Wealth distribution in the United States

Geoist · May 16, 2016

SocialD said:
Not a good idea.
Granny that bought her House in San Fran or Manhattan 50 years ago for 40-50k and how has a house valued at 500k or so would not be able to afford this.

Oh, the "old widow" bogey never gets old. :lol:

A deferment/roll-up option can resolve that issue (not that it would be, because Granny is probably already paying property taxes).

Nor would that family farm for 3 generations that has had industry or condos creep up around it.

This is already happening thanks to the urban sprawl that is accelerated by site speculation. LVT alleviates that problem, condensing cities and leaving more land for the farmers (and the wildlife).

You would end up with the very wealthy buying it all up and then just passing on this land value tax to people who leased it because they couldn't own it themselves.

Adam Smith once noted, lvt (or ground rent as he called it) cannot be passed on to tenants. It has no deadweight loss.

Eric7216 · May 16, 2016

The problem with that is that the "great recession" ended in June, 2009. Very little of the ARRA money was spent by that time-only $114 billion was spent in all of 2009 according to your CBO report.
Income inequality has increased more in the Obama years than in the Bush 43 years. Unfortunately, the US debt to GDP ratio was 80.5% when the recession ended and 104% now. A lot of government money went to corporate cronyism interests and increase income inequality.

Fenton · May 19, 2016

Lafayette said:
With Keynesian Stimulus Spending (suggested to Roosevelt by Keynes himself in 1932), yes it finally started coming down.

But it was the spending on WW2 that actually brought it back to "normality".

Great Depression Unemployment Stats:
View attachment 67201321

And it was Stimulus Spending that Obama wanted to re-employ (as he had done in 2010 with his ARRA-bill) in 2011 when the unemployment rate was at 9% that the Replicants in the HofR refused!
_____________________________________________

Nonsense

Lol...Keynesian Fiscal stimulus doesn't work. Well, it works to create massive amounts of new sovereign debt but it doesn't successfully grow market economies

Its a purely ideological initiative pushed by people who prattle on about things like " wealth disparity " and " fairness ". You know, ignorant left wing ideologues who wouldn't know how to successfully and safely grow a economy if their lives dependended on it.

Japan tried it throughout the 90's via 10 different stimulus packages totaling over 100 trillion yen and invested heavily in infrastructure and tried it again under Shinzo Abe's " Abenomics " initiative

10 times the charm I suppose

Today their Nikkei is half of what it was back in 1995 and their GDP is almost exactly the same.

Their debt to GDP ratio is the highest in the World and they're absolutely vulnerable to even a modest interest rate hike.

Fenton · May 19, 2016

Lafayette said:
With Keynesian Stimulus Spending (suggested to Roosevelt by Keynes himself in 1932), yes it finally started coming down.

But it was the spending on WW2 that actually brought it back to "normality".

Great Depression Unemployment Stats:
View attachment 67201321

And it was Stimulus Spending that Obama wanted to re-employ (as he had done in 2010 with his ARRA-bill) in 2011 when the unemployment rate was at 9% that the Replicants in the HofR refused!
_____________________________________________

Japan's Keynesian failure, a cautionary tale
http://www.cnbc.com/2014/08/21/japan-has-fallen-victim-to-the-keynsian-scamcommentary.html

David_N · May 19, 2016

Fenton said:
Nonsense

Lol...Keynesian Fiscal stimulus doesn't work. Well, it works to create massive amounts of new sovereign debt but it doesn't successfully grow market economies

Its a purely ideological initiative pushed by people who prattle on about things like " wealth disparity " and " fairness ". You know, ignorant left wing ideologues who wouldn't know how to successfully and safely grow a economy if their lives dependended on it.

Japan tried it throughout the 90's via 10 different stimulus packages totaling over 100 trillion yen and invested heavily in infrastructure and tried it again under Shinzo Abe's " Abenomics " initiative

10 times the charm I suppose

Today their Nikkei is half of what it was back in 1995 and their GDP is almost exactly the same.

Their debt to GDP ratio is the highest in the World and they're absolutely vulnerable to even a modest interest rate hike.

Lol...Keynesian Fiscal stimulus doesn't work.

Evidence? C + I + G + (X-M)
When we're in a recession, which is a result of a drop in consumer spending/deleveraging, the government needs/does prop up demand, both automatically and through things such as the recent stimulus. Depending on the demand lost, the government needs to run a deficit accordingly. When the economy is running hot, cut back.

Well, it works to create massive amounts of new sovereign debt but it doesn't successfully grow market economies

It does indeed grow market economies. You mention debt, uh, ok? You have to argue why that's a bad thing in the first place.

Its a purely ideological initiative pushed by people who prattle on about things like " wealth disparity " and " fairness "

Wealth disparity harms the economy and growth. When the people who save the most continue to acquire more dollars, they simply save them. The people who spend the most dollars have stagnant incomes.

Japan tried it throughout the 90's via 10 different stimulus packages totaling over 100 trillion yen and invested heavily in infrastructure and tried it again under Shinzo Abe's " Abenomics " initiative

You literally have no idea what you're talking about and I swear to god if you keep mentioning Japan I will blow.
Let's look at Japan:
If you actually look at when Japan began spending in the 90's compared to when the bubble burst, you'll be able to tell that they had already lost an absolutely massive amount of demand. The japanese government didn't even run a stimulus that big in relation to what was lost. However, without the stimulus's, there economy would be MUCH worse off. That's simply a fact. You can attempt to argue otherwise, but I doubt you will, since you cannot possibly come up with a scenario where they stayed afloat after that bubble burst. They're still suffering from deflation and a high savings rate. What is going to get people spending fenton? Tax cuts for businesses, who already receive massive benefits in Japan? Yeah, sure... :lamo And that'll definitely work when there's a lack of demand, amiright?

Abe's " Abenomics " initiative

Let's look at this:
Abenomics has over-promised and under-delivered
It's not doomsday, but it's not that great either, which is expected.

Today their Nikkei is half of what it was back in 1995 and their GDP is almost exactly the same.

Speaking of this:
Japan GDP growth rate jumps to 1.7% - FT.com

Their debt to GDP ratio is the highest in the World and they're absolutely vulnerable to even a modest interest rate hike.

They think they are, but they have a central bank and issue their own currency. Their vulnerable because they're in a liquidity trap and hiking rates would be a disaster.

David_N · May 19, 2016

Fenton said:
Japan's Keynesian failure, a cautionary tale
http://www.cnbc.com/2014/08/21/japan-has-fallen-victim-to-the-keynsian-scamcommentary.html

Japan saw its economy shrink at an alarming 6.8 percent annualized rate in the second quarter, proving its greatest national disaster, Abenomics, has failed and the Japanese economy has fallen victim to the scam called Keynesian economics. (Defined as the belief that a country can tax, spend, devalue and inflate its way to prosperity.)

The author of this piece has already confirmed that he is, indeed, an idiot.
Keynesians never say taxes should be raised when the economy is in the slump. Strike 1.

Since the popping of the BOJ-induced bubble in 1989, Japan has been the most faithful adherent of Keynesian principals.

"BOJ induced bubble."
Yeah, the BOJ delayed action. But they couldn't foresee what was coming.

At the onset of the crisis, they immediately began on their misguided path with large doses of deficit spending.

Good. People were deleveraging/spending collapsed.

nstead of allowing the economy to rid itself of bad investments and heal, they continued to prop-up failed business models — creating Zombie banks and an equally Zombie-like economy.

That's not how the real world works. Now, I will admit that Japan shouldn't have propped up zombie banks and corporations, but instead focused on public sector employment/getting money into people's hands to spend.. Wait, what Keynesian supports propping up zombie banks and corporations?

As one lost decade turned into two, in the year 2000, they coupled their fruitless spending efforts with massive amounts of money printing.

Good, I have yet to see how this is connected to Japan's slump. The slump would be infinitely worse.

nd despite two decades of low growth, the nation stubbornly held on to the popular Keynesian excuse of "if only" … If only our stimulus was larger, if only we weakened our currency more, if only we kept interest rates lower for longer; economic nirvana would be achieved.

