Getting specific on income/wealth inequality

[thereisnospoon]

.

Two part question:

1. Is income/wealth inequality a problem in America?

2. If it is, instead of just screaming bumper sticker slogans, precisely what would you do about it? And when I say "precisely", for example, if you'd increase tax rates, to precisely what figures?

I'm hoping for less partisan sloganeering and more actual specifics.

.

What I can't figure out is, what is the goal with the top 1%?

Is the goal to make it the top 10% or the top 0.00001%?

Help me out here liberals.

The goal is this

When you look at a source of additional revenue why would you go after the 40 percent that have two tenths of the wealth rather than the 1 percent that have 34.6% of the wealth?

"Go after"?.....Explain that.
It has been well established that the top earners in the US share a disproportionate burden of the total taxation in the US...
Also please explain your theory that appears to support the idea that less money in the hands of the private sector and more in the hands of government is good economic policy.
Before you respond, think clearly.

 

[thereisnospoon]

.

Interesting stuff here.

What about some kind of government mandate on maximum income?

(ducks down to avoid fireworks)

.

And gun shots...

 

[rightwinger]

What I can't figure out is, what is the goal with the top 1%?

Is the goal to make it the top 10% or the top 0.00001%?

Help me out here liberals.

The goal is this

When you look at a source of additional revenue why would you go after the 40 percent that have two tenths of the wealth rather than the 1 percent that have 34.6% of the wealth?

"Go after"?.....Explain that.
It has been well established that the top earners in the US share a disproportionate burden of the total taxation in the US...
Also please explain your theory that appears to support the idea that less money in the hands of the private sector and more in the hands of government is good economic policy.
Before you respond, think clearly.

Go after as in incessantly harp on those "47 percent" who pay no income taxes
Top earners pay more taxes for the very reason they monopolize wealth and income. Republicans refuse to acknowledge that you cannot get blood from a stone. Those 40% who control 2 TENTHS of a percent of our wealth do not have the disposable income to pay more in taxes.....the 1% who control 34% of the wealth do

 

[dblack]

What I can't figure out is, what is the goal with the top 1%?

Is the goal to make it the top 10% or the top 0.00001%?

Help me out here liberals.

The goal is this

When you look at a source of additional revenue why would you go after the 40 percent that have two tenths of the wealth rather than the 1 percent that have 34.6% of the wealth?

"Go after"?.....Explain that.

 

[Darkwind]

The goal is this

When you look at a source of additional revenue why would you go after the 40 percent that have two tenths of the wealth rather than the 1 percent that have 34.6% of the wealth?

"Go after"?.....Explain that.
It has been well established that the top earners in the US share a disproportionate burden of the total taxation in the US...
Also please explain your theory that appears to support the idea that less money in the hands of the private sector and more in the hands of government is good economic policy.
Before you respond, think clearly.

Go after as in incessantly harp on those "47 percent" who pay no income taxes
Top earners pay more taxes for the very reason they monopolize wealth and income. Republicans refuse to acknowledge that you cannot get blood from a stone. Those 40% who control 2 TENTHS of a percent of our wealth do not have the disposable income to pay more in taxes.....the 1% who control 34% of the wealth do

Your answer is simple then.


Don't charge more taxes for any one.

Cut government.

 

[rightwinger]

"Go after"?.....Explain that.
It has been well established that the top earners in the US share a disproportionate burden of the total taxation in the US...
Also please explain your theory that appears to support the idea that less money in the hands of the private sector and more in the hands of government is good economic policy.
Before you respond, think clearly.

Go after as in incessantly harp on those "47 percent" who pay no income taxes
Top earners pay more taxes for the very reason they monopolize wealth and income. Republicans refuse to acknowledge that you cannot get blood from a stone. Those 40% who control 2 TENTHS of a percent of our wealth do not have the disposable income to pay more in taxes.....the 1% who control 34% of the wealth do

Your answer is simple then.


Don't charge more taxes for any one.

Cut government.

