Wealth Inequality in America (1 Viewer)

[RCon]

I think MOP pretty much has the right idea. This country is a pile of dog#### sliding downhill faster than a freight train. It's all because we have allowed big business to control everything. Politicians don't care about Joe Blow (the vast majority of the american people), they do care about money and power. It will end someday and it won't be a good thing for anyone in this country.

That's a cop-out, IMO. Politicians are only doing what their constituents want them to do.

B.S. Politicians don't care one whit what their constituents want. They care what will get them reelected, which is not remotely the same thing.

 

[Dentist]

It will end someday and it won't be a good thing for anyone in this country.

Yup. This is true. The rumblings are starting amongst the middle and lower classes. They are a long way from a full on French Revolution style revolt... but if the country quits throwing enough bones towards those classes to keep them satiated, we may have a problem on our hands.

I'm not a 1%er, but I'm definitely a top 10%er.. and I work with the working class and am watching them get poorer all the time. Some of it is most definitely their own fault through a myriad of poor personal finance decisions and general stupidity... but the more online articles and columns I read like this.. or "occupy" movements that I see happen, or threads like this... I know that we're probably less than 50 years away from some type of major melt down unless some hard to swallow changes get made.

 

[Jewell]

I think MOP pretty much has the right idea. This country is a pile of dog#### sliding downhill faster than a freight train. It's all because we have allowed big business to control everything. Politicians don't care about Joe Blow (the vast majority of the american people), they do care about money and power. It will end someday and it won't be a good thing for anyone in this country.

That's a cop-out, IMO. Politicians are only doing what their constituents want them to do.

B.S. Politicians don't care one whit what their constituents want. They care what will get them reelected, which is not remotely the same thing.

That, plus Congress' historically low approval rating suggests that most Americans don't believe that politicians, even the politicians elected to represent them, are representing their wishes and best interests.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I think MOP pretty much has the right idea. This country is a pile of dog#### sliding downhill faster than a freight train. It's all because we have allowed big business to control everything. Politicians don't care about Joe Blow (the vast majority of the american people), they do care about money and power. It will end someday and it won't be a good thing for anyone in this country.

That's a cop-out, IMO. Politicians are only doing what their constituents want them to do.

B.S. Politicians don't care one whit what their constituents want. They care what will get them reelected, which is not remotely the same thing.

If constituents aren't voting for what they want, whose fault is that?

 

[Dentist]

That, plus Congress' historically low approval rating suggests that most Americans don't believe that politicians, even the politicians elected to represent them, are representing their wishes and best interests.

People like their own guy that they elect, just not the rest of the guys. Regardless of how he votes or what he does really.

the problem with politics is that type of person who would actually go through all the effort to run for the position is absolutely not the type of guy that we should want representing us.

Who would want to go through all the bullcrap it takes?

For instance.. I want someone like Mark Cuban to be president. But he wouldn't take the job even if you gave it to him without the horrible part of having to run and debate for it. Because the job sucks... being scrutinized like that sucks.

 

[Joe T]

The bigger problem is that we have almost 1/2 the American public who believe that the rules as currently concocted need to be amended to tilt the game more in favor of the 1%, and that those who have been "losers" in the wealth distribution game are the problem.

It's insane.

Went a little heavy on the pine tree perfume there, kid?

Sir, it's an taxicab air freshener.

Good, you've pinpointed it. Step two is washing it out.

 

[Slapdash]

I think MOP pretty much has the right idea. This country is a pile of dog#### sliding downhill faster than a freight train. It's all because we have allowed big business to control everything. Politicians don't care about Joe Blow (the vast majority of the american people), they do care about money and power. It will end someday and it won't be a good thing for anyone in this country.

That's a cop-out, IMO. Politicians are only doing what their constituents want them to do.

Maybe if you replace the word constituents with top donors this post would be true.

 

[Megalomaniac]

I think MOP pretty much has the right idea. This country is a pile of dog#### sliding downhill faster than a freight train. It's all because we have allowed big business to control everything. Politicians don't care about Joe Blow (the vast majority of the american people), they do care about money and power. It will end someday and it won't be a good thing for anyone in this country.

That's a cop-out, IMO. Politicians are only doing what their constituents want them to do.

