Income Inequality

Dittohead not! said:

It appears that government growth is actually starting back down now. If that's accurate, then it's a good thing.

I can't see how that is going to solve income inequality, though, unless it means that less tax money is going to go into subsidies for the large corporations.

Click to expand...

I believe its the fact that tax dollars are taken by force, thus there's no incentive for governments to create a quality product/ service at a competitive price. When this money is spent on say wars, or welfare, it takes resources away from transactions that can be made voluntarily, making valuable goods fewer and more scarce, thus more expensive, thus less likely to be purchased by someone at a lower income level. Also, when governments print money (as the Fed does in trillions of dollars) the dollars go to big banks and they spend them on goods that are priced lower than if excess dollars were in the economy (inflation drag), while devaluing savings accounts for poor people. The wars also tax everyone, while hiring (Halliburton) or any of the private contracting firms overseas.

When the Fed hold interest rates at zero, people save less, and investors invest. Rich people invest the most and are better at doing so, so stocks are flooded with dollars because thats the only place you can't loose money with inflation at its current rate. Also, numbers can be artistically reported depending on how inflation, or GDP, or interest, or CPI is calculated. Focus on the access of goods those in top income brackets have, then those at the bottom. Poor people access planes, internet, phones, cars, etc. No rich person had those in most of history, but because entrepreneurs competed and property rights were enforced, supply and demand allocated those resources in a very effective manner.

PoS said:

If youre working harder than your father did and youre making the same as he was then youre working the wrong kind of job is all I can say about that.

Click to expand...

A simplistic response that either does not understand the lack of wage growth or dismisses it.

I may not be making as much as the top 1% but I do not see why people who dont have their work ethic or vision be jealous of them because in the end thats all it is- you are jealous somebody has more money than you. Its not like the rich is stealing from you because they make money no matter how you are doing.

Click to expand...

Again, an ignoring of the policy and economic changes in the US that has allowed the very wealthy to capture income growth since 1980.

Its where you grew up, not who your parents are.

Click to expand...

It is both.

If you live in a poor area you can always pack your bags and move

Click to expand...

Right, it is that simple.

There are plenty of poor people who became rich, growing up poor didnt stop them. My gramps was abandoned by his father and he was forced to help his mother and sisters growing up but he became a millionaire after WW2.

Click to expand...

He was able to do so, in large part, because of the equal gains in wage growth among all quintiles from the end of WWII to 1979. But even your source shows that most (90%) will not....so, should they not share in the economic gains at whatever position they work within?

Business owners and the market built it therefore they deserve the rewards, not you.

Click to expand...

And there we are, say no more, your true colors come out....a Randian corporatist.

gdgyva said:

no....you need to talk to your boss

if you are as you say, better, faster, smarter, and more productive, and earning what he did...you have a problem

i dont know what that problem is....maybe it is the career.....maybe the place of employment....or maybe its you

but what you say doesnt make sense without more information

i make 5x what my father did in his best year....

different skills, different career.....and my dad retired as a gs9 with just under 50 years of federal service

Click to expand...

It never ceases to amaze me how libertarians, who base their views largely on economic issues, absolutely refuse to study and understand real world economics, how instead they rely so often on the personal story and cannot, refuse, to accept US macro data. I can post data showing them that wages have been stagnant/declining for all but the top for over a generation of workers.....and they ignore it. It is as if their ideology puts on or encourages the use of blinders causing this myopic view of the economic world. It is nearly cult-like, where when the outside world begins to impinge, they go deeper inside of themselves.

TurtleDude said:

the top 5% pay more than half the income tax burden and all the death tax burden so your definition is moronic and based on your faith based belief that the rich should pay many dollars for one dollar of government service while everyone else should pay less than a dime

Click to expand...

LOL....your post here does nothing to change the fact that when you change tax rates of different tax brackets you "redistribute" wealth. People such as yourself only like calling it that when it benefits the working/middle classes. The reality is, when you change tax rates you redistribute wealth. Period.

disneydude said:

LOL....your post here does nothing to change the fact that when you change tax rates of different tax brackets you "redistribute" wealth. People such as yourself only like calling it that when it benefits the working/middle classes. The reality is, when you change tax rates you redistribute wealth. Period.

