• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Inequality Troubles Americans Across Party Lines, Times/CBS Poll Finds

When it comes down to it forced wealth redistribution ( theft ) is basically all the left have left as a economic plan for growth.

Its their solution to a problem they made much worse and if its ever implemented it will backfire on the Middle class in epic proportions.

I do agree that raising taxes is not the best idea. A better idea would be to restructure the corporate tax so that companies with high income inequality pay more and those with moderate income inequality pay less.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1064693412 said:
Think there might be a gap in education, skills, risk, motivation, problem solving abilities, and experience between a CEO and minimum wage worker?

Of course the CEO deserves a high pay than his workers. The problem is that CEOs are giving themselves all they pay raises when new profits come in.

During the recovery the top 1% took in 95% of the economic growth from the recovery. Incomes of the rich grew by 31% while those for everyone else grew by .4%. This can be solved by making companies with higher income inequality pay more in corporate taxes. Companies with moderate income inequality should pay less.
One percent recovery: 95 percent of gains have gone to the top one percent.
 
IOW, when GDP is lower, it's shows the ineffectiveness of welfare. When it's higher, it shows nothing about the effectiveness of welfare

Cherry-Picker-Bouguereau-L.jpg

You'd have a point if at anytime since the US's establishment of govt welfare programs the average gdp PER CAPITA, PPP, average wage or wealth were lower than in the European welfare states for any length of time. This is not the case.
 
You don't think there is a growing wealth gap? For real? Your source only measures from 2007 to 2013.

When you see the full spectrum of data we see something else:
http://inequality.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/GIMP-Top-1p-Share-of-Total-PTI.png

The problem that many have here is not understanding the fluidity of class in the US. While the top 1% may have growing wealth, the membership of the top 1% changes. The top 1% are not a fixed group....people move in and out. Further, it doesn't really matter that ther is a growing wealth gap even if the top 1% were a fixed group of people. What would matter is whether the lower 99% have enough to survive. When a growing percentage of them can't survive, that would be of concern. The simple fact that the rich have more does not mean the poor are getting poorer. No-one could make the argument that the average US person's quality of life is worse because someone else got rich.
 
Last edited:
You'd have a point if at anytime since the US's establishment of govt welfare programs the average gdp PER CAPITA, PPP, average wage or wealth were lower than in the European welfare states for any length of time. This is not the case.

I see you've returned to your fantasy that the US has the highest per capita GDP
 
I see you've returned to your fantasy that the US has the highest per capita GDP

I see, we're going to play the dishonesty game again.

Good day, sangha.
 
LOL yeah right, the CEO earned 6000 times what the minions in his work force earned, all while driving his company down the toilet. You have a funny definition of earned.

The example i gave above is fitting here. The dominoes pizza stock dropped 25% while dave brandon was CEO, since he left going up tenfold. Now i suppose after alienating everyone at his next gig, sending 3 am emails telling customers "quit drinking and go to bed" "find a new wife" "find another place to shop" you believe he EARNED his new $15 million a year as toys r us exec?

Or how about those wall street execs who destroyed the entire financial system and came begging uncle sam for a bailout? Yeah, they sure earned those huge bonuses. Cat's out of the bag. Our economy is a sham

Bad stories about bad CEO's......yeah, so what

Like there isn't bad employees at every level?

You all have this envy/jealousy thing going for rich people

So sad.....maybe you need to look into a mirror and see why that is
 
The problem that many have here is not understanding the fluidity of class in the US. While the top 1% may have growing wealth, the membership of the top 1% changes. The top 1% are not a fixed group....people move in and out. Further, it doesn't really matter that ther is a growing wealth gap even if the top 1% were a fixed group of people. What would matter is whether the lower 99% have enough to survive. When a growing percentage of them can't survive, that would be of concern. The simple fact that the rich have more does not mean the poor are getting poorer. No-one could make the argument that the average US person's quality of life is worse because someone else got rich.

Lets talk about fluidity. First, most of the evidence suggests that social mobility has declined drastically as income inequality has risen. The source below is amateur but they use strong sources. I can provide more if you like.
News Coverage of Economic Immobility: Free of Historical Context | shouting loudly

In fact social mobility is lower in the US than it is in Europe. Politifact rated it as "Mostly True." Historically the reverse has been true. The US usually had better social mobility than Europe.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...ttner/it-easier-obtain-american-dream-europe/

So even the life raft of your argument, social mobility, is itself sinking. Maybe social mobility is raising income inequality, or maybe income inequality is lowering social mobility, or maybe something else if affecting both of them, but I suspect social mobility and income inequality are linked.

We need a solution that reduces income inequality and increases social mobility.
 
Lets talk about fluidity. First, most of the evidence suggests that social mobility has declined drastically as income inequality has risen. The source below is amateur but they use strong sources. I can provide more if you like.
News Coverage of Economic Immobility: Free of Historical Context | shouting loudly

In fact social mobility is lower in the US than it is in Europe. Politifact rated it as "Mostly True." Historically the reverse has been true. The US usually had better social mobility than Europe.
Is it easier to obtain the American Dream in Europe? | PunditFact

So even the life raft of your argument, social mobility, is itself sinking. Maybe social mobility is raising income inequality, or maybe income inequality is lowering social mobility, or maybe something else if affecting both of them, but I suspect social mobility and income inequality are linked.

We need a solution that reduces income inequality and increases social mobility.


Income inequality is irrelevant. That there are rich people out there does not cause or maintain poverty.


Income inequality and the myth of the 1% and the 99% - Fortune

"PSID data show that by age 60:

– 70% of the population will have experienced at least one year within the top 20th percentile of income;

– 53% of the population will have experienced at least one year within the top 10th percentile of income; and

– 11.1% of the population will have found themselves in the much-maligned 1% of earners for at least one year of their lives.

At the same time, it’s much more rare for a person to reach the top 1% and stay there. According to PSID data, only 0.6% of the population will experience 10 consecutive years in the top 1% of earners."
 
Income inequality is irrelevant. That there are rich people out there does not cause or maintain poverty.


Income inequality and the myth of the 1% and the 99% - Fortune

"PSID data show that by age 60:

– 70% of the population will have experienced at least one year within the top 20th percentile of income;

– 53% of the population will have experienced at least one year within the top 10th percentile of income; and

– 11.1% of the population will have found themselves in the much-maligned 1% of earners for at least one year of their lives.

At the same time, it’s much more rare for a person to reach the top 1% and stay there. According to PSID data, only 0.6% of the population will experience 10 consecutive years in the top 1% of earners."

Its amazing, how far our expectations have fallen. People used to expect that the American dream is a lifetime thing. You are making it sound like a one-year ticket. How is spending one year in the top 1% better than rising incomes for all income groups? Right now social mobility is falling so fewer and fewer people will ever see a lot of the new growth.

The problem is that income mobility while allowing more people to get into the top 1% will also result in people leaving it as well and falling back into the stagnating middle class. It goes both ways. So some people benefit from social mobility and some people get hurt.

Social mobility is not a replacement of real prosperity. It is simply a shuffling around. Little real improvement has really happened.

Since the recovery, 95% of new economic growth went to the top 1%. Incomes for the top 1% grew by 30%. Incomes for the middle class has stagnated at a .4% growth. No wonder nobody feels like there has been any recovery. While most people in both parties are looking for ways to boost income growth for the 1% you are just sitting here hoping that your 1 year ticket in the 1% for 10% of people will be satisfactory. Problem is that most people remember the times when you didn't have to get rich to get a piece of the American dream.
One percent recovery: 95 percent of gains have gone to the top one percent.
 
Why should I care about the gap?

Because those that are privileged and powerful and have the means to more heavily influence the government put themselves in a protected position from small competitors and heavily skew the competitive field.
 
I do think it's hilarious that Republicans recognize wealth inequality is a problem but are clueless when it comes to ideas to fix it.
 
Its amazing, how far our expectations have fallen. People used to expect that the American dream is a lifetime thing. You are making it sound like a one-year ticket. How is spending one year in the top 1% better than rising incomes for all income groups? Right now social mobility is falling so fewer and fewer people will ever see a lot of the new growth.

It's amazing how much they've grown. Our poorest are richer than 68% of the world.

The problem is that income mobility while allowing more people to get into the top 1% will also result in people leaving it as well and falling back into the stagnating middle class. It goes both ways. So some people benefit from social mobility and some people get hurt.

Stagnating middle class? So, in reality....you're complaint is that you're not in the 1%...not that the 1% is bad.

Social mobility is not a replacement of real prosperity. It is simply a shuffling around. Little real improvement has really happened.

Since the recovery, 95% of new economic growth went to the top 1%. Incomes for the top 1% grew by 30%. Incomes for the middle class has stagnated at a .4% growth. No wonder nobody feels like there has been any recovery. While most people in both parties are looking for ways to boost income growth for the 1% you are just sitting here hoping that your 1 year ticket in the 1% for 10% of people will be satisfactory. Problem is that most people remember the times when you didn't have to get rich to get a piece of the American dream.
One percent recovery: 95 percent of gains have gone to the top one percent.

And yet our country has higher wages, higher PPP, higher disposable income than most of the world. How unfair.
 
I do think it's hilarious that Republicans recognize wealth inequality is a problem but are clueless when it comes to ideas to fix it.

They're not clueless how to fix it. Create job growth, not handouts. Done.
 
They're not clueless how to fix it. Create job growth, not handouts. Done.

We can create job growth by not giving tax cuts to companies that ship jobs overseas. Republicans oppose such ideas.
 
They're not clueless how to fix it. Create job growth, not handouts. Done.

What's the republican plan for job growth besides more tax cuts for the 1%?
 
We can create job growth by not giving tax cuts to companies that ship jobs overseas. Republicans oppose such ideas.

Which companies got tax cuts for shipping jobs overseas?
 
It's amazing how much they've grown. Our poorest are richer than 68% of the world.

My question for you is why are the poor in the US so rich compared to the rest of the world? Because economic growth used to be distributed proportional to income so when America became richer, so did the poor.

So you are using the fact that the poor in the US are richer than most of the world to try to defend not giving them a fair share of new economic growth, but the only reason they are richer than most of the world is because they have gotten a fair share of economic growth historically. I don't see any reason why the poor should stop getting at least some of the economic growth when they have historically.

Stagnating middle class? So, in reality....you're complaint is that you're not in the 1%...not that the 1% is bad.

No I am not. I am complaining about the fact that when companies get new profits the executives are choosing to give most of the profits to themselves and almost none to their workers. Business success is a team effort and it is not fair to only reward those at the top. That is what I am saying.

And yet our country has higher wages, higher PPP, higher disposable income than most of the world. How unfair.

Yes we do, but hourly wages have been stagnant since 1970. This is giving the rest of the world time to catch up to the US.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-zdtJ1XIr7...N4/njotJ9D_nTM/s1600/average-hourly-wages.png

While our GDP per capita growth has been impressive, much of that is due to the rich in the US getting richer. Median yearly wages are not growing nearly as quickly and have stagnated since 2000.
http://lanekenworthy.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/slowincomegrowth-figure2-version1.png

With a stagnant middle class whose yearly wages have not grown since 2000 and whose hourly income has not grown since 1970, this gives other nations time to start catching up.

Millennials now earn $2,000 less than their parents at the same point in their lives and they are less employed.
Young adults earn $2,000 less today than their parents did in 1980, adjusted for inflation - The Atlantic

I am sorry but the America you want is not the one I want my children to grow up in. In your America social mobility keeps falling, the poor and middle class don't get any richer and most of the economic growth goes to the people riding in jets. I want my children to grow up in an America where all income groups are getting richer together and social mobility is getting easier and easier.
 
My question for you is why are the poor in the US so rich compared to the rest of the world? Because economic growth used to be distributed proportional to income so when America became richer, so did the poor.

So you are using the fact that the poor in the US are richer than most of the world to try to defend not giving them a fair share of new economic growth, but the only reason they are richer than most of the world is because they have gotten a fair share of economic growth historically. I don't see any reason why the poor should stop getting at least some of the economic growth when they have historically.



No I am not. I am complaining about the fact that when companies get new profits the executives are choosing to give most of the profits to themselves and almost none to their workers. Business success is a team effort and it is not fair to only reward those at the top. That is what I am saying.



Yes we do, but hourly wages have been stagnant since 1970. This is giving the rest of the world time to catch up to the US.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-zdtJ1XIr7...N4/njotJ9D_nTM/s1600/average-hourly-wages.png

While our GDP per capita growth has been impressive, much of that is due to the rich in the US getting richer. Median yearly wages are not growing nearly as quickly and have stagnated since 2000.
http://lanekenworthy.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/slowincomegrowth-figure2-version1.png

With a stagnant middle class whose yearly wages have not grown since 2000 and whose hourly income has not grown since 1970, this gives other nations time to start catching up.

Millennials now earn $2,000 less than their parents at the same point in their lives and they are less employed.
Young adults earn $2,000 less today than their parents did in 1980, adjusted for inflation - The Atlantic

I am sorry but the America you want is not the one I want my children to grow up in. In your America social mobility keeps falling, the poor and middle class don't get any richer and most of the economic growth goes to the people riding in jets. I want my children to grow up in an America where all income groups are getting richer together and social mobility is getting easier and easier.

You're missing a simple point. Even if stagnant...US incomes are still higher than most of the rest of the world.
 
You're missing a simple point. Even if stagnant...US incomes are still higher than most of the rest of the world.

Republicans have to compare American incomes to those of third world countries to make themselves feel better about what they've done to our economy. Their new Campaign slogan: hey at least we're not Namibia!
 
Last edited:
Republicans have to compare American incomes to those of third world countries to make themselves feel better about what they've done to our economy. Their new Campaign slogan: hey at least we're not Namibia!

Not third world. First world.
 
Back
Top Bottom