So these corporations, what do they own? Their own money that other people choose to give them by buying thier products. IMO, you are poor in this country because of health or laziness....end of story. I support helping those that truly need it..but if you can breathe, walk, talk, and have no REAL disability and you are poor...then you made bad choices or aren't working hard enough. My parents came to this country with practically no money. They worked menial jobs and 100 hour work weeks to achieve and save something. They made me pay my own way through college and taught me the value of working hard, making sacrfices and saving my money. We never once collected unemployment or asked for help from anybody. You are a taker or a maker.....the reason this country is going downhill is that 43% of American rather take than give. Wealth distribution is just another word for theft.

I can choose not to buy a big corporation's products. But I can't choose not to pay big brother, just try not to pay your taxes. Let's see...I can make a sacrfice and not buy a corporation's product OR go to jail. Big corporations have their influence and impact on our society, some good and some bad, but it's govts that have the true power over us all. I now own stock in many of these "evil" corporations and even worked for some of them...this fallacy that they have some evil agenda to control the world. It is an argument made by people with no understanding of the business world or economics. History has taught us that the ones trying to control the world are usually the politicians. It yet another liberal lie that makes the takers feel good...like most liberal arguments. Our greedy politicians on both sides of the ailse care more about their power, prestige, & paycheck than their own people. American's are so business and economically challenged and no longer understand the god given rights given tous by our founders...that our politicans no longer fear them. So in summary, it's the takers and greedy politicians that are destryoing this country.

“A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both.”― Milton Friedman

"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that, my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it." -- Dr. Adrian P. Rogers

 

[DrJ]

I think MOP pretty much has the right idea. This country is a pile of dog#### sliding downhill faster than a freight train. It's all because we have allowed big business to control everything. Politicians don't care about Joe Blow (the vast majority of the american people), they do care about money and power. It will end someday and it won't be a good thing for anyone in this country.

That's a cop-out, IMO. Politicians are only doing what their constituents want them to do.

B.S. Politicians don't care one whit what their constituents want. They care what will get them reelected, which is not remotely the same thing.

If constituents aren't voting for what they want, whose fault is that?

They are voting for what they want. As an example, Obama said all kinds of cool stuff about government transparency, not starting a bunch of needless wars, lower medical bills, etc. Who doesn't want that?

Where they've failed is in holding these guys accountable when they don't actually deliver on what they want, and what said politician promised that they'd deliver. As an example, there's actually still people that would vote for Obama again knowing what they know now. Because despite living up to 10% of what he promised at best, that's better than 0%.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I think MOP pretty much has the right idea. This country is a pile of dog#### sliding downhill faster than a freight train. It's all because we have allowed big business to control everything. Politicians don't care about Joe Blow (the vast majority of the american people), they do care about money and power. It will end someday and it won't be a good thing for anyone in this country.

That's a cop-out, IMO. Politicians are only doing what their constituents want them to do.

B.S. Politicians don't care one whit what their constituents want. They care what will get them reelected, which is not remotely the same thing.

If constituents aren't voting for what they want, whose fault is that?

They are voting for what they want. As an example, Obama said all kinds of cool stuff about government transparency, not starting a bunch of needless wars, lower medical bills, etc. Who doesn't want that?

Where they've failed is in holding these guys accountable when they don't actually deliver on what they want, and what said politician promised that they'd deliver. As an example, there's actually still people that would vote for Obama again knowing what they know now. Because despite living up to 10% of what he promised at best, that's better than 0%.

Hey, here's a thought- maybe part of the problem is mindless partisanship and finger-pointing?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I think MOP pretty much has the right idea. This country is a pile of dog#### sliding downhill faster than a freight train. It's all because we have allowed big business to control everything. Politicians don't care about Joe Blow (the vast majority of the american people), they do care about money and power. It will end someday and it won't be a good thing for anyone in this country.

That's a cop-out, IMO. Politicians are only doing what their constituents want them to do.

B.S. Politicians don't care one whit what their constituents want. They care what will get them reelected, which is not remotely the same thing.

If constituents aren't voting for what they want, whose fault is that?

I give up. The drafters of the Constitution?

It's not the voters' fault. Their ignorance is rational.

 

[DrJ]

I think MOP pretty much has the right idea. This country is a pile of dog#### sliding downhill faster than a freight train. It's all because we have allowed big business to control everything. Politicians don't care about Joe Blow (the vast majority of the american people), they do care about money and power. It will end someday and it won't be a good thing for anyone in this country.

That's a cop-out, IMO. Politicians are only doing what their constituents want them to do.

B.S. Politicians don't care one whit what their constituents want. They care what will get them reelected, which is not remotely the same thing.

If constituents aren't voting for what they want, whose fault is that?

