Are the Poor Getting Poorer?

[PLAYER57832]

This is probably the best exchange of posts I've seen in quite a while. Kudos to BBS and Natty. In the interest of full disclosure, I generally agree with BBS so that probably accounts for some of my "best exchange of posts" comments.

You think there can be government without taxes?

I wouldn't take it as far as BBS does (which is why I said I generally agree with BBS). I'm still not convinced of what thegreekdog's ideal government would be (and I probably will never have a fully formed opinion).

Here's where BBS and I may disagree:

I think there should be taxes in some form, but I'm not completely sure what kind of taxes I would support. I am still kicking around the idea of a 100% estate tax with a $1 million exemption; I think the ability to do estate tax planning (what you would call estate tax loopholes) results in an oligarchy that passes down generation to generation. I'm not sure that would be sufficient, so I would be supportive of a very small national income tax (not a sales tax though) either with very standard deductions or no deductions at all.

I think that the government should be weak, but should have the following powers at the federal level: (1) national defense; (2) diplomacy; (3) regulatory authority over imports and exports; (4) immigration and naturalization. And the following powers at the state and local levels: (1) public schooling; (2) roads and other public works; (3) police and prisons. I'm sure there are other things I'm missing, but that's a good start. Basically, I would envision something a little stronger than what we had after the American Revolution and just a little bit weaker than what we had before 1865.

OK, we can debate the particulars elsewhere. My basic point is what you more less address above, that government needs funding to do the functions we need government to do. You can have a system that claims to be without taxes, but taxes will still be there.. just in another form. (tithes, tolls, etc, etc,).

[thegreekdog]

This is probably the best exchange of posts I've seen in quite a while. Kudos to BBS and Natty. In the interest of full disclosure, I generally agree with BBS so that probably accounts for some of my "best exchange of posts" comments.

You think there can be government without taxes?

I wouldn't take it as far as BBS does (which is why I said I generally agree with BBS). I'm still not convinced of what thegreekdog's ideal government would be (and I probably will never have a fully formed opinion).

Here's where BBS and I may disagree:

I think there should be taxes in some form, but I'm not completely sure what kind of taxes I would support. I am still kicking around the idea of a 100% estate tax with a $1 million exemption; I think the ability to do estate tax planning (what you would call estate tax loopholes) results in an oligarchy that passes down generation to generation. I'm not sure that would be sufficient, so I would be supportive of a very small national income tax (not a sales tax though) either with very standard deductions or no deductions at all.

I think that the government should be weak, but should have the following powers at the federal level: (1) national defense; (2) diplomacy; (3) regulatory authority over imports and exports; (4) immigration and naturalization. And the following powers at the state and local levels: (1) public schooling; (2) roads and other public works; (3) police and prisons. I'm sure there are other things I'm missing, but that's a good start. Basically, I would envision something a little stronger than what we had after the American Revolution and just a little bit weaker than what we had before 1865.

OK, we can debate the particulars elsewhere. My basic point is what you more less address above, that government needs funding to do the functions we need government to do. You can have a system that claims to be without taxes, but taxes will still be there.. just in another form. (tithes, tolls, etc, etc,).

Agreed. I think the definition of tax you and I would use is anything that takes money from private citizens for use by the government - could be anything up to and including taxes.

[PLAYER57832]

[
Agreed. I think the definition of tax you and I would use is anything that takes money from private citizens for use by the government - could be anything up to and including taxes.

Yes, although I think soon we won't be seeing government so much as corporations with the power. We may still have something called government in name, but it will be ineffectual. (however, I think that is getting into yet another topic )

[thegreekdog]

[
Agreed. I think the definition of tax you and I would use is anything that takes money from private citizens for use by the government - could be anything up to and including taxes.

Yes, although I think soon we won't be seeing government so much as corporations with the power. We may still have something called government in name, but it will be ineffectual. (however, I think that is getting into yet another topic )

Again, you're assuming that corporations don't have power NOW. They do! With a government the opposite of what BBS and I are advocating!

On topic - The poor are not getting poorer, they just aren't getting as richer as the rich are getting. That seems to be what all the statistics say.

[PLAYER57832]

[
Agreed. I think the definition of tax you and I would use is anything that takes money from private citizens for use by the government - could be anything up to and including taxes.

Yes, although I think soon we won't be seeing government so much as corporations with the power. We may still have something called government in name, but it will be ineffectual. (however, I think that is getting into yet another topic )

Again, you're assuming that corporations don't have power NOW. They do! With a government the opposite of what BBS and I are advocating!

I don't disagree that they are in power now. I do disagree that anything you two advocate will change that for the better.

On topic - The poor are not getting poorer, they just aren't getting as richer as the rich are getting. That seems to be what all the statistics say.

