Romney debated well tonight, but didn't do enough to change the race - Page 2

Quote:

Originally Posted by BRussell 

You can say that the problem is on the spending side as long as you acknowledge that that is an ideological position, not a mathematical one. Spending is up to about 24-25% of GDP when it's historically been closer to 21-22%. Taxes are at about 15% of GDP when they've historically been closer to 18-19%. Mathematically they should be about the same. At what level they both should be, e.g., 15, 20, or 25%, is an ideological question. I'm not saying that it's wrong to have an ideological position on it, just that it is a simple fact that we can either cut spending, raise revenues, or some of both to reduce the deficit.

 

But look, let's assume that we agree that spending should be cut rather than taxes raised. Romney specifically attacked Obama's health care cuts, which is the biggest piece of the budget pie, and cited Big Bird as his spending cuts, which is the smallest. And he's the one who's serious about spending cuts rather than Obama?

Cutting spending vs. raising revenue is a false dilemma.  The issue is whether raising revenue should include raising taxes.  Doing that is a bad idea, and never works as well as projected because tax increases decrease economic activity and thereby revenue.  This is why the Romney approach of lower rates and deductions--all while cutting spending--is the right one.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

 

1.  I think he came off much, much worse than George Bush 41.  He came off arguably worse than Carter.  I think it was the worst debate performance of an incumbent I've ever seen.  

 

It definitely wasn't great. Worst of any incumbent? That seems hard to believe but I can't really remember all the ones I've seen. 

Quote:

2.  If he's the kind of Republican you could support, I don't see why you won't....support him.  I understand you don't like the Congressional GOP.  But they don't own Romney.  Sounds like time to split your ticket.  I did the same in 2002 when Rendell ran in PA (I regretted that decision, however).  

Last night he sounded like the kind of Republican I could support. He sounded pragmatic and non-ideological. The problem is that he's been something different in the past and he'll be something different again. And, for better or worse, the party is extremely important. I sincerely doubt that a president has enough power to lead the party in a different direction. We'll see if Romney can if he wins, but I'd bet against it.

I think it is hard to tell how this will play out. As many have pointed out, as a political debating contest, Romney was the winner. Obama seemed more inclined to discuss relatively arcane details of the subjects discussed, and maybe that was intentional. Unfortunately it seems to me that anyone with enough grasp of the situation to follow him will already have decided based on a much higher level of analysis, so that may have been a mistake. The Obama campaign press releases this morning already suggest that they feel they played it badly. It will be interesting to see if he adjusts his approach for the next one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Quote:

Originally Posted by svnipp 

Yeah, but Romney also indicated multiple times that he is going to repeal ObamaCare which I believe as of the most recent reclaculation was approaching $3 trillion.  This would amount to a net reduction of around $2 trillion in cuts under Romney/Ryan.  Of course they have said that they want to replace ObamaCare with something and I'll assume that they spend maybe 50% of those cuts but we should still end up with a significant savings in healthcare under Romney as opposed to Obama.

Obamacare reduces the deficit. By repealing it, Republicans would increase the deficit.

Really... lawsuits fighting Obamacare have narrowed the scope of who it will apply to and now that is "savings" because it will cover 3 million fewer people? Also anyone can run calculations of projected money coming into the treasury. Passing a law mandating you have health care whether you have the money to pay for it or not doesn't guarantee revenue. The outcomes are predicated on the assumptions that the Office of the President gives CBO. If those assumptions are inaccurate, then so is the outcome. It is classic GIGO. It's no different than the multipliers and predictions for outcome of the Obama stimulus and the Obama prediction that his yearly national deficit would be half a trillion a year right now rather than a full trillion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BRussell 

It definitely wasn't great. Worst of any incumbent? That seems hard to believe but I can't really remember all the ones I've seen. 

 

Last night he sounded like the kind of Republican I could support. He sounded pragmatic and non-ideological. The problem is that he's been something different in the past and he'll be something different again. And, for better or worse, the party is extremely important. I sincerely doubt that a president has enough power to lead the party in a different direction. We'll see if Romney can if he wins, but I'd bet against it.

 

It was a minor thing, just a throw-off line, but I saw it as somewhat revealing, like a Freudian slip.

Why worry about what he sounds like and start worrying about what he governs like be it Obama or Romney. No matter the party, politicians have to break dozens of promises once elected because all of them say just about anything to get elected. Both men have records from governing and I would much rather look at that. Is there anything about how Romney worked as a governor that you take issue with?