They are voting for what they want. As an example, Obama said all kinds of cool stuff about government transparency, not starting a bunch of needless wars, lower medical bills, etc. Who doesn't want that?

Where they've failed is in holding these guys accountable when they don't actually deliver on what they want, and what said politician promised that they'd deliver. As an example, there's actually still people that would vote for Obama again knowing what they know now. Because despite living up to 10% of what he promised at best, that's better than 0%.

Hey, here's a thought- maybe part of the problem is mindless partisanship and finger-pointing?

It was simply an example. A relevant example since he's the guy in charge of righting this ship and sold you out to bunch of rich guys, but just an example.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Hey, here's a thought- maybe part of the problem is mindless partisanship and finger-pointing?

Whose fault is that?

 

[TobiasFunke]

I think MOP pretty much has the right idea. This country is a pile of dog#### sliding downhill faster than a freight train. It's all because we have allowed big business to control everything. Politicians don't care about Joe Blow (the vast majority of the american people), they do care about money and power. It will end someday and it won't be a good thing for anyone in this country.

That's a cop-out, IMO. Politicians are only doing what their constituents want them to do.

B.S. Politicians don't care one whit what their constituents want. They care what will get them reelected, which is not remotely the same thing.

If constituents aren't voting for what they want, whose fault is that?

I give up. The drafters of the Constitution?

It's not the voters' fault. Their ignorance is rational.

And I'd say it's not the politician's fault either, because doing what gets them reelected is also rational.

Drafters of the Constitution is a good starting point. I say it's time to stop treating it, and the Supreme Court's interpretations of it, as an unassailable text. Hell, they had the foresight to build in an amendment process. If the court decides that political donations are protected free speech under the First Amendment, why not add an Amendment that removes that protection? I don't think many people include check-writing in what they consider to be the vital importance of free speech.

 

[DrJ]

I think MOP pretty much has the right idea. This country is a pile of dog#### sliding downhill faster than a freight train. It's all because we have allowed big business to control everything. Politicians don't care about Joe Blow (the vast majority of the american people), they do care about money and power. It will end someday and it won't be a good thing for anyone in this country.

That's a cop-out, IMO. Politicians are only doing what their constituents want them to do.

B.S. Politicians don't care one whit what their constituents want. They care what will get them reelected, which is not remotely the same thing.

If constituents aren't voting for what they want, whose fault is that?

I give up. The drafters of the Constitution?

It's not the voters' fault. Their ignorance is rational.

And I'd say it's not the politician's fault either, because doing what gets them reelected is also rational.

Drafters of the Constitution is a good starting point. I say it's time to stop treating it, and the Supreme Court's interpretations of it, as an unassailable text. Hell, they had the foresight to build in an amendment process. If the court decides that political donations are protected free speech under the First Amendment, why not add an Amendment that removes that protection? I don't think many people include check-writing in what they consider to be the vital importance of free speech.

I think there were some campaign promises in this area as well - at least in 2008.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I think MOP pretty much has the right idea. This country is a pile of dog#### sliding downhill faster than a freight train. It's all because we have allowed big business to control everything. Politicians don't care about Joe Blow (the vast majority of the american people), they do care about money and power. It will end someday and it won't be a good thing for anyone in this country.

That's a cop-out, IMO. Politicians are only doing what their constituents want them to do.

B.S. Politicians don't care one whit what their constituents want. They care what will get them reelected, which is not remotely the same thing.

If constituents aren't voting for what they want, whose fault is that?

I give up. The drafters of the Constitution?

It's not the voters' fault. Their ignorance is rational.

And I'd say it's not the politician's fault either, because doing what gets them reelected is also rational.

Right. Don't hate the players. Hate the game.

Drafters of the Constitution is a good starting point. I say it's time to stop treating it, and the Supreme Court's interpretations of it, as an unassailable text. Hell, they had the foresight to build in an amendment process. If the court decides that political donations are protected free speech under the First Amendment, why not add an Amendment that removes that protection? I don't think many people include check-writing in what they consider to be the vital importance of free speech.

With that specific example, I don't think an amendment is necessary. Check-writing to politicians is already non-protected. Limits (for individuals) and prohibitions (for corporations and unions) on campaign contributions have been upheld.

 

[TobiasFunke]

We get it, Dr. J. Everything is Obama's fault. Wealth inequality. Campaign finance. Miley Cyrus at the VMAs. The sixth season of Lost. A-Rod winning a World Series. It's all on that communist Muslim Obama. We agree? Good. Now let the grown-ups talk.

