• 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

That is being called being disingenuous.

nope-but I wouldn't expect a non litigator to understand that

by not answering a question you often prove my points more than you would by answering it.
 
1) find a quote of mine that backs up your idiotic lie that I somehow am a disciple of Sarah Palin. I am amused that she causes the loony left such issues though
Well, you would be the first conservative that doesn't idolize her, but don't tell me you don't value Glenn Beck? Rush Limbaugh? And I don't believe either one of those has the credential of Iglesias, yet most conservatives repeat their rhetoric on these forums on a daily basis.

2) I was an equivalent graduate of Yale plus I have Masters and Law degrees. Thus what I say is more valuable than that guy using your criteria. he has an opinion, no more valuable than someone with the same or better education. He writes-BFD-what did he do that gives him expertise? Its like someone testifying in a malpractice case who has a medical degree and has never practiced medicine, only written about it. I will give you a clue-people like that rarely make it past the judge.
He has better credentials than most of your commentators on Faux News and like I said, their rhetoric is posted, idolized and committed to memory among the cons on this forum.

3) I oppose a progressive tax system mainly because it gives politicians too much power and allows those with no skin in the game to jack up the taxes of others. Just because something exists doesn't make it right.
Our tax system has actually gotten less progressive over the past 40 years. The higher income's rate has dropped dramatically and capital owners earn more net of taxes today than they did in the 60's. Capital gains have faced lower tax rates which benefits high income taxpayers. And, I don't know what you mean by "those with no skin in the game to jack up the taxes" as if our Congressmen don't have to pay taxes.

4) people making a million a year pay far far more taxes than the vast majority of the voters. they get absolutely no additional benefits from the government over what you get. if you don't want the rich to get big tax cuts above what you get, then don't call for the rich to pay such idiotically high taxes
Is that what they have you believing? You might want to rethink that.

George Lakoff and Bruce Budner. "Hidden Truths Of Progressive Taxes". Tom Paine. 16 Apr. 2007 - An important point often lost in this debate is an appreciation that the common wealth, which our taxes create and sustain, empowers the wealthy in myriad ways to create their wealth. We call this compound empowerment — the compounded use of the common wealth by corporations, their investors, and other wealthy individuals.

Consider Bill Gates. He started Microsoft as a college dropout and has become the world's richest person. Though he has undoubtedly benefited from his unusual intelligence and business acumen, he could not have created or sustained his personal wealth without the common wealth. The legal system protected Microsoft's intellectual property and contracts. The tax-supported financial infrastructure enabled him to access capital markets and trade his stock in a market in which investors have confidence. He built his company with many employees educated in public schools and universities. Tax-funded research helped develop computer science and the internet. Trade laws negotiated and enforced by the government protect his ability to sell his products abroad. These are but a few of the ways in which Mr. Gates' accumulation of wealth was empowered by the common wealth and by taxation.

As Warren Buffet famously observed, he likely couldn't have achieved his financial success had he been born in Bangladesh instead of the United States, because Bangladesh had no banking system and no stock market.

Ordinary people just drive on the highways; corporations send fleets of trucks. Ordinary people may get a bank loan for their mortgage; corporations borrow money to buy whole companies. Ordinary people rarely use the courts; most of the courts are used for corporate law and contract disputes. Corporations and their investors — those who have accumulated enough money beyond basic needs so they can invest — make much more use, compound use, of the empowering infrastructure provided by everybody's tax money.

The wealthy have made greater use of the common good—they have been empowered by it in creating their wealth—and thus they have a greater moral obligation to sustain it. They are merely paying their debt to society in arrears and investing in future empowerment.

This is the fundamental truth that motivates progressive taxation.

It is a truth that undercuts conservative arguments about taxation. Taxes provide and maintain the protecting and empowering infrastructure that makes our income possible.

Our tax forms hide this truth. They do not indicate the extent to which taxes have created and sustained the common wealth so you could earn what you have. They make it look like the empowering infrastructure was just put there by magic and that the government is taking money out of your pocket. The most likely truth is that, through the common wealth, America put more money in your pocket than it took out — by far.


