Thread: An Idiots Guide to Inequality Part 1

The Replicant House of Representatives (after 2010) (with its idiotic excuse of "Austerity Budgeting" refused to vote any Stimulus Spending to even START rebuilding jobs in America. See the BLS history of Employment-to-Population Ratio here. Note the destruction of employment subsequent to the Toxic Waste Mess in 2008 (Obama's fault?) that created what we call the Great Recession as of 2009. (Again, Obama's fault?)

And you expected miracles from Obama? His ARRA-bill passed in 2009 (by a Dem Congress) had already spiked unemployment at 10%, from which it has since descended to the present day 4.9%.

Are you ever naive - you think a PotUS walks on water? Ever take a civics-lesson on our tripartite system of governance (Executive, Legislative, Judiciary)?

I gather you haven't ...

 

You will forgive me if I believed that flat-rate taxation of incomes above $100K per year was a "privilege"!

Poor stoopid me ...

PS: Admittedly, in Europe, most tax-revenues are obtained from taxation of commerce (sales tax) at a rate more than double that generally in the US (19/22%). But, also, Europe has much higher taxation rates for upper-incomes, and some countries even have a Wealth Tax.

 

The extremist alt right disinformation about government rules and regulations has been exposed as bogus by the fact that it was Republican/Libertarian DEREGULATION that caused the 2008 economic collapse.

 

and just coincidence that 1) Fanny Freddie owned or guaranteed 75% of the Alt A and subprime mortgages at time of collapse and, 2) that lib govt had 132 programs to get people into homes the free market said they could not afford, and 3) that Fed had low interest policy so people could afford mortgages? See why we say liberals don't think?

 

I don't disagree with the fact that there is a growing disparity of both wealth and income in the U.S. as well as much of world. Statistically we can look at the distribution of each among the population, however I disagree with what appears to be your premise that redistribution of income should be a government function. Like I showed from essentially the same source as your graphs, the top 1% are providing government an average of $678 to each $1 provided by the bottom 50%.

Income is earned, wealth is acquired, and neither is/should be redistributed by government. And inflation has undeniably exacerbated disparity of both income and wealth.

My observations have concluded that raising taxes on the wealthiest/highest income earners has not diminished their wealth or income at all, and if nothing else has only made government more dependent on them as the primary source of revenue from which to redistribute.

 

I forgive you, but your belief is still false. Not having your earned income stolen by government and given to rich, greedy, privileged takers is not a privilege. It's a right. It's justice. A privilege is when you profit by the uncompensated abrogation of others' rights. That's the source of great income and especially wealth inequality.

Poor stoopid me ...

PS: Admittedly, in Europe, most tax-revenues are obtained from taxation of commerce (sales tax) at a rate more than double that generally in the US (19/22%). But, also, Europe has much higher taxation rates for upper-incomes, and some countries even have a Wealth Tax.[/QUOTE]

 

Because government is TAKING the rights of the bottom 99% and GIVING their value to the top 1%. The rich, greedy, privileged takers are net gainers from government, everyone else are net losers. The bottom 50% are paying $1 to government to be robbed of their wages, the top 1% are paying $678 to get thousands more in privilege.

Of course. Just not by those who GET it....

The more wealth is acquired, the lower the probability that it has been acquired in return for any commensurate contribution.

Are you willing to give up the upward redistribution by government....?

Thought not.

No, it has reduced it by favoring debtors over creditors.

Because taxes on them have not been raised, they have been lowered.

They are the ones who are dependent on government for revenue, and I will thank you to remember it.

 

From the above text:

This is perhaps the singular most reason why European HeathCare is substantially less costly (about half) that of the US, because both drugs and healthcare professions are able to practice pricing set by the state governments that "negotiate" the costs. Having said that, Drug Companies still make a profit in Europe (without gouging prices) and practitioners make decent livings at average annual incomes far less than $190K per year (for instance, a GP, as indicated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics here, se code "29-1062").

Wakey, wake - healthcare in the US is a rip-off of the many by the few because a foolish people think "market" Supply&Demand should determine HealthCare-costs ...

 

BAND-OF-BRIGANDS

False reasoning.