The author's argument is pathetic. Many people don't grasp the reality that Japan is in something Keynesians call a "liquidity trap." They can't really lower interest rates any lower. You are correct that some of the stimuluses should have been larger and aimed at consumers. Weakened currency? The yen is fine. They're dealing with deflation in an environment where they need inflation. Does the author seriously believe that raising interest rates would help anything? :lamo

In 2012, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe had a master plan to pull the world's third-biggest economy out of its stagnation. His plan was to deploy, in massive and unprecedented fashion, the strategies of central bank credit creation, currency destruction and debt accumulation.

Good. Did it go hand in hand with massive tax cuts and inflation?
Oh, wait, look what I found:

With a first-half economic contraction in the books, many economists are now warning that Japan is poised for yet another recession. Back In June, I warned the reported 6.1-percent GDP growth in the first quarter would prove to be temporary because businesses front-loaded capital spending in a move to avoid April's well-anticipated and substantial increase in the consumption tax from 5 percent to 8 percent.

Jesus H christ Fenton, Krugman fought against the raise in the consumption tax. KEYNESIANS DON'T SUPPORT TAX INCREASES WHEN THE ECONOMY IS IN THE DUMPS.

And because of the asinine belief that growth comes from inflation

This author is officially an idiot. Inflation leads to an increase in spending since consumers don't want to hold onto money that "loses value."

Japan's lethargic economy — whose inactivity had previously been blamed on falling prices — slowed dramatically right after prices went up.

Well no ****! Keynesians have been saying this to Fenton! The author hasn't even made a successful argument against.. anything!

Those mismanaging the Japanese economy believe consumption will surge if they can achieve a substantial increase in the CPI. The misguided logic being the Japanese consumer will only spend if they are running in perpetual fear of rising prices.

What's the other option?

We have become a country that habitually over-consumes and under-produces. Debt levels have skyrocketed while our demographic and labor force participation conditions are quickly approaching critical mass.

It's official, this author is an idiot.

David_N · May 19, 2016

Cont:
The author shows his true colors at the end:

We have to abandon these failed Keynesian policies while there is still time. We must boost our employment-to-population ratio, deregulate the economy, simplify the tax code, balance the budget, cut expenditures, end the Federal Reserve's runaway printing press and allow the free market to set interest rates and asset prices. Only by doing this do we stand a chance of not falling further into Japan's stagflationary nightmare. But if we persist in following the Keynesian counterfactual, our fate will be worse than that of Japan, as the deluge of debt being dumped by our foreign creditors causes the dollar to be dethroned, interest rates to soar and inflation to skyrocket.

"Abandon these failed Keynesian Policies."
Funny how he never really, you know, defined Keynesianism.
"Boost our employment to population ratio."
So, public sector employment? Nice idea!
"Deregulate the economy."
Plenty of investment capital, banks just waiting to lend.. What does "deregulation" even refer to? Specifics..

simplify the tax code

I agree, to a point. Lower taxes for consumers is a win.

balance the budget

Author is a lunatic. When the economy is experiencing slow growth with low interest rates/leakages like the trade deficit, cutting the deficit is a stupid idea. It's insanity.

end the Federal Reserve's runaway printing press and allow the free market to set interest rates and asset prices.

:lamo
What's "runaway?" Is he bitching about QE? The "free market" doesn't exist, and never will.

our fate will be worse than that of Japan, as the deluge of debt being dumped by our foreign creditors causes the dollar to be dethroned, interest rates to soar and inflation to skyrocket.

Interest rates are controlled by the fed, which he actually seems to admit a sentence earlier. OOOOOOPS.
Inflation? We need inflation!

Fenton · May 19, 2016

David_N said:
Evidence? C + I + G + (X-M)
When we're in a recession, which is a result of a drop in consumer spending/deleveraging, the government needs/does prop up demand, both automatically and through things such as the recent stimulus. Depending on the demand lost, the government needs to run a deficit accordingly. When the economy is running hot, cut back.

It does indeed grow market economies. You mention debt, uh, ok? You have to argue why that's a bad thing in the first place.

Wealth disparity harms the economy and growth. When the people who save the most continue to acquire more dollars, they simply save them. The people who spend the most dollars have stagnant incomes.

