[mike777]

cherdano, on Aug 22 2008, 03:52 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Aug 22 2008, 02:51 PM, said:

What's an appropriate percentage of nation's total income tax revenue for the top 1% to pay?

Better question: what is an appropriate percentage of the total income to be earned by the top 1%?

And we are back to that age old question,
What is more important economic policy that governs the distribution of wealth or growing wealth for everyone or their children to the max.

I do not think anyone is for growing the pie only for the top 1% and not the rest.
If that is a concern I suppose we can always make the gift and death tax 100% and cutout any exemptions for all these family foundations.

At least the new 1% will be different than the old 1% families.

For me I just think it is most important that the top 1% are not the same as the last 1% and the pie is growing for everyone.

If New "top one percent" make more than last years OLD "top one percent" that is ok. Heck alot of last years top one percent may be dead or broke for all we know.

[PassedOut]

Cindy McCain responded to a reporter's question today about how many half-sisters she had by saying that she was "unsure" about the exact number but would have "a staff member look into it."

Cindy McCain's Distanced Relatives

Quote

Money, of course, has exacerbated the family tensions. The multimillionaire Hensley only occasionally saw his older daughter -- and was emotionally distant when he did, according to her son -- but gave Portalski and her children money and college tuition. But when he died eight years ago, Hensley bequeathed Cindy the majority share of his company. (Andrew McCain, John's son from his first marriage, is now the chief financial officer.) Portalski got no share of the business, and support to her family was abruptly cut off.

[Lobowolf]

cherdano, on Aug 22 2008, 03:52 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Aug 22 2008, 02:51 PM, said:

What's an appropriate percentage of nation's total income tax revenue for the top 1% to pay?

Better question: what is an appropriate percentage of the total income to be earned by the top 1%?

Another question, actually, is raised by the phrase "This is at a point when income inequality is rising." Isn't it ALWAYS rising, other then immediately following times at which more money is taken from the wealthiest by the government?

I don't think there is "an appropriate percentage of the total income to be earned by the top 1%." Cutting people off for having too much is a good idea for drunks at a bar, but not for income earners.

From a moral standpoint, I don't think "because they've got a lot of it" is a good enough justification, certainly beyond a certain point;

from a practical standpoint, a great many of the things people with a lot of money do to make more of it tend to create opportunities for people with less money (e.g. people who work for or invest in Microsoft or any of the various companies owned by Berkshire Hathaway, or who live in areas with economies based on the growth of those companies), and I think that disincentivizing people to do those "great many things" and create those opportunities at the very least has a whole slew of unintended consequences.

[Lobowolf]

PassedOut, on Aug 22 2008, 04:10 PM, said:

Cindy McCain responded to a reporter's question today about how many half-sisters she had by saying that she was "unsure" about the exact number but would have "a staff member look into it."

Cindy McCain's Distanced Relatives

Quote

Money, of course, has exacerbated the family tensions. The multimillionaire Hensley only occasionally saw his older daughter -- and was emotionally distant when he did, according to her son -- but gave Portalski and her children money and college tuition. But when he died eight years ago, Hensley bequeathed Cindy the majority share of his company. (Andrew McCain, John's son from his first marriage, is now the chief financial officer.) Portalski got no share of the business, and support to her family was abruptly cut off.

Gee, you missed a presidential hopeful semi-sibling story there...


http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,2...5012748,00.html



I have a half-sister...I've met her 2 or 3 times, and I haven't seen her in 25 years. We were raised in different countries. I call myself an "only child." Good thing I'm not running for president anytime soon.

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Aug 22 2008, 11:30 PM, said:

I can understand the anger and frustration and the impression McCain stands for endless war.  In fact the USA has basically been in an endless war since 1776.

There are degrees of bad...

I certainly agree that the US has been embroiled in a series of conflicts since its genesis. However, I have the feeling that McCain will actively embroil the US in war after war...

The eights years have demonstrated that the modern Republican party can't be trusted to manage foreign relations. The foreign policy positions that Obama's camp have laided out profess to be based on international engagement and building alliances. This is a far cry from "Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb bomb Iran" and all the idiocy regarding Russia and Georgia, and of course, the needless invasion of Iraq.

[luke warm]

jdonn, on Aug 22 2008, 12:54 PM, said:

Does anyone ever give any answer other than "so what if we are terrible, you are bad too!"??

when the choices are this bad there's not much choice, but i do agree with your dislike of the pee wee herman argument

pclayton, on Aug 22 2008, 01:01 PM, said:

LOL Jimmy, I'm not endorsing either of these buffoons.

in this particular case i'd have to force myself to disagree with your assessment

Al_U_Card, on Aug 22 2008, 02:09 PM, said:

IMHO, and it is only my opinion, does he even have a chance?  A man of color? Really? In the US?

ok al, if he loses it will be because of something underhanded or because of his race... right?

cherdano, on Aug 22 2008, 02:24 PM, said:

Jimmy, I agree this $5,000,000 a year quote was overplayed - if it wasn't for the context. The real problem is this one - clearly the background of Warren's question is the difference in tax policies between McCain and Obama:

i think i'd prefer seeing mccain's -19.4% (if i added it correctly) be divided beginning at that $66,000 income and lower... iow, if he's gonna cut taxes a total of 19+%, do so for middle income on down, proportionately (if that's even possible)

[cherdano]

Lobowolf, on Aug 22 2008, 03:19 PM, said:

Another question, actually, is raised by the phrase "This is at a point when income inequality is rising."  Isn't it ALWAYS rising, other then immediately following times at which more money is taken from the wealthiest by the government?

