Income Inequality in the US?

[PoliticalChic]

Well, perhaps there is....but it isn't what you've been told it is. Shocker: the Left lies.





1. Yesterday, I posted this quote from Obama as " stupid, ill-informed and outright dishonest:"

"Obama: Income Inequality Is 'Defining Challenge Of Our Time'"
Obama: Income Inequality Is 'Defining Challenge Of Our Time'




As is his wont, my pal wingy leapt to his hero's defense. He said:

"Obama said increasing income inequality is more pronounced in the United States than other countries. He said Americans should be offended that a child born into poverty has such a hard time escaping it. "It should compel us to action. We're a better country than this," the president said."




2. As Longellow famously wrote.." And things are not what they seem."

Obama....(you think he doesn't know the truth), and rightwinger, have fallen into 'the Worstall Fallacy:' " You cannot go around trying to decide on how much we must do to solve some problem unless we take account of what we already do to try and solve that problem.


3. .... we cannot look at the number below the poverty line and then immediately assume that we must increase the EITC, SNAP and Section 8 programs. .... [instead, let's] see how much poverty there is left after what we already do can we even consider what we must do next.

4. So it is with inequality. All of the numbers that are being thrown around are the inequality of market incomes..... that means before the influence of the taxation system and most of the welfare and benefits system. " US Inequality Is Not At All Like You Think It Is - Forbes




In order to make the case that government should be even bigger- because the poor are falling further and further behind- the Leftists look at 'market income:'

a. Market Income: Total income before tax minus income from government sources. Market income


This is the kind of lie that statisticians use, knowing that the root cause of poverty is not being employed....not working!
Of course the 'market incomes' will be small or non-existent!!


Is there a more 'honest' way to measure?

There sure is a far better way to judge poverty: disposable income.
Folks use this to buy stuff.

And the broadest and most accurate measure of living standard is real per capita consumption. That measure soared by 74% from 1980 to 2004. The Equality Of Reaganomics - Forbes


Between 1973 and 2004, it doubled. And between 1929 and 2004, real per capita consumption by American workers increased five fold. The fastest growth periods were 1983-1990 and 1992-2004, known as the Reagan boom.



BTW....in judging policies...not what happened to disposable personal income under Obama:

. "Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the 'Recovery' as During the Recession
. ...the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey ....indicate that the real (inflation-adjusted) median annual household income in America has fallen by 4.4 percent during the "recovery," after having fallen by 1.8 during the recession.
Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the 'Recovery' as During the Recession | The Weekly Standard


So...the problems that Obama and wingy are wringing their hands over? Obama caused them.





5. Wingy quote Obama: "... increasing income inequality is more pronounced in the United States than other countries."

But "... almost every other country reports theirs after the influence of those two systems. The US is more unequal than most countries but not by as much as the officially reported figures would lead you to believe." US Inequality Is Not At All Like You Think It Is - Forbes




6. "... of course the most obvious way of reducing inequality is to tax those rich people more and give the money to the poor. But if we’re measuring everything by market, before tax and redistribution policies, incomes then we’re committing Worstall’s Fallacy. We’re trying to decide what we should do without taking account of what we’re already doing."
Ibid.

 

[Spoonman]

when you rely on a static income provided by the government or work at a fixed low paying job your income is going to remain relatively static. but when you invest, take risks, drive your earnings through effort you have the opportunity to increase your wealth. yes the gap is going to continue to grow between the two different groups.

 

[PoliticalChic]

when you rely on a static income provided by the government or work at a fixed low paying job your income is going to remain relatively static. but when you invest, take risks, drive your earnings through effort you have the opportunity to increase your wealth. yes the gap is going to continue to grow between the two different groups.

True....but I don't want the point to be missed vis-a-vis Obama's claims that the problem is increasing.


It is not.


I will provide more later to prove that.

In fact, I will show that the 'income' of the poor is not static...but is increasing.

 

[DriftingSand]

Good thread.

Another thing that the left refuses to consider is the fact that some folks are perfectly content living a simple life where money isn't a top priority.

There's on old saying: "One man's junk is another man's treasure." Having lots of money isn't a determining factor in every person's level of happiness or contentment.

