Just think, I found this on foxnews.com.... So much for them being biased...
Of course this seems somewhat like common sense, since assets/investments typically compound in value. This is why we save and invest.
Fox News Rich Outpace Middle Class
WonkBlog CBO Income Inequality
NY Times Top Earners Doubled
CBO Study Links
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
This really goes to why we can't save and invest. We simply do not make enough money.
--Hiram
I just saw this very question raised on another location. Assume that you are in the bottom quintile of income, which would you prefer?
A) The income of the top earners in the country drops markedly, while your own income remains steady, thus dramatically shrinking the "income gap."
B) The income of the top earners doubles, while your own income only increases by 25%, thus increasing the income gap between you and the fat cats.
If you answer (A), then I think we've discovered why you're in the bottom quintile in the first place!
J. Ewing
The problem with gap issues is that they are always really two issues, since the gap is the difference of two things, which may require two or perhaps just one policy response. I don't care if rich people make a lot of many. They have power, and they are perfectly capable of fending for themselves. I am concerned with the majority of us who are seeing our incomes and standard of living stagnating or even in decline. I am concerned that so few of us don't make enough money even to pay federal income tax. And I am concerned with the two tier society that is creating, where not nearly enough of us have "skin in the game" anymore.
--Hiram
More and more Republicans are concerned about class warfare these days. I share their concern. So maybe we should start thinking about getting rid of the classes.
--Hiram
Some are always going to have more than others, but what needs preserving is the economic freedom to move up or down based on your own abilities. The minute government starts trying to make things fair for everybody, ability and ambition cease to count.
That is why I agree with hiram, that everybody needs some "skin in the game" the way the game is currently rigged. It's why I like the general idea of Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan.
J. Ewing
"Some are always going to have more than others, but what needs preserving is the economic freedom to move up or down based on your own abilities."
And that's very much what we are in the process of losing. Republicans are arguing now that we have a class system in this country, and the only way you can maintain a class system is find ways to restrict entry.
--Hiram
This discussion reminds me of one of Trees, one of my favorite songs by RUSH.
Now do we really want to attain equality by excessively taxing those that earn the most?
Or should we be finding ways to help the less affluent earn more. Or help them learn to manage their finances better?
Chopping everyone off at the lower levels seems a bit counterproductive. So let's ask a different question. What will it take to help people in the lower quartiles earn more?
Here is a story that is frustrating me right now. A company has a customer that wants them to improve the quality of their product. The simplest, quickest and least expensive solution involves hiring some personnel to grind/buff the offending surfaces. Sounds easy right? Provides some new jobs.
Well thanks to a Union being involved, this improvement is being delayed by negotiations and bueaucracy. Therefore the customer is frustrated and the cost of the quality improvement will be higher than required by the market rates. Or the company will get to point frustration where they buy equipment to avoid this headache. And we wonder why jobs keep moving elsewhere.
Hiram is correct that people need to make enough to have some discretionary income before they can start to invest. Unfortunately I think many of these folks confuse needs and wants. I look at all the poor folk I know who smoke cigarettes. That $4/day would make a pretty good savings contribution. Just one example of many.
"What will it take to help people in the lower quartiles earn more?"
In my mind, this isn't the question. To me, the question is how do we become a nation where all our citizens can live with enough money and dignity to have a good quality of life--that means not just finding them more money, but more social supports for education, health care, work.
When I look at charts like this, it makes me more certain that the discussion isn't just about money--the 1% isn't going to willingly give up anything. We need to take a step further back and figure out how to make our society more equitable.
Consider:
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/10/29/opinion/29blow-ch.html?ref=opinion
-Annie
"…how do we become a nation where all our citizens can live with enough money and dignity to have a good quality of life?"
That may be the question, but the very next question is: who decides what is a good quality of life, and what the required amount of money is for that? I, for one, can think of a very large number of rather costly things that would make my quality of life better. Which, of course, begets the second question which is: where am I going to get all this money? Unless someone has figured out a way to turn these red oak leaves littering my yard into brand-new Sacajawea one-dollar coins, I don't think I'm going to get it.
J. Ewing
I liked Annie's definition...
Basic home, food, clothing, kid's activities, occasional vacation, healthcare, some income for savings, etc.
Anything to add on this high level and vague definition?
I can think of a lot of things I would SUBTRACT from the list. All of them, in fact. I would suggest that government should guarantee "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" based on equality of opportunity and equality before the law. Everything else should be left to the individual.
The problem with Annie's definition is the price of all these things, and the question of who pays that price. For example, how can we ask the taxpayers to provide "basic food" to everybody when some people have huge gardens and raise chickens, hunt and fish and gather wild foods? Why shouldn't those who CAN be expected to do these things, rather than picking the pockets of somebody trying to put food on the table for THEIR children?
The basic problem here is that liberals project their own failings on everybody. THEY do not give to charity, so they think nobody does. They think everybody "deserves" a good life, but that they should not have to pay for it, therefore it is necessary for government to FORCE these wealth transfers to take place.
There is absolutely nothing immoral about the rich getting richer, and making the rich man poor doesn't make the poor man rich. Give the poor man the opportunity to get rich on his own, and you will get what you want.
J. Ewing
Post a Comment