Income and wealth inequality

To me, this is a severe problem, getting much worse, very rapidly. I live and work in NYC, and it's more evident here than in the suburbs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/30/opinion/inequality-and-the-city.html

Tom_Reingold said:

To me, this is a severe problem, getting much worse, very rapidly. I live and work in NYC, and it's more evident here than in the suburbs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/30/opinion/inequality-and-the-city.html

You'll get Pie in the sky when you die,   bye and bye

He offers as a solution an end to land use restrictions. 

I think confiscation of wealth and restrictions on how much people are allowed to work would be much more effective. 

With a better work life balance, the people who have moved to the urban centers to cut their commutes and re capture some free time would be limited in their work efforts by law. They would flee the urban centers for the suburbs, since they'd have more free time even after their commute, which would bring down rents while ending the repressive policing demands the wealthy inflict on the rest of us. 

Crime may tick up, but if the rich can't deal with that, so much the better- as they become less rich and less tolerant of the behavior of others, more of their ilk will follow. We'll be able to claim the cities back for the people.

Meanwhile, in 2013....

Having to live in someone else’s shadow is one of the risks of being a New Yorker. Yet for untold thousands, this vexing state of affairs is literally true. In a city forever sprouting new buildings, the quest to reach higher often comes at the cost of stealing somebody else’s light.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/12/20/nyregion/in-the-shadow-of-rising-towers-laments-of-lost-sunlight-in-new-york.html?referer=

Advocating loosening of land use restrictions is one of the few sensible things Krugman has ever said.

RobB said:

Meanwhile, in 2013....

Having to live in someone else’s shadow is one of the risks of being a New Yorker. Yet for untold thousands, this vexing state of affairs is literally true. In a city forever sprouting new buildings, the quest to reach higher often comes at the cost of stealing somebody else’s light.


http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/12/20/nyregion/in-the-shadow-of-rising-towers-laments-of-lost-sunlight-in-new-york.html?referer=

Welcome to Battersea.  

Jackson_Fusion said:

He offers as a solution an end to land use restrictions. 

I think confiscation of wealth and restrictions on how much people are allowed to work would be much more effective. 

With
a better work life balance, the people who have moved to the urban
centers to cut their commutes and re capture some free time would be
limited in their work efforts by law. They would flee the urban centers
for the suburbs, since they'd have more free time even after their
commute, which would bring down rents while ending the repressive
policing demands the wealthy inflict on the rest of us. 

Crime
may tick up, but if the rich can't deal with that, so much the better-
as they become less rich and less tolerant of the behavior of others,
more of their ilk will follow. We'll be able to claim the cities back
for the people.

a 90% marginal rate for everything over a coupla million dollars would do it.

Not sure where we have a right to earn as much money as will fit in the swimming pool. 

Wait, we clearly don't have that right. Because taxes.

So there you go. problem solved.

Jackson Fusion was kidding. I'm not.

I never liked the sound of a 90% marginal tax rate until recently. Now I think it makes all the sense in the world. There isn't a lot of evidence that high taxes work as a disincentive to earn more. I'm familiar with the theory, but it just doesn't play out.

drummerboy said:

Jackson_Fusion said:

He offers as a solution an end to land use restrictions. 

I think confiscation of wealth and restrictions on how much people are allowed to work would be much more effective. 

With
a better work life balance, the people who have moved to the urban
centers to cut their commutes and re capture some free time would be
limited in their work efforts by law. They would flee the urban centers
for the suburbs, since they'd have more free time even after their
commute, which would bring down rents while ending the repressive
policing demands the wealthy inflict on the rest of us. 

Crime
may tick up, but if the rich can't deal with that, so much the better-
as they become less rich and less tolerant of the behavior of others,
more of their ilk will follow. We'll be able to claim the cities back
for the people.

a 90% marginal rate for everything over a coupla million dollars would do it.

Not sure where we have a right to earn as much money as will fit in the swimming pool. 

Wait, we clearly don't have that right. Because taxes.

So there you go. problem solved.

We shouldn't stop there- as you point out- forget income- what about assets? Some people just have too much and they shouldn't be allowed to. It isn't a matter of what makes the most sense financially, from the simple position of achieving the most beneficial balance of economic growth and tax collection. 

It should be predicated on what people actually need and what is fair. So what would that be?

DB I'm not kidding! If it's a good idea why go halfway? 

What level of income and wealth were you proposing for the cut off on what people should be allowed to have? 

Without an answer to that question there's no way to evaluate the proposal. So what were you thinking people should be allowed to have and earn before we take it from them?

Higher taxes may actually work as an incentive to earn more.  Or leave.  Though a 90% marginal tax rate is just silly talk.  

instead of a 90% marginal income tax rate, how about a 100% estate tax rate above, say $500,000, and a 0% income tax rate.

let the children of the affluent pull themselves up by their bootstraps just like the rest of us.

The argument that we might as well go all the way is just stupid. The argument that we can't find or agree on the right level of taxation is, too, because the implication is that we shouldn't bother trying.

It seems to me -- and I'm just one person -- that once you make over about $500,000 a year, you have everything you need plus everything most people would want. You can have two or three homes, go on fancy vacations, send your kids to any college. Beyond that level of income, it is all super luxurious. What principle is violated if the marginal tax rate is 90% at drummerboy's proposed income level of $2M? What kind of life does a $2M/year household have?

Very very little "income" is earned above $2M. Capital gains? Sure - but that's entirely different.

Your problem is that the entire argument falls squarely in the lap of subjectivity.  And given you can't agree on the right level, what do you do?  Wing it?  Toss a dart?  Put it out there at 90%, then if that causes deep issues say "whoops, sorry!" and adjust downward?  That's not a viable approach by any stretch of the imagination.

The folks I know making over $2m a year (before taxes, of course, as I presume we're talking gross income, that includes equity comp and not any capital gains considerations) have two homes, both costly, take very nice vacations (two a year on average), pay outright for private college, drive nice cars, and donate to numerous charities.  They are by no means living in what some others would call luxury, unless one is defining that (subjectively, of course) as something nicer than what they have or are able to do.

ctrzaska said:

Your problem is that the entire argument falls squarely in the lap of subjectivity.  And given you can't agree on the right level, what do you do?  Wing it?  Toss a dart?  Put it out there at 90%, then if that causes deep issues say "whoops, sorry!" and adjust downward?  That's not a viable approach by any stretch of the imagination.

The folks I know making over $2m a year (before taxes, of course, as I presume we're talking gross income, that includes equity comp and not any capital gains considerations) have two homes, both costly, take very nice vacations (two a year on average), pay outright for private college, drive nice cars, and donate to numerous charities.  They are by no means living in what some others would call luxury, unless one is defining that (subjectively, of course) as something nicer than what they have or are able to do.

We've defined luxury up.  Now it means you need to have a 100,000 sq. ft. house, your own Gulfstream and a 300 ft. yacht.

but it used to be that living in a 3000 sq. ft. Manhattan apartment, driving a top of the line Mercedes, having a beach house, a boat, a maid, a nanny, and vacationing in St. Bart's was considered luxury living.

ctrzaska said:

Your problem is that the entire argument falls squarely in the lap of subjectivity.  And given you can't agree on the right level, what do you do?  Wing it?  Toss a dart?  Put it out there at 90%, then if that causes deep issues say "whoops, sorry!" and adjust downward?  That's not a viable approach by any stretch of the imagination.

The folks I know making over $2m a year (before taxes, of course, as I presume we're talking gross income, that includes equity comp and not any capital gains considerations) have two homes, both costly, take very nice vacations (two a year on average), pay outright for private college, drive nice cars, and donate to numerous charities.  They are by no means living in what some others would call luxury, unless one is defining that (subjectively, of course) as something nicer than what they have or are able to do.

No. Like ALL policy issues you study the issue, get in resident experts, decide on your goal and figure out what might achieve that goal.

Though I'm pretty sure you kinda knew that. 

And you have the temerity and gall to tell us about people making 2mil are just kinda sorta getting by?

jeezus what an AH.

RobB said:

Very very little "income" is earned above $2M. Capital gains? Sure - but that's entirely different.

well, salaries are structured to avoid taxation. If you changed the law so that it was tighter, you'd capture more income as subject to taxes.

I think the opposite would happen. Increasing complexity just makes it harder for those lower down the scale to keep up. Pfizer is "purchased" by a much smaller company "headquartered" in Ireland while SO Pharmacy pays US rates. 

drummerboy said:

And you have the temerity and gall to tell us about people making 2mil are just kinda sorta getting by?

If only I had a Mercedes.   

ctrzaska said:

The folks I know making over $2m a year (before taxes, of course, as I presume we're talking gross income, that includes equity comp and not any capital gains considerations) have two homes, both costly, take very nice vacations (two a year on average), pay outright for private college, drive nice cars, and donate to numerous charities.  They are by no means living in what some others would call luxury, unless one is defining that (subjectively, of course) as something nicer than what they have or are able to do.

The vast majority of Americans would find this pretty luxurious.

Envy is the deadly sin that gets the left every time and delivers them into the hands of the devil, in the form of the statists intent on raping and pillaging society.

drummerboy said:

ctrzaska said:

Your problem is that the entire argument falls squarely in the lap of subjectivity.  And given you can't agree on the right level, what do you do?  Wing it?  Toss a dart?  Put it out there at 90%, then if that causes deep issues say "whoops, sorry!" and adjust downward?  That's not a viable approach by any stretch of the imagination.

The folks I know making over $2m a year (before taxes, of course, as I presume we're talking gross income, that includes equity comp and not any capital gains considerations) have two homes, both costly, take very nice vacations (two a year on average), pay outright for private college, drive nice cars, and donate to numerous charities.  They are by no means living in what some others would call luxury, unless one is defining that (subjectively, of course) as something nicer than what they have or are able to do.

No. Like ALL policy issues you study the issue, get in resident experts, decide on your goal and figure out what might achieve that goal.


Though I'm pretty sure you kinda knew that. 

