Welcome to ECCIE - Sign up today!

.. · 07-24-2010, 03:11 AM

thoughts? comments?

TexTushHog · 07-24-2010, 04:43 AM

Probably the biggest issue facing the United States in the past 30 years. An completely ignored by the MSM.

Here's one of the latest articles that I've seen. It's a favorite topic of mine.

http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index....groundid=00469

oden · 07-24-2010, 08:01 AM

I want to be in the top 1%

HoneyRose · 07-24-2010, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oden

I want to be in the top 1%

Be careful what you wish for, Oden

When the suffering of the poor reaches a peak, the rich have their heads separated from their bodies and their wealth redistributed.

Marcus Aurelius · 07-24-2010, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HoneyRose

Be careful what you wish for, Oden

When the suffering of the poor reaches a peak, the rich have their heads separated from their bodies and their wealth redistributed.

May have been said in jest but there is history to back it up.

Laurentius · 07-24-2010, 09:45 AM

I don't believe that wealth redistribution via government is an answer to this problem; as there are fundamental issues that underlie income discrepancies to a certain extent that government cannot and perhaps should not address.

However, I believe the massive discrepancies we see today are actually caused by government in large measure. Particularly, they are caused by corporate welfare to favored sectors and/or companies and by regulations that favor companies already in a certain business but create an insurmountable barrier to entry for competitors.

Once government has the power to regulate something; it quite quickly finds itself on the receiving end of bribes in various forms. People use government authority as a means of circumventing the free market and attaining success otherwise unobtainable.

This situation started as far back as the dawn of the new Constitution when Alexander Hamilton told his cronies that IOUs that the government had issued to soldiers and suppliers would be redeemed at full value; but the people who held those IOUs were not informed. So Hamilton's cronies went all over convincing people that the paper was essentially worthless, bought it for pennies on the dollar, and then turned around and redeemed it at full face value a month later.

Nowadays, we find many representatives, when they retire, taking jobs as consultants or lobbyists paying millions yearly for the VERY INDUSTRIES they were regulating while in Congress. Anyone who can't smell a rat is insane.

The solution, then, however paradoxical it may seem -- is NOT to give government more power; but rather to give it less.

In the absence of the ability to do that; an alternative would be to enact legislation based upon distributist principles -- that is, create an upper-limit to the size of any enterprise that cannot be exceeded without it having to split into smaller unrelated enterprises; as well as favoring the creation of ESOP (employee stock ownership) companies.

atlcomedy · 07-24-2010, 11:45 AM

I'd be interested in seeing what that graph looked like if it was median income not average or mean. I'll suggest the numbers are skewed by the enormous incomes of call it the top 1/10th of 1%.

I'd also be interested in seeing what it would look like if it only included active (as opposed to passive) income.

.. · 07-24-2010, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by atlcomedy

I'd be interested in seeing what that graph looked like if it was median income not average or mean.

yup, this would be interesting; unfortunately there's no data about it AFAIK.

Quote:

Originally Posted by atlcomedy

I'd also be interested in seeing what it would look like if it only included active (as opposed to passive) income.

Personally I don't differentiate btwn. active and passive income. It makes no sense to me.

e.g. a landlord may have active and passive income or only passive.

Or what kind of income does a speculator, trader or even a bookie have? passive!? or active because it's a trading position!?

atlcomedy · 07-24-2010, 01:31 PM

I won't mention the school's name but I still get a chuckle out of this.

Years ago a well known university's dept. of communications boasted in its recruiting literature that its, "Class of 199x Graduates reported an average starting salary in excess of $100,000 per year."

What it failed to note was one of those graduates was a high first round NFL draft pick...that skewed the average just a bit

I think the median would have been about $28K

pjorourke · 07-24-2010, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by atlcomedy

I'd be interested in seeing what that graph looked like if it was median income not average or mean. I'll suggest the numbers are skewed by the enormous incomes of call it the top 1/10th of 1%.

I'd also be interested in seeing what it would look like if it only included active (as opposed to passive) income.

Well to give you an idea how much skew there is in those numbers, the entry point into the top 1% was a little over $400K in 2007, versus an average for the group of about $1.3 million (as shown by the graph). Might be one of them high draft picks.

But the other side of the equation that isn't mentioned is that although this group had 22% of all AGI (Adjusted Gross Income), they paid 40+% of all income taxes. So I guess the correct response from the rest of us should be: "Thanks!"

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

WTF · 07-24-2010, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pjorourke

they paid 40+% of all income taxes. So I guess the correct response from the rest of us should be: "Thanks!"

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

Federal Income taxes. Federal. Just in case anyone thinks that is the only taxes we pay.

Reagan lowered the taxes on the rich and raised SS and imposed a gasoline tax. Which affected the middle class and poor. Predictable the Gini coefficient has been on the rise every since. And yes the wealthiest have skewed the average. Most are taxed at the long term cap gain rate. A huge benifit the poor poor rich folks are bestowed by our politicians who get most of their contributions from............drum roll please, the wealthy.

PJ the rich haven't even paid for a war they wanted to fight. You barking up the wrong tree if you think that deserves an atta boy.

Marcus Aurelius · 07-24-2010, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WTF

Federal Income taxes. Federal. Just in case anyone thinks that is the only taxes we pay.

Reagan lowered the taxes on the rich and raised SS and imposed a gasoline tax. Which affected the middle class and poor. Predictable the Gini coefficient has been on the rise every sense. And yes the wealthiest have skewed the average. Most are taxed at the long term cap gain rate.

PJ the rich haven't even paid for a war they wanted to fight. You barking up the wrong tree if you think that deserves an atta boy.

Yeah that tired argument is like the, "The workers agreed on a wage and we make a profit. It's a win win." That's horse shit.
Say a company has several employees that are skilled and make a good product. They can easily be threatened with many more people that want the job for peanuts.

WTF · 07-24-2010, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius

Yeah that tired argument is like the, "The workers agreed on a wage and we make a profit. It's a win win." That's horse shit.
.

What Reagan did is not an argument, it is a fact. He lowered the taxes on the higher earners and through the backdoor, raised it on the middle class and poor.

The correlation is up for debate/argument, I suppose.

pjorourke · 07-24-2010, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WTF

Federal Income taxes. Federal. Just in case anyone thinks that is the only taxes we pay.

Agreed. Its Federal and its Individual Income Taxes which are 45% of total revenue and 70% of non-payroll taxes (which since they fund benefits that are worth more than the taxes [except for the rich] shouldn't be counted).

I've never seen any info on tax/income disparity at the state/municipal level.

Texas Contrarian · 07-24-2010, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index....groundid=00469

The professor would have done well to better acquaint himself with the issue before writing that.

He makes a number of statements that, while true, are relatively inconsequential. Then he fails to even mention the most important factor of all, while assigning blame to events that manifestly have nothing at all to do with rising inequality.

For instance, there's this excerpt:

"That began to change with Ronald Reagan as the tax system put a greater relative burden on the poor and middle class..."

Amazing.

The guy obviously suffers either from ideological bias or complete ignorance of the history of tax bracket structures (or both). Successive rounds of tax-cutting over the last 30 years have lessened the tax burden on the middle class, not increased it. In fact, about 47% of households have been completely relieved of the income tax burden.

Then he completely fails to even mention the rise of free-trade globalism and the extensive de-industrialization of the U.S. economy. Discussing the issue of increasing income inequality without addressing those factors is about like ignoring a 500-pound gorilla sitting in the middle of your living room.