He was raised by his grandparents, who were well off.
To quote Obama : “For example, I was going to a fancy prep school, and my mother was on food stamps while she was getting her Ph.D.”
Good grandparents and a mother who works hard.
You don't really know what a broken home, in poverty, with simpleton/harmful parents look like, do you?
Last edited by MiamiHeat; 04-13-2010 at 12:10 PM.
You did not answer my question. If you don't really know, just say so, and I will msg you the answer, so as not to hamper WC's ability to learn/answer the question in good faith.
R. Guy is given $100,000. He decides he wants to save/invest that, and goes to his broker, and tells his broker that he wants to purchase $100,000 of Ford stock. The broker goes out and purchases $100,000 worth of Ford stock from Mutual Fund A.
How much has this transaction changed GDP?
I don't know and neither do you.
Then I am mistaken.
You don't know me.
Ask yourself, if the trend continues at its current pace (no guarantee of that), there will come a time when 50% of the population will be in poverty while 10% live in luxury. 40% will be somewhere in between getting ed by both sides.
What in human history can be used as a guide to estimate the resloution to such a situation?
Morlocks and Eloi, my man.
I don't think that will happen.
Great movie.
Actually, I can answer this question.I don't know and neither do you.
You should know by now, that I do not ask these kinds of questions if I do not already have the answer.
Thanks for answering with an honest "I don't know" though.
Hint:
The answer lies in the equation that economists use to describe GDP.
Look that up, and the implications therein, and you can find/calculate the answer.
Oh, so you have an equation? Well, that changes everything.
Oh you thought the GDP was a number someone just made up?
I don't think this is about income disparity as it is about how much of our countries wealth is concentrated in the hands of a relative few. That inequality is a huge problem especially if you believe that the amount of wealth you have relates directly to how well you are able to influence the American political system.
Your right that the problem isn't directly income. Its more about the power that comes with wealth and how what is happening flies completely in the face of trickle down economics and the conservative (even though there are liberals and democrats out there who subscribe to these tenets as well I give ownership of them to conservatives) economic beliefs.The problem isn't inequality of income per se. To me it makes more sense to say the problem is that there are too many people who don't have enough (scarcity), with no real prospects of changing that situation themselves (lack of social mobility).
What goes is it for all of us to increase our countries wealth when only a minuscule percentage actually rises?
I think one problem people have with trying to view this objectively is that the quality of life almost certainly goes up as time goes on for any given people simple due to technological advances.
Because of technology and advancement, many of our poor have better healthcare, eat better, and enjoy a relative higher quality of life than those 50,40, and 30 years ago. This does not mean that today they have less than what they did then.
It is also important to recognize that anecdotal evidence has no place in a discussion about society. Well, no place may be too strong but only marginally so. We can always find exceptions to almost any given scenario but that does not mean they are not exceptions.
Good point. But the problem here isn't inequality, it's the rules that have allowed moneyed interests to hijack the electoral process.
This relates more to inequity, than inequality per se..
The millenials are the first generation in American history that will be worse off than the one preceding it. If the middle class -- the dynamo of the US economy -- increasingly sees that all its hard work only makes its bosses rich, while it treads water or falls behind, it bodes ill for social cohesion.
The problem here is that an increasingly broad swath of people (not at the bottom but) in the middle are alienated from the benefits of social productivity. As DR pointed out upstream, this is a recipe for social mischief.
I agree with you 100%.
It does indeed "change things" when the topic of conversation is the economy in general.
I can say, for example, that for any given $100,000, it is better for the economy to put that money in the hands of someone lower down on the economic scale than it would be to have it in the hands of the average upper-income wage earner.
This economic basis would then be the logical foundation of a progressive tax system, that would effectively be one of those scary wealth re-distributions that some seem to find so apocolyptic.
Further, I could go on to describe how, if we today trimmed the federal deficit to 3% of the overall budget, it would cause GDP to shrink for the year by an alarming margin.
If you were to argue against either of these points, you would then have to resort to emotional stammering, as many "conservatives" who think they know what is best for "the economy" seem to do, because their arguments essentially stem from ignorance of how the economy is measured.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 04-13-2010 at 03:16 PM.
Which OECD country has the most progressive tax code?
Well, according to teh OECD, it is the US.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/23856.html
Barack Obama's admission that his policies would "spread the wealth around" has ignited a nationwide discussion of how progressive the tax system should be and how it should be used to redistribute income among Americans. Obama has been very successful in bolstering the conventional wisdom that the U.S. tax system does not place a significant enough burden on wealthier households and places too much of a burden on the "middle class."
But a new study on inequality by researchers at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in Paris reveals that when it comes to household taxes (income taxes and employee social security contributions) the U.S. "has the most progressive tax system and collects the largest share of taxes from the richest 10% of the population." As Column 1 in the table below shows, the U.S. tax system is far more progressive—meaning pro-poor—than similar systems in countries most Americans identify with high taxes, such as France and Sweden.
Even after accounting for the fact that the top 10 percent of households in the U.S. have one of the highest shares of market income among OECD nations, our tax system is second only to Ireland in terms of its progressivity for households.
