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.
LOL, what an embarrassing video for Thatcher. She absolutely strawmanned both of the arguments raised to her while a bunch of weak-kneed sycophants cheered her on. Thatcher and Reagan are absolutely indicative of the neoliberal policies which serve the interests of the rich above all else.
Usually I hate when people bump their threads like this, but this is a great post. Income inequality is extremely deleterious to the health of our nation, and neither the Republicans and the Democrats, for the most part, seem all that concerned with the fact that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. This is why Obama's concession to the Republicans re: the Bush tax cuts is so atrocious.
I agree and was very disgusted with the appeasing thing. He claimed he'd rather be a good one term president than a bad two term one. Looks like he may not be either.
And I usually don't bump my threads (the few that I've started here) but hey, at least I am not posting multiple threads of the same topic with different titles and linking to the same three websites over and over again!
No, I'm still not going to read the links but you wanted me to respond to the OP so here it is.
Nobody said increasing income inequality would make things better. I don't know where you're getting this. Nobody want to increase income inequality, R or D. I can say that the Repubs would like to stop with the handouts so the lower classes can help themselves move to a higher social bracket.
From your excerpts:
"Under Republican administrations, real income growth for the lower- and middle-classes has consistently lagged well behind the income growth rate for the rich—and well behind the income growth rate for the lower and middle classes themselves under Democratic administrations."
Do you know why? Because the tax structure under Republicans is such that the rich can let their money make them more money. It takes money to make money, and if you're not willing to bust your butt for a couple years to get some cash flow, there's a problem. Thus, going back to my original assertion that the poor is getting poorer due to their own work ethic. The income stagnation for the wealthy under Democratic leadership is b/c they're taxed to death.
"Princeton's Paul Krugman has similarly been considering whether the Great Divergence helped cause the recession by pushing middle-income Americans into debt."
Who took on that debt? Everyone, especially the middle class who wanted to live an "American dream" that was beyond their means. Who bought houses they couldn't afford? The middle class. Who made a bet on the future and lost (regarding ARMs)? Mostly middle class Americans. Who lost lots in the stock market due to betting on the future and losing? The middle class and the wealthy. There is no "pushing middle-income Americans into debt" b/c they had to take on that debt themselves. It's their responsibility to balance their household budgets and not make stupid decisions.
"The biggest problem with runaway inequality, however, is that it undermines the unity of purpose necessary for any firm, or any nation, to thrive."
Is this saying we all have to be middle class to thrive? I don't understand this premise at all. If anything, the lower classes should see how the upper classes live and strive toward that lifestyle. Ultimately, it is up to the individual to do what they need to do to live the life they want to live.
"People don't work hard, take risks and make sacrifices if they think the rewards will all flow to others. Conservative Republicans use this argument all the time in trying to justify lower tax rates for wealthy earners and investors, but they chose to ignore it when it comes to the incomes of everyone else."
The bolded is the smartest thing I've seen out of your post. Republicans don't justify lower tax rates for the wealthy, conservatives want to see each group taxed appropriately and it's not fair for the wealthy to be taxed disproportionately. It does not give the poor and middle class any incentive to move up in life. If I'm upper middle class and I was presented with an opportunity that might make me just enough to push me over the edge to a drastically higher tax bracket, I might not take the chance. I probably wouldn't, why work harder to end up with less than I have to begin with due to taxes? And how do the Repubs not apply this concept to the middle class? They definitely don't apply it to the poor b/c they're the ones getting the handouts. Actually in this day and age, over 50% of people do not pay any taxes and many get entitlements so who's the one getting screwed now?
What is your evidence that the poor do not work hard take risks and make sacrifices? Or that the rich do? How do you figure the rich are being taxed disproportionately when when they have much more money then they really need? It all comes back to greed the attitude this is mine and I do not want anyone else to have any. What makes you think if the poor had more they would be less incentive to move up? People no matter what income level are always looking to move up.
The argument you rarely hear is income has increased across the board, the poorest people in this country are much better off than the poorest people 50 years ago. The problem with liberal policies is while shrinking that gap you're also making everyone less properous.
Actually, you are not taking into account the diminished value of the dollar.
If you hadn't heard the entire theory the rep economic plans are based on were refuted with thier use of poor data and selective use of data to skew the results
What is your evidence that the poor do not work hard take risks and make sacrifices? Or that the rich do? How do you figure the rich are being taxed disproportionately when when they have much more money then they really need? It all comes back to greed the attitude this is mine and I do not want anyone else to have any. What makes you think if the poor had more they would be less incentive to move up? People no matter what income level are always looking to move up.
My readings suggest that the poor generally are risk-averse, and it is probably prudent for them to be so, as they have little margin for adversity. Unfortunately, this also denies them the upside potential that comes with undertaking risk.
Precisely. If we're going to make the ability to survive in our society contingent on taking on risk then we have to do a better job providing a floor for folks to stand on, just in case those risks don't pan out. I have no problem with risk governing just how much comfort and luxury one can afford, but basic needs and the opportunity to lift one's self out of poverty cannot defensibly be hinged on a craps shoot.
The argument you rarely hear is income has increased across the board, the poorest people in this country are much better off than the poorest people 50 years ago. The problem with liberal policies is while shrinking that gap you're also making everyone less properous.
While that is true, most of those income gains came in the 1960s and early 1970s. Since 1979, the vast majority of income gains have been concentrated in the top 1% (and more so in the top 0.1%.)
Income inequality has grown over the last 30 years or more driven by three dynamics: rising inequality of labor income (wages and compensation), rising inequality of capital income, and an increasing share of income going to capital income rather than labor income. As a consequence, examining market-based incomes one finds that “the top 1 percent of households have secured a very large share of all of the gains in income—59.9 percent of the gains from 1979–2007, while the top 0.1 percent seized an even more disproportionate share: 36 percent. In comparison, only 8.6 percent of income gains have gone to the bottom 90 percent” (Mishel and Bivens 2011).
Two-thirds the inequality, reflects a shift of income from labor to capital and, within that, a shift of labor income to the top and away from the middle. Income of typical workers would be 30 or 40% higher than they are if inequality hadn’t increased.
My readings suggest that the poor generally are risk-averse, and it is probably prudent for them to be so, as they have little margin for adversity. Unfortunately, this also denies them the upside potential that comes with undertaking risk.
What you are doing is overvaluing capital over labor -- someone taking capital risk while waking at 9:30 AM and having a leisurely brunch by the pool is valued higher than the people who wake up by 5:30 AM and labor all day.
The preferable taxes treatment of capital gains and dividends compared to ordinary income taxes confirms this disparity.
We're allowing greedy individuals in some of our top corporations to essentially rip off the hundreds and thousands of individuals it took to grow their massive businesses.
Our top corporations are receiving subsidies, some not paying taxes, all while providing inferior service and often time inferior products outside of the tech field.
[quote=Evenstar51;16635517]What an excellent post! The last paragraph quoted is so disturbing. And the distribution of wealth is truly obscene:
Quote:
"As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wages and salary workers.) [end quote]
So many people in that lower 80% just voted to retain the status quo that leaves them with a paltry 15% of the wealth. Strengthen the middle class and reduce this disparity, or the U.S. is doomed.
Top 1 percent
Income: $1,318,200
Net Worth: $16,439,400
hmmm, but Obama went after people making $200k a year. That is $1,118,200 less than the articles states is the top 1%
So when Obama calls people at $200k a year, the rich, the 1%, he is lying. Imagine that lol
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.
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.
