Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Sunday, July 16, 2017

Infographics on the distribution of wealth in America, highlighting both the inequality and the difference between our perception of inequality and the actual numbers. The reality is often not what we think it is.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

And it is much worse now than when these studies were put into Infographics form.

btw, Deflecting to the world economy, ie; "But, but the poor here are rich compared to the poor elsewhere!"... is the very definition of a non sequitur, so I expect no one will be disingenuous enough to use it here.

#1 | Posted by Corky at 2017-07-16 01:38 PM | Reply

What Happened to America's Wealth? The Rich Hid It
JULY 7, 2017

billmoyers.com

#2 | Posted by Corky at 2017-07-16 01:41 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

MB will be along shortly to make a fool of himself denying the reality that we all know exists.

www.forbes.com

#3 | Posted by danni at 2017-07-16 02:35 PM | Reply

Divide the people....

Democrats.

#4 | Posted by boaz at 2017-07-16 06:02 PM | Reply | Funny: 3

#4

Ignore the facts...

Trumpites

#5 | Posted by Corky at 2017-07-16 06:12 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 5

"But, but the poor here are rich compared to the poor elsewhere!"... is the very definition of a non sequitur, so I expect no one will be disingenuous enough to use it here.

#1 | POSTED BY CORKY

Not if you are the RoW ....
upload.wikimedia.org

I do find it hilarious someone that lives in at top 2% county, in the Top country in the world, is complaining about "income distribution".

#6 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2017-07-16 06:45 PM | Reply | Funny: 3 | Newsworthy 2

Here is another "fact" for you Corky...
en.wikipedia.org

When you confine your world, you can cut at any facts that don't match your value system .......

#7 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2017-07-16 06:48 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

#6

Poverty and economic inequality is hilarious to Andrea? No surprise there. 40 percent of Americans can't even make it onto the economic chart, and she's laughing. And telling the poor that they are lucky they don't live in Zimbabwe, as if that had anything at all to do with the US economy.

#7

Holy Hayzeus, woman... you really don't understand what you read.

#8 | Posted by Corky at 2017-07-16 09:50 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

The majority of Americans don't have the resources to deal with a $1,000 emergency. Andrea thinks that's just funny.

#9 | Posted by danni at 2017-07-17 08:36 AM | Reply

And telling the poor that they are lucky they don't live in Zimbabwe, as if that had anything at all to do with the US economy.

The greed of the 1% will allow them use any rationalization to hide the reality of how their policies are destroying the American dream. That new boat is more important than their employees being able to eat a healthy meal. That new sports care is more important than funding a retirement plan that would allow the employees that made them their money to retire in dignity. That third vacation house is more important than making sure people have health insurance.

I'm sure they will tell themselves they are good Christians as they sit in church and ignore every single teaching of Christ.

#10 | Posted by 726 at 2017-07-17 09:02 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Advertisement

Advertisement

--The majority of Americans don't have the resources to deal with a $1,000 emergency

If that's true is just proves that Americans are irresponsible, live beyond their means, and are addicted to instant gratification.

#11 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-07-17 10:06 AM | Reply | Funny: 2

That video has been posted numerous times in the past here.

It's more about how folks are unaware (or were at the time) of how large the disparities are in wealth distribution.

I agree it's ugly.

"The majority of Americans don't have the resources to deal with a $1,000 emergency."

Like Nulli said, the majority of Americans are just ignorant ----- with money.

It doesn't change the larger issue of wealth inequality, however.

#12 | Posted by eberly at 2017-07-17 10:12 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Poverty and economic inequality is hilarious to Andrea?"

Poverty and income inequality are two very, very different things.

"The majority of Americans don't have the resources to deal with a $1,000 emergency."

But I'd bet many own a phone that costs them even more.

"The greed of the 1% will allow them use any rationalization to hide the reality of how their policies are destroying the American dream."

You do realize you're part of the 1%, right? Which is why I view pretty much every argument regarding income inequality as a case of rich people bitching about richer people.

#13 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-17 12:54 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

And if you want to strike a blow against income inequality, the first hack should be to stop using credit cards and stop taking loans. There is no single greater factor that has contributed to inequality in this country.

#14 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-17 12:55 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"I agree it's ugly."

Why? It paints an accurate picture of consumer behavior in the US. It shows what Americans really want, even if they publicly claim something else.

#15 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-17 12:57 PM | Reply

And if you want to strike a blow against income inequality, the first hack should be to stop using credit cards and stop taking loans. There is no single greater factor that has contributed to inequality in this country.

#14 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

You're going to have to expound on this because it doesn't make intuitive sense whatsoever.

#16 | Posted by jpw at 2017-07-17 01:44 PM | Reply

I haven't had a credit card for ten years.

Everyone can go ahead and thank me for ending income inequality now.

#17 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-07-17 01:53 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

How does income go down when someone uses credit?

Do employment contracts have a clause nowadays where pay is reduced based on how many lines of credit someone has???

#18 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-07-17 01:59 PM | Reply

"You're going to have to expound on this because it doesn't make intuitive sense whatsoever."

Sure it does. Think about credit cards. Prior to the mid-1980s, they were something of a luxury item reserved for high income earners. In the late 1970s, changes in legislation allowed credit card companies to issue credit more freely, and they did. This resulted in lower income earners getting credit cards, which in the majority of cases carry a balance. And a credit card that carried a balance provides a steady revenue stream for those who issued the card. A similar circumstance has occurred in other markets, such as automobile sales. Once upon a time there was the expectation that a borrow would put a certain amount down when buying a car. That's no longer the case. I could walk into a dealership today and buy a car, even if I didn't have a dime on me. And houses. I remember hearing as a child that your house should be no more than three times your annual income. Median household income is now sitting at around $52K. Median cost of a house is $188K.

Easy access to credit has made those invested in the lending industry very rich.

#19 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-17 02:04 PM | Reply

Jpw, sounds like he is talking about frivolous purchases on credit and that eats up all their money.

Which I agree with for the most part. I haven't used credit in like 20ish years and other than a house or a sensible vehicle I don't really see the point in anyone using credit and carrying a balance.

Then again, if ppl didn't use credit the economy would tank... Pretty damn quickly too.

#20 | Posted by Lohocla at 2017-07-17 02:05 PM | Reply

"I haven't had a credit card for ten years."

It's not having the credit card that leads to inequality...it's having a credit card and not paying it off every month.

#21 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-17 02:06 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

If that's true is just proves that Americans are irresponsible, live beyond their means, and are addicted to instant gratification.

#11 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN AT 2017-07-17 10:06 AM | FLAG:

It's sad that you buy into that shinola. I'm sure some do, perhaps you can give us some you know, facts that support that.

#22 | Posted by 726 at 2017-07-17 02:08 PM | Reply

"Jpw, sounds like he is talking about frivolous purchases on credit and that eats up all their money."

That's part of it, but it also gets into spending money you don't have...on anything. A lot of consumers don't want to save money and wait to purchase the goods and services they need, even though doing so would save you a lot of money. My house, for instance, by the time I've paid it off, I will have paid almost the entire asking price twice.