But the lefties, as we know, are oftentimes - hypocrites! We need only take a close look at the bank accounts of some of the most prominent Democrats to know that they aren't all that concerned about "sharing their wealth" and "spreading it around." Of the top 10 richest members of Congress only 3 are Republicans (Top Ten Richest Members of Congress: Only 3 Are Republicans? | Right Wing News) Take a look see:

Democrat John Delaney: $180 million
Democrat Scott Peters: $200 million
Democrat Richard Blumenthal: $85 million
Democrat Cynthia Stafford: $1.5 million
Democrat Shelley Berkley: $8.4 million
Democrat Alan Grayson: $17 million
Democrat Terry McAuliffe: $30 million
Democrat Ben Nelson: $12 million
Democrat Claire McCaskill: $20 million
Democrat Carolyn Maloney: $25 million
Democrat Nita Lowey: $30 million
Democrat Frank Lautenberg: $55 million
Democrat Tom Harkin: $5 million
Democrat Judd Gregg: $3 million
Democrat Rosa DeLauro $20 million
Democrat Maria Cantwell $2 million
Democrat Bingaman: $8 million
Democrat Even Bayh: $5 million
Democrat Robert Gates: $5 million

and the list goes on ... Richest Democrats

But one of the lefts most iconic gods is Michael Bloomberg who's worth is:
$31 BILLION DOLLARS. And the Libs want the middle class to "spread the wealth?" Such sickening hypocrites!!!!
Michael Bloomberg Net Worth - TheRichest

 

[PoliticalChic]

Good thread.

Another thing that the left refuses to consider is the fact that some folks are perfectly content living a simple life where money isn't a top priority.

There's on old saying: "One man's junk is another man's treasure." Having lots of money isn't a determining factor in every person's level of happiness or contentment.

But the lefties, as we know, are oftentimes - hypocrites! We need only take a close look at the bank accounts of some of the most prominent Democrats to know that they aren't all that concerned about "sharing their wealth" and "spreading it around." Of the top 10 richest members of Congress only 3 are Republicans (Top Ten Richest Members of Congress: Only 3 Are Republicans? | Right Wing News) Take a look see:

Democrat John Delaney: $180 million
Democrat Scott Peters: $200 million
Democrat Richard Blumenthal: $85 million
Democrat Cynthia Stafford: $1.5 million
Democrat Shelley Berkley: $8.4 million
Democrat Alan Grayson: $17 million
Democrat Terry McAuliffe: $30 million
Democrat Ben Nelson: $12 million
Democrat Claire McCaskill: $20 million
Democrat Carolyn Maloney: $25 million
Democrat Nita Lowey: $30 million
Democrat Frank Lautenberg: $55 million
Democrat Tom Harkin: $5 million
Democrat Judd Gregg: $3 million
Democrat Rosa DeLauro $20 million
Democrat Maria Cantwell $2 million
Democrat Bingaman: $8 million
Democrat Even Bayh: $5 million
Democrat Robert Gates: $5 million

and the list goes on ... Richest Democrats

But one of the lefts most iconic gods is Michael Bloomberg who's worth is:
$31 BILLION DOLLARS. And the Libs want the middle class to "spread the wealth?" Such sickening hypocrites!!!!
Michael Bloomberg Net Worth - TheRichest

“That man is the richest whose pleasures are the cheapest. ”


― Henry David Thoreau

 

[DGS49]

If people at the bottom are always at the same level (bare subsistence) and the people at the top are potentially more successful every year, then "income equality" increases. So what?

If you also allow for the fact that both groups (I.e., those at the top and bottom) are churning over year after year, one sees that this is a purely contrived "problem," and any "solution" is sure to be destructive.

But of course the national Democrat party is not interested in real solutions to the economic doldrums we are experiencing, only distracting attention from whose policies are making it continue.

 

[PoliticalChic]

If people at the bottom are always at the same level (bare subsistence) and the people at the top are potentially more successful every year, then "income equality" increases. So what?

If you also allow for the fact that both groups (I.e., those at the top and bottom) are churning over year after year, one sees that this is a purely contrived "problem," and any "solution" is sure to be destructive.

But of course the national Democrat party is not interested in real solutions to the economic doldrums we are experiencing, only distracting attention from whose policies are making it continue.

1. The government's definition for poverty is far from "bare subsistence."

The expanding government by the Left is based on folks believing that it is.



2. "...then "income equality" increases. So what?"

That's true.

But the income inequality only increases if one uses 'market income' as the comparison, i.e., 'earnings.'

That's why the entire gambit is bogus.



3. "...a purely contrived "problem," and any "solution" is sure to be destructive."

Can I write your name in for President?



4. "...the national Democrat party is not interested in real solutions."

Truer words were never said.

 

[PoliticalChic]

7. Market income is what people earn .... Disposable income is what people have left after the influence of the tax and benefits/welfare system [and] disposable income inequality has been pretty much flat since 1996." Ibid.


Again: the gap between those called the poor, and those working.....has been flat since 1996.
For those in Rio Linda, that means the gap has not widened.....increased.




8. So....what does this tell us? The taxation and welfare system is doing just what you'd want it to do. There is no increasing disposable income inequality!

What does that tell you about Obama's claim that this is the 'challenge of our time'?




9.More:
"... figures for low income earners actually overstate that disposable income inequality. (The gap in disposable income has not increased!)

[Disposable income] included the effects of the EITC but not the effects of SNAP (aka food stamps), Section 8 vouchers, Medicaid and any other form of aid to the poor that comes as benefits in kind rather than in cash.


a. The story of inequality in America really isn’t the one we’re all being told in the usual media. ." Forbes, Op.Cit.




a. The Left finds ways to wring their hands, and reveal the truth of the old saying 'Figures don't lie, but liars can figure.'





So, market income figures show increasing inequality....because those working are earning more.
But, once we take off the taxes that government confiscates from the workers, their disposable income is at the same rate as that of the folks not working, i.e., in poverty.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Here is an interesting exchange that took place between acknowledged socialist, Senator Bernie Sanders, and Janet Yellen, one that fits this thread....



(CNSNews.com) - "Are we still a capitalist democracy or have we gone over into an oligarchic form of society in which incredible economic and political power now rests with the billionaire class?" Sen. Bernie Sanders, a Vermont socialist, asked that question of Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen at a hearing on Capitol Hill Wednesday.

"So, all of the statistics on inequality that you've cited are ones that greatly concern me, and I think for the same reason that you're concerned about them. They can shape the -- determine the ability of different groups to participate equally in the democracy and have grave effects on social stability over time.

"And so I don't know what to call our system or how to -- I prefer not to give labels; but there's no question that we've had a trend toward growing inequality and I personally find it very worrisome trend that deserves the attention of policy-makers."
Fed Chair Unsure If Capitalism or Oligarchy Describes the U.S. | CNS News

I wonder if others see in this exchange something that I do.
Sanders suggest further growth of authoritarian government, communism.

Yellin, who clearly recognizes the importance of a 'politic' response....replies: " we've had a trend toward growing inequality...."

Just "inequality."

I agree with that....but it is one based on intelligence and education....the kind of inequality we see is no many posts on this board.
The reason is the government school system....not earnings.

But she didn't say "income inequality."

 

[boedicca]

Income Inequality defines how Obama is TRANSFORMING America.

It's so much easier to control the masses when they live in a world of declining living standards and scarcity. Abundance makes people more independent. But during times of Scarcity, the Overlords can divert ire away from themselves by pointing at people who succeed in spite of the Government's attempts to keep them down and "equal".

 

[emilynghiem]

I think the REAL challenge is political equality.
People equal with govt. People with equal knowledge of laws
and financial and business management especially property.

How can people ever be equal if the people with control over
land and laws can kick out the other people?

Where govt can be abused to take your rights away, where you
have unequal access to resources to defend them or get them restored
"after the fact" when you are already on unequal ground with unequal resources?
(and your taxes pay automatically for govt legal defense, but not your own?)

And how can anyone be equal if political parties and corporations have
more collective influence and resources WITHOUT constitutional check and balance?

We solve this problem, all other problems can be solved in turn by working as equals.

Well, perhaps there is....but it isn't what you've been told it is. Shocker: the Left lies.

1. Yesterday, I posted this quote from Obama as " stupid, ill-informed and outright dishonest:"

"Obama: Income Inequality Is 'Defining Challenge Of Our Time'"
Obama: Income Inequality Is 'Defining Challenge Of Our Time'




As is his wont, my pal wingy leapt to his hero's defense. He said:

"Obama said increasing income inequality is more pronounced in the United States than other countries. He said Americans should be offended that a child born into poverty has such a hard time escaping it. "It should compel us to action. We're a better country than this," the president said."




2. As Longellow famously wrote.." And things are not what they seem."

Obama....(you think he doesn't know the truth), and rightwinger, have fallen into 'the Worstall Fallacy:' " You cannot go around trying to decide on how much we must do to solve some problem unless we take account of what we already do to try and solve that problem.


3. .... we cannot look at the number below the poverty line and then immediately assume that we must increase the EITC, SNAP and Section 8 programs. .... [instead, let's] see how much poverty there is left after what we already do can we even consider what we must do next.

4. So it is with inequality. All of the numbers that are being thrown around are the inequality of market incomes..... that means before the influence of the taxation system and most of the welfare and benefits system. " US Inequality Is Not At All Like You Think It Is - Forbes




In order to make the case that government should be even bigger- because the poor are falling further and further behind- the Leftists look at 'market income:'

a. Market Income: Total income before tax minus income from government sources. Market income


This is the kind of lie that statisticians use, knowing that the root cause of poverty is not being employed....not working!
Of course the 'market incomes' will be small or non-existent!!


Is there a more 'honest' way to measure?

There sure is a far better way to judge poverty: disposable income.
Folks use this to buy stuff.

And the broadest and most accurate measure of living standard is real per capita consumption. That measure soared by 74% from 1980 to 2004. The Equality Of Reaganomics - Forbes


Between 1973 and 2004, it doubled. And between 1929 and 2004, real per capita consumption by American workers increased five fold. The fastest growth periods were 1983-1990 and 1992-2004, known as the Reagan boom.



BTW....in judging policies...not what happened to disposable personal income under Obama:

. "Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the 'Recovery' as During the Recession
. ...the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey ....indicate that the real (inflation-adjusted) median annual household income in America has fallen by 4.4 percent during the "recovery," after having fallen by 1.8 during the recession.
Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the 'Recovery' as During the Recession | The Weekly Standard


So...the problems that Obama and wingy are wringing their hands over? Obama caused them.





5. Wingy quote Obama: "... increasing income inequality is more pronounced in the United States than other countries."

But "... almost every other country reports theirs after the influence of those two systems. The US is more unequal than most countries but not by as much as the officially reported figures would lead you to believe." US Inequality Is Not At All Like You Think It Is - Forbes




6. "... of course the most obvious way of reducing inequality is to tax those rich people more and give the money to the poor. But if we’re measuring everything by market, before tax and redistribution policies, incomes then we’re committing Worstall’s Fallacy. We’re trying to decide what we should do without taking account of what we’re already doing."
Ibid.

 

[PoliticalChic]

10. One more thing. Wingy quotes Obama:
"He said Americans should be offended that a child born into poverty has such a hard time escaping it"

Wrong again.


"Far from having the 21st-century equivalent of an Edwardian class system, the United States is characterized by a great deal of variation in income: More than half of all adult Americans will be at or near the poverty line at some point over the course of their lives; 73 percent will also find themselves in the top 20 percent, and 39 percent will make it into the top 5 percent for at least one year. Perhaps most remarkable, 12 percent of Americans will be in the top 1 percent for at least one year of their working lives.


The top 1 percent,,.... is such an unstable group that it makes no sense to write, as so many progressives do, about what has happened to its income over the past ten year or twenty years, because it does not contain the same group of people from year to year.

... the turnover among the super-rich (the top 400 taxpayers in any given year) is 98 percent over a decade — that is, just 2 percent of that elusive group remain there for ten years in a row.

Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics finds that among the allegedly privileged 1 percent, inherited wealth accounts for only 15 percent of household holdings, a smaller share than it does among middle-class families."
National Review Online | Print







So....if you're tempted to accept government 'poverty figures' at face value, consider this:

"The government’s own statistics show that people who are said to be “living in poverty” spend more than $1.50 for each dollar of income they claim. Something is a bit fishy here. Just remember all this the next time Charles Gibson tells you about some hideous new poverty statistics."
http://theghostfighters.wordpress.c...ding-ovation-the-faculty-were-deathly-silent/

 

[SteadyMercury]

It's so much easier to control the masses when they live in a world of declining living standards and scarcity.

They aren't.