• 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

I think you'll find, with just a little investigation, that many of the poor are paying for much more than "essentials". There are common factors which cause people to remain poor all their lives and they have nothing to do with others being rich.

It has to do with policies.

No, the point was that those who become wealthy tend to spend their more wisely and invest more wisely. They know that money is a tool.

Sorry, the notion that poor people can be rich too, if they just wisely spend their pennies, is ludicrous. The U.S. not only has more income inequality than other advanced countries but also has lower mobility.

The poor have less access to quality schools. They have less access to college education and fewer job opportunities. To say that all they have to do is spend wisely like wealthy people is false on inspection.

The rich have more disposable income, so they don't have to spend it all -- that's why the p% of income consumed is lower.
 
Last edited:
It has to do with policies.
Certainly government policies can have an effect on the economy but in a free economy, which is largely shrinking due to government policies, people have the opportunity to work their way up the 'economic ladder'.

Sorry, the notion that poor people can be rich too, if they just wisely spend their pennies, is ludicrous. The U.S. not only has more income inequality than other advanced countries but also has lower mobility.
If you feel that's true, what changed in America, once the happiest and wealthiest country in the world?
The poor have less access to quality schools.
Of course. Thats whay charter schools or school vouchers are essential to turning the situation around. Curtailing the power of Teachers Unions would also be pf help by restricting them from making any political donations.This should be left to the individual.
They have less access to college education and fewer job opportunities. To say that all they have to do is spend wisely like wealthy people is false on inspection.
College educations have become less valuable in the marketplace because colleges have become areas of indoctrination rather than education. This also completely overlooks tradespeople and the blue collar worker who tend to do very well and may also be very entrepreneurial.

The rich have more disposable income, so they don't have to spend it all -- that's why the p% of income consumed is lower.
Clearly. But no matter our income we can also save and learn to invest wisely, whether it's using our time wisely, educating ourselves through the financial section of the media rather than the sports or celebrity sections, and so on, searching out bargains, or just checking where we can get the best return on our savings. Millions of people have achieved middle class status, and more, by using a common sense approach.
 
see below.

"Certainly government policies can have an effect on the economy but in a free economy, which is largely shrinking due to government policies, people have the opportunity to work their way up the 'economic ladder'."

Which government policies, specifically, are shrinking the private sector?You do realize that the economy is not shrinking but rising? Moreover, economic mobility in America is mostly a myth but I am sure this won't rock your Horatio Alger rags-to-riches fantasy.

030414krugman2-blog480.png




"If you feel that's true, what changed in America, once the happiest and wealthiest country in the world?"
To explain what has changed, I first have to explain what it was like. The middle-class society didn't evolve gradually or automatically. It was created, in a remarkably short period of time, by FDR and the New Deal. As the chart shows, income inequality declined drastically from the late 1930s to the mid 1940s.

3-7-12inc-fig1.jpg

The great reduction of inequality that created middle-class America between 1935 and 1945 was driven by political change; and counter-change politics of movement conservatism played an important role in rising inequality since the 1970s. It's important to know that no other advanced economy has seen a comparable surge in inequality -- even the rising inequality of Thatcher's Britain was a faint echo of trends here.

Because of movement conservative political dominance, taxes on the rich have fallen, and the holes in the safety net have gotten bigger, even as inequality has soared. And the rise of movement conservatism is also at the heart of the bitter partisanship that characterizes politics today.


"Thats (sic) what charter schools or school vouchers are essential to turning the situation around. Curtailing the power of Teachers Unions would also be pf help by restricting them from making any political donations.This should be left to the individual."

No, if you look at the forces behind vouchers and charter schools it is the rich and hedge funds and don't be fooled into thinking that the rich are trying to help the poor, you are naive. You see, giving a poor family a $5,000 voucher isn't going to help them pay for a $15,000 private school. The rich want vouchers to subsidize the schools they already send their children.

"College educations have become less valuable in the marketplace because colleges have become areas of indoctrination rather than education. This also completely overlooks tradespeople and the blue collar worker who tend to do very well and may also be very entrepreneurial."

