Wealth distribution in the United States

code1211 · May 31, 2016

Lafayette said:
PULL THE OTHER LEG

Your hindsight needs a new pair of glasses. You are not telling the whole story in that remark.

In 2009, after having been handed on a platter the Great Recession by a Dunderhead PotUS, Obama immediately had a Dem-Congress pass the ARRA-Spending Bill, which spiked a burgeoning Unemployment Rate at 10% - see that fact here.

Total ARRA-spending was a wee-bit less than half a trillion dollars and across Federal agencies, as described here by the CBO (scroll down to chart of spending breakdown by Federal department).

Because Obama demonstrated that he could not "walk on water" and stop-dead the greatest economic calamity since the Great Depression, the American electorate in 2010 (that is, the 57% of voters who bothered to show up at the polls) turned the HofR over to the Replicant Party. Who promptly started axing all Stimulus Spending based upon the spurious notion - in a full-fledged recession - that constraining the National Debt was priority.

I submit that their intent was far more malicious. They specifically desired high-employment for the 2012 elections to oust Obama. Didn't work, did it?

But how many of our fellow-Americans continued to suffer unemployment. Look at the Employment-to-population Ratio from 2012 to 2014. Four long years of Employment Stagnation at about 25.5% of the nation's workforce, before employment started to regain momentum in 2014. (The HofR is still controlled by the Replicants.)

And it was all Obama's fault?

Yeah, right - now pull the other leg ...

The question is not whether or not it's Obama's fault or Bush's fault or Clinton's fault. Actually, under every president back into the 70's different steps were taken to inflate the bubble that burst in 2008.

The question, as it applies to Obama, is what did he do to either lessen or strengthen the impact of the bad times.

Apparently, not much help was offered. This has been the weakest and slowest post war recovery of any recession. The Debt has doubled. The contentiousness of our politics is the worst it's ever been.

Obama's terms started deep in the ditch so just getting back to average would have been a huge gain. Any normal growth would have made him a genius measured by the statistics.

Well, that's not really what happened, is it. W and BHO have been perhaps the two worst Presidents to serve and we happen to have gotten them in back to back 8 year stints.

Maybe the next one won't be so damaging.

Lafayette · Jun 1, 2016

code1211 said:
The question, as it applies to Obama, is what did he do to either lessen or strengthen the impact of the bad times.

I've responded to that question precisely. Reread my comment.

He first spiked a skyrocketing Unemployment Rate at 10% in 2009 with the ARRA spending-bill passed by a Dem Congress and signed by him. The HofR turned hands at the end of 2010, and refused all further Stimulus Spending, thus stagnating employment creation for another 4-years until 2014.

The US is presently in its second year of an economic reprise.

Obama, like any PotUS, is not a all-powerful monarch. He is the Executive part of a three-part political governance, as stipulated by the Constitution. (Legislative, Executive, and Judicial.)

We settled that question, I thought, back in 1787 having adopted the Constitution ... ?
__________________________________

James972 · Jun 1, 2016

Lafayette said:
The HofR turned hands at the end of 2010, and refused all further Stimulus Spending, thus stagnating employment creation for another 4-years until 2014.

of course govt does not invent new products so it cant stimulate the economy. we got from stone age to here thanks to new inventions not thanks to tax and spend. 1+1=2

Stealing from one person so he cant spend and giving to another so he can produces no net gain at all. would you try to fill a swimming pool with water from the other side of the pool??

Lafayette · Jun 2, 2016

James972 said:
Stealing from one person so he cant spend and giving to another so he can produces no net gain at all ...

This statement is contrary to all economic tenets and even the law of the land. See Revenue Act of 1913.

Excerpt:

Income tax

The Act also provided for the restitution of a federal income tax as a means to compensate for anticipated lost revenue because of the reduction of tariff duties. The most recent effort to tax incomes (Wilson-Gorman Tariff of 1894) had been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court because the tax on dividends, interest, and rents had been deemed to be a direct tax not apportioned by population. That obstacle, however, was removed by ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment on February 3, 1913.

The Act provided in part that:
"...subject only to such exemptions and deductions as are hereinafter allowed, the net income of a taxable person shall include gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal service of whatever kind and in whatever form paid, or from professions, vocations, businesses, trade, commerce, or sales, or dealings in property, whether real or personal, growing out of the ownership or use of or interest in real or personal property, also from interest, rent, dividends, securities, or the transaction of any lawful business carried on for gain or profit, or gains or profits and income derived from any source whatever...."

Taxation is "stealing"? Nonsense!

