Lets talk about income inequality

[Brain357]

Hmm, you seem to be trying to argue that high taxes do not drain the economy by going back in time and pointing out the fact that people were really stupid, so that proves that being stupid works.

Given you started this thread you sure don't respond very intelligently. Maybe you should explain why he is wrong rather than just that's stupid? Calling Templarkormac stupid just isn't nice.

Still waiting on your explanation for QE.

It seems pretty clear so far that income inequality exists and has a lot of negative effects on the economy and country. Certainly the opposing side has not given anything close to facts or a study or even an intelligent thought against it yet.

This thread isn't about the impact of the government on the economy, is it? If I started a thread about that, and thought that the post deserved a thoughtful response, it would get one. That means that this post actually failed on two counts, it was off topic, and it really didn't say anything intelligent. All the poster really did was blather the points each side uses, he didn't even take a position on which one he supports.

I posted two different links that explained why QE is nothing more than a stock market stimulus, I suggest you go back and read them. The theory is great, on paper, but it doesn't necessarily work in the real world because you cannot force banks to loan money simply because they have a lot of it, especially when you through in new banking regulations that punish banks for lending money to people that can't afford it.

No it isn't, but templerkormac and Londoner seem to think it has something to do with income inequality. If you don't explain why it doesn't then they will just keep brining it back up again.

QE might explain why wealth inequality is growing faster the last 5 years or so, but it can't explain income and wealth inequality for the past 30+ years. QE hasn't been used by the US for that long.

 

[Redfish]

Given you started this thread you sure don't respond very intelligently. Maybe you should explain why he is wrong rather than just that's stupid? Calling Templarkormac stupid just isn't nice.

Still waiting on your explanation for QE.

It seems pretty clear so far that income inequality exists and has a lot of negative effects on the economy and country. Certainly the opposing side has not given anything close to facts or a study or even an intelligent thought against it yet.

This thread isn't about the impact of the government on the economy, is it? If I started a thread about that, and thought that the post deserved a thoughtful response, it would get one. That means that this post actually failed on two counts, it was off topic, and it really didn't say anything intelligent. All the poster really did was blather the points each side uses, he didn't even take a position on which one he supports.

I posted two different links that explained why QE is nothing more than a stock market stimulus, I suggest you go back and read them. The theory is great, on paper, but it doesn't necessarily work in the real world because you cannot force banks to loan money simply because they have a lot of it, especially when you through in new banking regulations that punish banks for lending money to people that can't afford it.

No it isn't, but templerkormac and Londoner seem to think it has something to do with income inequality. If you don't explain why it doesn't then they will just keep brining it back up again.

QE might explain why wealth inequality is growing faster the last 5 years or so, but it can't explain income and wealth inequality for the past 30+ years. QE hasn't been used by the US for that long.

Hmmm. so income inequality has gotten worse under obama? But I thought he was going to help the little people, guess he lied to the little people---again.

 

[Brain357]

This thread isn't about the impact of the government on the economy, is it? If I started a thread about that, and thought that the post deserved a thoughtful response, it would get one. That means that this post actually failed on two counts, it was off topic, and it really didn't say anything intelligent. All the poster really did was blather the points each side uses, he didn't even take a position on which one he supports.

I posted two different links that explained why QE is nothing more than a stock market stimulus, I suggest you go back and read them. The theory is great, on paper, but it doesn't necessarily work in the real world because you cannot force banks to loan money simply because they have a lot of it, especially when you through in new banking regulations that punish banks for lending money to people that can't afford it.

No it isn't, but templerkormac and Londoner seem to think it has something to do with income inequality. If you don't explain why it doesn't then they will just keep brining it back up again.

QE might explain why wealth inequality is growing faster the last 5 years or so, but it can't explain income and wealth inequality for the past 30+ years. QE hasn't been used by the US for that long.

Hmmm. so income inequality has gotten worse under obama? But I thought he was going to help the little people, guess he lied to the little people---again.

And I suppose Bush was a conservative right? That's why he was handed a balanced budget and managed to help turn it into our current spending disaster. I'm an independent because neither party seems to do what they are supposed to.

 

[georgephillip]

"Middle class households generally means those making between $21,000 and $100,000 a year. It includes the three-fifths of households sandwiched between the rich and the poor.

"Experts say this trend dates back to the 1970s. Back then, 53% of the nation's income went to the middle class. In 2010, it was about 46%.

WRONG.
21K per year is POOR, not middle class.

Middle class starts where government subsidy of any kind ends - so it is about 75K per year for a family of 4.
and 100K per year is middle class as it gets, not the end of it - and goes all the way at least to a million dollars.

The nuts who are putting those figures of 21K to 100K are operating in the 1970 dollars prices and salaries, not 2013.

"INCOME

"Economists generally align the group according to earnings, even if there is no standard established range.

"'Most people tend to think of themselves as middle class unless they're (billionaire investor) Warren Buffett or really poor,' said J.D. Foster, an economist and senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.

"Foster regards the upper 20 percent of earners as "upper income" and the lower 20 percent as "lower income." He regards the 60 percent in the middle as middle class, with household incomes roughly between $25,000 and $100,000.

"Median household income in the United States was $52,175 in 2008, according to the U.S. Census Bureau."

Factbox: What is middle class in the United States? | Reuters

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Certainly the government is doing its part with spending. What more would the government do with more tax dollars that would boost the economy? All the stimulus spending had a pretty weak effect.

Could that be because government spending doesn't stimulate the economy?

Could be. I think it doesn't stimulate the economy very effectively, though it probably does a little.

I think it reduces the natural drain on the economy imposed by the very existence of the government.

 

[American_Jihad]

Millionaire Obama: I Hate Income Inequality​

President readies populist push despite personal affluence

1.7.2014 |Albert Merrick |

Back from his $4 million Hawaii vacation, President Barack Obama seems poised to sound the populist trumpet in an effort to turn the page on 2013’s disastrous Obamacare rollout.

Many pundits are speculating that Obama, seeing the popularity of liberal populists like New York City Mayor Bill DeBlasio, will use the current debate over unemployment insurance to engage in more divisive rhetoric:

...

On Tuesday, that's precisely what Obama did, trotting out unemployed people to push for another boost to unemployment benefits, and citing income inequality as the rationale.

One potential challenge for the President’s prospective populist push is his own family’s affluence. Despite the President’s public lowering of his own salary, the Obamas' tax returns show a family whose incomes would routinely place them in the highest bracket, with lucrative income streams outside of the White House. Last year, however, the Obama family paid an effective tax rate of only 18 percent.

Millionaire Obama: I Hate Income Inequality | Truth Revolt

 

[georgephillip]

Millionaire Obama: I Hate Income Inequality​

President readies populist push despite personal affluence

1.7.2014 |Albert Merrick |

Back from his $4 million Hawaii vacation, President Barack Obama seems poised to sound the populist trumpet in an effort to turn the page on 2013’s disastrous Obamacare rollout.

Many pundits are speculating that Obama, seeing the popularity of liberal populists like New York City Mayor Bill DeBlasio, will use the current debate over unemployment insurance to engage in more divisive rhetoric:

...

On Tuesday, that's precisely what Obama did, trotting out unemployed people to push for another boost to unemployment benefits, and citing income inequality as the rationale.

One potential challenge for the President’s prospective populist push is his own family’s affluence. Despite the President’s public lowering of his own salary, the Obamas' tax returns show a family whose incomes would routinely place them in the highest bracket, with lucrative income streams outside of the White House. Last year, however, the Obama family paid an effective tax rate of only 18 percent.

Millionaire Obama: I Hate Income Inequality | Truth Revolt

"(Reuters) - President Barack Obama paid an effective federal tax rate of 18.4 percent in 2012 and saw income from his best-selling books drop as he ran for re-election, according to his tax returns released by the White House on Friday.

Obama and his wife Michelle had adjusted gross income of $608,611 last year, down from $789,674 in 2011, and paid $112,214 in total taxes, compared to $162,074 in 2011."

Imagine the Retirement Plan Wall Street will offer after Obama "reforms" Social Security following the 2014 mid-terms?

Obama's income fell in election year, paid 18.4 percent tax rate | Reuters

 

[LeftofLeft]

Income inequality is the rallying cry for redistribution of income in the name of "fairness." Is it fair to the small business entrepreneur who has incurred risk and debt, created jobs for others, to finally get to a level of profit only to be told that he/she is "evil" and need to pay more?

 

[Katzndogz]

Income inequality is what is left in the pantry after democrats ate up everything else. Income inequality and redistribution of wealth is the last crumb available for democrats to feed the multitudes.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Income inequality is universal. Think the rich don't get richer in the UK, Venezuela, Mexico, Saudi Arabia? Think again. Foremost in the US, there is Opportunity for individuals to move up and improve their income comparatively and significantly to those in other countries.

Why would the US want to change?

 

[georgephillip]

Income inequality is universal. Think the rich don't get richer in the UK, Venezuela, Mexico, Saudi Arabia? Think again. Foremost in the US, there is Opportunity for individuals to move up and improve their income comparatively and significantly to those in other countries.

Why would the US want to change?

Because of 1929?

"Emmanuel Saez, an economics professor at UC-Berkeley, has been doing just that for years.

"And according to his research, U.S. income inequality has been increasing steadily since the 1970s, and now has reached levels not seen since 1928.