Typical Conservative response

And their attempts to "cut government" usually involve slashing support to those 40% of Americans struggling on two TENTHS of a percent of the wealth

 

[Derideo_Te]

No, the truth card.

When your kid comes to you and says he can't pay his car insurance this month because he had to have those brand new games for his Xbox, do you just pay it because he's just a victim?

Or do you say, "maybe you should manage your money better?"

I'll go with the latter.

Because its the truth.

Just because that is what you believe doesn't make it the "truth". The OP began with a long list of bizarre things that people believe. How many of those categories did you fall into?

By the same token, simply because you disagree does not make you right, or give you truth over My belief.

I have provided two examples of reliable sources showing that the government manipulates the inflation numbers and I have provided one (admittedly) anecdotal case of people who make poor choices with their finances.

To deny people make poor financial choices is unrealistic and cannot be taken seriously. Even rich people make poor financial choices.

Thanks, but I think I'll stick with My rational version of the truth.

You provided opinions on inflation from two sources. That doesn't equate to hard facts. One of the allegations was so ludicrous I actually laughed out loud.

According to one rogue economist, John Williams at Shadow Government Statistics, if we still calculated inflation the way we did when Jimmy Carter was president, the official inflation figures would look about as bad as they did when ... Jimmy Carter was president.

I was around during the inflation period of the 70's and that blogger obviously wasn't or he wouldn't have made such an absurd statement.

Yes, poor people do make bad choices but you are blaming their dire financial straits on their "choices" when they had no hand in them. This is like blaming the unions because GM management decided to built clunkers that fell apart after 5 years.

Your "truth" doesn't equate to reality and I am going to challenge you to see if you could live on minimum wage.

What Happened When 3 Politicians Tried a Minimum Wage Budget - ABC News

 

[Darkwind]

Go after as in incessantly harp on those "47 percent" who pay no income taxes
Top earners pay more taxes for the very reason they monopolize wealth and income. Republicans refuse to acknowledge that you cannot get blood from a stone. Those 40% who control 2 TENTHS of a percent of our wealth do not have the disposable income to pay more in taxes.....the 1% who control 34% of the wealth do

Your answer is simple then.


Don't charge more taxes for any one.

Cut government.

Typical Conservative response

And their attempts to "cut government" usually involve slashing support to those 40% of Americans struggling on two TENTHS of a percent of the wealth

Actually, it doesn't. But if you had two grey cells to rub together, you'd realize that what they do want is to alter the support from one of dependence to one of empowerment, thereby reducing the strain on the tax payer.

I know....never reduce the pain on the taxpayer....its not how you keep power.

 

[Derideo_Te]

.

Two part question:

1. Is income/wealth inequality a problem in America?

2. If it is, instead of just screaming bumper sticker slogans, precisely what would you do about it? And when I say "precisely", for example, if you'd increase tax rates, to precisely what figures?

I'm hoping for less partisan sloganeering and more actual specifics.

.

Yes, income/wealth inequality is a serious a problem in America.

Time to level the playing field by scrapping the failed "free markets" dogma and imposing realistic import duties so that goods made outside this nation cost at least the same as those made here if not more. This will result in it being cheaper to manufacture here which means more real jobs with benefits.

Reintroduce pension schemes. No one who works full time should be expected to know how to beat the stock market in their spare time. A supermarket checker or a UPS driver or a bank teller should not have to be able to understand collaterized derivatives and all of the other underhanded schemes that operate in the Wall street Casino in order to secure their retirement funds.

Subsidize students to attend Community Colleges for Associate Degrees. By that I mean it should be possible to graduate with an AD without being overburdened with tens of thousands of dollars of loans.

Introduce a National Debt Supplemental Tax of 50% on all income over 25 times the poverty level that only applies if the National Debt exceeds 5% of Revenues. This will be a disincentive for Special Interest lobbyists to push Congress for additional spending.

