Inequality Made Simple

[Big Fitz]

And for the last 30 years 99% of Americans have been denied equal treatment under law.

Because of legal bribes the richest 1% of invividuals and corporations pay to Republicans AND Democrats.

You've got proof of criminal improprieties, or are you just talking out your ass?

I don't think there is anything illegal about making campaign donations in exchange for tax favors for off-shoring blue collar jobs and decreasing tax rates on FIRE sector incomes.

That could prove the inherent level of criminal improprieties within the US Government.

About the only thing I am sure of is that nothing changes by "choosing" between Republican OR Democrat at the polls.

Sooooo you're bitching because...?

 

[Avatar4321]

As opposed to STUPID?

"If this massive income shift hadn't happened, middle class earnings would be higher, they'd be able to buy more stuff, and they probably wouldn't be in debt as much.

"And the top 1% wouldn't have quite so much idle cash lying around to do stupid things with.

The reason people are in debt is because they have decided to live beyond their means.

 

[Avatar4321]

There is no guarantee of unequal outcome... you fucking dolt.... the lowest slob can succeed for fail, can strike it rich... the richest of the rich can lose it all... the middle class guy can achieve to live comfortably for the rest of their life.... there is no guarantee ANYWHERE, and there should not be

Equal treatment under law by government... nothing more... that is what should be sought in a free society

And for the last 30 years 99% of Americans have been denied equal treatment under law.

Because of legal bribes the richest 1% of invividuals and corporations pay to Republicans AND Democrats.

You've got proof of criminal improprieties, or are you just talking out your ass?

Option B

 

[Avatar4321]

You poor people are getting very whiny these days. Just sayin'.

Equal doesn't mean you get to take other people's money. Move the fuck on. Work.

W O R K? That's like a four letter word.

 

[westwall]

Where, in the Constitution, does it state that everyone is always going to be equal?

Where in NATURE is equality evident? Equality is a cute belief that has no basis in reality.

 

[Avatar4321]

To sunny Metropolis measure weekend for the Toil Organisation association, held at the university by the phytologist of the Corrib. A trip of rightful two hours on the swanky new way, although that may mortal included a thin extraordinary of the jural speed ending.
Real enjoyable to sit out in the sun with the socialist comrades - yet the workshops and boundary meetings were packed. ''Old media traverse up a big proportionality of people's leisure measure. Apiece televised disputation lasts for 90 proceedings. The figure reader spends 40 transactions with his regular paper and an period with the Weekday and Sun writing. (More someone with the ould SBP, plainly.)
''It takes rightful seconds to have an e-mail or a politician's sound.
One must make few fearless assumptions near the cite of digital media to reckon they work group as overmuch as conventional outlets."

Wow! That added nothing to the discussion. . .

 

[asterism]

http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2010/average_after-tax_income.pdf

Every quintile is doing better.in terms of actual after tax income adjusted for inflation.

 

[Agit8r]

Consumption or income?
Changing composition of households over the last 30 years?
Are we measuring inflation incorrectly?
Is inequality simply a statistical artifact of the '86 tax reform bill?

Why not look at the money flow in America since 1979?

This graph from an annual CBO report shows the share of total earnings going to various income levels.

"If you look at the raw CBO figures, they show that a full tenth of the national income has shifted since 1979 to the top 1% of the country.

"The bottom quintiles have each given up a bit more than two percentage points each, and that adds up to 10% of all earnings.

"That 10% has flowed almost entirely to the very tippy top of the income ladder."

So Jimmy Carter got 94% of his what he wanted...

 

[georgephillip]

As opposed to STUPID?

"If this massive income shift hadn't happened, middle class earnings would be higher, they'd be able to buy more stuff, and they probably wouldn't be in debt as much.

"And the top 1% wouldn't have quite so much idle cash lying around to do stupid things with.

The reason people are in debt is because they have decided to live beyond their means.

Another Reason People Are in Debt

Do you remember receiving "pre-approved" credit card solicitations in your mailbox?

Seen any lately?

As the richest 1% of Americans increased their share of national income over the last 30 years, middle class incomes suffered in two ways. First by tax policies that favored shipping middle class jobs out of the country, and secondly, by tax cuts for the wealthy and other tax biases that favored debt over equity investing.

