Economic Inequality

[gts476]

It is the government that creates increases wealth inequality.

[pattu1]

It is the government that creates increases wealth inequality.

If not for progressive taxes, wealth inequality would be higher. 

[gts476]

It is the government that creates increases wealth inequality.

If not for progressive taxes, wealth inequality would be higher. 

Prove it.

Cite peer reviewed evidence or argument from first principles.

[shawshankinmate37927]

No, it isn't.  Banks have been issuing money for at most a few hundred years.  Wealth inequality has existed for many thousands of years.  Common sense tells us that a problem can not exist before it's cause. 

Common sense tells us that wealth inequality isn't "the" problem or even "a" problem.  Attempting to equally distribute wealth only creates problems.  Understanding the/a problem is key to understanding why Bitcoin is the/a solution.

[NotLambchop]

It is the government that creates increases wealth inequality.

If not for progressive taxes, wealth inequality would be higher. 

Prove it.

Cite peer reviewed evidence or argument from first principles.

Because if not for progressive taxation, rich people would pay less in taxes, and poor people would pay more.
Are you suggesting that rich people paying less in taxes would make them poorer?
Or that poor paying more in taxes would make them richer?
Those are the only scenarios which would reduce financial inequality, and both are self-contradictory.

[brian_23452]

No, it isn't.  Banks have been issuing money for at most a few hundred years.  Wealth inequality has existed for many thousands of years.  Common sense tells us that a problem can not exist before it's cause. 

Common sense tells us that wealth inequality isn't "the" problem or even "a" problem.  Attempting to equally distribute wealth only creates problems.  Understanding the/a problem is key to understanding why Bitcoin is the/a solution.

It is "the" problem because the OP identified it as such for this thread. 

[odolvlobo]

It is the government that creates increases wealth inequality.

If not for progressive taxes, wealth inequality would be higher.  

Prove it.

Cite peer reviewed evidence or argument from first principles.

Because if not for progressive taxation, rich people would pay less in taxes, and poor people would pay more.
Are you suggesting that rich people paying less in taxes would make them poorer?
Or that poor paying more in taxes would make them richer?
Those are the only scenarios which would reduce financial inequality, and both are self-contradictory.

It is not so cut and dry. A progressive tax reduces the productivity of the most efficient producers. Reduced productivity results in more expensive goods for the poor, countering the benefits of their lower taxes.

[NotLambchop]

It is the government that creates increases wealth inequality.

If not for progressive taxes, wealth inequality would be higher.  

Prove it.

Cite peer reviewed evidence or argument from first principles.

Because if not for progressive taxation, rich people would pay less in taxes, and poor people would pay more.
Are you suggesting that rich people paying less in taxes would make them poorer?
Or that poor paying more in taxes would make them richer?
Those are the only scenarios which would reduce financial inequality, and both are self-contradictory.

It is not so cut and dry. A progressive tax reduces the productivity of the most efficient producers. Reduced productivity results in more expensive goods for the poor, countering the benefits of their lower taxes.

It is as cut-and-dry as that.
If progressive taxation indeed increases the prices of good, those prices are increased for rich & poor alike, allowing us to factor out this [disputable] increase when solving for economic inequality.

[Soros Shorts]

It is the government that creates increases wealth inequality.

If not for progressive taxes, wealth inequality would be higher.  

Prove it.

Cite peer reviewed evidence or argument from first principles.

Because if not for progressive taxation, rich people would pay less in taxes, and poor people would pay more.
Are you suggesting that rich people paying less in taxes would make them poorer?
Or that poor paying more in taxes would make them richer?
Those are the only scenarios which would reduce financial inequality, and both are self-contradictory.

It is not so cut and dry. A progressive tax reduces the productivity of the most efficient producers. Reduced productivity results in more expensive goods for the poor, countering the benefits of their lower taxes.

It is as cut-and-dry as that.
If progressive taxation indeed increases the prices of good, those prices are increased for rich & poor alike, allowing us to factor out this [disputable] increase when solving for economic inequality.

Wealth disparity is not a problem in and of itself. The problem is having too many people living in poverty. It can be argued that reduced productivity would lead to this.

[NotLambchop]

^Anything could be argued, that's neither here nor there.
I addressed a specific claim--one of the effects of progressive taxation on wealth disparity.
If you wish to argue that higher taxes for the poor would translate into reduced wealth disparity, feel free.

[brian_23452]

It is the government that creates increases wealth inequality.

If not for progressive taxes, wealth inequality would be higher.  

Prove it.

Cite peer reviewed evidence or argument from first principles.

