Dems making income inequality worse - Printable Version +- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com) +-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html) +--- Forum: Lounge (/forum-564.html) +---- Forum: The Kyra Memorial Spin Room (/forum-540.html) +---- Thread: Dems making income inequality worse (/thread-687124.html) |
Dems making income inequality worse - DrTorch - 04-22-2014 11:41 AM Op/ed, but it gives evidence, and I happen to agree. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-will-democrats-policies-make-income-inequality-worse/2014/03/14/97d5074e-aada-11e3-adbc-888c8010c799_story.html RE: Dems making income inequality worse - DrTorch - 04-22-2014 11:43 AM Jim Demint- big gov't benefits the rich. http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/jim-demint-big-government-benefits-rich Also true. RE: Dems making income inequality worse - Fitbud - 04-22-2014 01:49 PM (04-22-2014 11:41 AM)DrTorch Wrote: Op/ed, but it gives evidence, and I happen to agree. Are you saying that like it's a bad thing? RE: Dems making income inequality worse - smn1256 - 04-22-2014 10:35 PM (04-22-2014 01:49 PM)Fitbud Wrote:(04-22-2014 11:41 AM)DrTorch Wrote: Op/ed, but it gives evidence, and I happen to agree. What did you think of Will's article? I think he nailed it like he usually does. RE: Dems making income inequality worse - DrTorch - 04-23-2014 07:38 AM (04-22-2014 10:35 PM)smn1256 Wrote:(04-22-2014 01:49 PM)Fitbud Wrote:(04-22-2014 11:41 AM)DrTorch Wrote: Op/ed, but it gives evidence, and I happen to agree. Pfft. fitbud can't read at that level. RE: Dems making income inequality worse - Owl 69/70/75 - 04-23-2014 10:40 AM Here is the Gini coefficient, generally regarded as the most comprehensive indicator of income inequality (higher = more unequal) for the US since 1967, from http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/inequality/ Year Gini Coefficient 2010 0.397 2009 0.404 2008 0.403 2007 0.394 2006 0.411 2005 0.409 2004 0.405 2003 0.401 2002 0.405 2001 0.409 2000 0.405 1999 0.399 1998 0.393 1997 0.394 1996 0.393 1995 0.388 1994 0.395 1993 0.389 1992 0.360 1991 0.355 1990 0.359 1989 0.362 1988 0.355 1987 0.353 1986 0.355 1985 0.348 1984 0.342 1983 0.340 1982 0.340 1981 0.334 1980 0.331 1979 0.335 1978 0.333 1977 0.332 1976 0.328 1975 0.327 1974 0.326 1973 0.330 1972 0.336 1971 0.328 1970 0.326 1969 0.326 1968 0.333 1967 0.340 For suggested citations, see http://www.census.gov/main/www/citation.html Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplements. For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see http://www.census.gov/apsd/techdoc/cps/cpsmar11.pdf[PDF]. Note the change by presidential administration: Nixon -.007 Ford +.002 Carter +.003 Reagan +.024 Bush I +.005 Clinton +.045 Bush II -.002 Obama Incomplete (down .006 for two years shown, but that does not include what has happened since) The two best periods for economic growth were Reagan and Clinton, and those had by far the greatest increases in income inequality. RE: Dems making income inequality worse - oklalittledixie - 04-23-2014 10:42 AM (04-22-2014 11:41 AM)DrTorch Wrote: Op/ed, but it gives evidence, and I happen to agree. That is their objective. RE: Dems making income inequality worse - Hambone10 - 04-23-2014 10:55 AM (04-23-2014 10:40 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: The two best periods for economic growth were Reagan and Clinton, and those had by far the greatest increases in income inequality. Which makes perfect sense. "Risk" will ALWAYS have a higher rate of return than no-risk. Workers/Employees don't take risk. Owners do. While it is certainly true that a diversified portfolio of risks can virtually eliminate most risks, there are STILL risks taken (if only the risk of timing of those returns and the need to front expenses hoping to get paid back later which the poor cannot do) there is an inherent advantage to having financial reserves. The poor are virtually assured of having only the ability to grow their wealth equal to a combination of inflation plus their upward mobility. The wealthy have these, PLUS the advantage of those reserves. So they will ALWAYS make more than the poor and grow faster than the poor. If you take this away and basically make it so that the poor are rewarded more than the rich (which is the ONLY way to really reduce this gap) then the rich won't utilize their reserves because there is no reason for them to do so, or they at least won't utilize them 'here' (under our taxing authority). This concept is simple, but lost on the left. They seem to think they can eliminate the upside for the wealthy without discouraging them from taking those risks at all or seeking ways to avoid that elimination. RE: Dems making income inequality worse - Lord Stanley - 04-23-2014 11:06 AM (04-23-2014 10:40 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: The two best periods for economic growth were Reagan and Clinton, and those had by far the greatest increases in income inequality. Yes and the lifestyle of the average “poor” person in America is astonishingly comfortable by any normal standard, even in times of great income inequality. It's obvious that the general improvement in living standards that has taken place in the United States over the last generation has enormously benefited the poorest Americans. Yet by defining the “poor” as those Americans who have the lowest cash incomes, liberals take all improvements in living standards out of the equation. In modern America poverty is not so much a material condition but is characterized by drug abuse, alcoholism, mental illness and illegitimacy, among other things. (04-23-2014 10:55 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: (The Left) seem to think they can eliminate the upside for the wealthy without discouraging them from taking those risks at all or seeking ways to avoid that elimination. This forms the predicate for Obama’s desire to wage class warfare and ramp up redistributive policies to the maximum extent possible. RE: Dems making income inequality worse - LSU04_08 - 04-23-2014 11:26 AM (04-23-2014 11:06 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:(04-23-2014 10:40 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: The two best periods for economic growth were Reagan and Clinton, and those had by far the greatest increases in income inequality. Well said |