That wasn't the contradiction I was pointing out.
The contradiction was that due to how capitalism
works, the inclusion of benefits and pension
funds doesn't lesson the disparity, since this
is a measure also of wealth and those with higher
incomes have more capital to amass more wealth
thus increasing the disparities.
You have to compare the averages, because when you look at
individuals there are so many ways one can spin the averages. There are also two many individuals with vastly
different stories that tend to balance themselves out.
For every person like you, there is some undertrained
factory worker now working two jobs to make less
income and benefits then his former union job who
can't afford to lose income and the price of retraining.
Yes disposable income is economically productive, but
so is targeted tax relief via retirement plans
that encourages middle income and lower income people
to save rather than spend, since the money they'd spend
is used to reduce their taxes if they are willing to
defer receipt of that income while realizing interest
and capital gains on that deferred income.
One could argue that the expansion of retirement vehicles has helped to sustain and drive the markets new heights
funding the "new" and old economies.
How much per month has been invested in the markets
in the 90's per 401k's, Roths, 403b's, IRA's, et cetera,
and how many new people partipate in the markets due
to these investment vehicles being made more available to
people of middle income? Let me suggest that it
is A LOT.
Now how does cutting the marginable rates decrease sheltering and increase earning if those shelters
also aren't reduced? A flat tax without deductions would
lead to people paying their actual rates on gross rather
than adjusted incomes. What shelters or deductions are going
to be eliminated per Bush's plan? Has he gotten
into these specifics?
Per Bush's plan, what is the actual amount that
someone or a family making $30,000 vs $60,000 vs $300,000
will receive in dollars and cents?
Is the cut anywhere near sufficient to pay down consumer
debt for those lower wage earners who incur this type
of non-deductible debt because they don't have the leverage
to do otherwise?
Check your numbers, because I think you are grossly mistaken
about the amount of money people will receive who
tend to incurr the highest amounts of consumer debt.
IMO cutting marginal rates won't make a dent in
reducing personal bankruptcies.
z |
