There are other methods.
-Tax Wall Street by implementing a small fedral tax (say 1%) on every stock sale. There is no constitutional right to buy and sell stock multiple times a day. This would go a long way to slowing down the casino that Wall Street has become. They're no longer empowering investment. They're bookies. We should encourage people to only put money in a company if they think it is going to produce net value (profits), not in wagers. A small tax on stock sales would do this. It would also produce a lot of tax income - primarily from the rich
- Alter the tax code so that we tax net value not earnings. This is already done a little in the form of property taxes, but net worth includes a lot more these days than just real estate. However,it would make it easier to target the real inequality - obscene accumulation of wealth at the top.
These are still taxes.
-Print money. Print lots of money. This will trigger accelerated inflation. Inflation hits the rich harder than the poor.
No. Inflation hits those with cash savings. It won't hit those with actual wealth (homes, stocks, hard capital).
It will, however, lower the real value of debts. The potential negative impact of this on the rich is a bit hard to speculate on, because while they get paid 'less', they do actually get paid, rather than risk defaults.
I do not have an economics degree, so I am ausing just what I see and what makes sense to me in my arguments.
I cannot buy that. You should have to work to earn money or it's being 'removed' from the economy? What about savings accounts and interest? That's money not earned since no one is working to earn it. That's what you seem to be saying that those who do not work, somehow are stealing money from the economy.
Okay, I don't want to come across too harsh here, but please take this concept and internalize it.Money is not wealth.
Wealth is a source of income, a source of production. Your tools, friends, and skills are a sort of wealth. This also makes taxing wealth a curious prospect - how do you tax skill? How do you tax friends? But anyway.
Money is just an agreed upon token of exchange. Nothing more and nothing less. It is important - as a medium of exchange - but it has no real, intrinsic value. Money does not even make good toilet paper, it chafes too much.
Money's purpose is not to be a placeholder for wealth. Money's purpose is to be a temporary token of exchange for wealth. The faster it moves in real terms - that is, the faster wages get paid and the more often people spend what they have - the bigger the economy is. This is how a couple trillion dollars in cash can float a fourteen trillion dollar economy - a dollar is spent several times throughout the course of a year.
Interest income is not earned through labor, it is a collection of someone else's labor. Specifically, when you deposit money in a bank, the bank lends it out (several times, actually), and gathers interest on those loans. You get paid a trivial fraction of what the bank earns as savings interest.
Savings is savings. You worked to put it there.
Regardless of whether or not you are working, you are consuming resources to live. Food. Power. Water.
If you are not working, you are not adding to humanity's net labor pool, and instead consuming from it. You might have earned this right. You might instead be a trust fund baby who will not work a day in your entire life - the rest of humanity is effectively your slave.
Nothng it stopping the rich from giving their money to the government. They can write a check and send it off and given how much the media/Democrat party hates the rich, it would be big media news.
Who among the democrats hate the rich? Obama is quite enamored of the rich, it cost $28k to be in the same room as him during the campaign at some points.
And if the media would create a firestorm of it, why are you not aware of events where that has actually occurred? People have given millions to various government organizations. They were news items in their own sphere. If it would generate a media firestorm, why are you unaware of it
In general, however, the rich want a return on their investment, or a fair system. Taxes, or bonds, but just giving the government money is throwing it away. When they do donate, it's usually directly to a program like the tevatron.
There are some Democrats and liberals that would want it to be even higher. It used to be 90% and they would aim for that. Plus it grates in a way, WHY is this that proper? Who's to say what is proper for that? Should they invest in their companies? Yes, but why can they not get paid if the company is doing wel?
It was Democrats who brought it down
to 70%, remember. 70% is the rate at which people with enough money will still generally perform additional labor for money. 90% or higher is where you would set a 'no one is worth this much, period' point.
That aside, I do think CEOs and company officers are getting paid too big of bonuses and they should -not- be allowed to adjust their own bonuses and pay. That should be left up to the stockholders who own the company. It's like Congress being able to vote themselves raises.
Which you did not say. All I saw was two very different limits of what is 'wealthy'. A $100,000 difference is hardly insignificant.
It would be more dishonest of me if I cited something that wasn't in the actual poll.
They should have gotten a 4x4 across the head, not a slap, that I agree on. Remember though, politics, on both parties stopped them from getting much done to them, but having the government come in and try to dictate things isn't much better given the last 11 years of spending policy. Especially the last 2 years. The national debty has skyrocketted.
Financial regulations are a separate concept from spending policy. The government is quite capable of doing a great deal more there and, when the government was actually watching, it did a pretty damned good job of it.
How? At the end of the day, the wealthy would still have more money, plus material assets that are worth money, than the poorer people who have less spending power if prices rise.
As I mentioned above, the primary value for the poor and struggling is that it lowers the real value of debts, and assuming that this generation has learned its lesson, this means that everyone will have more discretionary spending, which leads to a more active economy in general.
But you are correct in stating that it is not an automatic win-win for the poor. There are tradeoffs.
But if you raise the min. wage too high, businesses cannot afford to hire more people and the last economic stmulus packages have really worked. How much was spent on economic stimulus (shovel ready jobs) and how much of the original package is still unspent?
Spending like a drunken sailor when you have unprecedented debt in the multiple trillions is not smart either. Everyone else is always expected to do with less isn hard times. Why does government get a pass and is expected to spend more money it doesn't have? Do you want inflation in the double digits?
Our debt looks pretty healthy given the size of our economy, compared to a lot of nations. The issue of course, is that without actually taxing the top at some reasonable rate, even a WWII level mobilization won't really do much. The postwar boom had a lot to do with the fact that most Americans were, for the first time, relatively equal.