I agree with some policies that make the availability of higher education more widespread.
However, one of the main reasons why and quite possibly THE main reason why higher ed is so costly IS due to federal interference.
The theory is, the more in federal subsidies that become available, the higher the cost of tuition. Why is this? Simple. Colleges and universities have no incentive to keep down tuition costs. They theorize that if the feds offer more in the way of loans and grants, the schools can simply increase their costs to the students.
It's a vicious cycle.

The cost of education is based upon the cost of labor. Education is one of the highest labor intensive jobs to be found. There is no "automation" in education. There is no way to "cut costs" or "downsize" an education.

Educators have advanced degrees and you have to pay them on a par with what they could earn in the private sector.

Blaming government is not the answer.

 

[Darkwind]

Just because that is what you believe doesn't make it the "truth". The OP began with a long list of bizarre things that people believe. How many of those categories did you fall into?

By the same token, simply because you disagree does not make you right, or give you truth over My belief.

I have provided two examples of reliable sources showing that the government manipulates the inflation numbers and I have provided one (admittedly) anecdotal case of people who make poor choices with their finances.

To deny people make poor financial choices is unrealistic and cannot be taken seriously. Even rich people make poor financial choices.

Thanks, but I think I'll stick with My rational version of the truth.

You provided opinions on inflation from two sources. That doesn't equate to hard facts. One of the allegations was so ludicrous I actually laughed out loud.

According to one rogue economist, John Williams at Shadow Government Statistics, if we still calculated inflation the way we did when Jimmy Carter was president, the official inflation figures would look about as bad as they did when ... Jimmy Carter was president.

I was around during the inflation period of the 70's and that blogger obviously wasn't or he wouldn't have made such an absurd statement.

Yes, poor people do make bad choices but you are blaming their dire financial straits on their "choices" when they had no hand in them. This is like blaming the unions because GM management decided to built clunkers that fell apart after 5 years.

Your "truth" doesn't equate to reality and I am going to challenge you to see if you could live on minimum wage.

What Happened When 3 Politicians Tried a Minimum Wage Budget - ABC News

Actually, I provided more hard proof than you have. My truth is always based upon reality.

As for you challenge...

Been there, done that. Your problem is that you think that people should remain on minimum wage.

I was on minimum wage twice in My life...when I left school.....and when I lost a job and had to have something to get by.

In both instances, I left that job inside of 6 months.

I suffered from a job loss in 2010 and it has only been this last month that I managed to climb back into the same tax bracket I was in 4 years ago...

But I did make it back and I have plans on tripling that income inside of 5 years......

So, you'll excuse Me if I don't buy into your victim scenario.

BTW...that economist is rouge because the left refuse to look at real economics.....they just want to promote unskilled labor to middle class status.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Yes, income/wealth inequality is a serious a problem in America.

Time to level the playing field by scrapping the failed "free markets" dogma and imposing realistic import duties so that goods made outside this nation cost at least the same as those made here if not more. This will result in it being cheaper to manufacture here which means more real jobs with benefits.

Reintroduce pension schemes. No one who works full time should be expected to know how to beat the stock market in their spare time. A supermarket checker or a UPS driver or a bank teller should not have to be able to understand collaterized derivatives and all of the other underhanded schemes that operate in the Wall street Casino in order to secure their retirement funds.

Subsidize students to attend Community Colleges for Associate Degrees. By that I mean it should be possible to graduate with an AD without being overburdened with tens of thousands of dollars of loans.

Introduce a National Debt Supplemental Tax of 50% on all income over 25 times the poverty level that only applies if the National Debt exceeds 5% of Revenues. This will be a disincentive for Special Interest lobbyists to push Congress for additional spending.

I agree with some policies that make the availability of higher education more widespread.
However, one of the main reasons why and quite possibly THE main reason why higher ed is so costly IS due to federal interference.
The theory is, the more in federal subsidies that become available, the higher the cost of tuition. Why is this? Simple. Colleges and universities have no incentive to keep down tuition costs. They theorize that if the feds offer more in the way of loans and grants, the schools can simply increase their costs to the students.
It's a vicious cycle.

