Something more terrifying than Jews, Muslims, or the Gays

[Strike For The South]

http://www.ips-dc.org/reports/unnece...nment_shutdown

• 15,753: The number of households in 1961 with $1 million in taxable income (adjusted for inflation).
• 361,000: The number of households in 2011 estimated to have $1 million in taxable income.
• 43.1: Percent of total reported income that Americans earning $1 million paid in taxes in 1961 (adjusted for 2011 dollars)
• 23.1: Percent of total reported income that Americans earning $1 million are likely to pay in taxes in 2011, estimated from latest IRS data.
• 47.4: Percent of profits corporations paid in taxes in 1961.
• 11.1: Percent of profits corporations paid in taxes in 2011.

However if one were to even broach these numbers in congress he would get shouted down as a socialist. It is absolute insanity that the tax rate is this low. No other devolped country is like this, I assume that's because the adults are in control

This is indicative of a larger trend in American society mind you. Of course simply raising the rate on these people won't solve all our ills but it is part of the larger problem of Americas seeming need to cater to the "job creators" LOLZ.

Personally, I blame the American dream. Everyone thinks that one day they will be awash in cash, tits, and blow (2/3 aint bad) so they see these kind of measures as protecting themselves when they finally make that 1st million.

Chances are though, that won't happen so why vote against your own interest

[Louis VI the Fat]

Aye. This cuts righ to the chase,. America does not have a socialist spending problem. It has a plunder capitalist tax morale problem. There is no reason for your enslavement by China other than to let the political donation paying class have two generations of partying while the ship sinks.

[Kagemusha]

With enough of creed anything can be destroyed.

[PanzerJaeger]

I'm not sure those stats actually reinforce the point you're trying to make.

Lowering the tax burden on people and businesses increases retained wealth as there is more money left to invest in wealth creating ventures, which in turn broadens the tax base, compounded each year. (Obviously this has limits at the margins.)

Let's take your numbers and assume all millionaires earn only $1,000,000.

1961: (15,753 * $1,000,000)*.43 = $6,773,790,000

2011: (361,000 * $1,000,000)*.23 = $83,030,000,000

Thus, lower taxes on more people yields higher revenues, as can be seen in the chart below.



US tax policy from Kennedy to Bush II generally pushed rates down while revenues rose. Even after the much belied Bush tax cuts, the compounding effect was already starting to increase revenues dramatically (over the Clinton years) before the financial crisis.

[rory_20_uk]

Is that adjusted for inflation?

If not this is abysmal, considering the double-digit inflation in the 1970's and onwards.

[PanzerJaeger]

Is that adjusted for inflation?

If not this is abysmal, considering the double-digit inflation in the 1970's and onwards.

Good catch. Here is an inflation adjusted chart. Same story, though, rising revenues despite lower rates.

The Laffer curve is as it says in the name, a curve. In the 1950s and 1960s the tax rate was in the upper 80s and lower 90s which I think any sane person can recognize as being on one extreme of the Laffer curve. But by lowering it over five decades to 20 something percent we have probably reached the other side of the Laffer curve now.

I agree. I'm not advocating for lower taxes. They are fine where they are and could probably be raised back to Clinton levels for a time to deal with the debt issue without sacrificing very much in future revenues.

So by pointing at a chart and saying, see in the 1980s we had this many dollars coming in and now we have this many dollars coming in and it must be because our taxes are so low is just riddled with errors.

I also agree. I only used the chart to support my point, not as absolute evidence of its accuracy. Obviously there are many factors that effect revenues besides rates. My only point is that Strike's 'terrifying' stats do not paint the full picture - lowering rates over the years has not impeded revenue growth, and most economists would argue that it has contributed to it.

[Strike For The South]

It would stand to reason the gummint takes more in as the economy gets bigger

In others news JP Morgan profits while screwing over the middle class

“US labor compensation is now at a 50-year low relative to both company sales and US GDP.” Cembalest continues to explain why corporate profits are so strong while the rest of the working class are feeling the pinch, “reductions in wages and benefits explain the majority of the net improvement in margins.” 75% of the increase in profit margins directly correlate with the reduction in workers’ wages.

The script practicaly writes itself.

In the 19th century it was the cross of gold, in the 21st it's the cross of delusion, either way the robber barons get rich and the middle class suffers.

As peoples 401Ks vanish before there eyes and there SS and medicare wither away to nothing, we will have no one to blame but ourselves. The backbreaking yoke of feudalism is ever tightening around our necks, yet half of us are actively cheering it on while the other half are to gutless to call a spade a spade

[Ironside]

Good catch. Here is an inflation adjusted chart. Same story, though, rising revenues despite lower rates.