Argument: Wealthy Benefit More From System, So Owe a Greater Tax Debt
 
wrong-ever heard of the Robbinson PIttman Act? not a state right issue. different sovereigns

try again-this is one of the areas I have some professional expertise in.

good; tell us how the Robinson–Patman Act would have any implication on the collection of taxes across state borders
 
Diana Furchtgott-Roth on Inequality :: The Future of Capitalism



News About Income Inequality :: The Future of Capitalism



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.

I know nothing about your source, but I have linked multiple sources saying exactly the same thing, using more than one method of reaching the conclusion. I still suspect you protest too much wihtout laying out a viable objection, as I said, your example is far too small a number to actually effect the data.
 
I know nothing about your source, but I have linked multiple sources saying exactly the same thing, using more than one method of reaching the conclusion. I still suspect you protest too much wihtout laying out a viable objection, as I said, your example is far too small a number to actually effect the data.

I'm guessing you didn't read my sources since I showed that the volatility issue actually is significant. Only 6% of millionaires stayed millionaires in those 9 consecutive years. 6%! Where is this class of the permanent rich? I don't see it.
 
George Lakoff and Bruce Budner. "Hidden Truths Of Progressive Taxes". Tom Paine. 16 Apr. 2007 - An important point often lost in this debate is an appreciation that the common wealth, which our taxes create and sustain, empowers the wealthy in myriad ways to create their wealth. We call this compound empowerment — the compounded use of the common wealth by corporations, their investors, and other wealthy individuals.


That "common wealth" supports all of us, not just the rich. This is an argument for a flat tax, not a progressive tax. The "common wealth" helps the rich proportionally to how much it helps the poor.
 
I'm guessing you didn't read my sources since I showed that the volatility issue actually is significant. Only 6% of millionaires stayed millionaires in those 9 consecutive years. 6%! Where is this class of the permanent rich? I don't see it.

Your links post a few very short paragraphs and don't give us much in detail, so I can make no assumptions based on them. hence, I know very little about your source. Your claim, that we started with, that there are people sitting wealthy, and thus skew the satisditcs, meaning more people are sitting in the middle than noted, doesn't hold up as any sitting with money and not working are too small a number to matter.

Dropping below a million wouldn't invalidate the gap either, because they don't likely drop from millionare status to poverty or even middle class. 900,000 a year isn't middle class either.

Agian, many different people and groups have looked and studied this and report the same gap. I don't see anything in your links to dispute this.
 
TurtleDude said:
wrong-ever heard of the Robbinson PIttman Act? not a state right issue. different sovereigns

try again-this is one of the areas I have some professional expertise in.
good; tell us how the Robinson–Patman Act would have any implication on the collection of taxes across state borders

As far as I can see, it wouldn't...

LINK
...a United States federal law that prohibits what were considered, at the time of passage, to be anticompetitive practices by producers, specifically price discrimination.

LINK
The Robinson-Patman Act prohibits a seller of commodities from selling comparable goods to different buyers at different prices, except in certain circumstances.

Robinson–Patman Act
It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, either directly or indirectly, to discriminate in price between different purchasers of commodities of like grade and quality...
 
Things I came across:

What's more, Piketty and Saez's analysis showed that from 2004 to 2005, virtually all of the net gains in income went to the top 10 percent of earners, while income for the remaining 90 percent of Americans stayed about the same when adjusted for inflation.

"In the current period... the top is seeing gains, while people in the middle of the spectrum really have been treading water," said Aron-Dine, of the Center on Budget Policy and Priorities. "You could be less concerned about inequality where you have (widespread) income growth, versus when some go up a lot, and others not all."

PolitiFact | Income gap is big, but so are its causes

Is that a liberal's talking point? Sure. But it's also a line from the recent public testimony of a champion of the free market: Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan.

