• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Inequality Troubles Americans Across Party Lines, Times/CBS Poll Finds

It makes sense though. Who spends more % of the money they earn? Hint, it ain't rich people.
Thus money velocity will come from the hands of the poor, as opposed to the rich, who have a lower propensity to spend.

Economic growth is measured in investment. The poor don't invest in new businesses, technology, equipment or labor. They just spend what is in their pocket. You cant get 'money velocity' from the poor, who by definition, have none.
 
Economic growth is measured in investment. The poor don't invest in new businesses, technology, equipment or labor. They just spend what is in their pocket. You cant get 'money velocity' from the poor, who by definition, have none.

I am pretty sure that economic growth is typically measured in real GDP growth. Investment is certainly a part of GDP, and the other 70% of our economy is end consumer goods and services.

The poor pay not invest in new businesses, technology, or equipment and labor, but by just the slightest of majority, most Americans work for a small business, and according to fox news only 2% of small business owners are in the 1%.

Anyhow, without demand, there would be no need for new businesses, technology, equipment or labor. Our economy is driven by demand, not by investment. Investment is a result of demand.

If no one wanted to purchase cars, we wouldn't have too many car dealerships or producers would we? What about horse drawn carriages? Or smartphones?
 
I will give you an example of how big business uses their clout to persuade the government to pass laws to stifle competition. I have worked in logistics for over a decade. In the freight brokerage side of things we have about a dozen big players and the rest of the industry is comprised of small businesses many of which only have 1-5 employees and gross revenues of under $500K. Law requires all freight brokerages to carry a $10K surety bond however some of the big dozen are on a campaign to have the law changed to require a $100K surety bond. The larger surety bond has no benefit to these large companies and the only reason they want to have them required is many of the small competitors cannot afford them thus eliminating their competition.


I agree with big business pushing out competition. But what does that have to do with pay gap. And there is a difference between pay gap and just being rich.
 
Do you think everyone can become rich?

Of the 500 richest people in the world approx 273 are first gen. Most American corporations today started as a small business. So it depends if they think they can.
 
yes. The TPP deal that Obama and the Republicans want to keep secret is one example.

I'm no fan of the TPP. Some rumors I've heard give up some U.S. sovereignty. But there is no way to confirm those rumors or not.
 
Of the 500 richest people in the world approx 273 are first gen. Most American corporations today started as a small business. So it depends if they think they can.

All you have shown is that a few people can become rich. I am asking if every single person can become rich together.
 
Of the 500 richest people in the world approx 273 are first gen. Most American corporations today started as a small business. So it depends if they think they can.
Got a citation that shows that? I've read otherwise.

The ‘Self-Made’ Myth: Our Hallucinating Rich

Did the Forbes 400 Billionaires Really 'Build That'?
The report says 22 percent of the list were born on first base: they came from a comfortable but not rich background and might have received some start-up capital from a family member. This group includes Mark Zuckerberg and hedge funder Louis Bacon, who started Moore Capital Management with help from a small inheritence.

Only 11.5 percent were born on second base, the report says. Second base is defined as people who inherited a medium sized company or more than $1 million or got “substantial” start-up capital from a business or family member. (Read more: Millionaire Parents Say Kids Are Not Fit to Inherit)

This group includes Donald Trump, who built on his father’s real-estate business, and Donald Schneider who inherited the Schneider International trucking company.

The report says 7 percent were born on third base, inheriting more than $50 million in wealth or a big company. The report includes Charles Koch and Charles Butt on third base.

The report says 21 percent were born on home plate, inheriting enough money to make the list.
 
You and the WSJ editorial believe these the lucky duckies who have the great good fortune because they're, um, so poor, that they pay no federal income taxes and are eligible for the safety net programs. If you disagree, quit your job and give away all of your assets so that you can live on "easy street."
No, I'd rather be a free man than become dependent on government handouts.
I understand that the right needs to establish a false narrative that paints these programs as over-generous because they have always hated these programs and have always fought to shut them down. So, saying that life is so easy living on SNAP and Medicaid is convenient. It's just not true.
None of these programs are sustainable over the long term and once the people get dependent on the government its qite likely they will stay that way. There will be a day when $1 trillion dollars of debt each year grows from $18 trillion to $25 trillion to $100 trillion. Is that the plan?
What we see in practice, however, is that European countries with relatively low inequality of market income do much more redistribution than the United States, with its high inequality, and that as America has gotten more unequal, its tax and transfer system has grown less, not more redistributive.
Europe is also unsustainable, with demographics being only part of the problem. When government programs become the most important aspect of your life then you may want to have a rethink of what you're doing with it.
In particular, imagine yourself as a media consultant for the conservatives in the top 0.01%. What would you do in an effort to stop the median voter from realizing that they would benefit from a more European-style system? Well, you'd do everything you can to exaggerate the social safety net and minimize the benefit of higher taxes on society, while trying to convince middle-income voters that the benefits of government programs go to other people.
I'm not a jealous man and don't begrudge anyone their wealth. It doesn't effect me one way or the other and is just too petty to consider.
 
Progressive taxation has nothing to do with harming others, it has everything to do with having a good economy. Unfortunately few on the right or the left understand this,
Everyone who pays taxes understands progressive taxation, though it was never mentioned in my post.
 
It makes sense though. Who spends more % of the money they earn? Hint, it ain't rich people.
Thus money velocity will come from the hands of the poor, as opposed to the rich, who have a lower propensity to spend.
If the rich "have a lower propensity to spend" shouldn't that send a message to the poor?
 
Of the 500 richest people in the world approx 273 are first gen. Most American corporations today started as a small business. So it depends if they think they can.
It seems that many believe the poor will always remain poor and that is their destiny. In fact people from poorer fanilied have worked their way up in life, at least to middle class, and some have gone up to be President. A photo may show poverty ate a moment but time moves along and so do people.
 
Pretty much confirms that republicans vote against their own interests. Dem candidates at least pay lip service to fixing inequality. They do little about it, but the repub candidates and voters seem to be in complete fantasy land. I mean if government won't do anything about it, who else will, the corporate overlords? Maybe the fairy godmother?

How can one say such nonsense with HRC, the demorat front running candidate for POTUS, making 5X what the median US family makes annually for giving a one hour speech? It is one thing to talk, in very general terms, about government solutions to the problem of income inequality and quite another to state exactly what that government solution actually is. Perhaps you could tell us how a CEO is evil and greedy for making a huge amount more than their typical worker but it is fine and dandy for HRC to do so?
 
I was expecting the Illuminati or Bildeburg. Corporations wish everyone was rich, then everyone could afford their product.

Oy vey... If everyone is rich, who works for corporations?
 
How can one say such nonsense with HRC, the demorat front running candidate for POTUS, making 5X what the median US family makes annually for giving a one hour speech? It is one thing to talk, in very general terms, about government solutions to the problem of income inequality and quite another to state exactly what that government solution actually is. Perhaps you could tell us how a CEO is evil and greedy for making a huge amount more than their typical worker but it is fine and dandy for HRC to do so?

Pay lip service might mean they have some faint idea of what the bottom 99% deal with on a daily basis, as opposed to say the recent repub nominees, who don't know how many houses they own and consider 'rich' to begin at $5 million

My point is that without understanding, nothing can begin to be done to reverse wealth inequality. Hillary has no intention of doing so, even if she understands it somewhat, i'm well aware of that.
 
If the rich "have a lower propensity to spend" shouldn't that send a message to the poor?
You must be joking. The poor spend a higher percentage of their income because that's what's necessary to pay for essentials. The rich have enough extra income to save most of it.
 
How can one say such nonsense with HRC, the demorat front running candidate for POTUS, making 5X what the median US family makes annually for giving a one hour speech? It is one thing to talk, in very general terms, about government solutions to the problem of income inequality and quite another to state exactly what that government solution actually is. Perhaps you could tell us how a CEO is evil and greedy for making a huge amount more than their typical worker but it is fine and dandy for HRC to do so?
Nobody is saying CEOs are greedy. We're just saying they should pay a higher tax rate.

As for HRC, hypocrisy is not supporting positions contrary to your own personal interests. That's the definition of civic virtue. HRC supports raising taxes on her income class for the good of the country.
 
Last edited:
If the rich "have a lower propensity to spend" shouldn't that send a message to the poor?

You know that is a silly point to make.
The point is even if i make 100x more than you, i'm not buying 100x more cars/houses/food etc
 
Nobody is saying CEOs are greedy. We're just saying they should pay a higher tax rate.

As for HRC, hypocrisy is not supporting positions contrary to your own personal interests. That's the definition of civic virtue. HRC supports raising taxes on her income class for the good of the country.

The idea that taxation rates should be used to "fix" income inequality, touted by those like Sanders, is akin to establishing a national maximum wage. Playing Robin Hood with the tax code to achieve balance between rock/sports stars, those with extremely high incomes, and the average workers will result in more "loopholes" to protect those like HRC. If such a concept were ever actually proposed as law you can rest assured that it would not include tax code simplification - even Obama dared not alter 98.6% of the "Bush" income tax rates. Trying to finance a nation by taxing only the 1% more will never actually be implemented and everyone, including HRC, knows that.
 
The idea that taxation rates should be used to "fix" income inequality, touted by those like Sanders, is akin to establishing a national maximum wage. Playing Robin Hood with the tax code to achieve balance between rock/sports stars, those with extremely high incomes, and the average workers will result in more "loopholes" to protect those like HRC. If such a concept were ever actually proposed as law you can rest assured that it would not include tax code simplification - even Obama dared not alter 98.6% of the "Bush" income tax rates. Trying to finance a nation by taxing only the 1% more will never actually be implemented and everyone, including HRC, knows that.
I don't know where your 98.6% of the Bush income tax rates comes from. What I do know is that the upper bracket tax rates were allowed to expire and the ones on lower and middle income Americans were extended.

Bank robber Willie Sutton, was once asked by a reporter's why he robbed banks. Sutton replied, "because that's where the money is." Likewise, income in America is concentrated in the top 1%. If one is interested in raising revenue, that's where you mine.

The point of addressing income inequality with tax policy is stop and prevent dynasties. This is a particular point in Thomas Piketty's relatively new book. Piketty shows that they have in fact concentrated in the past. It's the same as the analysis of La Belle Époque France, with its dominance by inherited wealth. And for every Bill Gates, there are many families that do all they can to perpetuate dynastic wealth. Remember, the 10 wealthiest Americans include 4 Waltons and two Kochs.

One subsection in Piketty's book is titled "Confiscatory Taxation of Excess Incomes: An American Invention"; he shows that America actually pioneered very high taxes on the rich:
When we look at the history of progressive taxation in the twentieth century, it is striking to see how far out in front Britain and the United States were, especially the latter, which invented the confiscatory tax on “excessive” incomes and fortunes.
 
You must be joking. The poor spend a higher percentage of their income because that's what's necessary to pay for essentials. The rich have enough extra income to save most of it.
I think you'll find, with just a little investigation, that many of the poor are paying for much more than "essentials". There are common factors which cause people to remain poor all their lives and they have nothing to do with others being rich.
 
You know that is a silly point to make. The point is even if i make 100x more than you, i'm not buying 100x more cars/houses/food etc
No, the point was that those who become wealthy tend to spend their more wisely and invest more wisely. They know that money is a tool.
 
Back
Top Bottom