Quote:
Originally Posted by Rebellion";p="
Now what significant event happened in 1993? Clinton raised income taxes.
|
Yes, except a tax increase enacted in 1993 wouldn't show up until 1994 at the earliest. That doesn't refute the larger trend, but it's interesting that the numbers shifted in favor of the lower fifths in 1995.
Quote:
|
Also note that the poverty rate, although up since the recession, is still much lower than its 1994 peak.
|
But has remained stubbornly persistent despite the "booming" economy.
Quote:
|
The income gap is a reflection of two things. One would be the stock market boom, which as mentioned in the original post on this thread, has resulted in higher incomes for the wealthy. So remind me, why do we want to penalize the rich simply because they're successful at investing?
|
Why is taxing them at a higher *marginal* rate "punishing" them? I'm glad they're fabulously successful. But that second $100,000 should be taxed at a higher rate than everybody's first $100,000.
Quote:
|
Another reason is the fact that the US has been slowly turning from a manufacturing economy (unskilled labor) to a service economy (skilled labor). So yes, the incomes of skilled workers has increased substantially versus that of unskilled workers. As it should be. Or is this somehow a bad thing? Should we be rewarding the unskilled more than the skilled?
|
I'll agree that those contribute. They may even be major contributors. But is your thesis is that the income gap is entirely attributable to the stock market and the service economy? You're going to argue that tax policy, educational policy, etc. has no significant effect?