Rich-poor gap gaining attention / The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com

The gaps in after-tax income between the richest 1 percent of Americans and the middle and poorest fifths of the country more than tripled between 1979 and 2007 (the period for which these data are available), according to data the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) issued last week. Taken together with prior research, the new data suggest greater income concentration at the top of the income scale than at any time since 1928.

Income Gaps Between Very Rich and Everyone Else More Than Tripled In Last Three Decades, New Data Show — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
 
nope-but I wouldn't expect a non litigator to understand that

by not answering a question you often prove my points more than you would by answering it.

Or make posing the question seem absurd.
 
Your links post a few very short paragraphs and don't give us much in detail, so I can make no assumptions based on them. hence, I know very little about your source. Your claim, that we started with, that there are people sitting wealthy, and thus skew the satisditcs, meaning more people are sitting in the middle than noted, doesn't hold up as any sitting with money and not working are too small a number to matter.

Dropping below a million wouldn't invalidate the gap either, because they don't likely drop from millionare status to poverty or even middle class. 900,000 a year isn't middle class either.

Agian, many different people and groups have looked and studied this and report the same gap. I don't see anything in your links to dispute this.

Thomas Sowell said:
Desperate efforts to depict all the prosperity and progress in the U.S. as being monopolized by "the rich" have led to statistical mumbo jumbo, such as comparing the changing ratios between statistical categories over time and ignoring the fact that most people move from one category to another over the years.

Studies that follow individuals over time show the exact opposite. That is, most of the working people in the bottom fifth of the income distribution rise into the top half, and the rate of increase of their incomes is greater than that of most of the people initially in the top fifth.

Those individuals in the top 1 percent, as of a given time, actually have an absolute decline in income over time. As they drop out of the top 1 percent, they are replaced by others, so the statistical category can be doing great, while the flesh-and- blood people who pass in and out of that category are by no means gaining on those further down the income distribution.

Thomas Sowell: What income statistics really say about the U.S. | News for Dallas, Texas | Dallas Morning News | Opinion: Viewpoints

And a podcast you should probably listen to.

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

Thomas Sowell said:
Intro. Economic Facts and Fallacies: Income distribution. True or false: U.S. standard of living is about the same now as 30 years ago. False. Consumption has risen substantially over that period. Reasons why people claim it has not gone up: use statistics on household income. But households have been declining in size over time, and also differ across income brackets. Individual income always means one person's income. Over about 30 years, average household income rose only by 6%, but over that same period, per capita income rose by 51%. More meaningful figure. Failure to compare apples to apples in many statistical analyses. Today, not only fewer children per household but also more divorces. Top 20% of the household distribution has twice as many people as the bottom 20%, seems impossible. 39 million people in bottom 20% of households vs. 64 million in the top 20% of households, so household size is very different. Quintiles don't contain the same number of people. Role of prices, deflating nominal income variables. If you inaccurately measure inflation you will not get reasonable results. List of commodities that are tracked in price over time misses the effect of new commodities. But new commodities start off expensive and over time see a price reduction. If you include those commodities only after their prices come down, you don't measure the price decline. Video Cassette Recorders (VCRs) are classic example.
 

I live in the midwest, so I read Sowell a bit. However, there is a tendency among such conservatives to try and deny reality because it doesn't fit their world view. The facts are the facts and far too much evidence out there to deny the problem outright. And noting the problem isn't remotely "Desperate efforts to depict all the prosperity and progress in the U.S. as being monopolized by "the rich" have led to statistical mumbo jumbo, such as comparing the changing ratios between statistical categories over time and ignoring the fact that most people move from one category to another over the years."
 
No, I have no good way of determining if quality of life is better in France in the US

Try common sense. Excellent, freely available healthcare; long, paid vacations; good schools; small, local family businesses; long life expectancies; unionized industries; and a population active in politics on all levels - it's a relatively healthy society. We don't have to duplicate their exact mode of living to learn honestly from them.

It's impossible to say with any certainty that one country just is better than the other.

Let's not be obtuse. Many other countries have done far better than we have in some respects, and there is no benefit in denying that.


No, just more points you can't deny and won't concede.

-but the libs always think that the top 1% somehow oppress others.

