© icanhascheezburger.comHow's that trickle down working out for you?
The Top 0.1% Of The Nation Earn Half Of All Capital Gains
Capital gains are the key ingredient of income disparity in the US - and the force behind the winner takes all mantra of our economic system. If you want even out earning power in the U.S, you have to raise the 15% capital gains tax.
Income and wealth disparities become even more absurd if we look at the top 0.1% of the nation's earners - rather than the more common 1%. The top 0.1% - about 315,000 individuals out of 315 million - are making about half of all capital gains on the sale of shares or property after 1 year; and these capital gains make up 60% of the income made by the Forbes 400.
It's crystal clear that the Bush tax reduction on capital gains and dividend income in 2003 was the cutting edge policy that has created the immense increase in net worth of corporate executives, Wall St. professionals and other entrepreneurs.
The reduction in the tax from 20% to 15% continued the step-by-step tradition of cutting this tax to create more wealth. It had first been reduced from 35% in 1978 at a time of stock market and economic stagnation to 28% . Again 1981, at the start of the Reagan era, it was reduced again to 20% - raised back to 28% in 1987, on the eve of the October 19 th - 23% crash in the market. In 1997 Clinton agreed to reduce it back to 20%, which move was an inducement for the explosion of hedge funds and private equity firms - the most "rapidly rising cohort within the top 1 per cent."
Make no mistake; the battle that is to be fought over the coming attempt to reverse this reduction in capital gains will be bloody and intense. The facts are clear according to the Congressional Budget Office more than 80% of the increase in income inequality was the result of an increase in the share of household income from capital gains. In fact, you can go so far as to claim that "Capital Gains income is the most unevenly distributed - and volatile - source of household income," according to Laura D'Andrea Tyson, University of California business professor and former chairwoman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Clinton.
No wonder the super wealthy plutocrats obtained the largest share of national income - 25% of the nation's wealth- greater than any other industrial nation in the the period of 1979 to 2005. Make no mistake; after unemployment - this disparity between the 1% - 3 million - or the 0.1% - the 300,000 - and the other 312 million citizens of the U.S. has become the major theme of the Occupy Wall Street movement - and an important national debate.
I commend you to the late Justice Louis Brandeis warning to the nation that " We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." We have to make up our minds to restore a higher, fairer capital gains tax to the wealthiest investor class - or ultimately face increased social unrest.
"Investment" as it is being practiced today is not contributing to economic growth.
This is the entire conservative pitch, and we are just not seeing it. This leads me to believe that the idea comes from the cabal and that no one seriously believes it.
But the other factor is this: Income tax is a key component in the fascist takeover plan. Thus, if you are going to follow the most basic principles of good organization, income tax is not the way to "correct" this problem. Something has gone wrong in the markets themselves, or in society, that has allowed this to happen.
Markets
Do we really need all the various exchanges ("markets") that have been invented in recent times? Do they serve a socially relevant purpose, or are they just big playgrounds for the rich?
Excess wealth needs to be available to make loans. And that should be about it. Should people even be allowed to profit from price fluctuations of loan contracts? The profit from loaning money comes from the interest paid on the loan. Is buying and selling loan contracts for other than their face value even ethical?
With investment as it exists today, a total criminal, if he can somehow get hold of a big enough pot of money, can continue to survive without any further positive interaction with society beyond making a portion of that pot of money available for investment. Does that really make sense?
Society
We need some ethical benchmarks. Should someone who lives on nothing but capital gains enjoy the same rights and privileges in society as someone who actually contributes to tangible wealth, and thus the survival of the group?
One low-tech way to discourage speculative spending would be to tax it. You wouldn't tax income. You wouldn't tax someone for making a loan (saving money). But if someone wanted to buy loan contracts as a commodity he would have to pay tax on that purchase. The idea is to discourage consumption for its own sake, and make people think twice about how they spend their income. This should tend to encourage the making of money through actual production, or through saving money, which makes it available to loan to others to help them accomplish production.