 

[DrJ]

We get it, Dr. J. Everything is Obama's fault. Wealth inequality. Campaign finance. Miley Cyrus at the VMAs. The sixth season of Lost. A-Rod winning a World Series. It's all on that communist Muslim Obama. We agree? Good. Now let the grown-ups talk.

Someone's a little sensitive here. Which I kind of get since your last great hope sold you down the river and you now realize there's no chance of this being fixed until our inevitable collapse. Carry on.

 

[Joe T]

"grown-ups"

 

[TobiasFunke]

I think MOP pretty much has the right idea. This country is a pile of dog#### sliding downhill faster than a freight train. It's all because we have allowed big business to control everything. Politicians don't care about Joe Blow (the vast majority of the american people), they do care about money and power. It will end someday and it won't be a good thing for anyone in this country.

That's a cop-out, IMO. Politicians are only doing what their constituents want them to do.

B.S. Politicians don't care one whit what their constituents want. They care what will get them reelected, which is not remotely the same thing.

If constituents aren't voting for what they want, whose fault is that?

I give up. The drafters of the Constitution?

It's not the voters' fault. Their ignorance is rational.

And I'd say it's not the politician's fault either, because doing what gets them reelected is also rational.

Right. Don't hate the players. Hate the game.

Drafters of the Constitution is a good starting point. I say it's time to stop treating it, and the Supreme Court's interpretations of it, as an unassailable text. Hell, they had the foresight to build in an amendment process. If the court decides that political donations are protected free speech under the First Amendment, why not add an Amendment that removes that protection? I don't think many people include check-writing in what they consider to be the vital importance of free speech.

With that specific example, I don't think an amendment is necessary. Check-writing to politicians is already non-protected. Limits (for individuals) and prohibitions (for corporations and unions) on campaign contributions have been upheld.

Right, but you need to close the soft money loopholes to make it effective. I'm not sure how you'd go about doing it effectively, but I know we can't really make much progress with Citizens United out there.

 

[DrJ]

I think MOP pretty much has the right idea. This country is a pile of dog#### sliding downhill faster than a freight train. It's all because we have allowed big business to control everything. Politicians don't care about Joe Blow (the vast majority of the american people), they do care about money and power. It will end someday and it won't be a good thing for anyone in this country.

That's a cop-out, IMO. Politicians are only doing what their constituents want them to do.

B.S. Politicians don't care one whit what their constituents want. They care what will get them reelected, which is not remotely the same thing.

If constituents aren't voting for what they want, whose fault is that?

I give up. The drafters of the Constitution?

It's not the voters' fault. Their ignorance is rational.

And I'd say it's not the politician's fault either, because doing what gets them reelected is also rational.

Right. Don't hate the players. Hate the game.

Drafters of the Constitution is a good starting point. I say it's time to stop treating it, and the Supreme Court's interpretations of it, as an unassailable text. Hell, they had the foresight to build in an amendment process. If the court decides that political donations are protected free speech under the First Amendment, why not add an Amendment that removes that protection? I don't think many people include check-writing in what they consider to be the vital importance of free speech.

With that specific example, I don't think an amendment is necessary. Check-writing to politicians is already non-protected. Limits (for individuals) and prohibitions (for corporations and unions) on campaign contributions have been upheld.

Right, but you need to close the soft money loopholes to make it effective. I'm not sure how you'd go about doing it effectively, but I know we can't really make much progress with Citizens United out there.

(and Obama)

 

[RCon]

Say what you want, but the facts are pretty clear. ARod never won a World Series when Bush or Clinton were President.

 

[DrJ]

I'd suggest that we take over some parks in NYC again, but it's kind of hot right now and soon it's going to get pretty cold, and I'm not sure the people are accustomed to dealing with such hardships quite yet.

 

[Johnnymac]

I think MOP pretty much has the right idea. This country is a pile of dog#### sliding downhill faster than a freight train. It's all because we have allowed big business to control everything. Politicians don't care about Joe Blow (the vast majority of the american people), they do care about money and power. It will end someday and it won't be a good thing for anyone in this country.

That's a cop-out, IMO. Politicians are only doing what their constituents lobbyists want them to do.

Fixed

 

[Jewell]

CEOs to Reveal Their 'Cheap Number' SEC Wants to Compare CEO Pay with Average Worker'shttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323308504579085470295337770.html?mod=e2fb

Perhaps you've seen those commercials for the Sleep Number mattress. What's your Sleep Number? Learn it and you'll have pleasant dreams.

