The new version of poverty

#126
#126
Cutting marginal rates at record levels is going to widen the gap.

The middle class isn't growing, while the top percentile is getting richer. It doesn't get any simpler, obviously what you are implicating couldn't have happened if the results have know evidence.

More like the poor guy still keeps one apple, while the rich guy has 36 taken from him. The middle class hasn't grown, so obviously this policy hasn't taken into effect, or rather we aren't doing enough to get the poor out of the bottom. In comparison to Clinton, Bush allowed wealth to drift to the top. Even if what you say is true, the rich guy should have 40 or 44 taken, so a gigantic gap isn't created. Our country was as economically succesful with much higher marginal rates for the top percent. Somehow this trickle-down theory has been thought to be successful, all it is encouraging is greed and
a larger gap. In comparison to traditional marginal rate thought, Reagan and Bush have been redistributing.

In reality, the marginal rates shouldn't be that low anyways, unless a recession is occurring, and of course you already know my Keynesian view point.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#127
#127
Also - Marginal rates can be cut with out a Recession. Example: 2001.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#128
#128
bam15 said:
The middle class isn't growing, while the top percentile is getting richer. It doesn't get any simpler, obviously what you are implicating couldn't have happened if the results have know evidence.

More like the poor guy still keeps one apple, while the rich guy has 36 taken from him. The middle class hasn't grown, so obviously this policy hasn't taken into effect, or rather we aren't doing enough to get the poor out of the bottom. In comparison to Clinton, Bush allowed wealth to drift to the top. Even if what you say is true, the rich guy should have 40 or 44 taken, so a gigantic gap isn't created.


The problem here is that taxing the rich more doesn't improve the standing of the middle class unless you want to take money from the top and give it to the middle class. Tax policy should be about equitable raising of funds to do what the government needs to do. Redistributive tax policy doesn't automatically improve the lot of the middle class.

Closing the gap by making the rich less rich doesn't address the issue.


Our country was as economically succesful with much higher marginal rates for the top percent. Somehow this trickle-down theory has been thought to be successful, all it is encouraging is greed and
a larger gap. In comparison to traditional marginal rate thought, Reagan and Bush have been redistributing.

The country has been much more economically successful on virtually every measure since the marginal rates began to be lowered by Kennedy.

For the 1000th time, cutting marginal tax rates is not wealth redistribution for the rich. That is not what the word means.

In reality, the marginal rates shouldn't be that low anyways, unless a recession is occurring, and of course you already know my Keynesian view point.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

There are problems associated with income gaps but reducing them simply via tax policy doesn't count as wealth creation for the lower and middle class. I would suggest there is plenty of evidence that wealth transfers from one class to another via government payments and programs stifles growth in the middle and lower class rather than raising it.
 
#129
#129
If you want to know why the rich go so much richer during Clinton era and Bush era - track the growth of the economy and the stock market. Bet they overlay perfectly with the graph posted earlier.

To prevent the growth in the gap, the marginal rate and capital gains rate would have needed to be staggeringly high. If it were, the economic growth would have been stifled.
 
#130
#130
thekicker33 said:
So you mean to tell me the poor nowadays compared to the poor 50 years ago have more purchasing power. Dude, you're wrong. More demand=higher prices unless supply picks up. that's just basic economics
Click to expand...

yeah that's why 90% of this country has cable. those poor people are screwed in this country.
 
#132
#132
Wasn't it already decisively proven that the existence and growth of the Upper Class is the reason that the "Lower Classes" exist and can grow? People just don't want to be in a "Lower Class" and don't find it fair but also don't want to take enormous risk and work their @sses off like 98% of the Upper Class have to get where they are.

Just my take. And no... I don't hold an Econ degree nor am I in the Upper Class by strict defintion. Though, due to CoL adjustments I would be if I was still in DC yet my APP would be lower.
 
#134
#134
DC Vol said:
Wasn't it already decisively proven that the existence and growth of the Upper Class is the reason that the "Lower Classes" exist and can grow? People just don't want to be in a "Lower Class" and don't find it fair but also don't want to take enormous risk and work their @sses off like 98% of the Upper Class have to get where they are.

Just my take. And no... I don't hold an Econ degree nor am I in the Upper Class by strict defintion. Though, due to CoL adjustments I would be if I was still in DC yet my APP would be lower.
Click to expand...

Yep. Framing the argument around class also ignores the class mobility that exists in the U.S. People move up; people move down. Some by choice and effort, some by circumstances. Poor immigrants don't come here to remain poor.
 
#135
#135
volinbham said:
Yep. Framing the argument around class also ignores the class mobility that exists in the U.S. People move up; people move down. Some by choice and effort, some by circumstances. Poor immigrants don't come here to remain poor.
Click to expand...

Ironic that many of the richest people in the US are either 1st or 2nd Generation Americans.
 
#138
#138
bam15 said:
Cutting marginal rates at record levels is going to widen the gap.
Click to expand...

you do realize that the maximum tax rate before reagan was north of 70%. tax rates had been RAISED to record levels before reagan reversed it. reagan also elimintated multiple tax loopholes and shelters. during the late 70s and early 80s you could literally invest in oil tax shelters and get twice the write off which made your investment essentially free for the very rich.
 
#139
#139
#140
#140
I'm probably wildly oversimplifying here but it looks like this new definition would consider a billionaire upper class, a millionaire middle class and some guy only making $500,000 per "poor", relatively speaking. I realize this is ignoring a lot of economic nuances but I find this usage too easily applies "poor" to people that, if you actually went and visited their homes, simply don't meet that definition, particularly if one cared to define it by the standards of damn near any other country in the world.

My non-PC moment of the day might be this; the standard of living for a lot of our "poor" people is enough to keep their lazy asses content. If they can afford to put some nice rims on their '85 Accord they painted neon green and get ESPN, why work harder?
 
#141
#141
I read a study several weeks ago from the treasury department that stated less than 20% of the top 5% of earners for any given year have been in that category more than once. It is NOT the same people up there year after year.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#142
#142
hndog609 said:
I'm probably wildly oversimplifying here but it looks like this new definition would consider a billionaire upper class, a millionaire middle class and some guy only making $500,000 per "poor", relatively speaking. I realize this is ignoring a lot of economic nuances but I find this usage too easily applies "poor" to people that, if you actually went and visited their homes, simply don't meet that definition, particularly if one cared to define it by the standards of damn near any other country in the world.
Click to expand...

That's the way I see it. We need a definition of poverty that is built around ability to procure essentials (fuzzy notion in and of itself). Making it a relative term to other's purchasing power guarantees you always have poverty and always use the government to equalize purchasing power beyond essentials.
 
#143
#143
paul1454 said:
I read a study several weeks ago from the treasury department that stated less than 20% of the top 5% of earners for any given year have been in that category more than once. It is NOT the same people up there year after year.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...
:yes:

Ask MC Hammer about it...
 
#144
#144
bam15 said:
You know more about economics than I do. I just see wealth shifting toward the top. Not that the shift is new, it's been occurring since Reagan. Actually it occurred during the Clinton years as well, but it was slowed down. This gap cannot be tolerated. Essentially what I believe is a certain gap between the two, with both classes growing. However, incidentially all we are seeing is one class growing.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Why?

Are you against a man working hard to build wealth?
Im not wealthy by no means, but how is fair to already take a VERY LARGE amount of wealth from someone who worked for it, and add to that?

I do wonder tho.
1. Why build wealth, if the government is gonna take more. (I.E. why invest/build bigger business that provides jobs)
2. Why strive to be more that what you are, when the government is gonna supply you more if your poor?

Basically we should strive to be average, and nothing more.
 
#145
#145
Striving to be average too high a goal to shoot for if you want government money. You should strive to be sub-par, that way you can get all the government handouts your heart desires.
 
#146
#146
Like Bam15 always says, government indoctrination centers should hand out gov't assistance applications on career day.
 
#150
#150
bam15 said:
Also - Marginal rates can be cut with out a Recession. Example: 2001.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

You should brush up on history. Might not have met the definition of a recession, but a mild recovery from the dot com explosion was being fueled by the tax help.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top