97% of Americans make less than $150K.

This is the starting point.
All policy must reflect this reality.
The upper bracket starts here($150,001).






Notice anything?



This is seminal politics.

That quest for moneyed prestige will still be available to them. Instead of $60B it'll be $1B. Effectively no difference.

I had a 50 something woman tell me the other day that someday she will be among the "rich."

To show how each percentage keeps shooting up astronimically higher than the one before.

Basically, I've discovered that it can be delineated at 3%. Could it be 4 or 5? Sure.

That's by design.

Suddenly their numbers are quadrupled.

Under my plan they're included.

Under their plan they're recruitable. And just that slice constitutes billions of dollars of influence.

Even though the average wealth of that percentile is $125K and the average wealth of the 3% is millions. It's an impressive scheme.

If we had 5 bars of 10k each I'd expect it continue to slowly decrease.

Under your 10K, 5 bar idea, the last bar would explode even more dramatically upward.

If you're talking about parsing the last 3% by 10K increments...it's mute.


:shrug:

There is nearly 10% spread over 5 increments of 10k, for an average of 2k per 10k increment. It would be even smaller for the 150-200k bar.

My comment was that the 10% at 100-150k was an illusion caused by combining everyone making from 100k to 150k into one bar when every other bar is 10k. I doubt there is major difference from 90k to 100k to 110k.

I was willing to give a sop to the new "wealthy," though.

Iow, instead of talking about 151K-5B as wealthy, we'll make it 100-150K.

:grr:

:blush:

Always feel free to correct me. :thumbsup:

For the first time this year, we are also presenting data on the top 0.1% of tax returns (the top 10 percent of the top 1 percent). This 10 percent of the returns in the top 1 percent amounts to only 141,000 tax returns but accounts for nearly 12 percent of the adjusted gross income earned and approximately 20 percent of the nation's federal individual income taxes.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

The point of this post is to focus on the "enemy."

The .01% controls 1200% of it's "volume" under your point.
The 3% controls 130% of it's "volume" under mine.

The unsaid point is that we'd be getting into fractions of fractions of percentages if we went to the bottom tier.

All policy is directed toward the bottom 97%. No matter the $ number. The income number will change...Math says the number will go up. Instead of the down that we have now.

The policies on the top 3% are still progressive.

Is it redistribution? You're goddamned right it is.

It's flipped from the way we do things now. Instead of currying favor to the 3% we flip the script. :think:

Trickle down is a proven failure. How 'bout trickle up? :think:


It's important to understand that as those cuckolded dollars are rightfully reclaimed the dollar figure of $155K will rise. 39% of American wealth is held in the hands of 3%. Spread that back into society. It's a mathematical certainty that the income of the bottom 97% will rise.


If you fall out of the 3%...guess what...you're being looked out for.

That's just a ploy to take your eye off the real culprits. The 3% just convinced 26% of the others to go along.

It's as obvious as it can be.

It only works as long as the benefits can't be seen. And they haven't been seen for half a century. It's a pretty impressive scheme.



:kick:

:think:

... meaning, w/o aspirations of climbing any ladders, jumping through hoops to advance social $tatus, etc

It's an economic war.

The guy making 29K a year working on the assembly line votes Republican because he believes with all his heart that if he clicks his heels together three times and wishes REAL HARD, ONE DAY he'll be a member of that 3%, and THEN those evil DUMMYCRATS will be takin' his hard-earned money away from him.

There's a 100% chance that his lot will improve.

He/she will understand quickly.

Power must be wrested from the 3%. More so the 2%. The 1%. And ultimately the 0.01%.

The beauty of this change is that 97% are being looked after. The worst that can happen to the 3% is that they'll fall into the top 1% of the 97%. Hardly a bitchable grievance.

and will accept no disagreement with it.

I'll just say, like I did last time, that if you apply a huge tax to those making over 150,000/year, then you essentially create a salary cap at 150,000 year...and you have no tax base, because no one is making over 150,000k/year.

You continue to confuse income with wealth. If I were some big-wig upper management type I'd easily circumvent your system by paying myself with stock options or something. I'd stay wealthy, and you'd lose your tax base.

Doesn't really matter. Nothing like this will ever happen because government understands why it's a terrible idea.

The money held by the 3% is virtually untaxable. So I don't know know what tax base you're talking about.

If that money is held by people who will actually spend it, state and federal coffers will explode.

Note: Stock options are charged as income. There is no circumvention. As I pointed out last time.

There's only 3% of the population who could reasonably think it's a "terrible" idea. Literally.

Are you a 3%er? If so, I completely understand.