There is another number that's giving the chief executives of America's largest companies nightmares. It expresses the ratio of their pay to that of their employees.

I call it the Cheap Number.

In 1977, renowned management thinker Peter Drucker wrote a piece for The Wall Street Journal complaining that this number had grown as high as 50 at many companies. "A ratio of 25-to-1…is well within the ratio most people in this country…consider proper and indeed desirable," he wrote.

Today the number is 354, according to a study touted by the AFL-CIO. Other studies show it well over 1,000 at some companies. A recent analysis by Bloomberg compared a former J.C. Penney CEO to a former J.C. Penney cashier and pegged the number there at 1,795.

Knowing this number raises a salient question: If you own a business, what would you rather have for your money? An army of more than 1,000 workers, or one delusional jerk in a suit?

The world is filled with enterprises paying fortunes to chief executives, but relatively little to almost everyone else.

Last week, the Securities and Exchange Commission finally proposed a rule that would require large, publicly traded companies to report the ratio of their CEO's pay to the median pay of their workers.

The Dodd-Frank financial-reform act of 2010 mandates that the SEC adopt this rule, but the regulator has been overrun by corporate lobbyists trying to block it.

The SEC said it has received 22,860 letters and a petition with 84,700 signatures. Thousands of pages of blah, blah, blah, and waa, waa, waa, arguing why America's biggest companies can't calculate their Cheap Numbers.

Complying would be "highly costly and burdensome, with tremendous uncertainty as to accuracy," wrote lawyers from Davis Polk, a Washington firm representing America's six largest banks.

Also piling on were groups like the HR Policy Association, which represents the human-resource officers of more than 300 large companies; the Retail Industry Leaders Association, which represents more than 200 retailers; and the American Benefits Council, a lobbying group that represents Fortune 500 companies.

"There is a widespread misconception that this information is readily available at the touch of a button," wrote a group of trade associations.

It's not? Sarah Anderson of the Institute for Policy Studies, which has lobbied for the rule, finds this puzzling. Coming up with numbers is what companies do best. "If they don't know what they're paying their own employees, their investors should be worried," she said.

The more likely explanation is that CEOs don't want their Cheap Numbers reported because they could be used against them in debates over tax policies and legislative reforms.

Even some of their own shareholders might want them to take their Cheap Numbers down a notch. "This further opens the window on CEO pay and will help shareholders to keep management accountable," the California Public Employees' Retirement System wrote in a news release applauding the proposal.

"They have reasons to be this paranoid," Ms. Anderson said. "They probably spent more money lobbying against this thing than it would cost them to just come up with the number."

 

[stbugs]

CEOs to Reveal Their 'Cheap Number'

SEC Wants to Compare CEO Pay with Average Worker'shttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323308504579085470295337770.html?mod=e2fb

Perhaps you've seen those commercials for the Sleep Number mattress. What's your Sleep Number? Learn it and you'll have pleasant dreams.

There is another number that's giving the chief executives of America's largest companies nightmares. It expresses the ratio of their pay to that of their employees.

I call it the Cheap Number.

In 1977, renowned management thinker Peter Drucker wrote a piece for The Wall Street Journal complaining that this number had grown as high as 50 at many companies. "A ratio of 25-to-1…is well within the ratio most people in this country…consider proper and indeed desirable," he wrote.

Today the number is 354, according to a study touted by the AFL-CIO. Other studies show it well over 1,000 at some companies. A recent analysis by Bloomberg compared a former J.C. Penney CEO to a former J.C. Penney cashier and pegged the number there at 1,795.

Knowing this number raises a salient question: If you own a business, what would you rather have for your money? An army of more than 1,000 workers, or one delusional jerk in a suit?

The world is filled with enterprises paying fortunes to chief executives, but relatively little to almost everyone else.

Last week, the Securities and Exchange Commission finally proposed a rule that would require large, publicly traded companies to report the ratio of their CEO's pay to the median pay of their workers.

The Dodd-Frank financial-reform act of 2010 mandates that the SEC adopt this rule, but the regulator has been overrun by corporate lobbyists trying to block it.

The SEC said it has received 22,860 letters and a petition with 84,700 signatures. Thousands of pages of blah, blah, blah, and waa, waa, waa, arguing why America's biggest companies can't calculate their Cheap Numbers.

Complying would be "highly costly and burdensome, with tremendous uncertainty as to accuracy," wrote lawyers from Davis Polk, a Washington firm representing America's six largest banks.

Also piling on were groups like the HR Policy Association, which represents the human-resource officers of more than 300 large companies; the Retail Industry Leaders Association, which represents more than 200 retailers; and the American Benefits Council, a lobbying group that represents Fortune 500 companies.

"There is a widespread misconception that this information is readily available at the touch of a button," wrote a group of trade associations.

It's not? Sarah Anderson of the Institute for Policy Studies, which has lobbied for the rule, finds this puzzling. Coming up with numbers is what companies do best. "If they don't know what they're paying their own employees, their investors should be worried," she said.

The more likely explanation is that CEOs don't want their Cheap Numbers reported because they could be used against them in debates over tax policies and legislative reforms.

Even some of their own shareholders might want them to take their Cheap Numbers down a notch. "This further opens the window on CEO pay and will help shareholders to keep management accountable," the California Public Employees' Retirement System wrote in a news release applauding the proposal.

"They have reasons to be this paranoid," Ms. Anderson said. "They probably spent more money lobbying against this thing than it would cost them to just come up with the number."

I agree whole-heartedly with this. The pay ratios are way out of whack and before we get the whole well the CEO is far more important than a cashier bunk, look at the 1795-1 example, it is JC Penney's, not exactly a company in growth mode doing well for stockholders the past few years. I don't care how high the ratio is for Michael Dell and Jeff Bezos and in the past Bill Gates, but for JCP, a company run by a CEO that didn't create it, it is a telling number. Look at the boards of a lot of these companies that determine the pay scales, they run other companies so what do you think they are going to do. Kid in a candy jar and let's be real, the individual investors can't do anything about it except sell the stock. That still doesn't mean that the CEOs aren't getting paid too much.

 

[Politician Spock]

Federal Reserve acknowledges the growing wealth inequality.

From: http://www.chron.com/business/article/Fed-Median-incomes-drop-for-all-but-wealthiest-5734126.php?World_Business_News=

Fed: Median incomes drop for all but wealthiest
By MARTIN CRUTSINGER, AP Economics Writer | September 4, 2014 | Updated: September 4, 2014 3:39pm

WASHINGTON (AP) — A Federal Reserve report says the richest 10 percent of Americans were the only group whose median incomes rose in the past three years.

The Fed's report says incomes declined for every other group from 2010 to 2013, widening the gap between the richest Americans and everyone else.

The report, which adjusted for inflation, finds that median income for the top 10 percent rose 2 percent, to $223,200 from $217,900. Median income fell 4 percent for the bottom 20 percent, to $15,200 from $15,800.

For the middle 20 percent, incomes dropped 6 percent, to $48,700 from $51,800.

The information was contained in the Fed's latest "Survey of Consumer Finances."

 

[jonessed]

Well, no ####. Cheap money is a huge boon for the wealthy. The lower middle class and the poor can't really take advantage of it. Even the middle-class is getting squeezed out of new mortgages with Fannie and Freddie tightening standards.

The economy has to pick up soon. The long-term unemployed are dropping out of the labor force, too many are under-employed, new grads are struggling to find jobs and doing irreversible damage to their careers. It sucks out there.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

[SIZE=14.2857141494751px]If you want to fight inequality, get rid of progressive taxation?[/SIZE]

Definitely one to think on.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Arnold Kling posted some thoughts on this on his blog the other day.

I think that the phenomenon of inequality is a poster child for what Jim Manzi calls “causal density.” Picture a causal relationship diagram with inequality in a circle in the center and arrows leading in and out from other circles.

There would be many arrows pointing to the inequality circle, representing possible causes. Some of them are bad things, like effective rent-seeking by wealthy people. Some of them are good things, like globalization, which reduces global inequality even as it increases inequality within counties.

There would be many arrows pointing out of the circle, representing possible effects. Some of them are bad things, like greater concentration of political power. Some of them are good things, like more saving. Note that I talk of these as possible effects, not necessarily actual effects.

Going directly at inequality by confiscatory taxation means you give up on trying to differentiate good from bad and just hope that you do more good than harm. In the context of causal density, this strikes me as a case of blind hope. For purposes of public policy, I think it is more likely better to focus on promoting the good things and thwarting the bad things. And if you say that you are not sure how to promote the good things and thwart the bad things, then I fail to see how you can be confident that confiscatory taxation will be beneficial.

Makes sense to me, although "confiscatory" (i.e., highly progressive) taxation itself seems to be causally dense.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

[SIZE=14.2857141494751px]If you want to fight inequality, get rid of progressive taxation?[/SIZE]

Definitely one to think on.

Surprising.

I'm not sure how they measured that, but I think it matters.

If you guy by top marginal rates, or even average rates, of federal income taxes, the U.S. tax system appears to be quite progressive. It becomes less progressive if you go by effective rates that account for various deductions; less progressive still if you also include state income taxes; and less progressive still if you include non-income-based taxes (e.g., sales taxes, gas taxes, cigarette taxes, property taxes); and a bit less progressive still if you allocate some of the property tax on investment properties to renters . . . in other words, there are a great many ways to estimate the progressiveness of the tax system, it can all get pretty complicated, and you can get quite different answers depending on your method.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

[SIZE=14.2857141494751px]If you want to fight inequality, get rid of progressive taxation?[/SIZE]

Definitely one to think on.

I have two words for you..........

 

[Yankee23Fan]

[SIZE=14.2857141494751px]If you want to fight inequality, get rid of progressive taxation?[/SIZE]

Definitely one to think on.

Surprising.

I'm not sure how they measured that, but I think it matters.

If you guy by top marginal rates, or even average rates, of federal income taxes, the U.S. tax system appears to be quite progressive. It becomes less progressive if you go by effective rates that account for various deductions; less progressive still if you also include state income taxes; and less progressive still if you include non-income-based taxes (e.g., sales taxes, gas taxes, cigarette taxes, property taxes); and a bit less progressive still if you allocate some of the property tax on investment properties to renters . . . in other words, there are a great many ways to estimate the progressiveness of the tax system, it can all get pretty complicated, and you can get quite different answers depending on your method.

I have the same two words for you too............

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

That's a challenging puzzle. I keep getting the wrong word count in "I love you."

 

[worrierking]

[SIZE=14.28px]If you want to fight inequality, get rid of progressive taxation?[/SIZE]

Definitely one to think on.

Surprising.

I'm not sure how they measured that, but I think it matters.

If you guy by top marginal rates, or even average rates, of federal income taxes, the U.S. tax system appears to be quite progressive. It becomes less progressive if you go by effective rates that account for various deductions; less progressive still if you also include state income taxes; and less progressive still if you include non-income-based taxes (e.g., sales taxes, gas taxes, cigarette taxes, property taxes); and a bit less progressive still if you allocate some of the property tax on investment properties to renters . . . in other words, there are a great many ways to estimate the progressiveness of the tax system, it can all get pretty complicated, and you can get quite different answers depending on your method.

Maurile, it's funny you say that, as just a few weeks ago I had two facebook posts from different people citing a statistic that was factual in both cases, but was stating something entirely opposite. One said taxes were obviously too low for the rich and the other showed how much in taxes the rich actually pay and how little is paid by everyone else. It was simply a matter of how the statistics were presented. Federal taxes are very progressive if you include the individual responsibility for corporate taxes (ie crediting the shareholders with paying taxes for the amount they own). If you include state and local taxes, then our system is not nearly as progressive.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

[SIZE=14.2857141494751px]If you want to fight inequality, get rid of progressive taxation?[/SIZE]

Definitely one to think on.

That chart doesn't really have anything to do with wealth or income inequality. I'm pretty sure the U.S. would be the most "unequal" out of that grouping but it would be much more enlightening to compare the redistibutive/progressive rating this chart provides with actual inequality data.

Especially if you take the U.S. out of the mix, since the other economies on there are more comparable to each other than they are to ours.

 

[Jackstraw]

I think MOP pretty much has the right idea. This country is a pile of dog#### sliding downhill faster than a freight train. It's all because we have allowed big business to control everything. Politicians don't care about Joe Blow (the vast majority of the american people), they do care about money and power. It will end someday and it won't be a good thing for anyone in this country.

That's a cop-out, IMO. Politicians are only doing what their constituents want them to do.

So these corporations, what do they own? Their own money that other people choose to give them by buying thier products. IMO, you are poor in this country because of health or laziness....end of story. I support helping those that truly need it..but if you can breathe, walk, talk, and have no REAL disability and you are poor...then you made bad choices or aren't working hard enough. My parents came to this country with practically no money. They worked menial jobs and 100 hour work weeks to achieve and save something. They made me pay my own way through college and taught me the value of working hard, making sacrfices and saving my money. We never once collected unemployment or asked for help from anybody. You are a taker or a maker.....the reason this country is going downhill is that 43% of American rather take than give. Wealth distribution is just another word for theft.