The cost of education is based upon the cost of labor. Education is one of the highest labor intensive jobs to be found. There is no "automation" in education. There is no way to "cut costs" or "downsize" an education.

Educators have advanced degrees and you have to pay them on a par with what they could earn in the private sector.

Blaming government is not the answer.

The cost of education is going down all the time.

All you need to do is tape a course once and post the video on line so it can be watched millions of times.

 

[rightwinger]

Your answer is simple then.


Don't charge more taxes for any one.

Cut government.

Typical Conservative response

And their attempts to "cut government" usually involve slashing support to those 40% of Americans struggling on two TENTHS of a percent of the wealth

Actually, it doesn't. But if you had two grey cells to rub together, you'd realize that what they do want is to alter the support from one of dependence to one of empowerment, thereby reducing the strain on the tax payer.

I know....never reduce the pain on the taxpayer....its not how you keep power.

Actually, it does

If you read the Paul Ryan budget it revolves around slashing taxes while you cut programs to the needy to compensate

 

[Darkwind]

Yes, income/wealth inequality is a serious a problem in America.

Time to level the playing field by scrapping the failed "free markets" dogma and imposing realistic import duties so that goods made outside this nation cost at least the same as those made here if not more. This will result in it being cheaper to manufacture here which means more real jobs with benefits.

Reintroduce pension schemes. No one who works full time should be expected to know how to beat the stock market in their spare time. A supermarket checker or a UPS driver or a bank teller should not have to be able to understand collaterized derivatives and all of the other underhanded schemes that operate in the Wall street Casino in order to secure their retirement funds.

Subsidize students to attend Community Colleges for Associate Degrees. By that I mean it should be possible to graduate with an AD without being overburdened with tens of thousands of dollars of loans.

Introduce a National Debt Supplemental Tax of 50% on all income over 25 times the poverty level that only applies if the National Debt exceeds 5% of Revenues. This will be a disincentive for Special Interest lobbyists to push Congress for additional spending.

I agree with some policies that make the availability of higher education more widespread.
However, one of the main reasons why and quite possibly THE main reason why higher ed is so costly IS due to federal interference.
The theory is, the more in federal subsidies that become available, the higher the cost of tuition. Why is this? Simple. Colleges and universities have no incentive to keep down tuition costs. They theorize that if the feds offer more in the way of loans and grants, the schools can simply increase their costs to the students.
It's a vicious cycle.

The cost of education is based upon the cost of labor. Education is one of the highest labor intensive jobs to be found. There is no "automation" in education. There is no way to "cut costs" or "downsize" an education.

Educators have advanced degrees and you have to pay them on a par with what they could earn in the private sector.

Blaming government is not the answer.

Again...you're wrong...labor does not account for this..

Since 1982 a typical family income increased by 147%, more than inflation but significantly behind the huge increase in college costs. College costs have been rising roughly at a rate of 7% per year for decades. Since 1985, the overall consumer price index has risen 115% while the college education inflation rate has risen nearly 500%. According to Gordon Wadsworth, author of The College Trap, “…if the cost of college tuition was $10,000 in 1986, it would now cost the same student over $21,500 if education had increased as much as the average inflation rate but instead education is $59,800 or over 2 ½ times the inflation rate.” Blunting these increases is a rise in federal student aid including tax credits and deductions. And nearly two thirds of undergraduates now receive some sort of grant aid and student loan borrowing is on the upswing. But loans must be paid back so the pain of payment is only delayed.

College Costs Out Of Control - Forbes

 

[Darkwind]

Typical Conservative response

And their attempts to "cut government" usually involve slashing support to those 40% of Americans struggling on two TENTHS of a percent of the wealth

Actually, it doesn't. But if you had two grey cells to rub together, you'd realize that what they do want is to alter the support from one of dependence to one of empowerment, thereby reducing the strain on the tax payer.

I know....never reduce the pain on the taxpayer....its not how you keep power.

