In response to a post on another thread
regarding two preceding posts.
Neocon wrote,
>>However, if you were to take the total value of benefits, including pension growth, the disparity would not be as acute.<<
Neocon also wrote,
>>>Finally, capitalism leads to some degree of income disparity.<<<
I think you contradict yourself.
The figures I provided were solely incomes.
The 1999 figures were projections based on 1995
numbers, so I'd agree that income are actually higher
across the board due to the tight labor markets in all
quintiles, but I'd also note that the greatest
actual growth has occurred amongst the top wage earners
so the actual income figures may show even a greater
disparity in income .
I noted disposable income. Pensions have indeed increased
per the tax incentives provided through Roths,
401k's et cetera leading to greater savings and
participation across especially amongst the 3rd and
4th quintiles. Though the bottom quintiles, after
necessities, still have little to no disposable income,
don't itemize and thus don't have savings
contributing to overall "wealth".
Capitalism does lead to disparity - I agree.
If you have greater disposable income, you
have more excess capital to capitalize upon.
You have more money to invest and you also have
a lot more to leverage from your investments.
This exacerbates rather than lessons the divide.
The 15% deduction (w. or without matching) which
isn't fully utilized by most from a 401 k for some one
making $45,000 pre tax dollars who doesn't itemize, does
not provide the amount of disposable income for
capital investment that someone making $719,000 has.
The higher income can achieve greater capital
gains and therefore again make the disparity
in "wealth" more rather than less acute.
Bottomline, then is that the 80's income taxes
didn't trickle down but increased the disparities.
Bush's proposed cuts would do more of the same.
I'm all for tax simplification, and reducing tax burdens
especially since I own my own business, but tax cuts have
to be measured in real dollars and cents not percents.
But give us little guys relief too, so that we can get
to the upper quintiles, and say f___k every one else too.
(being a bit sardonic).
I'm also for containing costs and reducing government.
First I'd like to see the accumulated debt paid off faster
with the current surpluses, so less government spending
goes to servicing this debt. Such fiscal prudence
and conservatism before tax cuts, would allow for
better utilization of dollars.
Though let me add that I'm open to arguments
that reduced tax burdens allow for greater growth which
provide for a larger pie from which smaller slices
can be cut to generate the same amount of tax dollars
with less of a burden on each "slice" in conjunction
with reduction of bureaucracy and inefficiencies
that requires less need for overall tax dollars
in general.
But who generates the most jobs? Big companies,
or little ones that expand? Why primarily give advantages
and relief only to those that have got to the top
already?
Let's try some trickle up economics too.
z |