No.

( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coeffici...es_in_the_world )
[With apologies to all economists, I haven't checked the sources for this, but I understand generally data about income distribution is pretty good.]

Edit: Apparently the inclusion of the figure didn't work, so you have click on the link and look for the figure "Income Disparity since World War II - the Gini Index".

[Mbodell]

Lobowolf, on Aug 22 2008, 01:19 PM, said:

cherdano, on Aug 22 2008, 03:52 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Aug 22 2008, 02:51 PM, said:

What's an appropriate percentage of nation's total income tax revenue for the top 1% to pay?

Better question: what is an appropriate percentage of the total income to be earned by the top 1%?

Another question, actually, is raised by the phrase "This is at a point when income inequality is rising." Isn't it ALWAYS rising, other then immediately following times at which more money is taken from the wealthiest by the government?

NO.

Gov't policy is one important factor that results in giving more money to the richest people or giving more money to the poorest. Or favoring capital over labor, but there are other factors.

Unionization historically was one force for increasing the share the bottom folks got. Technological and business transformation can historically sometimes increase the plight of the poorer folks more than the richer, or, the richer more than the poorer. Thus this can sometimes increase inequality or decrease inequality.

It isn't some inevitable path that each new dollar that is produced must go in proportion more to the richest folks than the past wealth. Maybe the richest 1% only get 25 cents on the $1 at the margin which would decrease inequality. Maybe the richest 1% get 60 cents on the $1 at the margin which would increase inequality.

Since 1967 the US has been steadily getting less and less equal. Generally first world countries are more equal and third world countries are less equal. The US is the one exception, although it will be interesting to see if everything can stays the same while continuing the same trajectory.

[Lobowolf]

Interesting stuff...I'd be curious to see that graph for the first half of the 20th century, too.

[Winstonm]

When AIPAC stops supplying all the presidential candidates perhaps then there will be real change. I wouldn't hold my breath....

[mike777]

"Consider life cycle effects. In most Western societies, an individual tends to start life with little or no income, gradually increase income till about age 50, after which incomes will decline, eventually becoming negative. This affects the conclusions which can be drawn from a measured inequality. It has been estimated (by A.S. Blinder in The Decomposition of Inequality, MIT press) that 30% of measured income inequality is due to the inequality an individual experiences as they go through the various stages of l"



"The question whether equality is beneficial for economic growth and progress has occupied the minds of the greatest scientific thinkers as well as policy makers. Evidence from a broad panel of recent academic studies shows the relation between income inequality and the rate of growth and investment is indeed robust however not linear.

Robert J. Barro, Harvard University found in his study "Inequality and Growth in a Panel of Countries" that higher inequality tends to retard growth in poor countries and encourage growth in well developed regions.[1] In their study for the World Institute for Development Economics Research, Giovanni Andrea Cornia and Julius Court (2001) reach analogous conclusions.[2] The authors therefore recommend to pursue moderation also as to the distribution of wealth and particularly to avoid the extremes. Both very high egalitarianism and very high inequality cause slow growth.

Income inequality diminishes growth potential through the erosion of social cohesion, increasing social unrest and social conflict causing uncertainty of property rights. Extreme inequality can effectively reduce access to productivity enhancement measures, or cause such measures to be allocated inefficiently toward those who already have, or can no longer absorb such measures.

On the other hand, The World Bank World Development Report 2000/2001[3] shows, that inequality and growth are not related. Inequality neither drives growth nor does it impair growth. Other Research (W.Kitterer[4]) also shows, that in perfect markets inequality does not influence growth. In real markets redistribution contributes to growth.

Considering the inequalities in economically well developed countries, public policy should target an ‘efficient inequality range’. The authors claim that such efficiency range roughly lies between the values of the Gini coefficients of 25 (the inequality value of a typical Northern European country) and 40 (that of countries such as China[5] and the USA[6]).

The precise shape of the inequality-growth relationship depicted in the Chart obviously varies across countries depending upon their resource endowment, history, remaining levels of absolute poverty and available stock of social programs, as well as on the distribution of physical and human capital."


http://en.wikipedia....me_distribution
http://en.wikipedia....ini_coefficient

[Winstonm]

Regardless of which candidate wins, neither will admit that American exceptionalism is at an end - and no voters want to hear the truth, anyway, so we have by default a beauty pageant presidential election - or maybe it's a new reality show: The Last Great American President.

Quote

"....Acknowledging the limits of American power is a precondition for stanching the losses of recent decades and for preserving the hard-won gains of earlier generations going back to the founding of the Republic. To persist in pretending that the United States is omnipotent is to exacerbate the problems that we face. The longer Americans ignore the implications of dependency and the longer policy makers nurture the pretense that this country can organize the world to its liking, the more precipitous will be its slide when the bills finally come due."

