to healthcare IMO is to go all out single payer or to completely take government out of the picture...

I wish. A no nonsense - no excuses solution.

But unfortunately, not an option. Too many people don't like optimal solutions.

 

[WhoWee]

You don't truly believe that a business that provides healthcare to its employees does so out of the kindness in their hearts do you? The costs are passed on to the consumer (many of which have no healthcare themselves because they can't afford it).

Many businesses provide health care benefits to retain good employees.

Some small businesses take advantage of group rates by including full time employees. Some employers join the NASE or other associations to gain discount benefits. Other small employers establish Section 125's to reduce tax liabilities and workers comp claims and offer accident or cancer policies (Aflac) to employees.

Most often business owners make (business) decisions based on profit and loss, not emotions.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

That has not been my experience at all, in fact, I believe that in many cases, the lower the income, the harder the work. I think the exact opposite may be true in many cases, that the more cushy the job, the lazier the worker...unless, of course, you think that a business meeting at a fancy restaurant, golf course, or strip club is really hard work?

There are some industries where workers do hard work for little pay but any more that would probably mostly be crop harvesters. Most hard working jobs that I know of are unionized skilled labour that tend to make some decent money for only having a high school education.
Most of the low income work where I live would be things like working at a video store or a department store.
At my current job most of our employees get fired for sleeping on the job (from the time they got there to the time they left in some cases) or not even being there when they say they are. Among other reasons for letting people go have been getting drunk on the job, getting stoned on the job, getting drunk or stoned with residents while on the job, picking up on underage girls in front of their parents, cussing people out, getting in fist fights, doing donuts in the parking lot, and one guy even got fired after being arrested for breaking into and stealing money from vending machines on site while working (though perhaps you could call that industrious). And that's just people at this one job and who were actually fired. We have a rather prodigious turn over rate.
I have known people who had nice jobs of the sort where they go to expensive restaurants and such. All of them were constantly stressed about their jobs and a few of them quit and took less stressful ones making far less money. While I have heard them complain about people that were just unable to do their jobs properly or get anything done on time I have heard very few stories of co-workers who did nothing but sleep in their office. And yeah, compared to some of the co-workers I have had, I'm sure these people at high end jobs were putting more effort in while at strip clubs and playing golf.

As for lower-income jobs, I've had mixed experiences. I put myself through college working in a warehouse; everyone there worked very hard (and for fairly long hours -- I only put in 44-48 per week, but most did 50+). They had no "lazy and unmotivated" workers (as TheStatutoryApe put it) except possibly some temps, but those would quit fairly quickly.

At the warehouses I have worked at the only non-management employees that I saw working hard were the forklift drivers. Everyone else were temps and they tended to either socialize, flirt, or wander off to find things to steal (which is the reason I was there [working security]). Management had to bring in probably twice as many as strictly necessary just to make sure that enough work got done.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Let's just assume that everyone were guaranteed a basic "comfortable" living. 3 hots, a cot and basic medicine.

You think there is a significant amount of people who would just live the rest of their life like this and never desire to produce anything?

Even people who are independently wealthy seem to have a desire to work.

I recently had a roommate (a relatively intelligent guy even) who after losing his job seemed quit happy to mooch off of me for most of a year before I moved out. He didn't even have basic medicine or three square meals a day.

 

[Alfi]

It's un-American to pay people to NOT progress. Un-American in a historical sense that we've never paid people to not perform competively in the market as a policy.

Does this statement of fact include all the farmers who have been paid to not plant crops?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/01/AR2006070100962.html

 

[BoomBoom]

If you saved $1,000 in cash working at a part time job.

Would you

1.) put it in the bank to draw interest at 4%
2.) invest it in the stock market with a potential 15% return
3.) lend it to a friend (who may or may not re-pay it)
4.) lend it to a stranger who promises to repay with 20% interest
5.) invest it in something you can re-sell to triple your investment
6.) invest it in a small family business that promises to pay you $200 per year for the rest of your life (and you own stock in the business)
7.) donate 35% to a homeless person and spend the rest on recreation
8.) invest in a variable annuity

and why?

Unfortunatley, my history seems to lean towards option #3.

Accordingly, I'd like his opinion on mandated health insurance coverage.

As it stands now, I am a fan of the public option.

Many businesses provide health care benefits to retain good employees.

...at a very high cost that comes from lower employee wages and higher product prices.

 

[drankin]

Does this statement of fact include all the farmers who have been paid to not plant crops?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/01/AR2006070100962.html

Ah, no I wasn't including farmers. But, this is the kind of thing we will be doing if we make all jobs pay a living wage. A job should pay what it's worth. If the wages are too low, then people won't take the job and the employer will have to increase the wage or remove the position from the business.

 

[ray b]

They say ignorance is bliss ray b - but there are limits.

Have you ever heard of the SEC - they don't allow ("large amounts of stock are seldom bought they are mostly created out of thin air by guys like buffet or bill gates steve jobs ect") the activity you describe.

Are you familiar with personal property taxes?
http://dor.wa.gov/docs/Pubs/Prop_Tax/PersProp.pdf

How about luxury taxes?
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/06/17/business/senate-unit-kills-luxury-tax-on-items.html

I'll also assume the concept of estate taxes have not been a priority on your research list.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estate_tax_in_the_United_States

As for Bill Gates GIVING himself stock - are you talking about his original founder's shares that were issued when he invested in the company or stock options or perhaps stock in lieu of cash? Please describe the stock he "gave" himself.