You literally have no idea what you're talking about and I swear to god if you keep mentioning Japan I will blow.
Let's look at Japan:
If you actually look at when Japan began spending in the 90's compared to when the bubble burst, you'll be able to tell that they had already lost an absolutely massive amount of demand. The japanese government didn't even run a stimulus that big in relation to what was lost. However, without the stimulus's, there economy would be MUCH worse off. That's simply a fact. You can attempt to argue otherwise, but I doubt you will, since you cannot possibly come up with a scenario where they stayed afloat after that bubble burst. They're still suffering from deflation and a high savings rate. What is going to get people spending fenton? Tax cuts for businesses, who already receive massive benefits in Japan? Yeah, sure... :lamo And that'll definitely work when there's a lack of demand, amiright?

Let's look at this:
Abenomics has over-promised and under-delivered
It's not doomsday, but it's not that great either, which is expected.

Speaking of this:
Japan GDP growth rate jumps to 1.7% - FT.com

They think they are, but they have a central bank and issue their own currency. Their vulnerable because they're in a liquidity trap and hiking rates would be a disaster.

I know why you MMTers go nuts when someone mentions Japan's failed stimulus initiatives

Because its a example, a glaring real world contradiction of MMT's fiscal strategies in every way.

And Japan didn't run a big enough stimulus? Lol !!!
250% debt to GDP ratio, the highest in the world David and soverign debt is " bad " because it has to be paid back.

Japan raises Sales tax
Japan raises sales tax for first time in 17 years - BBC News

We dont live in the make believe fairy land of MMT where the Govt can just print away their debt David. Bonds are backed with private sector capital, unless the FED's monetizing that debt, which is has its own consequences

Printing has consequences......

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-08-28/printing-money-goes-haywire-in-venezuela

Why you keep bringing up " liquidity trap " is beyond me. I suspect you recently learned this term and have no idea how to apply it in a economic debate

David_N · May 19, 2016

Fenton said:
I know why you MMTers go nuts when someone mentions Japan's failed stimulus initiatives

Because its a example, a glaring real world contradiction of MMT's fiscal strategies in every way.

And Japan didn't run a big enough stimulus? Lol !!!
250% debt to GDP ratio, the highest in the world David and soverign debt is " bad " because it has to be paid back.

Japan raises Sales tax
Japan raises sales tax for first time in 17 years - BBC News

We dont live in the make believe fairy land of MMT where the Govt can just print away their debt David. Bonds are backed with private sector capital, unless the FED's monetizing that debt, which is has its own consequences

Printing has consequences......

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-08-28/printing-money-goes-haywire-in-venezuela

Why you keep bringing up " liquidity trap " is beyond me. I suspect you recently learned this term and have no idea how to apply it in a economic debate

I know why you MMTers go nuts when someone mentions Japan's failed stimulus initiatives

When you continue to talk about something you don't understand, multiple times, it gets pretty annoying.

Because its a example, a glaring real world contradiction of MMT's fiscal strategies in every way.

What is an 'MMT fiscal strategy?'

And Japan didn't run a big enough stimulus? Lol !!!

I mean what I say.

250% debt to GDP ratio, the highest in the world David and soverign debt is " bad " because it has to be paid back.

Sure, bonds mature at different times and the currency issuer credits the accounts.
To your point about the sales tax.. no wonder the japanese economy is having problems. Consumers simply need to spend. It's not a failure of Keynesianism, it's a failure of a society where people save to much.

We dont live in the make believe fairy land of MMT where the Govt can just print away their debt David.

You've stated a fact.

Bonds are backed with private sector capital, unless the FED's monetizing that debt, which is has its own consequences

Bonds are created by the government (Treasury + fed to make the point) and then someone who holds dollars swaps the dollars for a bond, debiting a reserve account and crediting a savings account, for all practical purposes. Countries like Japan, the US, Australia, aren't facing any problems with government bonds.
I've already talked about Venezuela. But no one has said that deficit spending in excess to the point where demand outstrips supply in a country like VENEZUELA wouldn't cause problems.
If you don't understand what a liquidity trap is, you won't understand why Japan is in such a bind.
Here's a paper:
http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_862.pdf

Japan has experienced stagnation, deflation, and low interest rates for decades. It is caught in a liquidity trap.

