Soggy in NOLA
Diamond Member
- Jul 31, 2009
- 40,565
- 5,359
- 1,830
Well, time to catch some of the drunken shenanigans known as Mardi Gras.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Another Reason People Are in DebtThe reason people are in debt is because they have decided to live beyond their means.
Do you remember receiving "pre-approved" credit card solicitations in your mailbox?
Seen any lately?
As the richest 1% of Americans increased their share of national income over the last 30 years, middle class incomes suffered in two ways. First by tax policies that favored shipping middle class jobs out of the country, and secondly, by tax cuts for the wealthy and other tax biases that favored debt over equity investing.
Using other people's money for investments and assuming an implicit guarantee from government to backstop any loses with taxpayer bailouts SUCKED about two percentage points of national income from the bottom quintiles (middle class) and redirected the money to the richest 1%.
Those in the middle classes who lost their previous share of national income maintained their standard of living by using credit cards, and I'm sure we both remember how that turned out and which 1% of the US population profited.
A Simple Look...
Yea, I used to get a lot of those 'pre approved' circulars. I threw them in the trash, because I'm smart enough not to borrow what I can't pay back. If you were stupid enough to take credit out that you cannot afford to repay, that's not my problem.
And 1% is doing MUCH better at increasing its percentage of national income.http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2010/average_after-tax_income.pdf
Every quintile is doing better.in terms of actual after tax income adjusted for inflation.
"Since it (see graph) shows income shares, inflation measures don't matter. It doesn't try to measure consumption, it just measures who the money is going to. It includes pensions and government transfers. It accounts for reporting changes due to the 1986 tax reform bill. And it uses tax data to get a cleaner look at the top of the income distribution...
"If you look at the raw CBO figures, they show that a full tenth of the national income has shifted since 1979 to the top 1% of the country.
"The bottom quintiles have each given up a bit more than two percentage points each, and that adds up to 10% of all earnings.
"That 10% has flowed almost entirely to the very tippy top of the income ladder."
Maybe it depends on the definition of "doing better"?
Envy is not a good basis for policy.
When after tax income adjusted for inflation increases, that mean there is more money to spend improving lives. If you have $10,000 one day and $20,000 the next day are you worse off just because someone who previously had $1 Million now has $10 Million?
Conversely, if you have $10,000 one day and $10,001 the next day are you better off because someone who previously had $1 Million now has $100,000?
MJ Moonbat respondsObservations:
The author is criticizing this bit of research:
The rise in American inequality has been exaggerated both in magnitude and timing. Commentators lament the large gap between the growth rates of real median household income and of private sector productivity. This paper shows that a conceptually consistent measure of this growth gap over 1979 to 2007 is only one-tenth of the conventional measure. Further, the timing of the rise of inequality is often misunderstood. By some measures inequality stopped growing after 2000 and by others inequality has not grown since 1993. This cessation of inequalitys secular rise in 2000 is evident from the growth of Census mean vs. median income, and in the income share of the top one percent of the income distribution. The income share of the 91st to 95th percentile has not increased since 1983, and the income ratio of the 90th to 10th percentile has barely increased since 1986. Further, despite a transient decline in labors income share in 2000-06, by mid-2009 labors share had returned virtually to the same value as in 1983, 1991, and 2001.
Recent contributions in the inequality literature have raised questions about previous research on skill-biased technical change and the managerial power of CEOs. Directly supporting our theme of prior exaggeration of the rise of inequality is new research showing that price indexes for the poor rise more slowly than for the rich, causing most empirical measures of inequality to overstate the growth of real income of the rich vs. the poor. Further, as much as two-thirds of the post-1980 increase in the college wage premium disappears when allowance is made for the faster rise in the cost of living in cities where the college educated congregate and for the lower quality of housing in those cities. A continuing tendency for life expectancy to increase faster among the rich than among the poor reflects the joint impact of education on both economic and health outcomes, some of which are driven by the behavioral choices of the less educated.
Misperceptions About the Magnitude and Timing of Changes in American Income Inequality
And yet the MJ moonbat has to resort to the typical static pie chart to try to assert growing inequality.
I doubt that the value of things which are not included for income tax purposes (health benefits, pension benfits etc.) of the growing public employee union class are incorporated into his income allocations.
I did the same thing with the circulars I received every week.Another Reason People Are in DebtThe reason people are in debt is because they have decided to live beyond their means.
Do you remember receiving "pre-approved" credit card solicitations in your mailbox?
Seen any lately?
As the richest 1% of Americans increased their share of national income over the last 30 years, middle class incomes suffered in two ways. First by tax policies that favored shipping middle class jobs out of the country, and secondly, by tax cuts for the wealthy and other tax biases that favored debt over equity investing.
Using other people's money for investments and assuming an implicit guarantee from government to backstop any loses with taxpayer bailouts SUCKED about two percentage points of national income from the bottom quintiles (middle class) and redirected the money to the richest 1%.
Those in the middle classes who lost their previous share of national income maintained their standard of living by using credit cards, and I'm sure we both remember how that turned out and which 1% of the US population profited.
A Simple Look...
Yea, I used to get a lot of those 'pre approved' circulars. I threw them in the trash, because I'm smart enough not to borrow what I can't pay back. If you were stupid enough to take credit out that you cannot afford to repay, that's not my problem.
Depending upon your definition... "(A)nything that is able to make a big change in a person or thing."And I'll add that nobody forced the holders of said credit cards to max them out buying big screen TVs and other crap they didn't actually need.
Depending upon your definition... "(A)nything that is able to make a big change in a person or thing."And I'll add that nobody forced the holders of said credit cards to max them out buying big screen TVs and other crap they didn't actually need.
Would you say Advertising functions like a force in this country?
Yeah... all the hidden control signals in the advertising that take away your free will and ability to make your own decisions
Yeah... all the hidden control signals in the advertising that take away your free will and ability to make your own decisions
Amazing isn't it? I can't imagine how depressing it is to delude yourself into thinking that you aren't responsible for any of your actions.
It's the far left mentality... government to think and act for you and your responsibilities
If you had $15,300 one day in 1979 and $17,700 one day twenty-eight years later AFTER the US Economy doubled are you worse off than your millionaire neighbor who had $346,600 in '79 and now "earns" $1,319,700?And 1% is doing MUCH better at increasing its percentage of national income.http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2010/average_after-tax_income.pdf
Every quintile is doing better.in terms of actual after tax income adjusted for inflation.
"Since it (see graph) shows income shares, inflation measures don't matter. It doesn't try to measure consumption, it just measures who the money is going to. It includes pensions and government transfers. It accounts for reporting changes due to the 1986 tax reform bill. And it uses tax data to get a cleaner look at the top of the income distribution...
"If you look at the raw CBO figures, they show that a full tenth of the national income has shifted since 1979 to the top 1% of the country.
"The bottom quintiles have each given up a bit more than two percentage points each, and that adds up to 10% of all earnings.
"That 10% has flowed almost entirely to the very tippy top of the income ladder."
Maybe it depends on the definition of "doing better"?
Envy is not a good basis for policy.
When after tax income adjusted for inflation increases, that mean there is more money to spend improving lives. If you have $10,000 one day and $20,000 the next day are you worse off just because someone who previously had $1 Million now has $10 Million?
Conversely, if you have $10,000 one day and $10,001 the next day are you better off because someone who previously had $1 Million now has $100,000?
If you had $15,300 one day in 1979 and $17,700 one day twenty-eight years later AFTER the US Economy doubled are you worse off than your millionaire neighbor who had $346,600 in '79 and now "earns" $1,319,700?And 1% is doing MUCH better at increasing its percentage of national income.
"Since it (see graph) shows income shares, inflation measures don't matter. It doesn't try to measure consumption, it just measures who the money is going to. It includes pensions and government transfers. It accounts for reporting changes due to the 1986 tax reform bill. And it uses tax data to get a cleaner look at the top of the income distribution...
"If you look at the raw CBO figures, they show that a full tenth of the national income has shifted since 1979 to the top 1% of the country.
"The bottom quintiles have each given up a bit more than two percentage points each, and that adds up to 10% of all earnings.
"That 10% has flowed almost entirely to the very tippy top of the income ladder."
Maybe it depends on the definition of "doing better"?
Envy is not a good basis for policy.
When after tax income adjusted for inflation increases, that mean there is more money to spend improving lives. If you have $10,000 one day and $20,000 the next day are you worse off just because someone who previously had $1 Million now has $10 Million?
Conversely, if you have $10,000 one day and $10,001 the next day are you better off because someone who previously had $1 Million now has $100,000?
A Simple Look At Income Inequality | Mother Jones
What do you mean by equal?Where, in the Constitution, does it state that everyone is always going to be equal?
I'm using the word to indicate "a government that would guarantee equally to all individuals the rule of law and security for liberty under the law."
You poor people are getting very whiny these days. Just sayin'.
Equal doesn't mean you get to take other people's money. Move the fuck on. Work.
Depending upon your definition... "(A)nything that is able to make a big change in a person or thing."And I'll add that nobody forced the holders of said credit cards to max them out buying big screen TVs and other crap they didn't actually need.
Would you say Advertising functions like a force in this country?
What do you mean by equal?
I'm using the word to indicate "a government that would guarantee equally to all individuals the rule of law and security for liberty under the law."
You poor people are getting very whiny these days. Just sayin'.
Equal doesn't mean you get to take other people's money. Move the fuck on. Work.
Why does the rich get more and more of the middle classes money and they middle class gets accused of wanting the riches money? The middle class wants the money, ok, shame on them. The rich actually gets it and thats how it should be...?
Working doesnt mean anything, as if working is the solution to receiving tax breaks.
And no one here is rich so, I'm really not understanding why ppl that dont have the money are so defensive of those that do? This heroification of rich people is really weird. Rich people have fanboys but I dont know why
Possibly the answer lies in defining "they."If you had $15,300 one day in 1979 and $17,700 one day twenty-eight years later AFTER the US Economy doubled are you worse off than your millionaire neighbor who had $346,600 in '79 and now "earns" $1,319,700?Envy is not a good basis for policy.
When after tax income adjusted for inflation increases, that mean there is more money to spend improving lives. If you have $10,000 one day and $20,000 the next day are you worse off just because someone who previously had $1 Million now has $10 Million?
Conversely, if you have $10,000 one day and $10,001 the next day are you better off because someone who previously had $1 Million now has $100,000?
A Simple Look At Income Inequality | Mother Jones
How is anyone worse off? They all get paid more money.
Possibly the answer lies in defining "they."If you had $15,300 one day in 1979 and $17,700 one day twenty-eight years later AFTER the US Economy doubled are you worse off than your millionaire neighbor who had $346,600 in '79 and now "earns" $1,319,700?
A Simple Look At Income Inequality | Mother Jones
How is anyone worse off? They all get paid more money.
Both your source and mine use "they" as "households" instead of individuals.
In 1979 most middle class households existed on a single income source.
That often wasn't even possible in 2007.
Wouldn't the cost of childcare have to be factored into $2400 "income increase" the lowest quintile saw during those 38 years?