Wealth Inequality in America

[carlfense]

 

 

 

 

 

(If some mod more skilled than I would like to actually embed the video that'd be great.)

[Mavric]

[carlfense]

Thanks! +1

[JJ Husker]

That's some scary shhhhhtuff. The problem I see is that, when dealing with the top 1 or 2%, wealth and taxable income are not remotely the same thing. I'm not opposed to punitively taxing that groups income but I really don't see how it would begin to make a dent in Washington's drunken spending spree. And, it would do little to nothing towards balancing out the wealth distribution in the country. I guess we could feel better knowing that small group was paying through the teeth but would it really fix anything? Is there enough possible tax revenue in that group to actually increase funding for the government and at the same time allow some relief for the middle class?

[carlfense]

That's some scary shhhhhtuff. The problem I see is that, when dealing with the top 1 or 2%, wealth and taxable income are not remotely the same thing. I'm not opposed to punitively taxing that groups income but I really don't see how it would begin to make a dent in Washington's drunken spending spree. And, it would do little to nothing towards balancing out the wealth distribution in the country. I guess we could feel better knowing that small group was paying through the teeth but would it really fix anything? Is there enough possible tax revenue in that group to actually increase funding for the government and at the same time allow some relief for the middle class?

I'm not sure what the answer is regarding wealth inequality. I don't think it can be only taxing one group and handing to another group. Then again, how can you incentivize spreading wealth? Who wants to accept less pay so that others will get a little more? Not many, I'd suspect.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Minor quibble . . . but our government isn't really on a drunken spending binge. Our annual deficit is shrinking.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/may/23/facebook-posts/viral-facebook-post-says-barack-obama-has-lowest-s/

[sd'sker]

whatever can be done to put money in the middle-class's hands and help programs that help the middle class (e.g., education) needs to be done. the economy is dependent on a strong middle class. not to mention, it is enlightened self-interest for the super-rich, as a stronger, stable economy helps those at the top the most by securing their wealth and generating consumers with greater spending power.

 

just look at college tuition and the long-term ramifications student debt has on the economy. students with a ton of debt have less spending power and are more dependent on any job they can get (even if they are overqualified). so when you graduate and get a lesser paying job because you are desperate for secure income because you have to pay your debt, you do not have much money left over to buy much stuff. so you buy a smaller house, pay cheaper property taxes, local schools get less money, and those students leave completely unprepared for college or the workforce. but if you look at if just from the perspective of the individual college kid and the ramifications on his spending power and that effect on the economy, the choice between lowering the cost of college or a tax decrease is pretty clear as it is in everyone's interest to lower tuition.

 

the point is that all these problems, what allows the super-rich to control an unfathomable share of wealth and what makes everyone else poorer, are all related and compound each other.

 

i think you are underestimating how much the super-rich make and what the country is losing in tax revenue from not having a truly progressive tax code that equitably taxes capital gains. the money that goes to the rich has to come from somewhere.

[sd'sker]

That's some scary shhhhhtuff. The problem I see is that, when dealing with the top 1 or 2%, wealth and taxable income are not remotely the same thing. I'm not opposed to punitively taxing that groups income but I really don't see how it would begin to make a dent in Washington's drunken spending spree. And, it would do little to nothing towards balancing out the wealth distribution in the country. I guess we could feel better knowing that small group was paying through the teeth but would it really fix anything? Is there enough possible tax revenue in that group to actually increase funding for the government and at the same time allow some relief for the middle class?

I'm not sure what the answer is regarding wealth inequality. I don't think it can be only taxing one group and handing to another group. Then again, how can you incentivize spreading wealth? Who wants to accept less pay so that others will get a little more? Not many, I'd suspect.

it seems like tax cuts (both individual and corporate) were what allowed for this huge redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the wealthy. the gov't needs to increase revenue and then put that money to programs that help the middle class. then the middle class can spend more, strengthen the economy, grow the middle class, and so on all the while the richest have a more stable economy to enjoy. (although, it is getting to the point where they are beyond being concerned about the wealth of the economy since they have more money than a lot of countries.)

[carlfense]

That's some scary shhhhhtuff. The problem I see is that, when dealing with the top 1 or 2%, wealth and taxable income are not remotely the same thing. I'm not opposed to punitively taxing that groups income but I really don't see how it would begin to make a dent in Washington's drunken spending spree. And, it would do little to nothing towards balancing out the wealth distribution in the country. I guess we could feel better knowing that small group was paying through the teeth but would it really fix anything? Is there enough possible tax revenue in that group to actually increase funding for the government and at the same time allow some relief for the middle class?

I'm not sure what the answer is regarding wealth inequality. I don't think it can be only taxing one group and handing to another group. Then again, how can you incentivize spreading wealth? Who wants to accept less pay so that others will get a little more? Not many, I'd suspect.

it seems like tax cuts (both individual and corporate) were what allowed for this huge redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the wealthy. the gov't needs to increase revenue and then put that money to programs that help the middle class. then the middle class can spend more, strengthen the economy, grow the middle class, and so on all the while the richest have a more stable economy to enjoy. (although, it is getting to the point where they are beyond being concerned about the wealth of the economy since they have more money than a lot of countries.)

+1 It seems to have worked in the past . . .

[Conga3]

That guy with 1% stack of cash has NO effect on anyone else's stack of cash in the 99% below him.

 

Here's a good exercise for you budding socialists out there that drink this sort of stuff up.

 

Think about the wealthiest person you know, and explain how their wealth is stopping you from growing yours.

 

You won't be able to honestly conclude someone else's wealth is preventing you from obtaining your own....you'll have to simply come up with some sort of abstract 'them vs. us' argument that is based on false economic premises that somehow lead you to conclude that 'fairness' can only happen through wealth redistribution. You don't have the power to steal someone else's wealth, but you can put into power politicians who promise to do it for you.

 

---

 

It's not the disparity in the stacks of cash that is the problem - nor is the tax to redistribute the wealth a solution.

 

The issue is in an education system that is failing to produce capable and inspired citizens.

 

The issue is in a government that is more than willing to absorb your own personal responsibilities in exchange for your dependence.

 

The issue is in a political/news system that is so incredibly watered down with emotions and feelings -- common sense, logic and long term planning are going extinct.

 

---

 

The 1% are getting wealthier because the folks in the 99% are getting less competitive.

[sd'sker]

That's some scary shhhhhtuff. The problem I see is that, when dealing with the top 1 or 2%, wealth and taxable income are not remotely the same thing. I'm not opposed to punitively taxing that groups income but I really don't see how it would begin to make a dent in Washington's drunken spending spree. And, it would do little to nothing towards balancing out the wealth distribution in the country. I guess we could feel better knowing that small group was paying through the teeth but would it really fix anything? Is there enough possible tax revenue in that group to actually increase funding for the government and at the same time allow some relief for the middle class?

I'm not sure what the answer is regarding wealth inequality. I don't think it can be only taxing one group and handing to another group. Then again, how can you incentivize spreading wealth? Who wants to accept less pay so that others will get a little more? Not many, I'd suspect.

it seems like tax cuts (both individual and corporate) were what allowed for this huge redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the wealthy. the gov't needs to increase revenue and then put that money to programs that help the middle class. then the middle class can spend more, strengthen the economy, grow the middle class, and so on all the while the richest have a more stable economy to enjoy. (although, it is getting to the point where they are beyond being concerned about the wealth of the economy since they have more money than a lot of countries.)

+1 It seems to have worked in the past . . .

it is hard for me to elaborate, and i tend to ramble, but my point is that whatever is done, whether it be to help the super-rich or the middle-class, is cyclical and compounds upon itself. so the tide needs to turn, even if just a little, so the middle-class can get some traction and then momentum to even this situation out.

[sd'sker]

That guy with 1% stack of cash has NO effect on anyone else's stack of cash in the 99% below him.

 

Here's a good exercise for you budding socialists out there that drink this sort of stuff up.

 

Think about the wealthiest person you know, and explain how their wealth is stopping you from growing yours.

 

You won't be able to honestly conclude someone else's wealth is preventing you from obtaining your own....you'll have to simply come up with some sort of abstract 'them vs. us' argument that is based on false economic premises that somehow lead you to conclude that 'fairness' can only happen through wealth redistribution. You don't have the power to steal someone else's wealth, but you can put into power politicians who promise to do it for you.

 

---

 

It's not the disparity in the stacks of cash that is the problem - nor is the tax to redistribute the wealth a solution.

 

The issue is in an education system that is failing to produce capable and inspired citizens.

 

The issue is in a government that is more than willing to absorb your own personal responsibilities in exchange for your dependence.

 

The issue is in a political/news system that is so incredibly watered down with emotions and feelings -- common sense, logic and long term planning are going extinct.