It is the law of the land. So, let's discuss the monumental "ripoff" that has created the Wealth of billionaires due to flat-rate taxation that is fixed at no more than 30% of revenue for incomes above $105K per annum.

See here:

A Progressive Tax would be an increasing proportion of taxation up to and including near confiscation of the extremely high levels of income.
______________________________________

James972 · Jun 2, 2016

Lafayette said:
This statement is contrary to all economic tenets[/URL].

for 6th time: if so explain how taxing money from a man so he cant spend it results in more spending. How will you learn if you are so afraid to try??

James972 · Jun 2, 2016

Lafayette said:
Taxation is "stealing"? Nonsense!

if it is nonsense why is it done at the point of a gun??

James972 · Jun 2, 2016

Lafayette said:
So, let's discuss the monumental "ripoff" that has created the Wealth of billionaires due to flat-rate taxation

actually the wealth of billionaires like Steve Jobs was created by the great new products he invented that we all wanted to buy to improve our standard of living!! Any taxation reduced his wealth, it did not create it. 1+1=2

code1211 · Jun 5, 2016

Lafayette said:
I've responded to that question precisely. Reread my comment.

He first spiked a skyrocketing Unemployment Rate at 10% in 2009 with the ARRA spending-bill passed by a Dem Congress and signed by him. The HofR turned hands at the end of 2010, and refused all further Stimulus Spending, thus stagnating employment creation for another 4-years until 2014.

The US is presently in its second year of an economic reprise.

Obama, like any PotUS, is not a all-powerful monarch. He is the Executive part of a three-part political governance, as stipulated by the Constitution. (Legislative, Executive, and Judicial.)

We settled that question, I thought, back in 1787 having adopted the Constitution ... ?
__________________________________

Your facts are both interesting and untrue.

GAO Releases Most Recent Report on The Recovery Act: USDA Should Include Broadband Program's Impact in Annual Performance Reports | Following the Money | GAO.gov

According to the GAO, the spending continued after the date you say they were cut off.

Do you have additional "facts" to present?

Lafayette · Jun 5, 2016

code1211 said:
According to the GAO, the spending continued after the date you say they were cut off.

From where in my comment do you read that it didn't, pray tell?

What was "cut-off" was further spending that was necessary. Whereupon, four years later, both McCain and Boehner said "it wasn't enough". Which Obama has said back in 2010 when the Replicants had refused any more spending and the Unemployment to population was stagnant at an historically lower value.

Here is the Employment to population Ratio history:

latest_numbers_LNS12300000_2006_2016_all_period_M05_data.gif

Wow, between 2010 and 2014, after the Replicant HofR stymied any further stimulus-spending, the job creation rate stagnated at 58.5%! Then they complain that "ARRA wasn't enough" - when, also, the Replicants had voted against it in 2009! (Some call that "hypocrisy".)

The mendacity from the Replicant Right is laughable and ridiculous - if it doesn't make one cry ...
____________________________

code1211 · Jun 5, 2016

Lafayette said:
From where in my comment do you read that it didn't, pray tell?

What was "cut-off" was further spending that was necessary. Whereupon, four years later, both McCain and Boehner said "it wasn't enough". Which Obama has said back in 2010 when the Replicants had refused any more spending and the Unemployment to population was stagnant at an historically lower value.

Here is the Employment to population Ratio history:

Wow, between 2010 and 2014, after the Replicant HofR stymied any further stimulus-spending, the job creation rate stagnated at 58.5%! Then they complain that "ARRA wasn't enough" - when, also, the Replicants had voted against it in 2009! (Some call that "hypocrisy".)

The mendacity from the Replicant Right is laughable and ridiculous - if it doesn't make one cry ...
____________________________

As I understand it, there was no stimulus spending mandated by the ARRA prior to the spending of the ARRA.

For reasons unavailable in your post, the jobs to population ratio used to be very high and growing. Following that spending, the jobs to population ratio became very low and falling.

Here's an expanded graph of that history:

Looks like Obama has returned us to the good days under Carter.

And now the jobs growth rate seems to be slowing more. Missed the expectation by just a pinch in may, 2016.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/03/us-nonfarm-payrolls-may-2016.html

Does the government create jobs? Not likely. Can the government scare employers away from investing? Seems to be obviously yes.

Lafayette · Jun 5, 2016

code1211 said:
Looks like Obama has returned us to the good days under Carter.

Cheap shot, and it has nothing to do with the facts. Stick with the economic data, will you?

code1211 said:
And now the jobs growth rate seems to be slowing more.