So what went wrong 2000 and continues to mess up the goverment income?

[a completely inoffensive name]

I'm not sure those stats actually reinforce the point you're trying to make.

Lowering the tax burden on people and businesses increases retained wealth, which in turn broadens the tax base, compounded each year. (Obviously this has limits at the margins.)

Let's take your numbers and assume all millionaires earn only $1,000,000.

1961: (15,753 * 1,000,000)*.43 = 6,773,790,000

2011: (361,000 * 1,000,000)*.23 = 83,030,000,000

Thus, lower taxes on more people yields higher revenues, as can be seen in the chart below.



US tax policy from Kennedy to Bush II generally pushed rates down while revenues rose. Even after the much belied Bush tax cuts, the compounding effect was already starting to increase revenues dramatically (over the Clinton years) before the financial crisis.

Two problems:

1. Back in 1961, the world economy was not anywhere near as globalized or "free" as it is today. The amount of money a business man could get in the 1960s was largely restricted to solely the North American money supply, and even NAFTA was many decades away. Nowadays a business man now has the ability to attain money from across the entire world in any market that wishes to buy his goods/services, and save money by operating anywhere in the world. The difference basically is the amount of money that could be grabbed by ambitious business men, which is separate from the issue of taxes.

2. The Laffer curve is as it says in the name, a curve. In the 1950s and 1960s the tax rate was in the upper 80s and lower 90s which I think any sane person can recognize as being on one extreme of the Laffer curve. But by lowering it over five decades to 20 something percent we have probably reached the other side of the Laffer curve now. Your chart is flawed because since 1980 the US population jumped up 1.36 times the 1980 population. Which means a lot more people are paying taxes period. Also, as I said in my first point the amount of free trade that has opened up since 1980 has simply allowed for all the worlds money to come into american business hands which of course will be taxed.

So by pointing at a chart and saying, see in the 1980s we had this many dollars coming in and now we have this many dollars coming in and it must be because our taxes are so low is just riddled with errors.

[aimlesswanderer]

http://www.ips-dc.org/reports/unnece...nment_shutdown



However if one were to even broach these numbers in congress he would get shouted down as a socialist. It is absolute insanity that the tax rate is this low. No other devolped country is like this, I assume that's because the adults are in control

This is indicative of a larger trend in American society mind you. Of course simply raising the rate on these people won't solve all our ills but it is part of the larger problem of Americas seeming need to cater to the "job creators" LOLZ.

Personally, I blame the American dream. Everyone thinks that one day they will be awash in cash, tits, and blow (2/3 aint bad) so they see these kind of measures as protecting themselves when they finally make that 1st million.

Chances are though, that won't happen so why vote against your own interest

And Americans wonder why most non Americans think the Tea Party (and the Republicans in general, though the Democrats aren't always much better) are crazy?

Ronald Reagan was sensible enough to raise taxes when needed, though, now he has been practically deified as someone who never raised taxes, that gets conveniently ignored

It is mysterious how repealing the Bush era tax cuts which massively benefit the wealthiest don't even seem to be discussed as on of the solutions to the current deficit. Are the wealthiest Americans paying their fair share of tax? The statistics say definitely not. The top 1% own around 35% of the total wealth in the country, so I have doubts that they are over taxed, especially given the trust and other loopholes they can take advantage of.

See the impressively large wealth gap

Or this exhaustive report on just how unequal wealth and income are.

[PanzerJaeger]

And Americans wonder why most non Americans think the Tea Party (and the Republicans in general, though the Democrats aren't always much better) are crazy?

Ronald Reagan was sensible enough to raise taxes when needed, though, now he has been practically deified as someone who never raised taxes, that gets conveniently ignored

It is mysterious how repealing the Bush era tax cuts which massively benefit the wealthiest don't even seem to be discussed as one of the solutions to the current deficit. Are the wealthiest Americans paying their fair share of tax? The statistics say definitely not. The top 1% own around 35% of the total wealth in the country, so I have doubts that they are over taxed, especially given the trust and other loopholes they can take advantage of.

See the impressively large wealth gap

Or this exhaustive report on just how unequal wealth and income are.

The wealth gap is constantly cited as a reason to raise rates despite the fact that lowered rates had little to do with the gap's growth and little explanation is given as to how raising them would fix the underlying factors that have caused the situation.