Click to expand...

wrong. redistribution of income means taking the money someone has made and having the government give it to someone else. cutting tax rates on the rich Does not REDISTRIBUTE INCOME TO THEM

left-wingers try to claim that tax cuts are the moral equivalent of handouts in order to make handouts and government TIT SUCKING appear to be no worse than tax cuts

its like saying if I shoot a robber or the police catch him before he steals everything in my home, that is Income redistribution

TurtleDude said:

wrong. redistribution of income means taking the money someone has made and having the government give it to someone else. cutting tax rates on the rich Does not REDISTRIBUTE INCOME TO THEM

left-wingers try to claim that tax cuts are the moral equivalent of handouts in order to make handouts and government TIT SUCKING appear to be no worse than tax cuts

its like saying if I shoot a robber or the police catch him before he steals everything in my home, that is Income redistribution

Click to expand...

LOL....so cutting taxes for the wealthy "allows them to keep more of their money"

cutting taxes for the working/middle class = income redistribution in your book.

Raising taxes on the rich = income redistribution (in your book)

Raising taxes on the working/middle classes " good because it wasn't their money to begin with".....Too funny.

disneydude said:

LOL....your post here does nothing to change the fact that when you change tax rates of different tax brackets you "redistribute" wealth. People such as yourself only like calling it that when it benefits the working/middle classes. The reality is, when you change tax rates you redistribute wealth. Period.

Click to expand...

changing tax changes ,changes how much revenue government will collect.......their is no redistribution of wealth, because money does not belong to government, it belongs to people who earn it.

while raising taxes can increase revenue, if you raise taxes to high you can lose revenue and slow the economy.

while cutting taxes, does raise revenue, usually the first / second year of its implementation is a lost of revenue, however revenue does return and increase on a larger scale, ...history shows this by looking at Reagan and Bush taxes cuts.

disneydude said:

LOL....so cutting taxes for the wealthy "allows them to keep more of their money"

cutting taxes for the working/middle class = income redistribution in your book.

Raising taxes on the rich = income redistribution (in your book)

Raising taxes on the working/middle classes " good because it wasn't their money to begin with".....Too funny.

Click to expand...

1) if you are paying more than you use (i.e. the rich) tax cuts do not REDISTRIBUTE ANYTHING

so stop the lying.

raising taxes on the rich does redistribute income

if we live in a society where everyone pays the value of what they use it might be different

right now the top 5% pay more than HALF the income taxes meaning they SUBSIDIZE government services for most everyone els


as usual your silly argument doesn't address the point but rather is more butthurt whining about the rich

TurtleDude said:

1) if you are paying more than you use (i.e. the rich) tax cuts do not REDISTRIBUTE ANYTHING

so stop the lying.

raising taxes on the rich does redistribute income

if we live in a society where everyone pays the value of what they use it might be different

right now the top 5% pay more than HALF the income taxes meaning they SUBSIDIZE government services for most everyone els


as usual your silly argument doesn't address the point but rather is more butthurt whining about the rich

Click to expand...

You are using different words but saying the exact same thing over and over:

Cutting taxes for the wealthy = allowing them to keep more of their money
Cutting taxes for the middle/working classes = giving them more money that they weren't entitled to in the first place.

Wow....LOL.....

b_dubz said:

When was the black community on the verge of thriving?

Click to expand...

Yestetday the local paper's heading: Black People Six Times More Likely to be Arrested for Marijuana than Whites.

A few times in my life i've been caught holding this and that and not once arrested nor given a fine, I skate and skate, so many figure eights the Olympics if given a gold, was only b'cause I was holding.

With this not even scratching the surface to your disbelief, there is a particular incident that began in the '60s, that once a moment is taken to refresh myself with its details, a long-winded rant on behalf of the less fortunate would be my pleasure. To go in directions unknown to your awareness of means used to strap and confine competition, this would also be my pleasure.

Many wealthy families do not permit their eldest full control of the trust or any one person, in my experience families that survive 2 generations usually don't interfere with those managing their wealth anyway.

