So ultimately someone's "screwing the pooch" if I get my TB phrases correctly.
Meh, let it be the wealthy. The middle class gets it stuck to them all the time. Of course just my opinion and all that Jazz.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
US income inequality at record high
- Thread starter Tony Flow MMMM
- Start date
- Status
So ultimately someone's "screwing the pooch" if I get my TB phrases correctly.
Meh, let it be the wealthy. The middle class gets it stuck to them all the time. Of course just my opinion and all that Jazz.
False,
A bank can loan out 10x the amount they actually keep.
So you buy a house 100k that bank only has 10k to show for it, but writes you a check for 100k now you give that to the owner of the house (builder) they put that in the bank, now their bank can loan 10x that amount out. But guess what it's only 10,000 actual dollar no were not borrowing rich people's money.
No, I'm correct. Without the rich persons 10 K in the bank they can't lend the 100K.
And it would be better for all if they had the whole 100K to loan.
Thanks for the chance to clear that up!
That still doesn't address the (silly in my view) notion that the poor do more for the economy by spending every dime of their money, whereas that rich are somehow hurting us by leaving a certain percentage of their income in the bank.
By the way, let me just say that I appreciate the mods for letting this conversation go. And I also appreciate everyone for the most part staying away from politics to allow this conversation to continue. It is my contention that we could do this more often than not in OT. I disagree with many of you but don't hate anyone here (or anywhere for that matter). And I actually enjoy discussions like this. Cheers to all involved.
It's my observation that the poor destroy wealth by their choices. Compare property values in a rich area compared to a poor area.
And spending ones last dollar at MickeyDee's isn't good for the overall economy. The burden of health care generated from that meal is just waiting to fall upon the taxpayer!
Unrepresented
Something Borderline Offensive
and whose fault is that?....the rich, like everyone else, behave rationally.
change the tax laws so that they can profit more from having their money work than not, and that money will come out from under the mattress.
change the policies (or the policy makers) so that we have a growing economy rather than stagnant, and, likewise
It's the law of hand to mouth. The further the hand is from the mouth, the less likely the hand is going to throw food at it. As an economic investment, giving cash flow to the rich is not nearly as efficient as giving cash flow to the poor at making everyone "richer."
I think we are finally getting somewhere with regards to the shrinking Middle Class. It's not the favorably wealthy who empower the economy - it's the middle class because they have enough money to buy new cars, houses, TVs, and services on a larger scale and on a more regular basis when there is a healthy supply of them. If there's not the demand that they can provide, everything kinda slumps off because there aren't enough rich people who want those things, and the poor just can't afford them. But if we keep screwjng ourselves out of a middle class, we are screwing ourselves out of an economy.
Peace,
Greg
Peace,
Greg
Pointing out that there is a problem with inequality in the United States is not the same thing as opposing upward mobility. People who are troubled by the shrinking of the middle class are not arguing that everyone should be poor.
Honestly, I have no stats to back up what I'm about to type. But I simply don't SEE any evidence of a dwindling middle class where I live/travel. I live in a town that I would argue is 80% or more middle class. Most towns around me (I feel) are the same. Unless there are millions and millions of "closet poor" out there, I just don't believe it. In other words, unless there are millions and millions of families living in a 3 bedroom brick ranch with two cars, a DVR, a flat screen (or three), and a new lawn tractor from Lowe's, but are actually somehow POOR, then I don't buy it. Maybe the failed experiments we call "major metropolitan areas" are skewing the number so badly that all of fly over country can't bring them back up. Sure, there are a couple of areas where government housing and/or just not-so-nice conditions prevail. And there are a coupld of "rich" neighborhoods. But I do work in just about every area of this place and it is almost ALL middle class. Other towns around here (Raleigh Durham Chapel Hill, Cary, Wilson, Rocky Mount, Washington, Goldsboro, Kinston, Wilmington to name a few) ALL seem to be MOSTLY middle class. So, where are these huddled masses of poor people and wealthy people? What areas of the country are SO bad that they are able to indicate a "dwindling middle class" for the rest of the entire country?
And, while we're at it, HOW are these middle class families being FORCED into poverty? Who is doing it? HOW can a rich person FORCE a middle class family into poverty?
Forgive me, but I just don't understand the premise that one group is somehow "doing something" to cause another group to be UNABLE to thrive. I don't understand it. And, frankly, I don't believe it.
And, while we're at it, HOW are these middle class families being FORCED into poverty? Who is doing it? HOW can a rich person FORCE a middle class family into poverty?
Forgive me, but I just don't understand the premise that one group is somehow "doing something" to cause another group to be UNABLE to thrive. I don't understand it. And, frankly, I don't believe it.
Unrepresented
Something Borderline Offensive
I agree, we've allowed the rich to have a ridiculously out of proportion share of the national wealth.Sooooooooo the rich don't spend enough to "help" the poor? You have your head buried in percentages and not actual dollars. I love it when people will argue a point like this.
"Sure, that wealthy guy donated $312 million dollars to build the new wing of the hospital, and he just had a 10,000 square foot house build for $3.3 million in construction and materials, and he just built a new factory right outside of town that employs 212 people, and he runs three charities, but he has the nerve to KEEP 30% of his income in stupid BANKS where the public can't benefit from it! Whereas that entire poor neighborhood just spent 100% of their money on groceries and rent, totaling about $15,000 all told, so THEY helped the economy more."
Percentages mean squat. They are stats used for argument. ACTUAL DOLLAR AMOUNTS are what matter when economic development, debt, and overall wealth are measured. To say that our national debt "only went up 1.1% last year as opposed to 1973 when it went up 4%" means nothing. If that 1.1% is $4 trillion and the 4% was $85 million then the percentage argument kind of flies out the window. (Totally made up figures only meant as an example and not a political statement.) I simply don't care what the percentage is if our debt goes up trillions of dollars (regardless of who is in charge). The same goes for my wealthy guy analogy. I don't CARE what percentage of his income he either blows or donates in my community. If it is MILLIONS of dollars, we'll take it. Because it does GOOD THINGS for the local economy and community. And his keeping a gagillion MORE dollars in the bank doesn't HURT our community.
Percentages indeed.
Yes, The News and Observer there in your area is KNOWN for its unbiased accuracy. (That was sarcasm.) So, which newspapers "have it right"? And, I somehow missed the part where those newspaper EXPLAINED what rich people are doing to force middle class families into poverty. Could you sum it up for me? Or is your "pointing to the media" about as much answer as you are able to give? Or did your college professor at Duke or UNC forget to mention the root cause of it all?
You completely missed the point. In this country, we don't ALLOW anyone to keep ANYTHING. They are ALLOWED to keep it ANYWAY. You are ALLOWED to shop wherever you like. So you don't have to give the Waltons a DIME. But, make no mistake, YOU and the rest of the 99% don't ALLOW anyone to keep ANYTHING. The Constitution pretty much lays out that we can keep whatever we want whether you approve or not. So, to take it one step further, you can't DISALLOW it here either. You, and those who think like you, can not simply wake up one morning and say "You know what? We have for too long ALLOWED the rich to keep to much money. Not any more. We're taking it back." It doesn't work that way here. Please, feel free to move to one of the incredibly successful social experiments that DO mandate such allowances, caps on income, wealth redistribution, tax rates over 50%, etc. (Oh..... wait. There aren't any. Those places seem to have a very disproportionate number of poor people as well..... and the poor in some of those places aren't exactly like the poor here, with microwaves, air conditioning, refrigerators, a car or two...... Wonder how that happened..... scratches head).
I think you're missing the point. And you also have some facts you may want to look into. The top tax rate in "the good old days" 1950 was 91%. Scandinavian countries have much higher rates and much much less poverty. Sure there are other issues. The idea was these companies/people would put that money back into their workers and businesses as opposed to using it to buy off Senators or stash it in off-short accounts. And they did and there was a healthy middle class and healthy economy.
I don't have the answers on how but you can't sit there and think the problems we have today are that the wealthiest just don't have enough. We don't have a capitol problem. We have a demand problem.
Unrepresented
Something Borderline Offensive
The government can take what it likes (taxes, fees, tariffs, domain, etc.). The government is determined by the voters. The rich are only rich because the voters tolerate their claims.
I didn't miss your point, I was pointing out the other side of it.
Those facts are not lost on me. Those were not the good old days in my view. They were communism. 91% of income is robbery. And I never stated that the wealthy not having enough is the problem. But I DID, however, claim that their legally earning and keeping as much as they do is NOT the problem.
- Status