Andrew J. Badevich, The Limits of Power

[DrTodd13]

jdonn, on Aug 22 2008, 11:06 AM, said:

Lobowolf, on Aug 22 2008, 01:15 PM, said:

Absolutely.  I don't have a "We."  So my answer is more akin to "If you're calling They #1 terrible, are you calling They #2 terrible, too?"

If you must know, I really like Barack Obama. I really dislike, among many others, John McCain, George W Bush, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Mitt Romney, John Kerry, and pretty much everyone else

Josh....if you were stupid, you could go through life like most people believing every four years that the next candidate is really going to change things. But, you're smart so I suggest that you just accept complete disillusionment now and don't have your heart broken should Obama win. A year or two down the line you'd then be forced to accept that it is business as usual.

[DrTodd13]

cherdano, on Aug 22 2008, 12:52 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Aug 22 2008, 02:51 PM, said:

What's an appropriate percentage of nation's total income tax revenue for the top 1% to pay?

Better question: what is an appropriate percentage of the total income to be earned by the top 1%?

Income is a proxy for benefit to society. So, your question is basically, what is an appropriate amount for someone to benefit society. No one is forced to give these people money. They do so because they value what those people have to offer. Who are you to say that people should not highly value what certain people have to offer?

[jdonn]

DrTodd13, on Aug 22 2008, 06:49 PM, said:

jdonn, on Aug 22 2008, 11:06 AM, said:

Lobowolf, on Aug 22 2008, 01:15 PM, said:

Absolutely.  I don't have a "We."  So my answer is more akin to "If you're calling They #1 terrible, are you calling They #2 terrible, too?"

If you must know, I really like Barack Obama. I really dislike, among many others, John McCain, George W Bush, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Mitt Romney, John Kerry, and pretty much everyone else

Josh....if you were stupid, you could go through life like most people believing every four years that the next candidate is really going to change things. But, you're smart so I suggest that you just accept complete disillusionment now and don't have your heart broken should Obama win. A year or two down the line you'd then be forced to accept that it is business as usual.

Gee, that sounds like a fun way to go through life, accepting complete disillusionment to avoid later disappointment. All of a sudden, obliviousness doesn't sound so bad.

Note that I didn't say anything about what I would expect to change. I just said I like him.

[DrTodd13]

jdonn, on Aug 22 2008, 04:01 PM, said:

DrTodd13, on Aug 22 2008, 06:49 PM, said:

jdonn, on Aug 22 2008, 11:06 AM, said:

Lobowolf, on Aug 22 2008, 01:15 PM, said:

Absolutely.  I don't have a "We."  So my answer is more akin to "If you're calling They #1 terrible, are you calling They #2 terrible, too?"

If you must know, I really like Barack Obama. I really dislike, among many others, John McCain, George W Bush, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Mitt Romney, John Kerry, and pretty much everyone else

Josh....if you were stupid, you could go through life like most people believing every four years that the next candidate is really going to change things. But, you're smart so I suggest that you just accept complete disillusionment now and don't have your heart broken should Obama win. A year or two down the line you'd then be forced to accept that it is business as usual.

Gee, that sounds like a fun way to go through life, accepting complete disillusionment to avoid later disappointment. All of a sudden, obliviousness doesn't sound so bad.

Note that I didn't say anything about what I would expect to change. I just said I like him.

Not complete disillusionment about everything...just politics.

[jdonn]

DrTodd13, on Aug 22 2008, 07:06 PM, said:

Not complete disillusionment about everything...just politics.

Well I registered to vote (something I never planned to do in my life) just to vote for him, after which I will unregister if he loses, or hang around for the next election before unregistering if he wins. So don't go thinking that I'm too 'illusioned' about politics.

[cherdano]

jdonn, on Aug 22 2008, 06:08 PM, said:

DrTodd13, on Aug 22 2008, 07:06 PM, said:

Not complete disillusionment about everything...just politics.

Well I registered to vote (something I never planned to do in my life) just to vote for him, after which I will unregister if he loses, or hang around for the next election before unregistering if he wins. So don't go thinking that I'm too 'illusioned' about politics.

..and you even made a prescient move to a swing state in order to have some impact!

[PassedOut]

DrTodd13, on Aug 22 2008, 06:55 PM, said:

Income is a proxy for benefit to society.

A religious belief, accepted on faith...

[Mbodell]

mike777, on Aug 22 2008, 03:21 PM, said:

On the other hand, The World Bank World Development Report 2000/2001[3] shows, that inequality and growth are not related. Inequality neither drives growth nor does it impair growth. Other Research (W.Kitterer[4]) also shows, that in perfect markets inequality does not influence growth. In real markets redistribution contributes to growth.

In other words the question of would you rather have a bigger pie or a more fairly divided pie is a false dichotomy. The answer is you can have both a bigger pie and a more fairly divided pie.

Also, as pointed out, income inequality is only a proxy. Wealth inequality is even more pronounced then income inequality. Also social mobility is a reasonable consideration. Of course social mobility is also less in the US than in most other developed countries.