French economist Thomas Piketty is raising a ruckus

[KingOrfeo]

"...live like successful people."

Now that's the thing see - what does a successful person live like?

And what exactly is, 'a successful person?'

I've had both jen and Gump on iggy for years.

I'm not missing anything interesting in this thread, am I?

 

[cjh]

Hmm.

It was a soloist.

Not a chorus.

 

[Amberchgo]

"...live like successful people."

Now that's the thing see - what does a successful person live like?

And what exactly is, 'a successful person?'

Success is different for every person. I would call anyone who can stand on their own financially .. "successful."

 

[Sean]

Jesus, this thread must have really upset AJ.

 

[cjh]

Jesus, this thread must have really upset AJ.

Think he will read the book?

Or just borrow others' objections to it?

 

[jeninflorida]

what a bunch of little bitches .... so sad. At least you all have welfare and GB

 

[Sean]

Think he will read the book?

Or just borrow others' objections to it?

He'll just c+p from American Thinker or some other RW echo chamber site. No way in hell will he, or any of the rest of the RWCJ, bother reading anything that doesn't confirm to the party line.

 

[KingOrfeo]

From Paul Krugman's review of Piketty's book:

The general presumption of most inequality researchers has been that earned income, usually salaries, is where all the action is, and that income from capital is neither important nor interesting. Piketty shows, however, that even today income from capital, not earnings, predominates at the top of the income distribution. He also shows that in the past—during Europe’s Belle Époque and, to a lesser extent, America’s Gilded Age—unequal ownership of assets, not unequal pay, was the prime driver of income disparities. And he argues that we’re on our way back to that kind of society. Nor is this casual speculation on his part. For all that Capital in the Twenty-First Century is a work of principled empiricism, it is very much driven by a theoretical frame that attempts to unify discussion of economic growth and the distribution of both income and wealth. Basically, Piketty sees economic history as the story of a race between capital accumulation and other factors driving growth, mainly population growth and technological progress.

 

[Amberchgo]

We're back to Krugman? He ever decide to donate that $225,000 he's being paid to not teach class?

You know ... in the spirit of closing that income gap.

 

[KingOrfeo]

We're back to Krugman? He ever decide to donate that $225,000 he's being paid to not teach class?

Paid by whom?

 

[Sean Renaud]

We're back to Krugman? He ever decide to donate that $225,000 he's being paid to not teach class?

You know ... in the spirit of closing that income gap.

Only idiots do things "in the spirit of".

 

[Amberchgo]

Paid by whom?

City Univ of NY

 

[Amberchgo]

Only idiots do things "in the spirit of".

I have no issue if the idiot wants to keep the $$. Just stop complaining about income inequality when he's one of the 1%'ers.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I have no issue if the idiot wants to keep the $$. Just stop complaining about income inequality when he's one of the 1%'ers.

No. That would be stupid. Income inequality is a huge issue. And him giving up 100% of his income would do nothing to change that. He shouldn't do that.

 

[Amberchgo]

No. That would be stupid. Income inequality is a huge issue. And him giving up 100% of his income would do nothing to change that. He shouldn't do that.

If you dont take from the rich and give to the poor, then how would you suggest to solve the "huge issue"?

 

[Sean Renaud]

If you dont take from the rich and give to the poor, then how would you suggest to solve the "huge issue"?

There are lots of ways. One could limit how much money the rich can make in any given period of of any given product.

That however isn't the point. The point is that taking the money from A Rich and The Rich are entirely different and him giving up his money wouldn't do shit towards making the system more fair and better. It would just limit his ability to effect the system.

 

[Amberchgo]

There are lots of ways. One could limit how much money the rich can make in any given period of of any given product.

.

Never heard that before. Please explain how that would work.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Never heard that before. Please explain how that would work.

First, as I'm constantly telling Ish. The fact that I see a problem doesn't mean I have a solution.

My initial solutions would be limiting the owner of a company to X% of his average worker. Ideally this would still allow him to pay minimum wage to the floor guys if he made up for it with high paid middle management but still.

You could tie it to the average income of the American. (Complicated I grant you.)

You could tie it to a certain time period. (Which we kinda do already but it's too easy to step around the law now.)