Here is the BLS chart that matters, which includes both your Labor Force participation rate and my Employment to population ratio as well as the Unemployment Rate:

Interpretation:
*ARRA was passed and spent in 2009-2010. It had the effect of spiking the rise in Unemployment Rate (red line) at 10%.
*Both the Labor Force Participation Rate (green line, meaning both employed and unemployed still looking for employment) and the Employment to (total) Population Ratio (blue line) began to diminish, but their trends were not reversed because there was insufficient stimulus-spending to do so .
*After 2014, all by itself, the nation started creating jobs. Why? Because people got tired of not-spending, and so the economy started to pick up.

The real culprit in this sordid affair is the HofR under Replicant-control that refused Stimulus-spending.

Show me how it isn't so, but get the right charts to sustain your arguments ...
_________________________________

James972 · Jun 5, 2016

Lafayette said:
The real culprit in this sordid affair is the HofR under Replicant-control that refused Stimulus-spending.

Because taking money from taxpayers so they cant spend it and govt can cant possible increase spending!! Would you fill a pool with water from the other side of the pool. Ever consider thinking before you post?

Lafayette · Jun 6, 2016

James972 said:
Because taking money from taxpayers so they cant spend it and govt can cant possible increase spending!

What comes from the taxpayers should go back to the taxpayers.

We are talking about the warped manner in which the flat-rate tax fixed at 30% on upper-incomes is infamously unfair. Yes, that America has a rich-class. But not disproportionately!

The US needs more Social Justice, and it needs it badly.

Upper-income taxation, since Reckless Ronnie finagled it, should be replaced with a progressive-tax that will assure that the present ripoff that benefits 11% of our population owning 88% of the wealth finally and definitively ends:

and,

Note the last sentence in the paragraph below the infographic: "Since financial worth is what counts as far as the control of income-producing assets, we can say that just 10% of the people own the United States of America."

Wow, what a rip-off! Fellow Americans, we are being had ... !
________________________

Lafayette · Jun 6, 2016

VESTED INTEREST

Think of Yugoslavia! What Yugoslavia? That rump of a nation that dissolved at the first sign of the Soviet Union's demise?

Yes, its hodgepodge of peoples did not allow the nation to survive, and some question whether all the small-nations presently are doing any better. But, that's not the point.

My point is this: Yugoslavia had a law that allowed the workers to participate on its Board of Directors (BoD) by electing two-representatives. Yes, most Yugoslav workers were unionized, but it was the first time (perhaps) that unions could elect two members to the BoD.

And, as BoD members, they had oversight over all the operations of the company. Of course, this feature applied only to companies of a certain size. The smaller ones simply coped as best they could.

And, yes, this system did not prevent the "Yugo" from being a flop of a car in the American automobile market. The Yugo was really badly made, the entire production line having come from Mother Russia.

Having said all that, still, the ability for the workers to elect representatives to the Board of Directors (BoD) was a major advancement in Labor Relations.

And, it is a shame that such a progressive evolution in Labor Relations with Owners never advanced beyond that unique moment of time in Labor-Management relations. Perhaps those below the upper-echelons of corporate management should, indeed, not run companies.

But, the notion that at least they have a representation on the BoD to express their point-of-view is well worth the effort. Furthermore, that representation should be accompanied by the possession of voting-share privileges. Meaning that the workers has an interest that the company make a profit, which is beyond just that of a salary payment. Shareholding does that to an individual.

What does this do for the company? The Yugoslav experience, as I recall it, showed that workers could be just as mature in their opinion about how the company should be run as anyone else on a BoD. They understood that their year-end bonuses were dependent upon the profitable running of the company.

Meaning this: They were willing to forgo higher salaries if that helped competitive sales that allowed them to share corporate profits. Nifty idea, that one! Because they "recuperated thier investment" by means of profit-sharing. (Which was why Yugoslavia was not a Socialist Country as much as a Social-Democracy way before its time.)

MY POINT

Surprise, surprise - they were NOT just warm bodies pulling levers assembling parts on a production line (to be replaced when the robotics could do so at a reasonable cost advantage). Each had what is called a "vested interest" that the company ran well ...

NB

An article explaining BoD Worker Participation in EU nations that adopt it.
_________________________

James972 · Jun 6, 2016

Lafayette said:
What comes from the taxpayers should go back to the taxpayers.

of course thats absurd. It is far better and far more efficient not to take from the taxpayers in the first place if what govt takes should go back to them anyway. Please think before you post.