I think the people who worship the top 1% oppress others.

Its kind of like saying Tiger Woods or Rafal Nadal steal prize moneys from weak competitors.

Maybe in your world economics is a game. For everyone else, it's food, rent, transportation, electricity, and medical care - not a matter of ego.
 
Try common sense. Excellent, freely available healthcare; long, paid vacations; good schools; small, local family businesses; long life expectancies; unionized industries; and a population active in politics on all levels - it's a relatively healthy society. We don't have to duplicate their exact mode of living to learn honestly from them.



Let's not be obtuse. Many other countries have done far better than we have in some respects, and there is no benefit in denying that.



No, just more points you can't deny and won't concede.



I think the people who worship the top 1% oppress others.



Maybe in your world economics is a game. For everyone else, it's food, rent, transportation, electricity, and medical care - not a matter of ego.

Ah poor libs, so much envy, so little rational thought

I don't have a duty to provide you rent or transportation. If you are not valuable, then you have no right to expect that others should give you money
 
Ah poor libs, so much envy, so little rational thought

Your idea of "rational thought" is to think everyone who contradicts you is "just jealous?" Precious. But here's a radical idea: Try honestly reflecting on what people say and then respond constructively.

I don't have a duty to provide you rent or transportation.

Republicans seem to be experts in what their duties aren't.

If you are not valuable, then you have no right to expect that others should give you money

Having money does not make someone the arbiter of human worth. Your position is amoral.
 
Your idea of "rational thought" is to think everyone who contradicts you is "just jealous?" Precious. But here's a radical idea: Try honestly reflecting on what people say and then respond constructively.



Republicans seem to be experts in what their duties aren't.



Having money does not make someone the arbiter of human worth. Your position is amoral.

I do respond honestly, you haven't been around long enough to see that.

Taxes should be amoral. I don't have a duty to fund your existence and you have no moral right to my wealth

your existence benefits me not
 
I live in the midwest, so I read Sowell a bit. However, there is a tendency among such conservatives to try and deny reality because it doesn't fit their world view. The facts are the facts and far too much evidence out there to deny the problem outright. And noting the problem isn't remotely "Desperate efforts to depict all the prosperity and progress in the U.S. as being monopolized by "the rich" have led to statistical mumbo jumbo, such as comparing the changing ratios between statistical categories over time and ignoring the fact that most people move from one category to another over the years."

Then why are the "facts" that follow people and not classes so hard to find? Do those data not print the pretty picture that you want? Wealth changes hands, it's not monopolized, it's earned. I've shown that the problem of class composition is a large one, so you might want to actually try finding some data that doesn't resort to that fallacy.
 
Try common sense. Excellent, freely available healthcare; long, paid vacations; good schools; small, local family businesses; long life expectancies; unionized industries; and a population active in politics on all levels - it's a relatively healthy society. We don't have to duplicate their exact mode of living to learn honestly from them.

And they're not as wealthy. So which is better? I can't tell you and you can't tell me without introducing arbitrary value judgments. Use a model that is completely objective and then we can talk. Until then, neither of us can prove anything to the other about which country is just plain better.

Let's not be obtuse. Many other countries have done far better than we have in some respects, and there is no benefit in denying that.

Let's not be obtuse. I never claimed that we were the best in all respects, and the only reason you imply that I believe that is to set up a strawman. 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 think the people who worship the top 1% oppress others.

The top 1% is not a permanent, ruling class. But nice try there.

Maybe in your world economics is a game. For everyone else, it's food, rent, transportation, electricity, and medical care - not a matter of ego.

People EARN income, it is not DISTRIBUTED. Learn the difference.
 
Then why are the "facts" that follow people and not classes so hard to find? Do those data not print the pretty picture that you want? Wealth changes hands, it's not monopolized, it's earned. I've shown that the problem of class composition is a large one, so you might want to actually try finding some data that doesn't resort to that fallacy.

