Stiglitz on Wealth Inequality.

bendog

Diamond Member
Mar 4, 2013
46,279
9,696
2,040
Dog House in back yard
It would be interesting to see Ryan or some other gop wonk discuss the gop's alternative.

Supergirl "Stronger Together" Review: United We Stand - Yahoo News

Instead, massive changes to tax laws, regulations, and the financial sector are needed, he says, in order to curb rent-seeking. For instance, increasing tax rates, ending preferential treatment for top earners, and refining the tax code would decrease incentives to amass extreme amounts of wealth, since it would be so heavily taxed, and that tax would be difficult to shirk. Stiglitz suggests a 5 percent increase to the tax rate of the top 1 percent of earners—a move that he says would raise as much as $1.5 trillion over 10 years. He also calls for a “fair tax,” which would eliminate preferential tax treatment for money earned from capital gains and dividends—perks enjoyed primarily by people who can afford to own a lot of stock.

To further ensure that corporations, markets, and individuals aren’t pursuing profits at the expense of workers and the public, Stiglitz calls for a more active central bank. He accuses the Fed of being both too narrowly focused on macroeconomic indicators, and too deferential to the businesses and markets it has the ability to regulate. He wants the government to sponsor a homeownership agency that would dole out housing loans in a way that encourages buyers instead of developers and would closely monitor the market for fairness.
 
Sounds like lefty lalaland utopia.... tax, spend and regulate.

Sure, why not, that has worked out so well so far.
 
Sounds like lefty lalaland utopia.... tax, spend and regulate.

Sure, why not, that has worked out so well so far.
You totally took the words off my keyboard.

All of this bullshit, except a fair flat tax, has been tried. It failed. It's designed to fail so that more bureaucrooks can "fix" it.

Government is a solution to a problem that government caused. Break the cycle.


 
Stiglitz would respond that it worked fine from 1948 to 1980.
Sounds like lefty lalaland utopia.... tax, spend and regulate.

Sure, why not, that has worked out so well so far.
You totally took the words off my keyboard.

All of this bullshit, except a fair flat tax, has been tried. It failed. It's designed to fail so that more bureaucrooks can "fix" it.

Government is a solution to a problem that government caused. Break the cycle.

The increase in wealth disparity and the flattening out of middle class wages commenced around 1980, and there's no real dispute about that. There is dispute as to whether a return to a more progressive tax code would be beneficial. Ryan and at one time Rubio had some counter ideas, but those have been drowned out by .... scandals.

Ryan has interesting ideas, but they have translated into legislation.

Paul Ryan betrays his own views on income inequality
 
Income inequality is caused by too much government (government is just another name for incompetence and corruption)...so the solution to some, is more government. Makes sense to the senseless.
 
It would be interesting to see Ryan or some other gop wonk discuss the gop's alternative.

Supergirl "Stronger Together" Review: United We Stand - Yahoo News

Instead, massive changes to tax laws, regulations, and the financial sector are needed, he says, in order to curb rent-seeking. For instance, increasing tax rates, ending preferential treatment for top earners, and refining the tax code would decrease incentives to amass extreme amounts of wealth, since it would be so heavily taxed, and that tax would be difficult to shirk. Stiglitz suggests a 5 percent increase to the tax rate of the top 1 percent of earners—a move that he says would raise as much as $1.5 trillion over 10 years. He also calls for a “fair tax,” which would eliminate preferential tax treatment for money earned from capital gains and dividends—perks enjoyed primarily by people who can afford to own a lot of stock.

To further ensure that corporations, markets, and individuals aren’t pursuing profits at the expense of workers and the public, Stiglitz calls for a more active central bank. He accuses the Fed of being both too narrowly focused on macroeconomic indicators, and too deferential to the businesses and markets it has the ability to regulate. He wants the government to sponsor a homeownership agency that would dole out housing loans in a way that encourages buyers instead of developers and would closely monitor the market for fairness.

It's what made Cuba and Venezeula the great Progressive countries they are today, with no running water or WiFi
 
It would be interesting to see Ryan or some other gop wonk discuss the gop's alternative.

Supergirl "Stronger Together" Review: United We Stand - Yahoo News

Instead, massive changes to tax laws, regulations, and the financial sector are needed, he says, in order to curb rent-seeking. For instance, increasing tax rates, ending preferential treatment for top earners, and refining the tax code would decrease incentives to amass extreme amounts of wealth, since it would be so heavily taxed, and that tax would be difficult to shirk. Stiglitz suggests a 5 percent increase to the tax rate of the top 1 percent of earners—a move that he says would raise as much as $1.5 trillion over 10 years. He also calls for a “fair tax,” which would eliminate preferential tax treatment for money earned from capital gains and dividends—perks enjoyed primarily by people who can afford to own a lot of stock.

To further ensure that corporations, markets, and individuals aren’t pursuing profits at the expense of workers and the public, Stiglitz calls for a more active central bank. He accuses the Fed of being both too narrowly focused on macroeconomic indicators, and too deferential to the businesses and markets it has the ability to regulate. He wants the government to sponsor a homeownership agency that would dole out housing loans in a way that encourages buyers instead of developers and would closely monitor the market for fairness.

It's what made Cuba and Venezeula the great Progressive countries they are today, with no running water or WiFi
And again Frank weighs in without having any alternative arguments.
 
Why is there a link to a Supergirl review in the OP instead of to the source of the article from which the OP is quoting?
 
Instead, massive changes to tax laws, regulations, and the financial sector are needed, he says, in order to curb rent-seeking.

Sounds good. I'm with ya all the way.

For instance, increasing tax rates...

