Wealth Inequality in America

[LouisianaHusker]

That assuming that if the wages were increased to $15 plus an hour that the cost would only increase by $0.22. In all reality they prices of such items would jump way more than that in order to cover the extra taxes and so forth and also used as an excuse to increase corporate profits.

[StPaulHusker]

http://www.thedailyb...m=Cheat%20Sheet

 

This week has seen mass protests and job walk-outs across the fast-food industry, with employees from McDonald’s to Taco Bell demanding higher wages and better treatment. Some labor economists have said that a slight increase in the price of a burger could result in a big jump in wages—enough to raise the fortunes of thousands of $7.25-an-hour employees. (Even working 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, a minimum-wage worker only takes home $15,080 a year, well below thepoverty line of $18,480 for a family of three.)

 

 

But if the fast-food giants agreed to do this, would consumers bite?

 

 

To find out, we consulted with economists Jeannette Wicks-Lim and Robert Pollin who have studied the relationship between wage increases in the fast-food industry and the cost of doing business. Using their formula, we created a Big Mac calculator that lets you see how your extra cents could translate into real-life wages. Give it a try!

 

I don't know about you all, but I'd be willing to pay $0.25 more for a Big Mac (assuming I ever ate one) so that people would have something approaching a livable wage.

While I would agree that most people would pay another quarter for a Big Mac, the price would increase way more than that. There are people that work for McDonalds that presumably already make $15/hr. So if they bump all of the $7.25/hr people up to $15, then I am sure the people already making $15 would want a bump to $30, and the people presumably making $30 would want $60, and on and on. So now the Big Mac cost increase is way more.

 

I am all for these people making more money, but it sets off a chain reaction that could potentially hurt the economy by making things cost more just as easily as it would help people get above a poverty line.

[tschu]

In order to match the buying power of the US dollar in the mid-1960s, minimum wage should be $11/hr today

 

This country should be progressing, not moving in the opposite direction.

[sd'sker]

In order to match the buying power of the US dollar in the mid-1960s, minimum wage should be $11/hr today

 

This country should be progressing, not moving in the opposite direction.

the opposite of progress is congress.

[StPaulHusker]

[StPaulHusker]

[carlfense]

The only downside would be having to touch that thing . . .

[Junior]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/goldman-sachs-ceo-lloyd-blankfein-income-inequality-is-destabilizing/

 

 

Income inequality is destabilizing and "responsible for the divisions in the country," CEO and chairman of Goldman Sachs Lloyd Blankfein said on "CBS This Morning" Tuesday.

 

"The divisions could get wider," Blankfein said. "If you can't legislate, you can't deal with problems. [if] you can't deal with problems, you can't drive growth and you can't drive the success of the country. It's a very big issue and something that has to be dealt with."

He said one way to deal with it would be to "make the pie grow."

"Too much of the GDP over the last generation has gone to too few of the people," he said.

[Abdullah the Butcher]

But I bet that a$$hole isn't giving up any of his CEO pay to help.

 

 

Goldman Sachs paid its chief executive, Lloyd Blankfein, $21m last year – and granted him a further $5m in bonus shares in January.

 

The Wall Street bank handed Blankfein $13.3m (£8.7m) in restricted shares and a $5.7m cash bonus on top of his $2m annual salary last year.

 

His total 2012 pay was $9m more than in 2011, and the highest since the $68m he received in 2007, before the financial crisis struck.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/apr/12/goldman-sachs-lloyd-blankfein-pay

[HuskerShark]

If you guys haven't read the book Rich Dad, Poor Dad you really need to. I listened to it on audio several times a couple months ago, and it drastically changed my way of thinking in regards to money.

[tschu]

You know that idea where you deserve more money for doing your job well? Not for CEOs...

 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2014/07/23/ceo_pay_for_performance_this_graph_shows_why_it_s_a_sham.html

[BigRedBuster]

You know that idea where you deserve more money for doing your job well? Not for CEOs...

 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2014/07/23/ceo_pay_for_performance_this_graph_shows_why_it_s_a_sham.html

That's true at every level. It's only an issue with CEOs because they are making millions.

[LukeinNE]

And saying the tax code changes have benefited the rich because they used to be 94% and now they're only 39.6% is akin to Obama saying he has cut the deficit in half since he took office. Both may be factually accurate but that doesn't really tell you anything without looking at a bigger picture.

 

As I said, it depends on your time frame. Starting at any time in the last 25 years (and others before that), the changes in the tax code have definitely not been "extremely beneficial" to the wealthy.

 

One annoyance I have with the debate over the tax code is the talking point that virtually any downward shift in rates is going to necessarily benefit wealthier people. This is true, of course, but only because the bottom 60% of the country pays very little in taxes. CBO:

 

 

 

Well of course if we cut taxes, it's mostly going to benefit the wealthy. If you're in the bottom 40% there's simply not much left to cut.

[carlfense]

 

And saying the tax code changes have benefited the rich because they used to be 94% and now they're only 39.6% is akin to Obama saying he has cut the deficit in half since he took office. Both may be factually accurate but that doesn't really tell you anything without looking at a bigger picture.

 

As I said, it depends on your time frame. Starting at any time in the last 25 years (and others before that), the changes in the tax code have definitely not been "extremely beneficial" to the wealthy.

 

One annoyance I have with the debate over the tax code is the talking point that virtually any downward shift in rates is going to necessarily benefit wealthier people. This is true, of course, but only because the bottom 60% of the country pays very little in taxes. CBO:

 

 

 

Well of course if we cut taxes, it's mostly going to benefit the wealthy. If you're in the bottom 40% there's simply not much left to cut.

 

You're certainly smart enough to understand what is meant when a certain political party says that they want to "flatten" the tax code.

[LukeinNE]

You're certainly smart enough to understand what is meant when a certain political party says that they want to "flatten" the tax code.

 

Typically such plans don't take sufficient form to analyze, but my guess is that it would involve a general reduction in rates, paired with a dramatic curbing of exemptions, deductions, and tax credits. The net tax effect would depend on which of the latter category are retained and which are eliminated.

 

The one example I can think of would be Herman Cain's 9/9/9 plan, which replaces virtually the entire federal tax structure (including nearly all deductions and so on) with 9% taxes on income, sales, and corporations. It would substantially raise taxes on lower income folks through the sales tax, though the income and corporate taxes would be a wash. The bigger concern with that one was the hole it'd blow in the federal deficit.