• 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

winston53660 said:
They have also been busted for repeated credit card charges after people told them to stop.
Click to expand...

Fraud is really the best example? How much did this occur and isn't it illegal anyway?
 
Troubadour said:
Deeply flawed methodology. For one thing, measures like per capita GDP and median income become invalid measures when inequality is too extreme - otherwise you could claim that a country with three billionaires and a million starving slaves is prosperous. Secondly, their definition of quality of life practically begs the question: They're basically saying quality of life is a function of how much money you spend, and that's clearly not the case. The United States under-provides basic services for close to half the population, and what the middle-class gets is both more expensive than and beneath the standards of what Northern Europeans expect as a matter of course from their government. The result is poverty. I'm sure Swedes have smaller TVs and less elaborate stereoes than we do, but their children can read, and the quality of their healthcare isn't dictated by how much their employers value them.
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]

Any measure of quality of life is flawed. It's impossible to find a good measure of it without using subjective value measurements.
 
phattonez said:
You're still looking at census data which follows group, the composition of which changes over time. The problem is that you think that income defines rich and poor when really it's wealth. You're not answering the question I posed before. If someone who made $5 million last year but $20 thousand this year, is he poor? Well this data would say yes, but that would be a stupid measure wouldn't it?
Click to expand...

No, not enitrely, I believe one above used IRS data. The person you describe, rare as they are, do not effect the data near enough to do what you suggest it does. you're taking a small, obscure anomally and treating it as if the number is significant. I see nothing to suggest you're rigth about that, or that all those studing it wouldn't notice.
 
I don't see any with IRS data. The IRS data that I've seen show huge changes in composition of the groups every year.
 
phattonez said:
Any measure of quality of life is flawed. It's impossible to find a good measure of it without using subjective value measurements.
Click to expand...

True, but that doesn't mean all metrics are created equal. There is simple common sense - people with health care have a higher standard of living than people denied it. People with good schools have a better quality of life than people where education consists of corporate advertising and memorizing multiple-choice tests.
 
Troubadour said:
True, but that doesn't mean all metrics are created equal. There is simple common sense - people with health care have a higher standard of living than people denied it.
Click to expand...

Not if they are generally poorer. A relatively poor man in the US who doesn't have health insurance is probably better off than a relatively rich person in Cuba who does have health coverage.

People with good schools have a better quality of life than people where education consists of corporate advertising and memorizing multiple-choice tests.
Click to expand...

You have to decide in the end which is more important. Wealth, healthcare, education, nutrition, air quality, etc. We don't know how important these things are relative to each other. No measure can do this. We know how important they are for ourselves. Fact is, quality of life is relative, and there is no good way to compare it.
 
Moot said:
Phew, an expert on drug cartels, eh. That oughta come in real handy when looking for a job in Ohio. But like you said anyone can "google" and become an "expert" off the internet. However, your true knowledge and understanding was revealed when you omitted the word "is" and confused me with another poster. ROTFLO
Click to expand...

I have a job-you?
 
Troubadour said:
Deeply flawed methodology. For one thing, measures like per capita GDP and median income become invalid measures when inequality is too extreme - otherwise you could claim that a country with three billionaires and a million starving slaves is prosperous. Secondly, their definition of quality of life practically begs the question: They're basically saying quality of life is a function of how much money you spend, and that's clearly not the case. The United States under-provides basic services for close to half the population, and what the middle-class gets is both more expensive than and beneath the standards of what Northern Europeans expect as a matter of course from their government. The result is poverty. I'm sure Swedes have smaller TVs and less elaborate stereoes than we do, but their children can read, and the quality of their healthcare isn't dictated by how much their employers value them.
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]

sounds more likely half the population doesn't work hard enough to get what they want. BTW do you know where the best athletes and rock stars in America live versus Swedish tennis stars and rock singers.
 
Moot said:
Phew, an expert on drug cartels, eh. That oughta come in real handy when looking for a job in Ohio. But like you said anyone can "google" and become an "expert" off the internet. However, your true knowledge and understanding was revealed when you omitted the word "is" and confused me with another poster. ROTFLO
Click to expand...

What about googling and becoming an expert on the internet? I mean, since we're talking about true knowledge and understanding-n-all.
 