The wealth gap is an unfortunate side effect of America's transition to a post industrial economy. Put simply, manual labor is virtually worthless. Millions of Americans were conditioned over generations to believe that they could get a job at the local factory right out of high school and enjoy a decent livelihood without any further self improvement. In a relatively short period, that reality ceased to exist do to global, technological, and political macro-economic shifts and those millions of Americans were left behind. Meanwhile, those same shifts - outsourcing labor, robotic manufacturing, and free trade - meant that wealthy and/or educated Americans could wring more profit out of their investments. Thus, the gap.

The real question is: How will raising rates fix this situation? Sure, you can tax the wealthy until their income is much closer to the underclass, but that will do little to address the real problem and will actually hurt the poor even more as there will be little capital left in the economy for new ventures.

How exactly is the revenue generated by taxing the rich going to help the poor? Direct payments? Government work? We already have a tax system that pays the poor and have millions on the federal payroll. How much more should the government hand out before it becomes prohibitive to economic growth?

The wealth gap will (hopefully) naturally correct itself as time progresses. Most American kids these days have a greater understanding of the value of education and work specialization. Whether it does or it doesn't, raising taxes on the rich will do little to effect the underlying economic issues that created it.

[a completely inoffensive name]

The wealth gap is constantly cited as a reason to raise rates despite the fact that lowered rates had little to do with the gap's growth and little explanation is given as to how raising them would fix the underlying factors that have caused the situation.

I will take a shot at it.

The wealth gap is an unfortunate side effect of America's transition to a post industrial economy. Put simply, manual labor is virtually worthless. Millions of Americans were conditioned over generations to believe that they could get a job at the local factory right out of high school and enjoy a decent livelihood without any further self improvement. In a relatively short period, that reality ceased to exist do to global, technological, and political macro-economic shifts and those millions of Americans were left behind. Meanwhile, those same shifts - outsourcing labor, robotic manufacturing, and free trade - meant that wealthy and/or educated Americans could wring more profit out of their investments. Thus, the gap.

This is correct.

The real question is: How will raising rates fix this situation? Sure, you can tax the wealthy until their income is much closer to the underclass, but that will do little to address the real problem and will actually hurt the poor even more as there will be little capital left in the economy for new ventures.

Not really. Many statements you give operate from the assumption that all money that the top 1% have is reinvested and put to good use. As I have already said, we are at the other end of the laffer curve, which means we are at a point where taxes are too low and the Bush tax cuts are a clear example of having taxes cut and yet the typical Reaganomics logic of a now supercharged economy did not come to pass. The rich have extra money they are not reinvesting. We can end the Bush era tax cuts for the rich and even go higher than that. My personal estimate for the sweet spot on the laffer curve for the top 1% is around 45-48%.

How exactly is the revenue generated by taxing the rich going to help the poor? Direct payments? Government work? We already have a tax system that pays the poor and have millions on the federal payroll. How much more should the government hand out before it becomes prohibitive to economic growth?

Those on the federal payroll are already for the most guaranteed a middle class income for their job, which is great imo. A government should provide an adequate lifestyle for those that work for it.

I have said this in other threads, yes, government work can help. What this country needs is to complete the transition from an industrial economy to a post industrial economy by spurring demand for jobs that need education and by providing the education for workers.

We need new roads, new bridges, an entirely new power line infrastructure, a new high speed rail system so that amtrak doesn't have to piggyback on the freight car lines. All of this work will need to be done by many workers and will take years to build it all. Which will provide many of those that are unemployed jobs for the time being. After all this infrastructure is built, legions of new workers will be need to maintain and operate. These jobs will require engineers and tradesmen of all kinds to keep the new systems running and if the government provides the money for people to go through a trade school or a 4 year uni to get an engineering degree in return for a commitment from said worker for an x amount of years after their education is done, we can start to rebuild and strengthen our middle class again.

The wealth gap will (hopefully) naturally correct itself as time progresses. Most American kids these days have a greater understanding of the value of education and work specialization. Whether it does or it doesn't, raising taxes on the rich will do little to effect the underlying economic issues that created it.

Completely disagree. It is a fallacy to assume that the markets will always self correct and that we have no tools at our disposal. We do have the tools, we just have to make sure that the unused capital we are taxing is actively being used to create things that have value.

