patrick.net

Yes, Jobs was arguing for higher corporate welfare, because the wealth inequality wasn't growing fast enough.

mell says

No we don't, by far not enough compared to the debt we're taking on, what's so hard to understand about those 2 graphs? That's the main cause of inequality.

We do. What's impossible to understand is the causation. How does inflation cause inequality?

You've shown no graphs that indicate that inequality worsens during periods of high inflation.

I'm afraid that if we were to have inflation now, wages would not keep up.

I have no proof other than the fact that we are far from full employment and because globalization and the potential for outsourcing offshoring of labor has not yet finished. What if we we're to have inflation that was more centered on all types of assets (including financial) than on wages ?

We always think of wealth inequality in terms of the 1% versus the rest of us in this country. What about the wealth inequality between the American worker and workers in developing countries ? This is a force to be reckoned with too, unfortunately.

We need to have a way different focus of policies if we are even to maintain the American worker's standard of living.

tatupu70 says

Call it Crazy says

...due to the incompetence, laziness and lack of ability by the working class...

Nominated.

Yeah, for troll of the month prize. Not that I can see the rest of his nonsense.

marcus says

maintain the American worker's standard of living.

It is not being maintained now. As I posted above over half of Americans make less than 30 grand. And when they need tires or the fridge breaks they borrow.

From the link:
"Unless the distribution of wealth in America begins to change for the better, assets will continue to benefit the rich and debt will continue to burden the middle class and the poor."

I despise America's favorite Grandpa Moneybags, but I like his honesty here:
“There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”― Warren Buffett

Also from the link:
"For now, the best thing that you can do is to discuss these issues with your friends, family and colleagues and try to come up with solutions."

Does anybody really think there are "solutions" at this point in the game?
Other than Thomaswrong's solution of; we all hike up our britches and get a better job.

Robert Sproul says

Does anybody really think there are "solutions" at this point in the game?

Hike capital gains taxes. Make income tax more progressive. Keep a significant estate tax.

These policies worked for 30 years until Mr. Reagan came along....

tatupu70 says

Hike capital gains taxes. Make income tax more progressive. Keep a significant estate tax.

I guess I meant politically viable solutions.
This era's Democrat is grateful to have the Insane Party to blame for not being able to accomplish true reform.
They work for the same paymasters now, and have much the same agendas, in my book.

HEY YOU says

But the POOR know where you live.

Fuck you.

I dare you fucking slaves to show up at my front gates.

Dan8267 says

Currency debasement is one of the main causes of the distribution problem.

Maybe you can explain how, then. I'm all ears.

tatupu70 says

Maybe you can explain how, then. I'm all ears.

it rewards leveraged real estate speculation.

Bellingham Bill says

Finding good government on this planet is a very difficult task.

Singapore

Anybody correct me if the numbers are wrong, but that does not look like a poster boy of high taxes in general, and what, no capital gains tax? And what a whopping GDP growth rate: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/singapore/gdp-growth

Singapore Income Tax Rate : 20% (progressive)

Singapore Corporate Tax Rate : 17%

Singapore Sales Tax / VAT Rate: 7%

Singapore Capital gains tax rate: 0%

"Unlike many other central banks such as Federal Reserve System or Bank of England, MAS does not regulate the monetary system via interest rates to influence the liquidity in the system. Instead, it chooses to do it via the foreign exchange mechanism. It does so by intervening in the SGD market.[59]"

marcus says

I'm afraid that if we were to have inflation now, wages would not keep up.

yeah, this is what is so troubling about "Abenomics", a real ad-hoc approach to Japan's economic future.

The Abe people are NOT japan's best and brightest, they don't really know WTF they're doing, other than weakening the yen by printing like mofos.

Then again, looking at this:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=qCp

maybe they are just playing defense now.

tatupu70 says

How does inflation cause inequality?

1. During inflation, those who get the newly created money first gain at the expense at those who get the money later. The key to understand this is by realizing that prices do not go up simultaneously as if by magic, but propagates from the center of new money creation to the rest of the economy (just like "the wealth effect" due to stock market rise or real estate price rise). The rich can borrow new money into existence far more readily than the middle class and the poor can.

2. The rich can leverage at far higher multiples than the middle class or the poor can. The rich banksters can leverage at 50:1 or higher; the middle class can borrow at only 2:1 for trading the same equities; the poor don't have the credit to borrow at all.

3. During a crisis, the FED Window of special lending is only open to the rich.

You've shown no graphs that indicate that inequality worsens during periods of high inflation.

Do you need a graph to prove to you 1+1=2 to go with that?

Inflation due to government money creation is not exactly a random walk event. It doesn't just happen by itself. The government officials are creating new money for specific group of cronies to receive it. For example, Robert Mugabe printed his zillions in order to pay his followers at the expense of the rest of the population.

tatupu70 says

Robert Sproul says

Does anybody really think there are "solutions" at this point in the game?

Hike capital gains taxes. Make income tax more progressive. Keep a significant estate tax.

Agreed. Alone it won't solve the problems, but it would be a good start.

tatupu70 says

Hike capital gains taxes. Make income tax more progressive. Keep a significant estate tax.

America already has the most progressive income tax system (defined as ratio of tax share to income share among the top earning decile) out of the entire OECD 24 including Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, The Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, The Slovak Republic, Sweden, Switzerland, and The United Kingdom.

Obviously that does not work and we should try fairer approaches like a flat tax.

Once average people have some skin in the game they might stop voting for politicians who spend their money enriching key industries (like defense) at our expense.

tatupu70 says

Hike capital gains taxes. Make income tax more progressive. Keep a significant estate tax.

These policies worked for 30 years until Mr. Reagan came along....

Bullshit... Reagans tax cut increased Govt revenues, it worked for Kennedy and Bush. Lefty freaks ignore that Tax Cuts actually increase jobs, income taxes and Govt Revenues. But increasing Govt revenues isnt your goal.

Face it Tatupu... what does the LEFT really want... THEY WANT TO BE SEEN taking money away from the Rich.. Confiscation in the NAME of the Poor. Ask Clinton if it worked... No it didnt.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/charleskadlec/2012/07/16/the-dangerous-myth-about-the-bill-clinton-tax-increase/

sbh says

Hasn't worked for decades.

no matter what history says, and billions collected ?

really, the treasury miscounted the tax collection ?

at the end, all you want to do is Confiscate the wealth

along with the Citizens guns... which amounts to theft.

sbh says

Your train of consciousness makes all stops but never makes any connections. And I thought CaptainShuddup was a dithering lobotomized half-wit. You can't manage a coherent thought to save your life.

Its all fairly clear, the Lefty plan to hike taxe rates is NOT to increase tax revenues, that can be accomplished by lower tax rates and greater employment. Already directly proved by Kennedy, Reagan and Bush.. and indirectly by Clinton.

Your plan is to talk up as much as you can regarding Inequality and confiscate from whom ever you can to gain political votes. That is all.

A plan destined to fail as have your other worthless plans, but everyone suffers from your failures. You have no real plan to increase employment and incomes. NONE!

sbh says

Your train of consciousness makes all stops but never makes any connections. And I thought CaptainShuddup was a dithering lobotomized half-wit. You can't manage a coherent thought to save your life.

Be respectful, you are talking about someone who is the vice president of finance for a major software vendor. Or so he claims.

thomaswong.1986 says

Its all fairly clear, the Lefty plan to hike taxe rates is NOT to increase tax revenues, that can be accomplished by lower tax rates and greater employment. Already directly proved by Kennedy, Reagan and Bush.. and indirectly by Clinton.

So that's how we got 16 trillion dollars in debt, all that increase in tax revenues.

drew_eckhardt says

America already has the most progressive income tax system (defined as ratio of tax share to income share among the top earning decile) out of the entire OECD 24 including Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, The Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, The Slovak Republic, Sweden, Switzerland, and The United Kingdom.

Obviously that does not work and we should try fairer approaches like a flat tax.

That's the wrong definition--try again. It has the worst inequality--that's why it's worst by your definition.

thomaswong.1986 says

You have no real plan to increase employment and incomes. NONE!

You don't get it. Achieving a better distribution of income and wealth will lead to more demand, more jobs, and higher median incomes. It is the biggest problem the US faces right now.

Reality says

During inflation, those who get the newly created money first gain at the expense at those who get the money later.

OK--let us know how that works. How does one "get" the money first. Can I just walk up to the Fed window and ask for $1MM? Do I have to have a certain income level to get in line?

Reality says

The rich can borrow new money into existence far more readily than the middle class and the poor can.

So, I'm assuming when I look at borrowing by income level, we'll see a big jump in borrowing by the top 1% during inflationary periods? No? That's not right?

Reality says

The rich can leverage at far higher multiples than the middle class or the poor can. The rich banksters can leverage at 50:1 or higher; the middle class can borrow at only 2:1 for trading the same equities; the poor don't have the credit to borrow at all.

Your contention is that the rich were borrowing during the crisis?

Reality says

During a crisis, the FED Window of special lending is only open to the rich.

The "window of special lending"? Really? Which window is that? Reality says

Do you need a graph to prove to you 1+1=2 to go with that?

No--just a graph that shows causation between inflation and inequality. It should be easy to show. Unless that theory is complete and utter BS, that is...

Reality says

The government officials are creating new money for specific group of cronies to receive it

Interesting--who is the US government creating money for and who exactly is getting it? How are they getting it? That darned window of special lending again?

Call it Crazy says

Nah, Tat would rather whine about inequality..... it's easier than working...

lol--you think I'm living in Westfield off of welfare?

Call it Crazy says

Wah Wah Wah... poor baby.. "Tat translation: "I'm not getting mine".

I'm doing fine, thank you. If I were voting for policy based only on self interest, I'd be voting Republican. The problem is that I understand how economies work...

Internet Axiom #9556:
When one has to publicly and repeatedly announce the fact that they are not reading posts of people they have ignored, they most certainly are under an alias.

marcus says

tatupu70 says

Call it Crazy says

...due to the incompetence, laziness and lack of ability by the working class...

Nominated.

Yeah, for troll of the month prize. Not that I can see the rest of his nonsense.

drew_eckhardt says

tatupu70 says

Hike capital gains taxes. Make income tax more progressive. Keep a significant estate tax.

America already has the most progressive income tax system (defined as ratio of tax share to income share among the top earning decile) out of the entire OECD 24 including Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, The Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, The Slovak Republic, Sweden, Switzerland, and The United Kingdom.

Obviously that does not work and we should try fairer approaches like a flat tax.

Once average people have some skin in the game they might stop voting for politicians who spend their money enriching key industries (like defense) at our expense.

Agreed. Skin in the game is what matters.

http://nassimtaleb.org/category/skin-in-the-game/

"America already has the most progressive income tax system"

and yet Romney paid 14% in 2011. Funny, that.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/21/pf/taxes/romney-tax-return/

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CP/

is the problem, mate.

But I do agree taxes have to double across the board. Our tax-to-GDP rate is comically low compared to those OECD nations.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ZTcCp8eYEyI/S7t-wtj-UAI/AAAAAAAAAQs/6V5-fK6D_fw/s1600/oecd+gdp.PNG

Low taxes on the masses just results in higher home prices and rents in the end.

Bellingham Bill says

"America already has the most progressive income tax system"

and yet Romney paid 14% in 2011. Funny, that.

he already paid his tax on salary, no point double taxing it... reinvested his AFTER TAXED Salary into investments.

others may have made some capital gains and some didnt.

yea.. so whats wrong with that ?

tatupu70 says

I'm doing fine, thank you. If I were voting for policy based only on self interest, I'd be voting Republican. The problem is that I understand how economies work...

If you do, can you point to economic theory/history which will show

increasing the tax rate actually increases tax receipts ?

Did such a policy do better than the Kennedy or Reagan tax cut ?

and dont bother with the Clinton tax increase.. its a myth!

Or is your understanding all about.. "lets go after the rich" political nonsense and

not about Economics at all.

bob2356 says

thomaswong.1986 says

Its all fairly clear, the Lefty plan to hike taxe rates is NOT to increase tax revenues, that can be accomplished by lower tax rates and greater employment. Already directly proved by Kennedy, Reagan and Bush.. and indirectly by Clinton.

So that's how we got 16 trillion dollars in debt, all that increase in tax revenues.

Even the NYT was surprised at the increase in Tax Revenues from the Bush Tax Cut..(2006) how we soon forget... Step up Bob, add to the discussion your idea to increase jobs, expand economy, and increase tax revenues. It worked for Kennedy, Reagan and Bush.

Surprising Jump in Tax Revenues Is Curbing Deficit

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/washington/09econ.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

tatupu70 says

That's the wrong definition--try again.

Nope.

A progressive tax is a tax in which the tax rate increases as the taxable base amount increases. The term "progressive" describes a distribution effect on income or expenditure, referring to the way the rate progresses from low to high, where the average tax rate is less than the marginal tax

How income determines tax rates has no direct connection to do with how much money different people make.

It has the worst inequality--that's why it's worst by your definition.

Nope. Income distribution doesn't matter, just what your share buys.

I hung out with poor coffee farmers in Mexico, where by "poor" I mean no electricity, no running water, no glass in the windows of the family tin-roof shack.

97.8% of Americans living in "poverty" have refrigerators. 83% have air conditioning. 75% own cars. 44.9% have dish washers.

According to your logic, those Mexicans who lack clean water are better off than American "poor" because the bottom quintile has 4.9% of the income pie versus just 3.3% in America.

Obviously that's not the case.

thomaswong.1986 says

If you do, can you point to economic theory/history which will show

increasing the tax rate actually increases tax receipts ?

Did such a policy do better than the Kennedy or Reagan tax cut ?

and dont bother with the Clinton tax increase.. its a myth!

Or is your understanding all about.. "lets go after the rich" political
nonsense and

not about Economics at all.

So when Tax receipts where 20.6% of GDP in 2000, compared to 16.2% of GDP in 2003, thats a Myth? $2.3T in 2000 in constant 2005 dollars vs $1.9T in 2003 is a myth?

$2T in 2000 vs $1.78T in receipts (nominal dollars) is a myth?

ie Increasing the deficit $200 billion in three years by cutting taxes.

OK, so that is showing the opposite, when lowering tax rates lowered the receipts.

So, show when raising the rate raised receipts...how about
17.5% of GDP, $1.48T in 2005 dollars, and $1.15T in nominal receipts in 1993 vs 18.4%, $1.69T (2005 dollars) & $1.35 (nominal) in 1995?

ie Lowering the deficit $200 billion in 2 years by increasing tax rates.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

drew_eckhardt says

According to your logic, those Mexicans who lack clean water are better off than American "poor" because the bottom quintile has 4.9% of the income pie versus just 3.3% in America.

No--that's not my logic. My logic is that when income/wealth inequality gets to current levels, then the economy stops working.

thomaswong.1986 says

Even the NYT was surprised at the increase in Tax Revenues from the Bush Tax Cut..(2006) how we soon forget... Step up Bob, add to the discussion your idea to increase jobs, expand economy, and increase tax revenues. It worked for Kennedy, Reagan and Bush.

The tax revenue was 500 billion less each year 2008-2013 vs 2006. The tax rates didn't go up, where is all the extra revenue from the Bush tax cut those years? Maybe the tax revenue in 2006 had something to due with an epic bubble in the economy? No of course not it had to be the tax cuts in the right wingnut fantasy world.

tatupu70 says

You don't get it. Achieving a better distribution of income and wealth will lead to more demand, more jobs, and higher median incomes. It is the biggest problem the US faces right now.

Hi Tatupu, I have a question about this if you don't mind. Overall I agree with this statement; I can observe from my rich friends and lower-income friends that lower-income people spend more of their income than rich. Person A makes 10x person B but doesn't spend 10x on food, clothes, cars, etc.

On the other hand, as disparity has increased, the personal savings rate has declined. 11% in the early 80s, 7.5% in 1990, 5% now.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/PSAVERT/

I can't see how to make these two ideas square up. Perhaps it has to do with the details of the savings rate; the denominator is "disposable personal income " which is income minus taxes. Taxes as a percentage of gdp are low now, so this increases the denominator and reduces the savings rate. Perhaps the top echelon of the rich get money in ways that are not counted as "income".

Any thoughts?

tatupu70 says

drew_eckhardt says

According to your logic, those Mexicans who lack clean water are better off than American "poor" because the bottom quintile has 4.9% of the income pie versus just 3.3% in America.

No--that's not my logic. My logic is that when income/wealth inequality gets to current levels, then the economy stops working.

So what you're saying is that the economy has stopped working??

Odd, it seems to me that the economy is running as strong now as it ever has.

The only obstacle left to hurdle is housing. For every degree we lower housing costs, we would see the economy ramp up another click.

Look outside your window

errc says

So what you're saying is that the economy has stopped working??

No--I was being too loose with words there.

errc says

Odd, it seems to me that the economy is running as strong now as it ever has

I would disagree with that statement though. With unemployment at current levels, I don't think the economy is running as strong now as it ever has.

errc says

The only obstacle left to hurdle is housing. For every degree we lower housing costs, we would see the economy ramp up another click.

Look outside your window

I strongly disagree with this statement. While it would be great if one could suddenly lower everyone's mortgage while keeping their equity intact, in reality, lowering housing prices would almost certainly cause another recession. Look what happened in 2008.

SiO2 says

Perhaps the top echelon of the rich get money in ways that are not counted as
"income".

Bingo.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=qEc

Slope of GDP > slope of PI.

bob2356 says

thomaswong.1986 says

Even the NYT was surprised at the increase in Tax Revenues from the Bush Tax Cut..(2006) how we soon forget... Step up Bob, add to the discussion your idea to increase jobs, expand economy, and increase tax revenues. It worked for Kennedy, Reagan and Bush.

The tax revenue was 500 billion less each year 2008-2013 vs 2006. The tax rates didn't go up, where is all the extra revenue from the Bush tax cut those years? Maybe the tax revenue in 2006 had something to due with an epic bubble in the economy? No of course not it had to be the tax cuts in the right wingnut fantasy world.

What is the problem with cutting tax rates across the board for working people while decreasing spending at a comparable rate?

I would disagree with that statement though. With unemployment at current levels, I don't think the economy is running as strong now as it ever has.

--------------

In my opinion, "unemployment" isn't the greatest gauge of the strength of the economy. Maybe in the olden days, but not in present time. If we can produce everything everyone needs and wants, without every last poor soul being worked to the bone, I believe we can still have a strong economy?

Actually, that is desirable,no

That's why I posit the economy is as strong as ever. Lean and mean. If you're concerned that everyone be made to work, than pine for the 20 hour work week