• 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!

Census finds record gap between rich and poor

phattonez said:
I wasn't talking about tax rate, I'm talking about tax code. Figure it out.
Click to expand...
Why don't you tell me what you meant by tax code instead? That way I know what you're talking about.




When you risk money you shouldn't get something when it was a good investment?
Click to expand...
That wasn't your claim. You said, "people EARN income, it is not DISTRIBUTED." I corrected you by showing that people do get income from "DISTRIBUTIONS" that they do not EARN with their LABOR.
 
Moot said:
Why don't you tell me what you meant by tax code instead? That way I know what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

Tax laws, the code that tells people how to pay taxes.

That wasn't your claim. You said, "people EARN income, it is not DISTRIBUTED." I corrected you by showing that people do get income from "DISTRIBUTIONS" that they do not EARN with their LABOR.
Click to expand...

So when I take a risk by investing money and it pays off, I didn't earn it? Seems like I earn it for providing the means to do some productive work.
 
why should anyone take THE RISK of investing his or her surplus income if there's diminshed opportunity of it returning?

that's what investors TODAY are asking themselves, reportedly, to the tune of 1.8 trillion dollars

it's a natural question

damn that nature, again, it keeps getting in the way of utopia

we really need to do something about it...
 
phattonez said:
Tax laws, the code that tells people how to pay taxes.
Click to expand...
Okay, so let me get this straight, the arguement was that, "it's impossible to say with any certainty that one country just is better than the other." But, "many other countries have done far better than we have in some respects" and then you said, "we are horrific when it comes to our tax code. Seriously, we're one of the worst countries in the world. in that regard."

I fail to see what our tax code has to do with the premise that we are doing any better or worse than other countries, especially considering we still pay less taxes than most other countries and for the taxes we do pay, we don't get our money's worth. In short, the tax code, "the code that tells people how to pay taxes" has absolutely nothing to do with how better or worse off a country is. That would be like saying the directions on the package determines how good the product is instead of the materials or the cost of the product.


So when I take a risk by investing money and it pays off, I didn't earn it? Seems like I earn it for providing the means to do some productive work.
Click to expand...
You don't earn income distributions in the same way you earn a wage. One involves the exchange of labor, the other simply involves the exchange of money. You've heard the old adage, You have to have money, to make money. "Making money" from dividends is not the same as "earning money" from doing a full day of labor.
 
Last edited:
Moot said:
Okay, so let me get this straight, the arguement was that, "it's impossible to say with any certainty that one country just is better than the other." But, "many other countries have done far better than we have in some respects" and then you said, "we are horrific when it comes to our tax code. Seriously, we're one of the worst countries in the world. in that regard." I fail to see what our tax code has to do with the premise that we are doing any better or worse than other countries, especially considering we still pay less taxes than most other countries and for the taxes we do pay, we don't get our money's worth. In short, the tax code, "the code that tells people how to pay taxes" has absolutely nothing to do with how better or worse off a country is. That would be like saying it's directions on the package that determines how good the product is instead of the materials or the cost of the product.
Click to expand...

A complex tax code lends itself to a lot of control by government of the citizens of the country, since you can manipulate behavior through it.


You don't earn income distributions in the same way you earn a wage. One involves the exchange of labor, the other simply involves the exchange of money. You've heard the old adage, You have to have money, to make money. "Making money" from dividends is not the same as "earning money" from doing a full day of labor.
Click to expand...

Then why do corporations pay shareholders for their investment?
 
phattonez said:
A complex tax code lends itself to a lot of control by government of the citizens of the country, since you can manipulate behavior through it.
Click to expand...
So are you saying the tax code is more important than the tax revenue to determine whether a country is better or worse off than another?




Then why do corporations pay shareholders for their investment?
Click to expand...
To DISTRIBUTE wealth, of course.
 
Last edited:
Moot said:
So are you saying the tax code is more important than the tax revenue to determine whether a country is better or worse off than another?




To DISTRIBUTE wealth, of course.
Click to expand...
and that is good
 
Moot said:
So are you saying the tax code is more important than the tax revenue to determine whether a country is better or worse off than another?
Click to expand...

I'm saying that the tax code is an unnecessary burden and benefits those who know how to work it plus it tries to affect our behavior what with child tax credits and charitable deductions.


To DISTRIBUTE wealth, of course.
Click to expand...

Why would they want to "distribute" their wealth to a person who does nothing for the company? It seems to me then, assuming that the investor does not produce wealth, that the company would be better off not paying them. But they don't, so why is that Moot?
 
Boo Radley said:
Didn't ignore. It didn't convince or prove anything.
Click to expand...

Then respond to it. Explain how it didn't convince or prove because it is directly contradicting you.
 
Newsflash: Census uses outdated methods for its findings.
 
phattonez said:
Then respond to it. Explain how it didn't convince or prove because it is directly contradicting you.
Click to expand...

In and of itself it is not comparing apples to apples and oranges to oranges. Over the years we've seen many studies, not just the census, making the same findings. We've seen people working two jobs, and brining home less money. We see more wealthy and more poor, and less in between. It doesn't matter how many people are in a houseold. and many buy on credit (a problem I might add). What he brings up really doesn't speak to the problem in any I can see.
 
Boo Radley said:
In and of itself it is not comparing apples to apples and oranges to oranges. Over the years we've seen many studies, not just the census, making the same findings. We've seen people working two jobs, and brining home less money. We see more wealthy and more poor, and less in between. It doesn't matter how many people are in a houseold. and many buy on credit (a problem I might add). What he brings up really doesn't speak to the problem in any I can see.
Click to expand...

Those studies, as I have pointed out, all have the same flaw of looking at snapshots and comparing classes, while ignoring the fact that the composition of those classes changes with time. All of the studies that you have pointed out do this, whether they use census data or IRS data, they all fall into the same trap.
 
phattonez said:
Those studies, as I have pointed out, all have the same flaw of looking at snapshots and comparing classes, while ignoring the fact that the composition of those classes changes with time. All of the studies that you have pointed out do this, whether they use census data or IRS data, they all fall into the same trap.
Click to expand...

No, I don't think you have. true many articles refer to the census, but others refer to other studies. Multiple sources looking at the same and different information reach the same conclusion. The middle class has shrunk and the divide between rich and poor is greater. And this can be true regardless of changing compositions.
 
Now, here are many of the problems with all of the income studies that have been brought forward.

Volatility in income:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/economics/81991-following-income-some-problems.html#post1058996184

Immigration (which can lower income in a group even if everyone is improving):

http://www.debatepolitics.com/economics/81991-following-income-some-problems.html#post1058998855

Retirement and household income (which also implies problems because of # of people working at home, divorces, etc.):

http://www.debatepolitics.com/economics/81991-following-income-some-problems-2.html#post1058998862

And how about a video about how the middle class income is rising.

reason.tv - Videos > Living Large (watch the whole video, it becomes more academic past the anecdotal beginning)

And this is a whole book about income study problems:

Amazon.com: Income and Wealth (Greenwood Guides to Business and Economics) (9780313336881): Alan Reynolds: Books: Reviews, Prices & more
 
Boo Radley said:
No, I don't think you have. true many articles refer to the census, but others refer to other studies. Multiple sources looking at the same and different information reach the same conclusion. The middle class has shrunk and the divide between rich and poor is greater. And this can be true regardless of changing compositions.
Click to expand...

Different information, same methodology.
 
phattonez said:
Now, here are many of the problems with all of the income studies that have been brought forward.

Volatility in income:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/economics/81991-following-income-some-problems.html#post1058996184

Immigration (which can lower income in a group even if everyone is improving):

http://www.debatepolitics.com/economics/81991-following-income-some-problems.html#post1058998855

Retirement and household income (which also implies problems because of # of people working at home, divorces, etc.):

http://www.debatepolitics.com/economics/81991-following-income-some-problems-2.html#post1058998862

And how about a video about how the middle class income is rising.

reason.tv - Videos > Living Large (watch the whole video, it becomes more academic past the anecdotal beginning)

And this is a whole book about income study problems:

Amazon.com: Income and Wealth (Greenwood Guides to Business and Economics) (9780313336881): Alan Reynolds: Books: Reviews, Prices & more
Click to expand...

I just think you're grasping at straws. I've listed this many and can lsit more that completely disagree with you. For some reason there seems to be resistence to dealing with problems, or even acknowleging them.

In the United States, the richest 10 percent earn an average of $93,000 — the highest level in the OECD. The poorest 10 percent earn an average of $5,800 — about 20 percent lower than the OECD average.

Gap growing between rich and poor - Business - World business - msnbc.com

In a 20-year study of its member countries, the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development said wealthy households are not only widening the gap with the poor, but in countries such as the U.S., Canada and Germany they are also leaving middle-income earners further behind, with potentially ominous consequences if the global financial crisis sparks a long recession.

Gap Between Rich And Poor Growing - CBS News

The research, based on newly released figures from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, shows that the top 1% of Americans - who earn an average of $862,000 each after tax (or $1.3m before tax) - receive more money than the 110m Americans in the bottom 40% of the income distribution, whose income averages $21,350 each year.
BBC NEWS | Business | US inequality gap widens

http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2009/8/19/saupload_richer_us.png

Conclusion: Variations between states in the inequality of income were associated with increased mortality from several causes. The size of the gap between the wealthy and less well off—as distinct from the absolute standard of living enjoyed by the poor—seems to matter in its own right. The findings suggest that policies that deal with the growing inequities in income distribution may have an important impact on the health of the population.

Income distribution and mortality: cross sectional ecological study of the Robin Hood index in the United States -- Kennedy et al. 312 (7037): 1004 -- bmj.com
 
Boo Radley said:
I just think you're grasping at straws. I've listed this many and can lsit more that completely disagree with you. For some reason there seems to be resistence to dealing with problems, or even acknowleging them.

In the United States, the richest 10 percent earn an average of $93,000 — the highest level in the OECD. The poorest 10 percent earn an average of $5,800 — about 20 percent lower than the OECD average.

Gap growing between rich and poor - Business - World business - msnbc.com
Click to expand...

But that's at one time. In 1 year the composition of those groups changes drastically.

In a 20-year study of its member countries, the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development said wealthy households are not only widening the gap with the poor, but in countries such as the U.S., Canada and Germany they are also leaving middle-income earners further behind, with potentially ominous consequences if the global financial crisis sparks a long recession.

Gap Between Rich And Poor Growing - CBS News
Click to expand...

Again they're looking at income groups and not at actual people!

The research, based on newly released figures from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, shows that the top 1% of Americans - who earn an average of $862,000 each after tax (or $1.3m before tax) - receive more money than the 110m Americans in the bottom 40% of the income distribution, whose income averages $21,350 each year.
BBC NEWS | Business | US inequality gap widens
Click to expand...

Again looking at 1 time and not realizing that the top 1% changes with time as does the bottom 40%.

http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2009/8/19/saupload_richer_us.png

Conclusion: Variations between states in the inequality of income were associated with increased mortality from several causes. The size of the gap between the wealthy and less well off—as distinct from the absolute standard of living enjoyed by the poor—seems to matter in its own right. The findings suggest that policies that deal with the growing inequities in income distribution may have an important impact on the health of the population.
Click to expand...

It's the same problem over and over again. What part of this aren't you getting?

Income distribution and mortality: cross sectional ecological study of the Robin Hood index in the United States -- Kennedy et al. 312 (7037): 1004 -- bmj.com
Click to expand...

Great, now show me that the PEOPLE, not the CLASSES stay poor.
 
Actual people belong to income groups. Again, your making a distinction without a point. People make up classes. You have to talk about people in this case in terms of classes. We tend to group so we can see it better. But each grouping is made up of people. Some move up and some fall down, but if the measurement isconsistently, and has been, showing a growing gap, the problem is real and there.
 
Boo Radley said:
Actual people belong to income groups. Again, your making a distinction without a point. People make up classes. You have to talk about people in this case in terms of classes. We tend to group so we can see it better. But each grouping is made up of people. Some move up and some fall down, but if the measurement isconsistently, and has been, showing a growing gap, the problem is real and there.
Click to expand...

Person A makes $10,000 in 2010. Person B makes $100,000 in 2010. Person A makes $250,000 in 2011. Person B makes $7500 in 2011.

The rich class income grew by 150%! The poor class shrunk by 25%! The gap between rich and poor is widening!

