I'd be a bit concerned about selection bias in a study done during a high-unemployment period. Assuming you define the top 10% based on current (this year) income, you have all of the unemployed folks in the bottom 90%; do this study ending in 2007 and you have a very different result (ie, gribbler's graph). The top 10% may well be hurt as well - but those that are hurt are dropping out of the top 10%, being replaced by people who aren't being affected by the downturn (and perhaps are benefiting from it, in those sectors that are doing better). Add to that the fact that inflation has basically stopped due to the recession, and you have a scenario where the top 10% look better versus the bottom 90% (or the bottom any %).
My general feeling is that economic inequality does exist and is somewhat of a problem, but is not the problem that the MrFun types make it out to be - that's more like the complaints of the French in the 1780s.
My personal vote to deal with it is the estate tax - keep the 5MM exemption, but then 80% tax above that, and close most/all trust exemptions (so you don't have "trust fund babies"; maybe include a few specific reasons trusts can exist that are nontaxed, with fairly low limits, but otherwise nothing). That would never pass Congress, of course ("Death Tax" yadda yadda) but seems like a very fair way of ensuring you tax the "wealthy" without causing economic disruptions.
My general feeling is that economic inequality does exist and is somewhat of a problem, but is not the problem that the MrFun types make it out to be - that's more like the complaints of the French in the 1780s.
My personal vote to deal with it is the estate tax - keep the 5MM exemption, but then 80% tax above that, and close most/all trust exemptions (so you don't have "trust fund babies"; maybe include a few specific reasons trusts can exist that are nontaxed, with fairly low limits, but otherwise nothing). That would never pass Congress, of course ("Death Tax" yadda yadda) but seems like a very fair way of ensuring you tax the "wealthy" without causing economic disruptions.
Comment