<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Reducing inequality: what to do about the top 1%</title>
	<atom:link href="http://lanekenworthy.net/2009/04/17/reducing-inequality-what-to-do-about-the-top-1/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://lanekenworthy.net/2009/04/17/reducing-inequality-what-to-do-about-the-top-1/</link>
	<description>Lane Kenworthy</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 May 2012 18:50:02 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Blue</title>
		<link>http://lanekenworthy.net/2009/04/17/reducing-inequality-what-to-do-about-the-top-1/#comment-1109</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Blue]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Apr 2009 15:23:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lanekenworthy.net/?p=2347#comment-1109</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I think a better way to encourage reasonable pay structures is to eliminate the right-off for excessive pay and compensation packages.  A company can compensate in any manner they wish but the deduction for compensation cannot exceed say 10X the compensation of the lowest paid employee everything else comes out of profit.

While I think that taxes should be progressive I&#039;m not convinced that the overall rates need to be increased (it&#039;s possible they could be decreased) but fundamental changes should be made.  First - income is income no matter how it is derived (salary, dividends, interest etc.) and is taxed at the same rate.  Second, there should be a single standard deduction based on the modal cost of living (mcol) for where you reside (these data are readily available and 20-30 categories could easily accommodate all towns/cities in the US).  Thirdly, to encourage responsible population growth you can have no more than two (lifetime) dependent-deductions for period of up  to 24 years (if full-time students).  The tax brackets would then be based on percentage of mcol starting at 125% (then 125-150%, 150-200%, 200-300%, 300-400%, &gt;500%).  No deductions for mortgages, 2nd homes etc. etc. - the single (mcol) deduction only.  People wouldn&#039;t even have to file income tax forms - they&#039;d get a statement and if there was nothing to dispute receive their refund or pay the additional amount.  I would like to see a consumption tax added for larger homes (say in excess of 2500 sq. ft. - unless, of course they were off-grid).

Divorce health care from employment and institute single-payer system eliminating unnecessary middleman (insurance industry).  Someone needs to have enough courage to state what should be obvious some things should not be for profit - education, health care and justice are three that come to mind immediately.

Social Security -kind of a trading caps (versus cap and trade).  Remove the income cap (all is taxed) but place a cap (say 150 -200% mcol) for recipients.  In other words, you can receive SSN payments up to the minimal bracket (125% mcol) but no one making 200% mcol or greater may collect.  The overall percentage (deducted) could be reduced significantly.

I believe these changes would reflect an increase in revenue received (no loopholes - severe penalties for failure to report income (individuals, banks, investment firms, accountants etc.).  Additionally tort reform could contribute to health care costs (as well as tax revenue) in that monies received in accident, product liability, malpractice etc. would go into the health care pot - individuals could receive no more than actual loss monies (expected lost income things of that nature).

We would also benefit by changing corporate taxation by redefining what an American corporation is (in terms of percent of assets- including personal that need be in the US - no offshore shelters), provide incentives for those corporations that put employees above stockholders and eliminate certain deductions - for example advertising - sponsorship of sports teams, celebrity endorsements etc. only mean advertising costs (actors on scale etc.). They can pay for Tiger Woods, ludicrous Super Bowl advertising but it will come off their bottom line and will not be deductible expenses.

Oh, and no corporate bailouts.  The entire banking/financial system was not broken - those &#039;too big to fail&#039; should have been allowed to fail precisely for that reason.  To get lending/consumer money flowing funds could have been released (with oversight) to the many functioning banks/financial institutions/credit unions.  Assets should have been frozen for failing corporations (AIG et al -and their CEOs), bankruptcy initiated etc.