Using other people's money for investments and assuming an implicit guarantee from government to backstop any loses with taxpayer bailouts SUCKED about two percentage points of national income from the bottom quintiles (middle class) and redirected the money to the richest 1%.

Those in the middle classes who lost their previous share of national income maintained their standard of living by using credit cards, and I'm sure we both remember how that turned out and which 1% of the US population profited.

A Simple Look...

 

[georgephillip]

You've got proof of criminal improprieties, or are you just talking out your ass?

I don't think there is anything illegal about making campaign donations in exchange for tax favors for off-shoring blue collar jobs and decreasing tax rates on FIRE sector incomes.

That could prove the inherent level of criminal improprieties within the US Government.

About the only thing I am sure of is that nothing changes by "choosing" between Republican OR Democrat at the polls.

Sooooo you're bitching because...?

Because the rich aren't through stealing yet.

Would you like to hazard a guess at what income distribution in the USA will look like thirty years from today if current trends continue?

Think Mexico (with more guns)

 

[boedicca]

Observations:

The author is criticizing this bit of research:

The rise in American inequality has been exaggerated both in magnitude and timing. Commentators lament the large gap between the growth rates of real median household income and of private sector productivity. This paper shows that a conceptually consistent measure of this growth gap over 1979 to 2007 is only one-tenth of the conventional measure. Further, the timing of the rise of inequality is often misunderstood. By some measures inequality stopped growing after 2000 and by others inequality has not grown since 1993. This cessation of inequality’s secular rise in 2000 is evident from the growth of Census mean vs. median income, and in the income share of the top one percent of the income distribution. The income share of the 91st to 95th percentile has not increased since 1983, and the income ratio of the 90th to 10th percentile has barely increased since 1986. Further, despite a transient decline in labor’s income share in 2000-06, by mid-2009 labor’s share had returned virtually to the same value as in 1983, 1991, and 2001.

Recent contributions in the inequality literature have raised questions about previous research on skill-biased technical change and the managerial power of CEOs. Directly supporting our theme of prior exaggeration of the rise of inequality is new research showing that price indexes for the poor rise more slowly than for the rich, causing most empirical measures of inequality to overstate the growth of real income of the rich vs. the poor. Further, as much as two-thirds of the post-1980 increase in the college wage premium disappears when allowance is made for the faster rise in the cost of living in cities where the college educated congregate and for the lower quality of housing in those cities. A continuing tendency for life expectancy to increase faster among the rich than among the poor reflects the joint impact of education on both economic and health outcomes, some of which are driven by the behavioral choices of the less educated.


Misperceptions About the Magnitude and Timing of Changes in American Income Inequality


And yet the MJ moonbat has to resort to the typical static pie chart to try to assert growing inequality.

I doubt that the value of things which are not included for income tax purposes (health benefits, pension benfits etc.) of the growing public employee union class are incorporated into his income allocations.

 

[georgephillip]

http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2010/average_after-tax_income.pdf

Every quintile is doing better.in terms of actual after tax income adjusted for inflation.

And 1% is doing MUCH better at increasing its percentage of national income.

"Since it (see graph) shows income shares, inflation measures don't matter. It doesn't try to measure consumption, it just measures who the money is going to. It includes pensions and government transfers. It accounts for reporting changes due to the 1986 tax reform bill. And it uses tax data to get a cleaner look at the top of the income distribution...

"If you look at the raw CBO figures, they show that a full tenth of the national income has shifted since 1979 to the top 1% of the country.

"The bottom quintiles have each given up a bit more than two percentage points each, and that adds up to 10% of all earnings.

"That 10% has flowed almost entirely to the very tippy top of the income ladder."

Maybe it depends on the definition of "doing better"?

 

[editec]

A simple truth often is.

 

[editec]

Where, in the Constitution, does it state that everyone is always going to be equal?

What do you mean by equal?

I'm using the word to indicate "a government that would guarantee equally to all individuals the rule of law and security for liberty under the law."

You poor people are getting very whiny these days. Just sayin'.

Equal doesn't mean you get to take other people's money. Move the fuck on. Work.

Thank you Maria Antionette.

We'll remember that remark come Bastille day when you'll be the one whining.

 

[California Girl]

As opposed to STUPID?