#23 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-17 02:09 PM | Reply

Again, taking out a loan doesn't lower your income.

#24 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-07-17 02:10 PM | Reply

726, average credit card debt is 16k per person in the US.

Granted not all of that is of the frivolous variety, but how much of us need to be 16k in debt on a credit card?

#25 | Posted by Lohocla at 2017-07-17 02:12 PM | Reply

"Again, taking out a loan doesn't lower your income."

And why would it?

#26 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-17 02:13 PM | Reply

Income inequality isn't resulting from decreasing wages...those have stayed stable or increased since 1950. Income inequality is resulting from more people spending more of their income on debt and interest payments.

#27 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-17 02:15 PM | Reply

"My house, for instance, by the time I've paid it off, I will have paid almost the entire asking price twice."

Yeah but towards the end you'll be paying with dollars worth half what they were when you bought it.

None of this, however, changed your income.

#28 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-07-17 02:16 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Like Nulli said, the majority of Americans are just ignorant ----- with money.
It doesn't change the larger issue of wealth inequality, however.

#12 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2017-07-17 10:12 AM | REPLY | FLAG:

Sure it does. If you blame people for being poor, then they have no business complaining about being poor.

The system is rigged against anyone climbing out of the 99%. Sure some do and they are held up as an example that EVERYONE can be part of the 1% despite that it is rigged to keep them going ever lower.

Easy credit is responsible for some not climbing out of poverty because it is a form of fraudulent inflation. But then so are car loans and mortgages by allowing people to afford things they cannot immediately pay for. Auto leases are the same, getting people to buy more of a car than they can afford solely by letting them rent it. The worst are payday loans and consumer product rental stores which are both legalized robbery.

Again examples of how the system is rigged to keep the poor from moving up.

You can always point to the person that rents their tv, car or buys something they don't need on a credit card as not having the education or smarts to avoid it. Throw in the current trend of defunding education and it will only get worse. The people that run the government at the behest of their donors are hell bent on squeezing every last cent out of the middle class and flow it upwards. It will eventually end, and it won't be pretty.

#29 | Posted by 726 at 2017-07-17 02:18 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Income inequality is resulting from more people spending more of their income on debt and interest payments.

Income inequality is from the benefits of productivity flowing to the top instead of evenly to all the employees.

#30 | Posted by 726 at 2017-07-17 02:20 PM | Reply

"None of this, however, changed your income."

It wouldn't change my income, but if I had decided to put down a larger downpayment, or buy the house outright, it would have resulted in a lender getting less of the $450K I will spend on my house over 30 years, and left me an additional $200K to spend on something else...that's an additional $6.7K in income each year.

"Granted not all of that is of the frivolous variety, but how much of us need to be 16k in debt on a credit card?"

But we can draw some conclusions. For the 65% of credit card holders who do carry a balance, statistics show that an increase in spending limit results in a virtually equal increase in spending. 9.9% increase in spending for every ten percent increase in spending limits.

#31 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-17 02:22 PM | Reply

"Income inequality is resulting from more people spending more of their income on debt and interest payments."

No, how you spend your income doesn't make your amount of income change.

Income inequality has already transpired before paychecks are even deposited.

Seems like some people are having problems with basic accounting terms here...

#32 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-07-17 02:25 PM | Reply

"If you blame people for being poor, then they have no business complaining about being poor."

I accuse most Americans of living paycheck to paycheck regardless of how much money they make. I'm blaming poor people for being poor.

#33 | Posted by eberly at 2017-07-17 02:25 PM | Reply

What kind of unconscionable moron looks at the reality of US inequality and then whines that the poor should be more careful with their credit cards?

The Randian Objectivist kind.

#34 | Posted by Corky at 2017-07-17 02:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

33

sorry...I'm NOT blaming poor people

#35 | Posted by eberly at 2017-07-17 02:27 PM | Reply

"Easy credit is responsible for some not climbing out of poverty because it is a form of fraudulent inflation. But then so are car loans and mortgages by allowing people to afford things they cannot immediately pay for. Auto leases are the same, getting people to buy more of a car than they can afford solely by letting them rent it. The worst are payday loans and consumer product rental stores which are both legalized robbery."

They're not legalized robbery though, because both parties benefit according to agreed upon terms. In fact the whole reason this is happening is because those using credit cards (many of whom are far from being poor) are benefitting from whatever they've purchased more than they would have benefitted from not being able to purchase.

"Income inequality is from the benefits of productivity flowing to the top instead of evenly to all the employees."

But it is. The bottom quintile of income earners is still earning more or less the same amount they did in 1950. The difference between now and then is then they would have been forced to stay within their means, whereas now they can fund a higher standard of living via debt. I agree it's resulting from wealth flowing upwards. But it's not being taken against someone's will. It's being given freely. And if you want to slow this phenomenon, the solution is to enact legislation tightening up limitations on how credit can be issued. Particularly consumer credit.

#36 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-17 02:28 PM | Reply

"now they can fund a higher standard of living via debt. "

Nonsense. Carrying a credit card balance leads to a lower overall standard of living. Or, as I put in in my seminars, I was stunned how much more I could afford when I only had to pay for it once.

Nowadays, I put everything I can on a credit card, for the points. When we had cash rebate cards, we averaged getting back ~$70 a month by using specific cards. Now we use the SW Airlines card for everything we can, and earn roughly one free leg of flight every month.

#37 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-07-17 02:32 PM | Reply

"No, how you spend your income doesn't make your amount of income change."

Again, Einstein, how I spend my income most certainly affects someone else's income...if I'm spending money on debt and interest payments. And that's what you see if you look at income quintiles over the past 65-ish years. Income has not measurably decreased for any quintile...for most it has gone up. But the majority of the increases in the top quintiles is the result of all quintiles paying more in interest payments. Most likely, it's not really even the poor that are contributing the most. It's the dual income professionals who buy $600K houses and $70K cars and finance $10K vacations once or twice a year. Think about how much that would generate in interest...

#38 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-17 02:32 PM | Reply

"whereas now they can fund a higher standard of living via debt"

How, if their income hasn't changed, can they fund something more than they could before?

The only way is if they don't pay off their creditors...

#39 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-07-17 02:34 PM | Reply

"now they can fund a higher standard of living via debt. "

Actually, I think you meant to say "they believe they can fund a higher standard of living via debt" but as Danforth pointed out, it has lead to a lower standard of living...which I'm sure you agree with.

#40 | Posted by eberly at 2017-07-17 02:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Nonsense. Carrying a credit card balance leads to a lower overall standard of living. Or, as I put in in my seminars, I was stunned how much more I could afford when I only had to pay for it once."

I totally agree. But the 65% of households that carry debt disagree. I'm with you though...I use cards for the points. AMEX seems to be the best.

"What kind of unconscionable moron looks at the reality of US inequality and then whines that the poor should be more careful with their credit cards?"

It's not the poor...it's everyone. The poor are almost certainly giving a lot of their money away in the form of interest payments. But so are many others spread out across the economic spectrum.

#41 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-17 02:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

A Wealthy Capitalist on Why Money Doesn't Trickle Down

billmoyers.com

#42 | Posted by Corky at 2017-07-17 02:37 PM | Reply

"I totally agree. But the 65% of households that carry debt disagree."

65% can believe the earth is flat. How does that change reality?

#43 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-07-17 02:38 PM | Reply

"so are many others spread out across the economic spectrum."

True dat.

I've got clients who don't make $30K, but somehow seem to put money into their Roths every year, and I've got some clients with mid-six-figure incomes who can't ever seem to save a penny.

#44 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-07-17 02:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

--but how much of us need to be 16k in debt on a credit card?

No one. Buying what you can't afford is stupid. Tear up your credit cards. Live within your means.

#45 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-07-17 02:41 PM | Reply

- spread out across the economic spectrum.

The poor and much of the middle class don't even fit on the real world economic study charts OF THE US ECONOMY which is represented in the video.

It's not much of a spectrum; it's the very wealthy, who have been made so by a capitalistic system that flows money upwards with the few restraints it once had now gone.

#46 | Posted by Corky at 2017-07-17 02:42 PM | Reply

"An economic arrangement that pays a Wall Street worker tens of millions of dollars per year to do high-frequency trading and pays just tens of thousands to workers who grow or serve our food, build our homes, educate our children, or risk their lives to protect us isn't an expression of the true value or economic necessity of these jobs. It simply reflects a difference in bargaining power and status.

Inclusive economies always outperform and outlast plutocracies. That's why investments in the middle class work, and tax breaks for the rich don't. The oldest and most important conflict in human societies is the battle over the concentration of wealth and power.

Those at the top will forever tell those at the bottom that our respective positions are righteous and good for all. Historically we called that divine right. Today we have trickle-down economics.

The trickle-down explanation for economic growth holds that the richer the rich get, the better our economy does. But it also clearly implies that if the poor get poorer, that must be good for our economy. Nonsense."

from the link in 42

"Those at the top" and their proxy voters who think they are anywhere near the top but who, as the Infographic shows, are much closer to the bottom than they realize.

#47 | Posted by Corky at 2017-07-17 02:47 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Live within your means."

I go one further, and counsel people to live beneath their means. I do it by bastardizing a Dickens quote:
"Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pound ought and six, result misery." Then I add the fact in my 30 years of dealing with folks and their finances, this is the truest phrase I've ever seen.

I also tell them to make saving a monthly bill, and squeeze it between a pair a bills they would NEVER skip, like rent and cell phone.

#48 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-07-17 02:50 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Madbomber,

You mean you have to pay more when you buy something on credit?

Say it ain't so. Just kidding.

Big ticket items like that makes sense to buy on credit as long as you don't try to buy a McMansion on a McDonald's salary.

Otherwise you're left with renting and that is just throwing money down the drain,at least with a mortgage one has a chance to get something back.

I'm taking about the month to month people who are 15-30+k in debt to credit cards for stupid ---- that they don't need. Cars, boats, toys, clothes, etc.


#49 | Posted by Lohocla at 2017-07-17 02:52 PM | Reply

"Buying what you can't afford is stupid."

Accroding to MadBomber, it's beneficial for both, since both parties knew and agreed to the terms of the agreement.

Love to hear you two sort that one out, but I'm not sure if drive-bys and broken records can actually engage with one another.

#50 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-07-17 02:57 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

- drive-bys and broken records

That's so perfect... those two to a T.

#51 | Posted by Corky at 2017-07-17 02:59 PM | Reply

"Love to hear you two sort that one out, but I'm not sure if drive-bys and broken records can actually engage with one another."

they can both slap you silly with no effort, that's for sure.

#52 | Posted by eberly at 2017-07-17 03:02 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

- both parties knew and agreed to the terms of the agreement.

"It simply reflects a difference in bargaining power and status."

In MythB world, there is no difference.

#53 | Posted by Corky at 2017-07-17 03:02 PM | Reply

#52

Always enters pre-slapped.

#54 | Posted by Corky at 2017-07-17 03:03 PM | Reply

#54 | Posted by Corky at 2017-07-17 03:03 PM | Reply | Flag: Clearly enjoys the slapping he receives here....

#55 | Posted by eberly at 2017-07-17 03:05 PM | Reply

"both parties knew and agreed to the terms of the agreement."

It seems Rs believe that's good, when it's between borrowers and lenders*, but bad when it's between owners and workers.

*Until the lenders lose money, then it's the borrowers' fault....

#56 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-07-17 03:06 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

48

pay yourself first. Best advice I know for a young person.

#57 | Posted by eberly at 2017-07-17 03:06 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"pay yourself first. Best advice I know for a young person."

Every now and then, I'll get hold of a new graduate, who isn't used to that large paycheck just yet. I try to move mountains to get them to start an aggressive savings plan, even giving "the twin test" of "If you start now, and max out for the next 12 years and then stop, and your twin starts in 12 years and maxes out every year after that, how long will it take for your twin to catch up to you?" The answer, of course, is...never.

I also show them the difference between maxing IRAs out the first day possible (Jan 2nd) vs the last day possible (April 15th of next year). The difference for a pair of 21-year-olds is six figures by retirement.

#58 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-07-17 03:12 PM | Reply

"It seems Rs believe that's good, when it's between borrowers and lenders*, but bad when it's between owners and workers."

Why would employees and employers acting on agreed upon terms be bad?

#59 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-17 03:18 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Corksters, you seem to be more than a little outta yer element here. You seem to be attempting to establish a linkage between income inequality and poverty. There is no such linkage. If the population of the US were to actively take steps that would limit income inequality, like not using credit cards and not taking loans, the result would be less money funneled upwards in the form of debt payments. But that would do absolutely nothing to make a low value worker more valuable. No would it make a high value worker less valuable. The only thing you can fo to change the relationship between the two is convince the low value workers to become more valuable...but only they can make that change.

#60 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-17 03:23 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Why would employees and employers acting on agreed upon terms be bad?"

Because, as every Republican knows, workers dictate contractual terms to owners in every Union negotiation. In fact, according to today's Rs, it's doubtful owners signatures are even ON those contracts.

That's how Unions sent all those jobs overseas, don'tcha know....

#61 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-07-17 03:24 PM | Reply

- attempting to establish a linkage between income inequality and poverty.

www.google.com

Your Royal Idiocy is now established, Mr Broken Record.

Trump should watch his back.

#62 | Posted by Corky at 2017-07-17 03:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

- steps that would limit income inequality,

Actual possible steps, not myths from rwingers.....

www.google.com

#63 | Posted by Corky at 2017-07-17 03:31 PM | Reply

The sonic boom you heard over your head was #47, MythBomber.

You never had a chance at it, sorry.

#64 | Posted by Corky at 2017-07-17 03:37 PM | Reply

"Actual possible steps, not myths from rwingers....."

