Originally Posted by tonton http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/22/bu...leonhardt.html
For me the money quote is this:
It's been clear to me for the longest time that supply-side economics lead to income equality and income equality stifles the economy and with it, growth.
It's clear to me that chasing unicorns and playing with giraffes is what causes income equality and that this also stifles the economy and with it, growth.
Sadly that made up silly statement still makes more sense than your statement.
When people wonder why the rich pay a higher share of taxes (ignoring the fact that the ultra-rich pay a lower percentage than the moderately rich), I wonder if those people look at income disparity at all. I don't mean among the low-skilled or the unemployed... I mean the disparity between say, a fresh grad and the first CEO he goes to work for. I mean the difference between a teacher and a stock broker. I mean the difference between a welder and a fund manager. I mean the difference in profit increases at a bank and teller-level salary increases at a bank.
It's much easier to pay a higher share of taxes when half of all people are not even on the tax rolls. You put forward this strange reasoning that income disparities are somehow related to the rate at which someone is taxed. That is the purest non sequitur I have read in a long time. One does not follow the other at all.
The rich get richer and the poor stay the same or get poorer (when inflation is factored in). These are direct results of Reaganomics that need to be addressed. The only thing keeping these market forces from collapsing the economy altogether are social programs.
Again, pure non sequitur, government tax policy does not determine what a business will pay someone. It might determine how much they keep of it, but income disparities are not related to tax policy in any fashion or form.
Household incomes and their growing disparity can be attributed almost exclusively to trade and traits related to the culture war. Those parties who are questionable high school graduates or drop outs, have fewer manual labor jobs, factory jobs and union jobs to try to raise their living standard. That is the trade side of the equation. On the culture war side, you have many women who have decided to have children outside of wedlock. When they have their child, they become a "household" by government definition. The number of such households have dramatically increased since the 60's. These households reject marriage for a number of reasons.
So you have a growing number of semi-employable men and women, who reject marriage, still have children, have the government be the head of both households (they count as two) and the government controls their lives via family courts and assistance programs. They won't combine into a single household (which would almost immediately lift them out of poverty) because the women are married to the government for income and housing, and "get the cow without the milk" by having the government extract the income from the men without having the actually deal with the men.
Such households will never catch up with the households where the "rich are getting richer" because they reject education, marriage and desire the government be involved to solve for what they have rejected.
On the flip side of this, you have women who have entered the work force and become educated at amazing rates. They not only avail themselves of work and education but also still get married. Their household, by government definition, now contains two college educated, working adults. Such households are of course going to earn 5-700% more income than the other households. However all of this is attributable to choices made. When one party is gong to work part time at Walmart or McDonalds with questionable education and the other household is going to have two college educated adults working full time, the differences there are going to be 400-800% higher income.
Unlike the made up nonsense, rates of child birth outside of marriage follow the income traits. Most children living in poverty do so because their parents are not married.
So when you ask how can anyone support social spending, I respond with incredulity that the vast majority of the same people have ignored the economic trends of the past 35 years, which have been driven by voodoo economics and supply-side wishful thinking.
There is some wishful thinking in there, and it has to do with wishing that tax policy was responsible for all these people unwilling to get married, grow up, get educated and raise their kids. When you look at communities that are supposedly oppressed due to race, look at their high school graduate rates, rates of marriage and rates of legitimacy.
Originally Posted by jimmac
Hey you used it as an example! It's not my fault that you went for a stupid analogy.
And Talon there's no way the founding fathers could have foreseen just how rich the top 1% would get or how they would dodge paying for things to get there.
You don't have to be an economist to see that.
You also don't have to be an economist to just make up stuff. Please provide a source for what you claim because it is made up nonsense. The whole original intent of the Constitution was clearly to protect wealth and also to limit direct Democracy. You are simply making crap up.