Actually, it does

If you read the Paul Ryan budget it revolves around slashing taxes while you cut programs to the needy to compensate

So, the Paul Ryan budget is only two pages long? Or does it cover much more than the biased and untruthful summary you have provided?

Government MUST be reduced, or the entire world is going to suffer.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Dispelling Myths About Income Inequality - Forbes

Thanks to Thomas Piketty and his book, Capital in the Twenty-First Century, the topic of the day in political discussions is income inequality. What is most fascinating about this discussion is how many of the facts and commonly accepted wisdoms employed to support the arguments in this debate are wrong. This column will point out some of the main ones, so that at least we can have a debate based on a common set of (hopefully correct) facts.

As a quick summary, here are the actual facts: spendable income inequality is not increasing, increased capital is not bad for labor, wealth is not a zero sum game, and high income taxes do not necessarily lead to a more equal outcome. On all four of these items, the mainstream beliefs are wrong.

First, income inequality is increasing only if you measure before-tax income. That is, all of Thomas Piketty’s data, charts, and recommendations are based on what economists call market income. It is as if governments around the world either did not exist or had not been busy addressing this problem until Piketty wrote a book about it.

If one looks at after-tax income, the increase in income inequality over time is greatly reduced. If one goes further and factors in the government’s attempts to redistribute income, income inequality is not increasing in the U.S. at all. This after-tax, after-transfer income essentially is a measure of how much stuff you can consume (either by buying it or because somebody gave you free stuff). And, as demonstrated by Gary Burtless of The Brookings Institution (a center-left think tank), income inequality measured this way has actually decreased in the U.S. over the decade from 2000-2010.

To me, and I suspect most people, this is the more correct way to look at income if one is studying income inequality because this measure is the one that affects people’s actual, real-life situation. It may be of some interest to study the pre-tax and pre-transfer income distribution and its changes over time, but that is only relevant for deciding if government intervention is still needed. To see if government policy is working, in the sense of accomplishing its goals, it is the after-tax, after-transfer income distribution that must be consulted.

Second, a main contention in Piketty’s book is that capital is increasing faster than GDP and that this means labor is losing to capital in share of GDP earned. Piketty believes this means that income and wealth inequality will inevitably continue to grow unless we do something about it. Obviously, one rebuttal is the above chart, which shows that the U.S. government has already done something about income inequality if one looks at the right data. An additional problem with Piketty’s argument is that his capital measure includes residential real estate. Thus, as homes in many developed countries increased in value over the twenty-five years from 1980-2005, capital as Piketty measured it increased greatly, yet much of these gains to “capital” went to middle-class homeowners, not the rich.

Another point that seems missing from this argument is that capital is actually good for labor. When the capital-to-labor ratio is increased, basic economics teaches us that labor becomes more productive and, thus, can be paid more. In fact, this is the universally accepted explanation for the high wages American workers enjoy relative to so many other countries. There is no reason to assume that increased capital is bad for income inequality. Yes, capital owners will receive returns to capital, but the workers that are made more productive can also capture returns in the form of higher wages.

This leads nicely into the third point: wealth is not a zero sum game. This is economist jargon meaning everyone can win. Look again at the chart Gary Burtless put together. You will note that all segments of American society saw their incomes rise except the top one percent. If we had the data to do the chart again through 2014, we would see that everybody had higher incomes than fifteen years ago.

And this win-win idea is not just in terms of income. In a capitalist society, people get rich by making somebody else better off. J. K. Rowling became one of the richest women in the world by writing the Harry Potter series of books. All the people who bought the books believed that the books were worth more than the sale price otherwise they would not have bought it. Thus, J.K. Rowling wins and all her readers win. Both sides of a voluntary transaction are made better off. As long as government coercion is not involved, when you see someone getting rich, you know a lot of people are being made happy.

