Is Income Inequality Leading To A Crisis For Capitalism?

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The far right is about the only group that think there is no income/wealth inequality

there is some income inequality to be sure but much of it is caused by liberal culture and liberal welfare programs that encourge HS drop-outs to become single mothers.

There is great book out called "Never Enough" which puts various welfare payments at 15 times what they were in 1970, adjusted for inflation. What do you expect?

The Gini index in China is now higher than the US, but this is a good thing as it reflects the growing number who are participating in the capitalist economy. Like in the US, if everyone participated inequality would not be problematic.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I would LOVE to make you leftists live a 1970 lifestyle, just for a month, then have you bullshit about how much worse it is now...

Yes exactly!!!!!!You don't need to be an economist to see how rich the middle class got just look at all the new inventions they could suddenly afford in the last 15 years: suddenly we had plasma TV's, LCD TV's, DLP-TV's, iPods, iphones, CD's and CD players, DVDs and DVD players, Blue Ray and Blue Ray players, PCs, desk top PCs, DVRs, color printers, satellite radio, Advantium ovens, HD-TV, Playstations, X-Boxes, X-box live, X-box Konnect, broadband, satellite TV, cell/camera/video phones, digital cameras, OnStar, palm corders, Blackberries, smart phones, home theaters, SUVs, big houses, more houses per capita, TiVo, 3D movies and TV's, built in wine coolers, granite counter tops, $200 sneakers, color matched front loader washing machines, matching washer dryer combinations, McMansions, 6 burner commercial ranges, Sub Zero refridgerators, more cars than drivers, a $1 billion ring tone industry, a pet industry that just doubled to $34 billion, 10's of millions lining up to buy Apple's I-tablet, Wii, Netflix boxes, jet skis, low profile tires, aluminum/titanium rims, Harley Davidson and Japanese motorcycles. $700 Billion spent Christmas 2010, $10.5 billion movies 2010, 10 million ocean crusies, 44 million taking plane flights over 2012 holiday, $500 billion spent on Christmas 2012.

The list goes on and on. I hope that helps you realize you can't just parrot the communist press and expect to make sense? They have other objectives and are merely using you to promote their point of view.

 

[ilia25]

The median household has a similar living standards now as it had 30 years ago.

That is a complete lie.

Lives lived now are at a level of luxury not even imagined 30 years ago.

As a child we would call Gramma twice a year, and then each could talk for 3 minutes. Long distance was really expensive. About half the middle class in the 1960's didn't own a TV, almost no one had a color model. No one had air conditioning, or dishwashers. "Going Out" was a couple of times a year, on birthdays.

If you put things in perspective -- those are all very marginal improvements. Houses are 30% bigger, so are the cars -- but those and not the things that make all the difference in your life. Things like having a car and a house in the first place, or having a washing machine, or a refrigerator.

I would LOVE to make you leftists live a 1970 lifestyle, just for a month, then have you bullshit about how much worse it is now...

And I would love to put you in the 40s lifestyle, just to give you perspective.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

And I would love to put you in the 40s lifestyle, just to give you perspective.

The liberal gets killed in debate so changes the subject to WW 2???

Probably the liberal does not know when WW 2 was.

 

[starcraftzzz]

Increased inequity results in lower growth anda poorer economy
Economic Issues 1 -- Growth in East Asia
^The success of the Asian Tigers can be attributed to a good primary education system and low income inequality.

http://www.ijeronline.com/documents/volumes/Vol 2 issue 5/ijer20110205SO(2).pdf
^Regressional statistical models and empirical evidence form several studies conclude that increases in income inequality lower GDP growth. Partly due to an inability for the larger poorer population from being able to invest

Study: Income Inequality Kills Economic Growth | Mother Jones
^Empirical study looking at Asia, and Latin America finds that upticks in income inequality resulted in less GPD growth. This can be partly explained by an increase in debt/speculative economic growth rather than income/demand growth.
^A 10% decrease in inequality results in a 50% longer growth spell

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2011/sdn1108.pdf
^IMF Chappeons of austerity conclude that more inequality leads to less sustained growth

^Income inequality also lowers growth because when the very wealthy increase their consumption it’, on goods that are pure luxury instead of goods that increase wellbeing. For example a poor person who sees an influx in income will more likely spend that income on healthcare, healthier food, or other goods that have investment returns, while a rich person is more likely to get jewelry, or private jets.

^Income inequality also lowers growth because when the very wealthy increase their consumption it’, on goods that have productive constraints.
For example a poor person who sees an influx in income is more likely to purchase basic goods like clothes, food, or appliances whose production can be increased easily via more labor harvesting, while a rich person is more likely to buy collectable items, beach front properties, or wines from a special region all goods whose production cannot be increases purely by increases labor or harvesting.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Increased inequity results in lower growth anda poorer economy.

You assume inequality when it is an idiotic Marxist class warfare talking point? How liberal of you.

But those data are less useful because income group members change every year.

1) In summary, half of all of U.S. households move from one income quintile to a different income quintile every decade.

2) The average number of people with jobs in a top income quintile household is two, while a majority of bottom income quintile households have no one employed.

3) If there are two adult income earners in a household who are married, their incomes are combined on tax forms. This is very common among top quintile income households.

4) The lowest quintile households, however, include a lot more single-person households, or two unmarried working adults living together, and sharing expenses, but reporting their incomes to the IRS as if they were two separate households.


5) 75% to 80% of the actual income for bottom quintile households is transfer payments (aka “welfare”) that are not included in IRS income data.


(6) The IRS warns against comparisons of pre-1987 and post-1987 income data due to significant changes in the definition of adjusted gross income (AGI) that made top quintile households appear to have large reported income gains, when in fact there was no change to their income at all.

7) In addition to the AGI changes, large marginal tax rate reductions during the Reagan Administration caused another large change in tax reporting. This reporting change appeared to boost top quintile income, when in fact their incomes had not changed.

8) Lastly, income for the bottom quintile does not include welfare entitlement tranfer payments making them seem far poorer than they actually are.

 

[kiwiman127]

The far right is about the only group that think there is no income/wealth inequality

there is some income inequality to be sure but much of it is caused by liberal culture and liberal welfare programs that encourge HS drop-outs to become single mothers.

There is great book out called "Never Enough" which puts various welfare payments at 15 times what they were in 1970, adjusted for inflation. What do you expect?

The Gini index in China is now higher than the US, but this is a good thing as it reflects the growing number who are participating in the capitalist economy. Like in the US, if everyone participated inequality would not be problematic.

You know EdB, I always back what I say with fact from unbiased resources, you on the other hand just say stuff and expect people to think it's true. So. why not find an unbiased non-ideological resource to prove your point?

 

[kiwiman127]

Increased inequity results in lower growth anda poorer economy.

You assume inequality when it is an idiotic Marxist class warfare talking point? How liberal of you.

But those data are less useful because income group members change every year.

1) In summary, half of all of U.S. households move from one income quintile to a different income quintile every decade.

2) The average number of people with jobs in a top income quintile household is two, while a majority of bottom income quintile households have no one employed.

3) If there are two adult income earners in a household who are married, their incomes are combined on tax forms. This is very common among top quintile income households.

4) The lowest quintile households, however, include a lot more single-person households, or two unmarried working adults living together, and sharing expenses, but reporting their incomes to the IRS as if they were two separate households.


5) 75% to 80% of the actual income for bottom quintile households is transfer payments (aka “welfare”) that are not included in IRS income data.


(6) The IRS warns against comparisons of pre-1987 and post-1987 income data due to significant changes in the definition of adjusted gross income (AGI) that made top quintile households appear to have large reported income gains, when in fact there was no change to their income at all.

7) In addition to the AGI changes, large marginal tax rate reductions during the Reagan Administration caused another large change in tax reporting. This reporting change appeared to boost top quintile income, when in fact their incomes had not changed.

8) Lastly, income for the bottom quintile does not include welfare entitlement tranfer payments making them seem far poorer than they actually are.

Link?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

So. why not find an unbiased non-ideological resource to prove your point?

what point exactly do you dispute??

 

[kiwiman127]

So. why not find an unbiased non-ideological resource to prove your point?

what point exactly do you dispute??

How much time do you think I have in my life?

A. There is income/wealth inequality not seen since the Great Depression.

B. The worlds top investors (so they are hardly Marxist-liberals) have clearly stated that inequality threatens capitalism.

C. And you say "bullshit". Well, prove your point and use non-partisan resources with links to either prove your point or prove those of us who are calling you out, wrong! It's that simple.

Finally, this really shouldn't be a partisan issue. Main Street America which is made up of lefties, righties and many in between, is hurting. Several polls show that members of the working class are very aware of their economic plight.

In a recent CBS poll 43% of Republicans favored raising the taxes on the wealthy, now that's unheard of, but,,,,,,,,,!

Poll: Most back raising taxes on millionaires - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

How much time do you think I have in my life?

a liberal will be very slow and mostly not be able to understand so you will need a lot of time just trying to grasp the basics, and likely fail anyway.

A. There is income/wealth inequality not seen since the Great Depression. /

and now you know it is not true because the figures don't include transfer payments designed to eliminate inequality

B. The worlds top investors (so they are hardly Marxist-liberals) have clearly stated that inequality threatens capitalism.

if they say there is inequality then they have not looked at transfer payents either

C. And you say "bullshit". Well, prove your point and use non-partisan resources with links to either prove your point or prove those of us who are calling you out, wrong! It's that simple.

I gave you quotes from standard encyclopedia and IRS and basic logic.

Finally, this really shouldn't be a partisan issue. Main Street America which is made up of lefties, righties and many in between, is hurting. Several polls show that members of the working class are very aware of their economic plight.

of course its very partisan since liberals exist to buy votes with promises of more and more welfare which only continues to deepen the problem. The more you do your kids homework the more dependent he becomes, and the more you need to do his homework. Over your head?

In a recent CBS poll 43% of Republicans favored raising the taxes on the wealthy, now that's unheard of, but,,,,,,,,,!

great, Bush spent $2 trillion then $3 trillion, and now BO is spending $4 trillion and they need more taxes to make things even better?? See why we are positive a liberal will be very very slow? If tax and spend worked we'd already be in paradise!!! OMG!!!!

 

[starcraftzzz]

Increased inequity results in lower growth anda poorer economy.

You assume inequality when it is an idiotic Marxist class warfare talking point? How liberal of you.

If stating facts are "idiotic and Marxists" then so be it.

But those data are less useful because income group members change every year.

1) In summary, half of all of U.S. households move from one income quintile to a different income quintile every decade.

Are you saying that making 29,000 one year and then making 31,000 the next year means there is no inequality?

2) The average number of people with jobs in a top income quintile household is two, while a majority of bottom income quintile households have no one employed.

Oh wow people who are unemployed are poor. What a revelation!

The fact still remains that increases in income inequality result in lower economic growth and a poorer economy

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Increased inequity results in lower growth anda poorer economy.

You assume inequality when it is an idiotic Marxist class warfare talking point? How liberal of you.

If stating facts are "idiotic and Marxists" then so be it.

But those data are less useful because income group members change every year.

1) In summary, half of all of U.S. households move from one income quintile to a different income quintile every decade.

Are you saying that making 29,000 one year and then making 31,000 the next year means there is no inequality?

2) The average number of people with jobs in a top income quintile household is two, while a majority of bottom income quintile households have no one employed.

Oh wow people who are unemployed are poor. What a revelation!

The fact still remains that increases in income inequality result in lower economic growth and a poorer economy

The fact is there will always be income inequality. The talking point is appeal to emotion and attempts to steer people from reality. If you mean a growing wealth gap, then I agree. Too much wealth consolidated in too few hands leads to stagnant growth. BUT, and it is a big one, that doesn't happen under capitalism. It's a problem regarding favoritism.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Increased inequity results in lower growth and a poorer economy.

You assume inequality when it is an idiotic Marxist class warfare talking point? How liberal of you

[
If stating facts are "idiotic and Marxists" then so be it.

of course if it was a fact the liberal would not be so afraid to present his evidence

But those data are less useful because income group members change every year.
1) In summary, half of all of U.S. households move from one income quintile to a different income quintile every decade.

[
Are you saying that making 29,000 one year and then making 31,000 the next year means there is no inequality?

no no no, the IRS is saying that half of those in a lower quintile one year will not be there the next, thus those in the low quintiles are by no means a permanent underclass even with liberal welfare payments trying to crippple them

2) The average number of people with jobs in a top income quintile household is two, while a majority of bottom income quintile households have no one employed. [/quote]

[
Oh wow people who are unemployed are poor. What a revelation!

no no no!!! people who get married are not poor!! liberalism causes the destruction of the family and so most of the inequality that exists

[
The fact still remains that increases in income inequality result in lower economic growth and a poorer economy

so then you want to eliminate the incentives liberals provide that destroy the family?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The fact is there will always be income inequality.

yes, it would be easier to make the case it is a good thing . In China the Gini index is way up, but it means that those who are fortunate enough to participate in the new capitalist economy are getting far ahead of those still on the subsistence farm. Do we want to cut back on those participating in capitalism or further encourage those who are not yet participating.

that doesn't happen under capitalism. It's a problem regarding favoritism.

yes the beauty of capitalism is that if you take excess profits you only encourage competition which can then sell at a lower price. Capitalism ensures broad distribution of wealth.

 

[georgephillip]

"Noam Chomsky: To begin with, I think terms like 'capitalism' and 'socialism' have been so evacuated of any substantive meaning that I don't even like to use them. There's nothing remotely like capitalism in existence.

"To the extent there ever was, it had disappeared by the 1920s or '30s.

"Every industrial society is one form or another of state capitalism. But we'll use the term 'capitalism,' since that is more or less its present meaning.

Well, what happened in the last 10-15 years is that capitalism underwent an enormous, murderously destructive catastrophe.

"There was a serious international crisis around 1980.

"Of the three major sectors of state capitalism -- the German-led European community, the Japan-based sector and the U.S.-based sector -- the German- and Japan-based sectors pulled out of the decline, but without regaining their previous rate of growth. The United States also pulled out, but in a very distorted fashion, with huge borrowing and very extensive state intervention.... "

On Capitalism, Noam Chomsky interviewed by David Finkel

 

[editec]

Anybody who imagines that we are still fighting the cold war against socialism isn't paying attention.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Anybody who imagines that we are still fighting the cold war against socialism isn't paying attention.

all of history is the war for freedom against liberalism or socialism.

China just switched to prove who the good guys are. Even that example escapes liberals who lack the IQ to understand even that simple example.

 

[starcraftzzz]

Increased inequity results in lower growth and a poorer economy.

You assume inequality when it is an idiotic Marxist class warfare talking point? How liberal of you

No dumbass all the data and logic show that increased inequality results in less economic growth.
Economic Issues 1 -- Growth in East Asia
^The success of the Asian Tigers can be attributed to a good primary education system and low income inequality.

http://www.ijeronline.com/documents/volumes/Vol 2 issue 5/ijer20110205SO(2).pdf
^Regressional statistical models and empirical evidence form several studies conclude that increases in income inequality lower GDP growth. Partly due to an inability for the larger poorer population from being able to invest

Study: Income Inequality Kills Economic Growth | Mother Jones
^Empirical study looking at Asia, and Latin America finds that upticks in income inequality resulted in less GPD growth. This can be partly explained by an increase in debt/speculative economic growth rather than income/demand growth.
^A 10% decrease in inequality results in a 50% longer growth spell

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2011/sdn1108.pdf
^IMF Chappeons of austerity conclude that more inequality leads to less sustained growth

^Income inequality also lowers growth because when the very wealthy increase their consumption it’, on goods that are pure luxury instead of goods that increase wellbeing. For example a poor person who sees an influx in income will more likely spend that income on healthcare, healthier food, or other goods that have investment returns, while a rich person is more likely to get jewelry, or private jets.

^Income inequality also lowers growth because when the very wealthy increase their consumption it’, on goods that have productive constraints.
For example a poor person who sees an influx in income is more likely to purchase basic goods like clothes, food, or appliances whose production can be increased easily via more labor harvesting, while a rich person is more likely to buy collectable items, beach front properties, or wines from a special region all goods whose production cannot be increases purely by increases labor or harvesting.

<b> God you are a retard</b>

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

No dumbass all the data and logic show that increased inequality results in less economic growth.

if so why be so afraid to expain firstly why you think there is inequality?

please keep in mind we can all trade links, but this is a debate site not a trade link site! Think on your own. Thanks