Home › Forums › Open Discussion › Inequality Chart – All You Need to Know
- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
March 8, 2013 at 4:05 pm #606722
wakefloodParticipantIf you don’t know why this is at the root of our economic issues (and frankly most of our other societal ills), then you just don’t get it.
If you don’t think we’ve been performing a profound and failed economic experiment over the last 30yrs. then you’re part of the problem.
March 8, 2013 at 5:17 pm #785682
skeeterParticipantI agree we have a wealth inequality problem. I love this country, but I think a strong middle-class is what will make this country great – and it appears we are losing that.
But who has an answer?
It’s easy to say that tax policy has created the wealth inequality. But I don’t think that’s the case. 46% of Americans pay zero income tax. So taxes aren’t making poor people poor. Tax rates overall are a probably too low, but if you look at tax distribution, the wealthiest 10% are paying over 80% of the income taxes. I don’t want to turn this into a debate about taxes. We’ve been down that road. I just don’t think that tax reform can fix the wealth inequality problem. (It might be able to fix the deficit problem, though.)
So what’s causing the wealth inequality then? Part of it is earnings inequality. Some people are earning a lot of money and others aren’t. How do you fix that, though? Raise the minimum wage to $25/hour? Another part might be inherited wealth. I believe the inheritance tax tops out at 55%. So there is a lot of wealth transferring even after taxes. Perhaps an inheritance tax of 100% would be more appropriate? I’m not sure how Americans would feel about that. Another part is savings differences. Some save a substantial part of their income because they prefer to forgo current consumption in exchange for future consumption. Many Americans are not willing to do this. Sometimes it’s because they can’t afford it. Other times it’s because they are unwilling – which is understandable. It takes a special person to defer consumption. So perhaps we should have mandatory saving? Anyone earning over $x/year is obligated to save y% of income?
All of these ideas are riddled with problems.
Again – I agree we have a substantial problem. Wealth concentration in a small part of the population is bad for everyone – even the wealthy (though few would admit it.) But I don’t know how to fix it.
March 8, 2013 at 5:26 pm #785683
miwsParticipantMarch 8, 2013 at 5:40 pm #785684
wakefloodParticipantAppreciate the openness to solutions, Skeets. It’s thorny to be sure, but certainly not intractable. All one has to do to know this is to look at other countries and our own history before the 1980’s.
Taxation is a significant portion of the problem. The question is what/how much. Your note re: 46%. It’s true that their current INCOME tax contribution is minimal but they’re also subjected to lots more local regressive taxes than they used to be. It’s not like most of them are taking vacations to Hawaii. No free lunch.
But here’s a few places to consider.
A)Yes, inherited wealth is some of the least productive. Especially when above a few million. Tax it heavily, as you suggest.
B)Financial transaction tax. Two positive outcomes. One, generates significant revenue from those most able to afford it. Two, if big enough, helps disincentivize churning which costs all of us 401k’ers lots of $.
C) Take the lid off of SS wage tax. I don’t care how much you pull down. Kick it in at the same rate as everyone else.
D) Bring general income tax rates back to 1990’s.
March 8, 2013 at 5:47 pm #785685
dobroParticipantWe could also raise the minimum wage to correct for inflation which would put it at $10.59
http://www.raisetheminimumwage.com/facts/entry/amount-with-inflation/
or, better yet, set a “living wage” minimum that would provide enough for a person to live on without needing food stamps.
March 8, 2013 at 5:49 pm #785686
wakefloodParticipantAnd as a corollary, as per studies on the issue, it doesn’t seem to matter HOW you get to economic equality, EVERY society that has a good measure of it, is a happier, healthier one.
Some countries do it via heavily progressive income taxes. Some limit gross income through various means. Others just have lower performing economic engines which keeps all wealth within some average range. Doesn’t matter.
Here’s the TED study again: http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html
March 8, 2013 at 6:06 pm #785687
wakefloodParticipantAnd since I can’t resist, here’s another short TED talk on who the real job creators are:
March 8, 2013 at 8:00 pm #785688
DBPMemberI accept that I am part of the problem, that I just don’t get it, and that my life has become unmanageable.
However, at the risk of tearing a hole in the fabric of space-time, may I pose a question?
March 8, 2013 at 8:05 pm #785689
wakefloodParticipantLike anyone needs permission? Assume you’re asking for effect? Well then…drumroll please! :-)
March 8, 2013 at 8:29 pm #785690
DBPMemberWell, it was explained that if I disagreed with the OP’s interpretation, it could only mean that I “just don’t get it” and also that “I’m part of the problem.”
–Which doesn’t bother me, but still, I wanted to check back with you before speaking, because there are those who think it undignified to be seen carrying on a discussion with someone who just doesn’t get it.
However, if you’re not too proud to be drawn into a debate with a problematic imbecile, I can proceed.
March 8, 2013 at 8:37 pm #785691
wakefloodParticipantReally? Drum still rolling…
March 8, 2013 at 8:48 pm #785692
skeeterParticipantGo ahead DBP. I want to hear your thoughts. I voted for Dub-ya. Twice. So I’m definitely part of the problem too. :-)
March 8, 2013 at 9:12 pm #785693
DBPMemberThank you, skeets. Let’s call our group the “Problem Children.”
(If wakeflood has anything further to say, we’ll assume he has agreed to stoop to our level for the nonce.)
************************
As to the OP’s first point, viz., that economic inequality causes economic problems, that much is obvious. It certainly causes problems for those who are “less equal” anyway . . .
That inequality causes “most societal ills” is a horse of quite another color. That’s a pretty big claim to start off with, but I would venture to say that, even if wakeflood and I were to agree on what is meant by “societal ills,” it would be very difficult to draw a line between cause and effect.
Alcoholism (i.e., drunkenness) is clearly a societal ill, for example. One of the worst.
Query: Is economic inequality the cause of drunkenness? Or is it the effect?
Or is it both?
Or neither?
March 8, 2013 at 9:48 pm #785694
wakefloodParticipantThank god you got to the question. I’m assuming that pretzel-like preamble made you feel better??
To your point – I’ll grant you causality is the wrong word. I SHOULD have said HIGHLY CORRELATED. A thousand pardons.
If you watched the TED presentation (and btw, that’s not the only study that links economic inequality to less societal function and happiness), then you’re welcome to refute it with your own study.
Otherwise, So-crates-the Younger, I’ll assume you’ll just fire away next time you’re loading up a sweet “gotcha”??
March 8, 2013 at 10:09 pm #785695
wakefloodParticipantDBP, hope you and Skeets and everyone else on this board is getting at LEAST a few minutes out in the gorgeous sunshine!! Go git it while it lasts!! :-)
March 8, 2013 at 11:10 pm #785696
DBPMemberwakeflood, thanks. I’ll work on my tan in a minute. For now, I should just tell you that I don’t like being invited to a “discussion” with the caveat that if I disagree with the you, I must be some kind of boob.
I’m a worthy debating partner, and I demand respect.
Back to your point:
You know, inequality is a funny thing. It’s quite true that where great inequality is perceived to exist within a group it causes unhappiness and other social problems. But the key word here is perceived.
In some groups, inequality can be extreme, but if it is not perceived as such by group members, its felt effect will be minimal.
There was extreme inequality during the Great Depresson, for example, but how many times have you heard someone who lived through that era say something like: “Yes, we were poor. But we didn’t KNOW we were poor.” (My parents used to say that all the time.)
Right now Bhutan is extremely poor on the economic scale, for example. On every scale of economic development they’re close to the bottom. According to the experts, they should all be miserable, but they’re not. They use something they call the “Gross National Happniess Index” to measure their output, instead of the GNP that everyone else uses.
Convesely, consider the following: Japan and Finland top the charts in two areas:
Social equality (http://tinyurl.com/alkxr4l).
Suicide (http://tinyurl.com/bcs7292)
–Which is not to say that we should ignore inequality in Bhutan, the U.S. or anywhere else. On the contrary, we should be working hard to reduce it. But at the same time we should understand that economic equality (like money itself) doesn’t buy happiness.
March 8, 2013 at 11:35 pm #785697
wakefloodParticipantSo who said economic equality BUYS anything??? Certainly not me. Nor the study I quoted.
The data shows a high correlation between societies that function well and where people feel generally good AND the ones with the best relative balance between high and low relative wealth WITHIN that given country.
You’re arguing a point I – and the study – didn’t even make.
And as to your anecdote regarding the Great Depression – I’m not even sure exactly what your point is other than you suggest that EVERYONE was happy because NOT everyone was poor?? That’s one very reasonable interpretation of that statement. Another being that if you did a survey in the middle of the depression whether folks thought society was functioning well, you’d have gotten lots of thumbs up??? Again, what’s your point?
As to the issue of high equality and high suicide rate, we can agree that suicide likely has different interpretations within a given culture, yes? If yes, then I’d like to look at some research about what the real message of suicide might be within those cultures. Example: Saw a study that suggested that suicide was a learned (essentially a fad) response for young Polynesian boys who didn’t get the girlfriend they wanted. It gave them stature within their youth culture. Normal, everyday kid comes home from school and offs himself because he couldn’t get a date. Sociologically, suicide is obviously complex. Is the correlation between economic equality and suicide strong? Does it even exist? Got any data? Happy to read it.
March 8, 2013 at 11:45 pm #785698
wakefloodParticipantAnd does your suicide rates indicate what percentage of those are medically assisted, end of life? The question raised to suggest that not all societies think the best way to go out is to wait until the grim reaper calls. Some might just be happy that their society is fine with having them go out on their own terms?
March 8, 2013 at 11:48 pm #785699
wakefloodParticipantI forgot to answer my own question re: Suicide data. It does not indicate medically assisted vs. other.
March 9, 2013 at 12:38 am #785700
wakefloodParticipantAnd for what it’s worth, DBP, I didn’t phrase my OP well. It did appear to close down the opening for debate. I apologize.
Maybe I’m just too used to the usual suspects challenging posts regardless, that I lost track of my etiquette!
March 9, 2013 at 7:22 pm #785701
DBPMemberwake: I took your good advice and dragged my ass out into the sunshine yesterday.
Here’s a small part of what I never would’ve seen . . . but for you.
Good karma, bro!!
March 10, 2013 at 3:38 am #785702
oddrealityParticipantPB,Re This post from you “There was extreme inequality during the Great Depresson, for example, but how many times have you heard someone who lived through that era say something like: “Yes, we were poor. But we didn’t KNOW we were poor.” (My parents used to say that all the time.)”
My parents said that also. They were children during the great depression. My grandparents knew they were poor,they said so, they were the ones struggling to find a way to pay for their home and their food. They were the ones trying to make things seem as normal as possible for the kids.My grandfather lost a lot in the stock market and then his jewelry business burnt to the ground during the depression. My grandmother made lamp shades to sell. They had as big a veggie garden as they could and all wore hand me downs for years.My mom talked about her outdated coat she started high school that she felt a bit embarrassed to wear but was thankful to have a warm coat in Minnesota,some of the kids had none.She was lucky.So when you say your parents said that then I assume they were also children during the depression or some very fortunate adults.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.