Bush Administration Makes A Big Mistake. - Page 3

anomaly · 03-24-05, 02:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RightatNYU

inequality isn't the end all and be all for economic growth.

Again, if I make 50,000 and you make 40,000 is that better than me making 20,000 and you making 19,000?

We're more unequal, but we're both richer.

I imagine if that happened, the cost of living would rise sharply as well, making any monetary gains we see insignificant. In a culture, its easy to see that wealth is relative, that wealth is relative to those who make the most. If my CEO made 1 mil a year and I made 20,000, does it really benefit me to see my salary raise to 30,000 if my CEO's will raise to 20 million? Undoubtedly the cost of living will rise, making the only important thing the ratio between me and him.

RightinNYC · 03-24-05, 02:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anomaly

It would be nice if it were so simple as you describe. Workers wages, especially blue collar, have remained very stagnant during the '90s.

No, they have not. For the third time, look at the numbers.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/h11.html

1990 - Median Household income -29,943
2000 - Median Household income -42,151
1990 - Median Household income (In 2001 dollars) - 39,324
2000 - Median Household income (In 2001 dollars) - 43,327

Even AFTER inflation, that's a 10% increase in household wealth!
That's fantastic.

Explain to me again, how because the rich in our society are richer now than they used to be that that means there is no middle class? I'd really like to see some proof for that.

anomaly · 03-24-05, 02:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RightatNYU

Socialism has worked in Europe, in that it taxes the population up to 70% and has caused a widespread economic slump.

I'm in agreement with you on the necessity of government intervention to a point, but the market has to be free to work how it will.

If you want to attribute US success to pax americana, then recent european success can be attributed to the pax europa that has lasted for the past 60 years.

You're right, in that dictatorships cannot be sustained, but I fail to see how our government is a dictatorship. As to socialism, it was tried, and has never worked. If you want to try again, fine, but do it elsewhere. I'm looking forward to having a steady job and a decent standard of living.

I never said the US was a dictatorship. And where are you getting the info that people are taxed '70%' in Europe? If this is true,we may look on the brightside and see what taxes are paying for..better police, better roads, healthcare, redistribution policies...things you may not want but I do. And I'd certainly love to try socialism elsewhere, but you must understand that the US is the most committed defender of capitalism in the world, and thus, is the key to any anti-capitalist developments. And whose to say you 'decent job' and decent standard of living won't be improved somewhat under socialism?

RightinNYC · 03-24-05, 02:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anomaly

You deny my info because it doesn't suit your position? Again, just look up Gini index to see that inequality is sharply on the rise. The ratio of which I speak simply compares CEO's of companies, their average salary, to the average salary of workers, namely blue collar workers. The ratio is rising in the USA.

I don't deny it because it doesn't suit my position, I question its credibility. If I was spitting statistics that the only backing was from Cato, I'd expect you to call me on that too.

And again, just because CEO salary increases, doesn't mean its bad.

It's a meaningless red herring. Think of this: There are maybe 5,000 CEO's in the country. If all 5,000 of them become 10 times richer, it makes that ratio 10 times worse. Does that really have an impact on the other 299,995,000 people in this country? Not a perceptible one.

anomaly · 03-24-05, 02:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RightatNYU

No, they have not. For the third time, look at the numbers.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/h11.html

1990 - Median Household income -29,943
2000 - Median Household income -42,151
1990 - Median Household income (In 2001 dollars) - 39,324
2000 - Median Household income (In 2001 dollars) - 43,327

Even AFTER inflation, that's a 10% increase in household wealth!
That's fantastic.

Explain to me again, how because the rich in our society are richer now than they used to be that that means there is no middle class? I'd really like to see some proof for that.

Yeah, I saw those numbers. I specifically said workers wages, and blue collar workers, specifically. I'll looktomorrow for numbers on that. And it simply means the middle class is disappearing, as the disparity between rich and poor increases. It ued to be that there was a defitnite lower, middle, and upper class, but now, with this vast inequality on the rise, the middle class is being divided, with the upper middle class joining the upper class, and the lower middle class joining the lower middle class. Redistributive policies, noticeably unpopular during the '90s, usually keep this from happening.

RightinNYC · 03-24-05, 02:40 AM

Income taxes alone in Europe are 41% of GDP as opposed to 27 in the US.

In 2000, Germany's income tax rate averaged 56%.

History and I both say that socialism will not provide a job for me. It's never worked before, and it will never work now.

anomaly · 03-24-05, 02:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RightatNYU

I don't deny it because it doesn't suit my position, I question its credibility. If I was spitting statistics that the only backing was from Cato, I'd expect you to call me on that too.

And again, just because CEO salary increases, doesn't mean its bad.

It's a meaningless red herring. Think of this: There are maybe 5,000 CEO's in the country. If all 5,000 of them become 10 times richer, it makes that ratio 10 times worse. Does that really have an impact on the other 299,995,000 people in this country? Not a perceptible one.

If they become 10 times richer, the cost of living will certainly rise. That has an impact on the working class especially.

anomaly · 03-24-05, 02:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RightatNYU

Income taxes alone in Europe are 41% of GDP as opposed to 27 in the US.

In 2000, Germany's income tax rate averaged 56%.

History and I both say that socialism will not provide a job for me. It's never worked before, and it will never work now.

Yeah, I thought 70% seemed a bit too much...Oh and it's nice to see you've opened your mind up to new possibilities as a result of this discussion! We'll continue this tomorrow...its very late. BTW, history hasn't proven a thing against democratic socialism, or socialist policy.

RightinNYC · 03-24-05, 02:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anomaly

I imagine if that happened, the cost of living would rise sharply as well, making any monetary gains we see insignificant. In a culture, its easy to see that wealth is relative, that wealth is relative to those who make the most. If my CEO made 1 mil a year and I made 20,000, does it really benefit me to see my salary raise to 30,000 if my CEO's will raise to 20 million? Undoubtedly the cost of living will rise, making the only important thing the ratio between me and him.

That's simply not true. All wealth is relative, but on a larger scale. If everyone in the US gets proportional raises, im not any richer than you or you to me, but we are both richer than the rest of the world. As the US's wealth increases, we become a richer country, allowing you to buy that Nintendo or Honda or trip to Prague.

If Bill gates were to become 10 times richer than he is now, it doesn't mean the cost of living for the rest of the US would dramatically increase.

And to answer your question, yes it actually would benefit you.

RightinNYC · 03-24-05, 02:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anomaly

Yeah, I thought 70% seemed a bit too much...Oh and it's nice to see you've opened your mind up to new possibilities as a result of this discussion! We'll continue this tomorrow...its very late. BTW, history hasn't proven a thing against democratic socialism, or socialist policy.

That 56% is only income tax, as is the 41%. There is also corporate tax, social security tax, school tax, province tax, healthcare tax, etc. The total tax burden in denmark approaches 70% for many of its citizens.

and yea, it is very late. ugh.