Yes, so that their proposals to target the wealthy actually target the wealthy and not middle income persons.

But we still have to figure out the disconnect between wealth and income. Some things grow in value but no income is realized until they are sold, say a Rembrandt. How do you tax that? Is the income tax the correct thing to use to attack a wealth distribution problem? Would an ad valorem tax be a better thing to use? How do you even find a Rembrandt that is in someone's attic forgotten to tax it?

Indeed, they might also propose rates for various ranges that might address that distribution. (I see it as a maldistribution, I realize many for various reasons do not).

I'd note that before the Reagan revolution the distribution of wealth (and compensation) was quite a bit different.

They might also propose numbers for the cutoffs that more properly match the distribution as it exists.

---

So instead of inspiring class warfare between people of differing IQs, how about looking at things from a broader perspective?

Hans Rosling's 200 Countries, 200 Years, 4 Minutes - The Joy of Stats

Above video explained a little differently

In the following 7 page paper, the author uses the terms "more open", which I interpret to mean, "less government control."

http://www.stanford.edu/group/scspi/_media/pdf/Reference%20Media/Dollar_Kraay_2002_Globalization.pdf

While you liberals continue to make the case that people should get paid relative to the amount of *hard work* they do, it actually has a negative effect on society.

I call straw man. Who said this, when and where?

Rich people are rich for a reason, it's because most of them are above average intelligence.

Sources please.

About half the population are "above average intelligence" (that's how averages work). Judging by the video linked by BarryAZ, somewhat less than 20% of this group could be considered rich. Why aren't the other 80% of people with above average intelligence also rich?

And with out rich people, everyone would be poorer. The reason I point out this paper is that he indirectly makes the case that you liberals are actually trying to make us poorer by raising protectionist measures against agricultural and labor intensive products (unions, minimum wage, etc.)

Given the context of the paper, and that the next sentence is "Reducing those barriers would help developing countries significantly", I suspect the protectionist measures being discussed are more likely tariffs and/or government subsidies. Tariffs are mentioned 5 times in the document, minimum wages 0 and unions 0 (though this is an quote from a union leader). Can you show how your conclusion is supported by the evidence you provided?

Another thing I want to point out is what happened to the distribution of wealth beginning about 1980 in both the video and in the paper? And who was elected president of the U.S. in 1981?

Both the video and the paper are discussing global trends, and neither discuss distribution of wealth within the United States. Though if you want to look at the video's supporting data, it's here, with 1980s United States information on rows 113535 through 114544.

And in the 5th year of our current regime:

Only 47% of Americans have a full time job
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/07/05/only-47-americans-have-full-time-job

and
54 Months: Record Stretch of 7.5%+ Unemployment Continues
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/54-months-record-stretch-75-unemployment-continues

And you guys are still blaming Bush...

Others blaming Bush seems to be a theme of yours. Who is blaming Bush, when and where?

Not sure who is happy about the current state of the economy, though Hans Rosling's data shows us that over the period 1970 to 2005, there's only one year out (of the six - 1974, 1975, 1980, 1982, 1991, 2001) when GDP per capita in the US fell while there was Democratic Party President. Perhaps the citizens that voted last year thought that, as bad as it is, it would likely be worse if there was a Republican in the White House.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Both the video and the paper are discussing global trends, and neither discuss distribution of wealth within the United States.

The U.S. is one of the richest countries in the world.

OK

Why is this?

I'd imagine a significant factor is that no war was waged on its mainland during the 20th century or since. Though what this has to do with the topic eludes me.

How about comparing a poor person in the U.S. with a poor person in the Republic of Congo?

Do you think global inequities in wealth ownership and inequities within the US are related? The paper you linked suggests otherwise:

What changes in inequality do reflect are country-specific policies on education, taxes, and social protection.

http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.deloitte.com/assets/Dcom-SouthAfrica/Local%2520Assets/Documents/Congo.pdf&sa=U&ei=blHYUdqtMZPo8QSep4CYDQ&ved=0CBgQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNHsw_2V90mjm6w41Nad7Qb2rBFxgA

How about a tax code that's 12 pages long (including the cover page), like the Republic of Congo? (link above leads to a PDF)

The only thing I don't like about it is the VAT.

If you want to live in a country with a 12 page tax code, please feel free to move to the Congo.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Fair enough, of course folks on the right and religious right are very likely to reject the concept of targeting -- except when it they who are doing the targeting.

As to wealth versus income. Two existing modalities which might need modification. Capital gains and inheritance taxes. Though of course that wouldn't be a complete answer.

Yes, so that their proposals to target the wealthy actually target the wealthy and not middle income persons.

But we still have to figure out the disconnect between wealth and income. Some things grow in value but no income is realized until they are sold, say a Rembrandt. How do you tax that? Is the income tax the correct thing to use to attack a wealth distribution problem? Would an ad valorem tax be a better thing to use? How do you even find a Rembrandt that is in someone's attic forgotten to tax it?

As to wealth versus income. Two existing modalities which might need modification. Capital gains and inheritance taxes. Though of course that wouldn't be a complete answer.

Quite and they are linked together with inflation. Inflation is the reason so many rail against capital gains taxes and inheritance taxes.

An example. Great Granddad bought a 10 ounce bar of gold back with the USA was on the gold standard at $35/ounce and paid $350.00 for it. He died yesterday and willed it on to his great grandchild. Has this block of metal somehow had a capital gain sitting in the mattress? Has its value somehow intrinsically increased? Please educate me how its basic property changed so that its value changed? The IRS comes along and says worth $1250/oz, please pay taxes on $12500.00 or go to jail.

What has changed isn't the value of the gold, what has changed is the value of the dollar. Inflation is in essence an ad valorem tax. You are taxing the decision of Great Grand Dad to put the $350 into something that does not lose value instead of keeping it in cash. (By the way, that is a how life works lesson for some of you.)

You might want to think about how inflation impacts the distribution of wealth. You may come to the conclusion that it is the impediment in the way of a more rational distribution of wealth. Of course it is linked to deficit spending.

None of this is a surprise. The bill must be paid, somehow.

---

I've long felt that inheritance taxes are a heinous crime - a person has worked and saved hard, and has paid tax all their life, but after death their heirs are hit with taxes because an object (such as your gold bar) has increased in value whereas in reality it has just "sat there gathering dust".
And I doubt that anyone wants to cash it in because it has more value to the family than its pure monetary value.

---

Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

Rob, well, if you look at where inheritance tax kicks in these days, it would appear to be a targeted tax -- with a relatively lame weapon being used.

First off, the current tax doesn't kick in until over $5.25 million. That's a lot higher than it was until Bush tax cuts kicked in (it was at $1M then). Then of course given it is something of a lobby based law, there are a fair number of tax avoidance things one can do if one is blessed enough to have accumulated one of those $5M+ estates.

Second, the 'paid tax all their life' assumes that in accumulating wealth, one has not taken full advantage of the myriad of tax avoidance opportunities during those years. My suspicion is that one of the approaches to accumulating wealth on that scale is regular and effective use of tax avoidance approaches.

As to that gold bar -- well it gets inheritance taxed if the estate tops $5.25 million, but not under that number.

It is possible that you didn't know just when the inheritance taxes kicked in -- but frankly, at $5.25M, that's somewhat higher than it (admittedly my opinion) needs to be. Frankly, should I live long enough that my estate would move into those numbers, I'd be looking to donate assets to various charitable organizations in advance of my demise, or better yet, since one never knows when one is going to die, I'd configure the estate planning for those donations in advance.

There are a LOT of things that are heinous crimes - but listing the current and proposed laws that fit into that characterization would be serious thread drift.

I've long felt that inheritance taxes are a heinous crime - a person has worked and saved hard, and has paid tax all their life, but after death their heirs are hit with taxes because an object (such as your gold bar) has increased in value whereas in reality it has just "sat there gathering dust".
And I doubt that anyone wants to cash it in because it has more value to the family than its pure monetary value.

Frankly, should I live long enough that my estate would move into those numbers,

Due to the miracle of compound interest, which works on inflation, it likely will reach those numbers in your lifetime.

---

Gary -- it is possible -- but should it get in that sort of neighborhood, I've plenty of designated charities to get in the 'action' before feeding the Fed.

Then again, I'm in my 60's -- and even should I reach into my 80's -- I figure to spend enough of the various income sources to keep that eventuality from happening <smile>.

Then, then again, I'm sure that given the way things work in the US, the top number is going to be 'COLA'd' to change that number. Although, with wealth and income distribution being what it is, absent increasingly effective targeted disenfranchisement efforts, that kick in number just might drop.

Frankly, should I live long enough that my estate would move into those numbers,

Due to the miracle of compound interest, which works on inflation, it likely will reach those numbers in your lifetime.

You guys are lucky, here in the UK it cuts in at £325,000 in 2013-14, which given the house prices in parts of the UK an "ordinary" house so that puts an "ordinary" person with no savings in range.

---

Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

Must make it tough to be landed gentry. Then again, I wonder if in the UK there are means of transferring assets to avoid some of this -- there sure are in the US.

You guys are lucky, here in the UK it cuts in at £325,000 in 2013-14, which given the house prices in parts of the UK an "ordinary" house so that puts an "ordinary" person with no savings in range.

"Greatly upset" a lot of the middle classes, landed gentry are protected to an extent, generally by signing over the land and house to a family owned holding company, with all family members as share holders.

---

Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

With the benefit of hindsight I can see Mum "planned" here death almost to the minute - just as her estate value dropped just below the threshold so my brother and I enjoyed the maximum possible without paying inheritance tax, or chewing into it too much with her escalating care costs.

---

Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

Other ways to avoid inheritance tax in the UK are in this article. My maternal family have used a trust fund and farming for over 80 years.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ianmcowie/100022773/act-now-to-beat-the-new-stealth-tax-10-tips-to-avoid-inheritance-tax/

Second, the 'paid tax all their life' assumes that in accumulating wealth, one has not taken full advantage of the myriad of tax avoidance opportunities during those years. My suspicion is that one of the approaches to accumulating wealth on that scale is regular and effective use of tax avoidance approaches.

Here you use the term avoidance, to mean the social engineering schemes that both houses of Congress vote for and the President signs to put into law. Such things like tax credits for green energy. Or did you mean a more mundane avoidance such as the Earned Income Tax Credit or the deduction for dependents? I'm glad to see that you are against the tax code being used for social engineering.

In any case as none of these are evasion, you must accept that they paid 100% of their liability. You may think that their liability should have been different than what is called for in the tax code, but that is a different argument.

---

The US is in an advanced state of cultural decadence; it's hard to stop the rot once it has set in.

Has there been any period in the history of the US in which somebody has not said something similar? If not, why is it more true now than then?

And we have one of the most ineffective leaders of all times.

If the leader has little ability to effect anything then what's the problem?

Obama Skips Past Congress Again With Health Mandate Delay

More blatant abuse of his executive discretion under the Constitution.

Says we ignore the legislative process all the time and implies it no big deal this time either.

Which is it, the President is able to abuse executive discretion and ignore the legislative process, or the President is ineffective?

In the past you've posted opposition to "Obamacare", now you complain that some of it's provisions are not being implemented. No wonder some say "there's no pleasing some people".

Republicans are complaining about this trend. Democrats are remaining quiet.

“As a former constitutional law teacher, President Obama must know that this action gets into very questionable constitutional territory,”

"I believe this administration has made a habit of bypassing Congress and it sets a very dangerous precedent,”

"We are a nation governed by laws written by Congress, not memos and blog posts written by bureaucrats.”

"Obama has been far more ... successful in creating an imperial presidency,”

Sources for the quotes please.

Section 7805(a) of the tax code: the “Secretary shall prescribe all needful rules and regulations for the enforcement of this title, including all rules and regulations as may be necessary by reason of any alteration of law in relation to internal revenue.”

Or another way to say that is that the secretary can do whatever he/she wants by decree. Dictate. It's the law now.

Now? Do you think this is new? For example, it's in on page 150 of the code from 1970. How long have you been objecting to this language?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

And we have one of the most ineffective leaders of all times.

If the leader has little ability to effect anything then what's the problem?

I think the point being made was that he is not a 'leader'. He is a dictator.

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster