American Wealth Inequality

[Winehole23]

Omnisciently-voiced play-by play might be considered condescending, too, Wino.

Sure. In the interest of even-handedness.

I thought you deflected deftly, Darrin, much more crudely.

[admiralsnackbar]

Sure. In the interest of even-handedness.

I thought you deflected deftly, Darrin, much more crudely.

I try to be civilized, but I'm only human, man. When you try to engage somebody reasonably and respectfully and repeatedly get antagonistic non-sequiturs in return, MonCalamarian snippy-ness is not far off

[Winehole23]

When you try to engage somebody reasonably and respectfully and repeatedly get antagonistic non-sequiturs in return, MonCalamarian snippy-ness is not far off

A totally appropriate response IMO, but maybe Darrin knows that too. He might be trying to get yer goat.

[Spurminator]

Has this been posted in this thread yet?

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tu...hat-s-tariffic

[spursncowboys]

Way to miss my point altogether. Do you see any mention of government intervention at any point in my imaginary example? My point was that even the free market framework can cause acute wealth inequality under the right (wrong?) cir stances

Your entire example is as if everything was at a stand still. What about others making something better than what you have. Also not everything is about what is cheaper. Price differentiation or just materialism would get you compe ion. Then what about all the people it would take to fix and maintain your great contraption?

[Winehole23]

[Wild Cobra]

Well a day has passed and neither WC, nor Darrin has answered.

WC may or may not have actually read the question, so I will leave it out there a bit longer.

The lack of response simply adds to my overall assertion that almost all on the right who represent themselves to be "free market" advocates know next to nothing about economics.

Actually, I did answer a few posts before this one I'm quoting of yours.

Not a relevant question.

I am back after not being her for four days though. Been busy.

[Wild Cobra]

The answer to my question is ZERO, since the exchange was of an existing asset, i.e. existing stock.

So my vague recollection was correct, post #249:

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 for 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.

[Wild Cobra]

Think about what you posted. Has there ever been a time when 47 percent
are on the wagon being pulled by other 53 percent. Stands to reason,
those that are producing are going to reap more of the wealth than those
standing around waiting for handouts.

I made that point also, but I think you worded it far better.

[RandomGuy]

I will freely admit if I am wrong about this. I always allow for the possibility that I am wrong when there exists ambiguity, as there is in this case. Since we do not really have access to the original papers' assumptions. Find THAT and we might get to the bottom of this tempest in our teacup.

I will remain, however, generally skeptical of figures presented to me by people making public policy points, as anybody should.

Mr. [Randomguy's last name redacted],

We have located a 1965 projection from the Social Security Board of Trustees that indicates a projected cost for the Hospital Insurance (HI, or Medicare Part A) program of about $9 billion for 1990 (see http://www.ssa.gov/history/reports/t...7/1967hos2.pdf). This $9 billion for 1990 was in 1990 dollars.
The corresponding report for the Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI, or Medicare Part B) program did not show projections for 1990 (see http://www.ssa.gov/history/reports/t...67/1967sup.pdf). However, it is likely that the $12 billion figure you cite was the total projection completed at the time for Medicare Parts A and B for 1990, in 1990 dollars.

Note that it has been subsequently observed that health costs in general rose much faster than anyone had anticipated. The HI program, initially only for those over 65, has since been extended to disabled persons. Â Some the unanticipated increase in costs was from expansion of services over the years, which was substantial.
Other increase is attributable to coverage of disabled persons who would have been uninsured by the time they reached 65, but were not due to the extension of benefits to the disabled and the freeze on the insured requirement for those had become disabled before 65.


Please let me know if you have questions or need additional information.

Karen P. Glenn
Office of the Chief Actuary
Social Security Administration

-----Original Message-----
From: [Randomguy's email redacted]
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2010 6:49 PM
To: ^Actuary [[email protected]]
Subject: Quick specific question

Sir/Madam,
I am trying to make sense of a certain statistic that I came across recently.

Here is the statement:

"In 1967, the House Ways and Means Committee predicted that the new
Medicare program, launched the previous year, would cost about $12
billion in 1990."

The source for this statistic was given as being from the following do ent:

"Actuarial Cost Estimates for the Old-Age, Survivors, Disability, and Health Insurance System as Modified by the Social Security Amendments of 1967,"

The question I have is fairly simple.:
Was the $12bn figure given in that report in 1967 dollars, or projected 1990 dollars?

I have a feeling it is the former, but just want to make sure.


Regards,
[Randomguys name redacted]

I stand corrected. Brownbacks statement stands as fully truthful, and the implication that was made is a fair one.

(in the interest of absolute accuracy, actual inflation was higher in that period than was likely assumed in the 1960's era estimates, so the ending numbers should have compensated for that, but this would not effect the ending numbers materially)

[RandomGuy]

So my vague recollection was correct, post #249:

Indeed it was. My apologies again. You correctly answered the question, although I don't see how the answer supports your position.

[word]

An honest question here - since the rich have acquired so much more wealth why have they not created more jobs that distribute wealth throughout the rest of society? Isn't this what should have happened?

The Rich have undoubtdly grown their wealth so why have the rest of us lagged behind.

Because of how capital gains are taxed. It's not taxed like regular income, till you spend it, so there is no incentive to do anything but hold on to it. Once you move it over to the 'income side' it's taxed. This is done by selling a stock for a profit, for example.

Fact is, if they'd fix the tax code, things like 'national healthcare' and all this bull wouldn't be necessary. You do realize that even the rich, will be getting free health care. And I use the word 'free' loosely.

[RandomGuy]

Think about what you posted. Has there ever been a time when 47 percent
are on the wagon being pulled by other 53 percent. Stands to reason,
those that are producing are going to reap more of the wealth than those
standing around waiting for handouts.

Production and income are not quite related.

If, say the average professional basketball player today is paid, say more than 400 times what the average joe was in any given year, whereas that professional basketball player was only paid 5 times as much 20 years ago, should we then assume that average scores for games have gone up eightfold?

[RandomGuy]

Because of how capital gains are taxed. It's not taxed like regular income, till you spend it, so there is no incentive to do anything but hold on to it.

Fact is, if they'd fix the tax code, things like 'national healthcare' and all this bull wouldn't be necessary. You do realize that even the rich, will be getting free health care. And I use the word 'free' loosely.

So, in essence, you are saying that the wealthiest taxpayers are given preferential tax treatment.

I would agree on that point.

It also puts the lie to the "give the rich money and we all benefit" schtick as Manny points out.

[word]

So, in essence, you are saying that the wealthiest taxpayers are given preferential tax treatment.

I would agree on that point.

It also puts the lie to the "give the rich money and we all benefit" schtick as Manny points out.

Well, it's a double edge sword. It encourages investment but investment doesn't necessarily equate into economic growth and jobs. The tax code has always been THE way the government uses to encourage certain activities and discourage others. The government likes people to invest and used to like people to save, till they lowered interest rates to the level you're better off investing in baseball cards than putting money in the bank. I think that's about to change but if you don't save money, or have money, then it's all moot. As my dad told me from the time I was knee high to a grasshopper, 'If you don't save money, you'll never have anything.'

[MannyIsGod]

Well, it's a double edge sword. It encourages investment but investment doesn't necessarily equate into economic growth and jobs. The tax code has always been THE way the government uses to encourage certain activities and discourage others. The government likes people to invest and used to like people to save, till they lowered interest rates to the level you're better off investing in baseball cards than putting money in the bank. I think that's about to change but if you don't save money, or have money, then it's all moot. As my dad told me from the time I was knee high to a grasshopper, 'If you don't save money, you'll never have anything.'

I'm ok with this statement. Tax cuts for the rich are whats best for the rich but that doesn't necessarily mean its whats best for our country.

[word]

I have always found it odd, that so many people defend the super-wealthy and I think part of it is, that people don't understand, that they can't wrap their mind around, people that have a billion dollars or 100 million or even 20 million. They have a good job and a nice house and car..etc...and they think of themselves as 'rich'. For many people, they have never really seen the super rich. They don't live in New York or LA or Miami, where wealth is on display. When I was growing up, in my small town, the wealthiest person in the town had 35 million. I know because there was an article written about him in the Dallas paper. This was, 25 years ago. But people, and I think myself included, can't fathom 100 million or 500 million. Even 50. The wealthiest people I know, and they have a lot of dough and toys and ...15 million I'd say. That's nothing on Park Avenue or Beverly Hills. Their houses are worth more than that.

[word]

This reminds me, I listen to Rush Limbaugh on WOAI in the afternoon and all these people call in as Rush goes on about taxes and I get a kick out of it. Rush has about 300 million dollars. Those people have in common with Rush Limbaugh. They couldn't get near his property to drive by his house to see where he lives ...

It's a strange strange phenomena....

[Yonivore]

What about prosperity inequality? Work ethic inequality? Ingenuity inequality? Productivity inequality? Personal responsibility inequality?

Take care of those "inequalities" and you'll solve the so-called "wealth inequality."

And, word, Rush Limbaugh wasn't always wealthy.

[word]

Always or not, he ain't one of them. You know why we didn't have these 'inequities' of wealth in America in the 1950's and 60's ?

The answer my friend, is in the tax code.

When wealth becomes concentrated, it stifles invention and innovation. That's why, in the past, we didn't allow it in the % we have now. But hey, if you want to open a hamburger joint next to a McDonalds with some super duper burger, give it a shot.

[Yonivore]

Always or not, he ain't one of them. You know why we didn't have these 'inequities' of wealth in America in the 1950's and 60's ?

The answer my friend, is in the tax code.

When wealth becomes concentrated, it stifles invention and innovation. That's why, in the past, we didn't allow it in the % we have now. But hey, if you want to open a hamburger joint next to a McDonalds with some super duper burger, give it a shot.

Seriously?

The wealth was concentrated among fewer in the fifties than the present. You can almost name them on two hands..and a couple of toes. Just run down Broadway, Park Avenue, or 5th Avenue in New York City and list the names of the buildings. That's where the wealth was concentrated in the 50's and before.

Present-day wealth, for the most part, has been created, not redistributed.

And, whether or not Limbaugh is like his listeners isn't the question, it's whether or not any of his listeners can, one day, be wealthy like Limbaugh. And, the answer is...yes, with a good work ethic and exploiting opportunities when they arise...absolutely.

[rjv]

And, whether or not Limbaugh is like his listeners isn't the question, it's whether or not any of his listeners can, one day, be wealthy like Limbaugh. And, the answer is...yes, with a good work ethic and exploiting opportunities when they arise...absolutely.

now that is the pollyanna thought of the day !

[word]

Seriously?

The wealth was concentrated among fewer in the fifties than the present. You can almost name them on two hands..and a couple of toes.

And here ladies and gentlemen we have an example of 'perception is reality'.

how about this one ....the gap between the highest paid and the lowest paid in a fortune 500 company is the highest it's ever been.

Perception, or reality ?

Let me ask you this, when a companies board pays their executives 1% of the profit as a bonus, would you be ok if the congress paid themselves 1% of the tax revenue ? After all, it's only 1 % ?

Oh, it's not their money you say ?

Well guess what, it ain't those other guys money either, but the pissant stock holder can't organize to stop it.

And once again I state my amazement of this phenomena of believing that it's ok because 'I could be like that too one day' or whatever.

[Yonivore]

now that is the pollyanna thought of the day !

Really? Was Limbaugh always worth $300 Million? Was it given to him?

How 'bout Gates? Dell? Bezos? et. al.? Or the Google and YouTube geniuses?

There are very few trust fund babies left, like the Hiltons, etc... Most of the wealthy earned or created their worth.

If you think it's pollyannaish, then you've accepted you don't have the work ethic or tenacity to achieve like they have.

[Yonivore]

And here ladies and gentlemen we have an example of 'perception is reality'.

how about this one ....the gap between the highest paid and the lowest paid in a fortune 500 company is the highest it's ever been.

Perception, or reality ?

What's the difference between the lowest paid today and the lowest paid 50 years ago?

What's the difference between the number of highest paid today and highest paid 50 years ago?

Let me ask you this, when a companies board pays their executives 1% of the profit as a bonus, would you be ok if the congress paid themselves 1% of the tax revenue ? After all, it's only 1 % ?

Oh, it's not their money you say ?

Well guess what, it ain't those other guys money either, but the pissant stock holder can't organize enough to stop them from doing it.

Sure they can. They can divest. If I don't like the way a company in which I invest spends it's profits, I can sell my stock.

Unfortunately, we can't do the same with our tax burden. But, come November, we can do the next best thing.