I can choose not to buy a big corporation's products. But I can't choose not to pay big brother, just try not to pay your taxes. Let's see...I can make a sacrfice and not buy a corporation's product OR go to jail. Big corporations have their influence and impact on our society, some good and some bad, but it's govts that have the true power over us all. I now own stock in many of these "evil" corporations and even worked for some of them...this fallacy that they have some evil agenda to control the world. It is an argument made by people with no understanding of the business world or economics. History has taught us that the ones trying to control the world are usually the politicians. It yet another liberal lie that makes the takers feel good...like most liberal arguments. Our greedy politicians on both sides of the ailse care more about their power, prestige, & paycheck than their own people. American's are so business and economically challenged and no longer understand the god given rights given tous by our founders...that our politicans no longer fear them. So in summary, it's the takers and greedy politicians that are destryoing this country.

“A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both.”

― Milton Friedman

"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that, my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it." -- Dr. Adrian P. Rogers

You're adorable.

 

[igbomb]

[SIZE=14.2857141494751px]If you want to fight inequality, get rid of progressive taxation?[/SIZE]

Definitely one to think on.

Surprising.

I'm not sure how they measured that, but I think it matters.

If you guy by top marginal rates, or even average rates, of federal income taxes, the U.S. tax system appears to be quite progressive. It becomes less progressive if you go by effective rates that account for various deductions; less progressive still if you also include state income taxes; and less progressive still if you include non-income-based taxes (e.g., sales taxes, gas taxes, cigarette taxes, property taxes); and a bit less progressive still if you allocate some of the property tax on investment properties to renters . . . in other words, there are a great many ways to estimate the progressiveness of the tax system, it can all get pretty complicated, and you can get quite different answers depending on your method.

And this is where the argument always devolves. There are so many ways of measuring taxation that one can always find a statistic that supports their view.

One illustration of the net effect of our tax structure that I really like is from this post I saw on 538 last year. I bookmarked because I thought the graphs were very telling. Feel free to ignore the text, as Schaller is rather ideological.

I was simply struck by the relative position of the US among OECD nations before taxes and transfers placed us near the middle but after taxes are accounted for we move to dead last in income inequality. I think we all recognize that our tax code is a little more friendly to the rich than a lot of our European neighbors but until I saw this I was unaware of just how unlike the rest of the developed world we are.

Link

Of course, some may argue that I'm doing exactly what I mention in my first comments.

 

[jonessed]

If you want to fight inequality, get rid of progressive taxation?

Definitely one to think on.

Surprising.

I'm not sure how they measured that, but I think it matters.

If you guy by top marginal rates, or even average rates, of federal income taxes, the U.S. tax system appears to be quite progressive. It becomes less progressive if you go by effective rates that account for various deductions; less progressive still if you also include state income taxes; and less progressive still if you include non-income-based taxes (e.g., sales taxes, gas taxes, cigarette taxes, property taxes); and a bit less progressive still if you allocate some of the property tax on investment properties to renters . . . in other words, there are a great many ways to estimate the progressiveness of the tax system, it can all get pretty complicated, and you can get quite different answers depending on your method.

And this is where the argument always devolves. There are so many ways of measuring taxation that one can always find a statistic that supports their view.

One illustration of the net effect of our tax structure that I really like is from this post I saw on 538 last year. I bookmarked because I thought the graphs were very telling. Feel free to ignore the text, as Schaller is rather ideological.

I was simply struck by the relative position of the US among OECD nations before taxes and transfers placed us near the middle but after taxes are accounted for we move to dead last in income inequality. I think we all recognize that our tax code is a little more friendly to the rich than a lot of our European neighbors but until I saw this I was unaware of just how unlike the rest of the developed world we are.

Link

Of course, some may argue that I'm doing exactly what I mention in my first comments.

How is he measuring and categorizing transfers? I can't seem to find it in the article. The OECD link is broken. Is it in there? How they break that out will drive the whole argument.Most European tax comparisons I've seen normalize once VAT is added.

 

[Otis]

If a company wants to pay its CEO a billion dollars, who are we to tell it that's now allowed? Seems like a weird metric to keep complaining about.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

If a company wants to pay its CEO a billion dollars, who are we to tell it that's now allowed? Seems like a weird metric to keep complaining about.

I don't think anyone would care if median income and wealth were also rising. The problem arises when you see stagnation or decline of real wages for a large majority of workers while those at the top skyrocket. It not a good situation either economically or socially, though I also don't see many people saying it shouldn't be an option for companies to pay CEOs whatever they want. How that income is treated for tax purposes is another matter.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Income inequality as explained by cute animated alpacas