"If this massive income shift hadn't happened, middle class earnings would be higher, they'd be able to buy more stuff, and they probably wouldn't be in debt as much.

"And the top 1% wouldn't have quite so much idle cash lying around to do stupid things with.

The reason people are in debt is because they have decided to live beyond their means.

Another Reason People Are in Debt

Do you remember receiving "pre-approved" credit card solicitations in your mailbox?

Seen any lately?

As the richest 1% of Americans increased their share of national income over the last 30 years, middle class incomes suffered in two ways. First by tax policies that favored shipping middle class jobs out of the country, and secondly, by tax cuts for the wealthy and other tax biases that favored debt over equity investing.

Using other people's money for investments and assuming an implicit guarantee from government to backstop any loses with taxpayer bailouts SUCKED about two percentage points of national income from the bottom quintiles (middle class) and redirected the money to the richest 1%.

Those in the middle classes who lost their previous share of national income maintained their standard of living by using credit cards, and I'm sure we both remember how that turned out and which 1% of the US population profited.

A Simple Look...

Yea, I used to get a lot of those 'pre approved' circulars. I threw them in the trash, because I'm smart enough not to borrow what I can't pay back. If you were stupid enough to take credit out that you cannot afford to repay, that's not my problem.

 

[boedicca]

And I'll add that nobody forced the holders of said credit cards to max them out buying big screen TVs and other crap they didn't actually need.

 

[asterism]

http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2010/average_after-tax_income.pdf

Every quintile is doing better.in terms of actual after tax income adjusted for inflation.

And 1% is doing MUCH better at increasing its percentage of national income.

"Since it (see graph) shows income shares, inflation measures don't matter. It doesn't try to measure consumption, it just measures who the money is going to. It includes pensions and government transfers. It accounts for reporting changes due to the 1986 tax reform bill. And it uses tax data to get a cleaner look at the top of the income distribution...

"If you look at the raw CBO figures, they show that a full tenth of the national income has shifted since 1979 to the top 1% of the country.

"The bottom quintiles have each given up a bit more than two percentage points each, and that adds up to 10% of all earnings.

"That 10% has flowed almost entirely to the very tippy top of the income ladder."

Maybe it depends on the definition of "doing better"?

Envy is not a good basis for policy.

When after tax income adjusted for inflation increases, that mean there is more money to spend improving lives. If you have $10,000 one day and $20,000 the next day are you worse off just because someone who previously had $1 Million now has $10 Million?

Conversely, if you have $10,000 one day and $10,001 the next day are you better off because someone who previously had $1 Million now has $100,000?

 

[Big Fitz]

I don't think there is anything illegal about making campaign donations in exchange for tax favors for off-shoring blue collar jobs and decreasing tax rates on FIRE sector incomes.

That could prove the inherent level of criminal improprieties within the US Government.

About the only thing I am sure of is that nothing changes by "choosing" between Republican OR Democrat at the polls.

Sooooo you're bitching because...?

Because the rich aren't through stealing yet.

Would you like to hazard a guess at what income distribution in the USA will look like thirty years from today if current trends continue?

Think Mexico (with more guns)

Stealing implies criminal activity.

First prove your premise that theft is occurring.

Second, prove direct personal harm from the activities of businesses.

Thirdly look at the root causes of why these things are occurring instead of just assuming "Rich people and businesses are evil."

Fourthly, prove, using CREDIBLE sources, that income inequality is detrimental to anyone.

Begin spewing emotional libberish rage in 3... 2... 1...

 

[Avatar4321]

A simple truth often is.

Ive found the exact opposite is true. The truth is invigorating, uplifting, inspiring. It's the lies that produce no good which makes things boring.

But to each his own.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Consumption or income?
Changing composition of households over the last 30 years?
Are we measuring inflation incorrectly?
Is inequality simply a statistical artifact of the '86 tax reform bill?

Why not look at the money flow in America since 1979?

This graph from an annual CBO report shows the share of total earnings going to various income levels.

"If you look at the raw CBO figures, they show that a full tenth of the national income has shifted since 1979 to the top 1% of the country.

"The bottom quintiles have each given up a bit more than two percentage points each, and that adds up to 10% of all earnings.

"That 10% has flowed almost entirely to the very tippy top of the income ladder."

Totally flawed argument blasted all to hell with.... tippy top.