Class warfare?

[Widdekind]

In aggregate, the US public now receives $1T / year more in welfare, than paid in taxes. Since 2008, the US public has been a net drain, on the rest of the economy (e.g. domestic businesses, foreign lenders).

Specifically, from the 1960s, and throughout the 1970s-80s, total public welfare tracked total public taxes. I.e. for a generation, the US public paid no net taxes. Since 2001 & 2008, total public welfare has sky-rocketed above total public taxes, to about $1T / year today.

The following figure (attempts to) plots:

• sales taxes (top line)
• business taxes (bottom line)
• personal taxes
• personal welfare

 

[expat_panama]

...The decline of the middle class is one of the most pressing issues of our society. It is not from a decline in work ethic or productivity...

--and we don't see it with middle class incomes either. The Census %'s multiplied by the BEA's total income says middle class household incomes hit an all time high in 2008 and even with falling with the '09 'recovery' they're still getting back on track:

Correlate its purchasing power for the last 10, 20, and 30 years, and you will see the falseness of your nonsense, expat.

Hard to tell if your objection is with the facts or just personal. If you mean adjusting for inflation then maybe you missed the "2005$" on the 'Y' axis--

--it means 'adjusted for inflation and converted to dollars for 2005'. The Census Br. and the BEA are saying what they're saying. I'd be willing to agree that mid class incomes are down if we can figure out how they screwed up.

 

[expat_panama]

...Sticking solely with census "household" data, real incomes per household have stalled since 2000...

Interesting. The census br. had data for quintile % and limits, but I didn't see "incomes" which is why I used % and multiplied:

Yr Hshlds mid 1/5 PI'05$B mid 1/5
___(,000)_% shr___________Household
__________________________Income 2005$

2000 108,209 14.8 _$9,530 $65,171
2001 109,297 14.6 _$9,705 $64,823
2002 111,278 14.8 _$9,766 $64,942
2003 112,000 14.8 _$9,907 $65,459
2004 113,343 14.7 $10,232 $66,350
2005 114,384 14.6 $10,486 $66,921
2006 116,011 14.5 $10,969 $68,552
2007 116,783 14.8 $11,291 $71,548
2008 117,181 14.7 $11,437 $71,738
2009 117,538 14.6 $10,929 $67,747
2010 118,682 14.6 $11,136 $68,511
2011 119,837 14.6 $11,411 $69,675​

So one question is where did you find 'incomes' (link please?) and why would Census Br total incomes be different than the BEA's total income --unless you're saying total incomes for all the households would be different than total incomes for all the persons?

 

[Widdekind]

...Sticking solely with census "household" data, real incomes per household have stalled since 2000...

Interesting. The census br. had data for quintile % and limits, but I didn't see "incomes" which is why I used % and multiplied:

Yr Hshlds mid 1/5 PI'05$B mid 1/5
___(,000)_% shr___________Household
__________________________Income 2005$

2000 108,209 14.8 _$9,530 $65,171
2001 109,297 14.6 _$9,705 $64,823
2002 111,278 14.8 _$9,766 $64,942
2003 112,000 14.8 _$9,907 $65,459
2004 113,343 14.7 $10,232 $66,350
2005 114,384 14.6 $10,486 $66,921
2006 116,011 14.5 $10,969 $68,552
2007 116,783 14.8 $11,291 $71,548
2008 117,181 14.7 $11,437 $71,738
2009 117,538 14.6 $10,929 $67,747
2010 118,682 14.6 $11,136 $68,511
2011 119,837 14.6 $11,411 $69,675​

So one question is where did you find 'incomes' (link please?) and why would Census Br total incomes be different than the BEA's total income --unless you're saying total incomes for all the households would be different than total incomes for all the persons?

i utilized the data set with "mean incomes" (data set three). you know the total number of households (N); and that each quintile has a fifth of them (N/5). in the data-set with the "mean incomes" ( <HI> ), those means are <HI> = sum(all income in quintile) / (N/5) households. So, (N/5) x <HI> is the total income per quintile. Then, you add them all up:

(N/5) x ( <HI,1> + <HI,2> + ... ) = total official HI​

official total HI excludes welfare + capital gains + (???). The result is a reduced measure of aggregate income, compared to the national accounting methods. Whatever is missing seems to affect all income levels. real HI still hovers at the highest levels ever. Complaining about every economic index of wage-level being "good to better" seems to me like quibbling

 

[JakeStarkey]

It is simple. Find out what the purchasing power by income for the decade years and see if purchasing power is much higher or lower or the same for the middle class.

Then see what the comparison is for growth of income for wealthy, middle, and lower classes.

--and we don't see it with middle class incomes either. The Census %'s multiplied by the BEA's total income says middle class household incomes hit an all time high in 2008 and even with falling with the '09 'recovery' they're still getting back on track:

Correlate its purchasing power for the last 10, 20, and 30 years, and you will see the falseness of your nonsense, expat.

Hard to tell if your objection is with the facts or just personal. If you mean adjusting for inflation then maybe you missed the "2005$" on the 'Y' axis--

--it means 'adjusted for inflation and converted to dollars for 2005'. The Census Br. and the BEA are saying what they're saying. I'd be willing to agree that mid class incomes are down if we can figure out how they screwed up.

 

[Widdekind]

It is simple. Find out what the purchasing power by income for the decade years and see if purchasing power is much higher or lower or the same for the middle class.

Then see what the comparison is for growth of income for wealthy, middle, and lower classes.

"household income" (HI) does not match any other index; some form of otherwise-accounted "income" is excluded -- including welfare (and also capital gains)

 

[JakeStarkey]

It is simple. Find out what the purchasing power by income for the decade years and see if purchasing power is much higher or lower or the same for the middle class.

Then see what the comparison is for growth of income for wealthy, middle, and lower classes.

"household income" (HI) does not match any other index; some form of otherwise-accounted "income" is excluded -- including welfare (and also capital gains)

You have not done anything during your time on the board for us to take your word.

What is middle 5th income, widdekind?

We did not ask for "household incomes", widdekind.

Define for us in $$ amount the average purchasing power for the middle class in 1980, 1990, 2000 and 2010. I suspect purchasing power has gone up for the middle class less than 15% in 30 years.

Then compare the increase in wealth for the top 5%.

 

[JoeNormal]

...The decline of the middle class is one of the most pressing issues of our society. It is not from a decline in work ethic or productivity...

--and we don't see it with middle class incomes either. The Census %'s multiplied by the BEA's total income says middle class household incomes hit an all time high in 2008 and even with falling with the '09 'recovery' they're still getting back on track:

That graph covers a timeframe starting when few women worked outside the home through a period when most did. Also during that time, the middle class turned to credit cards to perpetuate their increasing expectations of lifestyle improvement.

 

[Widdekind]

purchasing power has gone up for the middle class less than 15% in 30 years.

you're complaining, about earning more money than ever? If you did earn more, then would you complain even more?

The Libertarian American "Dream" is "everybody works hard, and gets at least a little ahead". That dream is perfectly possible.

"i want as much as the richest person on earth" is a utopian "fantasy", perfectly impossible (for Society, in aggregate).

 

[Widdekind]

In aggregate, the US public now receives $1T / year more in welfare, than paid in taxes. Since 2008, the US public has been a net drain, on the rest of the economy (e.g. domestic businesses, foreign lenders).

Specifically, from the 1960s, and throughout the 1970s-80s, total public welfare tracked total public taxes. I.e. for a generation, the US public paid no net taxes. Since 2001 & 2008, total public welfare has sky-rocketed above total public taxes, to about $1T / year today.

If you look at the national accounts flows, total personal taxes are swamped out by welfare transfers. Logically, the US might as well stop taxing people all together (and reduce their doles). Perhaps, amidst a slump, eliminating the personal income tax (penalizing workers), and also eliminating welfare (promoting non-workers), would motivate the economy ?

 

[Rshermr]

purchasing power has gone up for the middle class less than 15% in 30 years.

you're complaining, about earning more money than ever? If you did earn more, then would you complain even more?

The Libertarian American "Dream" is "everybody works hard, and gets at least a little ahead". That dream is perfectly possible.

"i want as much as the richest person on earth" is a utopian "fantasy", perfectly impossible (for Society, in aggregate).

OK, trying to prove your point with graphs is an exercise in futility. You seem to be pushing the libertarian dream. Is that correct?
If so, you should probably start by finding a libertarian success story. Got one?

 

[JakeStarkey]

This is class warfare. Obama picks tax-cut fight with Republicans

President Barack Obama will call Monday for a one-year extension of the Bush-era tax cuts that chiefly benefit families making less than $250,000 annually, setting an election-year collision course with Republicans that seems designed to amplify his core campaign message. An Obama aide confirmed the news, which was first reported in The New York Times. [...]

Obama picks tax-cut fight with Republicans | The Ticket - Yahoo! News

 

[Rshermr]

This is class warfare. Obama picks tax-cut fight with Republicans

President Barack Obama will call Monday for a one-year extension of the Bush-era tax cuts that chiefly benefit families making less than $250,000 annually, setting an election-year collision course with Republicans that seems designed to amplify his core campaign message. An Obama aide confirmed the news, which was first reported in The New York Times. [...]

Obama picks tax-cut fight with Republicans | The Ticket - Yahoo! News

Class warfare is a republican talking point, and has been for years. Always to indicate that the middle and lower classes are trying to wage ware against the rich, to get more of the economic pie.
You mention the tax cuts for the wealthy that obama wants to sunset. They were, you may remember, tax cuts that were set to go away a few years ago. Repubs have wanted them to keep on going.

So, what is your point?

I notice that you have ignored the fact that during the past 30 years, the top 1% has increased their wealth greatly, while the middle class has decreased in size and the poverty class has increased in size. So, you tell me who is winning your war on class, or as the talking point goes, class warfare?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Class warfare is a republican talking point, and has been for years. Always to indicate that the middle and lower classes are trying to wage ware against the rich, to get more of the economic pie.

liberals want to divide and conquer with class war just as Marx described. Its not surprising that our liberals spied for Stalin and gave him the bomb. Marx taught that the rich, in effect, steal from the lower classes while conservative intellectuals know that the pie expands for all in the absence if liberal programs that attack the middle and lower classes such as:

1) Great Society near -genocide against, primarily, blacks
2) allowing 20 million illegal workers
3) union and tax policy that ships millions of jobs off-shore
4) socialist health care that is 5 times more costly than capitalism would be

 

[Katzndogz]

The poverty class has increased in size because it is fairly comfortable to live in poverty and there is no longer any social stigma connected with just being a lazy ass.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The poverty class has increased in size because it is fairly comfortable to live in poverty and there is no longer any social stigma connected with just being a lazy ass.

Franklin: "The cure for poverty is to not let the poor become too comfortable in their poverty."

 

[JakeStarkey]

Far right reactionaries want to divide and conquer with class war just as Rand hoped.

1) Far right reactionaries hate black American advancement
2) Far right reactionary owners encourage illegal immigration to depress wages
3) Far right reactionaries in the GOP and Dems cause tax policies that ship millions of jobs off shore.
4) Far right reactionaries fight against equitable and affordable health care that would drive down costs dramatically

Its not surprising that our reactionaries spied for the KKK, Aryan Nation, and the militias.

Rand teaches that the poor should remain poor and that they should be treated like cattle by the rich.

Americans who understand freedom, liberty, and the American way that all benefit from a growing middle class that expands as the lower classes enter it. VA, NDEA, and such programs have benefited the growth of American economic security beyond everyone's wildest imaginations. . . until Reagan took office and after.

Class warfare is a republican talking point, and has been for years. Always to indicate that the middle and lower classes are trying to wage ware against the rich, to get more of the economic pie.

liberals want to divide and conquer with class war just as Marx described. Its not surprising that our liberals spied for Stalin and gave him the bomb. Marx taught that the rich, in effect, steal from the lower classes while conservative intellectuals know that the pie expands for all in the absence if liberal programs that attack the middle and lower classes such as:

1) Great Society near -genocide against, primarily, blacks
2) allowing 20 million illegal workers
3) union and tax policy that ships millions of jobs off-shore
4) socialist health care that is 5 times more costly than capitalism would be

 

[rightwinger]

The poverty class has increased in size because it is fairly comfortable to live in poverty and there is no longer any social stigma connected with just being a lazy ass.

The Poverty class has increased in size because the number of entry level jobs that pay a living wage has dried up. Where once you could graduate high school and find a job that could support you and your family, you now need a college diploma
In today's economy, college graduates are finding that they cannot get jobs that will pay off their debt and support a family

 

[Widdekind]

you should probably start by finding a libertarian success story. Got one?

please provide an example of a Libertarian failure ?

 

[Widdekind]

during the past 30 years, the top 1% has increased their wealth greatly, while the middle class has decreased in size and the poverty class has increased in size.

average incomes are higher than ever; welfare is higher than ever. What can people complain about ??