Well said, CG.
The model for "trickle down" has changed drastically in the last 30 years. With the exodus of manufacturing from this country, any uptick in job creation happens overseas. The continuing incongruity of the stock market:UI figures amply demonstrate this.
As for the charts and other metrics....they mean jack if I can't see the underlying data. Honestly, just because something is represented in a graph don't make it so. Manny, if you want to make a point, then make it. Posting a chart of compensation, (compensation being the key word) and passing it off as a comparison of payroll is disingenuous as all ...not that I think you did this deliberately. It's just an easy pit to fall into.
Excellent point. Whether we want to call it "trickle down" or not, the fact is that we're a consumer driven economy and that depends on people having disposable income and buying stuff they don't really need. This should be especially apparent to residents of a city like San Antonio where so much of the local economy is dependent on tourism.
"residents of a city like San Antonio where so much of the local economy is dependent on ..."
... huge federal civil service and military construction and payrolls.
Nice strawman.
Thanks for proving my point that many people don't have a clue on how to acquire wealth.
Income means , and is not the sole indicator of wealth. You could have 2 guys who make 300,000 a yr in income, one of them is an entertainer who buys up a nice house and the newest toys, the other is an apt property owner who makes his money out of his own assets. Both have the same income, but one of them has more wealth. The one with the most wealth is the one that ones assets, which is the property owner.
The rich get rich by acquiring more assets, not income.
Monopolies, big corporations are the bigger culprit of wealth disparity than the villified CEO who makes 300 mill a year. The only way to take away the power of monopolies and huge corporations is to allow new buisinesses the chance to compete. Govt regulation is the biggest culprit here since many regulations help the big guys stay in power since they have the power to overcome them unlike the small buisinesses who don't.
What the middle class buy is very important to this wealth distribution. If the rich are buying more assets and the poor are buying more liabilities, you're going to get that uneveness.
Overseas trickle down is not what is being sold to the American public. What is being sold is that if we make things easier for the top 1% then the rest of us will see benefits. I'm asking where these benefits are.
If they are overseas then there's a problem.
The underlying data is there for those willing to make the huge effort of clicking a few links. If you have proof something in those charts is wrong via that data by all means post it.As for the charts and other metrics....they mean jack if I can't see the underlying data. Honestly, just because something is represented in a graph don't make it so.
Why is it disingenuous? What is payroll if not compensation?Maybe you should follow Manny, if you want to make a point, then make it. Posting a chart of compensation, (compensation being the key word) and passing it off as a comparison of payroll is disingenuous as all ...not that I think you did this deliberately. It's just an easy pit to fall into.
Edit: My post wasn't fair. I'll reply in a bit but actually upon further thought I don't disagree as much with Gtown as I initially thought.
WHy do you suck at summarization?
The blame for wealth disparity was not solely pinned on the poor, you didn't read anything i had to say.
I've just demonstrated why the ideas of your camp mean .
You could raise the minimum wage, enforce income caps on CEO's and you would still have the same ol' every friday after next. Corps acquiring more wealth, the poor getting poorer, because income is always a slave to inflation while wealth isn't. You are trying to stomp the wrong mole.
Out of wealth and income, one of them is affected by inflation way more, i'll let you guess.
None of the you will propose will solve the problem. People moving up into class categories were helped because of the creation of new job markets and reductions in capital gains tax, this was evident in the 90's. There was your example of trickle down, even thought it was a superficial bubble, we all saw what "new markets" brought to society.
Oh my.. i read your edit..
i await your oppinion shortly but i have to run.. be back later.
There are so many factors to consider. Correlation does not equal causation, especially when several factors are involved.
Really? Then explain the above information please.
I told you. I'm not writing a book.
If you insist on keeping things that simple, then remember that our recession didn't start until after the democrats controlled congress.
Accept that, or be more considerate of all forces involved.
Yes, please explain when this trickle down bailout is going to start working.
You nailed it.
Spot on, 110%!
No they aren't. Wealth isn't static. Productivity is the key, and we have too many unproductive lazy people.
Their problem is they expect someone else to pull them up. They have to pull themselves up.
That was just one of many problems.
I don't see a problem. All I see is jealousy from petty people.
That's not because of the rich getting richer. It's because the poor don't have the motivation and desire to do what it takes to get richer.
I would agree that the trickle down as assumed is controversial. However, did you ever get a job from someone poor? The more money rich people get to keep without it being seized, they less they shelter it. They enjoy living off the fruits of their labor, and spend money. As they do this, the economy grows, creating more jobs.
Then assign the blame in the right place. Our government.
Income means ? Yeah, you could have 2 people make the same amount and have 2 completely different outcomes as far as assest acquisition BUT the fact is that if you have 100,000 people who make twice as much as a seperate group of 100,000 people there will be a far larger percentage of the first group who end up acquiring more wealth.
Income mean a lot. Its not everything but it is probably the greatest single factor in how much wealth a person acquires.
I agree with the opposite of this. Its a lack of government regulation that has allowed corporations to run wild. I agree that corporations know how to play the system better than anyone else and that they design the system to work best for them but having ineffective government regulation doesn't mean that we don't need more appropriate regulation.
Monopolies, big corporations are the bigger culprit of wealth disparity than the villified CEO who makes 300 mill a year. The only way to take away the power of monopolies and huge corporations is to allow new buisinesses the chance to compete. Govt regulation is the biggest culprit here since many regulations help the big guys stay in power since they have the power to overcome them unlike the small buisinesses who don't.
We just finished a recession driven by a bubble where the rich took advantage of the poor trying to acquire assets. Meanwhile those poor who tried to acquire assets are now left with nothing in a huge amount of cases.What the middle class buy is very important to this wealth distribution. If the rich are buying more assets and the poor are buying more liabilities, you're going to get that uneveness.
I hear what you're saying and I honestly agree to a certain degree. I don't think its something you can solve by just saying "here poor people have an acre of land that we took off bill gates". However, I do think there are steps we need to take a society and the only en y able to enact change on that scale is government.
Last edited by MannyIsGod; 04-12-2010 at 12:53 PM.
Agreed. I think that's a huge problem. What is being said is just a rehash of Reganomics, when it was at least feasible, that trickle down could work. Not so today.
The data sourcing is somewhat lacking but I'll probably take a look at it because the subject interests me somewhat. I have a natural su ion of statistical rendering of data...it's what I do for a living. If I found that the data was being manipulated and played, it wouldn't be the first time. When I see signs of, at least, misdirection, I get a little wary. Comparing execs pay in one chart, whilst examining the top 1%, without revealing the population of that 1% leads one to believe that the top 1% must be CEO's. But we don't know that do we? We suspect it. It might even make sense. But we don't know what we don't know. As we examine the top 1% of earners, why is the trending of the top hundreth of one percent, and the top tenth of a percent relevant? It's not, really.
Because, payroll is a just a component of compensation. Not all stock options are realized as they are measured at any point in time. When a company files it's SEC form 10K they declare the value of options or stock held. That's the value pinned to that stock at that moment and if you want to look at it as payroll, then that's the payroll for that exec at that moment in time. Since the stock market is far from static, it's not an accurate representation of that exec's pay.
I'm not disagreeing with the point that there is a huge disconnect between the top earners and the rest of us. There's no denying that. The effects of that are somewhat debateable. There's an almost contra-indicative disconnect between the comsumption inequality between the rich and the rest of us. Almost.
[/QUOTE]
^^^^ This ^^^^^
Bull .
You guys are advocating making things even harder for the rich, because they have so much, and the jealousy card is being played.
Nobody should pay a 39.6% marginal rate.
Dude, jealousy aint in my deck cards. Try again.
Why shouldn't anyone pay 39.6%?
Wow... Just wow...
I assume you believe they are lucky the government lets them keep that much.
I don't dispute the notion that personal responsibility is key as far as wealth-building goes, but when minimum wage doesn't provide enough income to allow for saving money, you have a problem. Raising minimum wage does little besides create inflation, welfare programs don't incentivize self-betterment, and regulation of goods and services can only control costs to a certain point before it becomes oppressive to providers or bersome for tax payers. The only solutions I see are trust-busting and, most of all, education. The whole public school system needs to be reformed drastically if we're going to get the most of our polity, become compe ive in the world market, and start chipping away at income disparities.
Stop assuming things about me. You're not very good at it.
I asked a question. Can you answer it?
Agreed. I think expecting people to be decent, or believing that the market will reward decency and bring down graft is naive Ayn Rand bull of the highest order. You can definitely over-do it with regulation, but we're in this largely thanks to a climate of pronounced under-regulation.
It's an absolutely dumb question to ask. Nobody should pay confiscatory rates. Add user fees, state tax, etc.
I'm sorry, but I place anyone who believe the rich should pay such a high percentage as either unethical, or morons.
So you think if we had a flat tax of 25% for all people, it would hurt the poor as much as it hurts the rich? That's a bit moronic and unethical, too, isn't it?
or they could be just paying thier fair share.
Just something to keep in mind when debating the "fairness" of our current tax system. 47% of U.S. households are not going to owe any income tax this year.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