Total income: Person A: $10,000 + $250,000 = $260,000.
Person B: $100,000 + $7500 = $107,500.

There is no widening gap between rich and poor in this scenario. Please tell me you get it now becuase I can't simplify this anymore.
 
phattonez said:
Person A makes $10,000 in 2010. Person B makes $100,000 in 2010. Person A makes $250,000 in 2011. Person B makes $7500 in 2011.

The rich class income grew by 150%! The poor class shrunk by 25%! The gap between rich and poor is widening!

Total income: Person A: $10,000 + $250,000 = $260,000.
Person B: $100,000 + $7500 = $107,500.

There is no widening gap between rich and poor in this scenario. Please tell me you get it now becuase I can't simplify this anymore.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't matter to the problem. First, that is unlikely to happen in any significant numbers, but regardless, if one falls into poverty and another moves up to being wealthy, the problem would still be there. And if more were in poverty, and even more in wealth, but fewer in the middle class, the and that substained itself, regardless of any hyoptethical movement, the problem would still be there.
 
Boo Radley said:
It wouldn't matter to the problem. First, that is unlikely to happen in any significant numbers,
Click to expand...

But it does, as I've shown in many links already! Here they are again!

http://www.debatepolitics.com/economics/81991-following-income-some-problems.html#post1058996184

Sowell on Economic Facts and Fallacies | EconTalk | Library of Economics and Liberty

You still have refused to directly contradict these links.

but regardless, if one falls into poverty and another moves up to being wealthy, the problem would still be there.
Click to expand...

How in the world do you figure?! That's no problem, that's progress! :slapme:

And if more were in poverty, and even more in wealth, but fewer in the middle class, the and that substained itself, regardless of any hyoptethical movement, the problem would still be there.
Click to expand...

Except when you look at good quintiles then the middle class isn't shrinking. In fact, they are just becoming richer!

Explain this data:

Overall $93,100 per household (+31%)
Top income quartile $422,400 per household (+97%)
Second income quartile $124,500 per household (+71%)
Third income quartile $44,740 per household (0%)
Bottom income quartile $9,960 per household (+5%)

It seems obvious then to me that if you use static definitions of the middle class instead of looking at the actual middle class (from 75th percentile to 25th percentile) that of course you will see a shrinking middle class! It's MEDIAN INCOME HAS BEEN RISING WITH TIME!

As for this data, realize that although the third income has remained stagnant, that these are not the same people in that group.

To point out how significant this is, think about college students who make little money while in school (so classified as poor) but then get a job later and make a ton of money. Would you say that they were in poor while in school? Of course not! They took out loans banking on future success. They were never poor. They were not rich, but not poor.
 
Boo Radley said:
I just think you're grasping at straws. I've listed this many and can lsit more that completely disagree with you. For some reason there seems to be resistence to dealing with problems, or even acknowleging them.

In the United States, the richest 10 percent earn an average of $93,000 — the highest level in the OECD. The poorest 10 percent earn an average of $5,800 — about 20 percent lower than the OECD average.

Gap growing between rich and poor - Business - World business - msnbc.com

In a 20-year study of its member countries, the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development said wealthy households are not only widening the gap with the poor, but in countries such as the U.S., Canada and Germany they are also leaving middle-income earners further behind, with potentially ominous consequences if the global financial crisis sparks a long recession.

Gap Between Rich And Poor Growing - CBS News

The research, based on newly released figures from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, shows that the top 1% of Americans - who earn an average of $862,000 each after tax (or $1.3m before tax) - receive more money than the 110m Americans in the bottom 40% of the income distribution, whose income averages $21,350 each year.
BBC NEWS | Business | US inequality gap widens

http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2009/8/19/saupload_richer_us.png

Conclusion: Variations between states in the inequality of income were associated with increased mortality from several causes. The size of the gap between the wealthy and less well off—as distinct from the absolute standard of living enjoyed by the poor—seems to matter in its own right. The findings suggest that policies that deal with the growing inequities in income distribution may have an important impact on the health of the population.

Income distribution and mortality: cross sectional ecological study of the Robin Hood index in the United States -- Kennedy et al. 312 (7037): 1004 -- bmj.com
Click to expand...

in any form of competition, the longer the competition lasts the more the most skilled participants win and the untalented lose
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom