• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Dispelling Myths About Income Inequality

Moderate Right

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 21, 2015
Messages
53,813
Reaction score
10,864
Location
Kentucky
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
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.
 
Last edited:
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.

People are just mixed up and confused.
 
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.

Actually, if you "factor in everything"...you realize that American conservatism is the lackey pool of the Barons.


Forbes Magazine!

Oh, the humor!
 
Actually, if you "factor in everything"...you realize that American conservatism is the lackey pool of the Barons.


Forbes Magazine!

Oh, the humor!

The funny thing is that the problem is not the income disparity. That is fine. The problem is the concentration of wealth by inheritance.
 
The funny thing is that the problem is not the income disparity. That is fine. The problem is the concentration of wealth by inheritance.

I quite agree, Jo. And I think most of us have made that clear in most of the discussions here in the board.

It is wealth disparity...and especially wealth disparity because of perpetuation of wealth (inheritance) that is the fly!
 
The funny thing is that the problem is not the income disparity. That is fine. The problem is the concentration of wealth by inheritance.
I think there's some truth in this.

The high net-worth individuals I deal with usually do *not* work.

They usually live off their trusts, though the families occasionally will throw some capital and professional resources at a spunky twenty-something 'finished with college' young buck kid that wants to try his hands at business. Very, very, few of these individuals run anything in their trusts - but rather, they have others with the proper experience, education, and certification run and manage things for them (which is very smart of them!).

It's a nice life when you win the genetic heritage lottery! :thumbs:
 
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.

You need another two or three income inequality threads.
 
I think there's some truth in this.

The high net-worth individuals I deal with usually do *not* work.

They usually live off their trusts, though the families occasionally will throw some capital and professional resources at a spunky twenty-something 'finished with college' young buck kid that wants to try his hands at business. Very, very, few of these individuals run anything in their trusts - but rather, they have others with the proper experience, education, and certification run and manage things for them (which is very smart of them!).

It's a nice life when you win the genetic heritage lottery! :thumbs:

It probably also reduces the efficiency of society.
 
I quite agree, Jo. And I think most of us have made that clear in most of the discussions here in the board.

It is wealth disparity...and especially wealth disparity because of perpetuation of wealth (inheritance) that is the fly!
Exactly!

Capital & wealth generate income!

It sure beats working!

And this is exasperated vis a vis everyday wage earners, due to the array of options & legal entities available to those with high amounts of capital & assets.
 
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.

You are lying again

You keep repeating that "the left" only looks at "the one percent compared to the rest of us" when there is plenty of info posted about the population grouped into many percentiles, and not just the 1% vs 99%

What do you think it means when someones argument is based completely on a lie?
 
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.
Talk about cherry-picking! That is a time period where we experienced two recessions, where the top 1% saw large declines in ATI and where the bottom quintile received some increases in income from AT supplements (EITC post 2001, SNAP/UI post 2007)....but......this has done little to change a trend existing since 1980 where the 1% have made massive gains in wealth/income, completely reversing the declines in inequality from 1945 to 1980.

It never ceases to amaze me how the reich-wing will cite after tax support as a good thing....while simultaneously, continually work to defund/destroy those programs.
 
Talk about cherry-picking! That is a time period where we experienced two recessions, where the top 1% saw large declines in ATI and where the bottom quintile received some increases in income from AT supplements (EITC post 2001, SNAP/UI post 2007)....but......this has done little to change a trend existing since 1980 where the 1% have made massive gains in wealth/income, completely reversing the declines in inequality from 1945 to 1980.

It never ceases to amaze me how the reich-wing will cite after tax support as a good thing....while simultaneously, continually work to defund/destroy those programs.

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.
 
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.

Of course your source is cherry picked, I just clearly explained why. If you have a counter argument....and not empty whining...post it. The short version, you don't get to cite an article that describes an eleven year period that includes 2 recessions....as a trend describing an ending of income inequality. The trend was established since 1980, and post 2010 the trend has continued. All your article shows is an aberration caused by (2) market failures, without any change in the overall trend of increasing inequality.
 
Of course your source is cherry picked, I just clearly explained why. If you have a counter argument....and not empty whining...post it. The short version, you don't get to cite an article that describes an eleven year period that includes 2 recessions....as a trend describing an ending of income inequality. The trend was established since 1980, and post 2010 the trend has continued. All your article shows is an aberration caused by (2) market failures, without any change in the overall trend of increasing inequality.

Of course all of the links, graphs, stats posted by the left are cherry picked. That's the point! Anyone can post cherry picked stats. That's why I hardly ever do it. But liberals just love to post their cherry picked facts and then try and deny that they aren't cherry picked.
 
Of course all of the links, graphs, stats posted by the left are cherry picked. That's the point! Anyone can post cherry picked stats. That's why I hardly ever do it. But liberals just love to post their cherry picked facts and then try and deny that they aren't cherry picked.
Um, you are doing it, that is the point, yr argument is based on an 11 period with 2 recessions where the top 1% had large setbacks in income and the bottom had minor gains.....but the top are regaining income, back to trend. It is cherry picking, no change in trend long term.

Since you are not debating the data....and are instead focusing totally on tactics, tactics which you say you are against but are hypocritically using....I don't think there is much more to add. You have failed both in argument and in tactics.
 
Um, you are doing it, that is the point, yr argument is based on an 11 period with 2 recessions where the top 1% had large setbacks in income and the bottom had minor gains.....but the top are regaining income, back to trend. It is cherry picking, no change in trend long term.

Since you are not debating the data....and are instead focusing totally on tactics, tactics which you say you are against but are hypocritically using....I don't think there is much more to add. You have failed both in argument and in tactics.

And to add to the hypocrisy, he repeatedly asks for stats even though he admits that he doesn't care about the stats because they're all "cherry-picked"
 
Um, you are doing it, that is the point, yr argument is based on an 11 period with 2 recessions where the top 1% had large setbacks in income and the bottom had minor gains.....but the top are regaining income, back to trend. It is cherry picking, no change in trend long term.

Since you are not debating the data....and are instead focusing totally on tactics, tactics which you say you are against but are hypocritically using....I don't think there is much more to add. You have failed both in argument and in tactics.

I'm showing that if your side presents cherry picked facts you deny it while I admit to presenting cherry picked facts. One side is honest. The other is not.
 
I'm showing that if your side presents cherry picked facts you deny it while I admit to presenting cherry picked facts. One side is honest. The other is not.

because presenting data from over 30 years is "cherry picking" while using data from just 11 years (and in ends in a recession year) is "honest"
 
I'm showing that if your side presents cherry picked facts you deny it while I admit to presenting cherry picked facts. One side is honest. The other is not.
Where did I deny...or admit...it?

Further, was this thread created as an attempt to "trap" me, Dr Evil? Was I drawn into your super secret volcano lair...by yr disguised argument about the supposed "myth" of inequality.....an argument that has been abandoned.....because it was not serious to begin with ?


latest
 
Where did I deny it?

Further, was this thread created as an attempt to "trap" me, Dr Evil? Was I drawn into your super secret volcano lair...by yr disguised argument about the supposed "myth" of inequality.....an argument that has been abandoned.....because it was not serious to begin with ?


latest

The argument was just as serious as the liberal's cherry picked facts claiming that there is income inequality and I do thank you for admitting that liberal's arguments on the subject are indeed due to cherry picked facts. They have no proof, other than cherry picked facts, that there really is income inequality. All they have is obvious wealth envy and jealousy because some have more than others. They do conveniently use before tax income figures to prove their point while totally ignoring the fact that when you account for income redistribution policies already in place (like taxation) that the income gap is NOT actually growing larger, as they claim and they conveniently don't mention how much actual dollars the one percent pay in taxes while 43% pay zero.
 
And to add to the hypocrisy, he repeatedly asks for stats even though he admits that he doesn't care about the stats because they're all "cherry-picked"
I suppose that in the past when I presented the often cited Piketty/Saez 1% data showing inequality over 100 years in the US, it could be considered "cherry-picking" since it does not include inequality levels since 1607....

shrug
 
The argument was just as serious
Sure it was, but instead of debating it, you have diverted to hypocritical nonsense.
as the liberal's cherry picked facts claiming that there is income inequality
Wait, if yr arguing it has ended, it makes no sense to imply it did not exist.
and I do thank you for admitting that liberal's arguments on the subject are indeed due to cherry picked facts.
Dooder, where am i admitting or denying ANYTHING.......how does this have any bearing on the topic....YOUR topic.....that you are distracting away from. You have latched onto "cherry" like a dog chasing a moving car, it is so nutty.
They have no proof, other than cherry picked facts, that there really is income inequality.
Uh, dood....yer arguing it has ended.....a thing can't end unless it existed....HELLO?!?
All they have is obvious wealth envy and jealousy because some have more than others.
LOL.....OMG.....yer admitting wealth inequality EXISTS!!! FFS!!!
They do conveniently use before tax income figures to prove their point while totally ignoring the fact that when you account for income redistribution policies already in place (like taxation) that the income gap is NOT actually growing larger, as they claim.
Yes, we got that.....for the 11 year period of 2000-2010....referred to as "a decade" in yer article.....which then causes you to ignore the 20 years prior or the 5 years after...because...you HARDLY ever cherry pick, Dr Evil.
 
The funny thing is that the problem is not the income disparity. That is fine. The problem is the concentration of wealth by inheritance.

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

NTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT.
 
I think there's some truth in this.

The high net-worth individuals I deal with usually do *not* work.

They usually live off their trusts, though the families occasionally will throw some capital and professional resources at a spunky twenty-something 'finished with college' young buck kid that wants to try his hands at business. Very, very, few of these individuals run anything in their trusts - but rather, they have others with the proper experience, education, and certification run and manage things for them (which is very smart of them!).

It's a nice life when you win the genetic heritage lottery! :thumbs:

It sure is and I would never begrudge anyone for that.
 
All they have is obvious wealth envy and jealousy because some have more than others.
It sure is and I would never begrudge anyone for that.
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.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom