Ronald Reagan

[byco42]

If people are going to hate on wealthy presidents, let them start with George Washington.

 

[redandguilty]

If people are going to hate on wealthy presidents, let them start with George Washington.

I think it's of particular interest in times of extreme inequality between classes.

Have you seen the story on what happens if you ask people to divide the nation's wealth between each 5th of the population? Both left and right roughly agree on what would be the ideal distribution (and of course, neither are remotely close to the actual distribution.)

 

[TheVictors]

Divide & Conquer ...its as old as history.

 

[Diggler Cometh]

Has anyone noticed that Ronald Wilson Reagan has 6 letters in each of his names?

Also a fun fact, Ron and Nancy Reagan retired to a house at 666 St. Cloud Road. Nancy had the address changed to 668.

 

[byco42]

The numbers indicate that the distribution of wealth among at least the 1% and 99% has not appreciably changed in the last 100 years, with a few exceptions in a few years.

 

[TheVictors]

I'm surprised Obama hasn't moved there and changed it back to 666 because, he is The Devil after all.

 

[Michchamp]

If people are going to hate on wealthy presidents, let them start with George Washington.

and you're not confusing a hatred of the sort of unfair tax policies that allow a guy like Mitt Romney to pay absurdly low marginal rates with a hatred of wealth, right?

 

[Michchamp]

The numbers indicate that the distribution of wealth among at least the 1% and 99% has not appreciably changed in the last 100 years, with a few exceptions in a few years.

where are you getting those "numbers"?

 

[redandguilty]

I recall hearing, several years ago, that the bottom 90% wasn't where the action was anymore and that most of the shifting in the distribution was from the top 3-10% to the top 3%. That was pre-housing bubble which might have done a number on the bottom 90%.

...but I'll start looking for links since I'm curious.

 

[byco42]

where are you getting those "numbers"?

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

 

[Michchamp]

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

the CBO's numbers disagree.

more.

 

[redandguilty]

http://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/scf/files/concentration200110.pdf

According to this, from '89 to 2001, the wealthiest 400 people went from owning 1.5% of the nation's wealth to 2.2% (increase by a factor of 1.47) while their average wealth increased by a factor of 2.33.

Table 5 on page 9 shows that if you break the percentiles into 0-50, 50-80, 90-95, 95-99, and 99-100, the wealth shifts between groups is about 3%. So, '89-2001, my impression is that most of the action was the incredible gains made by the top ~0.01% (400/3million).

So that's pre-2001.

 

[redandguilty]

the CBO's numbers disagree.

more.

These number's support the idea that from '79-'07 the net result of most of the action was from the bottom 80% to the top 1%. Although I think, thanks to the '89-'01 breakdown that the shift wasn't uniform over that entire period.

 

[redandguilty]

The slideshow on MC's "more" link tells the story. Great find. I wish the data presented that way went back to the 20's.

edit: but I don't want to make a case for the last slide. I've never liked the "correlation to the current president's party" arguments. The economic repercussions for a president's actions to such things are, in my opinion, subject to a long, unknown, variable time delay.

 

[byco42]

and you're not confusing a hatred of the sort of unfair tax policies that allow a guy like Mitt Romney to pay absurdly low marginal rates with a hatred of wealth, right?

To many, there is no distinction.

And if whatever Romney paid in income taxes were paid within the boundaries of the present tax laws, what's the problem?

 

[redandguilty]

Too many, there is no distinction.

And if whatever Romney paid in income taxes were paid within the boundaries of the present tax laws, what's the problem?

Here's the problem in my view: do the boundaries of the current tax law promote behavior that is good for the well being of of the nation's citizens while being fair to individuals? I think the answer is "no". I do not believe our taxes, regulations, and intellectual property laws reward people for making smart economic decisions that help grow the wealth of the nation. They reward people for figuring out the best way to make sure they come out on top regardless of the real world repercussions for their actions.

 

[byco42]

Here's the problem in my view: do the boundaries of the current tax law promote behavior that is good for the well being of of the nation's citizens while being fair to individuals? I think the answer is "no". I do not believe our taxes, regulations, and intellectual property laws reward people for making smart economic decisions that help grow the wealth of the nation. They reward people for figuring out the best way to make sure they come out on top regardless of the real world repercussions for their actions.

Well, my fair solution is to have a marginal tax rate of zero.

 

[byco42]

the CBO's numbers disagree.

more.

I'm talking about the distribution of wealth not earned income, ya moran. (sic)

 

[redandguilty]

Well, my fair solution is to have a marginal tax rate of zero.

I think it's important to consider both the intrinsic fairness and the practical repercussions of a tax plan. Without knowing whatever other changes you'd make to taxes, I probably can't say too much about a zero marginal tax rate, but unless your plan is flexible to change with the circumstances and is more progressive right now than our current system, then we disagree.

 

[byco42]

I think it's important to consider both the intrinsic fairness and the practical repercussions of a tax plan. Without knowing whatever other changes you'd make to taxes, I probably can't say too much about a zero marginal tax rate, but unless your plan is flexible to change with the circumstances and is more progressive right now than our current system, then we disagree.

I reject the premise that the U.S. Government has cause and the right to intercept an arbitrary slice of the money I earn before it gets to me. Or, in my present case, demand that I pay it a portion of what I genuinely earn on my own every quarter.

There's no justification for an income tax, period. It's legalized theft.