We could tax rich people at a higher percent (and make i actually stick I don't care if your GE or Trump. Conservatives pretend that libs aren't pissed about various rich libs not paying their dues but we are. I'd put everybody on the board with GE in jail in a heart beat.) and use that money to pay for education, healthcare, housing and food for the poor. (This is probably ideal to be honest.)

There are undoubtedly ideas that I haven't thought of. However one thing is very clear. The Status quo cannot stand.

 

[Amberchgo]

First, as I'm constantly telling Ish. The fact that I see a problem doesn't mean I have a solution.

My initial solutions would be limiting the owner of a company to X% of his average worker. Ideally this would still allow him to pay minimum wage to the floor guys if he made up for it with high paid middle management but still.

You could tie it to the average income of the American. (Complicated I grant you.)

You could tie it to a certain time period. (Which we kinda do already but it's too easy to step around the law now.)

We could tax rich people at a higher percent (and make i actually stick I don't care if your GE or Trump. Conservatives pretend that libs aren't pissed about various rich libs not paying their dues but we are. I'd put everybody on the board with GE in jail in a heart beat.) and use that money to pay for education, healthcare, housing and food for the poor. (This is probably ideal to be honest.)

There are undoubtedly ideas that I haven't thought of. However one thing is very clear. The Status quo cannot stand.

Ever see the WSJ chart of total tax intake versus top tax rate? Quite fascinating. Interesting that when the top tax rate was 90%, the Govt recv no more money than when the top was 31%.

Here's the dirty little secret that the Pols never tell anyone.... They're not really the smartest guys in the room.

So when the pols come up with some new fangled way of taxing people, the smart ones (the ones making serious money since they're smart) find a way around it. Its human nature. If people didn't want to lower their tax liabilities, why would we need so many CPA's and such. I read somewhere a while ago, that a company (could well have been GE) hired more tax advisors and people to fill out regulatory paperwork than they hired to handle environmental issues. I find that sad. Not that they're doing it. That they HAVE to do it.


What you are proposing is similar (in a way) to price controls. Go back and read the history of price controls during the Nixon years. You'll see how that worked out.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Ever see the WSJ chart of total tax intake versus top tax rate? Quite fascinating. Interesting that when the top tax rate was 90%, the Govt recv no more money than when the top was 31%.

Those guys make the most money by far. Given how little taxes they pay in comparison to their actual income it's frightening that we manage to mostly run this beast while they cheat.

Here's the dirty little secret that the Pols never tell anyone.... They're not really the smartest guys in the room.

That's a completely random point.

So when the pols come up with some new fangled way of taxing people, the smart ones (the ones making serious money since they're smart) find a way around it. Its human nature. If people didn't want to lower their tax liabilities, why would we need so many CPA's and such. I read somewhere a while ago, that a company (could well have been GE) hired more tax advisors and people to fill out regulatory paperwork than they hired to handle environmental issues. I find that sad. Not that they're doing it. That they HAVE to do it.

So you keep making the rules stricter until there is no way around it. At some point however if they are hiring tax advisors to get around it they are paying a "tax" to others who will spend it. It's a clumsy way to go about it but hey life sucks sometimes.

What you are proposing is similar (in a way) to price controls. Go back and read the history of price controls during the Nixon years. You'll see how that worked out.

We have price controls now. I don't need to go back to the Nixon years to know the possible results. We do it better this time and remember that we've always had some kinds of controls in place. They just aren't holding up today.

 

[KingOrfeo]

I have no issue if the idiot wants to keep the $$. Just stop complaining about income inequality when he's one of the 1%'ers.

I doubt he is -- see post #33 -- what matters is not earned income but income-producing assets.

 

[Amberchgo]

Those guys make the most money by far. Given how little taxes they pay in comparison to their actual income it's frightening that we manage to mostly run this beast while they cheat.

Tax cheats go to jail. How are they cheating?

 

[Sean Renaud]

Tax cheats go to jail. How are they cheating?

Is the owner of GE in jail?

Is Mitt Romney?

Is Obama?

 

[Amberchgo]

Is the owner of GE in jail?

Is Mitt Romney?

Is Obama?

I'll repeat. How are they cheating?

 

[Sean Renaud]

I'll repeat. How are they cheating?

Paying less than their fair share.

I have to assume your trolling at this point.