Because if not for progressive taxation, rich people would pay less in taxes, and poor people would pay more.
Are you suggesting that rich people paying less in taxes would make them poorer?
Or that poor paying more in taxes would make them richer?
Those are the only scenarios which would reduce financial inequality, and both are self-contradictory.

It is not so cut and dry. A progressive tax reduces the productivity of the most efficient producers. Reduced productivity results in more expensive goods for the poor, countering the benefits of their lower taxes.

It is cut and dry.  Trickle down economics works exactly as  common sense says it would, reducing the taxes on the rich leads to the rich being richer, and no one else.  We tried it here in the US in the 80s for many years.  We tried it again just recently.  Exactly as you would expect, reducing taxes on the rich results in the rich being more rich.  None of that wealth ever "trickles down" because they simply pocket it.  The idea that you are taxing the "most efficient producers" is fallacious because it assumes the rich are rich because they are the most efficient producers.  In reality, with the exception of a few rare, lucky cases, the overwhelming majority of the rich are no different then anyone else except that their parents were rich.  Quite the opposite, the people at the top generally speaking don't actually produce anything at all, but rather use their power and position to siphon wealth off from the actual workers who actually create wealth. 

[shawshankinmate37927]

Common sense tells us that wealth inequality isn't "the" problem or even "a" problem.  Attempting to equally distribute wealth only creates problems.  Understanding the/a problem is key to understanding why Bitcoin is the/a solution.

It is "the" problem because the OP identified it as such for this thread.  

OP could start a thread that identified too many stars in the Milky Way as a problem, that still doesn't make it so.

[pattu1]

It is the government that creates increases wealth inequality.

If not for progressive taxes, wealth inequality would be higher. 

Prove it.

Cite peer reviewed evidence or argument from first principles.

Because if not for progressive taxation, rich people would pay less in taxes, and poor people would pay more.
Are you suggesting that rich people paying less in taxes would make them poorer?
Or that poor paying more in taxes would make them richer?
Those are the only scenarios which would reduce financial inequality, and both are self-contradictory.

Couldn't have put it better myself. 
I thought that it was obvious that progressive taxation reduces wealth inequality.

[wenben]

It is the government that creates increases wealth inequality.

If not for progressive taxes, wealth inequality would be higher. 

Prove it.

Cite peer reviewed evidence or argument from first principles.

Because if not for progressive taxation, rich people would pay less in taxes, and poor people would pay more.
Are you suggesting that rich people paying less in taxes would make them poorer?
Or that poor paying more in taxes would make them richer?
Those are the only scenarios which would reduce financial inequality, and both are self-contradictory.

Couldn't have put it better myself. 
I thought that it was obvious that progressive taxation reduces wealth inequality.

Taxes create more inequality by subsidizing the super rich.

[NotLambchop]

...
Taxes create more inequality by subsidizing the super rich.

Progressive taxation means the rich paying more than the poor.  What you just described ain't it.
You are correct, the super rich try to avoid paying their fair share--by finding loopholes in the system, and by convincing the credulous rubes that "[t]axes create more inequality."

[aronnov]

now it has happened economic inequality that resulted in the economic crisis in some countries, this economic inequality occurred due to no liberal and capitalist system that controls several major countries in the world, this system resulted in the rich getting richer and the poor get poorer, inequality which happens too much, so that the poor will not be able to last longer
This could mengakibatka other effects of socio-economic field, namely massive crimes to cover the cost of the lives of the growing ... 

[twiifm]

Capital gains is capped at 15% and it used to be 30%.

Thats why Warren Buffett pats same tax bracket as his secretary.  He's on record somewhere stating tax laws are broken

[odolvlobo]

Capital gains is capped at 15% and it used to be 30%.

Thats why Warren Buffett pats same tax bracket as his secretary.  He's on record somewhere stating tax laws are broken

He ignores the fact that corporate profits are already taxed at 35%, and his total tax rate is actually 50%.

[sonofacoin]

...Can we blame capitalist that hoard as much wealth as possible leaving only a thin slice of the .pie for the average guy to share among themselves?

Nope, it's the corrupt politicians and bankers.  It's the monopoly on the ability to create money that is the problem, not capitalism.

I was looking for this answer.. found it.

+1

[twiifm]

Capital gains is capped at 15% and it used to be 30%.

Thats why Warren Buffett pats same tax bracket as his secretary.  He's on record somewhere stating tax laws are broken

He ignores the fact that corporate profits are already taxed at 35%, and his total tax rate is actually 50%.

It doesn't work like that.  I'm too lazy to explain basic corporate structures & tax codes.  Just look it up or stay ignorant

Also, LOL if you think Warren Buffet doesn't know

http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/04/news/economy/buffett-secretary-taxes/