Japan appears to be in an economic condition where accommodative monetary policy,
characterized by low nominal interest rates and an elevated balance sheet of the central bank, is
insufficient to revive growth. Gross domestic business fixed investment has not responded
favorably to low nominal interest rates. Monetary easing has been unable to overcome
deflationary trends. When taken together, these characteristics are generally regarded in the
economics literature as a case of a liquidity trap, originally described in Keynes’s (2007 [1936])
General Theory.

Fenton · May 19, 2016

David_N said:
When you continue to talk about something you don't understand, multiple times, it gets pretty annoying.

What is an 'MMT fiscal strategy?'

I mean what I say.

Sure, bonds mature at different times and the currency issuer credits the accounts.
To your point about the sales tax.. no wonder the japanese economy is having problems. Consumers simply need to spend. It's not a failure of Keynesianism, it's a failure of a society where people save to much.

You've stated a fact.

Bonds are created by the government (Treasury + fed to make the point) and then someone who holds dollars swaps the dollars for a bond, debiting a reserve account and crediting a savings account, for all practical purposes. Countries like Japan, the US, Australia, aren't facing any problems with government bonds.
I've already talked about Venezuela. But no one has said that deficit spending in excess to the point where demand outstrips supply in a country like VENEZUELA wouldn't cause problems.
If you don't understand what a liquidity trap is, you won't understand why Japan is in such a bind.
Here's a paper:
http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_862.pdf

I don't understand ? The irony David, the irony

Japan being stuck in a liquidity trap is just another indicator of the failire of Fiscal and monetary stimulus.

You people keep claiming Japan is " different ", as if thats a legitimate excuse let alone a intelligent counter point but the truth is Keynesian Fiscal stimulus doesn't address structural and or underlying issues that are dragging a economy down, ANY ECONOMY

The reason why Fiscal stimulus, ( which is a broad, one dimensional universal strategy based in ideology and nothing else ) is the lefts single solution to growing market economies is because people like you are ideologically opposed to Supply side solutions

Its the reason why Japan's still sticking to a failed left wing strategy even when they are hopelessly in debt and their economy is struggling

Over 20 years of massive Keynesian Fiscal stimulus and now Monetary stimulus and today their NIKKEI is HALF of what it was in 1995 and their GDP matches what it was in the early 90s but they still wont admit that it doesn't work.

You and your MMT buddies claim to know more than the European Council that drafted thd Maastricht Treaty and the Japanese Govt who's having to addrss REAL and substantial rising social welfare cost because the alternative is to admit that youre wrong.

Thats a level of brain washing I typically only see in Leftist.

Ideologues are dangerous. For ex, Sanders wants to implement massive new stimulus WHILE driving MORE Capital investment off shore.

People like him are exceedingly dangerous when and if they're ever given the power to influence economic and tax policy because they'll never change course no matter how bad their decisions are hurting the economy.

David_N · May 19, 2016

Fenton said:
<snip>

Japan being stuck in a liquidity trap is just another indicator of the failire of Fiscal and monetary stimulus.

I don't see how the two are related. Japan lowered interest rates, and they can't go any lower. Businesses are hoarding cash and people aren't spending. Did you even skim the paper I sent you?

You people keep claiming Japan is " different ", as if thats a legitimate excuse let alone a intelligent counter point but the truth is Keynesian Fiscal stimulus doesn't address structural and or underlying issues that are dragging a economy down, ANY ECONOMY

Japan is different. Ignoring this is silly. It's never meant to address the issues you describe, that's why we can turn to people like Minsky.

The reason why Fiscal stimulus, ( which is a broad, one dimensional universal strategy based in ideology and nothing else ) is the lefts single solution to growing market economies is because people like you are ideologically opposed to Supply side solutions

It makes no sense to employ supply side solutions for a demand side problem.

Its the reason why Japan's still sticking to a failed left wing strategy even when they are hopelessly in debt and their economy is struggling

Japan's government bonds aren't the problem. Their economy is struggling for reasons I've laid out multiple times that can be found in the paper I've sent.

Over 20 years of massive Keynesian Fiscal stimulus and now Monetary stimulus and today their NIKKEI is HALF of what it was in 1995 and their GDP matches what it was in the early 90s but they still wont admit that it doesn't work.

Addressed already. Repeating something over and over again without addressing my response is weak.

You and your MMT buddies claim to know more than the European Council that drafted thd Maastricht Treaty and the Japanese Govt who's having to addrss REAL and substantial rising social welfare cost because the alternative is to admit that youre wrong.

We know that austerity doesn't bring growth, and that deficits grow automatically when the economy slumps, and punishing countries for this is lunacy.

Ideologues are dangerous. For ex, Sanders wants to implement massive new stimulus WHILE driving MORE Capital investment off shore.

I don't support sanders.

Lafayette · May 19, 2016

Fenton said:
Its a purely ideological initiative pushed by people who prattle on about things like " wealth disparity " and " fairness ". You know, ignorant left wing ideologues

Nonsensical ad hominem remarks - of those who refuse to accept the economic analysis that is staring them in the face. (Piketty's History of Top 10Percent Pre-Tax Income Share – Europe and US.)

Moving right along ...

Fenton · May 19, 2016

Lafayette said:
Nonsensical ad hominem remarks - of those who refuse to accept the economic analysis that is staring them in the face. (Piketty's History of Top 10Percent Pre-Tax Income Share – Europe and US.)

Moving right along ...

Wealth redistribution as a policy initiative is not part of any legitimate economic proposal.

Well, unless its part of a proposal to contract the economy, to hurt the Middle Class and kill off capital investment.

Its just dishonest pandering rhetoric used by left wing Politicians to gain support by influencing the naive by catering to some pretty toxic human emotions like envy and hatred hatred

Its sad there are so many adults out that have the emotional maturity of a 5 year old but whats worse is these same people also lack the sophistication to know they're being manipulated

Lafayette · May 23, 2016

SmartCat said:
Barack Obama has been in office for nearly eight years during the milder Great Recession. Median income adjusted for inflation is lower than it was when he was inaugurated.

It is unacceptable to blame Obama for either the Great Recession or the fact that he could not cure it during two administrations. The subsequent prolong stagnation in the American economy is due to two Replicant administrations:
*The first was Reagan in the 1980s who brought down drastically upper-income taxation, that unleashed the beasts on Wall-Street who greedily perpetrated the SubPrime Mess and the resulting Great Recession.
*The second was Dubya who went merrily on his way to recuperate the two six-guns his father had gifted to Saddam Hussein by invading Iraq, spending billions upon billions of dollars to do so. (I presume that the six-guns are on display in his living-room?)

Obama was gifted the SubPrime Mess and he did well the first year by stopping dead at 10% a drastically escalating Unemployment Rate with Stimulus Spending (the ARRA-bill). But we cannot blame him for the refusal of the Replicant HofR to continue Stimulus Spending to kick-start the American economy in 2010.

Which is why the Employment-to-population Ratio shows no-change-whatsoever from 2010 to 2014.

It took Roosevelt seven long years to turn around the Great Recession; and frankly it was WW2 that finally accomplished it for him. Why? Because of the Stimulus Spending that was incurred AND the fact that he had both Chambers of Congress behind him.

People who don't know economics should not run for the presidency. At least they should listen to the advice of not only the head-of-the-Fed (which is run virtually by BigBusiness) but also to his economic-advisers (who have likely a larger view of the economic fundamentals).

The America of today has entered into a highly fractious political environment - no holds barred - that is pitting two sides against one another in a bitter battle of power-politics.

And the American people can be damned for the consequences - especially if Dunderhead gets elected in November. He'll turn the FRB into a gaming-casino ...

Post scriptum: from CnnMoney - A record 3,415 Americans ditch their passports
_________________________

SmartCat · May 23, 2016

Lafayette said:
It is unacceptable to blame Obama for either the Great Recession or the fact that he could not cure it during two administrations.

The Great Recession began under George W. Bush. Nevertheless, it was not until Obama had been in office for four years that the unemployment rate declined to below what it was during his first inauguration.

I voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012. I am glad that John McCain was not elected in 2008 and that Mitt Romney was not elected in 2012. Nevertheless, I am disappointed with Obama. I am also tired of making excuses for him. For two years he had Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress.

Lafayette · May 23, 2016

SmartCat said:
Nevertheless, I am disappointed with Obama. I am also tired of making excuses for him. For two years he had Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress.

As I've said a hundred-times on this forum, there is no valid association between either a PotUS or any one party and economic growth. To believe so, one needs badly a lesson in tripartite governance. There are at least two sets of hands on the wheel.

Obama is a PotUS, not King. If he was saddled with a Replicant HofR from 2010 onward that refused Stimulus Spending, how on earth was Obama supposed to provoke an economy to create jobs?

SmartCat said:
I am disappointed with Obama. I am also tired of making excuses for him. For two years he had Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress.

That is your right.

But it is incorrect to think a PotUS has the sole responsibility for providing a Great Economy or carries the blame for a bad one. (Oh yes, they love to take credit for an economy that is going fine - that I'll grant you! But it's a toss-up as to how an economy will actually work out.)

Post Scriptum: Since the end of WW2, the average income of the American family has vacillated up and down over a number of different presidencies and there is no causal relationship between presidency and economic development. It is entirely a hilly ride, so hang-on!

History or Household Median Income (Census Bureau):

_____________________________________

SmartCat · May 23, 2016

Lafayette said:
As I've said a hundred-times on this forum, there is no valid association between either a PotUS or any one party and economic growth. To believe so, one needs badly a lesson in tripartite governance. There are at least two sets of hands on the wheel.

From the presidency of Harry Truman to that of George W. Bush there have nearly always been more jobs created per year under Democrat presidents than Republican presidents. When Jimmy Carter was president an average of 2,600,000 jobs were created per year. Under Ronald Reagan that declined to 2,000,000 jobs.

Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record - Real Time Economics - WSJ

From 1920 to 2002 there was almost always more growth in the per capita gross domestic product in 1996 dollars under Democrat presidents than Republican presidents.

Singularity is Near -SIN Graph - Per-Capita GDP

Since 1900, the Dow has averaged a 7.8% annual gain under Democratic presidents, compared with a 3% annual gain under Republicans, WSJ reported earlier this year.
What an Obama Win May Mean for Stocks - MarketBeat - WSJ

Lafayette · May 24, 2016

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG

Excon said:
Apparently you don't realize that income comes before it being taxed. Meaning this: A reduction in tax allows the person to keep more of their own income.

The wealth belongs to the person, not the nation.

Not if you live on a deserted island, Crusoe.

You are not willing to understand that "No man is an island". You live in a community called a "Market-economy" and the income generated (by your work and that of others) is "universal". It belongs to you, you, you ONLY after taxation. (Duhhhhh.)

Taxation is decided by the people's government, which is how Reckless Ronnie - the most mischievous of US presidents - played with Income Taxation to assure that a MEASLY 30ù Flat-tax was applied to Upper-incomes, which, in turn, caused the stampede upwards of Income into Wealth.

Yes, Wealth is a personal accumulation, but only after taxation decided by the Federal Government.

And we've got the taxation all wrong, wrong, wrong because it results in this kind of monstrous After-tax Income Inequality (or average income per person in that income-bracket):

Get it? Nope ...

Excon · May 24, 2016

Lafayette said:
WRONG, WRONG, WRONG

Why yes you are. Thanks for admitting that.

Lafayette said:
Not if you live on a deserted island, Crusoe.

And again.

You trying to make an argument by reduction to a sole person on a deserted island is hilarious. While that can be a natural state it is not the norm and is an exception to the rule and rarely happens.
If there is a reduction to be made it would have to be to a state of nature in which the government/nation did not exist. Under such a reduction, trade/barter and profit still would exist and their wealth is still theirs.

Lafayette said:
You are not willing to understand that "No man is an island". You live in a community called a "Market-economy" and the income generated (by your work and that of others) is "universal". It belongs to you, you, you ONLY after taxation. (Duhhhhh.)

And you are wrong here as well, as there does not have to be taxation on income at all.
This nation proved that.

Lafayette said:
because it results in this kind of monstrous After-tax Income Inequality (or average income per person in that income-bracket

Holy ****. No wonder you have things all backasswards.

Taxes are for the running of a government. Not to redistribute. And definitely not to make income equal.
You want a higher income go out and earn it.

