- Joined
- Oct 19, 2012
- Messages
- 12,029
- Reaction score
- 3,530
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
If you feel you're falling behind in the income race, it's not just your imagination. The wealth gap between the top 1% and the bottom 99% in the U.S. is as wide as it's been in nearly 100 years, a new study finds.
For starters, between 1993 and 2012, the real incomes of the 1% grew 86.1%, while those of the 99% grew 6.6%, according to the study, based on Internal Revenue Service statistics examined by economists at UC Berkeley, the Paris School of Economics and Oxford University ..
The Great Recession hit the top 1% harder than other income groups, but the wealthy recovered quicker too. From 2009 to 2012, as the U.S. economy improved, incomes of the top 1% grew more than 31%, while the incomes of the 99% grew 0.4% - less than half a percentage point.
"This implies that the top 1% incomes captured just over two-thirds of the overall economic growth of real incomes per family over the period 1993-2012," economist Emmanuel Saez of UC Berkeley writes.
The 1929 stock market crash that preceded the Great Depression, followed by World War II, reduced an earlier national income gap for decades. But it began to grow again in the 1970s, and has widened since.
Saez attributes the trend not just to technology and job outsourcing, but to the reduced power of progressive tax policies and unions, along with "changing social norms regarding pay inequality."
Well, yeah, when you have a higher and higher percentage of people moving onto government subsidies for their income base, that's pretty much what happens. We have higher numbers retiring and moving into the social security system, and more and more moving into the disability rolls, which pretty much puts them near the poverty level. With an aging population, a sickly population, and jobs being shipped overseas, this is pretty much to be expected.
Why does anyone entertain it?
I am occasionally in a good mood, and do it just for the agitation factor. :lol:
Well, yeah, when you have a higher and higher percentage of people moving onto government subsidies for their income base, that's pretty much what happens. We have higher numbers retiring and moving into the social security system, and more and more moving into the disability rolls, which pretty much puts them near the poverty level. With an aging population, a sickly population, and jobs being shipped overseas, this is pretty much to be expected.
The premise is false. Higher and higher percentages of people are not moving onto government subsidies. That's just rightwing noise machine talk.
The recession obviously resulted in more people getting unemployment insurance (something they helped pay for, by the way). But that of course is temporary, and of course tea party occupation forces in Congress have systematically obstructed funding to the poor and needy.
The aging of the population shouldn't result in an larger income gap -- that makes no sense since rich people get old at the same rate as everybody else. And indeed, SS is means tested to the extent is has a contribution ceiling.
In any case, the huge unemployment caused by the Bush Meltdown is receding, along with the government benefits paid for it.
As to jobs being shipped overseas (something which of course we could stop), under comparative advantage the aggregate benefit to each nation should be the same, though it is income related. Owners of capital benefit from globalization while unskilled workers bear the burden of suppressed wages. That's exactly why we need a steep progressive income tax.
So this won't do as an explanation.
Income gap between rich and poor is biggest in a century - latimes.com
The actual study is here: http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/saez-UStopincomes-2012.pdf
Income gaps result in recessions as the rich misallocate more and more wealth to nonproductive activities, such as bubbles, which invariably burst. Historically, the bigger the gap, the bigger the recession. So unless this huge gap is ameliorated by a steep progressive income tax on the top bracket, and other policies (such as making unionization easier and more widespread) to make sure wealth is allocated more evenly over income brackets, we can expect another Bush-style meltdown.
Income gap between rich and poor is biggest in a century - latimes.com
The actual study is here: http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/saez-UStopincomes-2012.pdf
Income gaps result in recessions as the rich misallocate more and more wealth to nonproductive activities, such as bubbles, which invariably burst. Historically, the bigger the gap, the bigger the recession. So unless this huge gap is ameliorated by a steep progressive income tax on the top bracket, and other policies (such as making unionization easier and more widespread) to make sure wealth is allocated more evenly over income brackets, we can expect another Bush-style meltdown.
Income gaps result in recessions... Historically, the bigger the gap, the bigger the recession.
So unless this huge gap is ameliorated by a steep progressive income tax on the top bracket, and other policies (such as making unionization easier and more widespread) to make sure wealth is allocated more evenly over income brackets, we can expect another Bush-style meltdown.
Before I start, I'd like to point out that the leftwing noise machine puts out about 10 threads per day around here about the income and wealth gaps. It's incessant repetition. Over and over and over.
It's not the gap that causes the recession. You're peddling a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
The gap is caused by the bubble, and it gets exaggerated right before it bursts. The bubble is the problem. The gap is simply a warning sign.
The flaw in your thinking is that the gap is not a cause... it's a symptom.
It's like saying pain relief is the cure for cancer. Pain is but a symptom of the cancer, and taking painkillers will only fool your brain into thinking there's no problem. Meanwhile the real problem festers further.
Who the heck do you think benefits from the 85 billion a month obummer prints up and hands out? DUH
Before I start, I'd like to point out that the leftwing noise machine puts out about 10 threads per day around here about the income and wealth gaps. It's incessant repetition. Over and over and over.
It's not the gap that causes the recession. You're peddling a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
The gap is caused by the bubble, and it gets exaggerated right before it bursts. The bubble is the problem. The gap is simply a warning sign.
The flaw in your thinking is that the gap is not a cause... it's a symptom.
It's like saying pain relief is the cure for cancer. Pain is but a symptom of the cancer, and taking painkillers will only fool your brain into thinking there's no problem. Meanwhile the real problem festers further.
Income gap between rich and poor is biggest in a century - latimes.com
The actual study is here: http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/saez-UStopincomes-2012.pdf
Income gaps result in recessions as the rich misallocate more and more wealth to nonproductive activities, such as bubbles, which invariably burst. Historically, the bigger the gap, the bigger the recession. So unless this huge gap is ameliorated by a steep progressive income tax on the top bracket, and other policies (such as making unionization easier and more widespread) to make sure wealth is allocated more evenly over income brackets, we can expect another Bush-style meltdown.
why redistribution doesn't work
Much of the money that goes to the government ends up being wasted, resulting in ineffective government programs, and less wealth for EVERYBODY.
Many are tempted to assume that money collected by the government goes to help the poor and downtrodden. However, much of that money ends up in the hands of the rich and politically connected, those who have the most resources and ability to lobby for it.
Socialism concentrates money and power in the hands of the government. When government grows, the greedy and corrupt don’t go away. Conversely, they now have a more powerful tool in their hands, the government itself.
The richer you are, the easier it is for you to avoid increasing taxation and leave the bill to the middle class.
A soak-the-rich, high tax strategy inhibits the economy. And who is hurt the most by a slow economy? Not the rich!
with the transfer of earned wealth that socialist policies mandate are a detriment to entrepreneurship and innovation. Entrepreneurship and innovation are driven by the potential for material rewards. If we take away or reduce the material rewards, we’ll have less innovation. Less innovation means less of all the cool, useful, and life-saving stuff we all love.
high taxes and government regulations make it more difficult to start and grow a business, thereby leaving much greater opportunities for those who are already rich and have the resources to overcome those difficulties.
social programs create more demand and need for those very programs in a self perpetuating cycle because given government handouts, people come to expect and rely on them. And therefore, you can never spend enough, because the more you do, the greater the need to do so becomes.
Social programs are a disincentive to work and act responsibly. After all, if some or all of your needs are taken care of, and if someone else picks up the tab whenever something goes wrong, why would you worry about such minor details as work ethic, productivity, financial responsibility and family obligations? Consequently, when productivity takes a downturn, leading to a shrinking economy, guess who suffers… everybody! Oh and as always, the rich suffer the least.
A combination of the above points causes a vicious cycle of decreasing revenues and increasing demand for social spending that results in a socialist government running out of money and having ‘no choice’ but to perpetuated tax increases to every level of society, rich and poor.
Why Socialism and Wealth Redistribution Don’t Work
How can this be?
Your leader, the enlightened one, has been working tirelessly from his golf cart for 5 years to correct the injustices of the last couple centuries.
When new wealth gets concentrated in the hands of a few who already have it, it creates No demand No New jobs
Because those on the right block his actions. You see the president doesn't make laws. I would have thought that you knew that already.
And how is it possible that we have welfare or redistribution at all? Didn't Bush have several years where the republicans held control of both houses of congress? Why didn't republicans repeal redistribution? I'l give you a hint: because it's necessary to keep our economy going.
That said, before you attack me for being a socialist or something, I do not support any form of means tested welfare. I just understand that if all income classes don't increase in income and wealth at about the same rate, that ultimately all economic resources would accumulate in the hands of the few, and our free market capitalistic economy would end.
Redistribution doesn't have to mean "robbing from the rich to give to the poor". It can be as simple as having a high minimum wage, or a more progressive income tax system. Means tested welfare just makes our economy worse, by encouraging those at the bottom to not be productive.
It could also mean encouraging the movers and the shakers to create additional wealth and creating an environment that encouraged the movers and the shakers to help the people.
As it is, the Obama administration is creating an economic environment in which it is stupid to employ full time workers, is stupid to make profits and is stupid to make investments.
It is wise on the other hand, to cut the hours of workers, reduce benefits and hold on to cash rather than invest it in capital improvements.
That is the fruit of the Obama policies of punishing the rich.
How's this been working out for you? We have a labor participation rate that is about 3% of the population lower than it was 10 years ago and dropping like a stone in a pond. If we had the same particiaption rate now as we did then, the unemployment rate would be about 10.5%.
This is a Depression level number. Your man is a failure. His utter ineptitude is evidenced in everything he does and says. His latest series of fumbles and foibles on the whole Syria debacle is an excellent display of how every move he makes is a benefit to the further destruction of our national interest and prestige.
Obama has one and only one talent and that is winning elections. in that he is a genius and in all other things related to presidency, he's an idiot. A true savant.
Thomas Sowell, who really should have won the Nobel Prize, summed it up in a way that even Leftists can understnd. You Can
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?