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.
Unchecked income inequality will eventually implode the economy if the consumer base shrinks enough. Economists have run a lot of data on this is the last 20 years, and we know empirically that the best fiscal policy is giving tax cuts to the middle and lower classes, while raising taxes on the wealthy. The data confirms what intuitively makes sense, poorer consumers spend more of every dollar they make, translating to more growth in the economy. The news of the "Paradise Papers" yesterday only confirms that an immense amount of wealth sits in tax havens generating and contributing nothing to the economy.
In terms of your argument on government spending not improving outcomes, that's false. Again, more data has come out in recent years comparing countries by generational income elasticity. Countries that invest more in social programs for the lower and middle classes have children that are more likely to do better than their parents. The US is one of the worst countries in this regard.
I'll never understand where people get these bizarre views when the research clearly indicates that massive income inequality and trickle down economics hurts the American dream and class mobility.
Rich people who didn't exponentially improve their wealth would not exponentially improve their wealth after the effort.
Trump managed to quadruple his wealth in his lifetime. If you stripped Trump of his wealth what makes you think he would increase it 40 or 50 fold?? Hes never done it in 70 years so I doubt he'd do it in 5 or 10.
I actually know quite a few middle class people who have increased their wealth 20 fold in their lifetime. Those would fare much better than Trump
once again you are assuming that i suggested that all will get back to where they were, when that is not the case. try again.
Let's say we took 1/2 of the top 20%'s wealth, liquidated it and deposited in the bank accounts of America's underclass. They would just spend it on cigarettes, booze, cars, NFL games, gambling, etc., which would make it flow back up into the 20%'s income.
Now I know a liberal is going to counter my argument with "Well, we should take from the 1% and not give it out in handouts but instead spend it on schools, libraries, free daycare, etc." Since when has any of that helped? We spend more per student than any other country and with no results to show for it. We already have free libraries and the underclass uses them to goof around on the internet. We basically shower the underclass with "opportunity" and they don't improve their lives.
Every individual or couple I know who is in the upper-middle class (income of $150-$400k/yr depending on location) are more intelligent, have better habits, are better looking, are more socially adept, know how to invest their money, and they are naturally going to be on the top of society even if you confiscated all their wealth tomorrow.
MOST Americans spend too much. SOME people don't spend too much - they earn too little. (People on C-D often tell me I have an income problem.) People who have an income problem but not a spending problem would become better off.
Unchecked income inequality will eventually implode the economy if the consumer base shrinks enough. Economists have run a lot of data on this is the last 20 years, and we know empirically that the best fiscal policy is giving tax cuts to the middle and lower classes, while raising taxes on the wealthy. The data confirms what intuitively makes sense, poorer consumers spend more of every dollar they make, translating to more growth in the economy. The news of the "Paradise Papers" yesterday only confirms that an immense amount of wealth sits in tax havens generating and contributing nothing to the economy.
In terms of your argument on government spending not improving outcomes, that's false. Again, more data has come out in recent years comparing countries by generational income elasticity. Countries that invest more in social programs for the lower and middle classes have children that are more likely to do better than their parents. The US is one of the worst countries in this regard.
I'll never understand where people get these bizarre views when the research clearly indicates that massive income inequality and trickle down economics hurts the American dream and class mobility.
I don't think tax cuts will help most low-wage workers. Tax cuts will help low wage workers who own their home or otherwise don't have to pay market rent (adults living in mommy's basement?), but tax cuts will lead to a round of rent spikes which for low-wage workers will negate the financial benefit of their tax cuts.
Unchecked income inequality will eventually implode the economy if the consumer base shrinks enough. Economists have run a lot of data on this is the last 20 years, and we know empirically that the best fiscal policy is giving tax cuts to the middle and lower classes, while raising taxes on the wealthy. The data confirms what intuitively makes sense, poorer consumers spend more of every dollar they make, translating to more growth in the economy. The news of the "Paradise Papers" yesterday only confirms that an immense amount of wealth sits in tax havens generating and contributing nothing to the economy.
Sorry, you have no understanding of how an economy works. Consumer spending does not grow an economy. If everyone spent 100% of the money they made, the economy would grow at a 0.00% rate. The reason China's economy is growing so fast is because household savings is somewhere close to 30%. The surplus money gets invested into technology research, factories, infrastructure, etc.
I would like to know is, the areas that have the most welfare help and section 8 housing, tend to still be breeding grounds for crime. I'm like, why? You got food, clothing and a roof over your head. Why is there still crime going on? What else could you possibly need that you can't stop stealing and killing?
Humans are hierarchical social animals. As such, once material NEEDS are met, humans remain acquisitive in order to obtain intangible social advancement in the hierarchy, e.g. status.
In Finland, teachers coming out of college can't even pick and choose where they want to work- the education department decides for them, depending on where they think their skillsets will be most useful.
This is not true. Of course you're allowed to work where you want.
Let's say we took 1/2 of the top 20%'s wealth, liquidated it and deposited in the bank accounts of America's underclass. They would just spend it on cigarettes, booze, cars, NFL games, gambling, etc., which would make it flow back up into the 20%'s income.
Now I know a liberal is going to counter my argument with "Well, we should take from the 1% and not give it out in handouts but instead spend it on schools, libraries, free daycare, etc." Since when has any of that helped? We spend more per student than any other country and with no results to show for it. We already have free libraries and the underclass uses them to goof around on the internet. We basically shower the underclass with "opportunity" and they don't improve their lives.
Every individual or couple I know who is in the upper-middle class (income of $150-$400k/yr depending on location) are more intelligent, have better habits, are better looking, are more socially adept, know how to invest their money, and they are naturally going to be on the top of society even if you confiscated all their wealth tomorrow.
Who says a wealth distribution would be spread around, spent on more free stuff for the poor?
Just you. Your opinion only.
If there ever was a redistribution, I would expect some of the poor and some of the middle class would use the money wisely, investing it in their careers and futures, while others would not.
But the rich would not do the same. Wealthy people understand one basic thing others do not: Money never sleeps. Investment is the only way to keep money awake all the time, and when it's awake, it's always busy generating more money.
So I can agree that most of the rich would probably regain some of their former wealth. Not all, probably, but our wealthiest people are far wealthier than those in other countries. In the rest of the world, a wealthy person is about 20 times richer than the average, while here, a wealthy person is as much as 600 times wealthier than the average.
How much money does a wealthy person really need? That's the real question.
Any redistribution will not be enough to make us all wealthy. The poorest among us, at best, would not rise very far up the economic ladder. Many would spend it unwisely, because the poor have never had much money to spend, so they've never learned how to handle any excess they have. Because they have never had any excess at all.
But all the money would not go only to the poor. It would go to the lower middle class, the middle middle class, and the upper middle class as well. That's what redistribution is all about- it's not the poor, it's the middle class that counts. Because the middle class is the largest economic group in America.
Each of those groups would handle the money differently because as one rises up the economic ladder, one learns more what to do with extra money that isn't needed at the moment.
Humans are hierarchical social animals. As such, once material NEEDS are met, humans remain acquisitive in order to obtain intangible social advancement in the hierarchy, e.g. status.
Re the bolded...You obviously don't know very many people who have had a significant amount of money within their families for generations.
Unchecked income inequality will eventually implode the economy if the consumer base shrinks enough. Economists have run a lot of data on this is the last 20 years, and we know empirically that the best fiscal policy is giving tax cuts to the middle and lower classes, while raising taxes on the wealthy. The data confirms what intuitively makes sense, poorer consumers spend more of every dollar they make, translating to more growth in the economy. The news of the "Paradise Papers" yesterday only confirms that an immense amount of wealth sits in tax havens generating and contributing nothing to the economy.
In terms of your argument on government spending not improving outcomes, that's false. Again, more data has come out in recent years comparing countries by generational income elasticity. Countries that invest more in social programs for the lower and middle classes have children that are more likely to do better than their parents. The US is one of the worst countries in this regard.
I'll never understand where people get these bizarre views when the research clearly indicates that massive income inequality and trickle down economics hurts the American dream and class mobility.
Even wealthy people have agreed on this. A guy who has an extra $10K in his pocket isn't going to spread that wealth in his typical neighborhood.... he has no use for an extra, combined $10K of groceries, widgets, etc. He'll maybe buy a few extra, nicer shirts, but otherwise stash the rest away in savings.
.
OTOH, a community that gets more money in their pockets will buy necessities, and even consider doing stuff or more of it, like eating out, or going to a show.
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.
We spend more per student than any other country and with no results to show for it. We already have free libraries and the underclass uses them to goof around on the internet. We basically shower the underclass with "opportunity" and they don't improve their lives. 