And you have the temerity and gall to tell us about people making 2mil are just kinda sorta getting by?




jeezus what an AH.

That just happened. 

bramzzoinks said:

Envy is the deadly sin that gets the left every time and delivers them into the hands of the devil, in the form of the statists intent on raping and pillaging society.

Oh, I don't feel like raping and pillaging today.  Sorry!

I have a comfortable life, thanks.

@ctrzaska, what method do you propose to set taxation levels? OK, rather than winging it, we can observe what happens at various different levels. In the 50's and 60's, nearly everyone in the economy was seeing pay raises and was overall satisfied. That's when income taxation was at its highest. Now the top strata are taxed less than ever, and their effective tax is lower than it is for the rest of us. (I'm referring to Warren Buffett's comparison of his taxes with his secretary's.) Look at Kansas and Wisconsin for extreme examples of what happens when taxes are brought too low.

Maybe there is such a thing as a Laffer curve, but no one has calibrated it, and the implication is that we are up the upslope and need to lower taxes further so we can get more tax revenue. There's no evidence of it, after more than 30 years of Reaganomics. If there is a Laffer curve, clearly, we're on the downslope.

Your definition of luxury is very odd. I trust you know that median household income in NJ is about $71K about in the US about $50K. People at that level and below can consider levels above that level to be luxurious. Let's say we line everyone up by income level. Look to your left, and there are people who make less than you. Look to your right, and there are people who make more than you. But if in both directions, all you can see are people making more than double the median income, you don't know what life is like for most people and shouldn't be talking about having two homes not being a luxury. It's an insult that comes from hasty, careless thought.

drummerboy said:

ctrzaska said:

Your problem is that the entire argument falls squarely in the lap of subjectivity.  And given you can't agree on the right level, what do you do?  Wing it?  Toss a dart?  Put it out there at 90%, then if that causes deep issues say "whoops, sorry!" and adjust downward?  That's not a viable approach by any stretch of the imagination.

The folks I know making over $2m a year (before taxes, of course, as I presume we're talking gross income, that includes equity comp and not any capital gains considerations) have two homes, both costly, take very nice vacations (two a year on average), pay outright for private college, drive nice cars, and donate to numerous charities.  They are by no means living in what some others would call luxury, unless one is defining that (subjectively, of course) as something nicer than what they have or are able to do.

No. Like ALL policy issues you study the issue, get in resident experts, decide on your goal and figure out what might achieve that goal.


Though I'm pretty sure you kinda knew that. 

And you have the temerity and gall to tell us about people making 2mil are just kinda sorta getting by?


jeezus what an AH.

May want to read my last sentence again there, Robin Hood, and refrain from putting words neither stated nor implied in my mouth.  And as carefully as I chose my words, this time since nuance clearly isn't your strong suit.

mjh said:
The vast majority of Americans would find this pretty luxurious.

I'm sure they would.  To some extent, so do I.

I've vacationed in St. Barth's and, frankly, it really isn't that nice.  Just overpriced.  St. martin is much better in my view.  

Tom_Reingold said:

@ctrzaska, what method do you propose to set taxation levels? OK, rather than winging it, we can observe what happens at various different levels. In the 50's and 60's, nearly everyone in the economy was seeing pay raises and was overall satisfied. That's when income taxation was at its highest. Now the top strata are taxed less than ever, and their effective tax is lower than it is for the rest of us. (I'm referring to Warren Buffett's comparison of his taxes with his secretary's.) Look at Kansas and Wisconsin for extreme examples of what happens when taxes are brought too low.

Maybe there is such a thing as a Laffer curve, but no one has calibrated it, and the implication is that we are up the upslope and need to lower taxes further so we can get more tax revenue. There's no evidence of it, after more than 30 years of Reaganomics. If there is a Laffer curve, clearly, we're on the downslope.

Your definition of luxury is very odd. I trust you know that median household income in NJ is about $71K about in the US about $50K. People at that level and below can consider levels above that level to be luxurious. Let's say we line everyone up by income level. Look to your left, and there are people who make less than you. Look to your right, and there are people who make more than you. But if in both directions, all you can see are people making more than double the median income, you don't know what life is like for most people and shouldn't be talking about having two homes not being a luxury. It's an insult that comes from hasty, careless thought.

What's insulting is hasty, careless reading.  See my admonition to classyboy re: his jaded and cursory review of my post.  I most assuredly did not provide any definition of luxury: that's the whole damn point.  You can't, and thus the debate over the term is nothing more than a smokescreen for justifying wealth redistribution.  Too much luxe and you're clearly doing too well, so hand it over.

But on a side note for *****s and giggles, do you know what your cited NJ median household income gets you in NYC?  A public housing application.  In Kansas it probably gets you a 4-bed on an acre or three.  How narrow do you want to define the strata for redistribution?  The state?  City?  Neighborhood?  Block?

DaveSchmidt said:

drummerboy said:

And you have the temerity and gall to tell us about people making 2mil are just kinda sorta getting by?

If only I had a Mercedes.  "> 

One must make amends.