• 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!

Rich-Poor gap widening

The post is right there for you to read.

Your first link takes me to a post by Boo Radley, where he says, "You think this is evidence? Not sure it's even evidence let alone proof. If anything it raises the question, but it doesn't settle it."

Your second link takes me to a post by you where there is some confused ranting and a couple of charts, but a point was never made.
 
Sure, and considering we're the current most prosperous nation in the world, and one of the highest in terms of law and order, human rights, and standard of living, I'd say it's a no-brainer.

Our middle class is falling not growing. 7 out of 10 Americans now live below the poverty line (4 person household income below $22,050).


Absolutely, like in China. It's growing, as China improves. It will continue to grow, and when it peaks, they will start to also reach some sort of equillibrium.
In China's case, they will likely become the most wealthy nation on Earth. And it will have lifted more people out of poverty and into middle/upper class than any other single nation in history.

So we should aspire to work harder for less money because $22,000 is just way too much money for a family of four. The middle class is not growing along with the GDP thats the problem. Not everybody's boat is floating at the same level. That is what this thread is about.


All data we've posted shows otherwise
.

All the data shows the gap between the rich and the poor has grown.

The U.S. showed the world what a middle class is, and doing similar things the developing nations are likewise seeing "a meteoric rise" in middle class, living standards, etc

Because of the progressive tax system mainly. As it has been weakened, so has the middle class.

I forget the liberal notion of propserity.

Doing better than a family of four on $22,000? Yeah what a pipe dream a living wage is.

Sieze the earnings of the best, and give it out to the worst, and take a snapshot and show that income is fairly well distributed and call it "prospering". Be serious

You are calling our parents socialists and you want me to be serious?
 
I doesn't matter why they are not. The fact is that the opportunity is provided to them and they choose not to work anyway. Should we really be concerned about the contribution that these people add to unemployment?

It matters when you make leaps about our overall work ethic, about what should be done for everyone, and somehow link it to the topic of this thread. It matters.
 
Your first link takes me to a post by Boo Radley, where he says, "You think this is evidence? Not sure it's even evidence let alone proof. If anything it raises the question, but it doesn't settle it."

Click on the link he quotes.

Your second link takes me to a post by you where there is some confused ranting and a couple of charts, but a point was never made.

The point was about the folly of following income by class. It's a worthless study because the composition of the groups changes over time. Those charts prove it.
 
It matters when you make leaps about our overall work ethic, about what should be done for everyone, and somehow link it to the topic of this thread. It matters.

If it's not work ethic, then tell me some alternate scenario that explains why they're rejecting 70% of those job offers.
 
Our middle class is falling not growing. 7 out of 10 Americans now live below the poverty line (4 person household income below $22,050).

Lol! Where do you get these stats? First off, that definition of poverty is completely arbitrary. It does not account for the fact that some places are much cheaper to live than others. Making that salary in Alabama might not be that bad, but in California it would be horrible. Also, does that take into account welfare benefits and food stamps, free public school, etc.? Because our incomes would surely be higher if not for those programs we have to pay for.

So we should aspire to work harder for less money because $22,000 is just way too much money for a family of four. The middle class is not growing along with the GDP thats the problem. Not everybody's boat is floating at the same level. That is what this thread is about.

The 25 and 75th quartile of incomes ARE growing, so I think you don't know what you're talking about. Not that following those statistics mean anything, but average income is rising for everybody.

All the data shows the gap between the rich and the poor has grown.

Maybe the nonsensical census bureau data. Take a look at IRS data, it tells a completely different story because it follows individual incomes rather than groups whose composition changes over time.

Because of the progressive tax system mainly. As it has been weakened, so has the middle class.

Progressive taxes make the middle class richer? Lol. How does taking money from people make people richer?

Doing better than a family of four on $22,000? Yeah what a pipe dream a living wage is.

It is a pipe dream as it has no definition. And why should a company hire you for a living wage if you don't produce for them a living wage? If you want more money then try getting the mercy of someone who actually produces (charity).

You are calling our parents socialists and you want me to be serious?

Social security, welfare, etc. These are all socialist ideas and programs.
 
If it's not work ethic, then tell me some alternate scenario that explains why they're rejecting 70% of those job offers.

Drugs maybe? Limited ability due to poor education? I don't know, but I wouldn't assume any of them, my two or yours. Instead, you have to be able to show it in some way.
 
Drugs maybe? Limited ability due to poor education? I don't know, but I wouldn't assume any of them, my two or yours. Instead, you have to be able to show it in some way.

So poorly educated drug addicts don't accept job offers.

OK, what now?
 
Lol! Where do you get these stats?

The 2010 US Census.

First off, that definition of poverty is completely arbitrary. It does not account for the fact that some places are much cheaper to live than others. Making that salary in Alabama might not be that bad, but in California it would be horrible.

Its horrible everywhere, it would just be more horrible in California.

Also, does that take into account welfare benefits and food stamps, free public school, etc.?

Is that what you want, dependence on social programs. Don't we have to pay for those?

Because our incomes would surely be higher if not for those programs we have to pay for.

Exactly my point.

The 25 and 75th quartile of incomes ARE growing, so I think you don't know what you're talking about. Not that following those statistics mean anything, but average income is rising for everybody.

Not as fast as increased costs are rising, that is why 7 out of 10 Americans are now poor.

Maybe the nonsensical census bureau data. Take a look at IRS data, it tells a completely different story because it follows individual incomes rather than groups whose composition changes over time.

The IRS does not include info on those that make too little income to report, so you are only getting part of the picture. The Census looks at everyone.

Progressive taxes make the middle class richer? Lol. How does taking money from people make people richer?

Why don't you ask your grandparents? They prospered under our progressive tax system. The US progressive tax system was designed by our forefathers to tax those according to the wealth they possess. Those with greater wealth are taxed at a greater share than those with lesser wealth. They were aware that as it is not possible to get blood from a turnip, in order to pay our bills, the wealthy would have to be taxed at a greater rate. This allowed people to move from the poor class to a middle class. Since Reagan and Bush slashed our countries progressive tax system, our middle class is now moving downward again.

It is a pipe dream as it has no definition. And why should a company hire you for a living wage if you don't produce for them a living wage? If you want more money then try getting the mercy of someone who actually produces (charity).

If someone needs full-time help and a person performs that full-time task, he should be paid a living wage. Without it he will require welfare, which you are also against. You leave no options. Either pay a living wage or have people on welfare, pick one.

Social security, welfare, etc. These are all socialist ideas and programs.

"Are there no workhouses? Are there no jails?"
 
Last edited:
After 40 years and trillions of dollars, the gap is still getting wider. Anyone think that wealth redistribution may not be working?
 
Drugs maybe? Limited ability due to poor education? I don't know, but I wouldn't assume any of them, my two or yours. Instead, you have to be able to show it in some way.

It's not limited ability since they're getting the job offers. And if it's drugs then that's still work ethic.
 
The 2010 US Census.

Exactly the problem. It follows trends of groups, not individuals.

Its horrible everywhere, it would just be more horrible in California.

With the benefits you get it's not bad at all.

Is that what you want, dependence on social programs. Don't we have to pay for those?

If we didn't have to pay for them we would have more disposable income. This means more investing, more production, better quality of life.

Not as fast as increased costs are rising, that is why 7 out of 10 Americans are now poor.

7 out of 10 are "poor" because of the arbitrary definition of poor.

The IRS does not include info on those that make too little income to report, so you are only getting part of the picture. The Census looks at everyone.

That's very few people. The fact remains that census data is unreliable because the composition of the groups changes over time.

Why don't you ask your grandparents? They prospered under our progressive tax system. The US progressive tax system was designed by our forefathers to tax those according to the wealth they possess. Those with greater wealth are taxed at a greater share than those with lesser wealth. They were aware that as it is not possible to get blood from a turnip, in order to pay our bills, the wealthy would have to be taxed at a greater rate. This allowed people to move from the poor class to a middle class. Since Reagan and Bush slashed our countries progressive tax system, our middle class is now moving downward again.

First off, most of the wealth is in the middle class. This is true of any bell-shaped curve. Secondly, the old system was filled with many tax exemptions that really benefited the rich because they knew how to get them. Lastly, progressive taxation does not make anyone richer. Leaving more money in the hands of the rich means they can invest more which furnishes more jobs for those in the lower and middle classes. That raises their standard of living in a sustainable way.

If someone needs full-time help and a person performs that full-time task, he should be paid a living wage. Without it he will require welfare, which you are also against. You leave no options. Either pay a living wage or have people on welfare, pick one.

I choose neither. Charity can fill the void. Besides, this seems like it would be a rare scenario, depending again on how you define a living wage.
 
After 40 years and trillions of dollars, the gap is still getting wider. Anyone think that wealth redistribution may not be working?

Its actually closer to 30 years but you are exactly right, our debt problems began with the slashing of this countries progressive tax rates in 1981. It is clear that redistibution of wealth is hurting our economy.
 
Its actually closer to 30 years but you are exactly right, our debt problems began with the slashing of this countries progressive tax rates in 1981. It is clear that redistibution of wealth is hurting our economy.

How is letting people who have earned their money, keep it in their own pocket, wealth redistribution?
 
Exactly the problem. It follows trends of groups, not individuals.

No, it follows individuals as well, more fully than does the IRS



With the benefits you get it's not bad at all.

A family of 4 living on $22,000 is not bad at all? Then what do you have to complain about?


If we didn't have to pay for them we would have more disposable income. This means more investing, more production, better quality of life.


So all you care about is your personal accumulation of wealth and to hell with everyone else?



7 out of 10 are "poor" because of the arbitrary definition of poor.

You consider a family of 4 living on $22,000 about where the middle class should be then?


That's very few people. The fact remains that census data is unreliable because the composition of the groups changes over time.

Yes the middle class have been changing to poor over time, that is the point.



First off, most of the wealth is in the middle class. This is true of any bell-shaped curve. Secondly, the old system was filled with many tax exemptions that really benefited the rich because they knew how to get them. Lastly, progressive taxation does not make anyone richer. Leaving more money in the hands of the rich means they can invest more which furnishes more jobs for those in the lower and middle classes. That raises their standard of living in a sustainable way.

What are you calling the middle class. 70% of the country is poor. We've tried the trickle down theory for 30 years and it has only brought greated disparity between the rich and the poor. Why would you continue to go in the same direction?
I choose neither. Charity can fill the void. Besides, this seems like it would be a rare scenario, depending again on how you define a living wage.

Charity is not filling in the void, look around you man. There are too many today with the views you express. All they care about is satisfying their own personal greed.
 
Last edited:
How is letting people who have earned their money, keep it in their own pocket, wealth redistribution?

By taking taxes from the middle class to provide tax breaks for the uber wealthy.
 
It's not limited ability since they're getting the job offers. And if it's drugs then that's still work ethic.

Getting the offer doesn't mean they've proven ability yet. They could get in and see their limitations. But, you're missing the point. The point is we don't really know. And nothing provided has even asked.
 
You are referring to the Democrats as the "Party which does everything to make the rich richer and the poor poorer", right?

This comment is Newspeak, and a crass insult to the intelligence of everyone with a three-digit IQ.
 
No, it follows individuals as well, more fully than does the IRS

Show me census data that follow individuals.

A family of 4 living on $22,000 is not bad at all? Then what do you have to complain about?

You're the one complaining. It's not bad when you include all of the benefits they get.

So all you care about is your personal accumulation of wealth and to hell with everyone else?

More production benefits everyone, not just me.

You consider a family of 4 living on $22,000 about where the middle class should be then?

No, and it's not, as household income studies are flawed also. But $22,000 is a lot better than it sounds when you include all of the benefits that they're getting.

Yes the middle class have been changing to poor over time, that is the point.

Proof using data that follow individuals?

What are you calling the middle class. 70% of the country is poor. We've tried the trickle down theory for 30 years and it has only brought greated disparity between the rich and the poor. Why would you continue to go in the same direction?

Poor by an arbitrary definition! And a greater income disparity is a good thing. Should they lazy see rising income? No. Should the highest possible income grow with time? Absolutely yes! So I'm not worried about it. Most incomes are growing if you look at real data.

Charity is not filling in the void, look around you man. There are too many today with the views you express. All they care about is satisfying their own personal greed.

Proof that charity could not fill the void?
 
Getting the offer doesn't mean they've proven ability yet. They could get in and see their limitations. But, you're missing the point. The point is we don't really know. And nothing provided has even asked.

The point is that they turn away 70% of job offers. They could be working but choose not to, so why should I care if they have no incentive to work?
 
The point is that they turn away 70% of job offers. They could be working but choose not to, so why should I care if they have no incentive to work?

yes, and they have always been people, richa nd poor, talent and not so much, good looking and ugy, smart and not so smart who do very questionable things. But we can't leap to conclusions as to why. Many people work hard every single day. In fact, I'd say the overwhelming majority.

We can even find stories of amazing people doing amazing things, extremely amazing. This two has always been the case. But both extremes are the minority and always have been.
 
Back
Top Bottom