Internationally, the former third world is getting wealthier. The poor in our country are not only getting poorer, but the middle class is sliding down and both classes are finding routes up or to even stay within the middle class are being eliminated for them and their children.

[thegreekdog]

Internationally, the former third world is getting wealthier. The poor in our country are not only getting poorer, but the middle class is sliding down and both classes are finding routes up or to even stay within the middle class are being eliminated for them and their children.

The poor in our country are not getting poorer. LOOK AT THE DATA!

[PLAYER57832]

Internationally, the former third world is getting wealthier. The poor in our country are not only getting poorer, but the middle class is sliding down and both classes are finding routes up or to even stay within the middle class are being eliminated for them and their children.

The poor in our country are not getting poorer. LOOK AT THE DATA!

That chart, conveniently included a time of prosperity. If you look at the past 3-4 years, the story changes a great deal. Its not a huge slide, because we still have some social services.

ALSO.. and this is the real point, while our social service structure does keep the truly poor from sinking much lower, but the ranks fo those moving from the middle class into the poor is absolutely and unquestionably increasing, as is the chance that our kids yours and mine, will be able to be middle class without help.

[thegreekdog]

Internationally, the former third world is getting wealthier. The poor in our country are not only getting poorer, but the middle class is sliding down and both classes are finding routes up or to even stay within the middle class are being eliminated for them and their children.

The poor in our country are not getting poorer. LOOK AT THE DATA!

That chart, conveniently included a time of prosperity. If you look at the past 3-4 years, the story changes a great deal.

Provide evidence please.

[Lootifer]

Internationally, the former third world is getting wealthier. The poor in our country are not only getting poorer, but the middle class is sliding down and both classes are finding routes up or to even stay within the middle class are being eliminated for them and their children.

The poor in our country are not getting poorer. LOOK AT THE DATA!

But are they getting poorer relatively speaking?

Wealth can, and in this case should, be seperated from quality of life.

[PLAYER57832]

Internationally, the former third world is getting wealthier. The poor in our country are not only getting poorer, but the middle class is sliding down and both classes are finding routes up or to even stay within the middle class are being eliminated for them and their children.

The poor in our country are not getting poorer. LOOK AT THE DATA!

That chart, conveniently included a time of prosperity. If you look at the past 3-4 years, the story changes a great deal.

Provide evidence please.

The chart that was posted in the first part of the thread, the one to which I thought you were referring when you said "look at the data". Else.. provide the data you mean.

[thegreekdog]

If you look at the past 3-4 years, the story changes a great deal.

Provide evidence please.

The chart that was posted in the first part of the thread, the one to which I thought you were referring when you said "look at the data". Else.. provide the data you mean.

You indicated that in the past 3-4 years the story changes a great deal. Presumably that means the poor are getting poorer while the rich are getting richer over the past 3-4 years. Please provide data.

[Phatscotty]

Internationally, the former third world is getting wealthier. The poor in our country are not only getting poorer, but the middle class is sliding down and both classes are finding routes up or to even stay within the middle class are being eliminated for them and their children.

The poor in our country are not getting poorer. LOOK AT THE DATA!

But are they getting poorer relatively speaking?

Wealth can, and in this case should, be seperated from quality of life.

Sounds to me like "If we don't get some wealth, then nobody else can have any either"

[Falkomagno]

[Lootifer]

Internationally, the former third world is getting wealthier. The poor in our country are not only getting poorer, but the middle class is sliding down and both classes are finding routes up or to even stay within the middle class are being eliminated for them and their children.

The poor in our country are not getting poorer. LOOK AT THE DATA!

But are they getting poorer relatively speaking?

Wealth can, and in this case should, be seperated from quality of life.

Sounds to me like "If we don't get some wealth, then nobody else can have any either"

No I was just implying that the distribution of wealth is still getting worse, even if the quality of life of the poor is improving. I have no information on hand to back up this claim, hence I asked the question rather than stated it as opinion.

[Phatscotty]

the distribution is getting worse and it's getting better. It depends on how you want to look at it.

One obvious problem is debt and how people and governments use and abuse it. Bubbles are another problem. Industrial modernization, the second highest corporate tax rate in the world, and a less educated, less motivated work pool, a dumbed down consumption focused base,over regulation, not to mention we can do a million times better at the bottom end of the gap by doing unemployment and welfare smarter, cracking down on people who will accept 6.25/hour so that companies are forced to pay a livable American wage geographically as well as more companies can and should offer profit sharing with their employees. It would be great if every business owner or rich person just decided to live with 1 or 2% less profits and invest that in wages and growth but in a free country it's gonna have to work that way by the government promoting and encouraging an environment for growth that incentivizes job growth and security.

[Phatscotty]

so....why is everyone moving to/buying from China anyways?

America's economy is far too over-regulated to be making jokes like that!

[BigBallinStalin]

[CENSORED PROPAGANDA]

so....why is everyone moving to/buying from China anyways?

America's economy is far too over-regulated to be making jokes like that!

Well, duh, Phatscotty! Obviously, we just have to create tariffs against China! That'll show them!!! And keep jobs in the good 'ol US! [/hemorrhage]

[Lootifer]

Jeepers what's got into me, I am almost agreeign with your post on page 6 Scotty :S

[Phatscotty]

Jeepers what's got into me, I am almost agreeign with your post on page 6 Scotty :S

A broken clock is....

[Lootifer]

Lets not discuss where the broken timepiece lies thou eh?

[Phatscotty]

[CENSORED PROPAGANDA]

so....why is everyone moving to/buying from China anyways?

America's economy is far too over-regulated to be making jokes like that!

Well, duh, Phatscotty! Obviously, we just have to create tariffs against China! That'll show them!!! And keep jobs in the good 'ol US! [/hemorrhage]

not only currency manipulation, but also regulation free and basically slave wages. Our consumers also can shop much more intelligently and make an impact that way if we could organize.

[natty dread]

so....why is everyone moving to/buying from China anyways?

America's economy is far too over-regulated to be making jokes like that!

So, you're saying you support child labour and sweatshops?

[thegreekdog]

so....why is everyone moving to/buying from China anyways?

America's economy is far too over-regulated to be making jokes like that!

So, you're saying you support child labour and sweatshops?

I suspect that everyone living in the United States and purchasing products from countries like China and India are supporting child labor and sweatshops. So, the answer to your question is yes.

[PLAYER57832]

If you look at the past 3-4 years, the story changes a great deal.

Provide evidence please.

The chart that was posted in the first part of the thread, the one to which I thought you were referring when you said "look at the data". Else.. provide the data you mean.

You indicated that in the past 3-4 years the story changes a great deal. Presumably that means the poor are getting poorer while the rich are getting richer over the past 3-4 years. Please provide data.

Since you won't find an economist in the country who disagrees (OK.. let me rephrase that, you would have a very, very hard time finding a sane economist disagrees). I did not think it needed referencing.

this one is the best I have found so far. Look at the bottom chart. the blue one.
http://leninology.blogspot.com/2011/06/ ... -2011.html
Note the significant trend downward.

This is not what I was looking for (still looking), but I think its actually better, because it really explains why and how we are where we are, as well as providing the data.
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesameri ... ealth.html

This excerpt does begin to get to the above:

Recent data is hard to get, as explains below:

As you read through the facts and figures that follow, please keep in mind that they are usually two or three years out of date because it takes time for one set of experts to collect the basic information and make sure it is accurate, and then still more time for another set of experts to analyze it and write their reports. It's also the case that the infamous housing bubble of the first eight years of the 21st century inflated some of the wealth numbers. The important point to keep in mind is that it's the relative positions of wealth holders and income earners that we are trying to comprehend in this document. (To get some idea about absolute dollar amounts, read the investment manager's insider account that was mentioned in the previous paragraph.)

So far there are only tentative projections -- based on the price of housing and stock in July 2009 -- on the effects of the Great Recession on the wealth distribution. They suggest that average Americans have been hit much harder than wealthy Americans. Edward Wolff, the economist we draw upon the most in this document, concludes that there has been an "astounding" 36.1% drop in the wealth (marketable assets) of the median household since the peak of the housing bubble in 2007. By contrast, the wealth of the top 1% of households dropped by far less: just 11.1%. So as of April 2010, it looks like the wealth distribution is even more unequal than it was in 2007. (See Wolff, 2010 for more details.)

Also, figure 9 in the above article, showing the relationship of CEO pay, worker pay and profits gets into it some. (not able to copy it, sorry).

Here are more graphs (though they end at 2007):
http://www.businessinsider.com/15-chart ... 010-4?op=1

In this case, I want to say upfront that the graph itself is misleading (even though I agree with the basic premise). HOWEVER, the comments underneath are interesting....
http://www.businesspundit.com/wealth-di ... ed-states/

From Mother Jones (yes a very liberal slant)
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02 ... hart-graph

Anyway, as noted above, exactly how you put things does depend on how you frame the data. HOWEVER, whether you are looking at income, wealth, or even practical things like access to education, food, clothing, etc. Folks in the US are sliding. That we don't see the depravity and poverty of, say Bangladesh is nothing to crow about. We can do better!

[thegreekdog]

Here's my take - I don't think there is data in 2010 and 2011 that can readily identify whether the poor are getting poor and the rich are getting richer in the United States. I think we can say with some certainty that most people are doing badly, regardless of wealth. In a few years, the data will be available and we can rejoin this conversation. I therefore move to adjourn this discussion for three years. Seconded?