I have no idea where you get that idea. College education has become a prerequisite to many entry-level positions. For more advanced positions, masters degrees are required.

"Clearly. But no matter our income we can also save and learn to invest wisely, whether it's using our time wisely, educating ourselves through the financial section of the media rather than the sports or celebrity sections, and so on, searching out bargains, or just checking where we can get the best return on our savings. Millions of people have achieved middle class status, and more, by using a common sense approach."

Great! Who cares if you are poor -- just invest and make a killing -- with money that you don't have to invest! Yes, a handful of media stars make a lot of money. But they are a trivial part of the story.
 
All you have shown is that a few people can become rich. I am asking if every single person can become rich together.

Maybe not, but they can make their situation better.
 
Got a citation that shows that? I've read otherwise.

The ‘Self-Made’ Myth: Our Hallucinating Rich

It was from Forbes magazine. And the ones who inherited, most had someone in their family who was a first time millionaire. Sam Walton's built such a fortune his kids are still among the riches in the world.

And I don't care about bases. It's if you advance.
 
I'd actually be fine with wealth redistribution.
 
I was expecting the Illuminati or Bildeburg. Corporations wish everyone was rich, then everyone could afford their product.

Wishing they were and operating in such a way as to promote that wish are two different things.
 
If the rich "have a lower propensity to spend" shouldn't that send a message to the poor?

Most rich people far more than poor people do, but they spend a smaller percent of their income, thus technically the full statement should be "they have a lower propensity to spend the marginal dollar".

The message sent to the poor is that the rich in America have more money than they can even spend - way to rub it in.
 
The idea that taxation rates should be used to "fix" income inequality, touted by those like Sanders, is akin to establishing a national maximum wage.

Something of that nature, yes. Just not that extreme.

Playing Robin Hood with the tax code to achieve balance between rock/sports stars, those with extremely high incomes, and the average workers will result in more "loopholes" to protect those like HRC.

So? Something doesn't have to be a perfect system, it just needs to be better than what we already have.

If such a concept were ever actually proposed as law you can rest assured that it would not include tax code simplification - even Obama dared not alter 98.6% of the "Bush" income tax rates. Trying to finance a nation by taxing only the 1% more will never actually be implemented and everyone, including HRC, knows that.

I'm not sure what concept you are refering to, but if we eliminated income taxes for the 99%, that in itself would be a huge tax code simplification - effecting 99% of us for the better.
 
No, the point was that those who become wealthy tend to spend their more wisely and invest more wisely. They know that money is a tool.

The point you seem to be missing is that the poor don't have any money to spend more wisely or to invest more wisely. If they had "extra" money, then we wouldn't be calling them poor.

You know why poor people sometimes spend money on tatoos? Because it's the one thing that you can get for a hundred dollars (or less) that you will have for the rest of your life, if a tattoo makes them happy, it's literally the best investment they can make, a lifetime of happyness for less than a paycheck.
 
"...[politicians] are increasingly adopting anti-Wall Street rhetoric... [to] appeal to voters’ distrust of the financial sector.

In recent weeks, [one politician] declared he is "fed up" with Wall Street's antics, [another politician] slammed Goldman Sachs and [yet another politician] derided the banking industry as rife with greed.

"We have more banks with more concentrated assets in the United States, and the systematic risk is perhaps greater now...." [one politician] told reporters this month.

The observation from [that politician], .... is not unlike remarks made by from bank basher Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass), with both politicians noting that the largest financial institutions have grown in size since Congress passed Dodd-Frank....

"I think Americans are fed up — I am — with Wall Street getting treated specially," said [one politician] "There is nothing too big to fail in my opinion, when it comes to big banks, big corporate entities."....

[another politician] told Bloomberg TV in March that Goldman Sachs "is one of the biggest banks on Wall Street, and my criticism with Washington is they engage in crony capitalism."

"They give favors to Wall Street and big businesses,” [that politician] said on Bloomberg TV. .....

[yet another politician] said on NBC's "Meet The Press" in April that "there's too much greed" on Wall Street."