James972 · Jun 6, 2016

Lafayette said:
We are talking about the warped manner in which the flat-rate tax fixed at 30% on upper-incomes is infamously unfair.

I do agree!! how fair is it for the top 1% to pay 44% of all federal income taxes while the entire bottom 45% pays nothing? IF the bottom 45% get free govt why not give them free food in the supermarket too and free cars, housing, and travel ?

James972 · Jun 6, 2016

Lafayette said:
the present ripoff that benefits 11% of our population owning 88% of the wealth finally and definitively ends:

so you want a massive ripoff of the wealthy to discourage them from being inventors of our always increasing standard of living and massive handouts to the middle class and poor to further cripple them from being productive contributing citizens?

James972 · Jun 6, 2016

Lafayette said:
Each had what is called a "vested interest" that the company ran well ...

of course that makes no sense whatsoever and is perfectly liberal !! If giving workers a vested interest worked we could all start companies that way and beat traditional companies. Can you guess why nobody is doing that?

csbrown28 · Jun 6, 2016

James972 said:
I do agree!! how fair is it for the top 1% to pay 44% of all federal income taxes while the entire bottom 45% pays nothing? IF the bottom 45% get free govt why not give them free food in the supermarket too and free cars, housing, and travel ?

Bottom 50% Earn 11% Of Income, Pay 3% Of Income Taxes; Top 1% Earn 19% Of Income, Pay 38% Of Income Taxes

The same bottom 50% own less than 0.3% of the wealth, while the top 1% own 34.6% of the wealth.

Jeez, for all the taxes they pay it's amazing they own so much of the wealth. Imagine how much more they would own if you increased the taxes on the poor and decreased it on the wealthy?

Course, taking more from the bottom 50% would just increase the amount of money paid on entitlements, except when you pay for entitlements there is built in overhead to manage and administrate them.

So not taking their money actually costs less.

James972 · Jun 6, 2016

csbrown28 said:
Bottom 50% Earn 11% Of Income, Pay 3% Of Income Taxes; Top 1% Earn 19% Of Income, Pay 38% Of Income Taxes

The same bottom 50% own less than 0.3% of the wealth, while the top 1% own 34.6% of the wealth.

Jeez, for all the taxes they pay it's amazing they own so much of the wealth. Imagine how much more they would own if you increased the taxes on the poor and decreased it on the wealthy?

Course, taking more from the bottom 50% would just increase the amount of money paid on entitlements, except when you pay for entitlements there is built in overhead to manage and administrate them.

So not taking their money actually costs less.

you missed the point of course. The more you cripple the poor with entitlements the more entitlements they need and the less they and their progeny will ever contribute to society. So you want to reverse the process so that more and more contribute and less and less liberal leech.

James972 · Jun 6, 2016

csbrown28 said:
The same bottom 50% own less than 0.3% of the wealth, while the top 1% own 34.6% of the wealth.

why would they do the things necessary to earn private wealth when the liberal govt has crippled them with $60k a year in entitlements???

csbrown28 · Jun 6, 2016

James972 said:
so you want a massive ripoff of the wealthy to discourage them from being inventors of our always increasing standard of living and massive handouts to the middle class and poor to further cripple them from being productive contributing citizens?

Inventors? The vast majority of the top 1% aren't inventors, unless what you mean by inventor is finding new ways of shagging money from those in the bottom 50%.

The top 1% is in the medical field, executives/ managers, lawyers, financial industry and real estate.

csbrown28 · Jun 6, 2016

James972 said:
why would they do the things necessary to earn private wealth when the liberal govt has crippled them with $60k a year in entitlements???

Who is "they"?

csbrown28 · Jun 6, 2016

James972 said:
you missed the point of course. The more you cripple the poor with entitlements the more entitlements they need and the less they and their progeny will ever contribute to society. So you want to reverse the process so that more and more contribute and less and less liberal leech.

LOL, entitlements don't "cripple" anyone. Living on entitlements is crippling.

James972 · Jun 6, 2016

csbrown28 said:
Inventors? The vast majority of the top 1% aren't inventors, unless what you mean by inventor is finding new ways of shagging money from those in the bottom 50%.

The top 1% is in the medical field, executives/ managers, lawyers, financial industry and real estate.

The vast wealth is with the top 1% who invented Google Facebook Oracle Amazon Tesla HP Intel Apple Microsoft eBay Cisco Uber Air B&b and 1000's of others who invented the stuff that got us from the stone age to here. Their talent is to recreate our world. THey should be subsidized not taxed to feed the multiplying liberal leeches who contribute nothing.