Gimmesometruth said:

It never ceases to amaze me how libertarians, who base their views largely on economic issues, absolutely refuse to study and understand real world economics, how instead they rely so often on the personal story and cannot, refuse, to accept US macro data. I can post data showing them that wages have been stagnant/declining for all but the top for over a generation of workers.....and they ignore it. It is as if their ideology puts on or encourages the use of blinders causing this myopic view of the economic world. It is nearly cult-like, where when the outside world begins to impinge, they go deeper inside of themselves.

Click to expand...

let me put it this way

i studied accounting, finance, budgeting, and economics while in college

you know what it taught me.....theories

now i have been in the workplace since 1979......

you know what that has taught me?

how to run a profitable business.....how to manage a business and it's assets.....especially the people, who make or break every workplace....and lastly, how i do improve my income, and theirs

not theories....real life

i could give a **** less what macro **** you throw out there.....because none of it....repeat none of it matters one iota to the individual

what matters to that person is ....

how can i get a job
how can i can better at my job
how can i earn more for me and my family

what skills do i need to learn to be more valuable?
who can teach me those skills?

i stopped dealing with theories years ago.....now i deal in real life

Keithknight13 said:

I believe its the fact that tax dollars are taken by force, thus there's no incentive for governments to create a quality product/ service at a competitive price. When this money is spent on say wars, or welfare, it takes resources away from transactions ...

Click to expand...

Lets see.....welfare is the redistribution of dollars via taxation....to those who have few dollars....who then spend those dollars......because they have a higher propensity to spend...

...but somehow this takes "resources" (dollars) away from "transactions" (spending)?

gdgyva said:

i could give a **** less what macro **** you throw out there.....because none of it....repeat none of it matters one iota to the individual

Click to expand...

Except when they realize they are not sharing in income gains, that the gains since 1980 are being captured by the top.



I know you don't care about US macroeconomics...that was the point.

But here you are in a macro thread....

Weird.

Income Inequality shouldn't even be discussed to this extent.

It's ironic but those of you who believe you deserve the wealth of others (redistribution) always seem to be the experts when it comes to income tax regarding the rich. If you guys would only put that effort into finding deductions, you'd be valuable assets.

disneydude said:

You are using different words but saying the exact same thing over and over:

Cutting taxes for the wealthy = allowing them to keep more of their money
Cutting taxes for the middle/working classes = giving them more money that they weren't entitled to in the first place.

Wow....LOL.....

Click to expand...

you seem unable to differentiate between those who are net tax payers vs Net Tax consumers

its a common theme among those who think all wealth essentially belongs to the government

Gimmesometruth said:

Lets see.....welfare is the redistribution of dollars via taxation....to those who have few dollars....who then spend those dollars......because they have a higher propensity to spend...

...but somehow this takes "resources" (dollars) away from "transactions" (spending)?

Click to expand...

Welfare receipts have a higher propensity to spend on products that deflate in value.

Those who pay the most to support programs like welfare, would most likely be investing this taxed revenue in capital or numerous other relatively safe investments.

Objective said:

Income Inequality shouldn't even be discussed to this extent.

It's ironic but those of you who believe you deserve the wealth of others (redistribution) always seem to be the experts when it comes to income tax regarding the rich. If you guys would only put that effort into finding deductions, you'd be valuable assets.

Click to expand...

true, I see people who fail personal economics 101 constantly telling those who don't suck on the public teat that these failures are more knowledgeable about economics

the first sign that you actually understand economics is NOT being dependent on the wealth of others

Objective said:

Welfare receipts have a higher propensity to spend on products that deflate in value.

Click to expand...

I know..like FOOD. It is a terrible thing that they spend such a large % of their incomes on non-investments......they are bad people.

Those who pay the most to support programs like welfare, would most likely be investing this taxed revenue in capital or numerous other relatively safe investments.

Click to expand...

Sure, that has obviously been the case, they have been investing in job generating schemes that have raised incomes across the board.....

Oh wait...

Everyone just give all their money to me...then there will be (almost) no more inequality.

You will all be worth roughly the same (and I will be stinking rich).

End of problem (sort of).

Peter Grimm said:

It's indisputable fact that income inequality in the United States has grown substantially in the past few decades.

Median nominal incomes, adjusted for inflation, have not gone up in the USA since the 50's. (Median is the halfway point, so we are talking about the middle-earner). In contrast, the per capita GDP has risen quite dramatically, due to the increased purchasing power of the upper echelon.


