Dispelling Myths About Income Inequality

[Lafayette]

This article explains it all pretty well. There is no actual growing income inequality if you factor in everything. It is a liberal myth.

This article explains "what" very well. I can't even log into the Forbes web-site to see what the basis is for their conclusions.

So, it must be some esoteric theory possessed only of the cognoscenti who log-onto their site.

As academic research, it therefore null and void - since it is not open to either criticism or debate. (And if that surprise you of Forbes, then you ARE naive.)

Unless of course you may want to give me some pertinent info I can get my teeth into.

Your turn ...
_____________________

 

[Gimmesometruth]

This article explains "what" very well. I can't even log into the Forbes web-site to see what the basis is for their conclusions.

So, it must be some esoteric theory possessed only of the cognoscenti who log-onto their site.

As academic research, it therefore null and void - since it is not open to either criticism or debate. (And if that surprise you of Forbes, then you ARE naive.)

Unless of course you may want to give me some pertinent info I can get my teeth into.

Your turn ...
_____________________

Um...why can't you view the article? It is not behind a paywall.

 

[joG]

Right. Because the more wealth person A has, the less available for person B.

NTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT.

Not sure I know, what you mean.

 

[ludin]

That's why I don't usually post links, graphs, charts, etc. Both the left and the right cherry pick this stuff but the left is constantly posting their cherry picked stuff while claiming facts are just facts and that they aren't cherry picked. They are and then when the right posts something suddenly all of a sudden that is cherry picked.

You have to understand the liberal hypocrisy once you understand it you can see every inconsistency in their arguments.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

You have to understand the liberal hypocrisy once you understand it you can see every inconsistency in their arguments.

The irony....he is admitting he is cherry picking, cannot say where I have, and he is blind to the wealth/income gains prior to and after the period in question...ergo also being inconsistent.

 

[ludin]

Not sure I know, what you mean.

Basically liberals treat the economy as a zero sum game.
so if person a makes 1m dollars someone else loses a million dollars
And that money is gone.

The fact is our economy isn't a zero sum game so it does matter what someone else has.

There isn't so much pie and once the pie is gone that is it.
We have the ability to add to the pie if needed that is one of the reason the federal reserve exists.
It is to maintain the money supply and ensure there is plenty of pie for everyone.

What someone leave their kids has no bearing on what someone else can do or leave their kids.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

Basically liberals treat the economy as a zero sum game.
so if person a makes 1m dollars someone else loses a million dollars
And that money is gone.

The fact is our economy isn't a zero sum game so it does matter what someone else has.

There isn't so much pie and once the pie is gone that is it.
We have the ability to add to the pie if needed that is one of the reason the federal reserve exists.
It is to maintain the money supply and ensure there is plenty of pie for everyone.

What someone leave their kids has no bearing on what someone else can do or leave their kids.

Liberals don't treat the economy as a zero sum game. We just understand how growth happens; we don't think that dollars magically spring from simply making things or transacting business.

If you don't understand the subject (and you don't), your time would be better spent learning, rather than mischaracterizing your opponents' positions.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Basically liberals treat the economy as a zero sum game.
so if person a makes 1m dollars someone else loses a million dollars
And that money is gone.

The fact is our economy isn't a zero sum game so it does matter what someone else has.

There isn't so much pie and once the pie is gone that is it.
We have the ability to add to the pie if needed that is one of the reason the federal reserve exists.
It is to maintain the money supply and ensure there is plenty of pie for everyone.

What someone leave their kids has no bearing on what someone else can do or leave their kids.

Refers to the FED

Says there is a "pie", implying there is a finite level of total money.

Says there is no zero sum.

 

[ludin]

Liberals don't treat the economy as a zero sum game. We just understand how growth happens; we don't think that dollars magically spring from simply making things or transacting business.

If you don't understand the subject (and you don't), your time would be better spent learning, rather than mischaracterizing your opponents' positions.

I know you have nothing to say as usual just repeat the nonsense one more time just to reassure yourself

 

[ludin]

Refers to the FED

Says there is a "pie", implying there is a finite level of total money.

Says there is no zero sum.

Proves you didn't read which is expected.

 

[iguanaman]

Forbes Welcome

The left always defines income inequality in terms of before tax income, instead of after tax income. They continue to rail against the gross earnings of the one percent compared to the rest of us, which is dishonest all by itself because it does not reflect the overall picture, just the one percent. Judging income inequality by looking at just the one percent of the population and then failing to include the taxes the rich pay in their figures is even more dishonest. The left often presents cherry picked facts to prove their case. This article explains it all pretty well. There is no actual growing income inequality if you factor in everything. It is a liberal myth.

It is not a myth that due to low tax rates the top 5% have increased their wealth by $32 Trillion in the last 25 years and that number is more than all the money in the world before 1980. That kind of lopsided growth is unsustainable and will lead to ruin if it is not slowed.

From 60 Minutes interview
The Battle Over Taxing The Rich

"In 1985, the top five percent of the households, wealthiest five percent, had net worth of $8 trillion, which is a lot. Today, after serial bubble after serial bubble, the top five percent have net worth of $40 trillion," he explained.

"The top five percent have gained more wealth than the whole human race had created prior to 1980." (David Stockman)

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

I know you have nothing to say as usual just repeat the nonsense one more time just to reassure yourself

I have laid out my position and reasoning many times, in great detail. Don't blame me if you aren't capable of comprehending those posts.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Proves you didn't read which is expected.

This is so jaegerish, you cannot identify the error you claim exists.

 

[joG]

Basically liberals treat the economy as a zero sum game.
so if person a makes 1m dollars someone else loses a million dollars
And that money is gone.

The fact is our economy isn't a zero sum game so it does matter what someone else has.

There isn't so much pie and once the pie is gone that is it.
We have the ability to add to the pie if needed that is one of the reason the federal reserve exists.
It is to maintain the money supply and ensure there is plenty of pie for everyone.

What someone leave their kids has no bearing on what someone else can do or leave their kids.

All but the last sentence is quite true. The problem with inheritance is that the allocation of productive assets is not by where the highest efficiency is, as it is during the accumulation process. That is why I suspect that inheritance is probably economically inefficient under today's circumstances. Also probably our technology is not yet capable of handling the transfer of property rights in a way that does not do more harm to the economy than we would like.

 

[Groogrux]

This whole "envy" labeling to me is so revealing. On the contrary, I think those who argue for lower taxation are those who anticipate that they will become one of the elite 1%......those who want to be like the 1%. On the other hand, it doesn't make much sense to say those who want higher taxes are envious, desire to possess the wealth of others....when it not only will apply to themselves, but that the revenue will be redistributed throughout.

I am neither envious nor believe I will ever be close to become a 1%er. I believe it's fundamentally wrong to take money from someone because you think they have too much.

 

[ludin]

All but the last sentence is quite true. The problem with inheritance is that the allocation of productive assets is not by where the highest efficiency is, as it is during the accumulation process. That is why I suspect that inheritance is probably economically inefficient under today's circumstances. Also probably our technology is not yet capable of handling the transfer of property rights in a way that does not do more harm to the economy than we would like.

No the last sentence is true as well.
It doesn't matter what is left it has no affect on anyone else.

What people do with there property is their business.

If they want to spend a million dollars on coffee then that is their business.
Again that is your opinion.

I part of the reason I am working is to give my kids a better chance later on.
It does no harm at all the economy could careless if someone gets 10 dollars or 1 billion

 

[ludin]

This is so jaegerish, you cannot identify the error you claim exists.

Yep your post was gibberish because you didn't read which is typical

 

[Henrin]

This whole "envy" labeling to me is so revealing. On the contrary, I think those who argue for lower taxation are those who anticipate that they will become one of the elite 1%......those who want to be like the 1%. On the other hand, it doesn't make much sense to say those who want higher taxes are envious, desire to possess the wealth of others....when it not only will apply to themselves, but that the revenue will be redistributed throughout.

Nope. Many people that are opposed to higher taxes find taxes immoral but necessary. Once you understand that very simple position it becomes obvious why they want to keep taxes as low as possible.

 

[Henrin]

Um...why can't you view the article? It is not behind a paywall.

He probably has an ad blocker.

 

[joG]

No the last sentence is true as well.
It doesn't matter what is left it has no affect on anyone else.

What people do with there property is their business.

If they want to spend a million dollars on coffee then that is their business.
Again that is your opinion.

I part of the reason I am working is to give my kids a better chance later on.
It does no harm at all the economy could careless if someone gets 10 dollars or 1 billion

What people do with their property can be their own business. It depends on how the laws are written.
When doing something has external effects and reduces general efficiency, this activity can be and often is restricted. The question is how large the effects are. In the case of the Tragedy of the Commons the effects are obvious and restricting grazing was an obvious move. In the case of inheritance the effect is less visible. But think of the economy as a place that continuously looks to shift capital to those players that do best with it and the fact that this does not happen, when the accumulator of the wealth dies, then it becomes understandable that there is a break in the system, where we use a pre-capitalist method instead of the price of assets to determine their use.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

I am neither envious nor believe I will ever be close to become a 1%er. I believe it's fundamentally wrong to take money from someone because you think they have too much.

Nope. Many people that are opposed to higher taxes find taxes immoral but necessary. Once you understand that very simple position it becomes obvious why they want to keep taxes as low as possible.

....and the argument shifts from envy....to theft. The memes never end.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Yep your post was gibberish because you didn't read which is typical

Yer hypocritically accusing me of gibbering.....while still not identifying the errors. The irony.

 

[Lafayette]

Um...why can't you view the article? It is not behind a paywall.

Because the Forbes site doesn't like web-thingies like "ghostery" and "WOT", etc.

Don't know and don't care - I posted my response with OECD information, that rebuts whatever Forbes has to say about the matter ...
_______________________________

 

[Moderate Right]

Because the Forbes site doesn't like web-thingies like "ghostery" and "WOT", etc.

Don't know and don't care - I posted my response with OECD information, that rebuts whatever Forbes has to say about the matter ...
_______________________________

A rebuttal is just a rebuttal. It doesn't mean the rebuttal proves anything.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

I am neither envious nor believe I will ever be close to become a 1%er. I believe it's fundamentally wrong to take money from someone because you think they have too much.

It's not a matter of taking money from people "because [we] think they have too much." It is a matter of redistributing the national income more evenly so that the economy functions more efficiently.

Try this analogy: a society produces plenty of food for everybody, but it is distributed unevenly. If the uneven distribution isn't terribly egregious, everybody still gets enough to eat, so they can work a full day and continue to produce a surplus of food. But if the uneven distribution is so bad that a lot of workers don't get enough food to sustain themselves, then overall production is going to suffer.

This is the problem with income in today's economy - too much of it goes to too few, and demand suffers greatly for it.