 

---

 

The 1% is getting wealthier because the folks in 99% are getting less competitive.

believe it or not, there is a finite amount of wealth. and the issue is a lot bigger than you vs. your rich neighbor.

 

but how, pray tell, is the 99% less competive than in the '80s? seriously? please explain how the hell that is and how you can demonstrate it with empirical evidence.

[HuskerShark]

In a capitalist economy, there are going to be people who have great amounts of wealth, those who don't have much of anything, and those who fall somewhere in the middle. There is not a solution because there does not need to be.

[Conga3]

believe it or not, there is a finite amount of wealth. and the issue is a lot bigger than you vs. your rich neighbor.

 

but how, pray tell, is the 99% less competive than in the '80s? seriously? please explain how the hell that is and how you can demonstrate it with empirical evidence.

This is one of those false economic premises I mentioned.

 

Wealth is a byproduct of productivity and efficiency...both of which are certainly not finite.

[sd'sker]

In a capitalist economy, there are going to be people who have great amounts of wealth, those who don't have much of anything, and those who fall somewhere in the middle. There is not a solution because there does not need to be.

you honestly do not see a problem with such massive wealth inequality and do not think it is a risk to the economy?

 

also, conga, you blame a lack of competitiveness (which i would really love to see you demonstrate that), but you do not think that it may not be that the richest have just worked harder than everyone else but maybe their increasing tax cuts (insanely disproportionately higher the everyone else's) had something to do with this redistribution of wealth to the top 1%?

[sd'sker]

believe it or not, there is a finite amount of wealth. and the issue is a lot bigger than you vs. your rich neighbor.

 

but how, pray tell, is the 99% less competive than in the '80s? seriously? please explain how the hell that is and how you can demonstrate it with empirical evidence.

This is one of those false economic premises I mentioned.

 

Wealth is a byproduct of productivity and efficiency...both of which are certainly not finite.

 

America is more productive, but only the rich reap the rewards

 

 

According to an April 2012 study from the Economic Policy Institute, hourly worker compensation stopped rising with productivity gains right around the mid-1970s. Since then, wages have stagnated even as economic productivity has continued a steady, multi-decade climb. Had the federal minimum wage kept up with productivity since the 1960s, it would be $21.72 per hour instead of just $7.25.

maybe workers need a fair wage.

 

 

OOPS: GOP Rep. Inadvertently Makes The Case For Nearly Doubling The Minimum Wage

 

Making $2.15 an hour certainly does sound worse than today’s minimum wage, which federal law mandates must be at least $7.25 an hour. But what Blackburn didn’t realize is that she accidentally undermined her own argument, since the value of the dollar has changed immensely since her teenage years. Blackburn was born in 1952, so she likely took that retail job at some point between 1968 and 1970. And according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ inflation calculator, the $2.15 an hour Blackburn made then is worth somewhere between$12.72 and $14.18 an hour in today’s dollars, depending on which year she started.

 

Raise That Wage

First of all, the current level of the minimum wage is very low by any reasonable standard. For about four decades, increases in the minimum wage have consistently fallen behind inflation, so that in real terms the minimum wageis substantially lower than it was in the 1960s. Meanwhile,worker productivity has doubled. Isn’t it time for a raise?

Now, you might argue that even if the current minimum wage seems low, raising it would cost jobs. But there’s evidence on that question — lots and lots of evidence, because the minimum wage is one of the most studied issues in all of economics. U.S. experience, it turns out, offers many “natural experiments” here, in which one state raises its minimum wage while others do not. And while there are dissenters, as there always are, the great preponderance of the evidence from these natural experiments points to little if any negative effect of minimum wage increases on employment

<snip.>

What this means, in turn, is that the main effect of a rise in minimum wages is a rise in the incomes of hard-working but low-paid Americans — which is, of course, what we’re trying to accomplish.

Finally, it’s important to understand how the minimum wage interacts with other policies aimed at helping lower-paid workers, in particular the earned-income tax credit, which helps low-income families who help themselves. The tax credit — which has traditionally had bipartisan support, although that may be ending — is also good policy. But it has a well-known defect: Some of its benefits end up flowing not to workers but to employers, in the form of lower wages. And guess what? An increase in the minimum wage helps correct this defect. It turns out that the tax credit and the minimum wage aren’t competing policies, they’re complementary policies that work best in tandem.

so yes, i opened a whole new can of worms, but anyone who knows anything about the economy knows that it is all connected and raising the minimum wage would certainly go along way with helping people's spending power only at the cost of massive corporate profits.