I pose three questions to you:

1.) What has caused this phenomenon
2.) What are the long term implications if the trend is allowed to continue
3.) What, if anything, should be done to adjust our course


Thanks

Click to expand...

The people have more government (on every level) and services than they can afford to maintain. The money to pay bureaucracies, their expenses, their benefits, and so on, will naturally mean less money for the middle class and that they will be the first to slide down the economic scale.

TurtleDude said:

true, I see people who fail personal economics 101 constantly telling those who don't suck on the public teat that these failures are more knowledgeable about economics

the first sign that you actually understand economics is NOT being dependent on the wealth of others

Click to expand...

Funny thing, last night I ran into this Swedish girl who is currently completing her Masters in Macro Economics from Stanford emotionally "educating" her fellow exchange students that wealth redistribution is justified because it will create a more competitive environment. Apparently, the most qualified applicants for many competitive high paying jobs happen to slip through the cracks. Therefore, welfare recipients (and all others that share this enlightened view) deserve more from those greedy 1%ers until the Federal Government redistributes the shared wealth we all deserve.

Only then will the United States be elevated to the point of a highly civilized modern society like Sweden, where paying an endowment to attend Stanford is just an identifier of equality.

The irony was so rich, truly illuminating.

Gimmesometruth said:

I know..like FOOD. It is a terrible thing that they spend such a large % of their incomes on non-investments......they are bad people.

Sure, that has obviously been the case, they have been investing in job generating schemes that have raised incomes across the board.....

Oh wait...

Click to expand...

Sigh...

Do a bit of research on how generous your government is to those who are in such financial chaos, they "have" no resources to even obtain a free government sponsored AA degree from their local CC. Even the bus fair is free if you can't afford it.

In most states your friendly government provides more than you would receive working a regular minimum wage job. In Washington D.C. the annual financial support Uncle Sam provides those allergic to work exceeds $50,000. I'm not as well versed in Econ as you but that seems like more than enough to just buy food.

Oh and that chart you posted just proves why the 1% should be taxed even less. They seem to be making beneficial financial decisions from that chart alone. Or maybe the majority of these 1%ers are stuck in a similar predicament as I am, since it's generally more cost efficient to invest abroad due to Uncle Sam. I have fairly a bit unclaimed income stuck in a foreign account, since this is your area of expertise how exactly can I transfer this money to my local checkings?

Gimmesometruth said:

Lets see.....welfare is the redistribution of dollars via taxation....to those who have few dollars....who then spend those dollars......because they have a higher propensity to spend...

...but somehow this takes "resources" (dollars) away from "transactions" (spending)?

Click to expand...

So if only the Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Romans, and Soviets spent more money the economy would have prospered? No, prosperity comes from capital accumulation that is valued. You know its valued when people voluntarily purchase products. Two adults having sex is morally justified, but rape is not; because one party is forced into the transaction.

I know how to double spending, and GDP. Make all one dollar bills into two dollar bills, all five dollar bills into 10 dollar bills, all 10 dollar bills into 20 dollar bills.... you get the point. Money is the medium of exchange to acquire goods, not the goods themselves. If we dropped 500 trillion dollars in Africa today, them spending those dollars would not solve their starvation.

"But if we don't have government arrange marriages, woman won't get married!" No, they won't marry the person the society forced them to, they would have voluntarily sought someone they voluntarily wanted to spend their lives with.

The simple fact you equate income to wealth tells us all what we need to know about you: ignorance is truly bliss.

You advocate killing those getting wealthy (high income) which does nothing but punish successful. I, the truly wealthy with practically no income, thank you for being stupid.

Gimmesometruth said:

Um, the Atlantic got the data and graph from the NYT article, I linked to the NYT article....and it is from the PSE, Piketty. You are not following along.
I wished I created it, but it is from Saez's data:
Economic Freedom For All | Economics One
Where do you think wealth comes from but income?Again, it fits Piketty/Saez data points....you know, the academic data you squealed for.

I did not say that, I have said over and over, even in this thread, that the lowest quintile has lost wealth and has seen lowered real wages since 1980.Me Tarzan, you Jane.

Click to expand...