Finally, the idea that higher income taxes on the wealthy will reduce income inequality is wrong, at least in the sense of the pre-tax income that Piketty presents. As shown by the Economist magazine, after taxes the U.S. and United Kingdom end up with almost exactly equal income distributions, the U.K. has a more progressive income tax system than the U.S. (meaning it collects a higher percentage from higher income people), but the U.K. has higher income inequality when measured on pre-tax income than the U.S. While Britain appears to be working harder to reduce income inequality through taxes than the U.S., pre-tax income inequality still exists. Similarly, Sweden, famous for its high taxes on the rich and supposedly more uniform economy, actually has just as much pre-tax income inequality as the U.S.

In reality, government can redistribute income through taxes and transfer payments, but the poor are only made better off as long as the transfers continue. Without continual redistribution, these countries would be just as unequal as before all the redistribution started.

It is the age old problem, stated in the famous Chinese proverb, “Give a man a fish; you have fed him for a day. Teach a man to fish; and you have fed him for a lifetime.” Piketty and all his liberal fans think they can solve the problem by giving the poor more fish while conservatives know the true solution lies in providing each person the opportunity to create their own economic success. Let’s stop worrying about how many fish other people have and simply give the poor the tools to catch their own fish.

 

[rightwinger]

Actually, it doesn't. But if you had two grey cells to rub together, you'd realize that what they do want is to alter the support from one of dependence to one of empowerment, thereby reducing the strain on the tax payer.

I know....never reduce the pain on the taxpayer....its not how you keep power.

Actually, it does

If you read the Paul Ryan budget it revolves around slashing taxes while you cut programs to the needy to compensate

So, the Paul Ryan budget is only two pages long? Or does it cover much more than the biased and untruthful summary you have provided?

Government MUST be reduced, or the entire world is going to suffer.

Actually, the world is already suffering......because of wealth inequality

 

[Darkwind]

Actually, it does

If you read the Paul Ryan budget it revolves around slashing taxes while you cut programs to the needy to compensate

So, the Paul Ryan budget is only two pages long? Or does it cover much more than the biased and untruthful summary you have provided?

Government MUST be reduced, or the entire world is going to suffer.

Actually, the world is already suffering......because of wealth inequality

Not because of wealth inequality. But because of governmental greed and progressive overreach and poor problem solving ability.

 

[Derideo_Te]

By the same token, simply because you disagree does not make you right, or give you truth over My belief.

I have provided two examples of reliable sources showing that the government manipulates the inflation numbers and I have provided one (admittedly) anecdotal case of people who make poor choices with their finances.

To deny people make poor financial choices is unrealistic and cannot be taken seriously. Even rich people make poor financial choices.

Thanks, but I think I'll stick with My rational version of the truth.

You provided opinions on inflation from two sources. That doesn't equate to hard facts. One of the allegations was so ludicrous I actually laughed out loud.

According to one rogue economist, John Williams at Shadow Government Statistics, if we still calculated inflation the way we did when Jimmy Carter was president, the official inflation figures would look about as bad as they did when ... Jimmy Carter was president.

I was around during the inflation period of the 70's and that blogger obviously wasn't or he wouldn't have made such an absurd statement.

Yes, poor people do make bad choices but you are blaming their dire financial straits on their "choices" when they had no hand in them. This is like blaming the unions because GM management decided to built clunkers that fell apart after 5 years.

Your "truth" doesn't equate to reality and I am going to challenge you to see if you could live on minimum wage.

What Happened When 3 Politicians Tried a Minimum Wage Budget - ABC News

Actually, I provided more hard proof than you have. My truth is always based upon reality.

As for you challenge...

Been there, done that. Your problem is that you think that people should remain on minimum wage.

I was on minimum wage twice in My life...when I left school.....and when I lost a job and had to have something to get by.

In both instances, I left that job inside of 6 months.

I suffered from a job loss in 2010 and it has only been this last month that I managed to climb back into the same tax bracket I was in 4 years ago...

But I did make it back and I have plans on tripling that income inside of 5 years......

So, you'll excuse Me if I don't buy into your victim scenario.

BTW...that economist is rouge because the left refuse to look at real economics.....they just want to promote unskilled labor to middle class status.

Your anecdotes and your allegations about me are on a par with your opinion that is anything but the truth.