Moot said:
Yes, I'm an expert in baloney detection which is how I was able to detect your baloney right away.
Click to expand...

ah another lib who figures the way to beat the big bad turtle is to talk out of their asses. OK moot, whatever you say. You know me better than I do. But I can see why you are an expert on baloney. people tend to be good at knowing themselves.
 
I'm sorry, allow me to stray things back on topic for just a sec and ask: How do the Libbos expect the gap to be closed? Make more poor people rich, or make more rich people poor?
 
phattonez said:
Not if they are generally poorer. A relatively poor man in the US who doesn't have health insurance is probably better off than a relatively rich person in Cuba who does have health coverage.
Click to expand...

Probably true, but then you're talking about quality of life issues that have nothing to do with the policies in question. Free democracies with public health care are generally not poor, and their people do not emigrate in significant numbers.

phattonez said:
You have to decide in the end which is more important. Wealth, healthcare, education, nutrition, air quality, etc. We don't know how important these things are relative to each other.
Click to expand...

"Wealth" is not a goal in itself for the vast majority of people, it's just a means to the other things. And the United States falls further behind in them the more inequality it accumulates.

phattonez said:
Fact is, quality of life is relative, and there is no good way to compare it.
Click to expand...

There is no good way to compare among similar economies, but it's not rocket science when people are denied basic necessities because their employers don't consider them profitable.

TurtleDude said:
sounds more likely half the population doesn't work hard enough to get what they want.
Click to expand...

They're too busy working hard enough to give the richest 1% what they want, in exchange for less pay and fewer benefits.

TurtleDude said:
BTW do you know where the best athletes and rock stars in America live versus Swedish tennis stars and rock singers.
Click to expand...

Why would I care?
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
I'm sorry, allow me to stray things back on topic for just a sec and ask: How do the Libbos expect the gap to be closed? Make more poor people rich, or make more rich people poor?
Click to expand...

Were going to snatch it from your sorry a** where else do you think we would get it?:mrgreen:
 
TurtleDude said:
wow a blog from some nobody that no one has heard of-a philosophy major who has no real experience other than whining about the right.

his opinion is left wing drivel. The top 10% pay most of the taxes so the handouts aren't being paid for by the middle class
Click to expand...

lol. the top ten pay most of the taxes because the top ten make the most money. further more, the top ten are more inclined to find loop holes and tax break for expenses and investments that over all made them more money. lastly, those in the highest bracket are not being "punished" by seeing thier $740,000 income turn into a $400,000 income after taxes. Whats 40% to someone who makes $12,000 a year? Theres a difference between needs, comfort, then excess, and our tax code rightfully recognizes that. It's the same reason bread isn't taxed and booze is overly taxed.
 
phattonez said:
I don't see any with IRS data. The IRS data that I've seen show huge changes in composition of the groups every year.
Click to expand...

I believe the first one actually references it, but I may be thinking of a another link I didn't post. Let me show this:

Data from the United States Department of Commerce and Internal Revenue Service indicate that income inequality has been increasing since the 1970s,[10][11][12][13][14] whereas it had been declining during the mid 20th century.

Income inequality in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oregon's rich getting richer and all others falling behind, wage study shows | OregonLive.com

There's also this:

The United States is the most economically stratified society in the western world. As THE WALL STREET JOURNAL reported, a recent study found that the top .01% or 14,000 American families hold 22.2% of wealth — the bottom 90%, or over 133 million families, just 4% of the nation's wealth.

Additional studies narrow the focus: This from the Pew Foundation and THE NEW YORK TIMES: "The chance that children of the poor or middle class will climb up the income ladder, has not changed significantly over the last three decades. "This from THE ECONOMIST'S special report, "Inequality in America:" "The fruits of productivity gains have been skewed towards the highest earners, and towards companies, whose profits have reached record levels as a share of GDP."

Bill Moyers Journal . Steve Fraser on Gilded Ages | PBS

You might watch the video. There are more than a few studies out there, all coming up with the same findings, you argument based on something that if it happens happens to too few to make any real difference doesn't really convince. The numbers are not likely, seriously not likely, to be influenced by the small number of people who have real wealth and are not working. And too many have looked at this to miss such a possibility.
 
