Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The persistent rise in the share of income that the top 1% in many countries hold may be hurting the reported life ratings of the other 99%, with concerning implications for public health and national productivity, new research shows. A 1% increase in the share of taxable income held by the top 1% hurts life satisfaction as much as a 1.4% increase in the country-level unemployment rate.
(snip)
The authors started their research by asking if income inequality at the very top really matters to the average person's life evaluation -- and the results show conclusively that it does. Other studies have demonstrated the strong links between unhappiness and low productivity, the increase in sick leave and stress. Policymakers may need to pay more attention to the wider consequences of the rising share of income the top 1% enjoy.
so the rich, makes money off of federal debt, leaving the middle class to pay the money back, thereby increasing wealth inequality because the rich gets richer and the rest get poorer, which makes me curious why you guys on the left, non stop babble about needing to add to the debt, as if somehow it helps the lower segments of society when the opposite is true.
I wish they stop calling it "income inequality". It's really not about "equality" and it gives conservatives endless arguments against it. It's about livable wages for low income workers and stopping insane earnings at the top.
No reasonable person in todays society demands equal income for all.
If you earn enough to have a roof over your head and food in your belly, you are doing better than millons in other countries. We are not responsible to make sure our "poor" have acces to a cell phone or TV.
Because that is a simplified progressive tax. Good in theory, but the majority of the tax code is incentives to reward certain productive behaviors like home ownership or using solar power.
so the rich, makes money off of federal debt, leaving the middle class to pay the money back, thereby increasing wealth inequality because the rich gets richer and the rest get poorer, which makes me curious why you guys on the left, non stop babble about needing to add to the debt, as if somehow it helps the lower segments of society when the opposite is true.
Yes, Congress redistributes income upward every time it spends and every time it raises the debt ceiling.
I'm not the one calling for more spending, I'm calling for reducing our standard of living by reducing regulation and reducing expenses.
Problem is, Americans have entirely way too much (emotional and financial) baggage tied up in their homes and neighborhoods and nobody is willing to see retrenchment in those aspects of their lives.
If you earn enough to have a roof over your head and food in your belly, you are doing better than millons in other countries. We are not responsible to make sure our "poor" have acces to a cell phone or TV.
Ah, that might be fine for those living in the present, but is utterly insufficient for any forward-thinking human who is concerned about earning enough to live in the future.
To that end, I would like to be able to spend less today on the roof over my head in order that I might be able to save for a future time in which I can no longer earn enough to keep a roof over my head.
But other people with more money than I don't want me to have those cheaper housing options.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.