The reality is in the numbers that cannot be denied. 40% of hard working Americans are struggling to subsist and that is not going to go away until we stop blaming them and start dealing with the fact that the giant sucking sound is this nation's wealth disappearing into the bank accounts of the 1%.

When everyone has a job that pays a living wage with benefits the entire nation prospers and not just those who lack empathy for their plight of their fellow Americans.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I agree with some policies that make the availability of higher education more widespread.
However, one of the main reasons why and quite possibly THE main reason why higher ed is so costly IS due to federal interference.
The theory is, the more in federal subsidies that become available, the higher the cost of tuition. Why is this? Simple. Colleges and universities have no incentive to keep down tuition costs. They theorize that if the feds offer more in the way of loans and grants, the schools can simply increase their costs to the students.
It's a vicious cycle.

The cost of education is based upon the cost of labor. Education is one of the highest labor intensive jobs to be found. There is no "automation" in education. There is no way to "cut costs" or "downsize" an education.

Educators have advanced degrees and you have to pay them on a par with what they could earn in the private sector.

Blaming government is not the answer.

Again...you're wrong...labor does not account for this..

Since 1982 a typical family income increased by 147%, more than inflation but significantly behind the huge increase in college costs. College costs have been rising roughly at a rate of 7% per year for decades. Since 1985, the overall consumer price index has risen 115% while the college education inflation rate has risen nearly 500%. According to Gordon Wadsworth, author of The College Trap, “…if the cost of college tuition was $10,000 in 1986, it would now cost the same student over $21,500 if education had increased as much as the average inflation rate but instead education is $59,800 or over 2 ½ times the inflation rate.” Blunting these increases is a rise in federal student aid including tax credits and deductions. And nearly two thirds of undergraduates now receive some sort of grant aid and student loan borrowing is on the upswing. But loans must be paid back so the pain of payment is only delayed.

College Costs Out Of Control - Forbes

Gotta when your link disproves your position and validates mine!

The overwhelming cost culprit is labor costs. Between 1993 and 2007, total university expenses rose 35%. But administration expenses rose a whopping 61% and instruction expenses rose 39%. In fact, as a 2010 Goldwater Institute study finds, “universities have in recent years vastly expanded their administrative bureaucracies, while in some cases actually shrinking the numbers of professors.” While enrollment rose between 1993 and 2007 by 14.5%, administrators employed per 100 students rose nearly 40% and spending on administration per student rose by 66%.

 

[kiwiman127]

.

Two part question:

1. Is income/wealth inequality a problem in America?

2. If it is, instead of just screaming bumper sticker slogans, precisely what would you do about it? And when I say "precisely", for example, if you'd increase tax rates, to precisely what figures?

I'm hoping for less partisan sloganeering and more actual specifics.

.

I think it's pretty clear that wages are the problem
Wages for a worker in a non-supervisory position are less now than they were in the late 70s in Real Dollars according to the Department of Labor statistics.
It doesn't take a genius to realize that raising taxes on the wealthy would do nothing to boost wages. Actually it would probably make flat/low wages even more of a reality.
This problem is more prevalent in the US than it is in other wealthy nations. The middle class has seen much healthier income growth in other wealthy nations than what have occurred in the US. That's why Canada recently passed the US as having the wealthiest middle class and other countries will also pass the US soon if this trend continues.
My best friend is a German immigrant. His bother investigates companies for potential investors. He recently said that the American companies don't invest as much as they should in their infrastructures and employees. In the US, the stockholder is rewarded for the profits, but the worker rarely sees any reward for contributing to a company's success. There is much less of that approach in other countries.
How does one correct this mess and get the US middle class in a position where they belong? My guess is to lower employer taxes tied to the incentive of paying he workers better. The tax revenues probably wouldn't change much as the working class would have greater income and thus, higher tax rates. Also it would be good for the US consumer driven economy as the consumer class would have more expendable income to support the consumer driven economy.
That's my take and I'm sticking to it.