Thoughts?

I have a really hard time with this subject.

On one hand, it seems apparent to me that this is perhaps the single biggest threat to our country's long term 'success'...however you measure that.
But, I'm very much an Adam Smith-Ayn Rand-Gordon Gecko sort of Greed is Good kind of guy. To those that produce and make a buttload of money, I say, 'more power to ya'. I have gagged at the thought of more progressive income tax tables.

But, I'm not oblivious to some socio-economic factors that really do put some at an unfair disadvantage....
and I think that money movers that aren't investing for the greater good...and those that take short term personal profits over long term corporate/societal good...do NOT deserve same or lower tax rates than you and I.

I don't recall any numbers, but I did read enough in recent years to be convinced that income inequality is getting worse and I can't help but think that this country is worse off for it.

And even if you're a deep red R and think I'm way off base here, consider that perception seems to be in agreement....and perception is, of course more important than reality....we may NOT be able to stop the socialist movement from gaining ground if it continues...it seems inevitable. I'm not predicting a French Revolution or anything, but I think if things don't somehow change with regards to income inequality, things are going to get a lot worse before they get better.

I don't have any answers...nor any good suggestions yet. But, while I was appalled at De Blasio suggesting repeatedly that he's going to tax the he11 out of the rich, I can't help but think that taxes are going to be part of the solution...maybe not income tax...maybe partly capital gains tax reform...I don't know...but I do think that something should probably be done sooner than later

I think in any system, there will be a trend towards income inequality as the system becomes more established. Any system starts out (the USA for example, as a system) and those with assets will use those assets to generate more assets, and pass them along to their offspring. those with less at the beginning, or those entering the system later (ex. slaves, or recent immigrants with no transferred assets) have less to generate with, and less to pass on.

There is no rational expectation for this to not be a self-perpetuating situation. Yes there will always be exceptions, huge asset gains by individuals. But overall.... if you're rich you will gain more wealth more quickly than if you're poor. Especially with the investment class. Put 500$ in the market. You gain whatever percentage the DJI is improving. Put 500,000 in and that same percentage becomes much more money to reinvest.

I'm not saying there should be a change. No reason to. Whatever we change to will have the same problem, we'll just have shaken up who's got the assets at the start a bit. People aren't altruistic. They won't give up their assets willingly to fundamentally help others gather assets. Best you can manage is to convince them to give up some food for the hungry, and even to get that you have ot threaten them with eternal damnation.

Nah. It's a problem... but it's a problem which will exist regardless of our system.

Don't misunderstand me...I am not advocating for 'income equality', by any means. I just have a very unscientific 'sense' that the spectrum should be a bit more even... and not just ballooning on both ends and hollow in the middle

Right.
But the sense that it should be even is.... wrong? Or.... morally right, but logically wrong?

It seems to me that the natural state is for the top to continue to accrue resources at a faster and faster pace, leaving less for the bottom.... because that's what people do.

Every now and then, when it gets bad enough, the bottom teams up and redistributes what the top has.... but then that just restarts the cycle.

You want income equality? You will end inheritance and the right to transfer/gift wealth to others during one's lifetime. Make education free for all. Make certain everyone gets some amount of free medical care.

Part of the problem is people's expectations and definitions of what just getting by is. I would venture to say that all those who want income equality are far better off than my parents were when my brother and I were growing up. And if we were poor, we didn't have clue that was the case. Sure, some kids had Pepsi all the time when we had Kool-aid. But it didn't seem like a big deal.

I believe that the last two tax restructurings were lopsided towards the rich and should be changed. There were a few good provisions in both but the overall impact was to make the situation worse .

On the other hand if the capital gains tax is eliminated the economy will suffer very quickly. It can be argued that money making money through investments is not part of production but that money is vital to economic expansion.

I don’t have an answer but sever income inequality eventually leads to conflict.

...and that conflict ultimately leads from protests to riots and then revolution.

our system of government also contributes to income inequality...the people with the greatest amount of income have a far greater influence than average citizens on making laws that give themselves more advantages... wealthy individuals and large corporations have hired guns to write laws in their favor, and contribute huge sums to get people who will vote for those laws elected to Congress and executive offices...

DED alluded to that when he spoke of the last tax cuts/re-structuring...