Lafayette · May 24, 2016

Excon said:
No wonder you have things all backasswards. Taxes are for the running of a government. Not to redistribute. And definitely not to make income equal.

Sez you, because it suits you.

Taxation is for redistribution of income, especially when it has become a rip-off at the upper-levels as in America.

Excon said:
You want a higher income go out and earn it.

Typical nonsensical sarcasm - better kept to yourself instead of in a public forum ...

Excon · May 25, 2016

Lafayette said:
Taxation is for redistribution of income,

Wrong again.
Taxes are for the running of a government. Not to redistribute. And definitely not to make income equal.

Lafayette said:
Typical nonsensical sarcasm - better kept to yourself instead of in a public forum ...

I suggest you follow your own advice, and while you are at it, if you want more income, get out there and earn it.

Lafayette · May 25, 2016

ABOUT WEALTH DISTRIBUTION

There is little mystery about Wealth. It is Net-after-taxation Income that gushes upwards and becomes, first, Wealth, then (minus Debt) Net Worth. So, to study Wealth, we need only look at Income. And, we all knew that.

However, perhaps what we did not know is "who is getting what in terms of Income?" The answer to that question will surprise no one, but should shock all of us.

Here, from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO report The Distribution of Household Income and Federal Taxes, 2011):

Average Household Income&Taxation by Quintile.jpg

And this Q&A explanation:

What Are the Trends in the Distribution of Household Income and Federal Taxes?

Over the 33-year period from 1979* to 2011, average after-tax income—which equals market income plus government transfers minus federal taxes—grew at significantly different rates at different points in the income scale.

For households in the top 1 percent of the income distribution, inflation-adjusted after-tax income grew at an estimated average rate of 3.5 percent per year. As a result, inflation-adjusted after-tax income was 200 percent higher in 2011 than it was in 1979 for household in that group. In contrast, households in the bottom quintile experienced inflation-adjusted after-tax income growth of 1.2 percent per year, on average. Consequently, inflation adjusted after-tax income was 48 percent higher in 2011 than it was in 1979 for that income group.

Those differences in growth rates for after-tax income are largely attributable to differences in growth rates for market income, although changes in taxes and transfers played a role as well.

*NB: The year before Reckless Ronnie took office, and proceeded to change upper-income taxation rates. See that here.

Which brings us to the above table in the form of an infographic of Shares of Income (from the same report as linked above):

Shares of Before Tax income and Federal Taxes.jpg

MY POINT?

Now, to amuse yourself, take a ruler or a piece of paper and on this above graphic place it through the first four quintile values and project where (if progressive) it would arrive on the 5th-Quintile.

Surprise, surprise! Somebody has been tinkering with the upper-income tax-rates? Guess who during his 1980s administration? (Only one guess!!!!! ;^)

POST SCRIPTUM

Some of us will wonder how-in-hell the total taxation can be greater in the 5th-Quintile than Income? The only explanation I can think of is the fact that Income is from one particular year but taxation can creep in from previous year transfers.
_____________________________

Southern Dad · May 27, 2016

The federal government is only able to tax income. What happens if the wealthiest amongst us decide to stop investing in this country? Think about it. Let's say taxes get raised significantly on investment income and they decide they have earned enough. Collectively they stop investing. Just sit out a couple of years. Since the top 10% are paying the lion's share of the taxes, what happens?

I'm Supposn · May 29, 2016

Lafayette, I agree with much of your posts within this thread.

Great income disparity is a symptomatic indicator rather than a cause of a nation’s poor median wage rate.

Striving to reduce income disparity rather than increasing the median wage would probably be a waste of effort and resources with little net benefit but more likely be of net detriment to the nation’s economy and not unlikely to also be detrimental the median wage itself.

Respectfully, Supposn

James972 · May 31, 2016

SmartCat said:
Barack Obama has been in office for nearly eight years during the milder Great Recession. Median income adjusted for inflation is lower than it was when he was inaugurated.

Here's how Bill Clinton put it:
“The problem is, 80% of the American people are still living on what they were living on the day before the [2008 finnan*cial] crash. And about half the American people, after you adjust for inflation, are living on what they were living on the last day I was president 15 years ago. So that’s what’s the matter.”

Wealth distribution in the United States

Presidential Candidate