Well, that&#039;s a start anyway.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think a better way to encourage reasonable pay structures is to eliminate the right-off for excessive pay and compensation packages.  A company can compensate in any manner they wish but the deduction for compensation cannot exceed say 10X the compensation of the lowest paid employee everything else comes out of profit.</p>
<p>While I think that taxes should be progressive I&#8217;m not convinced that the overall rates need to be increased (it&#8217;s possible they could be decreased) but fundamental changes should be made.  First &#8211; income is income no matter how it is derived (salary, dividends, interest etc.) and is taxed at the same rate.  Second, there should be a single standard deduction based on the modal cost of living (mcol) for where you reside (these data are readily available and 20-30 categories could easily accommodate all towns/cities in the US).  Thirdly, to encourage responsible population growth you can have no more than two (lifetime) dependent-deductions for period of up  to 24 years (if full-time students).  The tax brackets would then be based on percentage of mcol starting at 125% (then 125-150%, 150-200%, 200-300%, 300-400%, &gt;500%).  No deductions for mortgages, 2nd homes etc. etc. &#8211; the single (mcol) deduction only.  People wouldn&#8217;t even have to file income tax forms &#8211; they&#8217;d get a statement and if there was nothing to dispute receive their refund or pay the additional amount.  I would like to see a consumption tax added for larger homes (say in excess of 2500 sq. ft. &#8211; unless, of course they were off-grid).</p>
<p>Divorce health care from employment and institute single-payer system eliminating unnecessary middleman (insurance industry).  Someone needs to have enough courage to state what should be obvious some things should not be for profit &#8211; education, health care and justice are three that come to mind immediately.</p>
<p>Social Security -kind of a trading caps (versus cap and trade).  Remove the income cap (all is taxed) but place a cap (say 150 -200% mcol) for recipients.  In other words, you can receive SSN payments up to the minimal bracket (125% mcol) but no one making 200% mcol or greater may collect.  The overall percentage (deducted) could be reduced significantly.</p>
<p>I believe these changes would reflect an increase in revenue received (no loopholes &#8211; severe penalties for failure to report income (individuals, banks, investment firms, accountants etc.).  Additionally tort reform could contribute to health care costs (as well as tax revenue) in that monies received in accident, product liability, malpractice etc. would go into the health care pot &#8211; individuals could receive no more than actual loss monies (expected lost income things of that nature).</p>
<p>We would also benefit by changing corporate taxation by redefining what an American corporation is (in terms of percent of assets- including personal that need be in the US &#8211; no offshore shelters), provide incentives for those corporations that put employees above stockholders and eliminate certain deductions &#8211; for example advertising &#8211; sponsorship of sports teams, celebrity endorsements etc. only mean advertising costs (actors on scale etc.). They can pay for Tiger Woods, ludicrous Super Bowl advertising but it will come off their bottom line and will not be deductible expenses.</p>
<p>Oh, and no corporate bailouts.  The entire banking/financial system was not broken &#8211; those &#8216;too big to fail&#8217; should have been allowed to fail precisely for that reason.  To get lending/consumer money flowing funds could have been released (with oversight) to the many functioning banks/financial institutions/credit unions.  Assets should have been frozen for failing corporations (AIG et al -and their CEOs), bankruptcy initiated etc.</p>
<p>Well, that&#8217;s a start anyway.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Don</title>
		<link>http://lanekenworthy.net/2009/04/17/reducing-inequality-what-to-do-about-the-top-1/#comment-1106</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Don]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Apr 2009 06:35:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lanekenworthy.net/?p=2347#comment-1106</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It&#039;s great that we are discussing the subject, but as demonstrated by the recent example of the Federal government asking the US financial sector if they would be willing to offer some kind of transparency in exchange for $2 trillion of our tax dollars, and the financial community replying, &quot;No, but thanks for the money,&quot; &quot;wealth and power&quot; have shown that they essentially own the system, and that they are not going to concede any of their wealth or power, even under force of existing law.

So my best hope is that we might possibly get some kind of support under the poorest 1% and raise the baseline standard of living for everyone (wait, wait, don&#039;t start laughing yet, let me finish), and maybe, just maybe, if most folks are freed from the distractions of scrambling after a subsistence living, the &quot;underclass&quot; might possibly, in a few generations, learn how to use the electoral process to support their interests instead of those of the top 1%.