Yeah. All you need to do is establish a centrally planned economy where the will of the government is directed upon the citizens in order to achieve a desired outcome.

Kinda like what the Bolsheviks did. And Chavez is Venezuela. And Castro in Cuba. And Allende in Chile.

But Don't worry, I'm confident that this time the experiment will succeed.

#65 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-17 04:03 PM | Reply

"All you need to do is establish a centrally planned economy where the will of the government is directed upon the citizens in order to achieve a desired outcome."

Nonsense. An actual progressive income tax code will do.

#66 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-07-17 04:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

- An actual progressive income tax code will do.

And has done fine during our most productive economic years.... rwinger myths about that all being after war production capability over others notwithstanding... not in the 60's and early 70's.

One must admit, though, MB is a good little proxy for people who wouldn't even bother to sneer at him.

#67 | Posted by Corky at 2017-07-17 04:18 PM | Reply

"MB is a good little proxy for people who wouldn't even bother to sneer at him."

Most stunning is how he could get an MBA with seemingly no training at all in the tax code.

#68 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-07-17 04:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"An actual progressive income tax code will do."

how progressive?

are the marginal rates the issue considering how much income is allowed to be sheltered in so many ways anyway?

addressing capital gains/interest and dividend income?

#69 | Posted by eberly at 2017-07-17 04:21 PM | Reply

"Most stunning is how he could get an MBA with seemingly no training at all in the tax code."

my MBA degree involved very little exposure to the tax code.

#70 | Posted by eberly at 2017-07-17 04:22 PM | Reply

- get an MBA

Myth Bombing Academy

Curriculum by Ayn Rand, Prof PJ O'Rourke, Head Master.

#71 | Posted by Corky at 2017-07-17 04:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"If the population of the US were to actively take steps that would limit income inequality, like not using credit cards and not taking loans."

I could use credit and it wouldn't change my income one way or the other.

So the only income inequality this would be affecting would be someone else's, then?

And you're saying the reason average CEO income has gone up so much compared to you and me is... other people are using credit. Even CEOs that don't work in finance are reaping benefits to their income.

You must be smoking the good stuff today.

#72 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-07-17 04:22 PM | Reply

"how progressive?"

That depends on how much you want to incentivize re-investment. The higher the rate, the more it makes sense to buy equipment or workers. The lower the rate, the more incentive to cash out and pay the (minimal) fees.

"addressing capital gains/interest and dividend income?"

That as well. I'd tax opening dividend checks for a living the same as working for a living. I'd also index cap gains for inflation, which is (somewhat) done by having LTCG rates...but a 40% reduction for holding something for 12 months and a day? Are you kidding me???

#73 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-07-17 04:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Kennedy took top rates down to 70, which may have been appropriate when getting rid of some loopholes. Reagan took them to 50.

Upper 30's now is obscene, and exacerbates the inequality and outright oppression we see now.

Trumpublicans only want to make it worse.

#74 | Posted by Corky at 2017-07-17 04:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The higher the rate, the more it makes sense to buy equipment or workers.

Or, to just get out of business altogether if most of the profit is confiscated by the state.

#75 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-07-17 04:35 PM | Reply

Upper 30's now is obscene,

Obscenely high - agreed.

#76 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-07-17 04:36 PM | Reply

What Happened to America's Wealth? The Rich Hid It
JULY 7, 2017

billmoyers.com

#77 | Posted by Corky at 2017-07-17 04:36 PM | Reply

"Or, to just get out of business altogether if most of the profit is confiscated by the state."

Riiiiiight. Remember all those businesses that closed because rates were too high?

Me neither....

#78 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-07-17 04:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#76

Didn't watch the video, I see. You live in a fantasy world where capitalism does naturally flow money upwards.

Progressive taxation is as American as appple p.... er, Polish Sausage, and has been successful in the past in making capitalism as an economic system that automatically enriches those at the top a bit more fair.

#79 | Posted by Corky at 2017-07-17 04:40 PM | Reply

doesn't naturally

#80 | Posted by Corky at 2017-07-17 04:40 PM | Reply

"just get out of business altogether if most of the profit is confiscated by the state."

I have several clients whose marginal rate is over 50%, once payroll taxes are included. Not a one of them ever considered closing their businesses.

#81 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-07-17 04:41 PM | Reply

Riiiiiight. Remember all those businesses that closed because rates were too high?
Me neither....

#78 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

I'm pretty sure all of the deductions played a role. Make the realized rate too high and business will be chased right out of the country. Companies are in business to make profit, not to surrender all of their profits to government.

#82 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-07-17 04:43 PM | Reply

"Nonsense. An actual progressive income tax code will do."

To disincentivize earning high incomes? Do you not see the problems that might emerge from such a policy?

#83 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-17 04:44 PM | Reply

I have several clients whose marginal rate is over 50%, once payroll taxes are included. Not a one of them ever considered closing their businesses.

#81 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Make their marginal rate 80% and see what happens.

#84 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-07-17 04:44 PM | Reply

And even that is just making the rich poorer. But it doesn't really do anything for those who weren't earning high incomes.

#85 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-17 04:44 PM | Reply

I have no problem with progressive taxation.

In fact, I like the tax plan offered by Simpson-Bowles.

#86 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-07-17 04:45 PM | Reply

The 35 Percent Corporate Tax Myth

Some Key Findings:

As a group, the 258 corporations paid an effective federal income tax rate of 21.2 percent over the eight-year period, slightly over half the statutory 35 percent tax rate.

Eighteen of the corporations, including General Electric, International Paper, Priceline.com and PG&E, paid no federal income tax at all over the eight-year period. A fifth of the corporations (48) paid an effective tax rate of less than 10 percent over that period.

Of those corporations in our sample with significant offshore profits, more than half paid higher corporate tax rates to foreign governments where they operate than they paid in the United States on their U.S. profits.

These findings refute the prevailing view inside the Beltway that America's corporate income tax is more burdensome than the corporate income taxes levied by other countries, and that this purported (but false) excess burden somehow makes the U.S. "uncompetitive."

Other Findings:

itep.org

#87 | Posted by Corky at 2017-07-17 04:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Make their marginal rate 80% and see what happens."

Who's suggesting that?

#88 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-07-17 04:46 PM | Reply

"And has done fine during our most productive economic years.... rwinger myths about that all being after war production capability over others notwithstanding..."

is rwinger myth another word for history?

And since when did you jump on the BernieBro bandwagon? I pegged you as being a little smarter than that.

#89 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-17 04:46 PM | Reply

"And even that is just making the rich poorer. But it doesn't really do anything for those who weren't earning high incomes."

You could cut rates at the bottom. Or cut payroll tax rates, since the 2% return is a stealth tax on the poor anyway.

#90 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-07-17 04:47 PM | Reply

And even that is just making the rich poorer. But it doesn't really do anything for those who weren't earning high incomes.

#85 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

Other than making them feel good about the government punishing those who earn more than they do.