Obama when running for President declared he would close Gitmo, would end the wars and keep the savings as a peace dividend to spend domestically. The Democratic Congress and he himself declared the growing national deficits to be unpatriotic and declared all new spending would have to be offset. They ran on PAYGO as a promise. They haven't at all governed as they promised. Obama's second term campaign is no different than his first. He's basically making all the same promises but now just wants another 4 years and for us to ignore the fact he has been president already.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

I think it is hard to tell how this will play out. As many have pointed out, as a political debating contest, Romney was the winner. Obama seemed more inclined to discuss relatively arcane details of the subjects discussed, and maybe that was intentional. Unfortunately it seems to me that anyone with enough grasp of the situation to follow him will already have decided based on a much higher level of analysis, so that may have been a mistake. The Obama campaign press releases this morning already suggest that they feel they played it badly. It will be interesting to see if he adjusts his approach for the next one.

I think regardless of how it will ultimately play out, the premise of the thread will have been proven wrong. The nature of the race has indeed changed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Obamacare reduces the deficit. By repealing it, Republicans would increase the deficit.

Well...  The numbers here are certainly confusing.  The comparisons presented in the article are not even for the same time periods.  The article quotes the original CBO estimate as reducing the deficit by $143 billion in the period from 2010 to 2019, but it's well known that this period is bogus since the first 4 years of that window collect the taxes for ObamaCare without benefits, or at least the majority of the benefits, which don't come online until 2014.  Then the article goes on to quote a 2 year longer window for the repeal plan as being from 2010 to 2021 and increasing deficits by $210 billion.  I'm not saying the article is completely without merit, but the author is cherry picking numbers to arrive at his desired conclusion.

The other thing that this article fails to point out is HOW ObamaCare is paid for.  You do understand that massive tax increases are required to pay for ObamaCare.  This is the reason that the first 10 years looks so good in terms of budget savings.  The are collecting ten years of taxes to pay for only 6 years of benefits.  Beyond this, the latest CBO projection is over a full 10 year window ObamaCare will collect over $1.2 trillion in taxes.  I should certainly hope that the Fed can produce some kind of "savings" if they are pulling in that much money in new taxes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BRussell 

It definitely wasn't great. Worst of any incumbent? That seems hard to believe but I can't really remember all the ones I've seen. 

 

Last night he sounded like the kind of Republican I could support. He sounded pragmatic and non-ideological. The problem is that he's been something different in the past and he'll be something different again. And, for better or worse, the party is extremely important. I sincerely doubt that a president has enough power to lead the party in a different direction. We'll see if Romney can if he wins, but I'd bet against it.

 

 

It was a minor thing, just a throw-off line, but I saw it as somewhat revealing, like a Freudian slip.

1.  It's definitely the most one sided debate victory I've seen in my life.  I was too young to remember Carter, but I of course have seen clips and read accounts of it.  I know Bush was never this bad (though he did looked tired in his first debate).  I know Clinton, Bush 41 and Reagan were never this bad.  Reagan was slammed for appearing too old and forgetful in his first reelection debate.  Obama was much worse, because he mixed the xanex-type look with flashes of anger and irritation.  He didn't even look at Romney.   

2.  I've never known Romney to be overly ideological.  Obviously he portrayed himself as more conservative in the GOP race.  But he's never governed as an ideologue.  He's governed as a fiscal conservative for the most part.  The criticism of Romney has always been that he was too moderate for the GOP base.  I find it hard to believe you're worried about him turning into Pat Buchanan, or whoever you want to use as an example.  

3.  A freudian slip?  I think that is extremely overstated.  It just wasn't the best line.  He was trying to say that seniors didn't need to worry.  As you said, it doesn't matter anyway..it was just a throw away.   

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

I think it is hard to tell how this will play out. As many have pointed out, as a political debating contest, Romney was the winner. Obama seemed more inclined to discuss relatively arcane details of the subjects discussed, and maybe that was intentional. Unfortunately it seems to me that anyone with enough grasp of the situation to follow him will already have decided based on a much higher level of analysis, so that may have been a mistake. The Obama campaign press releases this morning already suggest that they feel they played it badly. It will be interesting to see if he adjusts his approach for the next one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by svnipp 

Well...  The numbers here are certainly confusing.  The comparisons presented in the article are not even for the same time periods.  The article quotes the original CBO estimate as reducing the deficit by $143 billion in the period from 2010 to 2019, but it's well known that this period is bogus since the first 4 years of that window collect the taxes for ObamaCare without benefits, or at least the majority of the benefits, which don't come online until 2014.  Then the article goes on to quote a 2 year longer window for the repeal plan as being from 2010 to 2021 and increasing deficits by $210 billion.  I'm not saying the article is completely without merit, but the author is cherry picking numbers to arrive at his desired conclusion.

 

The other thing that this article fails to point out is HOW ObamaCare is paid for.  You do understand that massive tax increases are required to pay for ObamaCare.  This is the reason that the first 10 years looks so good in terms of budget savings.  The are collecting ten years of taxes to pay for only 6 years of benefits.  Beyond this, the latest CBO projection is over a full 10 year window ObamaCare will collect over $1.2 trillion in taxes.  I should certainly hope that the Fed can produce some kind of "savings" if they are pulling in that much money in new taxes.

Exactly.  There is no way in hell that Obamacare reduces the deficit.  It's been absurd claim since day 1.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

 

Exactly.  There is no way in hell that Obamacare reduces the deficit.  It's been absurd claim since day 1.  

Well...  If you jack up taxes enough like ObamaCare does, you can definitely create a "savings" for the Fed.  That however is the biggest problem with ObamaCare...  It's a massive tax increase on all American's, not just the "Evil Rich".

As for the Evil Rich, has enyone here ever gotten a paycheck from a poor person?  Isn't it simply common sense that if you soak the rich they are going to have less capital with which to actually hire people?

http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2012/03/06/the-1-captures-most-growth-from-recovery/

When 1% gains 93% of the economic growth, raising their taxes isn't "soaking" them at all.  They've got the capital to hire people.  They are sitting on it because they can given the current demand forecasts.  If the rich gaining more money truly created jobs, we'd have a labor shortage of EPIC proportions.  

The rich are job creators.  Mittens is very rich.  Does he put his money where his mouth is?

How many companies has Mittens personally, using his own money completely at his own risk, started? He didn't do that with Bain, so...

How many jobs has he personally created?  Go ahead, list housekeepers, groundskeepers (no illegals, please, he's running for office, remember), and other household staff.  Oh, and the car elevator company, I guess.

NO love of God in Republicans???  You really have to be kidding here, right?!?! 

Let's see, Republicans typically fall on the conservative side of the fence whereas Democrats typically come down liberal.  I believe the last rich people survey had like 7 or 8 or the richest Americans as being Democrats.  Other studies also show repeatedly that conservatives give more to charity than liberals.  Let's take Romney as an example...  He gave over 20% of his income in charitable donations.  No love there, huh?  Joe Biden gave less than 2%.

You may have some decent arguments in some areas, but saying that Republicans as a whole or even in general are not charitable is completely stupid.

Quote:

Originally Posted by svnipp 

NO love of God in Republicans???  You really have to be kidding here, right?!?! 

 

Let's see, Republicans typically fall on the conservative side of the fence whereas Democrats typically come down liberal.  I believe the last rich people survey had like 7 or 8 or the richest Americans as being Democrats.  Other studies also show repeatedly that conservatives give more to charity than liberals.  Let's take Romney as an example...  He gave over 20% of his income in charitable donations.  No love there, huh?  Joe Biden gave less than 2%.

 

You may have some decent arguments in some areas, but saying that Republicans as a whole or even in general are not charitable is completely stupid.

You do need to be a bit careful with these numbers. I'm not criticizing him, but most of Romney's donations go to the Mormon Church - partly to fulfill the obligatory tithe - with the remainder going to his family trust which then donates a large part of that on to the Church. So yes - he donates a large sum to a "charity". Plenty of love of his God, I suppose.

Quote:

Originally Posted by svnipp 

NO love of God in Republicans???  You really have to be kidding here, right?!?! 

 

Let's see, Republicans typically fall on the conservative side of the fence whereas Democrats typically come down liberal.  I believe the last rich people survey had like 7 or 8 or the richest Americans as being Democrats.  Other studies also show repeatedly that conservatives give more to charity than liberals.  Let's take Romney as an example...  He gave over 20% of his income in charitable donations.  No love there, huh?  Joe Biden gave less than 2%.

 

You may have some decent arguments in some areas, but saying that Republicans as a whole or even in general are not charitable is completely stupid.

I see that you ignored my entire post and instead replied to my signature.  Smooth.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

You do need to be a bit careful with these numbers. I'm not criticizing him, but most of Romney's donations go to the Mormon Church - partly to fulfill the obligatory tithe - with the remainder going to his family trust which then donates a large part of that on to the Church. So yes - he donates a large sum to a "charity". Plenty of love of his God, I suppose.

Well...  If his account is to be believed, the he doesn't report all of his charitable giving to the Fed.  This is mostly political I would assume because it would drive his tax rate even lower.

Romney aside, conservatives lean way more Republican than Democratic and plenty of studies show that conservatives are much more generous.  So the line about "no love for God in Republicans" is a total crock.

Quote:

Originally Posted by svnipp 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

You do need to be a bit careful with these numbers. I'm not criticizing him, but most of Romney's donations go to the Mormon Church - partly to fulfill the obligatory tithe - with the remainder going to his family trust which then donates a large part of that on to the Church. So yes - he donates a large sum to a "charity". Plenty of love of his God, I suppose.

Well...  If his account is to be believed, the he doesn't report all of his charitable giving to the Fed.  This is mostly political I would assume because it would drive his tax rate even lower.

 

Romney aside, conservatives lean way more Republican than Democratic and plenty of studies show that conservatives are much more generous.  So the line about "no love for God in Republicans" is a total crock.

Well something's a crock. You wouldn't want to link to some of those studies that show their generosity is anything other than a tax break would you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by svnipp 

Well...  If his account is to be believed, the he doesn't report all of his charitable giving to the Fed.  This is mostly political I would assume because it would drive his tax rate even lower.

 

Romney aside, conservatives lean way more Republican than Democratic and plenty of studies show that conservatives are much more generous.  So the line about "no love for God in Republicans" is a total crock.

Again, you are avoiding the issue and focusing on my signature.  Stop it.  It's obvious.  Let's get back on track.  Address THIS:

http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2012/03/06/the-1-captures-most-growth-from-recovery/

When 1% gains 93% of the economic growth, raising their taxes isn't "soaking" them at all.  They've got the capital to hire people.  They are sitting on it because they can given the current demand forecasts.  If the rich gaining more money truly created jobs, we'd have a labor shortage of EPIC proportions.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

Again, you are avoiding the issue and focusing on my signature.  Stop it.  It's obvious.  Let's get back on track.  Address THIS:

 

 

http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2012/03/06/the-1-captures-most-growth-from-recovery/

 

When 1% gains 93% of the economic growth, raising their taxes isn't "soaking" them at all.  They've got the capital to hire people.  They are sitting on it because they can given the current demand forecasts.  If the rich gaining more money truly created jobs, we'd have a labor shortage of EPIC proportions.  

 

It would be helpful to see the actual numbers for the lower income levels.  The are relatively flat lines, but on the scale they could easily have seen a 100 or 200% rise in household incomes over this period of time.  Additionally, notice what a dramatic effect periods of recession have on those upper income classes.  Another thing to note from the graph is that the period of the mid to late '90s shows the largest rise in upper incomes and this was during the Clinton years.  The rapid rise between '03 and '06 looks to be the upper income levels simply regaiing what they lost, and it appears the same occurred for the lower income levels.  The point to all this is, I'm not sure that the upper income levels benefitted disproportionatly it's simply the fact that on the graph a 50% increase in a $1 million income is extremely noticeable whereas a similar 50% increase in a $50k income would be imperceptable on these graphs.

As to the rich sitting on their capital...  Like the rest of the country they are concerned about the future.  There is little in the way of security in what the future economic climate is going to look like.  I don't blame people and businesses for being cautious.  Jacking up the taxes on these people and businesses is certainly not going to encourage them to hire, promote, or shell out for raises for existing employees.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

Again, you are avoiding the issue and focusing on my signature.  Stop it.  It's obvious.  Let's get back on track.  Address THIS:

 

 

http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2012/03/06/the-1-captures-most-growth-from-recovery/

 

When 1% gains 93% of the economic growth, raising their taxes isn't "soaking" them at all.  They've got the capital to hire people.  They are sitting on it because they can given the current demand forecasts.  If the rich gaining more money truly created jobs, we'd have a labor shortage of EPIC proportions.  

 

BR, do you actually believe that raising taxes on the upper income brackets will help economic growth?  That is what Obama is arguing.  He's saying that since the economy did well under the Clinton rates, we should go back to those rates...as if the higher tax rates are what benefited economic growth.  Even you must be able to understand that higher taxes affect growth negatively.  It's not about sympathy for the rich...they will do fine with higher rates.  The problem is what these increases do to economic growth and employment.  These higher rates impact the employers of 50% of small business workers, and 25% of all workers.  It affects small business, which is always the biggest creator of jobs.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

Quote:

Originally Posted by svnipp 

Well...  If his account is to be believed, the he doesn't report all of his charitable giving to the Fed.  This is mostly political I would assume because it would drive his tax rate even lower.

 

Romney aside, conservatives lean way more Republican than Democratic and plenty of studies show that conservatives are much more generous.  So the line about "no love for God in Republicans" is a total crock.

Again, you are avoiding the issue and focusing on my signature.  Stop it.  It's obvious.  Let's get back on track.  Address THIS:

 

 

http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2012/03/06/the-1-captures-most-growth-from-recovery/

 

When 1% gains 93% of the economic growth, raising their taxes isn't "soaking" them at all.  They've got the capital to hire people.  They are sitting on it because they can given the current demand forecasts.  If the rich gaining more money truly created jobs, we'd have a labor shortage of EPIC proportions.  

 

Comparing a quintile to a single percent is bad math and bad reasoning.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

Quote:

Originally Posted by svnipp 

Well...  If his account is to be believed, the he doesn't report all of his charitable giving to the Fed.  This is mostly political I would assume because it would drive his tax rate even lower.

 

Romney aside, conservatives lean way more Republican than Democratic and plenty of studies show that conservatives are much more generous.  So the line about "no love for God in Republicans" is a total crock.

Again, you are avoiding the issue and focusing on my signature.  Stop it.  It's obvious.  Let's get back on track.  Address THIS:

 

 

http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2012/03/06/the-1-captures-most-growth-from-recovery/

 

When 1% gains 93% of the economic growth, raising their taxes isn't "soaking" them at all.  They've got the capital to hire people.  They are sitting on it because they can given the current demand forecasts.  If the rich gaining more money truly created jobs, we'd have a labor shortage of EPIC proportions.  

 

 

 

Comparing a quintile to a single percent is bad math and bad reasoning.

I'm not clear what you are getting at with that comment. Since average household income is an intrinsic (normalized) variable, and thus bin-size independent, there is nothing mathematically or logically incorrect in making a direct comparison between different bin sizes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

Quote:

Originally Posted by svnipp 

Well...  If his account is to be believed, the he doesn't report all of his charitable giving to the Fed.  This is mostly political I would assume because it would drive his tax rate even lower.

 

Romney aside, conservatives lean way more Republican than Democratic and plenty of studies show that conservatives are much more generous.  So the line about "no love for God in Republicans" is a total crock.

Again, you are avoiding the issue and focusing on my signature.  Stop it.  It's obvious.  Let's get back on track.  Address THIS:

 

 

http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2012/03/06/the-1-captures-most-growth-from-recovery/

 

When 1% gains 93% of the economic growth, raising their taxes isn't "soaking" them at all.  They've got the capital to hire people.  They are sitting on it because they can given the current demand forecasts.  If the rich gaining more money truly created jobs, we'd have a labor shortage of EPIC proportions.  

 

 

 

Comparing a quintile to a single percent is bad math and bad reasoning.

 

I'm not clear what you are getting at with that comment. Since average household income is an intrinsic (normalized) variable, and thus bin-size independent, there is nothing mathematically or logically incorrect in making a direct comparison between different bin sizes.

Normalizing for quintile vs a single percent is not going to get you a comparible result. 1% by definition is an outler, not an average. The top 20%, the orange-yellow line by definition, includes the top 1% and you can see that while the share of income has gone up, it is not the radical result that the 1% alone represents. A couple other points is that these examples are households, and not per capita. Most income disparity can be reduced to two variables, are the parties in the household married and are they educated. Also the government does not count any transfer programs as income. Thus a household that has received food stamps, WIC, Section 8 housing vouchers and been given Child Tax and EITC credits does not gain any additional "income" per the government.

Final point is that we have a progressive tax system and the share of income paid raises when income raises. It is thus appropriate to compare after tax income.

So to be fair, compare similar size samples, not 1% against a quintile. The broad average of one will of course smooth out the results. Compare per capita income, not household because a single parent houshold will likely earn less than most two parent households. Finally compare after tax income and include transfer payments.

That is the only way to get an accurate picture of per adult, dollars in pocket.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

 

 

Normalizing for quintile vs a single percent is not going to get you a comparible result. 1% by definition is an outler, not an average. The top 20%, the orange-yellow line by definition, includes the top 1% and you can see that while the share of income has gone up, it is not the radical result that the 1% alone represents. A couple other points is that these examples are households, and not per capita. Most income disparity can be reduced to two variables, are the parties in the household married and are they educated. Also the government does not count any transfer programs as income. Thus a household that has received food stamps, WIC, Section 8 housing vouchers and been given Child Tax and EITC credits does not gain any additional "income" per the government.

 

Final point is that we have a progressive tax system and the share of income paid raises when income raises. It is thus appropriate to compare after tax income.

 

So to be fair, compare similar size samples, not 1% against a quintile. The broad average of one will of course smooth out the results. Compare per capita income, not household because a single parent houshold will likely earn less than most two parent households. Finally compare after tax income and include transfer payments.

 

That is the only way to get an accurate picture of per adult, dollars in pocket.

Nice response.  Much better than I could have put together.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

Quote:

Originally Posted by svnipp 

Well...  If his account is to be believed, the he doesn't report all of his charitable giving to the Fed.  This is mostly political I would assume because it would drive his tax rate even lower.

 

Romney aside, conservatives lean way more Republican than Democratic and plenty of studies show that conservatives are much more generous.  So the line about "no love for God in Republicans" is a total crock.

Again, you are avoiding the issue and focusing on my signature.  Stop it.  It's obvious.  Let's get back on track.  Address THIS:

 

 

http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2012/03/06/the-1-captures-most-growth-from-recovery/

 

When 1% gains 93% of the economic growth, raising their taxes isn't "soaking" them at all.  They've got the capital to hire people.  They are sitting on it because they can given the current demand forecasts.  If the rich gaining more money truly created jobs, we'd have a labor shortage of EPIC proportions.  

 

 

 

Comparing a quintile to a single percent is bad math and bad reasoning.

 

I'm not clear what you are getting at with that comment. Since average household income is an intrinsic (normalized) variable, and thus bin-size independent, there is nothing mathematically or logically incorrect in making a direct comparison between different bin sizes.

 

 

Normalizing for quintile vs a single percent is not going to get you a comparible result. 1% by definition is an outler, not an average. The top 20%, the orange-yellow line by definition, includes the top 1% and you can see that while the share of income has gone up, it is not the radical result that the 1% alone represents. A couple other points is that these examples are households, and not per capita. Most income disparity can be reduced to two variables, are the parties in the household married and are they educated. Also the government does not count any transfer programs as income. Thus a household that has received food stamps, WIC, Section 8 housing vouchers and been given Child Tax and EITC credits does not gain any additional "income" per the government.

 

Final point is that we have a progressive tax system and the share of income paid raises when income raises. It is thus appropriate to compare after tax income.

 

So to be fair, compare similar size samples, not 1% against a quintile. The broad average of one will of course smooth out the results. Compare per capita income, not household because a single parent houshold will likely earn less than most two parent households. Finally compare after tax income and include transfer payments.

 

That is the only way to get an accurate picture of per adult, dollars in pocket.

That 1% represents one of the tails of the distribution, and mathematically that is not an outlier - since 1% of the number of US households is a statistically significant sample, the 1% bin average is statistically sound. Binning a distribution of normalized discrete values is a means of visualizing that distribution, and it is perfectly valid and reasonable for any statistically significant bins. The top 1% is neither statistically invalid nor unrepresentative, and for a distribution that, in reality, has a very long tail, the top 1% bin shows that aspect of the distribution that is masked in the quintile plots. And, not that it matters, the point of showing it was presumably to demonstrate that the the top 1% bin average is rising faster than any of the quintile averages - although note that the data do not exclude the possibility that there are other 1% bins showing an even faster rise.

In any case - you are now taking issue more with why it looks like that, and whether those are the correct incomes to compare, whether it should be per capita etc. All possibly valid points, but I was just addressing your criticism of the statistical validity of the data presented, which I believe was incorrect.

I think you are arguing past me. I didn't mean to imply that it was somehow mathematically or statistically unsound. Rather that it is unsound with regard to determining social policy. These numbers are used to assign motive and intent which are certainly not statitical and mathermatical principles. Also they imply a zero sum game with regard to wealth creation. That isn't true either. Someone doesn't have more because someone has less. This is especially true when so much recent wealth, the kind that the graph is implying about is digital. Facebook didn't deprive someone of land or food. Currency isn't even backed by precious metals but is an abstraction.

All these items basically represent abtract trades between people and parties and if people feel like they are getting the short end of that stick, what is it that they have to trade or offer that is of so little value to others?