patrick.net

mell says

You gave a very specific example, the numbers look different depending on kids
and marital status and esp. mortgage etc. But for your example the answer is YES
- absolutely.

It was a typical nuclear family example. Median income, 2 kids, etc.

So why do you think that the tax burder on the typical nuclear family should go up while the tax burden on a high earner should go down?

tatupu70 says

That's obviously not true. The rich earn a disproportionate amount of their total earnings as capital gains certainly, but they do earn wages as well. Very healthy wages.

The super rich doesn't earn wage they make money from dividends, that's why most CEOs are paid in stocks. The rich yes, like I said depend on how high the wealth scale you go. But even when Zuckerberg was CEO of Facebook his wage was 600k before he reduced it to $1, which by the way is what most of the super rich and very rich do.

tatupu70 says

spydah_hh says

The distribution is cause by the money supply and the mal-investments.

OK-I've asked this several times. How exactly does money supply cause inequality? And please don't just say that "cronies" or the rich are first in line for the new money. I want to know HOW the new money gets into their hands, if that's your explanation.

Ditto for malinvestments--how does this cause inquality?

Already told you, you just refuse to believe it.

The first is that the Federal Reserve creates dollars and injects them into the economy. This is no secret. In Washington, inflating the money supply is considered a good thing; the Fed does it openly and proudly. Google “Federal Reserve money supply data,” and you will find plenty of evidence on the Fed’s own web sites.
figureA

The second fact is that, when Fed officials inflate, the new dollars do not descend on the country in a uniform blanket.

For instance, in 2009, when the U S population was 308 million, and the Fed injected an estimated $200 billion into the economy.1 Did someone from the Fed show up at your front door to give each member of your household their shares, $649.34 per person? No? Okay then, we know the money was distributed unevenly. Other people received your shares.

The federal government and mainstream press ignore the implications of this. Most newly created dollars are injected through the banking system, and no one knows where they end up. All we can say for sure is that you and I do not receive our shares, so our dollars must go somewhere else.

http://richardmaybury.com/feddisaster.html

What's even more interesting this is the same thing that's happened in 1924 through the 1920s. The government increased the money supply making it cheap to borrow. Much of the money went into the stock market. Just like today stocks are above 16,000 but yet bad economic news comes out every week, but the stock market and even real estate defy economic logic. Simply put stocks are in a bubble. When will it burst? I have no idea.

tatupu70 says

No, the chart isn't nullified, it just underestimates the real problem. It's much worse than what the chart indicates.

It's not underestimated. The chart talks about wage incomes and I stated before the rich and damn sure the 1% aren't paid in wages. The rich like those who make 400k-600k as a CEO yes they're paid in a wage, but sometimes they reduce that income and move it into a stock and are paid in dividends.

So all those people are not included into your nation wage avg. Therefore, you wealth disparity from the nation wage avg is bogus. So it is mostly accounting for the middle and upper middle class incomes which means that the middle class according to your CPI calculator is saying we're better off today than we were in the 90s. But you and I agree that isn't the case. But just goes to show how wrong most government statistics are.

spydah_hh says

The super rich doesn't earn wage they make money from dividends, that's why most
CEOs are paid in stocks

No they're not. Most CEOs earn a good salary--$300K+ with a good bonus (several hundred thousand) + stock options or stocks.

spydah_hh says

But even when Zuckerberg was CEO of Facebook his wage was 600k before he reduced
it to $1, which by the way is what most of the super rich and very rich do.

The super rich yes. Again--that just makes my argument even stronger.

spydah_hh says

Already told you, you just refuse to believe it.

You explained nothing.

spydah_hh says

For instance, in 2009, when the U S population was 308 million, and the Fed
injected an estimated $200 billion into the economy.1 Did someone from the Fed
show up at your front door to give each member of your household their shares,
$649.34 per person? No? Okay then, we know the money was distributed unevenly

This is a poor logic. The Fed didn't show up at anyone's front door giving anyone $649.34 per person. All that proves is that showing up at the front door is NOT how the money was distributed.

My question is how does increasing money supply increase wealth disparity. I want specific explanations as to how this new money gets into the hands of the rich.

Note: I'm genuinely curious.

spydah_hh says

Therefore, you wealth disparity from the nation wage avg is bogus.

It's not bogus--it just underestimates the true disparity because it doesn't include capital gains.

If you want to disprove CPI, then do some research and look at prices from 50 or 100 years ago and compare them to today.

tatupu70 says

spydah_hh says

Therefore, you wealth disparity from the nation wage avg is bogus.

It's not bogus--it just underestimates the true disparity because it doesn't include capital gains.

So your model still is bogus then because it doesn't include capital gains. Since your model does not include what you're trying to argument then it's bogus, find me another model that does.

spydah_hh says

The rich like those who make 400k-600k as a CEO yes they're paid in a wage, but
sometimes they reduce that income and move it into a stock and are paid in
dividends.

You have no idea how these guys are paid. A CEO who is granted 1 stock option (100 shares) at an exercise price of $10 is being paid a wage of $1000 (100*10) according to the IRS when he exercises the option. This would be included in his W2 wages and would be included in SS numbers.

The tax benefit is on the gain, say if they stock is really worth $20. The $1000 gain would be taxed at a lower rate if held for one year after exercise.

tatupu70 says

This is a poor logic. The Fed didn't show up at anyone's front door giving anyone $649.34 per person. All that proves is that showing up at the front door is NOT how the money was distributed.

My question is how does increasing money supply increase wealth disparity. I want specific explanations as to how this new money gets into the hands of the rich.

Did you not read the article? Here lets highlight the key points.

spydah_hh says

The second fact is that, when Fed officials inflate, the new dollars do not descend on the country in a uniform blanket.

For instance, in 2009, when the U S population was 308 million, and the Fed injected an estimated $200 billion into the economy.

spydah_hh says

The federal government and mainstream press ignore the implications of this. Most newly created dollars are injected through the banking system, and no one knows where they end up. All we can say for sure is that you and I do not receive our shares, so our dollars must go somewhere else.

Money supply data are recorded and published, usually by the government or the central bank of the country. Public and private sector analysts have long monitored changes in money supply because of its effects on the price level, inflation, the exchange rate and the business cycle.[5]
That relation between money and prices is historically associated with the quantity theory of money. There is strong empirical evidence of a direct relation between money-supply growth and long-term price inflation, at least for rapid increases in the amount of money in the economy. That is, a country such as Zimbabwe which saw rapid increases in its money supply also saw rapid increases in prices (hyperinflation).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_supply

spydah_hh says

So your model still is bogus then because it doesn't include capital gains.
Since your model does not include what you're trying to argument then it's
bogus, find me another model that does.

It shows exactly what I claim:

1. Overall wages are growing faster than inflation
2. Disparity is the cause of median rising slower than mean

Now--you are correct that it may underestimate the problem. But that only makes my case stronger.

tatupu70 says

It's not bogus--it just underestimates the true disparity because it doesn't include capital gains.

If you want to disprove CPI, then do some research and look at prices from 50 or 100 years ago and compare them to today.

I don't need to disprove it, I know what's wrong with it. You provided me a model and your model was wrong. The charts states the national avg wage was 42k in U.S. are you going to deny that? If not then your CPI model is wrong.

Be consistent, something is wrong with your model. Is it the chart for the nation wage avg? which I am pretty sure is right since its discussing wages only, or is your CPI calculator is wrong.

Either way you look at it. Let's assume that we added the 1% and the .1% and the .01% having a wage, then the nation wage avg will go up much more than 42k. But your CPI model still says that 35k purchasing power in 2012 was the same at 20k purchasing power in 1990. So shouldn't that number be higher? I mean in 22 years the purchasing power has gone up 175%, but in the same time period gas has gone up in 2012 268% since 1990.

spydah_hh says

Did you not read the article? Here lets highlight the key points.

I read it. Please point out the part that details specifically how the new money increases wealth disparity. I've yet to see that.

tatupu70 says

I read it. Please point out the part that details specifically how the new money increases wealth disparity. I've yet to see that.

You keep asking the same thing I already provided that.

How about this provide me once again if you ever have details on how wages are the cause of wealth disparity? And why inflation is suppose to help with labor and consumers?

tatupu70 says

1. Overall wages are growing faster than inflation

Where's your proof?

tatupu70 says

2. Disparity is the cause of median rising slower than mean

No disparity is caused by inflation, which is caused by the increasing the money supply. Here read the definition here:

in·fla·tion [in-fley-shuhn] Show IPA noun
Economics . a persistent, substantial rise in the general level of prices related to an increase in the volume of money and resulting in the loss of value of currency (opposed to deflation ).

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/inflation

Oops, accidentally clicked dislike on my own post, so in addition I clicked the like too, just to state it on record.

spydah_hh says

The charts states the national avg wage was 42k in U.S. are you going to deny
that?

No--it shows my point.

spydah_hh says

If not then your CPI model is wrong.

Nope--the CPI model is fine. Overall US wages increased faster than inflation.

spydah_hh says

Where's your proof?

In the links I provided earlier.

spydah_hh says

No disparity is caused by inflation, which is caused by the increasing the
money supply. Here read the definition here:

Please explain the mechanism. That's my question. How does inflation cause disparity?

spydah_hh says

How about this provide me once again if you ever have details on how wages
are the cause of wealth disparity? And why inflation is suppose to help with
labor and consumers?

You need me to tell you how income causes wealth disparity?? When one person earns more than another, their wealth increases more quickly.

I don't believe I've ever stated that inflation is supposed to help labor and consumers.

spydah_hh says

You keep asking the same thing I already provided that.

fyi-you haven't provided it.

tatupu70 says

You need me to tell you how income causes wealth disparity?? When one person earns more than another, their wealth increases more quickly.

That's not the cause of wealth disparity it's a result. Tell me the cause of wealth disparity.

Also what is wrong with someone making more than someone else? You saying that someone who works harder or comes up with an ingenious idea that results in higher income should not be paid more money?

Are you a socialist?

tatupu70 says

spydah_hh says

You keep asking the same thing I already provided that.

fyi-you haven't provided it.

Yes I have you just refuse to believe it. I lead you to the water but I can't force you to drink it.

spydah_hh says

That's not the cause of wealth disparity it's a result

huh? Some people getting more money than others is THE cause of wealth disparity. We can argue the reasons why they are getting more money, but that most definitely is the cause.

spydah_hh says

Also what is wrong with someone making more than someone else? You saying
that someone who works harder or comes up with an ingenious idea that results in
higher income should not be paid more money?

Are you a socialist?

This strawman has been played already. That's not what I think and I'm not a socialist.

spydah_hh says

Yes I have you just refuse to believe it. I lead you to the water but I can't
force you to drink it.

OK--please point me to where you explained how inflation or money creation causes wealth disparity. We've established that nobody goes to houses and gives it away. So, how DOES it happen?

spydah_hh says

No disparity is caused by inflation, which is caused by the increasing the
money supply. Here read the definition here:

What if I showed you a time period of increasing money supply and falling income inequality?

Hint: I have had this conversation before and have the data ready.

control point says

mell says

You gave a very specific example, the numbers look different depending on kids

and marital status and esp. mortgage etc. But for your example the answer is YES

- absolutely.

It was a typical nuclear family example. Median income, 2 kids, etc.

So why do you think that the tax burder on the typical nuclear family should go up while the tax burden on a high earner should go down?

There is no typical nuclear family anymore, that's why SS and every other ponzi scheme that depends on eternal population multiplication is collapsing. The fact that you added in a mortgage to the nuclear family illustrates the problem with this economy (they shouldn't have one and not be incentivized to have one). Taxes are a collective burden, the minimum you have to pay is $0. The "higher" earners as defined by those roughly making 200K+ (but not 0.1%-1%ers) already bear the brunt of the tax-load and should have their burden reduced.

mell says

There is no typical nuclear family anymore, that's why SS and every other ponzi
scheme that depends on eternal population multiplication is collapsing.

Bullshit. Social security does NOT depend on population multiplication. Please stop spreading that BS

mell says

The fact that you added in a mortgage to the nuclear family illustrates the
problem with this economy (they shouldn't have one and not be incentivized to
have one).

You don't believe a family with a median income (50%) should own a house? They should be rent slaves to the capitalist class?

BTW, I generally agre with you - for completely different reasons. The EIC is a tax credit for small business, since the savings rate for EIC beneficiaries is essentially 0. It allows Mcdonalds franchisees to hire workers below a living wage. IE it increases the supply of labor, lowering the cost.

Of course large business benefits as well both directly and indirectly, but my understanding is low wage earners are mostly employed by small business.

And I also generally agree that $200k is not the same kind of rich as $20 million. I think taxes should be more progressive and think it is silly that the top tax rates is at $450k in income and above. It should keep going up to 90% for marginal incomes over $10 million.

Those that benefit the most from government should pay the most for it. The only thing keeping Koch's billions in their pocket is the government.

Otherwise I could show up on their doorstep tomorrow for a piece. I like my chances against those old pricks.

control point says

The only thing keeping Koch's billions in their pocket is the government.

That is conjecture

To your larger point, yup it is another example of cronyism. I wonder if section 8 housing, WIC, food stamps, etc are more of the same?

indigenous says

To your larger point, yup it is another example of cronyism. I wonder if
section 8 housing, WIC, food stamps, etc are more of the same?

I'd say it's an unintended consequence. Cronyism is just another way for you to muddy the waters and spew more propaganda.

tatupu70 says

I'd say it's an unintended consequence. Cronyism is just another way for you to muddy the waters and spew more propaganda.

Quite the opposite you are conflating in an attempt to keep things polarized. I'm not an R or a D just looking at what is which is hard to see with all the straw man arguments.

sbh says

He won't take any bets payable in fiat currency. You'll just have to nut up and pull out some Austrian commodities.

dumb and dumber

indigenous says

Quite the opposite you are conflating in an attempt to keep things polarized.
I'm not an R or a D just looking at what is which is hard to see with all the
straw man arguments.

I will give them this--Austrians are good at posting gibberish.

tatupu70 says

mell says

There is no typical nuclear family anymore, that's why SS and every other ponzi

scheme that depends on eternal population multiplication is collapsing.

Bullshit. Social security does NOT depend on population multiplication. Please stop spreading that BS

It's actually worse, so stop your childish rants and apply some logic for once.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/richardsalsman/2011/09/27/social-security-is-much-worse-than-a-ponzi-scheme/

mell says

It's actually worse, so stop your childish rants and apply some logic for once

lol--OK. SS is not a Ponzi scheme because, if designed correctly, it doesn't require an ever growing population to sustain it.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

indigenous says

an argument that appears good at first view but is really fallacious

That's the definition of something else. Maybe a flawed argument or a specious argument.

tatupu70 says

SS is not a Ponzi scheme because, if designed correctly, it doesn't require an ever growing population to sustain it.

Exactly, it's a forced retirement scheme that has regressive contributions but progressive benefits.

corntrollio says

That's the definition of something else. Maybe a flawed argument or a specious argument.

Here is another:

a weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted

from here:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Strawman+arguments

mell says

http://www.forbes.com/sites/richardsalsman/2011/09/27/social-security-is-much-worse-than-a-ponzi-scheme/

Interesting this Salsman Plan. Economists predict that 2030 is going to be the cliff because of this along with demographics.

indigenous says

Here is another:

a weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted

from here:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Strawman+arguments

OK--now that you've learned the definition, please point out the strawman arguments that you referenced.

tatupu70 says

OK--now that you've learned the definition, please point out the strawman arguments that you referenced.

Every one of them look at my post?

sbh says

The definition of strawman argument is the same as the definition of brakelight: gubmint bad; free market good.

Is there some sort of medication you are supposed to be taking but aren't?