#91 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-07-17 04:47 PM | Reply

"But it doesn't really do anything for those who weren't earning high incomes."

Nonsense. It lowers the percentage of the pie they're responsible for.

Are you sure you've got an MBA?

#92 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-07-17 04:48 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

- it doesn't really do anything for those who weren't earning high incomes.

What Could Raising Taxes on the 1% Do? Surprising Amounts

www.nytimes.com

#93 | Posted by Corky at 2017-07-17 04:50 PM | Reply

"Make their marginal rate 80% and see what happens."
Who's suggesting that?

#88 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Progressives love to cite the 90% rate as if it was a great thing, so, I'd say plenty of progressives would be on board with an 80% marginal rate.

#94 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-07-17 04:50 PM | Reply

-Nonsense. It lowers the percentage of the pie they're responsible for.
Are you sure you've got an MBA?

In Myth Bombing.

#95 | Posted by Corky at 2017-07-17 04:51 PM | Reply

"Progressives love to cite the 90% rate as if it was a great thing"

They'll also admit, in the same breath, virtually NO ONE paid 90%, due to rampant loopholes.

#96 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-07-17 04:55 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"Progressives love to cite the 90% rate as if it was a great thing"
They'll also admit, in the same breath, virtually NO ONE paid 90%, due to rampant loopholes.

#96 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Okay - then what should the marginal rate be?

At least you seem to acknowledge that at some point it becomes problematic - that it can be too high.

#97 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-07-17 04:58 PM | Reply

"Okay - then what should the marginal rate be?"

I'm not making recommendations one way or the other; that's a different issue.

I'm merely stating--as a zero-sum concept--higher rates lead to higher reinvestment, while lower rates lead to more cashing out.

#98 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-07-17 05:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Progressives love to cite the 90% rate as if it was a great thing"

So that wasn't when America was great?

Has America ever been great, and what did the tax code look like at the time, lol!

Let's cherry pick things to cite, surely then we're having a discussion!

#99 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-07-17 05:00 PM | Reply

- that it can be too high.

Or too low at is now, and with more loopholes than when it was at 90.

You'd think rwingers wouldn't be afraid to at least go back to Reagan era rates.

#100 | Posted by Corky at 2017-07-17 05:01 PM | Reply

Top 20 Years For GDP and Tax Rate of Top Bracket

The top 20 years for GDP growth since 1930 and the marginal tax rate for the top individual income tax bracket. Note that only 1984 had a top tax rate of less than 60%.

politicsthatwork.com

#101 | Posted by Corky at 2017-07-17 05:03 PM | Reply

"You could cut rates at the bottom. Or cut payroll tax rates, since the 2% return is a stealth tax on the poor anyway."

The poor don't pay federal income tax, and would you cut benefits that are outputs of those payroll taxes?

"Progressives love to cite the 90% rate as if it was a great thing, so, I'd say plenty of progressives would be on board with an 80% marginal rate."

What progressives fail to mention on every occasion that's brought up is that the lowest income earners were paying 20%. The rich paid more back then, but so did the poor.

"-Nonsense. It lowers the percentage of the pie they're responsible for. Are you sure you've got an MBA?"

You're presupposing that economic behavior of those paying taxes doesn't change as tax rates go up. It's a common mistake. But at some point the taxpayer's time will be more than the amount of money the government permits them to keep. And at that point they stop working. And you lose not only any additional tax revenues they may have brought in, but the services they provide that were earning them income as well.

#102 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-17 05:10 PM | Reply

"But at some point the taxpayer's time will be more than the amount of money the government permits them to keep."

That happened at 90%, surely.
What was the downside, again?

#103 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-07-17 05:16 PM | Reply

- You're presupposing that economic behavior of those paying taxes doesn't change as tax rates go up.

More stale old rwing myth....

"Progressive taxation historically is the most powerful tool to reduce income concentration. The classic counter argument is that higher top tax rates might discourage economic activity among the rich. In a recent paper, I analyze the effects of the 2013 federal income tax increase on the behavior of top income earners to cast light on this issue.

These findings echo the findings of earlier work analyzing the 1993 Clinton era tax increase, which also generated short-term retiming of top incomes into 1992 but did not prevent top income shares from surging in the mid-to-late 1990s.

It is also striking that the best growth experience for the bottom 99 percent of income earners over the past 25 years took place in the mid-to-late 1990s and between 2013 and 2015 -- after tax increases on the rich.

This suggests that taxing the rich more does not have detrimental effects on the broader economy; quite the contrary.

equitablegrowth.org

#104 | Posted by Corky at 2017-07-17 05:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"The poor don't pay federal income tax"

So what? They pay other federal taxes, and those taxes have been used to fund YOUR tax cut. Which I've explained now for the 12th time.

"would you cut benefits that are outputs of those payroll taxes?"

You wouldn't have to cut the outputs, if the return was realistic.

"You're presupposing that economic behavior of those paying taxes doesn't change as tax rates go up. It's a common mistake. "

I'd imagine, as a near-30-yr veteran of tax preparation, I'd have noticed if my clients behavior changed when they changed tax brackets. All I ever see is a greater penchant to choose a deductible retirement account, vs a Roth.

"at some point the taxpayer's time will be more than the amount of money the government permits them to keep."

The next wealthy client I see who does that will be my first.

#105 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-07-17 05:23 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

These myths are threats from the very wealthy and very corporate, often through their proxies, to the poor and middle class that; if their taxes are raised, they will change how they invest, they don;t, as Dan says, business will just pass the full cost to consumers, they can't, products have price points, or if the min wage is raised they'll go out of bidness, good ones won't as we have recently seen.

Rwingers whine about the force of the ebil gubmint making them pay taxes, but they acquiesce to every dumb, provably wrong threat from the very wealthy.

#106 | Posted by Corky at 2017-07-17 05:30 PM | Reply

"What progressives fail to mention on every occasion that's brought up is that the lowest income earners were paying 20%."

Only on income over today's equivalent of taxable income of $41,000, which, after the standard deduction and personal exemption, is more like $50K.
web.stanford.edu

Looks like another talking point from MB bites the dust.

#107 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-07-17 05:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

107

It starts at $0 in all of those year in your link. 17% minimum

#108 | Posted by eberly at 2017-07-17 05:54 PM | Reply

in 1960, any income was subject to 20% federal income tax.

Is that low enough?

#109 | Posted by eberly at 2017-07-17 05:55 PM | Reply

"It starts at $0 in all of those year in your link. 17% minimum"

MB's claim was poorest paid 20%.

And the amounts are on taxable income, meaning after deductions and exemptions. In today's dollars, that would be AFTER about $10K/person.

#110 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-07-17 05:58 PM | Reply

"MB's claim was poorest paid 20%."

The bracket in 1960 attached a 20% tax on taxable income above $0.

#111 | Posted by eberly at 2017-07-17 05:59 PM | Reply

"in 1960, any income was subject to 20% federal income tax. "

No, not any income, only taxable income.

