Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Trickle-down economics, inequality, and incomes. Another piece of evidence with implications for rebuilding a strong middle class comes from new work by economists Emmanuel Saez et al. As shown in the figures from their paper (see here), they use international evidence from a wide variety of advanced economies to examine two key links in the logic of the supply-side chain.
First, they look at the relationship between the top marginal income tax rate in these countries and the change in income inequality. They find a strong negative correlation: in countries like ours that cut the top marginal tax rate, income is a lot more skewed (and note that this refers to pretax income, so the result is not a direct function of the tax policy changes).
But the critical question for supply-side is whether these high-end marginal tax rate reductions lead to faster income growth (we've already seen that they lead to more income inequality). The bottom figure shows that they do not. Real per capita income growth across these countries is unrelated to the changes in tax rates.
The above points emphasize an economic rationale for a growth model more favorable to the middle class. More broadly shared growth would not only score higher on a fairness criterion; it would provide a more reliable and durable structure for overall growth itself. It is no accident, in this regard, that the era of heightened inequality coincides with the arrival and persistence of what I've called "the shampoo economy:" bubble, bust, repeat.
Jared Bernstein: Inequality, the Middle Class, and Growth
Why do non-rich Repugs continually vote against their economic interests? Mental illness?Trickle-down economics, inequality, and incomes. Another piece of evidence with implications for rebuilding a strong middle class comes from new work by economists Emmanuel Saez et al. As shown in the figures from their paper (see here), they use international evidence from a wide variety of advanced economies to examine two key links in the logic of the supply-side chain.
First, they look at the relationship between the top marginal income tax rate in these countries and the change in income inequality. They find a strong negative correlation: in countries like ours that cut the top marginal tax rate, income is a lot more skewed (and note that this refers to pretax income, so the result is not a direct function of the tax policy changes).
But the critical question for supply-side is whether these high-end marginal tax rate reductions lead to faster income growth (we've already seen that they lead to more income inequality). The bottom figure shows that they do not. Real per capita income growth across these countries is unrelated to the changes in tax rates.
The above points emphasize an economic rationale for a growth model more favorable to the middle class. More broadly shared growth would not only score higher on a fairness criterion; it would provide a more reliable and durable structure for overall growth itself. It is no accident, in this regard, that the era of heightened inequality coincides with the arrival and persistence of what I've called "the shampoo economy:" bubble, bust, repeat.
Demand creates jobs, not tax cuts for the rich and they lie when they say taking away tax cuts would hurt job creation, learn economics. Supply with little to no demand in the markets create no jobs.
Jared Bernstein: Inequality, the Middle Class, and Growth
Why do non-rich Repugs continually vote against their economic interests? Mental illness?Trickle-down economics, inequality, and incomes. Another piece of evidence with implications for rebuilding a strong middle class comes from new work by economists Emmanuel Saez et al. As shown in the figures from their paper (see here), they use international evidence from a wide variety of advanced economies to examine two key links in the logic of the supply-side chain.
First, they look at the relationship between the top marginal income tax rate in these countries and the change in income inequality. They find a strong negative correlation: in countries like ours that cut the top marginal tax rate, income is a lot more skewed (and note that this refers to pretax income, so the result is not a direct function of the tax policy changes).
But the critical question for supply-side is whether these high-end marginal tax rate reductions lead to faster income growth (we've already seen that they lead to more income inequality). The bottom figure shows that they do not. Real per capita income growth across these countries is unrelated to the changes in tax rates.
The above points emphasize an economic rationale for a growth model more favorable to the middle class. More broadly shared growth would not only score higher on a fairness criterion; it would provide a more reliable and durable structure for overall growth itself. It is no accident, in this regard, that the era of heightened inequality coincides with the arrival and persistence of what I've called "the shampoo economy:" bubble, bust, repeat.
A good book to read on this subject is "What's The Matter With Kansas" by Thomas Frank published in 2004
The biggest advantage of having the uber-rich paying their fair share in taxes is that our natonal debt would be greatly reduced. Instead of having to destroy government services that help each citizen, the government could provide infrastructure improvement grants to communities, more health inspectors could be hired (and maybe slow down the constant e-coli outbreaks,) more staff could be hired to maintain our national parks...jobs. Jobs.
Or the 1% could keep their money and let the middle class continue to carry the tax burden, because apparently the middle class doesn't work hard for their money like the rich do.
There are lots of reasons to think so -- and we'll touch on several in just a minute -- but the most recent comes from Matt Stoller, blogging at Naked Capitalism, who points us toward a recent bit of number-crunching from Emmanuel Saez, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley. Saez, who's known for his work on the income gap, has highlighted a surprising and discouraging fact: during the post-recession period of 2009 and 2010, the rich snagged a greater share of total income growth than they did during the boom years of 2002 to 2007.
In other words, inequality has been even more pronounced under Obama than it was under George W. Bush. This news may not come as a shock if you're one of the many Americans who lost their job during the recession and couldn't find another that paid as well. It also might not surprise you if you're one of the 46 million people living in poverty -- a record number, as it happens -- or among the millions of Americans who can get by week to week, but would be ruined by a single financial emergency.
You might likewise not be surprised if you already knew that some household-goods companies are catering to this new reality by quietly neglecting their mid-price product lines, focusing instead on their high-end and budget offerings, since wages are diverging so much. Or if you knew that the U.S. ranks closer to China, Serbia and Rwanda than any other country in the developed world when it comes to income inequality.
On the other hand, if you've been listening to Obama decry the wealth gap on the campaign trail, and talk about the need to impose higher tax rates on millionaires, well, then you might be a little surprised. It was only a few months ago that the Congressional Budget Office released a report illustrating how the very richest Americans have pulled away from the rest of society in the past 30 years. But that report used data that was only complete through 2007. Saez's calculations go through 2010, suggesting that White House rhetoric or no, the trends of the past three decades haven't started to reverse themselves.
MORE
Why do non-rich Repugs continually vote against their economic interests? Mental illness?
Jared Bernstein: Inequality, the Middle Class, and Growth
Trickle-down economics, inequality, and incomes. Another piece of evidence with implications for rebuilding a strong middle class comes from new work by economists Emmanuel Saez et al. As shown in the figures from their paper (see here), they use international evidence from a wide variety of advanced economies to examine two key links in the logic of the supply-side chain.
First, they look at the relationship between the top marginal income tax rate in these countries and the change in income inequality. They find a strong negative correlation: in countries like ours that cut the top marginal tax rate, income is a lot more skewed (and note that this refers to pretax income, so the result is not a direct function of the tax policy changes).
But the critical question for supply-side is whether these high-end marginal tax rate reductions lead to faster income growth (we've already seen that they lead to more income inequality). The bottom figure shows that they do not. Real per capita income growth across these countries is unrelated to the changes in tax rates.
The above points emphasize an economic rationale for a growth model more favorable to the middle class. More broadly shared growth would not only score higher on a fairness criterion; it would provide a more reliable and durable structure for overall growth itself. It is no accident, in this regard, that the era of heightened inequality coincides with the arrival and persistence of what I've called "the shampoo economy:" bubble, bust, repeat.
Why do non-rich Repugs continually vote against their economic interests? Mental illness?
Demand creates jobs, not tax cuts for the rich and they lie when they say taking away tax cuts would hurt job creation, learn economics. Supply with little to no demand in the markets create no jobs.
Why do non-rich Repugs continually vote against their economic interests? Mental illness?
Jared Bernstein: Inequality, the Middle Class, and Growth
Why do non-rich Repugs continually vote against their economic interests? Mental illness?
Jared Bernstein: Inequality, the Middle Class, and Growth
Why do non-rich Repugs continually vote against their economic interests? Mental illness?
Why do clueless people think either party will do anything besides posture and continue their incompetence and corruption?
Clueless....
Demand creates jobs, not tax cuts for the rich and they lie when they say taking away tax cuts would hurt job creation, learn economics. Supply with little to no demand in the markets create no jobs.
Demand creates jobs, not tax cuts for the rich and they lie when they say taking away tax cuts would hurt job creation, learn economics. Supply with little to no demand in the markets create no jobs.
Demand for what?
There is plenty of demand for cheap foriegn goods...that doesn't create jobs with sustainable income.
Do you go to WalMart or Coscoe or KMart etc. etc. and line up with everyone else buying the cheapest offerings they have?
Do you put a real effort in looking for goods manufactured in America?
Stop looking for corrupt politicians who have you looking like a sheep (and acting like one as well) - and realize it is our consumer choices that has the greatest effect on Americas economy.