[PanzerJaeger]

Not really. Many statements you give operate from the assumption that all money that the top 1% have is reinvested and put to good use. As I have already said, we are at the other end of the laffer curve, which means we are at a point where taxes are too low and the Bush tax cuts are a clear example of having taxes cut and yet the typical Reaganomics logic of a now supercharged economy did not come to pass. The rich have extra money they are not reinvesting. We can end the Bush era tax cuts for the rich and even go higher than that. My personal estimate for the sweet spot on the laffer curve for the top 1% is around 45-48%.

Hmm... where do you think the money is? Certainly a small portion is in savings accounts (which also indirectly help others through bank loans) bonds (which are crucial to government's ability to pay its employees), and commodities, but the vast majority of the monies out there are chasing a much higher return in the market.

Those on the federal payroll are already for the most guaranteed a middle class income for their job, which is great imo. A government should provide an adequate lifestyle for those that work for it.

I have said this in other threads, yes, government work can help. What this country needs is to complete the transition from an industrial economy to a post industrial economy by spurring demand for jobs that need education and by providing the education for workers.

We need new roads, new bridges, an entirely new power line infrastructure, a new high speed rail system so that amtrak doesn't have to piggyback on the freight car lines. All of this work will need to be done by many workers and will take years to build it all. Which will provide many of those that are unemployed jobs for the time being. After all this infrastructure is built, legions of new workers will be need to maintain and operate. These jobs will require engineers and tradesmen of all kinds to keep the new systems running and if the government provides the money for people to go through a trade school or a 4 year uni to get an engineering degree in return for a commitment from said worker for an x amount of years after their education is done, we can start to rebuild and strengthen our middle class again.

I think you vastly overestimate the amount of people it would take to build all that infrastructure. Just like we discussed earlier, construction is another manual labor intensive industry that has replaced people with machines in droves; and many of the people left are skilled professionals, not the people we're trying to target. You cannot pull a laid-off factory worker off the street and expect him to be able to learn how to operate a bitumen sprayer with any degree of competency. And how many do you really think would be able to graduate with an advanced degree in engineering or architecture?

In contrast to your 'legions', I would be surprised if all that construction produced more than 100,000 genuinely new jobs - most of which would be transient and evaporate after it was completed. Even with all those new roads, bridges, and railways, it just wouldn't take very many people to maintain them these days - statistically speaking when compared to the national unemployment situation.

Infrastructure is great! I'm all for it. But it is not the answer to our unemployment situation. Even in the '30s, when much more construction was actually done by unskilled workers, the New Deal projects had very little impact on the greater Depression era unemployment. And what of the Stimulus? They threw money at all kinds of infrastructure projects at the cost of well over $100k per job created (of which, most have dried up) with little impact on the greater unemployment situation.

Completely disagree. It is a fallacy to assume that the markets will always self correct and that we have no tools at our disposal. We do have the tools, we just have to make sure that the unused capital we are taxing is actively being used to create things that have value.

I don't assume, I hope. If not, I fear only attrition through aging and death will fix the situation. These people just aren't employable anymore.

There are plenty of things government can do to help create an environment for economic growth, but that growth will only come from the private sector. Changing rates will do little to achieve that goal, however, and could actually have a negative impact by taking capital out of the market during such a tenuous economic period.

If higher taxes were used for better education, health and social services, plus infrastructure, that might help the disadvantaged to upskill, get better education and get better jobs.

And yet the US government already spends buckets more than every other nation on earth on education at every level without much effect.

Time for more charts!



And that monster Bush massively increased higher and re-education subsidies for this very purpose, not to mention the slew of new and up-funded programs aimed at dragging people out of poverty.



Exactly how much more spending on education is necessary to close the wealth gap?

How are massive cuts to government services going to help the already disadvantaged?

I thought we were talking about how soaking the rich will help the poor and close the wealth gap.

Without sufficient education especially, disadvantaged communities are generally going to be stuck with low paying jobs. How will the wealth from the mega rich "trickle down" to them exactly? When the millionaires hire an extra gardener or maid?

Who's arguing trickledown economics here? You highlighted the wealth gap as a reason to soak the rich. I'm asking you specifically how that tax revenue will be used to close the gap in a way that actually addresses the underlying economic problems that caused it. Throwing money at education and government work hasn't solved it so far; has it not been enough? What's left beyond that? More direct payments? A negative income tax can only be implemented to a certain point before it creates serious disincentives to work, not to mention the negative social implications such welfare schemes entail.