"(The GIF file at the top of this post, created by Dorsey Shaw of Buzzfeed, compares growth in average income of the top 1% of Americans with everyone else.)"

U.S. income inequality, on rise for decades, is now highest since 1928 | Pew Research Center

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Income inequality is universal. Think the rich don't get richer in the UK, Venezuela, Mexico, Saudi Arabia? Think again. Foremost in the US, there is Opportunity for individuals to move up and improve their income comparatively and significantly to those in other countries.

Why would the US want to change?

Because of 1929?

"Emmanuel Saez, an economics professor at UC-Berkeley, has been doing just that for years.

"And according to his research, U.S. income inequality has been increasing steadily since the 1970s, and now has reached levels not seen since 1928.

"(The GIF file at the top of this post, created by Dorsey Shaw of Buzzfeed, compares growth in average income of the top 1% of Americans with everyone else.)"

U.S. income inequality, on rise for decades, is now highest since 1928 | Pew Research Center

Does the Berkley professor way anything about the fact that the main reason income inequality is increasing is that most people were overpaid for menial tasks?

 

[georgephillip]

Income inequality is universal. Think the rich don't get richer in the UK, Venezuela, Mexico, Saudi Arabia? Think again. Foremost in the US, there is Opportunity for individuals to move up and improve their income comparatively and significantly to those in other countries.

Why would the US want to change?

Because of 1929?

"Emmanuel Saez, an economics professor at UC-Berkeley, has been doing just that for years.

"And according to his research, U.S. income inequality has been increasing steadily since the 1970s, and now has reached levels not seen since 1928.

"(The GIF file at the top of this post, created by Dorsey Shaw of Buzzfeed, compares growth in average income of the top 1% of Americans with everyone else.)"

U.S. income inequality, on rise for decades, is now highest since 1928 | Pew Research Center

Does the Berkley professor way anything about the fact that the main reason income inequality is increasing is that most people were overpaid for menial tasks?

I suspect the Berkeley professor would need to know how you define "most" and "menial" and who decides how much the minimum wage should be?

"Using tax-return data from the IRS, Saez has built extensive income-distribution datasets going back 100 years. He defines “income” as pre-tax cash market income — wages and salaries; dividends, interest, rent and other returns on invested capital; business profits; and realized capital gains.

"He excludes Social Security payments, unemployment benefits and other government transfer payments, which are more substantial today than before the Great Depression.

"In 1928, the top 1% of families received 23.9% of all pretax income, while the bottom 90% received 50.7%.

"But the Depression and World War II dramatically reshaped the nation’s income distribution:

"By 1944 the top 1%’s share was down to 11.3%, while the bottom 90% were receiving 67.5%, levels that would remain more or less constant for the next three decades.

"But starting in the mid- to late 1970s, the uppermost tier’s income share began rising dramatically, while that of the bottom 90% started to fall.

"The top 1% took heavy hits from the dot-com crash and the Great Recession but recovered fairly quickly: Saez’s preliminary estimates for 2012 (which will be updated next month) have that group receiving nearly 22.5% of all pretax income, while the bottom 90%’s share is below 50% for the first time ever (49.6%, to be precise)."

U.S. income inequality, on rise for decades, is now highest since 1928 | Pew Research Center

 

[Kosh]

The far left could careless about income inequality.

It is just a talking point for them.

 

[KNB]

The Central Intelligence Agency of the United States of America was training and arming terrorists in Afghanistan beginning in 1979, setting the Mujaheddin up to be proxy soldiers against the Soviet Union. In December 1979, Russia invaded Afghanistan and spent ten years fighting a "Vietnam-style" conflict without end or victory. In 1989, Russia withdrew in defeat, virtually bankrupt, and the Soviet Union collapsed.

Today, the United States has occupied Afghanistan for ten years and has been spending $2b each week to achieve victory over guerrilla groups that were trained in guerrilla tactics by the CIA. Ten years into this war, the US still doesn't have an exit strategy, has no clear definition of victory, and the guerrilla groups are far from defeated. Meanwhile in the US, American cities are filing for bankruptcy and debate over the debt ceiling shut down the government and almost made the US go into default.

We are following the same model that was set up for Russia by the CIA. There is no victory in the war in Afghanistan and the "fiscally conservative" GOP squandered over $4t on blowing up and torturing Iraq for absolutely no reason. Since the economic recovery began in 2008, 95% of our money went to the richest 1% of the population.

 

[georgephillip]

Could that be because government spending doesn't stimulate the economy?

Could be. I think it doesn't stimulate the economy very effectively, though it probably does a little.

I think it reduces the natural drain on the economy imposed by the very existence of the government.

If the definition you're using for "economy" comes from the Greek oikos ("home") and nomos ("law and order"), how do you propose to "express the laws of production of wealth at the state level" without some form of government?

Political economy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia