Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

SockMarket (87.07)

Seperate and Unequal: Latest Income Disparity Stats

Recs

7

February 23, 2011 – Comments (21)

A decent article to accompany it, but the graphics are by far the most important part:

The full article is here. The graphics, well....

 

 

 

21 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On February 23, 2011 at 9:19 PM, awallejr (80.10) wrote:

Oh it is beyond contestation that the top 10% have flourished while the rest actually declined. The payment raises CEOS, corporate officers, Board of Directors have enjoyed as a percentage increase is unparalleled.  I get tired of seeing my proxy statements always having votes for increased compensation packages for the officers.  I always  vote no.  But my small positions have no impact.

I'd love to start doing class actions against these guys for violating their fiduciary duty to the corporations they work for.  There's no financial justification, for example, to have private jets or private limos.

And now Obama who said he wouldn't raise most people's taxes is trying to take away the ONE thing that the average Joe can take advantage of, and that is mortgage interest deduction.  So take it away and many people's taxes go UP.

*rant off.*

Report this comment
#2) On February 23, 2011 at 9:26 PM, dbjella (< 20) wrote:

When these type of statistics come out what do people want to do?

Do we want to tax the rich people down to some level and give this money to the poor?

Or do we want set up rules to prevent the rich people from getting richer?

I am just confused with what society wants done.  Is this information produced out of jealousy? 

 

Report this comment
#3) On February 23, 2011 at 9:34 PM, AvianFlu (48.37) wrote:

Under decades of socialism the gap has been widening between the rich and the poor. Even worse, it is increasingly difficult to move from a lower level of income to an upper level. Leftist policies unfairly discrimate against the poor and powerless to the benefit of the rich and well connected.

The mortgage interest deduction unfairly provides a benefit to real estate owners...to the detriment of renters, who do not receive any tax break. The federal government should not be in the business of choosing winners and losers.

Report this comment
#4) On February 23, 2011 at 11:08 PM, BlackSwanCapital (38.68) wrote:

The problem is it's very difficult to convince the people in positions of power (i.e. the top of the income distribution) that they should make less.  You may have a few social crusaders among thembut the mass of high-net worth individuals, like most other demographics, are self serving.

If that figure includes bonuses, then my father is just below the "top 1%."  Even I have a hard time arguing that "this distribution is unfair."  I feel that it is but err after reaping the benefits I plea the fifth. 

 

Report this comment
#5) On February 23, 2011 at 11:38 PM, awallejr (80.10) wrote:

 AvianFlu

Except that is what the IRS code is all about with respect to permissable deductions, it is a means to encourage certain behavior.  It actually is beneficial for a society to encourage home ownership.  Why? Because people are less transient as a result and will take more of an interest in their community's fate since they have an economic stake in the community. Plus, at least in theory, the money you spend benefits you and not some landlord. 

Yeah the deduction doesn't benefit a renter. But whether a home owner deducts or not doesn't change that renter's tax one iota.

Report this comment
#6) On February 23, 2011 at 11:53 PM, AvianFlu (48.37) wrote:

disclosure: I am a home owner.

 But if I were a renter I would be completely ticked off at being punished for not responding to some bureaucrat's social engineering experiment trying to "encourage" certain behavior. What if my job required frequent transfers and I had to move every year? With 10% selling costs I could be losing lots of money with each move. What if I just don't want the responsibility of house upkeep and would rather have a low maintenance apartment? Sorry, it's punishment time for me.

I was a Realtor for 15 years. I used the mortgage interest deduction line often to try to encourage people to buy. But it always made me feel a little bit dirty.

Report this comment
#7) On February 24, 2011 at 12:30 AM, awallejr (80.10) wrote:

How is a renter being punished? Your taxes aren't impacted one iota. What it sounds like is you want to punish the other guy. Personally I think it is the greatest thing to be able to actually own a piece of the planet earth.  Very few people on the planet can say that.

I rented during my youthful days.  I wasn't ticked off.  I aspired to eventually owning my own home and now do.  I do hate shoveling snow, however.  But I will vote against any of my Congressmen or Senators who wind up supporting increasing my taxes by taking away that mortgage deduction.

Report this comment
#8) On February 24, 2011 at 12:43 AM, stockgripes (98.88) wrote:

I think the focus is should we tax more top 1%? I think Obama was putting out some number like couple of mill or something would get taxed more. I am saying that at the level of million / yr, we should take away some incentive so they cannot deduct $100 lunches and $200 enterainment night, IMHO

Report this comment
#9) On February 24, 2011 at 2:52 AM, SockMarket (87.07) wrote:

avian flu,

I don't normally respond to comments on my blogs, but I dare say you are a special case. When I read your first comment I thought it was satirical, but I am guessing that this is not the case. I find it incredibly funny that you consider both George Bushes, Bill Clinton, and Obama as well as the policies at the time socialist. Quite frankly I am curious to learn what your definition of socialist is.

As for mortgage deductions for first time homebuyers, I think you will find that these people are generally in the middle class, and I find it rather humorous that you believe that this is supporting the overwhelming wealth of the rich...

Report this comment
#10) On February 24, 2011 at 8:49 AM, Melaschasm (88.99) wrote:

Whenever income equality comes up I always have two questions.

1.  Do you want equality of outcomes or equality of opportunity?  (in other words, should a medical doctor make the same as a highschool drop out burger flipper?)

2.  Why do the old money, super rich, and government employees like big government interventions while the new money, trying to become rich, and the middle class (excluding government employees) want less government interventions?

Report this comment
#11) On February 24, 2011 at 9:00 AM, NEMnyWtch (< 20) wrote:

As a landlord (a situation I am in out of necessity, not choice) I have no problem with giving renters a tax credit.  That money is taxed as income both to the renter and the landlord.  Using the prospective the brokerage commissions based world, this would make the gov't guilty of doulble dipping!

Report this comment
#12) On February 24, 2011 at 9:01 AM, NEMnyWtch (< 20) wrote:

Sorry for the typos - working on the coffee....

Report this comment
#13) On February 24, 2011 at 1:47 PM, SockMarket (87.07) wrote:

Mel,

to asnwer your questions:

1) you cannot have equality of oppoortunity if one person is raised in a household with $10m in assets vs. living paycheck to paycheck. The differences are tremendous. 

Further, thanks to compounding it isn't very hard for the rich to stay rich for generations, without doing anything. This hardly equality, but it is quite obviously the way the system works.

 

2) I would suggest that you look at the distribution of repubs vs. dems in the differing income brackets. Most super rich individuals are republican and want the government to stay as far away as possible. The middle class is generally split between young-middle aged and old people with the first group being democratic or independent and the second group being independent or republican. 

What you say strikes me as most likely inaccurate. 

Report this comment
#14) On February 24, 2011 at 4:23 PM, AvianFlu (48.37) wrote:

Sockmarket:

I am responding to your question regarding my personal definition of socialism. Socialists define themselves through their widely distributed national party platform, just like republicans and democrats. Below I provide a link to the 1932 socialist party platform (when you go to the page you'll need to scroll down a little bit). I think you'll find that every plank of the socialist platform has been enacted into law. Furthermore, Bush, Obama, Clinton, and many other presidents have not only failed to eliminate these socialist policies, but in many cases have advanced the socialist agenda. So no...my post was not satirical. Here is the link: http://www.tamut.edu/academics/mperri/AmSoInHis/sp%20f06/Socialist%20Party%20Platform.doc

Regrettably, the good intentions of the socialists have had the opposite effect intended. For example, I live in wheat country. Government meddling in the wheat industry was intended to benefit the small family farmer. 70 years later all small farms have been put out of business. Instead, we have a handful of rich farmers controlling all the cropland. That isn't how it was supposed to play out. Don't get me started. I can talk about agricultural subsidies all day.

Report this comment
#15) On February 24, 2011 at 4:57 PM, Melaschasm (88.99) wrote:

1)  I ask this question because the answer determines what we should be trying to do.  If you want equality of opportunity then we should try to provide the best possible education to all children regardless of their parents wealth.  If you want equality of outcomes then we should impose a communist system like the USSR had to keep almost all the people equal in outcome.

2)  This isn't as important for the discussion, so I will not bother to find the various studies I have read supporting my statement.  However, I will point out that increasing taxes on wages will not have any significant impact upon old money, but will be a big burden for those who are becoming wealthy, or are just barely wealthy.

Report this comment
#16) On February 24, 2011 at 5:56 PM, SockMarket (87.07) wrote:

avian,

lol I don't download stuff without knowing the source. sorry. it did, however pull its info up before I could close it and saw most of the very basic defintion, which said absolutely nothing. What I saw was something along the lines of: 

'socialism is a social and economic policy to help all be equal and live in harmony with others,' etc. etc. etc.

 

As for what I believe, I am going to go for a much more concrete one from wikipedia:

"Socialism is an economic and political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources." (for the record this has some excellent contributing sources, including the Oxford English Dictionary)

 

Based on that I am at a loss to find any significant socialist policies in the US that have been around for over a decade...

 

As for the farmers, I don't know what you are missing but the policies were never created for the farmer. We have, by and large, left them to die. No I don't advocate this, but I believe it is far closer to the truth.

The policies were put in place to lower the cost of food, which they have done with reasonable effectivness. (see Michael Pollon) 

 

 

mel,

1) this is very, very simplistic. Education is not the only factor, or even close that plays into an equal starting basis. As I said before starting out with a bunch of capital to back you up is a tremendous asset. Furthermore growing up in household that places value on education, etc. is going to effect the basis that one starts on. 

Further, following the model of the USSR is not even close to optimal. They ran a system in which everyone was equal but some people were more equal than others. This isn't even close to what I am suggesting.

 

I would suggest that you look at what Denmark has done, that is a model which I believe is much closer to a good one than what the US is doing.

 

Try increasing the capital gains tax...It will work alot better than the income tax. And incase you missed this part of my post, what I said was that you got the demographics wrong, not that I suggested hiking a certain tax.

Report this comment
#17) On February 24, 2011 at 6:20 PM, AvianFlu (48.37) wrote:

sockmarket:

 I'm not sure why you would not look at my source...since you specifically asked where I got my definition of socialism. Anyway, since you asked, that page is from the official website of Texas A & M University.

I am likely to let the Socialist party define itself rather than rely upon Wikipedia. Since you wouldn't follow my instructions to scroll down the page I will post the planks of the 1932 Socialist platform below:

The Socialist Party Platform of 1932

A federal appropriation of $5,000,000,000 for immediate relief for those in need to supplement state and local appropriations.

A federal appropriation of $5,000,000,000 for public works and roads, reforestation, slum clearance, and decent homes for the workers by the federal government, states, and cities.

Legislation providing for the acquisition of land, buildings, and equipment necessary to put the unemployed to work producing food, fuel, and clothing, and for the erection of housing for their own use.

The six-hour day and the five-day work-week without a reduction in wages.

A comprehensive and efficient system of free public employment agencies.

A compulsory system of unemployment compensation with adequate benefits, based upon contributions by the government and by employers.

Old age pensions for men and women sixty years of age and over.

Health and maternity insurance.Improved systems of workmen's compensation and accident insurance.

The abolition of child labor.

Government aid to farmers and small homeowners to protect them against mortgage foreclosure and a moratorium on sales for nonpayment of taxes by destitute farmers and unemployed workers.

Adequate minimum wage laws

I repeat: Both Bush presidents did nothing to stop the already enacted Socialist agenda, and actually expanded the policies.

Sock: In the future, when you ask me a question please do me the courtesy of reading my reply.

Report this comment
#18) On February 25, 2011 at 2:43 AM, SockMarket (87.07) wrote:

avian,

uh...viruses. If it was html id have been fine with it. No, I don't generally follow people's instructions if they can lead to viruses and yes I did read your post, I just didn't follow your instructions because I am not keen on downloading stuff. 

 

As to what you just wrote:

I don't think your definition of socialism is correct. Why? 

1) Alot can change in 79 years. Policies originally considered fringe at their beginning are often made mainstream over the course of time. I would put ALOT more stock in something that was, say, from policies founded in my lifetime.

2) I am not sure you would agree with this, but by most definitions, so far as I can tell, socialism is the policy on far L side of the political spectrum, that generate policies that are, almost exclusively not appealing to the majority of voters. When you look at the policies from that list that are in place nearly all are mainstream views. 

I think that you will find that if you take the major policies that have been enacted in the US you will find that those policies have been enacted by nearly every 1st world country. Unless almost all of the first world is socialist I don't see how you can call them evidence for socialism.

Speicifc policies im looking at for this are:

- minimum wage laws

- social security

- 5, 8 hr work week 

- farmer loans from the gov't.

 

So far as I can tell, these are all mainstream policies. Numerous Dem, Independent and Repubs would take fairly strong action if anyone tried to reverse these policies. 

Report this comment
#19) On February 25, 2011 at 12:29 PM, AvianFlu (48.37) wrote:

Yes, these programs you list are mainstream policies. Regrettably, although well intentioned they all have had extremely deleterious effects completely opposite of their intent. For example, minimum wage laws have resulted in high unemployment among youth, especially minorities. Prior to minimum wage laws youth unemployment was not a problem and allowed many to take the first step up the ladder of self-sufficiency and success. Rather than launch into a long diatribe about these programs I would refer you to youtube where you can watch some videos of Milton Friedman. He was unusually succinct in his explanations of these topics. I promise you that the time you spend watching his interviews will be a use of time that you will not regret.

Report this comment
#20) On February 25, 2011 at 3:40 PM, SockMarket (87.07) wrote:

In my opinion Friedman's policies and thoughts are miles away from reality. His basic theory is mistaken, as everything from the 1990s onward has proven. I can hardly call using his theories to back up your argument reasonable evidence.

As for the wage floor, I suspect that you will find that it pushed up adult's wages enough so that, while kids don't get to start as early, they make more $ when they do start. 

Report this comment
#21) On February 25, 2011 at 4:20 PM, AvianFlu (48.37) wrote:

So there you have it. A disagreement.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement