Closing tax loopholes that enable the rich to keep their kids, grandkids, and great great great grandkids rich would be a good start. Closing tax loopholes in general is a good idea, as the rich are the ones who most benefit from them. Anything to make the super-rich pay their fair share of taxes when their tax percentage on been steadily on the decline since the 50s and national deficits have steadily been on the rise during that same period.

Publicly funded elections. The more we remove the influence of the super-rich and corporations (also, unions) from political influence, the less likely politicians are to go out of their way to pad the bank accounts of these organizations while screwing over the average American.

Finally, fix education. Break the unions, pay administrators less, and create real education and financial mobility within every socio-economic status group. This one would take years to accomplish but the long-term rewards are probably higher than anything else this country could do as a nation.

That'd be a good start. While this impossibly motivated politician was at it, he or she should also work on decreasing government size and giving as much of that money back to the American public while being fiscally responsible about tax breaks.

Saying "that's how capitalism works" is just untrue. For a good part of the 20th century, this rapidly-shifting distribution of wealth did not occur. Was America not capitalistic during that period? Did I miss something in economics and/or history class?

Who else can afford quitting their job to run for another job that they might not win.  I mean, over 50% of polticians at any time are unemployed.

No shocker here, the economy's been nothing more than a rigged game of Monopoly since 1981.

Carlin nails it:

While I agree with you in principle, the economy has been set up to reward the manipulation and rent-seeking behaviour of a handful of wealthy and well connected individuals and organizations. As an example of what I mean, consider cap-and-trade legislation ...

Cap and trade legislation is designed to necessarily increase the cost of energy to consumers without increasing the sale price to the producer; and this difference in cost to the consumer and sale price to the producer is the profit to a carbon trader, who causes significant economic harm, and the only reason they have access to this money is because of their economic power and political connections. Certainly, one could argue that an individual could also enter into the carbon trading market except that the invention of high-frequency trading gives large investors an extreme advantage.

Although cap-and-trade is the most obvious and easy to understand example of the economy being rigged to allow people with power to steal from those of us without power it is by no means the only one.

Yeah of course there's major problems in society, but the answer isn't to punish people who make more money, it will just give less incentive to actually work hard if you're just going to be taxed way more. And I'm sick of the argument that we should tax the wealthy more because "they can afford it" - anyone who says that I automatically consider an asshole (not saying you said it, but people do). 

The government just needs to get rid of all the loopholes people use to get out of paying tax, and also find better ways to spend the tax money they do get. 

My point isn't to punish them, it's that the American public needs to look at these four things and re-evaluate what their politicians have done to them over the past half century:

1. The percentage of American wealth owned by the top 1% has increased.
2. Tax rates have steadily declined for the top 1% of Americans.
3. The American deficit has ballooned during this time.
4. Adjusted for inflation, much of the middle class makes less than they did.

I don't see how anyone can look at those four things and walk away, saying "yeah, everything is JUST FINE".

Oh yeah, we should definitly get rid a lot of the "useless" ways to increase wealth.

Though it won't stop the rich getting richer and getting a higher and higher percentage of money.

The only way to change that is DRASTIC action that will stall economic actions for a while.

The real problem I believe is that tax cuts are a one way, and only beneficial in the extreme short term action.

"Or as I would put it.... the only thing worse then implementing a tax cut, is raising taxes."

It's completely logical if you think about it.  Tax raises stifle buisness.  Of course they do, it's common sense.  You raise taxes, and you lower the Rate of Return, which means that the Risk to Reward ratio for some people will be different and some won't invest.  This really won't change until the "New class of investors" comes in.

While when you cut taxes... you get a small bump as people try and get in on this deal.  Then the deal becomes normal, and your back at the rates of investment you had before.

The numbers seem to show fairly clearly it's the case.

Hence, if we're going to raise taxes... it should be one GIANT raise... all done at one time, when things are doing good.

What would you do to solve these problems? Increasing the tax rates on the highest brackets will certainly bring in a lot more tax dollars but it won't do anything [significant] to better the lives of the bottom 90%, they'll still be in the same position they are now. This unbalance in wealth distribution can't just be solved by taking money from the wealthy.

I think the US would be better off by doing more to help the lower class get better jobs and find more income and also teach Americans how to handle their money better. Americans need to stop buying expensive shit like big cars, big TV's, etc. that they can't really afford. If people lived inside their means there wouldn't be such a problem with the lower class getting into massive debt and going bankrupt and then begging for welfare.

Also I want to mention the upper class gets no more benefit from public services than the lower class does and yet we pay way more in taxes. How is that fair? My street doesn't get ploughed faster when it snows, my mail doesn't get delivered faster, I don't get better medical services than anybody else, etc. And my family (in Ontario, Canada) is in the top tax bracket meaning we pay 29% in federal tax plus an additional 12% provincially for a total of about 41% in income taxes compared to just 20% (15% federal and 5% provincial) for a guy who makes under $38,000 - and like I said, we get no better services than this lower class guy. Oh but "we can afford it so it doesn't matter..."

I'm all for helping the poor and homeless but it really isn't that fair to slap a 41% tax on a guy just because he makes more money. 

Also I think having tax brackets is retarded. I find it stupid that if a guy makes $83,000 in Canada he will pay 22% in federal taxes but if the next guy makes $83,100 he's bumped up to 26% federal tax which nets him less money overall than the guy who makes that $100 less. I'm all for a flat tax rate to get prevent that sort of stupid scenario from happening. If you want true equality then what's more equal than a flat tax rate?

First, I replied at length what should be done earlier in this thread.

Second, the wealthy DO receive more in social services than the poor, it's just not readily apparent because they receive the poor themselves, as a working class of people with a baseline education (enabling them to do more than just grunt work), relative health (sick workers are one of the biggest financial drains on a business), public transportation to get these people to and from work, etc. Almost no one in the top 1% did it all themselves. They had people under them, working and making them money. Those people are a commodity, as messed up as it sounds to say it that way.

Also, Canada has the most retarded tax system on the planet if the guy making $83,000 takes home more than the guy making $83,100. That extra $100 should be the only amount that is taxed at the higher rate.

Flat taxes are a good idea to an extent BUT there needs to be a quite large exemption to make it work, like in the tens of thousands of dollars. You can't expect a millionaire to pay 17% in taxes and someone making $20,000 a year to pay the same 17%. One creates a massive burden on the person, the other simply does not. Make every dollar over $15,000 taxable at 17% and then the idea starts to make more sense.

Luckily that isn't the case.

You're correct, only $22 (as the bracket ends at $83 088) would be taxed at 26%.

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/fq/txrts-eng.html