In addition, folks getting welfare back then weren't accused of not paying income taxes, like today.

#112 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-07-17 06:00 PM | Reply

"The bracket in 1960 attached a 20% tax on taxable income above $0."

Wasn't almost all of Eisenhower's Presidency in the 50s?

#113 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-07-17 06:02 PM | Reply

"meaning after deductions and exemptions. In today's dollars, that would be AFTER about $10K/person."

what kind of deductions existed in 1960? what was the standard deduction or deduction per dependent child?

It could mean than someone making a pretty low income paid virtually no federal income tax.

#114 | Posted by eberly at 2017-07-17 06:02 PM | Reply

It looks like the standard deduction in 1960 was $1000, or about $8,500 in today's dollars. The personal exemption was another $600, about another $5100 in today's dollars. So no, workers did NOT pay 20% on everything over $0.

www.taxhistory.org$file/1040_1960.pdf

#115 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-07-17 06:10 PM | Reply

better link:
www.taxhistory.org$FILE/1040_1960.pdf

#116 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-07-17 06:11 PM | Reply

It's also worth mentioning that the 91% tax rate applied to incomes in excess of $3.3M. It was 62% for what would be the highest bracket in 2017. Additionally it's worth mentioning that taxpayers across the spectrum probably got behind paying taxes that went to buy bombers and aircraft carriers and influence global politics in a manner that worked in favor of the US and against the USSR. I'm not sure USan taxpayers would willingly agree to give up money because someone else thought they had too much, or because some politician wanted to use their money to purchase votes.

Not that it matters. Taxes were never causal to the postwar growth spurt. It was war that caused that.

#117 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-17 08:28 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

Had to come back to this.

"It's not the poor...it's everyone. The poor are almost certainly giving a lot of their money away in the form of interest payments. But so are many others spread out across the economic spectrum."

" It's the dual income professionals who buy $600K houses and $70K cars and finance $10K vacations once or twice a year. Think about how much that would generate in interest..."

I thought about it.

Looked up my credit union's auto loan rates, which range from 1.36% to 15%.

If you're buying $70K cars and, well, maybe you thought $600K was a lot of house, the kind you'd buy if you were also financing $20 worth of vacations a year... point is, that person probably has very good credit.

So a $70K auto loan at 1.36% for 6 years, guy pays $72934.47 when all is done. Or $2934.47 to the bank over the course of the loan.

Now let's say somebody wants a car for a tenth of that, but has much worse credit. So much so that his interest rate is ten times higher, which is not even the max rate my bank charges. A $7,000 loam at 13.6% interest for 6 years, total paid is 10277.65. Or $3277.65 to the bank over the life of the loan.

So the bank makes more money loaning out one-tenth of the money to the poor guy.

Ya know MadBomber I'd advise you to take your MBA and wipe your ass with it.

But since you've obviously rolled it up into a tube and shoved it in deep, I guess the joke's on me.

#118 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-07-17 10:09 PM | Reply | Funny: 3

"I'm not sure USan taxpayers would willingly agree to give up money because someone else thought they had too much, or because some politician wanted to use their money to purchase votes."

Familiar with the term "Economic Royalists?" Even at the height of WWII Roosevelt railed against them and loudly proclaimed that things like minimum wages would not be sacrificed even in the face of WWII. He was, without a doubt, our greatest President since Lincoln and he would have tolerated your ideas for about a minute.
"

#119 | Posted by danni at 2017-07-17 10:15 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

- It was war that caused that.

During this time, there was high worldwide economic growth; Western European and East Asian countries in particular experienced unusually high and sustained growth, together with full employment.

Contrary to early predictions, this high growth also included many countries that had been devastated by the war, such as Japan (Japanese post-war economic miracle), West Germany (Wirtschaftswunder), France (Trente Glorieuses), Italy (Italian economic miracle), and Greece (Greek economic miracle).

The period from the end of World War II to the early 1970s was a golden era of American capitalism. $200 billion in war bonds matured, and the G.I. Bill financed a well-educated work force.

The middle class swelled, as did GDP and productivity. The US underwent its own golden age of economic growth. This growth was distributed fairly evenly across the economic classes, which some attribute to the strength of labor unions in this period -- labor union membership peaked during the 1950s.

Much of the growth came from the movement of low-income farm workers into better-paying jobs in the towns and cities -- a process largely completed by 1960.[17]

en.wikipedia.org

Government programs of bonds and education, labor unions, full employment in war devastated countries, fair progressive taxation, a growing middle class rather than a shrinking one that has occured since top rates were lowered....

It's like you need to be deprogrammed.

#120 | Posted by Corky at 2017-07-17 11:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The only thing you can fo to change the relationship between the two is convince the low value workers to become more valuable...but only they can make that change.

#60 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

While I realized what you were saying with the post I questioned (I think it was you...) and then confirmed it by reading subsequent posts, this line is crap.

For instance, the best way not too long ago to "become more valuable" was to obtain a degree.

But as more and more people obtained degrees said degrees became less and less valuable and, therefore, less sound investments.

Economies will always be stratified and pyramidal in shape. The topic of wealth inequality doesn't (or can't) aim to change that shape, just decrease the disparity between those in the cap and those in the base.

And I think much of the discussion up to your post #60 does little to address that. I won't argue that most (myself included) could and should do better at living within their means to save more and use credit less, but honestly that's so barely scratching the surface to the extent that it's basically a deflection.

When disparities in wealth and income are best graphed on log scales we're well past credit card interest payments making a dent.

#121 | Posted by jpw at 2017-07-18 12:56 AM | Reply

Kinda like what the Bolsheviks did. And Chavez is Venezuela. And Castro in Cuba. And Allende in Chile.
But Don't worry, I'm confident that this time the experiment will succeed.

#65 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

How come you didn't mention Chyyyyyn-uh? You know, the country that IIRC has the level of sustained growth Trump's fantasy budget is based on? You don't think Trump is planning a Chyyyynnn-uh-modeled economic system, do you?

#122 | Posted by jpw at 2017-07-18 01:00 AM | Reply

#118 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2017-07-17 10:09 PM | FLAG: Thought you understood that someone with poor/bad credit is a risk. Of course they do not get best rates as there is a higher chance that they will default on the loan. If a law was passed requiring them/everyone to get the same interest rates they would not qualify for a loan [i.e., no car/house, etc]..

A credit risk is the risk of default on a debt that may arise from a borrower failing to make required payments. In the first resort, the risk is that of the lender and includes lost principal and interest, disruption to cash flows, and increased collection costs.
Credit risk - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org

#123 | Posted by MSgt at 2017-07-18 01:43 AM | Reply

"Not that it matters. Taxes were never causal to the postwar growth spurt. It was war that caused that."

no doubt it was a huge factor. It doesn't mean the taxes weren't. Some here want to believe in a sole cause for something which is almost never the case when discussing economics.

#124 | Posted by eberly at 2017-07-18 09:03 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"#118 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2017-07-17 10:09 PM | FLAG: Thought you understood that someone with poor/bad credit is a risk"

Thought you were paying attention to the conversation.
My bad.

#125 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-07-18 12:12 PM | Reply

"But since you've obviously rolled it up into a tube and shoved it in deep, I guess the joke's on me."

The joke is on you quite often...usually of your own doing.

"He was, without a doubt, our greatest President since Lincoln and he would have tolerated your ideas for about a minute."

And then he would have threatened to stack the Supreme Court with his cronies in order to get a rubber stamp?

#126 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-18 04:25 PM | Reply

"For instance, the best way not too long ago to "become more valuable" was to obtain a degree."

It still is. In fact it's moreso now that at any time in history. In constant year 2012$, having a degree would have earned you an additional $7.5K in 1965. In 1979 it would have earned you an additional $9.7K. In 1986, $14.3K, in 1995, $15.8K. In 2013, it was $17.5K.

"But as more and more people obtained degrees said degrees became less and less valuable and, therefore, less sound investments."

Compared to what? It's clear the value of having a degree in continuation to increase.

"I won't argue that most (myself included) could and should do better at living within their means to save more and use credit less, but honestly that's so barely scratching the surface to the extent that it's basically a deflection."

It's not though. The deflection, if you're into critical thought, is blaming it on some nebulous force or conspiracy theory. You can track with relative ease why some people are getting richer while others aren't. In fact I just showed that with the numbers I listed above (college grads vs. non-grads). Increasing taxes will do absolutely nothing to limit the earning potential of workers who have little value to employers. Nor will it alter the value of those who have immense economic value. The only thing that changes is the amount of earned income they get to keep.

#127 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-18 04:31 PM | Reply

Link to the US News Study referenced in #127

www.usnews.com

This alone explains a lot of the income inequality phenomenon. Let's see if the Corkster chimes in to dismiss this as white privilege or some other baseless conspiracy...

#128 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-18 04:34 PM | Reply

Let's see if the Myth Bomber comes out in favor of, "Government programs of bonds and education, labor unions, full employment in war devastated countries, fair progressive taxation, a growing middle class rather than a shrinking one that has occured since top rates were lowered."

The gap between grads and not grads is infinitesimal compared to the gap between the top 5 percent and the bottom 40 economically in this country.

And not grads are a reflection of rwing anti-intellectualism and the fact that those are their proxy voters for the very wealthy.

But actually, I've grown bored of your broken record of old rwing canards as excuses for not giving a ---- about other people than yourself.

Andrea, I can at least understand; it's in her own self-interest. But the middle class has been decimated and is shrinking, and I don't see you as being above middle class.

#129 | Posted by Corky at 2017-07-18 04:58 PM | Reply

"The driver of that widening is not so much that today's college graduates are doing better than yesterday's college graduates are doing; it's that today's high school-only graduates are doing worse than yesterday's high school-only graduates," he says.

"The real story is the collapse in economic opportunity for people who do not continue their education beyond high school."

from your article

It's the Economy, Stupid.... still. And that is not run by poor people, it is run by the very wealthy and the corporate who like it just the way it is.

#130 | Posted by Corky at 2017-07-18 05:18 PM | Reply

"It's the Economy, Stupid.... still. And that is not run by poor people, it is run by the very wealthy and the corporate who like it just the way it is."

We college graduates, especially those with advanced degrees, like it just the way it is as well.

#132 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-18 05:22 PM | Reply

You prefer living in a country full of uneducated people who rely on the tax dollars of the wealthy to get by?

That's funny.

#133 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-07-18 05:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

- like it just the way it is as well.

NO, you like it the way you think it is, not as it actually is... because you are earning much less than you could be were taxes, and laws, truly progressive.

They just haven't killed some of yours outright yet, so yo do nothing, but they are coming for you.

- advanced degrees

Funny, it's not noticeable on you.

#134 | Posted by Corky at 2017-07-18 05:35 PM | Reply

- centralized authority

lmao! He always Deflects to the Red Scare when cornered. What a cartoon. [...]

#135 | Posted by Corky at 2017-07-18 05:38 PM | Reply

"NO, you like it the way you think it is, not as it actually is... because you are earning much less than you could be were taxes, and laws, truly progressive."

Actually, my earning potential doesn't change as a function of tax rates. I think what you mean to say is that society would be better if they were forced to pay a large chunk of the cost of providing the standard of living I feel I deserve. And I understand your sentiments. I have no doubts that there were many supports of slavery who couldn't fathom why any white man would be against slavery, when slavery came at absolutely no cost to the slaveowner, and offered them only benefits.

"Funny, it's not noticeable on you."

That's because you don't have them. At least nothing even related to economics.

It's funny...it's almost like you're bipolar. I know that you understand at least half this argument...you've posted as much. Yet you're not willing to come to grips with that other half of reality

#136 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-18 06:48 PM | Reply

"You prefer living in a country full of uneducated people who rely on the tax dollars of the wealthy to get by?"

We're pretty much already there.

#137 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-18 06:48 PM | Reply

So then your statement was meaningless, inconsequential, insipid?

#138 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-07-18 06:50 PM | Reply

"So then your statement was meaningless, inconsequential, insipid?"

Not when your argument is that uneducated should be persuaded to be even more reliant on the wealthy to survive.

#139 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-18 06:55 PM | Reply

"slavery came at absolutely no cost to the slaveowner"

Sure, other than the cost of the slaves, room and board, and chasing down the occasional Dred Scott, and paying lawyers to protect your property rights all the way to the Supreme Court in that case.

But I understand what you meant. The right to engage in slavery came at no cost.

It's a decent argument, but you can see it just doesn't work that way. Someone's right to an abortion or marriage comes at no cost, yet people still oppose it. And for largely the same reasons. Moral reasons.

#140 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-07-18 06:57 PM | Reply

"Funny, it's not noticeable on you."

You're taking all this very personal.

#141 | Posted by eberly at 2017-07-18 06:57 PM | Reply

"It's the Economy, Stupid.... still."

This election it was the Russians, stupid.

#142 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-07-18 07:07 PM | Reply

"no doubt it was a huge factor. It doesn't mean the taxes weren't. Some here want to believe in a sole cause for something which is almost never the case when discussing economics."

Think about this. A few years back (before I got here) my HOA decided that it was going to increase monthly dues and use the additional funds to hire a lawn company to maintain yards in the neighborhood. The dues are quite a bit higher than other neighborhoods, but it's also kinda worth it. At least to me...and I suspect many other neighbors. But if the HOA had come out and raised dues so that lower income homeowners wouldn't have to pay, that would have been a different story. And that's closer to the case here. Up until the end of the cold war, much of US budget went to the DoD to defend against the threat of global communism. National Defense is a cause that taxpayers can get behind. Not sure that defeating income inequality will bring out the same response from the taxpayers.

#143 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-18 07:28 PM | Reply

Wasn't the reason people didn't want Communism is they didn't want to be poor?

So income inequality is the same reason.

#144 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-07-18 07:31 PM | Reply

"But if the HOA had come out and raised dues so that lower income homeowners wouldn't have to pay, that would have been a different story."

That idea might hold water, if homes within your HOA went from $3 thousand to $3 million. As it is, home prices within your HOA don't differ anywhere near the way incomes differ nationwide.

#145 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-07-18 07:35 PM | Reply

It sounds like your HOA jacked up rates to keep poor people from moving in in the first place... And you're okay with that.

#146 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-07-18 07:37 PM | Reply

"Not when your argument is that uneducated should be persuaded to be even more reliant on the wealthy to survive."

My argument?

"Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households."

I'm merely reflecting on current economic conditions. Which have been persuading the uneducated to be more reliant for over 40 years now.

#147 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-07-18 07:59 PM | Reply

"So income inequality is the same reason."

People aren't waiting in line for basic goods like they were in the communist countries. In fact even your poorest Americans don't have to deal with the hardships that those under Communism experienced.

"It sounds like your HOA jacked up rates to keep poor people from moving in in the first place... And you're okay with that."

I would be OK with that...in fact I would demand that. Having low income housing destroys property values.

"I'm merely reflecting on current economic conditions. Which have been persuading the uneducated to be more reliant for over 40 years now."

And you seem to be OK with that. Bernie was relying on it.

#148 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-18 08:32 PM | Reply

"That idea might hold water, if homes within your HOA went from $3 thousand to $3 million. As it is, home prices within your HOA don't differ anywhere near the way incomes differ nationwide."

No, my opinion wouldn't change regardless of whether the HOA had been aiming to shield the poorest, the riches, or some other chosen group from having to pay dues.

#149 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-18 08:33 PM | Reply

"People aren't waiting in line for basic goods like they were in the communist countries"

But they are waiting for basic services like health care.

Are you saying Communism would have been okay if only they had Direct Deposit and EBT? So the only line you wait in is at the Walmart?

#150 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-07-18 08:44 PM | Reply

"And you seem to be OK with that."

I do?
What led you to that conclusion?
I'm aware if it, and I plan accordingly, but that doesn't mean I like it.

Unless you're such a purist that merely existing within the confines of such an economy grants it tacit approval. Is that what you think?

#151 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-07-18 08:48 PM | Reply

"my opinion wouldn't change regardless of whether the HOA had been aiming to shield the poorest, the riches, or some other chosen group from having to pay dues."

Good, because this country spends a lot more on corporate welfare than they do on welfare.

Think about that. The largest, wealthiest, most powerful organizations in the world are on the public dole. Where is the outrage? Back when I was young, people went into a frenzy at the thought of some unemployed person using food stamps to buy liquor or cigarettes. Ronald Reagan famously campaigned against welfare queens. The right has always been obsessed with moochers. But Boeing receives $13 billion in government handouts and everyone yawns, when conservatives should be grabbing their pitchforks.
www.forbes.com

#152 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-07-18 09:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Good, because this country spends a lot more on corporate welfare than they do on welfare....

#152 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Sadly, it's a bipartisan problem, my friend.

#153 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-07-18 09:39 PM | Reply

- That's because you don't have them.

I just can't keep this clown from making a fool of himself.

#154 | Posted by Corky at 2017-07-18 10:55 PM | Reply

I mean, MB is they guy who couldn't figure out upthread that, well, see for yourself....

"But it doesn't really do anything for those who weren't earning high incomes." -MB

Nonsense. It lowers the percentage of the pie they're responsible for.
Are you sure you've got an MBA?

#92 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2017-07-17 04:48 PM | FLAG: | NEWSWORTHY 2

#155 | Posted by Corky at 2017-07-18 11:23 PM | Reply

Here's a good description of MythBomber and his ilk....

"Reason and facts are sacrificed to opinion and myth. Demonstrable falsehoods are circulated and recycled as fact. Narrow minded opinion refuses to be subjected to thought and analysis. Too many now subject events to a prefabricated set of interpretations, usually provided by a biased media source. The myth is more comfortable than the often difficult search for truth."

Here are some facts:

"Personal disposable income has grown nearly 6 times more under Democratic presidents

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has grown 7 times more under Democratic presidents

Corporate profits have grown over 16% more per year under Democratic presidents (they actually declined under Republicans by an average of 4.53%/year)

Average annual compound return on the stock market has been 18 times greater under Democratic presidents (If you invested $100k for 40 years of Republican administrations you had $126k at the end, if you invested $100k for 40 years of Democrat administrations you had $3.9M at the end)

Republican presidents added 2.5 times more to the national debt than Democratic presidents

The two times the economy steered into the ditch (Great Depression and Great Recession) were during Republican, laissez faire administrations"

www.forbes.com

And from Forbes, no less, rofl!

Of course, his backassward, cliched old rwing economic myths are because he'd so edumacated.

#156 | Posted by Corky at 2017-07-18 11:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Are you saying Communism would have been okay if only they had Direct Deposit and EBT? So the only line you wait in is at the Walmart?"

The fact that the system precluded an organization like Wal Mart from existing in the first place is why it failed.

"I just can't keep this clown from making a fool of himself."

What was your field of study again? Where did you get your degrees from.

"Of course, his backassward, cliched old rwing economic myths are because he'd so edumacated."

I must have really gotten your undies in a twist, didn't I. That's the only explanation I can gather from #156...and none of it was necessary. I'm pretty sure I've mentioned before that I voted for Gary Johnson, but thought Hillary was the most qualified...even being a criminal. And I regard Bill Clinton as the last real fiscal conservative president to have held the position.

That's nice of you to point out all the goodness that Dem presidents have done for the economy, but those presidents didn't achieve those success by enacting idiotic and juvenile legislation. JFK and Clinton would have laughed at Bernie Sanders as much as any other fiscal conservative.

I guess the overarching point is that Dems can be and often are fiscal conservatives. And I think it's becoming more and more common. The Repubs are giving ground to Dems in terms of support from libertarian-leaning independents. I've also stated several times that it's not outside the realm of possibility that A Dem candidate would emerge that I would willingly support.

#157 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-19 12:34 PM | Reply

But not if they ranted and rambled on about idiotic things like income inequality. That may appeal to one's emotions, but it's ultimately an ignorant cause.

#158 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-07-19 12:35 PM | Reply

So does the income inequality gauge tell us anything that policy makers should take into consideration?

If not then what other sorts of economic inequalities should policy makers be worried about?

#159 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-07-19 12:55 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

How about the topic if this thread, wealth inequality. Should policy makers try to reduce disparaties among the impoverished, towards the goal of improving the overall economy? Or does the economy do better when more people are living in poverty and receiving welfare benefits?

#160 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-07-19 01:06 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"I guess the overarching point is that Dems can be and often are fiscal conservatives."

Fourteen years after Bush invaded Iraq on the credit card you finally figured that one out, huh?

Let's put that edumacation of yours to the test: Is a single payer health care system fiscally conservative? Yes or no.

#161 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-07-19 01:10 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2017 World Readable

Drudge Retort