[MiroF]

> https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2020/01/09/most-americans-sa...

Namely what stood out,

> Among Americans with the highest incomes – a subset of upper income adults who are in the top 7% of the sample’s adjusted income distribution – about a third (34%) of those who say there’s too much economic inequality say the government should raise taxes on people like them to deal with this, while 64% say this should not be done.

This surprised me. So I'm curious, for those who are making in the top 7% and believe there is too much income inequality (over about ~$145,000/yr) -- and I do suspect there are a few of us here, you don't think that a plan to reduce income inequality involves taxation on that level of income?

[SpicyLemonZest]

When someone proposes to address a problem by giving the government lots of money, I'm always skeptical. Why should we expect them to spend that money wisely? I'm not opposed to raising taxes if there's something important to spend the money on, but the words "income inequality!" aren't IMO a sufficient description.

[MiroF]

Large amounts of government money go towards discretionary transfers like medicare, medicaid, social security, SNAP, etc. Is your claim that you think vast amounts of that money don't get to where they're supposed to go?

I think most of these programs are characterized by extremely low administration costs as a percentage of budget.

[SpicyLemonZest]

My claim is that raising taxes won't by itself bring an effective program to fight income inequality into existence. The poll question is like asking "should the federal government expand its office space to deal with income inequality" - how's anyone supposed to know without an explanation of what it'll be used for?

[MiroF]

> that raising taxes won't by itself bring an effective program to fight income inequality into existence.

Raising taxes on rich people changes the post-tax distribution to have less inequality, so it does literally bring into place a program to "fight income inequality." Given the fact that most government revenue goes towards social security, medicare, medicaid, you already know what it will be spent on and there already are effective programs.

[SpicyLemonZest]

When people discuss fighting income inequality, they're generally referring to structural obstacles, not the precise dollar amounts of the post-tax income distribution. If we increase Social Security funding by 10% with a haircut to all incomes above $100k, but don't change the underlying division between rich professionals who choose whichever job most satisfies them and poor millennials who never expect to achieve career satisfaction, I don't think we've successfully fought income inequality.

[MiroF]

> they're generally referring to structural obstacles,

I agree, and I'm not saying that 10% increase to social security fundamentally changes the underlying division. I think more drastic action is needed. But I wouldn't fight against a haircut on incomes over $100k that expanded the lower limits on medicaid (which many poor millennials take advantage of), even if income inequality still existed at the end.

Are rich, left-leaning professionals really under the illusion that the sort of policy change needed to fight structural inequality will lead to no change in their own relative purchasing power because there are even richer baddies out there to tax?

[refurb]

How would taxing the rich more and spending it on Medicare reduce income inequality? The low income might get better/more healthcare, but they don't get any more income from that spending.

[MiroF]

> The low income might get better/more healthcare

It was a pedantic point - but taxing the rich intrinsically reduces the inequality of the post-tax income distribution because the difference between the top and the bottom is less.

> The low income might get better/more healthcare, but they don't get any more income from that spending

Lots of reasons - one is expenditures on healthcare by the employer, another is lost income due to injury/illness that preventative care could have prevented and that's before you start looking at medical expenses.

[refurb]

One of the reasons, I assume, is that plenty of those making >$145,000 live in HCOL areas and after paying for housing, childcare expenses, etc, they don't feel very "rich". So they likely agree the rich should pay more, they just think they are one of them.

[MiroF]

> So they likely agree the rich should pay more, they just think they are one of them.

1. Pew adjusts for COL in its income distribution, so no. 2. HCOL are HCOL because they are desirable. It's not just a higher cost of living for the exact same quality of life.

> they don't feel very "rich"

I think the point is that there is a psychological phenomenon where objectively very high-income people don't "feel" rich. Even after "housing, childcare expenses, etc," six figures is relatively affluent in my book. Also this was $145,000 for a single person, so I'm not sure childcare would factor in for most people.

[refurb]

Well shit, that's what I get for skimming the report.

I don't disagree with you at all. It's not reasonable to say "the middle class have a single family home in the mid-west, so if I don't have a single family home in SF, then I don't even have a middle class lifestyle".

And yes, a single person in a HCOL area making >$145,000 per year, is well off. It's just that well off in a HCOL area means owning living in a 2-bedroom apartment, rather than a 3,000 sq ft home.