Wealth distribution or ("trickle down economics")

[VBRonPaulFan]

america's wealthy own most of the wealth because of the federal reserve being created and introducing the 'inflation tax', which causes 'trickle up economics'. this is where the wealth is slowly and steadily forcibly taken from the lower/middle class and centralized to the wealthiest - who gain access to the government printed money the earliest which they use to make moves in the market. the rampant collusion of business with government and the socialization of business losses on the taxpayers sure as shit hasn't helped, either.

in a truly free market with sound money and government not interfering in markets, you'd see a much broader spread of wealth. this is what created the large middle class in america - the decline wasn't because of capitalism or lack of regulation.

the people advocating additional taxes on the wealth are completely ignorant of the fact that the wealthy will gladly pay the tax, and get it right back just like they've always done. it would be a very short term, short sighted attempt at fixing a problem which doesn't exist, while ignoring the fundamental corruption of our system. end the fed and restore sound money, and the wealthy who steal the wealth with their politician buddies will no longer have a vehicle with which to do it.

[TonySutton]

According to the IRS here are the average taxes paid (2010)

<10k .4%
10-20k .9%
20-30k 2.5%
30-50k 4.8%
50-100k 7.7%
100-200k 12%
200-500k 19.6%
500k-1m 24.1%
1-1.5m 24.9%
1.5-2m 25.1%
2-5m 24.9%
5-10m 24.2%
>10m 20.1%

So where does your friend propose to raise the tax rates? On the over 10m? That is only 11,000 returns. I am not sure it will make a big difference. Does your friend think anyone paying more than 25% is fair? I certainly DO NOT!

http://www.irs.gov/PUP/taxstats/prod...lbulincome.pdf (see page 10-11)

[Acala]

Envy, traditionally considered a vice, is a poor philosophical basis for economic policy. A better approach is to study which economic policy results in the greatest improvement in the wealth of the public overall. If the "poor" get richer in a true market economy (as all the evidence demonstrates) what difference does it make if the "rich" get richer faster? As long as the general prosperity is increasing, only envy cares if the increase is uniform.

[VIDEODROME]

I have a really crazy idea: Labor Unions

I think the government raising taxes is more likely to grow government and maybe incidentally create jobs at best. Instead if a company rises to be super rich on top of a poor workforce, then there will come a natural breaking point where the workforce rebels. They can organize and demand better conditions and compensation. I think it's probably the best check against greedy businesses that make their employees work for long hours or low pay.

I know Unions aren't popular with some people, but I'd rather go that route then use a flawed government redistribution.

[CaptUSA]

According to the IRS here are the average taxes paid (2010)

<10k .4%
10-20k .9%
20-30k 2.5%
30-50k 4.8%
50-100k 7.7%
100-200k 12%
200-500k 19.6%
500k-1m 24.1%
1-1.5m 24.9%
1.5-2m 25.1%
2-5m 24.9%
5-10m 24.2%
>10m 20.1%

So where does your friend propose to raise the tax rates? On the over 10m? That is only 11,000 returns. I am not sure it will make a big difference. Does your friend think anyone paying more than 25% is fair? I certainly DO NOT!

http://www.irs.gov/PUP/taxstats/prod...lbulincome.pdf (see page 10-11)

Factor in the inflation tax and this number flips dramatically. Still, I agree that trying to make things "fair" by playing games with the taxation end of things is nonsense. Free up the market and allow effort and ingenuity figure out the distribution.

[lx43]

Why is america's wealthy owning most of the wealth? Moreover, why are people so pissed off?

How do i counter the argument that the rich should pay m ore taxes because the top 10 percent own 80 percent of the wealth. This distribution argument is killing me.

North Korea has the perfect model for wealth redistribution you ever want to examine. 100% of the wealth of individuals have been so redistributed away that everyone is equal--equally starving and destitute that is except for those elite in the communist party. On the other hand, look at the US where we have somewhat of a free market (a tiny free market ) with a large percent of the population owning most the nations assets. In this case even our poor are well off. The poor have a much higher standard of living than in North Korea where you find millions have died from starvation. Even communist China realized 30 years ago that to have any chance of their nation being successful they have to adopt a form of private ownership and that having wealthy is necessary.

The reason you are seeing more wealth disparity in this nation is precisely because of wealth redistribution programs that steal people's wealth during their accumulation years.