US income inequality at record high

[Kaa]

so, is there ANYTING to be done, short of uprising?

 

[UncleFluffy]

lead to believe everyone who works hard has a chance to live their own American Dream?

"a chance" does not equal "a guarantee"

(Though I do agree with you in general about the toxicity of inherited wealth).

 

[Unrepresented]

so, is there ANYTING to be done, short of uprising?

Of course. We live in a nation that allows its citizens to vote instead of overthrow its government. Educate yourself and those around you about the issues, bare in mind that other interests will undoubtedly wish to influence you.

 

[Zanzibar Delgado]

Glad to see the myth of the American Dream is still alive and well on TB. The deification of wealth will never cease to amaze me. The truth is, your fate is sealed the moment you're born. Income inequality may be very high, but the more pressing concern to me is the prevalence of socio-economic inertia. It is extremely hard for someone born rich to end up poor or middle class, and almost impossible for someone born into abject poverty to escape it (cue the "my poor immigrant grandfather" bootstraps anecdotes). The ossified elite have succeeded in eviscerating the working class and convincing them that it's a good thing.

 

[jmattbassplaya]

"a chance" does not equal "a guarantee"

(Though I do agree with you in general about the toxicity of inherited wealth).

Good catch lol.

I think one serious issue our country seems to have deals with how we establish the expectations of our youth.

 

[Lee Moses]

Glad to see the myth of the American Dream is still alive and well on TB. The deification of wealth will never cease to amaze me. The truth is, your fate is sealed the moment you're born. Income inequality may be very high, but the more pressing concern to me is the prevalence of socio-economic inertia. It is extremely hard for someone born rich to end up poor or middle class, and almost impossible for someone born into abject poverty to escape it (cue the "my poor immigrant grandfather" bootstraps anecdotes). The ossified elite have succeeded in eviscerating the working class and convincing them that it's a good thing.

Do you have statistics on how many people born into abject poverty legitimately strive to escape it, and fail?

 

[BawanaRik]

While I know that it has quite a few legitimate criticisms in the scholarly community, the Laffer Curve is a model that shows that there is actually an equilibrium point in which a certain rate of taxation is desirable and an increase or decrease in taxation would result in decreased tax revenues. I don't know if that's what you were getting at, because I was a little confused by how you worded your post.

Also remember that donating to charity is a tax write-off, and many people donate for that reason. Therefore, taxes may serve a functional purposes to increase charitable donations.

Two things about the Laffer curve, which just knowing it exists is impressive.

There are many Laffer Curves, With their own assumptions that create their own unique results. IE the usual assumptions that if your tax at 100% no one will work and if you tax at 0% there will be no tax revenue. Both are debatable.

Second one has to wonder if the goal of the Laffer curve, to obtain maximum tax revenues is even desirable.

When I think of non-taxed money I think of Carnegie Hall.

When I think of taxed money I think of the projects located in Newark mere miles from my own house.

While beauty is in the eye of the beholder I've been to Carnegie Hall quite often. Not so the projects.

 

[two fingers]

So let me get this straight. You just made a number of claims without any actual empirical support and then asked for those claims to be disproven? Sorry, but that's not how it works. Before a counter-argument can be made, the burden of proof is on you to support your position. For the record, there are a number of good social policy books that have been written that dive deeper into the whole "bootstraps" philosophy of prosperity and uncover how that's a simple, reductionist answer. I'd suggest The Politics of Social Policy in the United States by Weir, Orloff, and Skocpol as a good starter.

With all due respect, because you seem like a bright cat, I'd suggest if you haven't taken any electives yet, registering for some social science courses. I'd suggest a stats course in either your psych, soc, or business department and then a theory course in your soc department.

What I am suggesting (quite simply I thought) is that the chart presented says NOTHING about the OPPORTUNITY for upward mobility. It only shows what did, in fact, occur. We could both throw out stats that would "prove" out respective views. I get that. However, the premise set forth by the "stats" (complete with charts) was brought forth and offered up as "proof" that is it HARDER to move upward economically here than most places. That simply is not true. Those stats and chart only showed what DID happen, not what COULD. And, you are correct. Simply using my own experiences, my own family history, my own personal knowledge, and the history of hundreds and thousands of rags to riches stories, the history of this country in general, and the experiences of people around me I find it really hard to believe that one could put forth a great deal of effort and not move upward here.

My question to you (still) is WHAT FORCES actually keep people who DO put forth a great deal of effort from succeeding, or at least improving their fortunes? If they "can't", why not?

Also, I do have Sociology in the Spring. However, it has been my experience that there are no better at bending and twisting "stats and proof" to prove preconceived notions than a college professor.

A former president too polarizing to mention here once said.....
"They say that statistic don't lie, and while that may be true, liars do use statistics."

 

[fisticuffs]

IE the usual assumptions that if your tax at 100% no one will work and if you tax at 0% there will be no tax revenue. Both are debatable.

I don't see how the second half is at all debatable.

There is a balance though. There has to be. And the optimal point in that curve isn't desirable so that there can be the maximum amount of tax revenue it's desirable because it gives us the healthiest economy. For everyone.

 

[lbanks]

In before the lock! (Why? I have nothing else to do for 20 minutes and TV sucks)

 

[fisticuffs]

"They say that statistic don't lie, and while that may be true, liars do use statistics."

This thread needs more clever quotes that sum up insanely complex issues. They really move the conversation forward.

 

[BawanaRik]

Do you have statistics on how many people born into abject poverty legitimately strive to escape it, and fail?

I am not sure that's a fair question.

The public support systems provides people with a very high standard of living.

I mean if food-stamps can be used to eat out at MickeyDs and they can afford to eat out that is living large compared to the rest of the world.

Add to the that the luxury of hot showers, in door plumbing and the fact is even the socalled poor are living what would pass in history as LARGE!

Not long ago Kings lacked all these things.

There isn't much incentive to try to work ones out of what is historically massive wealth.

 

[BawanaRik]

I don't see how the second half is at all debatable.

There is a balance though. There has to be. And the optimal point in that curve isn't desirable so that there can be the maximum amount of tax revenue it's desirable because it gives us the healthiest economy. For everyone.

There are people who will donate their funds to support the US even if they aren't taxed. An example came out recently.

Would you be so kind as to back you second statement up. I feel it has no merit but would like to see if I've missed something.

Thanks

 

[fisticuffs]

I am not sure that's a fair question.

The public support systems provides people with a very high standard of living.

I mean if food-stamps can be used to eat out at MickeyDs and they can afford to eat out that is living large compared to the rest of the world.

Add to the that the luxury of hot showers, in door plumbing and the fact is even the socalled poor are living what would pass in history as LARGE!

Not long ago Kings lacked all these things.

There isn't much incentive to try to work ones out of what is historically massive wealth.

Let's keep it in the 21st century here buddy. You sound like someone who has never known poverty to me. To refer to it as a high standard of living is insulting to every person who has worked to get out of it.

 

[groooooove]

if this angers you work harder and become the 1%

dont blame them for being successful.


or maybe sitting in a park is easier than working hard enough to be that successful, idk. the choice is yours.

 

[Lee Moses]

I don't see how the second half ["if you tax at 0% there will be no tax revenue"] is at all debatable.

I don't presume to speak for the poster to whom you are responding, but there are a few states that have no income tax, yet still have tax revenue. There was no regular U.S. federal income tax until Wilson, yet the country was in much better fiscal shape before that than it is now.

 

[sloasdaylight]

GET OUT OF THE WAY! IT'S THE PERSONAL ANECDOTE TRAIN COMING THROUGH!!!

In high school I had the fortune of going to a school that was predominantly inner city, with an IB program, which meant I was exposed to a pretty wide swath of people when it comes to background due to my enrollment in the IB program and as a member of the football team. I knew people who came from families with enough money to give both of their cars new BMWs for their 16th birthdays, families that were like mine, who had enough to get by, but we didn't have the latest toys/gadgets, and forget having a car, and families who were very poor. I've kept in touch with a number of them over the years, thanks in large part to Facebook, and what I've seen is that their socio-economic background doesn't really seem to have played a huge part in most of their lives as far as their success. I know pharmacists and doctors who grew up in a rough part of town that could be affectionately called a "hood" by a lot of people, and I know people who grew up in families with a lot of money doing nothing with their lives and working as a barista complaining about the 1%. A lot of us fell in the middle, like most people my age. They're getting married, buying homes, getting married, and settling into careers as mechanics, accountants, teachers, military service, police officers, firefighters, etc., but in pretty much every case, almost without exception, it's been because they've worked their tails off, made good decisions with their money (a lesson I had to learn very painfully), and the like. This goes for my friends both in the IB program and those who weren't.

 

[Zanzibar Delgado]

Do you have statistics on how many people born into abject poverty legitimately strive to escape it, and fail?

What constitutes "legitimate strive"? Is there any way to quantify such an ambiguous qualifier?

It's easy to reduce a complex web of social, economic, and cultural factors into a work/don't work dichotomy. No offense intended, but I sincerely doubt that you've ever been truly poor.

 

[fisticuffs]

I don't presume to speak for the poster to whom you are responding, but there are a few states that have no income tax, yet still have tax revenue. There was no regular U.S. federal income tax until Wilson, yet the country was in much better fiscal shape before that than it is now.

There are more taxes than income taxes. What's sales tax in Florida?

 

[nortonrider]

if this angers you work harder and become the 1%

dont blame them for being successful.


or maybe sitting in a park is easier than working hard enough to be that successful, idk. the choice is yours.

FWIW:
To get Bill Gates type of money(66 billion dollars),
If you made 1 million dollars a year...... you would have to work for the next 66 thousand years.