People belong to classes. We classify all the time. You're making a distinction without a point. And no, wealth doesn't change hands that quickly or often. We're not jumping from the middle class to extrmely wealthy and back again like a ping pong match. And the poor are certainly not switiching with either that quickly. You have not accurately identified any fallacy in the data. That's the point I keep trying to get across to you.
 
And they're not as wealthy. So which is better? I can't tell you and you can't tell me without introducing arbitrary value judgments. Use a model that is completely objective and then we can talk. Until then, neither of us can prove anything to the other about which country is just plain better.



Let's not be obtuse. I never claimed that we were the best in all respects, and the only reason you imply that I believe that is to set up a strawman. We are horrific when it comes to our tax code. Seriously, we're one of the worst countries in the world. in that regard.

The top 1% is not a permanent, ruling class. But nice try there.
No we aren't. See.....

The United States raises significantly lower tax revenues as a percentage of gross domestic product than do most other countries in the OECD.
The U.S. Tax Burden Is Low Relative to Other OECD Countries

Chart-Income-tax-rates-how-the-US-stacks-up_full_238.jpg

US tax bite smaller than other nations' - CSMonitor.com

The truth is that the U.S. is a relatively low-tax country no matter how you slice the data.Tax Tea Party Time? - Forbes.com


People EARN income, it is not DISTRIBUTED. Learn the difference.
People who have to work EARN their income with their labor. But people who live off dividends and capital gains get DISTRIBUTIONS and do not "earn" their income with their labor. Learn the difference.
 
Forty-seven House Democrats broke with Democratic leaders Tuesday to call for an extension of current capital gains and dividends tax rates for the wealthy.

In a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the Democrats echoed many of the arguments that Republicans have made in urging extension of all the Bush tax cuts, which are due to expire Jan. 1.

Dem letter: Keep tax cuts for rich - John Maggs - POLITICO.com
 
No we aren't. See.....

The United States raises significantly lower tax revenues as a percentage of gross domestic product than do most other countries in the OECD.
The U.S. Tax Burden Is Low Relative to Other OECD Countries

Chart-Income-tax-rates-how-the-US-stacks-up_full_238.jpg

US tax bite smaller than other nations' - CSMonitor.com

The truth is that the U.S. is a relatively low-tax country no matter how you slice the data.Tax Tea Party Time? - Forbes.com

I wasn't talking about tax rate, I'm talking about tax code. Figure it out.


People who have to work EARN their income with their labor. But people who live off dividends and capital gains get DISTRIBUTIONS and do not "earn" their income with their labor. Learn the difference.

When you risk money you shouldn't get something when it was a good investment?
 
People belong to classes. We classify all the time. You're making a distinction without a point. And no, wealth doesn't change hands that quickly or often. We're not jumping from the middle class to extrmely wealthy and back again like a ping pong match. And the poor are certainly not switiching with either that quickly. You have not accurately identified any fallacy in the data. That's the point I keep trying to get across to you.

I can see you ignored my post then. Let me show it to you again.

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

Thomas Sowell said:
Intro. Economic Facts and Fallacies: Income distribution. True or false: U.S. standard of living is about the same now as 30 years ago. False. Consumption has risen substantially over that period. Reasons why people claim it has not gone up: use statistics on household income. But households have been declining in size over time, and also differ across income brackets. Individual income always means one person's income. Over about 30 years, average household income rose only by 6%, but over that same period, per capita income rose by 51%. More meaningful figure. Failure to compare apples to apples in many statistical analyses. Today, not only fewer children per household but also more divorces. Top 20% of the household distribution has twice as many people as the bottom 20%, seems impossible. 39 million people in bottom 20% of households vs. 64 million in the top 20% of households, so household size is very different. Quintiles don't contain the same number of people. Role of prices, deflating nominal income variables. If you inaccurately measure inflation you will not get reasonable results. List of commodities that are tracked in price over time misses the effect of new commodities. But new commodities start off expensive and over time see a price reduction. If you include those commodities only after their prices come down, you don't measure the price decline. Video Cassette Recorders (VCRs) are classic example.
 
Back
Top Bottom