The table also shows that the U.S. collects more household tax revenue from the top 10 percent of households than any other country and extracts the most from that income group relative to their share of the nation's income.
Of course, these measures do not include the litany of other taxes households pay in each country, such as Value Added Taxes, corporate income taxes and excise taxes, but they do give a good indication that our system places a heavier tax burden on high-income households than other industrialized countries.
The study also shows that while most countries rely more on cash transfers than taxes to redistribute income, the U.S. stands out as "achieving greater redistribution through the tax system than through cash transfers."[1]
Overall, the study finds that income transfer systems (social insurance, welfare) are "significantly more efficient than tax systems at reducing inequality, as well as more effective..."
Obama has started an important debate for America, but it is too bad he did so with less than one week before the presidential election.
Excellent point.Overall, the study finds that income transfer systems (social insurance, welfare) are "significantly more efficient than tax systems at reducing inequality, as well as more effective..."
We don't do enough income-transfers in this country to reduce inequality.
Why thank you Darrin, now we have something we both can agree on.
By the by, you did noticed that the top decile of the US (top 10%) earn 33% of all "market income"? yes?
The study actually reinforces the OP's main point about overall concentration of wealth.
Thanks for making the point about the top 10% in this country, RG. I read that from Darrin and had the same reaction that you did. It always depends on what someone wants to take out of the writing, doesn't it?
Actually, I never contended that there wasn't wealth concentration.
You're satisfied that we're number one re: progressiveness of the tax code. But that doesn't really touch the arguments about equitability or optimizing economic efficiency.
I have a hard time believing they said that quite as you portray it. Thing is, as long as we have a majority of people who pay little or no taxes, the elect politicians that raise taxes from others, to give that bottom 50% goodies. I think the point they would be making is the same as I do. As long as poor people have no taxes to be raised, they don't about government spending. If they paid taxes, and had taxes raised like the rest of us, they would stop electing politicians that keep running these deficits.
The statement you quote I see as a true statement. Just easily misunderstood in my opinion. There is no way the extra revenue from their taxes would help the deficit but by an insignificant amount, until they say NO to politicians who are now raising their taxes too.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 04-13-2010 at 05:38 PM.
Sure but those rules according to the Supreme Court are the US cons ution. Those are the rules we're going to have to work with because as long as using your money in political campaigns is protected under the first amendment then we have no chance of changing those rules.
Even if someone were to try to amend the cons ution to change those rules the would have to do so under the current rules which are for the reasons stated above. For me this isn't like an uphill fight. Its like an uphill fight while trying to walk on a ceiling.
I completely agree. I don't see how anyone can look at anything presented here in this thread and think that the situation is acceptable much less something to strive for.This relates more to inequity, than inequality per se..
The millenials are the first generation in American history that will be worse off than the one preceding it. If the middle class -- the dynamo of the US economy -- increasingly sees that all its hard work only makes its bosses rich, while it treads water or falls behind, it bodes ill for social cohesion.
The problem here is that an increasingly broad swath of people (not at the bottom but) in the middle are alienated from the benefits of social productivity. As DR pointed out upstream, this is a recipe for social mischief.
I tend to believe that we're not in danger of revolutions in a violent sort of way because as others have pointed out the standard of living is so high here that while people may grumble about the situation who is really going to get violent while they live in relative comfort.
More over I do think that smart conservatives would be very apprehensive about this type of situation because as much as they complain about socialism it is this type of atmosphere that will bring about long term drift in this country towards socialism, imo. As the number of people who have less and less grow in this country they will look to the government to redistribute the wealth. A smart conservative would want to see a country where there is a much more equal distribution of wealth in order to have everyone share an equal burden.
For instance when people look at who pays taxes in this country there are a couple of different ways to view it. You can view it as 47% (and I'm just going off the figures given in this thread - I do not attest to their accuracy or lack there of) who are not paying taxes you can either (a lower the threshold where one pays taxes and eliminate tax credits/cuts those who do not pay are taking advantage of or you can try to raise those who do not pay to a level of wealth where they begin to pay into the system as well. I would hope the latter is the trend we are looking for in order to make our country a more healthy one.
Maybe because its an absurd question, and has nothing to do with what at least i have argued. You are speaking of a way of sheltering money, which people do more when taxed at high levels. My point is that people shelter their money less with lower tax rates.
As fpr change in GDP? I forget what it is completely, and not going to look it up. However, I think it is a net zero change... off the top of my head.
Still, if anything, you are proving my argument with the example.
While I think youre already aware, let me point at not every part of the country is oil-rich Texas.
Nor Ann Arbor.
If the concentration of social rot becomes dense enough in any one area, youre not far from radical change.
Moreover, I dont believe the complete opposition of the current administration by conservatives, libertarians or the Tea Party folks is the source of such a possible discontented mass.
The disassociation of the average, tax-paying American from the politcal and wealth process in this country, IMO, is the underlying method of upheaval. It will be generalized and concentrated if it were to ever happen at all.
I imagine over-priced food, fuel, low-labor area of middle class nobodies.
There are currently 7 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 7 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