Troubadour said:
Probably true, but then you're talking about quality of life issues that have nothing to do with the policies in question. Free democracies with public health care are generally not poor, and their people do not emigrate in significant numbers.



"Wealth" is not a goal in itself for the vast majority of people, it's just a means to the other things. And the United States falls further behind in them the more inequality it accumulates.



There is no good way to compare among similar economies, but it's not rocket science when people are denied basic necessities because their employers don't consider them profitable.
Click to expand...

No, I have no good way of determining if quality of life is better in France in the US, even though they give out a lot of things for free. It's impossible to say with any certainty that one country just is better than the other.
 
Boo Radley said:
I believe the first one actually references it, but I may be thinking of a another link I didn't post. Let me show this:

Data from the United States Department of Commerce and Internal Revenue Service indicate that income inequality has been increasing since the 1970s,[10][11][12][13][14] whereas it had been declining during the mid 20th century.
Click to expand...

10 and 11 are based on census data. Number 12 is actually a criticism of using census bureau data! 13 is just an article, so nothing new or informative there. Number 14 uses IRS data, except it uses census methods of following classes. Furthermore, it follows households and not individuals.
 
Last edited:
phattonez said:
10 and 11 are based on census data. Number 12 is actually a criticism of using census bureau data! 13 is just an article, so nothing new or informative there. Number 14 uses IRS data, except it uses census methods of following classes. Furthermore, it follows households and not individuals.
Click to expand...

I thiknyou're trying too hard not see what is clear. Again, what you present can't be large enough to effect the data. More than one institution have studied this, and came to the same conclusions. It is unlikely they are wrong, as it comes from multiple sources.
 
TurtleDude said:
wow a blog from some nobody that no one has heard of-a philosophy major who has no real experience other than whining about the right.
Click to expand...
Wow! And that from someone that probably values what Sarah Palin has to say. Matthew Iglesias is a Harvard graduate, with honors, I might say, Magna Cum Laude who was Editor in Chief of the Harvard Independent and other campus publications. He was a staff writer for American Prospect, and The Atlantic Monthly. He has written for the New York Times Magazine, made appearances on TV and radio as a political commentator and won the Hillman Prize in 2007 (a journalist award).

Can you say that about Glenn Beck? Sarah Palin? (doesn't she claim to have a journalist's degree?

his opinion is left wing drivel.
Click to expand...
His opinion may be left, but not drivel. That would be Glenn Beck with the drivel.


The top 10% pay most of the taxes so the handouts aren't being paid for by the middle class
Click to expand...
We have progressive tax rates. They make the most money - of course they pay the most money - DUH! But, their rates are a lot lower!

WASHINGTON, Jan. 7 — Families earning more than $1 million a year saw their federal tax rates drop more sharply than any group in the country as a result of President Bush’s tax cuts, according to a new Congressional study.

The study, by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, also shows that tax rates for middle-income earners edged up in 2004, the most recent year for which data was available, while rates for people at the very top continued to decline.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/washington/08tax.html
 
TurtleDude said:
anyone can google-you were clearly talking out of your six earlier. your comment about John Birch demonstrated a tsunami of ignorance
Click to expand...


What the hell are you talking about? Would you care to elaborate, since that was my first post on the John Birch Society.

I guess you have some information to refute what I posted? If not, than apparently you don't think it odd, a Mormon run organization, are you trying to claim Baptist values when you mentioned that John Birch was a Baptist missionary? Because, believe me, Baptist and Mormon don't have much in common.
 
Boo Radley said:
I thiknyou're trying too hard not see what is clear. Again, what you present can't be large enough to effect the data. More than one institution have studied this, and came to the same conclusions. It is unlikely they are wrong, as it comes from multiple sources.
Click to expand...

levelers exaggerate economic inequality, eagerly, because they rely on pretax income, which omits the 97% of federal income taxes paid by the top half of income earners and the many "transfer payments," such as food stamps, housing assistance, Medicaid and Medicare. This exaggerated portrait of inequality undergirds the present effort by the Democrats to raise income tax rates ...

