So....taking all of above into account...many good points....what if I change title from 'Income Inequality' to 'Wealth Inequality'?
I don't think that changes my posts/points. But maybe it refocuses the discussion for us.
The "Walton family' (I don't know how many people that refers to) apparently gain $100 million dollars in wealth....EVERY DAY.....that's sort of like talking about how far away Alpha Centauri is....just makes your eyes glaze over and nearly impossible to put any sort of perspective on those kind of numbers.
Would it be possible to make the likely, not-to-distant future changes to make taxes more progressive, more effective, palatable, etc. if done as a 'wealth tax', as opposed to an 'income tax'? I don't know how to construct that....and I realize challenges such as some big farm and factory owners where wealth assets are actually integral to productive uses.
I have, in the past, supported somewhat more progressiveness inheritance taxes. I know that every time the subject is public there are horror stories of farmers who die and their kids get stuck with huge tax bills because the land left to them is counted and taxed, but is clearly a working asset....I don't think I expect kids to have to sell off capital assets or 'productive land' to pay inheritance taxes, but maybe money, residential real estate, toys and financial instruments could be taxed higher.
I get that this would be pretty polarizing discussion. I guess my perspective has been shaped somewhat by not ever having had an expectation that I should inherit as much as a dollar. I have (and still do) encourage my grandparents, parents (my mom now) to spend and donate as much as possible while alive and never have a consideration for leaving something for us kids.
Many I've known that don't feel the same -- despite what you hear from the Limbaugh crowd, there's a strong sense of entitlement at the wealthier side of the spectrum, too..maybe just not a government welfare - type entitlement