Gus Lubin
Nov. 7, 2011, 9:29 AM
From Business Insider
Once again the rich are getting richer as the poor get poorer in America.
Although rich people took a hit in the financial crisis, the stock market has recovered strongly.
Main Street has not: Median household income has fallen 10% since the beginning of the recession and unemployment has increased by nearly 5 percentage points.
Populist movements among Democrats and Republicans have finally put this issue in the spotlight. If you haven't seen these charts, then prepare to have your mind blown.
To read on click here. Take the time to view the remarkable charts and graphs that simply report the facts established by the data. The current trends appear frighteningly like the period immediately prior to the Great Depression.
All the while, the poor suffer most.
19 comments:
It isn't just the income equality -- though, historically, that is a bad sign for a society. It is also the utter lack of compassion by so many of the people at the top (and their supporters) for the plight of the rest.
This lack of compassion is frequently seen in the comments on this blog -- many from people unwilling to put their names on their comments.
There is something that is just not right when the first response to the struggles of the many is one that is devoid of compassion. Show me your compassion, then, and only then, will I consider your arguments.
Elton Trueblood once said (in a gathering at which I was present) that the first scripture to pay attention to was from the end of Matthew 9: "Jesus went through all the towns and villages, teaching in their synagogues, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom and healing every disease and sickness. When he saw the crowds, he had compassion on them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd."
"He had compassion on them." A far cry from the spirit I sense in many comments on this blog.
Randy Mayeux
Dallas
One has to consider upward mobility. The so-called "rich" in 2011 are not necessarily the rich of 2000.
Randy, well put, and what a powerful passage.
arpredRandy: Well put. Great passage.
Anon 9:17: Sure, there is movement, but let's not kid ourselves, absent the lottery, the VAST majority of people do not experience major shifts in income. The lowest quintile (say 18th percentile) may work their way into the second lowest (say 22nd percentile), but they do not become top 10%. For any story you could find of such a move, there would be 100K others with little or no change. Our society is mobile - both down and up - but 99% of the time, only within limits.
Ken
Dallas
Randy, what is "income equality"?
Mr Anon
A typo - I obviously meant income inequality.
Randy Mayeux
Dallas
Just when I was beginning to agree with you...
Randy, well then what is income inequality? Thanks
Income equality is the subject of Larry's post. I suggest that you read his post, and follow the links.
Randy Mayeux
Dallas
To anonymous unidentified commenter
Sorry about that - income inequality is the subject of Larry's post.
Read the post, and follow the links.
Randy Mayeux
Dallas
Randy, I read the post and followed the links and did not find an answer. Please help by defining income inequality?
To anonymous unidentified commenter:
Income inequality is defined as: "The unequal distribution of household or individual income across the various participants in an economy. Income inequality is often presented as the percentage of income to a percentage of population."
Historically, it refers to the "gap" between the folks at the high end of the income scale to the folks lower down. That gap has grown substantially larger in recent years -- to just about the highest in American history.
I suspect that you knew this... would be surprised if you did not. You may think this is a good thing, or an irrelevant statistic (a "those at the top deserve what they have attained, those lower have only themselves to blame" sentiment). But in the past, those at the top did not believe, and did not practice, setting income at as many times higher than their "regular workers' in their companies. The current CEO pay gap is extraordinarily high, in historical terms.
Randy Mayeux
Dallas
One more bit of information... Tyler Cowen is not a liberal, and in this essay (one of the "Sidney Awards" selections by David Brooks), I have some disagreement. But it is a thorough, provocative piece from Cowen's perspective: "The Inequality that Matters" by Tyler Cowen
http://www.the-american-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=907
Randy Mayeux
Dallas
To anonymous unidentified inquirer:
Taxation inequality is defined as: "The unequal collection of household or individual income taxes across the various participants in an economy. Taxation inequality is often presented as the percentage of persons in the economy paying taxes on behalf of the entire population."
Historically, it refers to the "gap" between the folks at the high end of the tax schedule to the folks lower down, who pay no taxes. That gap has grown substantially larger in recent years -- to just about the highest in American history.
I suspect that you knew this... would be surprised if you did not. You may think this is a good thing, or an irrelevant statistic (a "those at the top deserve what they have get, those lower have only themselves to congratulate" sentiment). But in the past, those at the top did not believe, and did not practice, setting income taxes at as many times higher than their "regular workers' in their companies. The current CEO tax burden is extraordinarily high, in historical terms.
Wrongway Randy
Dufus
Randy, Thanks!
"The current CEO tax burden is extraordinarily high, in historical terms."
No, it isn't. The highest bracket in the following years was:
1941 81%
1944 94%
1958 91%
1964 77%
1972 70%
1982 50%
1987 37%
Taxation Inequality is actually at an all time low, even as income inequality is at an all time high.
Ken
Dallas
http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html
I was still curious, so I looked for a correlation between tax rates and GDP.
"Historically, from 1947 until 2011the United States' average quarterly GDP Growth was 3.28 percent reaching an historical high of 17.20 percent in March of 1950 and a record low of -10.40 percent in March of 1958."
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth
Look at the charts. I can't see any correlation between tax rates and GDP growth. Both the lowest and highest GDP growth occurred at a time when the highest tax rate was 80-90%. And whereas tax rates have steadily decreased since about 1964, I cannot see any obvious reaction in GDP, up or down.
Ken
Dallas
Could it be that it's simply inherently wrong to take someone's money away from them?
Then make that argument. But don't mistate the facts, as so many R's and Libertarians do.
Post a Comment