Income is earned by the entire population (in a market-economy based upon Supply&Demand), which can expect that Taxation (which provides for Government provision of certain key services to the entire population) is Fair&Equitable thus avoiding Income Disparity from which is determined Weath Disparity.

Income Disparity is the key factor establishing persistent poverty and the incarceration of 15% of the population below the Poverty Threshold, or nearly 43 million fellow American men, women and children. And, for what? So that 0.1% of households can obtain a life-style clearly far, far beyond their needs or even whimsies?

General ignorance of American history seems to prevail in an America that has forgot we fought a Revolutionary War to free ourselves from Monarchical Rule (of landed-gentry) of the means of production (the source of most wealth at the time in the Agricultural Age). Which was then simply carried down from generation to generation by means of family inheritance.

That very same monarchic rule is performed today on behalf of a select group of families by means of a wholly unfair and unjust Upper-income System of Taxation. Thus rejecting and removing the claim of "freedom" or "national justice" or "equitability" (not "equality") that was initiated in 1776, more than 240 years ago.

Which means our Founding Fathers were just another band-of-brigands who sought removing imperialist land-rights from monarchic to private colonist rule and that notion has prevailed until this day ...

 

And this colossal stupidity is where we part company.

Only an idiot could believe that privilege in any modern "democracy founded upon impartiality" was an authentic entitlement ...

 

Your response, my friend, is false reasoning. Income is earned 'from' the entire population 'by' those who participate in the production of the perceived needs and wants of their own and other populations. Much of the spending of that 0.1%, as well as that of the top 50% provides job opportunities that would not exist otherwise. Simply taxing the rich and redistributing a portion of the tax and some additional debt only produces consumption in the areas from which the top earners receive their income, maintaining and/or growing their wealth.

 

LafayetteBis wrote

<<<<Only an idiot could believe that privilege in any modern "democracy founded upon impartiality" was an authentic entitlement>>>

Whether idiot or something more sinister, understanding the motivation behind the right-wing world view is probably useful.

Here is my reply to Ted's belief that there is no pressing need to do anything about inequality (from the Keynes-Adam Smith thread):

Ted wrote:

<<<why pressing?? God didn't make everyone with equal musical or business talent so inequality is 1000% natural.>>>

My reply:

More and more citizens. in this increasingly globally-integrated and aware economy, are beginning to feel, in a financial sense, like the mass of French citizens in 1788.... (are you keeping up with current affairs lately?) [BTW, one of Louis' more enlightened economists advised him to raise taxes on the wealthy...watch out for that axe!].

Of course inequality (in infinite forms) is 'natural', but human affairs are open to intervention in order to ameliorate some of the less desirable consequences of said 'naturalness' of inequality'; in fact with the current technological prowess of humans (*in part* a gift of curiosity-driven enquiry by countless non-profit-seeking scientific discoverers and other geniuses), no-one need be living in poverty - and then, but only then, inequality ceases to be a pressing concern (but of course 'mirror mirror on the wall. who is the most... etc....' will always be 'of interest' to humans)

God bless the right-wing soul, with its love of 'natural law' (based on self-interest of course). After all "there is no such thing as society"....

(End of post)

 

Ndividual wrote:

<<<Income is earned 'from' the entire population 'by' those who participate in the production of the perceived needs and wants of their own and other populations>>>.

And that would be fine if everyone were guaranteed the right to participate in the economy, at above poverty-level income (including the toilet cleaner at microsoft who is as important to company morale, and hence profitabilty, as any other employee). But this is where the public sector must play a role in the economy; workers who are currently excess to private-sector labour requirements, will need to be funded in (an infinitely possible variety of) socially useful activities, by the public sector.

How to achieve this without "stealing from the rich"? That is the question. And if there is an answer, we won't have to tolerate anymore the self-serving nonsense such as Ndividual's closing remarks that taxing the rich....will only make them richer. So....do you want the govt to tax the rich or not? According to you we have the ultimate win-win; ie, the public sector gains the funds required for infrastructure and basic services outside private sector interests, while the rich get richer!

[Ihe human mind is infinitely ingenious, if not always sane, in defending prejudice or self-serving views of reality, no matter the consequences for others].

 

You are dreaming. When Upper-income Taxation is so warped as it is in the US, the above does indeed happen. It is therefore imperative that we rid ourselves of it, and the inducement for riches is reduced.

(I keep asking, what the hell does one do with more than 20/30 megabucks? Answer: Leave most of it to their kids, which spoils the hell outta them!)

Any volume of wealth is predetermined by Universal Taxation. "Participation" is NOT the prime-criteria. Simple "existence" is - and governments are not there to decide who "gets what", and "who doesn't get what". It is there to assure that the distribution of result of our Labor is fair and equitable.

I am sure, in terms of civil-protection, you have nothing against both the police- and fire-forces or even the DoD. Which is fine, but such "protection", though basic, is simply not enough. Life is vagarious and try-as-we-may not all of us will be fully educated or fully employed. So, we must reduce the overall risk that a lack of sufficient education poses us.

Which is why and how the Poverty Threshold (which you pertinently fail to recognize) exists. And because it exists, it is shameful that any amount above 2, 3 or 4% of the population be incarcerated there, and for whatever the reason.

If we were educating our people properly, it likely would not exist. But, we aren't evidently. See Figures 1 & 2 here: Educational Attainment of Young Adults (Last Updated - May 2016) - from which one sees that only 37% of 91% of the nation's students, or only one-third of all our high-school graduates obtain a Tertiary-level degree (vocational, 2- & 4-year).

This may not bother you, or most of you reading this post, but it bothers economists who see plainly that the hurt in American today is due clearly to the fact that jobs are moving "up-market", thus requiring a higher level of skills/competencies attainment.

The challenge is clear:
*We must pay particular attention to those of our work-force who are beyond 25/30 years of age and are unemployed and quite likely unemployable (given the fact that their jobs have left the country), and
*We must assume the cost of a better Secondary and Post-secondary schooling for our children.

And this problem will only exacerbate for as long as we do not give it the attention it badly needs.

QED ...

Prosaic BS.

Some facts you need badly:
*Of the 585 billionaires in the U.S., 363 -- or 62 percent -- made their fortunes themselves says this report (from here).
*The rest parked their money in interest-related investments.
*The percentage of "entrerpreneurs" has fallen in the US, and increased abroad (from here):


I repeat: The proportion of Total Net Worth (Wealth - Debt) that is employed for Investment in high-risk, job-creating Entrepreneurship is minimal in the US. (It is abroad that entrepreneurship is most active.)

My point: Instead of acknowledging the knee-jerking BS that trade-magazine print about "Entrepreneurial America", get the facts! Because it is the stats that tell you the truth about what is going on.. Trade magazines are just stroking their readership ...

 

Legitimate REGULATED Fannie and Freddie mortgages were used by the Wall Street Casino Bosses to hide their junk predatory subprime mortgages so that they could pull off their Ponzi Scheme.

FTR it was Bush jr who was actively promoting home ownership.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/worldbusiness/21iht-admin.4.18853088.html

The Fed low interest rate policy had nothing whatsoever to do with the housing bubble. The Fed lowered rates BEFORE the bubble to deal with the first Bush jr recession and then steadily INCREASED rated throughout the housing bubble.

 

What do you mean, "democracy founded on impartiality"? The USA was founded when only white male landowners could vote, and there's plenty of evidence it's still more that way than impartial.

And what do you mean, "authentic" entitlement? I've certainly never implied that privilege could be rightful.

 

THE COLONISTS AND THE "ABORIGINALS"

Yes, it was "imperfect" then and is still imperfect. British subjects ("colonists") did not own the land they colonized! In fact, it's Indian-habitants had more right to that land than did the colonists.

A lesson in Land Tenure - excerpt:

So, you will excuse me if I insist that the original inhabitants of North America have a primary right to the land that was taken from them by colonists.

Much of liberal progress happened in the subsequent century, after much of Europe started to rid itself of monarchic control of the land-mass in the New World. In the US, anyone smart started moving West, where it was assumed that the land was open to one and all and the Indians were just "aboriginals"occupying the place but without land rights".)

FAST FORWARD - MY COMPLAINT

America has made great strides towards a more liberal/fair economy. My complaint is that Reckless Ronnie introduced unfair/unjust flat-rate taxation of upper-incomes that has renewed the injustice of the American economy.