It seems the wealth gap argument is rooted far more in class warfare and punitive emotion than real solutions to the nation's problems. Despite the existence of the gap, the American tax system is actually highly redistributive. The wealthy already pay the vast majority of income taxes in this country while nearly half pay nothing and millions collect direct payments (a situation the hated Bush tax cuts made even more favorable to the poor). With the new healthcare law, there is little more the government can do to help the poor without disincentivizing work and trapping the poor in a cycle of dependence. If you think the rich aren't paying enough, that's fine; but you'll have to come up with a more coherent argument if you want to try and portray raising rates as some sort of solution to the economic problems of the poor. It can only hurt them in the long run.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Hmm... where do you think the money is? Certainly a small portion is in savings accounts (which also indirectly help others through bank loans) bonds (which are crucial to government's ability to pay its employees), and commodities, but the vast majority of the monies out there are chasing a much higher return in the market.

Stats? I would like to know how much money that goes through the hands of the ultra wealthy goes to "constructive" things. I'm sure all of those bonuses that wall street gave themselves went back into the proper channels right?

I think you vastly overestimate the amount of people it would take to build all that infrastructure. Just like we discussed earlier, construction is another manual labor intensive industry that has replaced people with machines in droves; and many of the people left are skilled professionals, not the people we're trying to target. You cannot pull a laid-off factory worker off the street and expect him to be able to learn how to operate a bitumen sprayer with any degree of competency. And how many do you really think would be able to graduate with an advanced degree in engineering or architecture?

I think you vastly underestimate the scope of what I am talking about. This isn't adding another lane to the 101 or building a dam in Tennessee. When I say a new electrical and internet infrastructure, I mean an almost brand new one. From coast to coast, across all states, penetrating everywhere. Do you feel like a task like this will take 6, 8 or 12 months?

I understand there is training involved, which is why this will take time. I think maybe about 1% would be able to graduate with a degree. I feel that many more would be able to take the offer regarding trade skills such as electricians, plumbers etc...

In contrast to your 'legions', I would be surprised if all that construction produced more than 100,000 genuinely new jobs - most of which would be transient and evaporate after it was completed. Even with all those new roads, bridges, and railways, it just wouldn't take very many people to maintain them these days - statistically speaking when compared to the national unemployment situation.

Again, I feel you don't understand the scope. You think 100,000 people are going to rebuild a nation of 300 million in a couple months?

The point isn't the long term jobs. The point is the value gained from the construction which is needed in the first place and the demand created during this time to get more private sector jobs opening up.

Infrastructure is great! I'm all for it. But it is not the answer to our unemployment situation. Even in the '30s, when much more construction was actually done by unskilled workers, the New Deal projects had very little impact on the greater Depression era unemployment. And what of the Stimulus? They threw money at all kinds of infrastructure projects at the cost of well over $100k per job created (of which, most have dried up) with little impact on the greater unemployment situation.

I don't feel as if it is the end all be all in saving the entire economy. In the end the private sector has to step up with more permanent jobs. Great Depression project works like that have been part of the back bone of the American economy over the long run due to the benefits they gave and continue to give. As I have pointed out before, does anyone want to claim that without the government funded interstate highway system, that our level of efficiency and economic productivity would be anywhere near what it is today? Stimulus was a joke, most of it went into bankers pockets, that's no evidence.

I don't assume, I hope. If not, I fear only attrition through aging and death will fix the situation. These people just aren't employable anymore.

There are plenty of things government can do to help create an environment for economic growth, but that growth will only come from the private sector. Changing rates will do little to achieve that goal, however, and could actually have a negative impact by taking capital out of the market during such a tenuous economic period.

Where is the capital flowing in now? The bubble burst back in 2008 and we are still at 9%-10% unemployment. Where are the heroes of industry coming in to direct capital to successful ventures?

All I am saying is that we got this work that needs to be done, that isn't being done. We are all just sitting here waiting for the private market to do it's thing and meanwhile we got 1 in 10 people not doing anything. Just give them the jobs in the meantime. It is much better to have the unemployed man working for his unemployment check than just sitting at home.

And yet the US government already spends buckets more than every other nation on earth on education at every level without much effect.

Exactly how much more spending on education is necessary to close the wealth gap?

No one knows because the money isn't going to the students. Much of it is going to admin and support.

[Samurai Waki]

Watched both the speeches tonight; It's adorable that Boehner thinks he's President, too much drinking of the mouthwash can induce dementia.

[Major Robert Dump]

Strike, ACIN, here's what gets me about your argument. This may not actually be your agrument, maybe I am reading into it:

Okay, 360,000 rich people going from 23% to 43% tax rate is not going to fix the ecconomy.

How about we also raise taxes to that level on the other 299 million+ people. Still an attractive endeavor? I actually approve of that, along with eliminating various credits that reward people for breeding, for being poor, etc. I know everyone hates middle class taxes, and raising the taxes on poor people is the sacred goat itself. But poor people use the most social services, I would think they would be more than willing to do their civic duty and pay extra taxes in order to support the children they cannot support themselves.

I approve of higher taxes. For everyone. But only if it is coupled with more government oversight and accountability, which is at pretty much zero right now despite the interweb and wolf blitzer.

Corporate taxes need to be higher. Thats what could fix the economy.

I personally fell the idea of having corporations pay lower taxes so they can "invest" and "hire more people" is an absolute farce. It's partially a face regarding private individuals as well because it completely fails to take into account all the various positive things you can do with your extra money that does not "stimulate" the job market etc, like savings account, paying off a debt, etc

[a completely inoffensive name]

Strike, ACIN, here's what gets me about your argument. This may not actually be your agrument, maybe I am reading into it:

Okay, 360,000 rich people going from 23% to 43% tax rate is not going to fix the ecconomy.

How about we also raise taxes to that level on the other 299 million+ people. Still an attractive endeavor? I actually approve of that, along with various credits that reward people for breeding, for being poor, etc. I know everyone hates middle class taxes, and raising the taxes on poor people is the sacred goat itself. But poor people use the most social services, I would think they would be more than willing to do their civic duty and pay extra taxes in order to support the children they cannot support themselves.

I approve of higher taxes. For everyone. But only if it is coupled with more government oversight and accountability, which is at pretty much zero right now despite the interweb and wolf blitzer.

Well, your post came two minutes after mine, so I don't know if you read my last post which gives an outline of my plan of why higher taxes on the rich would help. I will wait until your next post before I respond, just in case I have already answered some of your questions with my last post.

[Papewaio]

It's not just the money coming in, it's where the money is going out.

Also a more telling issue, is not the tax rate. It's the ratio of income for the business leaders (C-level) to the average worker. The benefits at the top have skyrocketed out of all proportion to inflation, company performance or their individual performance.

Part of this is lack of transparency and accountability. Part of it is funds management. Lots of people who's wealth is added together and put into a fund, that is then controlled by a 25 year old looking as far ahead as this quarter. Tiny blips and they can make millions. Do they look at the long term? Do they care how much the C-levels make? Or do they just want a basis point raise to make their target?

I don't see as many problems were the owners have more involvement in the day to day affairs, or there are a few that have enough clout so that the board has teeth. Those that have too much fund management seem to lack clout other then reacting to share price movements... which is about as good for government as governing by polls.

[Strike For The South]

I'm also more than willing to take a buzz saw to certain entitlement programs. I don'tm want to tax just to tax or spend just to spend

[aimlesswanderer]

The wealth gap is constantly cited as a reason to raise rates despite the fact that lowered rates had little to do with the gap's growth and little explanation is given as to how raising them would fix the underlying factors that have caused the situation.

The wealth gap is an unfortunate side effect of America's transition to a post industrial economy. Put simply, manual labor is virtually worthless. Millions of Americans were conditioned over generations to believe that they could get a job at the local factory right out of high school and enjoy a decent livelihood without any further self improvement. In a relatively short period, that reality ceased to exist do to global, technological, and political macro-economic shifts and those millions of Americans were left behind. Meanwhile, those same shifts - outsourcing labor, robotic manufacturing, and free trade - meant that wealthy and/or educated Americans could wring more profit out of their investments. Thus, the gap.

The real question is: How will raising rates fix this situation? Sure, you can tax the wealthy until their income is much closer to the underclass, but that will do little to address the real problem and will actually hurt the poor even more as there will be little capital left in the economy for new ventures.

How exactly is the revenue generated by taxing the rich going to help the poor? Direct payments? Government work? We already have a tax system that pays the poor and have millions on the federal payroll. How much more should the government hand out before it becomes prohibitive to economic growth?

The wealth gap will (hopefully) naturally correct itself as time progresses. Most American kids these days have a greater understanding of the value of education and work specialization. Whether it does or it doesn't, raising taxes on the rich will do little to effect the underlying economic issues that created it.

If higher taxes were used for better education, health and social services, plus infrastructure, that might help the disadvantaged to upskill, get better education and get better jobs. How are massive cuts to government services going to help the already disadvantaged? Without sufficient education especially, disadvantaged communities are generally going to be stuck with low paying jobs. How will the wealth from the mega rich "trickle down" to them exactly? When the millionaires hire an extra gardener or maid?