If you'd like to learn about stock options
http://www.salary.com/advice/layouthtmls/advl_display_nocat_Ser56_Par125.html

In the mean time - please support your post or retract the nonsense.

as far as I can tell all stock is created out of thin air at it's begining
people like bill gates start a CORP
build it to a point and go public by selling stock
BUT retain far more stock themself then the amounts sold
that stock is not subject to any tax ever unless sold

the SEC is a bad joke as far as regulations
AND THEY SURE DO ALLOW STOCK TO BE CREATED and SOLD
a CORP needs to meet certain conditions to sell stock but the stock is created
yes they do have some rules on some trades but NONE ON OTHERS

lets not mix up STATE and FED taxes you can move to a better taxed state
even if you move out of the USA FEds tax laws still apply if you remain a citizen personal property is a state tax in some states NOT A FED TAX

luxury taxes is a very limited list of things taxed and mostly dead now
bringing it back is not a bad idea

estate taxes is something I am very well aware of having been involved with two large estates both people had receved huge estates [that they didnot earn and lived off the earnings without working] three other estates I was part of paid NO TAX as the limits are set quite high 3.5 million currently
BTW estate tax is eazy to dodge with a little planning [generation skipping trusts] and other gimics
or like our example bill gates and his untaxed EVER BILLIONS by creation of charity foundations
so for many estate taxes are NOT A DOUBLE TAX and maybe the ONLY tax on WEALTH

there is no nonsense in my post but a lot in yours
and a whole load of neo-conned spin and BIG LIES too

 

[CRGreathouse]

At the warehouses I have worked at the only non-management employees that I saw working hard were the forklift drivers. Everyone else were temps and they tended to either socialize, flirt, or wander off to find things to steal (which is the reason I was there [working security]). Management had to bring in probably twice as many as strictly necessary just to make sure that enough work got done.

Our experiences differ rather dramatically, then. Work was constant throughout the 11 to 14 hours per night, aside from the 30-minute lunch and lulls of up to 20 seconds (maybe one per hour).

I can't comment properly on your 'twice as many' because of the difference between the workplace cultures. 'My' company would have preferred to bring on additional workers to reduce the amount payed out in overtime.

I'm curious. How much (in, say, 2009 dollars) did people make at that job? I wonder if this is an example of 'wages of efficiency' as pioneered by Ford.

 

[CRGreathouse]

as far as I can tell all stock is created out of thin air at it's begining
people like bill gates start a CORP
build it to a point and go public by selling stock
BUT retain far more stock themself then the amounts sold
that stock is not subject to any tax ever unless sold

You seem to have a very limited grasp of what you're talking about. Essentially every claim here is false ("created out of thin air", "retain far more stock", "not subject to any tax"), but more importantly you betray a fundamental misunderstanding of the process.

estate taxes is something I am very well aware of having been involved with two large estates both people had receved huge estates [that they didnot earn and lived off the earnings without working] three other estates I was part of paid NO TAX as the limits are set quite high 3.5 million currently
BTW estate tax is eazy to dodge with a little planning [generation skipping trusts] and other gimics
or like our example bill gates and his untaxed EVER BILLIONS by creation of charity foundations
so for many estate taxes are NOT A DOUBLE TAX and maybe the ONLY tax on WEALTH

I favor high estate taxes, personally, but to say that estate taxes are not double taxation is simply false. True, stepped-up bases avoid capital gains taxes -- but that means that the gains are only single-taxed. All wealth subject to estate taxes were earned at some point and thus subject, at some point, to taxation.

Also, most states have special generation-skipping inheritance taxes; the feds may have one too, I'm not sure.

Another interesting point is inflation. If $1 million was earned in 1929 (a low point for the income tax -- it was higher before and after), the earner payed about $240,000 in taxes. If the remaining $760,000 was kept in a bank account earning 4% interest, it would be worth about $9,450,000 in 2009 after taxes.* This is just keeping up with inflation, which by the CPI would be $9,590,000.** But over this time, $2,250,000 would be payed out in taxes, or $4,480,000 in 2009 dollars. That's an effective tax rate of 31.8%. If the $9,450,000 was then inherited, the top $5,950,000 would be subject to a 45% tax. The total effective tax rate on the supposedly tax-free inheritance works out to 51.3%. This does not include the original $3,030,000 (2009 dollars) in income tax!

Let's do it differently. Suppose the $760,000 was invested in an amazing company that grew 20% (pretax) and -5% in alternate years. Value in 2009 is $13,000,000; taxes paid (corporate tax rate of 35% on profits only) are $32,140,000 in 2009 dollars. Even if inheritance and capital gains taxes can be avoided, that's a 71.3% tax rate. (Feel free to replace with your own example.)


* For simplicity, I assumed a constant 20% tax rate throughout. A better analysis would take into account varying rates over the period.
** Estimated using 3.22% per year. Again, if you'd like to do a better analysis, feel free.

 

[mheslep]

I favor high estate taxes, personally,

Why? It's not clear (to me) from the rest of the discussion.