Do you not recall that you've already posted a thread on this (last week I believe) and that you and I have already had this discussion?

Not really important, but we've covered all this already.

Fine, if it's not stock options, it'll be some other kind of non-monetary compensation. Corporate junkets. Extra vacation, "gifts" to family members, whatever. My sister does this stuff for a living. Corporations are exceptional at hiding their income and the income of what they pay their upper-management members.

N one of that is really important because again, if you put a crushing tax amount on people making over 150,000 a year, no one will make over 150,00 a year. This seems to be the point that is lost on you.

You no longer seem to be proposing a tax on income, but a tax on wealth. Is that correct? You're just going to nationalize the assets of people who have over 150k in assets? No thanks.

You are incorrect in your thinking that people who make over 150k/year don't pay taxes.

The construct is changed.

There are no junkets.
There are no "gifts."
There are no loopholes.

None of that is really important because again, if you put a crushing tax amount on people making over 150,000 a year, no one will make over 150,00 a year. This seems to be the point that is lost on you.

What's crushing? I never discussed the burden on the 3%. As a matter of fact, I haven't fully conceptualized it. How's this for an idea: The top 3% can control 6% of the wealth?

You no longer seem to be proposing a tax on income, but a tax on wealth. Is that correct? You're just going to nationalize the assets of people who have over 150k in assets? No thanks.

I'm proposing both(wealth/income). I'm more likely proposing a maximum wage/wealth. Let's call it tens of millions. Explain the reason for more aggregation of wealth. Instead of a few individuals determining investment- how about groups of individuals doing it? Same investment, more floating boats.

You are incorrect in your thinking that people who make over 150k/year don't pay taxes.

Never said that. However, they pay a lesser percentage of their wealth/income. It's massively tilted in their favor.

The 2 graphs in the OP show both.

There is no confusion.

Just a synthesis.

I'd like to know why.

I'm open to your criticisms if you're open to mine.



*Even though the worst that can happen to the 3% is they'll become protected by the 97%.

The most obvious flaw is that if you introduce a policy like this in one country, you're creating a massive incentive for the people who decide which country their company is going to operate and pay taxes and employ people in - a lot of whom are in that top 3% - to run companies in other countries rather than in yours.

I think that the US's taxation policy could be significantlymore progressive without massively harming its economy; the evidence I see for this is the relative prosperity of Western Europe with much more progressive taxation. But I suspect that going much further than Europe would prove highly counterproductive.

Incidentally, I suspect that more good could be achieved with less harm by raising inheritance tax than by raising income tax, but that's largely guesswork rather than informed opinion.

The idea is definitely one under progress, fully unformed and needing tweaking.

However, pointing out the plight of the 97% vis-a-vis the 3% is an exercise in focus. An important one.

We've tried this policy for 40 years. Let's try something else.

Often... the places where it is possible to make 150k + money are very expensive. $150k in Topeka is a tremendous amount of money. $150k in Los Angeles/New York is barely more than middle class.

Think more big picture. It could be the 51% Party and you'd still be under $300K.

93.96 is the sum of the 'up to but not over $150k'.

Maybe you meant the title to be less than $200k ?

:D

A long time ago, "Middle Class" living was marked by:

indoor plumbing
electricity
a phone
a car

It was not long before those things became so widespread, that new markers had to appear:

family vacations
a second car
a private home
college for the kids
braces for kids' teeth

The fly in the ointment, was that wages became stagnant, and costs only rose, so EZ-Credit came along to fill the gap , and of course with all those plastic cards in wallets, NEW/exciting things became markers of "middle class":

Mc Mansions
Beemers & Mercedes
cosmetic surgery for the masses
fancy electronic gadgets
Extreme teeth-whitening


In reality, "middle class" as we came to know it, it just a myth. It's a concept.

People who have leisure time to enjoy the fruits of their labor, probably consider themselves middle class, even though their wages no longer meet their new-found needs. I know people who consider themselves Middle Class, yet they drive broken down old cars, are broke and deeply in debt.

I guess it's human nature to always want bigger-better-faster-shinier.

Probably a cave-woman, long ago say something like this" Oog, is this the best you could do? a rabbit?..OOm's woman said he brought home a moose yesterday"..

Our fixation on what "other-people-have", and what we "deserve", has us always longing for what we don't have yet, and discrediting what we do have.

We take our cues from movies , books, tv,etc. We are shown what is supposed to be middle class, and then we set out to copy it for ourselves, never bothering to figure out that it's all FICTION. It's the work of set dressers & props-masters & cinematographers.