World inequality

But apart from that we can simply redistribute wealth more. There is no point in a lot of people having so little they are miserable and others having much more than can help them to be happy. It benefits nobody at all. One concrete proposal I'd have is a maximum wage.
OK those are fair points but again the devil is always in the details. The president just suggested an idea along these lines and I completely disagree with his proposal not in principal but in the details. He is not suggesting a shift in wealth form the rich to the poor the way the media has portrayed it. Instead he is proposing a shift in wealth form the upper middle class to the middle class for which there is no good moral basis. In regards to the Maximum wage, again we have to be careful. People who have exceptional talent may not be willing to live in a country that limits the rewards they can receive form those talents. Steve Jobs or Elon Musk may prefer to move their business and their wealth elsewhere if they were forced to accept $100/hr. Far worse would be if such limits discouraged productivity. Why should someone with great ideas and drive kill themselves working 90 hours a week to create the next great product if they could have a much better life working half as many hours and producing an OK product? When limits are set that don't respect the differences in contributions made people wil find a way to work around those limits either legally or illegally.
[There is analysis done by Ralph Nader which touched on wealth inequality? RALPH NADER: Well, he was too vague on that. What he should have done is said that Ronald Reagan supported capital gains and dividend taxes like ordinary income, so there wasn’t this split where the rich get lower tax on thei capital gains or dividend. And he didn’t tie in any idea of revenues for the public works program that he touted. You know, Amy, State of the Union speeches are signaling presentations. They signal by what they say, how they say it and what they don’t say. And on that criteria, it wasn’t a very coherent speech. He stressed civil liberties and never mentioned what he’s going to do about the renewal of the notorious PATRIOT Act provisions. He said that there should be more oil and gas production, and then he warned about climate change. He said there should be strengthening unions and voices of workers, and then he took it away with the Trans-Pacific trade agreement, which exports jobs, and he wants to ram through Congress a voiceless fast track that prohibits amendments and labor from having a role in that deliberation. And he didn’t even mention the hundreds of billions of dollars of commercial fraud on Medicare and Medicaid and patients in the private sector—hundreds of billions of dollars of corporate crime he never mentioned. He could have done a convergence with the Republicans on auditing the Pentagon, which sounds dull, but it’s a huge issue that the rank and file on both sides support, in contrast to the leadership in Congress. He could have easily converged, because as senator, Senator Obama teamed up with Senator Coburn, the Republican, to put the full text of hundreds of billions of dollars of corporate contracts online, so competitors, taxpayers, the media, the academia can analyze and prune the huge waste, fraud and corruption. Also notice that he said again, "Close down Gitmo." We’ve heard that song before. Again, he didn’t mention the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at all. And I think what is most troubling is what he avoided saying, like he desperately needs funding for his programs, like day care and so on. And he didn’t mention the squeeze on the IRS budget by the Republicans, so the IRS now cannot begin to collect what they say is $300 billion of evaded taxes every year. That’s $300 billion of evaded taxes, not avoided taxes, which David Cay Johnston will be talking about. So, I think he missed a lot of opportunities. And it was not specific enough. It was not coherent enough. And he could have gone for more convergence with the Republicans, as I point out in great detail in my book, Unstoppable: The Emerging Left-Right Coalition to Dismantle the Corporate State.
I appreciate Ralph's ultra progressive stances. However, he is a frustrated Presidential want-to-be. He can advocate, and rightly so, for a more radically progressive approach, but he has never been in the position of actually being the President for all of the people of the U.S.
http://www.democracynow.org/2015/1/21/ralph_nader_on_what_was_missing ...
Again, the President has to make judgments about what is politically feasible, and about how to actually bring about realistic changes, in light of how our government operates. Nader has shown by repeatedly running for President, and repeatedly never getting much support that he has some deficiencies there. But I do not want him (Nader) to stop advocating for more radical progressive change, as that has its place, and sometimes even some effective influence. I just wonder about his tactic of severely criticizing the President who is, against the political odds, trying to make some positive things actually happen.
That's interesting Kkwan. One thing that strikes me is it tells us quite a lot about happiness, since they are quite cold countries and that itself is a negative for happiness.
When someone is truly cold, and then they get warm. They tend to be happy about being warm.
But apart from that we can simply redistribute wealth more. There is no point in a lot of people having so little they are miserable and others having much more than can help them to be happy. It benefits nobody at all. One concrete proposal I'd have is a maximum wage.
OK those are fair points but again the devil is always in the details. The president just suggested an idea along these lines and I completely disagree with his proposal not in principal but in the details. He is not suggesting a shift in wealth form the rich to the poor the way the media has portrayed it. Instead he is proposing a shift in wealth form the upper middle class to the middle class for which there is no good moral basis. In regards to the Maximum wage, again we have to be careful. People who have exceptional talent may not be willing to live in a country that limits the rewards they can receive form those talents. Steve Jobs or Elon Musk may prefer to move their business and their wealth elsewhere if they were forced to accept $100/hr. Far worse would be if such limits discouraged productivity. Why should someone with great ideas and drive kill themselves working 90 hours a week to create the next great product if they could have a much better life working half as many hours and producing an OK product? When limits are set that don't respect the differences in contributions made people wil find a way to work around those limits either legally or illegally. I would not advocate for a maximum wage, either. However I do think there are possible moral bases for taxing the wealthiest and not the poor and median classes. For, about, the past 35 years low and very low wages have essentially stayed the same. Whereas highest wages have gone up and up and up. Are all those "highest wage" persons, so inordinately, responsible for the great fruits of our society? Is it completely moral that, by far, now, most people have no realistic means to accumulate wealth, despite some of them, also working 90 hour work weeks? Is it completely moral that those who so successfully accumulate wealth (not all of whom are actually contributing anything of note to society) have so much more than any person really needs, while others who, also, work hard, don't have enough to make ends meet? The middle class is going away. It built up after WWII, when the GI Bill actually paid enough to any veteran that wanted to go to College. The price of a College education was such, that the GI Bill, could not only cover the cost of books, tuition, etc., but also a frugal living style. Unions that were a powerful force, once, also helped build a middle class. They seem to be going away, too. The current economy is rocking and rolling, but this rise cannot continue, indefinitely, when most of the citizens can't afford to buy anything other than the essentials and a few trivialities, and even so, remain indentured to debt most of their lives.
Well there is something seriously wrong leading to tremendous suffering globally. Rewards should be in line with what would create the desired outcome of getting the best out of certain people. There is no need for the damaging and obscene inequality that we have. It should be a top priority to deal with it. What else is more important? ... There is no single better way to reduce suffering than simply share the wealth fairly.
And what is "fairly"? You are never going to get everyone to agree on that. You will never get everyone to agree on that. But there are certain facts nevertheless. The only justification for not treating people equally (in terms of sharing) are consequential reasons. So there are facts about when we've gone way beyond that.
The first step to fixing something is to recognize the problem and bring it to the attention of others (complaining), but complaining has limited utility if it isn't quickly replaced by reasonable solutions, better ideas and the ability to get the public to support them.
Well, we need to see why certain people and areas are ending up much poorer than others. To a certain extent we need to change the rules. "Yes but how" you say. OK fair enough but why aren't we much more interested in trying to work that out? If we work out what rules are doing the damage we can see what to change. But apart from that we can simply redistribute wealth more. There is no point in a lot of people having so little they are miserable and others having much more than can help them to be happy. It benefits nobody at all. One concrete proposal I'd have is a maximum wage. Since the super wealthy don't get their wealth from wages but from unearned income, a maximum wage would do nothing for wealth distribution. If we had a maximum wage now, we would still have gross inequality. Lois
However I do think there are possible moral bases for taxing the wealthiest and not the poor and median classes.
There are several problems with this statement. 1) Taxing only the wealthiest and leaving out the middle class would not leave enough of a tax base to run the country. 2) The presidents plan doesn't call for taxing the truly rich. He wants to increase taxes on the upper middle class and in turn give tax breaks to the middle middle class. In our neck of the woods a family with a dual income from a police officer and a nurse could have an income that would put them into what the president considers the "wealthy" tax bracket ( the average police officer here makes $150,000 and many nurses make $100,000). So this couple who could be making $250,000/yr would have to pay taxes that would be used to make life easier for the guy down the block who makes $100,000/yr.. I don't see the moral justification for that. It might make sense to increase capital gains taxes but the effects would be felt beyond the truly wealthy individuals. Even middle class individuals have much of their retirement savings in stocks and since school districts and governments invest in stocks to bolster retirement funds for employees, if these are taxed at higher rates then we all will have to pay higher taxes to make up the difference. Even if schools and governments are exempt from paying taxes on their capital gains those stocks will not increase in value as much because higher capital gains tax rates would likely result in lower demand for stocks and lower prices. This would then require higher property taxes to make up the difference.