And the economic stats I have shown, the logic of which you seem to refute, show that Income Disparity is acute in the nation. So, instead of going forward and solving that problem, we've gone backward. Of course, you understand that owners of the means of production "have rights" to expect an R-O-I, and I insist that without workers there are no profits derived from those "rights".

Those rights must be an integral part of Profit Sharing, and for the moment it is a privileged class that obtains them ...

ME PERSONALLY

Frankly, I could care less.

The French next year will likely elect a Rightist government that would not for a microsecond think of dismantling the National Health Service or asking families to foot-the-bill for a postsecondary education of their children. In fact, if I could vote, I would vote for the Right candidate against the Socialist Left that is the country's principle cause of high unemployment (where it is far too protected by inane work-rules) ...

- - - Updated - - -

Well, that's the way I interpreted what you wrote, particularly as regards American history. We still have we we call "The Indian Nation" in the US. From here:
Native Americans in the United States - excerpt:

By nature "entitlement" is either right or wrong. And there is no court of law on earth that will hear an Indian complaint of "usurpation of their land".

MY POINT

It is either right or wrong for you to possess an object or a right or a privilege - depending upon its nature and circumstance. That is the very nature of any subject we debate regarding our national governance* - who owns what and what taxation-privilege is therefore accorded.

The upper-class has no automatic-right to preferred income taxation.
Period ...

*And it has been for quite some time. The argument between the two-sides is not over, and continues.

 

Enough is enough. You are not making any sense.

 

I have but two questions; From where did you acquire such a belief? AND Do you actually believe that poverty exists because some have enormous wealth?

Pop est. 1941 = 133,402,471
Pop est. 2015 = 321,191,461
In August 1941 manufacturing employed 12,532,000 (1 per 10.6 pop) and August 2015 it employs 12,329,000 (1 per 26.1 pop)
In August 1941 government employed 4,821,000 (1 per 27.7 pop) and August 2015 it employs 21,995,000 (1 per 14.6 pop)

Fed/St/Loc government employees 2015 = 21,995,000 (17.6% of all employed)

Department of Education ED
Federal 4,400 employees $68,000,000,000 budget
State 2,446,300 employees
Local 7,852,500 employees
Fed/St/Loc employees 10,303,200 total
about 55,000,000 students

From the StLouis Fred, Working age population = Mar 2015: 204,026,415.969 or about 204 million
Currently employed = about 124.73 million or about 61% (about 39% of the working age population is not participating in the workforce)
Not employed = about 79.27 million

 

Thanks for the numbers, but it is difficult to understand what you intend to demonstrate.

Poverty is certainly worsened by the fact of long-term unemployment, but employment itself is no guaranty that no poverty exists. You seem to think that as long as people work, they are not poor.

That has never been true in the history of mankind. We do what is necessary to subsist, some much better and some much worse. Of the two, in terms of a government's primary objectives, it should be far more concerned with the latter than the former.

And our system of upper-income taxation is not established today with that purpose as a principal objective. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Of course there are many reasons, but I focus on the solution. The rich are rich beyond any justifiable means of being so. You seem to think the bigger the score of a football game, the better is "winning"?

The economy is not a sport ... it is a very serious principal objective of any fair and equitable governance of the nation that reduces the Poverty Threshold to acceptable proportions (2/3% of the population) - from its level today of 14.5%.

It is unacceptable that 46 million Americans should have been under that threshold since 1965 ... !

 

Statistically speaking, poverty is a relative condition, and since you have presented as fact that long-term unemployment worsens poverty leads me to believe that you would then agree that employment is a major factor in beginning to reduce poverty. It is not my belief that poverty will ever be eliminated in relative terms, especially if we continue to create an atmosphere of individual entitlement totally disregarding individual means.

Solutions to problems are achieved by eliminating the root cause of the problem, and while you admit there are many reasons, you continue to promote increasing taxation of the wealthiest as the singular solution.

Things are not always what they seem.

 

I am repeating arguments that I have already repeated three or four times. It is getting very boring.

Poverty is a state into which any family can fall. It is "conditional". And the biggest "condition" is education, though that is not the only one. From Census Bureau: Poverty & Education Report:

People are born into poverty and give birth to children that remain in poverty. Which explains why poverty endures over time.

And we elect other people who could not give a damn to lead the country.

Stoopid is a stoopid does ... (Forrest Gump)

 

Ndividual wrote (in #71):

<<<employment is a major factor in beginning to reduce poverty>>>

but a prerequisite for equality of opportunity, and access to employment, is equal access to the best available education, for as long as is necessary to achieve the individual's full potential.
[You will not admit this because you fear it will affect your own hip-pocket, hence your "relative poverty" copout].

<<<It is not my belief that poverty will ever be eliminated in relative terms, especially if we continue to create an atmosphere of individual entitlement totally disregarding individual means.>>>

Access to quality education is not an entitlement, it is a right.

(from the 1948 UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights):

"(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit."

Once that is in place we can deal with poverty associated with unemployment, underemployment and sub-poverty wages.

Meanwhile, people are exploring reasons and new solutions for the present dysfunctional global financial system, itself a major hindrance to the elimination of poverty.

https://www.intellihub.com/why-dona...l-reserve-and-start-issuing-debt-free-money/#

Of course the orthodox objections crop up:

http://www.pragcap.com/why-not-just-print-more-money/

"The term &#8220;printing money&#8221; is highly misleading. First, all &#8220;money&#8221; is a financial asset. And financial assets are, by definition, someone&#8217;s liability. Some people seem to think there is such a thing as &#8220;debt free&#8221; money, but that is not true in a world of financial assets because all financial assets are someone else&#8217;s liability. Of course, non-financial assets like gold are &#8220;debt free&#8221; because they&#8217;re no one&#8217;s liability, but we don&#8217;t exist in a world where gold or other non-financial assets serve as the dominant forms of money".

But printed money which, by agreement, is not "some-one's liability"? - cannot such money be created and 'dripped' into the system by governments, in a regulated manner? The loss of value of existing money could be compensated etc, but no doubt the reasons why Keynes' Bretton Wood proposals were rejected still apply (ie unreasoning self interest).






"Civilisation is a race between education and catastrophe" HG Wells.

 

Speaking of poverty, inequality and a sense of entitlement (recalling how the poltical right often point to a "sense of entitlement" among those living in poverty; here are some details re Batista - a charming fellow!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulgencio_Batista#Personal_life

"Back in power, Batista suspended the 1940 Constitution and revoked most political liberties, including the right to strike. He then aligned with the wealthiest landowners who owned the largest sugar plantations, and presided over a stagnating economy that widened the gap between rich and poor Cubans.[4] Batista's increasingly corrupt and repressive government then began to systematically profit from the exploitation of Cuba's commercial interests, by negotiating lucrative relationships with the American Mafia, who controlled the drug, gambling, and prostitution businesses in Havana, and with large US-based multinationals who were awarded lucrative contracts.[4][5] To quell the growing discontent amongst the populace—which was subsequently displayed through frequent student riots and demonstrations—Batista established tighter censorship of the media, while also utilizing his Bureau for the Repression of Communist Activities to carry out wide-scale violence, torture and public executions; ultimately killing anywhere from hundreds to 20,000 people.[6][7][8] For several years until 1959, the Batista government received financial, military, and logistical support from the United States.[9]"

Note the association with various American low-life, not to mention the US govt.
which disgraced itself by its alignment with numerous right-wing dictatorships about this time. Also not to mention the CIA-backed overthrow of the first *democratically elected* president in Iran's history, destroying that country's tentative steps to modernization and cultural freedom in 1953. ("In God we trust" indeed!.... but I suppose the realities of the cold war demand some withholding of moral outrage despite all this horrific history).

'Civilisation is a race between education and catastrophe'. HG Wells

 

I agree, you have been very repetitious, and I find it very boring.

Many, including myself have experienced poverty at times. In my case it happened prior to the creation of all the Federal assistance programs that exist today yet I and most all others I have knowledge of survived through our own efforts.
A basic education is in my opinion very important, and most good paying technical jobs result in the employer providing specific training. But jobs need to exist to put any education or skills to use.

Endures, and exacerbates.

He'll be gone come January.