And also ride unicorns with jet-packs.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s great that we are discussing the subject, but as demonstrated by the recent example of the Federal government asking the US financial sector if they would be willing to offer some kind of transparency in exchange for $2 trillion of our tax dollars, and the financial community replying, &#8220;No, but thanks for the money,&#8221; &#8220;wealth and power&#8221; have shown that they essentially own the system, and that they are not going to concede any of their wealth or power, even under force of existing law.</p>
<p>So my best hope is that we might possibly get some kind of support under the poorest 1% and raise the baseline standard of living for everyone (wait, wait, don&#8217;t start laughing yet, let me finish), and maybe, just maybe, if most folks are freed from the distractions of scrambling after a subsistence living, the &#8220;underclass&#8221; might possibly, in a few generations, learn how to use the electoral process to support their interests instead of those of the top 1%.</p>
<p>And also ride unicorns with jet-packs.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: tecknogyk</title>
		<link>http://lanekenworthy.net/2009/04/17/reducing-inequality-what-to-do-about-the-top-1/#comment-1104</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[tecknogyk]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Apr 2009 01:36:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lanekenworthy.net/?p=2347#comment-1104</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;Considering how hard people work to get into the top 1%&quot;  Yeah, I&#039;m sure they worked *real* hard to get into something they were born into.  Wake up.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Considering how hard people work to get into the top 1%&#8221;  Yeah, I&#8217;m sure they worked *real* hard to get into something they were born into.  Wake up.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Zephyr</title>
		<link>http://lanekenworthy.net/2009/04/17/reducing-inequality-what-to-do-about-the-top-1/#comment-1079</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Zephyr]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 19 Apr 2009 14:32:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lanekenworthy.net/?p=2347#comment-1079</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Focussing on high incomes is the wrong answer.
We need to lift the people at the lower end.

Lets not push everyone down to an equal lower level.
Total equality will only be reached when everyone has nothing.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Focussing on high incomes is the wrong answer.<br />
We need to lift the people at the lower end.</p>
<p>Lets not push everyone down to an equal lower level.<br />
Total equality will only be reached when everyone has nothing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: slacker</title>
		<link>http://lanekenworthy.net/2009/04/17/reducing-inequality-what-to-do-about-the-top-1/#comment-1069</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[slacker]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 18 Apr 2009 05:58:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lanekenworthy.net/?p=2347#comment-1069</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I love how middle class (nothing wrong with that) economists always opine about how the incomes of the top 1% should be taxed more.  

Considering how hard people work to get into the top 1%, the poor measurement of lifetime earnings (i.e. earnings variability), the progressivity of the tax code and the fact that most services are means tested, why don&#039;t you guys just leave it alone.  When you actually add everything up a lot of these guys get a terrible deal.  They make 2x as much as many other but work twice as much.  When you adjust for taxes, the amount they pay for services &amp; college tuition, things that are more expensive when you are busy (child care, laundry etc.), they end up with a much poorer quality of life than the average person.  These people are basically suckers (to have sunk so much time &amp; money into education, training and work) and there is no reason to give them an even more raw deal.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I love how middle class (nothing wrong with that) economists always opine about how the incomes of the top 1% should be taxed more.  </p>
<p>Considering how hard people work to get into the top 1%, the poor measurement of lifetime earnings (i.e. earnings variability), the progressivity of the tax code and the fact that most services are means tested, why don&#8217;t you guys just leave it alone.  When you actually add everything up a lot of these guys get a terrible deal.  They make 2x as much as many other but work twice as much.  When you adjust for taxes, the amount they pay for services &amp; college tuition, things that are more expensive when you are busy (child care, laundry etc.), they end up with a much poorer quality of life than the average person.  These people are basically suckers (to have sunk so much time &amp; money into education, training and work) and there is no reason to give them an even more raw deal.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: matt</title>
		<link>http://lanekenworthy.net/2009/04/17/reducing-inequality-what-to-do-about-the-top-1/#comment-1066</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[matt]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Apr 2009 18:47:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lanekenworthy.net/?p=2347#comment-1066</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[how much money do you think will be recovered by that tax? do you have an estimate? I imagine the income of the top 1% has gone down a lot over the last year and a half, as it did after the stock market crash in 2000.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>how much money do you think will be recovered by that tax? do you have an estimate? I imagine the income of the top 1% has gone down a lot over the last year and a half, as it did after the stock market crash in 2000.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