"I’ll tell you the problem with Wall Street: it is too much about ‘I gotta make money’,” [that politician] said on NBC."


original article with the names of the politicians
 
Something of that nature, yes. Just not that extreme.



So? Something doesn't have to be a perfect system, it just needs to be better than what we already have.



I'm not sure what concept you are refering to, but if we eliminated income taxes for the 99%, that in itself would be a huge tax code simplification - effecting 99% of us for the better.

What we have now results in the top 10% paying about 71% of the total FIT on about 43% of the total income. Once we define what exactly is a "fair share" then we can talk about tax reform. I fully agree that the first few (lets say $20K to $30K) dollars of annual income should be federal income tax free but after that I would like to see a fixed rate applied to the balance (excess?).

The idea that two folks working side by side for the same gross income should pay different FIT amounts based on how (or upon who) that income was later spent makes absolutely no sense at all. We managed to create (and still support?) a very regressive SS/Medicare tax (insurance?) system but somehow many insist on having a very much more progressive FIT system - that also makes no sense at all.
 
What we have now results in the top 10% paying about 71% of the total FIT on about 43% of the total income. Once we define what exactly is a "fair share" then we can talk about tax reform.

Nope. There is no such thing as "fair" in economics. "Fair" is a topic for philosophy. The only thing that matter in economics is having a system that maximizes productivity.

I fully agree that the first few (lets say $20K to $30K) dollars of annual income should be federal income tax free but after that I would like to see a fixed rate applied to the balance (excess?).

Why? The mean average amount of value created by the America workers is around $130k. Placing an income tax on any income below that amount is counter productive to any real need for income redistribution (assuming that such need even exists). For that matter, I don't see why we would want to tax people who make over the mean average but less than the amount of value which can be reasonably created by a human being. I would propose a standard per income earner tax deduction of $400k (about where our top tax rate starts now), and as low of a tax as possible on any income above that amount.

The idea that two folks working side by side for the same gross income should pay different FIT amounts based on how (or upon who) that income was later spent makes absolutely no sense at all.

I totally agree. That's part of the reason that I suggest we exempt most people and most income from income tax.

We managed to create (and still support?) a very regressive SS/Medicare tax (insurance?) system but somehow many insist on having a very much more progressive FIT system - that also makes no sense at all.

I agree. SS/medicare should be paid out of the general fund, and benefits shouldn't be linked to ones income.
 
No, because the bar is always being moved.

You were probably not here when this started. When I pointed out that the middle class had stagnated and the rich were taking most of the economic growth, some people tried to suggest that the middle class should just work really hard so they can be rich. Now we know that is not a viable solution.
 
Most rich people far more than poor people do, but they spend a smaller percent of their income, thus technically the full statement should be "they have a lower propensity to spend the marginal dollar". The message sent to the poor is that the rich in America have more money than they can even spend - way to rub it in.
Life isn't just about money, and those who are envious must be damned shallow. That may be why they aren't getting ahead in the world.
 
The point you seem to be missing is that the poor don't have any money to spend more wisely or to invest more wisely. If they had "extra" money, then we wouldn't be calling them poor.
You don't see the poor in bars, buying dope, taking taxis when the checks arrive? The fact is that todays poor in the democracies are better off than almost anywhere else in the world. Perhaps a few months in Nicaragua would give them some insight to their situation.
You know why poor people sometimes spend money on tatoos? Because it's the one thing that you can get for a hundred dollars (or less) that you will have for the rest of your life, if a tattoo makes them happy, it's literally the best investment they can make, a lifetime of happyness for less than a paycheck.
You just made my case.
 
"...[politicians] are increasingly adopting anti-Wall Street rhetoric... [to] appeal to voters’ distrust of the financial sector.

In recent weeks, [one politician] declared he is "fed up" with Wall Street's antics, [another politician] slammed Goldman Sachs and [yet another politician] derided the banking industry as rife with greed.

"We have more banks with more concentrated assets in the United States, and the systematic risk is perhaps greater now...." [one politician] told reporters this month.

The observation from [that politician], .... is not unlike remarks made by from bank basher Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass), with both politicians noting that the largest financial institutions have grown in size since Congress passed Dodd-Frank....

"I think Americans are fed up — I am — with Wall Street getting treated specially," said [one politician] "There is nothing too big to fail in my opinion, when it comes to big banks, big corporate entities."....

[another politician] told Bloomberg TV in March that Goldman Sachs "is one of the biggest banks on Wall Street, and my criticism with Washington is they engage in crony capitalism."

"They give favors to Wall Street and big businesses,” [that politician] said on Bloomberg TV. .....

[yet another politician] said on NBC's "Meet The Press" in April that "there's too much greed" on Wall Street."

"I’ll tell you the problem with Wall Street: it is too much about ‘I gotta make money’,” [that politician] said on NBC."


original article with the names of the politicians
The Stupids will buy right into this.
 
You were probably not here when this started. When I pointed out that the middle class had stagnated and the rich were taking most of the economic growth, some people tried to suggest that the middle class should just work really hard so they can be rich. Now we know that is not a viable solution.
Hard work isn't enough unless it is smart hard work. That is why education is so important, and not necessarily a much over-rated college education. Just an education to be the best you can possibly in whatever field you've chosen. For those with an entrepreneurial spirit it takes a special dedication and a lot of learning.
 
Nope. There is no such thing as "fair" in economics. "Fair" is a topic for philosophy. The only thing that matter in economics is having a system that maximizes productivity.



Why? The mean average amount of value created by the America workers is around $130k. Placing an income tax on any income below that amount is counter productive to any real need for income redistribution (assuming that such need even exists). For that matter, I don't see why we would want to tax people who make over the mean average but less than the amount of value which can be reasonably created by a human being. I would propose a standard per income earner tax deduction of $400k (about where our top tax rate starts now), and as low of a tax as possible on any income above that amount.



I totally agree. That's part of the reason that I suggest we exempt most people and most income from income tax.



I agree. SS/medicare should be paid out of the general fund, and benefits shouldn't be linked to ones income.

An income tax system where most (90%?) pay no federal income taxes at all would create a nearly infinite demand for more government - after all, it would mean "free" government provided stuff/services for the vast majority of voters. A system with nearly universal representation without taxation is bound to result in a huge increase in the cost of government with little (or no) increase in productivity.
 
Most rich people far more than poor people do, but they spend a smaller percent of their income, thus technically the full statement should be "they have a lower propensity to spend the marginal dollar".

The message sent to the poor is that the rich in America have more money than they can even spend - way to rub it in.

Is it your desire to have most (any?) personal income, in excess of that used for personal consumption, placed under the control of the federal government? I find that the poor rarely hire me (or anyone else) while they still consume at least much as they produce - there are few businesses (or governments) that can sustain themselves serving mainly poor folks. Representation without taxation is just as bad as the reverse when it comes to creating a bigger, more powerful and more expensive government. Having a relationship between your personal cost of government and your desire for more of it is important in a democracy (democratic republic?).
 
Life isn't just about money, and those who are envious must be damned shallow. That may be why they aren't getting ahead in the world.

I have no idea what envy has to do with someones propensity to spend the marginal dollar being based at least in part on their income and wealth level. Sounds like you are attempting to divert the conversation.
 
You don't see the poor in bars, buying dope, taking taxis when the checks arrive? The fact is that todays poor in the democracies are better off than almost anywhere else in the world. Perhaps a few months in Nicaragua would give them some insight to their situation.
You just made my case.

I have no clue what "case" you are attempting to make.
 
An income tax system where most (90%?) pay no federal income taxes at all would create a nearly infinite demand for more government - after all, it would mean "free" government provided stuff/services for the vast majority of voters. A system with nearly universal representation without taxation is bound to result in a huge increase in the cost of government with little (or no) increase in productivity.

You forget that for the majority of the existence of this country, we had no federal income taxes. Now use some logic here, now that we have income taxes, is our government smaller than it was when we had no income taxes?

History has proven your theory to be incorrect. But nice try, your argument would fool a lot of weaker minded folks who don't know anything about history, or logic.
 
Back
Top Bottom