Am I the only one here in favor of the flat tax system?

Am I the only one here in favor of the flat tax system?
No,I am in favor of it, too, but it should be a flat graduated tax, based on income level, with higher incomes paying a higher rate and the poorest paying nothing or very lttle. I think that if we had a system like this the vast majority of individual taxpayers would pay less than they do now, and only the top 10% or so would pay more, as they should. Whenever I've suggested a flat graduated tax, someone comes out of the woodwork saying, "But if it's graduated it's not a flat tax." It is, of course, a form of flat tax, but it's no use arguing. It doesn't matter what it's called. A flat-graduated tax would straighten out the tax system for individuals and make it fairer. Loopholes would be closed. It could be designed with no deductions at all--and most people would still pay less than they do now. Businesses could be taxed in a different way. But let's get individual income taxes simplified. The way it is now is absolutely a scandal. With a flat graduated tax, no one would have to pay an accountant to figure out his taxes. Each individual taxpayer would add up his income and a flat percentage would be his tax. If state taxes are still necessary (they could be done away with with the right system) they could be a flat percentage of the federal tax an individual pays. It would be possible to create a flat-graduated tax but getting it through Congress might be impossible. Too many pockets are being lined with the complicated tax system as it is now for Congress to simplify it. Nobody in Congress will want to get rid if its cash cow. They keep it complicated because it makes it easier to hide corruption and lucrative manipulation. Lois
That's interesting Kkwan. One thing that strikes me is it tells us quite a lot about happiness, since they are quite cold countries and that itself is a negative for happiness.
From this article here] Is cold weather the key to happiness?
According to Oska University's Yoshiro Tsutsui's paper, Weather, Climate, and Society, happiness is maximised at 13.9°C.
Cold can help you lose weight:
Further research shows that being cold can actually help you lose weight too.
Craving for warmth?
Cold pioneer Ray Cronise (an ex-NASA scientist who studies cold and fat loss) favours running in shorts and a t-shirt in the snow to make his body work for the warmth as he told our health director Brigid Moss in the December 2014 issue. ‘Every other animal has annual cold stress and calorie scarcity,’ says Cronise. ‘Just like we have developed a craving for sugary foods, we’ve developed a craving for warmth.’
And from this article at the NYT here]
For outsiders, Siberia evokes images of harsh winters, political exile and a lone railway that winds through the mysterious landscape. But as Anton Chekhov once said, “Even in Siberia, there is happiness."
Photographs:
Scenes of nomadic Chukchi people hunting walruses and whales, bikini-clad women posing on a snow-covered riverbank and an image of an outdoor chess game to celebrate the end of winter are just some of the photographs found in the book.
Also, from this article here]
Experts in the burgeoning field of positive psychology hold that people usually guess wrong about what will bring them happiness. Money, for example (beyond enough to cover life’s basic needs) doesn’t predict happiness. Instead, according to the new edition of Positive Psychology, a Special Health Report from Harvard Medical School, researchers are identifying a number of elements they say contribute to a sense of happiness and well-being. One is engaging in flow experiences, a term coined by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, professor of psychology at Claremont Graduate University in California. To experience flow is to achieve a state of intense absorption in which you lose awareness of time. It occurs when you strike the right balance between challenge and skill.
And how about some cold beer on a cold day? :-)
Am I the only one here in favor of the flat tax system?
If it's a flat tax of net worth, I would consider it. A flat tax of income is intrinsically unfair to person's who don't have enough income to support their basic needs. (McGuyver, I am not ignoring your last reply. I need to get my fact straight, before responding.)
Am I the only one here in favor of the flat tax system?
No,I am in favor of it, too, but it should be a flat graduated tax, based on income level, with higher incomes paying a higher rate and the poorest paying nothing or very lttle. I think that if we had a system like this the vast majority of individual taxpayers would pay less than they do now, and only the top 10% or so would pay more, as they should. Whenever I've suggested a flat graduated tax, someone comes out of the woodwork saying, "But if it's graduated it's not a flat tax." It is, of course, a form of flat tax, but it's no use arguing. It doesn't matter what it's called. A flat-graduated tax would straighten out the tax system for individuals and make it fairer. Loopholes would be closed. It could be designed with no deductions at all--and most people would still pay less than they do now. Businesses could be taxed in a different way. But let's get individual income taxes simplified. The way it is now is absolutely a scandal. With a flat graduated tax, no one would have to pay an accountant to figure out his taxes. Each individual taxpayer would add up his income and a flat percentage would be his tax. If state taxes are still necessary (they could be done away with with the right system) they could be a flat percentage of the federal tax an individual pays. It would be possible to create a flat-graduated tax but getting it through Congress might be impossible. Too many pockets are being lined with the complicated tax system as it is now for Congress to simplify it. Nobody in Congress will want to get rid if its cash cow. They keep it complicated because it makes it easier to hide corruption and lucrative manipulation. Lois Lois, do you tend to wear flats or high heels (aka graduated flats)? I think that you are in favor, as most people probably are, of some simplified version of our current progressive income tax.

What can resolve the runaway inequality of wealth in the world?
From this article here]

All Americans, including the rich, would be better off if top tax rates went back to Eisenhower-era levels when the top federal income tax rate was 91 percent, according to a new working paper by Fabian Kindermann from the University of Bonn and Dirk Krueger from the University of Pennsylvania.
Marginal tax rate:
A 90 percent top marginal tax rate doesn’t mean that if you make $450,000, you are going to pay $405,000 in federal income taxes. Americans have a well-documented trouble understanding the notion of marginal tax rates. The marginal tax rate is the amount you pay on your income above a certain amount. Right now, you pay the top marginal tax rate on every dollar you earn over $406,750. So if you make $450,000, you only pay the top rate on your final $43,250 in income. A very high marginal tax rate isn’t effective if it’s riddled with loopholes, of course. Kindermann and Krueger's paper is also focused solely on income, not wealth, and returns on wealth are how the truly superrich make a living.
To tax the superrich, perhaps a wealth tax? From the wiki on wealth tax here]
A wealth tax (also called a capital tax, equity tax, or net worth tax) is a levy on the total value of personal assets, including owner-occupied housing; cash, bank deposits, money funds, and savings in insurance and pension plans; investment in real estate and unincorporated businesses; and corporate stock, financial securities, and personal trusts. Typically liabilities (primarily mortgages and other loans) are deducted, hence sometimes called a net wealth tax.
The rationale:
In 2014, French economist Thomas Piketty published a book entitled Capital In The Twenty-First Century that posits the theory that economic inequality was worsening and proposes wealth taxes as a solution. The central thesis of the book is that inequality is not an accident, but rather a feature of capitalism, and can only be reversed through state interventionism. The book thus argues that unless capitalism is reformed, the very democratic order will be threatened. At the core of this thesis is the notion that when the rate of return on capital (r) is greater than the rate of economic growth (g) over the long term, the result is concentration of wealth, and this unequal distribution of wealth causes social and economic instability.
Bold added by me. Wrt the debate on taxing the rich, from this article here] What taxes can do besides producing revenue:
Taxes don’t just produce revenue; they are capable of restructuring how the whole economy works. That the decline in the highest tax rates has insidiously created our runaway inequality is explored in a recent paper by economists Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez and Stefanie Stantcheva, who set out to investigate the relationship between tax rates and the top 1 percent in several key countries.
Zero sum explanation for the gross inequality of income:
This second explanation is worrisome because it’s zero-sum. Instead of CEOs working harder, creating value and building the economy, they just take more of the pie. Social norms around extreme salaries change, and it becomes expected that high-end executives deserve these unprecedented windfalls. In turn, the firms are structured to expend wealth at the top rather than through higher wages for workers, more innovation or lower prices for consumers.
From the wiki on zero-sum game here]
In game theory and economic theory, a zero-sum game is a mathematical representation of a situation in which a participant's gain (or loss) of utility is exactly balanced by the losses (or gains) of the utility of the other participant(s). If the total gains of the participants are added up and the total losses are subtracted, they will sum to zero. Thus cutting a cake, where taking a larger piece reduces the amount of cake available for others, is a zero-sum game if all participants value each unit of cake equally (see marginal utility).
Does all these make good sense?
... The presidents plan doesn't call for taxing the truly rich. He wants to increase taxes on the upper middle class and in turn give tax breaks to the middle middle class. In our neck of the woods a family with a dual income from a police officer and a nurse could have an income that would put them into what the president considers the "wealthy" tax bracket ( the average police officer here makes $150,000 and many nurses make $100,000). So this couple who could be making $250,000/yr would have to pay taxes that would be used to make life easier for the guy down the block who makes $100,000/yr.. I don't see the moral justification for that...
A couple who is making $250,000 can, unfortunately, not reasonably defined as middle class (by income), unless you include household incomes in the top 5% as part of the "middle". If you look at the household incomes in the US (2012 data) 75% of household incomes fell between above $20,592 and below $191,150. So an increase in the progressive tax on household income above $250,000 does not seem immoral, to me. If the household makes only a little above that amount, the tax rate would only be a little higher. If they make a lot more than $250,000, there tax rate would be a lot higher. And the guy down the street, making $100,000 is still paying taxes, but at a lower rate. While most of the households, on most streets, are subsisting on less than $44,000 or so, and getting nowhere fast. These are the folks that would be needing and benefiting most, not the guy making $100,000. Depending on factors such as local cost of living, and frugality of lifestyle, it is possible for a couple making more than 250 grand, to accumulate wealth (even while paying slightly higher taxes). A family of four with a median income of 42 grand, and those of the bottom 50% who are making less, cannot.
... The presidents plan doesn't call for taxing the truly rich. He wants to increase taxes on the upper middle class and in turn give tax breaks to the middle middle class. In our neck of the woods a family with a dual income from a police officer and a nurse could have an income that would put them into what the president considers the "wealthy" tax bracket ( the average police officer here makes $150,000 and many nurses make $100,000). So this couple who could be making $250,000/yr would have to pay taxes that would be used to make life easier for the guy down the block who makes $100,000/yr.. I don't see the moral justification for that...
A couple who is making $250,000 can, unfortunately, not reasonably defined as middle class (by income), unless you include household incomes in the top 5% as part of the "middle". If you look at the household incomes in the US (2012 data) 75% of household incomes fell between above $20,592 and below $191,150. So an increase in the progressive tax on household income above $250,000 does not seem immoral, to me. If the household makes only a little above that amount, the tax rate would only be a little higher. If they make a lot more than $250,000, there tax rate would be a lot higher. And the guy down the street, making $100,000 is still paying taxes, but at a lower rate. While most of the households, on most streets, are subsisting on less than $44,000 or so, and getting nowhere fast. These are the folks that would be needing and benefiting most, not the guy making $100,000. Depending on factors such as local cost of living, and frugality of lifestyle, it is possible for a couple making more than 250 grand, to accumulate wealth (even while paying slightly higher taxes). A family of four with a median income of 42 grand, and those of the bottom 50% who are making less, cannot. The problem with using numbers like this is it doesnt take into account the variation in cost of living in different parts of the country. A person making $100,000/ year in our part of the country is not likely t be very comfortable if he or she is supporting a spouse and two kids. Most likely they are living in a small cape on a quarter acre and paying a mortgage and property taxes that leaves them with little extra to spend. A couple making 250,000 is not starving but neither do they have tax shelters, chouffers, or a house in the south of france. A cop and a nurse with this kind of income in our area is living in a nice colonial home on a half acre and will be able to send their kids to college without taking out loans if they plan ahead but I don't think the average american would consider them wealthy if they saw their quality of life. The same income might allow someone to live like a king in the middle of Kansas but not in metropolitan NY or San Francisco. Wealth is a very relative term. This is where the details of these ideas become a problem. Middle America might see this as a reasonable plan but those of us who live in areas where the dollar doesn't go as far might disagree.
Am I the only one here in favor of the flat tax system?
No,I am in favor of it, too, but it should be a flat graduated tax, based on income level, with higher incomes paying a higher rate and the poorest paying nothing or very lttle. I think that if we had a system like this the vast majority of individual taxpayers would pay less than they do now, and only the top 10% or so would pay more, as they should. Whenever I've suggested a flat graduated tax, someone comes out of the woodwork saying, "But if it's graduated it's not a flat tax." It is, of course, a form of flat tax, but it's no use arguing. It doesn't matter what it's called. A flat-graduated tax would straighten out the tax system for individuals and make it fairer. Loopholes would be closed. It could be designed with no deductions at all--and most people would still pay less than they do now. Businesses could be taxed in a different way. But let's get individual income taxes simplified. The way it is now is absolutely a scandal. With a flat graduated tax, no one would have to pay an accountant to figure out his taxes. Each individual taxpayer would add up his income and a flat percentage would be his tax. If state taxes are still necessary (they could be done away with with the right system) they could be a flat percentage of the federal tax an individual pays. It would be possible to create a flat-graduated tax but getting it through Congress might be impossible. Too many pockets are being lined with the complicated tax system as it is now for Congress to simplify it. Nobody in Congress will want to get rid if its cash cow. They keep it complicated because it makes it easier to hide corruption and lucrative manipulation. Lois Lois, do you tend to wear flats or high heels (aka graduated flats)? I think that you are in favor, as most people probably are, of some simplified version of our current progressive income tax. That's a better way to put it. I am in favor of a 100% complete elimination of our insane income tax system, where even the IRS doesn't know all the rules, to be replaced with each person paying a percentage if his income in taxes. We already have seven tax brackets based on income, additionally divided into four statuses: married filing jointly, single, etc. There is no reason the taxes couldn't be figured solely on income with the status categories eliminated. Every taxpayer would pay a percentage of his income on taxes no matter what his marital or parental status is. No exceptions. I think nearly everyone would pay less than they do now without the complications of exemptions and deductions because we would have one simple system for everyone and the tax burden would be evenlyn divided. So you see anything wrong with this idea? "Some simplified version of our current progressive income tax" could create another complicated, unfair, convoluted tax system not much different than we have now. Let a committee or Congress itself allow exceptions upon exceptions and before you know it we will be right back where we are now We need a system with no exceptions or deductions--just a percentage of income, no matter where the income comes from, wages or investments. But I know it's pie in the sky and is unlikely to ever happen. Too many people have too much money and power to lose. Lois

These same tax questions get gone over every decade. The country use to before our times have depressions that caused havoc with the economy so we changed to the recessionary inflation system.
The government set the inflation per year at two percent. This inflation is a windfall of cash to the government. Just paying the bond debt with inflated money is huge for the government. Now we have macgyver pointing out that couples earning a thousand bucks a working day are not rich. I remember not knowing how I could afford a 17,000 dollar house. The sixty dollars a month payment was a tough nut to crack. Today it’s not even a tank of gas.
One of the things that burns me is the government has informed us about three years ago that there has been no increase in the cost of living. Food is the same cost because Obama now rates food on protein value. So the government said instead of buying steaks, you can buy beans and have the same protein value. So food prices have stayed the same. And there is no need to include the cost of energy in the index. The food lines have grown the split between the rich and poor has more to do with government policies than the greed of the rich. Yes, I see the greed of the government as our major problem creating the classes of wealth.

Duplicate post.

Keep in mind that all income is taxed at the same level. If you make for example 25 grand after deductions, it is taxed at 10% if the tax rate changes to 15% @ 32 grand, only the amount over 32 grand is taxed @ 15% etc. If taxes are increased on incomes over 250 grand, it is only the amount of income over 250 grand that is taxed @ the higher amount.
One of the big problems being overlooked here is the amount of deductions and tax deferred income, which higher income individuals are able to use increases greatly with higher income, also those who make over the max for Social Security ( was around 112,000 when I retired) receive a tax break of 12.4% (6.2% on their pay stub and the matching 6.2% their employer pays. Another deduction I personallly don’t like is the deduction for mortgage interest on two houses at the same time. Mostly only higher income people can afford to purchase a main residence and a vacation home at the same time.
Note: I’ve been retired from IRS customer service for 5 years and don’t keep up with all the changes so the actual income levels where rates change in the above example may not be correct.

One of the big problems being overlooked here is the amount of deductions and tax deferred income, which higher income individuals are able to use increases greatly with higher income, also those who make over the max for Social Security ( was around 112,000 when I retired) receive a tax break of 12.4% (6.2% on their pay stub and the matching 6.2% their employer pays. Another deduction I personallly don't like is the deduction for mortgage interest on two houses at the same time. Mostly only higher income people can afford to purchase a main residence and a vacation home at the same time. .
This is a very common misconception. People who make $250,000 generally don't have alot of fancy tools to avoid taxes. These are not billionaire CEOs and entrepreneurs. The majority of people in this tax bracket are small business owners who pay taxes like everyone else and many of them don't even enjoy the basic tax breaks that less lower earners get because the AMT wipes a lot of those things away. In regards to social security I need to point out a couple of things. First of all since many people in the $250,000 are indeed small business owners and self employed they are paying at least three time what others pay in social security taxes. As employers they have to pay both the employee 6.2% AND the employer 6.2% out of their own pockets. They are also paying the matching soc sec taxes for all of their employees. To claim that they are not paying into the system fairly because they are only taxed to the first 118,500 in 2015 is not completely correct. On a dollar contributed per dollar returned basis the wealthy get less back for every dollar they invest than lower earners do.