Income Inequality in America

[distraff]

Not familiar with the GINI but I have no reason to disbelieve this. The point of my post (the one you quoted) was to say, in a nutshell, "times are different now."

I also long for a bygone era in that I think our entire species would feel healthier and happier if we grew and raised a lot more of our own food, and I think urbanization (which continues to happen) makes us miserable. But to think we should just force that longing of mine into reality through federal legislation is... something else.

From the statistics it is apparent that our income inequality imbalance is a major cause for the decline in median income growth. As income inequality increases, economic mobility becomes harder, and the rich have more spare money to use to get more of that economic growth. This is why 80% of our economic growth is going to the top 1%. As a result of less economic growth going to everyone else, median income stagnates. This seems to be the best explanation of what is going on.

Most of the income inequality really started happening after Reagan's tax cuts for the rich.
http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/4c7e78717f8b9a1c200d0300/plutocracy.jpg

The taxes paid by the rich have been cut by 33% since 1980. The cuts for everyone else is marginal. This is a major reason their incomes are rising so disproportionately compared to everyone else.
http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfoundation.org/files/docs/Top 1 Average rates and taxes.png

 

[P. Kersey]

I'll list them and you will dismiss them.

A living wage for most jobs.
Low cost adult and higher education.
Educational tracks for all young adults.
Low cost trade and engineering schools.
Higher progressive income taxes.
Higher corporate taxes.
Tax shelter reform.
High estate taxes.
Government sponsored daycare.
Universal healthcare.
Longer school days and years for Pre-K to grade 12.
Performance-based salaries and salary limits for CEOs.
Stock option reform.

And so on.

Tax reform is a good idea...the rest of them are unrealistic or ridiculous and couldn't be implemented ....unless you change human beings and human nature. I suppose you think that could be done, too...but your idealism is kind of amusing. Thanks.

 

[TiredOfLife]

Tax reform is a good idea...the rest of them are unrealistic or ridiculous and couldn't be implemented ....unless you change human beings and human nature. I suppose you think that could be done, too...but your idealism is kind of amusing. Thanks.

Thanks for your comprehensive and thoughtful response. I'll make a note of it.

 

[Slyhunter]

I'll list them and you will dismiss them.

A living wage for most jobs.
Low cost adult and higher education.
Educational tracks for all young adults.
Low cost trade and engineering schools.
Higher progressive income taxes.
Higher corporate taxes.

This is where I'm the realist and not hard right or hard left. For example, Apple has billions of unspent money earned in foreign countries, saved in foreign banks, that isn't doing us any good because we won't let them bring it to the US without taxing them 30% on it. That isn't right. You want less of something you tax more for it. And we want more business ventures in the US therefore we need to cut those taxes not raise them. Now we do need to do something about GE making billions of dollars but paying 0 in taxes. I know they made a lot of that money here in America and as such they need to be paying our people tax money. Maybe you liberals should work on that or are you scared of chasing away a lobbyist?

Tax shelter reform.
High estate taxes.
Government sponsored daycare.
Universal healthcare.
Longer school days and years for Pre-K to grade 12.

We have a problem with spending more than we earn. Our country needs to stop spending money they don't have. Somebody is going to have to pay that money back some day. So if they have to borrow to pay for it, they shouldn't do it. Exceptions should be made for war and national disasters. But you need to get real. The government can't pay for everything.

Performance-based salaries and salary caps for CEOs.

If we don't pay them the money to make them interested to work for us, they will go to Hong Kong, Belize, and elsewhere and work there. The those who agree to knuckle down under your requirements would be bottom of the barrel crap CEO's and those companies may not make as much money as they could which means fewer tax dollars made from those companies. Therefore this would be counter productive.

Stock option reform.

All income should be taxed. But you have to be careful not to tax too high or they will invest elsewhere. We are not the only market in the world.
And so on.[/QUOTE]

 

[Coin]

That probably tends to be true. I have spoken to a number of millionaires and almost across the board I recognized them as very sharp. What I would add to this characterization though is that they took gutsy chances, i.e. they "went for it." They didn't shy away from medicine, law, finance, entrepreneurship and other career choices that tend to create millionaires. They went after things that are difficult and (probably) have a relatively high failure rate, but they went for it anyway and succeeded, alas, they are now successful.

Some will read your comment (in bold) and get offended because it implies the less successful "don't work hard" or are dumb and lazy. By measuring people only against the very very successful, everyone looks that way, but not everyone is actually that way. Some people choose career tracks and lifestyles according to their personalities and are less rich because of their personal choices.

You're right.
People choices are what determine the success.
Some people find their success in army, in police, in finance, in movie, in music.
I mean, wherever you choose to make the career, the chances are same for everyone.
Some people choose to have a simple work enough to have a home, a family, to eat well and entertain well. They feel good with what they have.


Rich or poor we will all go on the same grave. The rich will not take their moneys on heaven.

 

[distraff]

In crisis time ppl get rich.

what happen in USA.
the prices of houses got lower years ago.
those who had hundred thousand dollars, bought these houses.
they sold them right after the price was increased.
from hundred thousand $ they become million $ men.

This is just a simple example. Point is that everyone is free to achieve based on their work, take of risk, use of knowledge etc etc.

I would be fine if things were just like that. However things have gotten to an extreme. Wealth inequality is climbing. The bottom 80% have less than 1/8 the financial wealth of the top 1%. Economic mobility in the US is falling and is now lower than that of Europe. 80% of income growth goes to the top 1%. Because of this, median incomes have stagnated.

I am fine with people keeping the fruits of their own labor as long as it does not harm the US economy. We need to find a solution to this problem.

 

[P. Kersey]

Thanks for your comprehensive and thoughtful response. I'll make a note of it.

The only way those programs can be implemented is by growing government by another magnitude larger than it already is...never mind the problems of enforcement...unrealistic.

Just tossing out ideas is easy...actually implementing an entirely new economic system is, in a word, impossible.

 

[P. Kersey]

I am fine with people keeping the fruits of their own labor as long as it does not harm the US economy.

..and exactly who gets to make this decision?
What exactly is the definition of "harm the u.s economy"?

 

[TiredOfLife]

The only way those programs can be implemented is by growing government by another magnitude larger than it already is...never mind the problems of enforcement...unrealistic.

Just tossing out ideas is easy...actually implementing an entirely new economic system is, in a word, impossible.

Do you think Capitalism has always been with us? You believe that what is, is what has to be, and that is untrue.

 

[distraff]

..and exactly who gets to make this decision?
What exactly is the definition of "harm the u.s economy"?

Do you think high income inequality is harmful to the US economy?

 

[Coin]

Taxing the rich more won't work.
Rich's income never change even if you double tax him. He will always spend the same amount of moneys.

He can pay double of taxes, and he will take moneys back double from prices.

 

[Coin]

Do you think Capitalism has always been with us? You believe that what is, is what has to be, and that is untrue.

Capitalism does not work for you, nor you for capitalism.
Socialism does.

In capitalism you are on your own.

 

[Coin]

Do you think high income inequality is harmful to the US economy?

People will always try to be rich as much as they can.
And to achieve that, they must invest. And society will benefit from the invests.

 

[P. Kersey]

Do you think Capitalism has always been with us? You believe that what is, is what has to be, and that is untrue.

No system...economic or government is stationary. Life and humans are dynamic and continuously variable.
All systems...economic or government eventually collapse due to corruption because humans are imperfect and dishonest. They always have been and they always will be.
Socialism, capitalism, communism, republic, monarchy, dictatorship all eventually collapse. Usually in revolution and blood.

Young, idealistic people usually don't understand or have the world view necessary to grasp these simple facts.

 

[TiredOfLife]

No system...economic or government is stationary. Life and humans are dynamic and continuously variable.
All systems...economic or government eventually collapse due to corruption because humans are imperfect and dishonest. They always have been and they always will be.
Socialism, capitalism, communism, republic, monarchy, dictatorship all eventually collapse. Usually in revolution and blood.

Young, idealistic people usually don't understand or have the world view necessary to grasp these simple facts.

Why should they, they haven't been around that long, and regardless, that doesn't justify inaction to resolve issues of corruption and inequality.

 

[distraff]

People will always try to be rich as much as they can.
And to achieve that, they must invest. And society will benefit from the invests.

Yes, investment by the rich has its benefits but there are also downsides of the rich having excessive amounts of money. One downside is that since they have so much money in investments and business, most of the economic growth will go to them. As we see, 80% of our economic growth has gone to the top 1%. What this does is stagnate the growth in median income.

 

[P. Kersey]

Why should they, they haven't been around that long, and regardless, that doesn't justify inaction to resolve issues of corruption and inequality.

Have at it.
Are you going to fix human beings first and then the unfairness of the real world, or go right to "unfair" and work on humans later?

 

[P. Kersey]

Do you think high income inequality is harmful to the US economy?

I think you're tilting at windmills ( you understand that reference?) and there is no "one size fits all" solution.
Now answer my questions.

Specifically who is going to decide what "hurts the u.s. economy?

What specifically is the definition of "hurts the u.s. economy"?

 

[TiredOfLife]

Have at it.
Are you going to fix human beings first and then the unfairness of the real world, or go right to "unfair" and work on humans later?

The only fix for humanity is, no humanity, so what's your guess?

 

[P. Kersey]

The only fix for humanity is, no humanity, so what's your guess?

You're dodging.

 

[Neomalthusian]

From the statistics it is apparent that our income inequality imbalance is a major cause for the decline in median income growth. As income inequality increases, economic mobility becomes harder, and the rich have more spare money to use to get more of that economic growth. This is why 80% of our economic growth is going to the top 1%. As a result of less economic growth going to everyone else, median income stagnates. This seems to be the best explanation of what is going on.

Most of the income inequality really started happening after Reagan's tax cuts for the rich.
http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/4c7e78717f8b9a1c200d0300/plutocracy.jpg

The taxes paid by the rich have been cut by 33% since 1980. The cuts for everyone else is marginal. This is a major reason their incomes are rising so disproportionately compared to everyone else.
http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfoundation.org/files/docs/Top 1 Average rates and taxes.png

You want to play a partisan game, do you? Okay. Here's a short quiz:

Question #1: What Secretary of Treasury (hint: from 1999 to 2001) fought for (and won) a drastic reduction of the capital gains tax?

Question #2: What Secretary of the Treasury championed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act which repealed parts of the Glass Steagall Act and thus contributed directly to the housing bubble?

Question #3: What former President of Harvard University did Barack Obama select as his chief economic advisor in 2009?

Question #4: What male economist has Barack Obama recently mentioned specifically as being an "outstanding candidate" to become the next chairman of the Federal Reserve?

Final hint: The answers to questions 1-4 are the same.

The takeaway lesson: the "rich getting richer" phenomenon is not an effect of Republican policies specifically; rather it is an effect of federal policies as overall, irrespective of parties.

 

[TiredOfLife]

You're dodging.

No, I'm not.

 

[P. Kersey]

No, I'm not.

Right..whatever you say, kid. I'm done. I concede you can fix the economic system in america and everyone will be equal and no one will have more money than anyone else..you just proved it to me.....:roll:

 

[Mason66]

Everyone in the nation should meet once a week and we should all pool our money and divide it evenly among ourselves so everyone has the same amount...and everyone should get free balloons, lollypops and pony rides. :roll:

Does that mean the money I have in my matterss and the chage in my cars ashtrays?

 

[distraff]

You want to play a partisan game, do you? Okay.

Question #1: What Secretary of Treasury (hint: from 1999 to 2001) fought for (and won) lowering of the capital gains tax?
Question #2: What Secretary of the Treasury championed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act which repealed parts of the Glass Steagall Act and thus contributed directly to the housing bubble?
Question #3: What former President of Harvard University did Barack Obama select as his chief economic advisor?
Question #4: What male economist has Barack Obama recently mentioned specifically as being an "outstanding candidate" to become the next chairman of the Federal Reserve?

Final hint: The answers to questions 1-4 are the same.

The takeaway lesson: the "rich getting richer" phenomenon is not an effect of Republican policies specifically; rather it is an effect of federal policies as overall, irrespective of parties.

Actually the majority of max cuts for the rich have happened under Republican presidents.

Tax cuts for the rich happened under:
W. Bush (R)
Reagan (R)
Kennedy (D)
Coolidge (R)
Harding (R)

Tax Hiked for the rich happened under:
Wilson (D)
FDR (D)
Bush Senior (R)
Obama (D)