Aaaaaaand you lost me.
 
Stiglitz wants to shut down production. He openly admits it. He wants income above a certain level to be punished so severely that the rich person stops earning, which means the rich person stops producing.

That's a sure fucking way to slow the economy down even more.
 
Stiglitz wants to shut down production. He openly admits it. He wants income above a certain level to be punished so severely that the rich person stops earning, which means the rich person stops producing.

That's a sure fucking way to slow the economy down even more.
I'm not sold on all of Stiglitz.

I would like this upcoming election to have as one large issue how to get the middle class moving again. And I'm not totally against raising rates (or more accurately the % of income the top 1 and 10% pay with reductions in "loopholes" or tax expenditures) if that was accompanied by lowering corporate rates (along with reducing tax expenditures on them as well).
 
I can tell you how to get the middle class moving again.

Stop spending more than we have!

Done!
 
It would be interesting to see Ryan or some other gop wonk discuss the gop's alternative.

Supergirl "Stronger Together" Review: United We Stand - Yahoo News

Instead, massive changes to tax laws, regulations, and the financial sector are needed, he says, in order to curb rent-seeking. For instance, increasing tax rates, ending preferential treatment for top earners, and refining the tax code would decrease incentives to amass extreme amounts of wealth, since it would be so heavily taxed, and that tax would be difficult to shirk. Stiglitz suggests a 5 percent increase to the tax rate of the top 1 percent of earners—a move that he says would raise as much as $1.5 trillion over 10 years. He also calls for a “fair tax,” which would eliminate preferential tax treatment for money earned from capital gains and dividends—perks enjoyed primarily by people who can afford to own a lot of stock.

To further ensure that corporations, markets, and individuals aren’t pursuing profits at the expense of workers and the public, Stiglitz calls for a more active central bank. He accuses the Fed of being both too narrowly focused on macroeconomic indicators, and too deferential to the businesses and markets it has the ability to regulate. He wants the government to sponsor a homeownership agency that would dole out housing loans in a way that encourages buyers instead of developers and would closely monitor the market for fairness.
Once again libs glom on to the problem instead of the solution.
There are two ways to "fix" income inequality. You can punish the people at the top, or you can reward the people at the bottom.
Punishing the people at the top feels good to the envious shitheads who inhabit this board and their real life counterparts attending Feel The Bern rallies. But in reality it is like trying to increase blood flow to an arm by tying a tourniquet around the head. Such policies have 100% records of failure.
Rewarding people at the bottom is the conservative solution, create incentives to go to school, work hard, get out, start businesses and be successful.
 
Stiglitz would respond that it worked fine from 1948 to 1980.
Sounds like lefty lalaland utopia.... tax, spend and regulate.

Sure, why not, that has worked out so well so far.
You totally took the words off my keyboard.

All of this bullshit, except a fair flat tax, has been tried. It failed. It's designed to fail so that more bureaucrooks can "fix" it.

Government is a solution to a problem that government caused. Break the cycle.

The increase in wealth disparity and the flattening out of middle class wages commenced around 1980, and there's no real dispute about that. There is dispute as to whether a return to a more progressive tax code would be beneficial. Ryan and at one time Rubio had some counter ideas, but those have been drowned out by .... scandals.

Ryan has interesting ideas, but they have translated into legislation.

Paul Ryan betrays his own views on income inequality



look!! the "forward!!" people keep looking BACKWARD


libs are losers who lie to themselves
 
income inequality has grown on the Progressive watch no matter how much these losers dont want to admit they are in charge and have been for more than 7 years. Funny these are the same crybabies trying to brag about anything they see as good going on. So sice they made income inequality WORSE why should we trust ANYTHING THE LEFT SAYS TO DO ECONOMICALLY????
 
income inequality has grown on the Progressive watch no matter how much these losers dont want to admit they are in charge and have been for more than 7 years. Funny these are the same crybabies trying to brag about anything they see as good going on. So sice they made income inequality WORSE why should we trust ANYTHING THE LEFT SAYS TO DO ECONOMICALLY????
See economic policy was set under Reagan. Then it went to sleep under Clinton, woke up again under Bush, and has been comatose ever since.
Seriously this is how they boneheads think. Reagan ruined the middle class and no one has done anything since. Democrats tried but it was too screwed up.
 
The idiotic Left wants:

1. amnesty for illegals because a Republican President who was a Democrat most of his life wanted it
2. healthcare based on an idea that was supposedly first thought up by Republicans before being discarded
3. carbon-based restrictions because people that are EXEMPT from restrictions as "developing nations" say we should have them.
4. nanny-state policies that a handful of european nations are propping up a larger number of failing ones
5. border laws that are bordering countries like Mexico are a 100 times stricter with

libs are idiots, why should we listen to them???
 
income inequality has grown on the Progressive watch no matter how much these losers dont want to admit they are in charge and have been for more than 7 years. Funny these are the same crybabies trying to brag about anything they see as good going on. So sice they made income inequality WORSE why should we trust ANYTHING THE LEFT SAYS TO DO ECONOMICALLY????
That is simply untrue because income inequality arose after 1980. Now whether we "should" go back to top rates of 50% and higher, as Stiglitz and Bernie suggest, or whether we should seek a different avenue .... THAT is the question.

Wage Stagnation in Nine Charts
 
the "forward-thinkers" on the Left want:

1. tax rates on the top brackets used to finance WWII and the Cold War from at least 35 years ago to more than sixty years ago
2. welfare policies that created GENERATIONAL WELFARE and sentenced whole families to lifetimes of underachievement, poverty and crime.

why should we listen to them?
 

Forum List

Back
Top