A more meaningful measure of inequality comes from an examination of spending. On Wednesday the Labor Department presented 2009 data on consumer spending, based on income quintiles, or fifths. This analysis shows that economic inequality has not increased, contrary to what the levelers contend. ...

. . .

On a per person basis, the new Labor Department numbers show that in 2009 households in the top fifth of the income distribution spent 2.4 times the amount spent by the bottom quintile. That... was about the same as 20 years ago.

...compared with 1989, the big winners are the lowest-income group, which spent 9.1% more per person in constant dollars. In contrast, the highest group spent 2.6% more, and the middle group increased its spending by 1.1%. Income and spending do not tell the whole story about how well Americans are doing. A higher percentage of low-income Americans own their homes free of mortgage debt than do upper-income Americans....
Click to expand...

Diana Furchtgott-Roth on Inequality :: The Future of Capitalism

An Associated Press story currently getting big play on Yahoo! News runs under the headline, "Census Finds Record Gap Between Rich and Poor," and begins, "The income gap between the richest and poorest Americans grew last year to its widest amount on record." The article carries no link to specific census data and doesn't even have a reference to the specific survey, referring only to "newly released census figures."

Check out the most recent Census press release that has anything to do with this topic and it states the following, "The change in income inequality between 2008 and 2009 was not statistically significant, as measured by shares of aggregate household income by quintiles and the Gini index."

What part of the phrase "not statistically significant" do the Associated Press, Yahoo! News, and the rest of the advocacy groups and politicians who are going to make hay out of this story for the rest of the day not understand?
Click to expand...

News About Income Inequality :: The Future of Capitalism

In all, over the 1999 through 2007 period, about 675,000 taxpayers earned over a $1 million for at least one year. Of these taxpayers, about 338,000 (50 percent) were a millionaire in only one year, while just 38,000 (6 percent) remained a millionaire in all nine years. Based on these results, it is clear that taxpayers move in and out of millionaire status with great frequency....

Carroll uses a nice analogy from Schumpeter that I'd never heard before: the distribution of income is like a hotel with some really fancy rooms on the top floors and some very basic ones on the bottom. All the rooms are always full, but who occupies which rooms changes from year to year.
Click to expand...

Income Inequality Data :: The Future of Capitalism

I also once posted something showing how the composition of quintiles varies greatly from year to year. So using data that follows these groups is kind of worthless because you're not following the people. This top quintile of people who continuously earn the money is just a myth. It's a big change in people every year.
 
Troubadour said:
Probably true, but then you're talking about quality of life issues that have nothing to do with the policies in question. Free democracies with public health care are generally not poor, and their people do not emigrate in significant numbers.



"Wealth" is not a goal in itself for the vast majority of people, it's just a means to the other things. And the United States falls further behind in them the more inequality it accumulates.



There is no good way to compare among similar economies, but it's not rocket science when people are denied basic necessities because their employers don't consider them profitable.



They're too busy working hard enough to give the richest 1% what they want, in exchange for less pay and fewer benefits.



Why would I care?
Click to expand...

more BS-but the libs always think that the top 1% somehow oppress others. Its kind of like saying Tiger Woods or Rafal Nadal steal prize moneys from weak competitors.
 
donc said:
Were going to snatch it from your sorry a** where else do you think we would get it?:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

I'm your huckleberry, come and give it a try
 
JakeFromWI said:
lol. the top ten pay most of the taxes because the top ten make the most money. further more, the top ten are more inclined to find loop holes and tax break for expenses and investments that over all made them more money. lastly, those in the highest bracket are not being "punished" by seeing thier $740,000 income turn into a $400,000 income after taxes. Whats 40% to someone who makes $12,000 a year? Theres a difference between needs, comfort, then excess, and our tax code rightfully recognizes that. It's the same reason bread isn't taxed and booze is overly taxed.
Click to expand...

they pay far more of the tax burden than their share of the income. Yet people like you piss and moan that they don't pay enough.
We have no duty to pay for your existence since your existence really is no benefit to me. "Rightly" means nothing-to me rightly means paying for what you use, not what others desire from you.

when you have to pay for more than what you use you are being punished

tell me what additional Government benefits do I get for paying many times more taxes than you do?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom