Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Non-Tech : Who Really Pays Taxes? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ztect who wrote (472)	8/19/2000 10:40:45 AM
From: ztect	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 666

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