I don't really like using Libertarian Party talking points from the 90s, but...it fits here. Currency manipulation and inflation are big drivers of income (and wealth) inequality. Ever since we started to abandon the gold standard and the Fed/Dept of Treasury started printing money out of thin air (or just punching numbers into a computer these days) the purchasing power of the dollar has gone way down, and wages have not kept up with inflation. To put it into perspective, when the minimum wage was first introduced, I think it was like $1.25/hr in the early 60s. Back in 1960, our coins were still made mostly of silver. So in 1960, minimum wage was 5 silver quarters per hour. The melt value of five 1960 silver quarters is about $15. They were worth $1.25 when they were minted, now they're worth $15. This isn't a reflection of the true value of silver. It's a reflection of the worthlessness of paper money and metal alloy coins.

I barely make enough to survive in a decent lifestyle only because of my mom's house being rent free...
Dumpster diving , trash day picking, metal recycling, flea mkt selling, uncashed lotto ticket trash can diving...is a tough life forced upon me by the FBI-SSG DIVISION...

SOOOO, WHEN I WATCH ENTERTAINMENT TONIGHT OR ACCESS HOLLYWOOD and see how these rich prick's live , spend money out the azz, cry and moan about all their "hard work"???
IT MAKES ME WANT TO GAG!!!

RICH PEOPLE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT IT IS LIKE TO BE POOR OR OPPRESSED & HARRASSED BY FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT FELON CRIMINALS WITH GUNS AND BADGES RUNNING AMOK DAY IN DAY OUT.

I’m probably too dumb for this subject, but that’s never stopped me before so I will share a few thoughts. This topic is so intertwined with our current political system that it’s kinda hard to even know where to begin. Income inequality is not even something I view as a problem in itself, but it does highlight some issues which I feel are problematic to this country’s long term success.

My short answer: America has always been a mixed economy, and we have been failing at both sides of that spectrum. On one side we have a wasteful and inadequate welfare system. On the other we’ve allowed certain entities to dictate conditions that are vital to the survival of a competitive marketplace. I think believing that either side is ideologically or morally pure at this juncture is not a smart way forward. We should be aspiring to create the illusion of equal opportunity, not income equality, and major concessions will be needed in order to make that happen. Or we can ignore all of the warning signs and just hope for the best...

interesting thoughts, Phil...

my take: the status quo, mostly controlled by the monied con class, continuously perpetuates the illusion of equal opportunity to mollify and fool the lower classes, and to disguise their concerted and determined efforts to maintain the status quo that they've skewed in their favor...the average Joe has little chance to crack the top 1%, keeps getting screwed, but accepts the myth that his aspirations for wealth, given hard work and effort, will be rewarded...most eventually adjust their expectations and aim lower...much lower...

Income inequality is necessary for the liberal party to survive?The left needs as many people as possible living below some arbitrary number to convince them and the bleeding hearts that the poor can only survive because of government handouts.I mean who the **** else is going to vote for them?

Anyone that watched the recent dumbocrat debate should've picked up on the clue............If I stuck a French fry up my azz every time I heard the word "FREE" during that debate I could've shut down the entire McDonald's chain for a month.

We are not equal in our abilities

Nor our level of compassion

Not everyone has equal abilities. However, there are many people who do have very similar abilities and experience extremely different outcomes. Right or wrong, I believe this is the very foundation of the argument for income equality. But at its core, this subject encompasses far more than just income.

Income and personal perception of overall well-being are very loosely correlated. Once basic needs are met, we start to see diminishing returns on happiness in regards to increasing wealth. This is loosely related to what Krazy was saying in #6. If people are better off than in years past in regards to income, then why are so many people upset? There's not a shortage of philosophies on that subject.

Edit: I kinda went off on a weird tangent with this one, but my point was this subject really does touch everything...crime, disease, mental health, education, taxes, etc. Maybe we shouldn’t be so quick to dismiss it. Many still wonder how we ended up with a game show host in the White House. Don’t be surprised when someone worse comes up from the left.

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

Inheritance taxes scare me. Everything we have, my wife and I have provided for. I have two grown children, one disabled, still living with us. My wife and I have always saved as much as we can to provide for the long term care of my older daughter. My wife told me about the day when our younger daughter was old enough to kind of see things, cried about the fear of having to provide for her sister when we are no longer around. So I don't want the government taking anything that I have saved for my children. Granted, I'm not talking about money like the Waltons but where would the line be drawn.

If I am reading things correctly, the first $5.3M of inheritance is currently exempt from federal tax today.

I'm not pushing for an inheritance tax increase, but if one were to occur while preserving such an exemption (along with the farm/factory type exemption I suggest above)....well increasing tax on amounts over $5.3M might be palatable....and protect folks like you and your family, cpf.