Conquer Club

In his mid-April speech on the budget deficit, President Obama echoed conventional wisdom when he cited the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer as a reason to raise taxes on the wealthy in order to reduce the national debt.

Research, published at The Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, from Cornell economist Richard Burkhauser, Joint Committee on Taxation economist Jeff Larrimore, and Indiana University economist Kosali Simon, however, suggests that the president’s piece of conventional wisdom isn’t entirely accurate. According to the findings, while the rich have indeed been getting richer, for the last 30 years so too have the poor and middle class.

Burkhauser told The Daily Caller that Obama’s suggestion that the poor are getting poorer understates the amount of income to which Americans actually have access. The president does not take into account, Burkhauser explained, tax unit shifts, government transfers, and other sources of income such as health care benefits.

“The bottom line is [conventional wisdom] asks what’s been happening to private personal income over time and they are right if you look at that for tax units, things do not look very good for the middle class,” he said. “But if you take other things into account, the reason the country has not gotten in a civil war is because things are not that bad. In fact everybody has done better.

radiojake wrote:I guess it depends if you are looking domestically or internationally -

BigBallinStalin wrote:

radiojake wrote:I guess it depends if you are looking domestically or internationally -

Overall, it's still better.


@Phatscotty, who's that guy who conducted the research that answered this question on the decrease in global poverty since the 1960s?

Baron Von PWN wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

radiojake wrote:I guess it depends if you are looking domestically or internationally -

Overall, it's still better.


@Phatscotty, who's that guy who conducted the research that answered this question on the decrease in global poverty since the 1960s?

Wasn't it that Swedish dude with the cool graph?

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Baron Von PWN wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

radiojake wrote:I guess it depends if you are looking domestically or internationally -

Overall, it's still better.


@Phatscotty, who's that guy who conducted the research that answered this question on the decrease in global poverty since the 1960s?

Wasn't it that Swedish dude with the cool graph?

Yeah!

I can't remember his name though...

With his long-term perspective, it really enables people to understand that overall, poverty has decreased--both in the US and internationally.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Certainly, everyone..poor, wealthy, everyone, is far better off today than 200 years ago by most measures.

At the same time, most of us today are not living as well as we did 20-30 years ago. It is almost certain that the lives of our children's generation will be far worse than that of our parent's.

But the real problem is deeper. For all the benefits we have today.. and yes, they are magnitudes, we are also causing unprecidented destruction. Every landfill, most factories are pollution time bombs. Many chemicals in daily use are also time bombs causing unknown damage to both us and the world around. If we lose our prosperity today, there is no "fallback" to agriculture, etc.

Phatscotty wrote:Funny you don't realize the next generation will be worse because of the debt we piled on them. Today's new entitlements and extensions are already on the shoulders of our grandchildren's generation.

Symmetry wrote:Perhaps, and i suggest this as carefully as I can, the problem is not about how much you have, but how happy you are with what you have, and how fair you think that is. How much work you put into the economy as a labourer vs how much you put into the economy as inheriting wealth. Should you really be taxed less on the money you receive because family members died, rather than you worked for it in your own right? Should you be taxed less because you receive it from sources that require no work from yourself, vs those who work?

Phatscotty wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Perhaps, and i suggest this as carefully as I can, the problem is not about how much you have, but how happy you are with what you have, and how fair you think that is. How much work you put into the economy as a labourer vs how much you put into the economy as inheriting wealth. Should you really be taxed less on the money you receive because family members died, rather than you worked for it in your own right? Should you be taxed less because you receive it from sources that require no work from yourself, vs those who work?

Should they really get to tax money that was already taxed when the person was alive? Also, your point can be made for welfare/unemployment (received from sources that require no work from yourself)

As you can see, fairness and happiness are completely subjective.

Symmetry wrote:Perhaps, and i suggest this as carefully as I can, the problem is not about how much you have, but how happy you are with what you have, and how fair you think that is. How much work you put into the economy as a labourer vs how much you put into the economy as inheriting wealth. Should you really be taxed less on the money you receive because family members died, rather than you worked for it in your own right? Should you be taxed less because you receive it from sources that require no work from yourself, vs those who work?

Symmetry wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Funny you don't realize the next generation will be worse because of the debt we piled on them. Today's new entitlements and extensions are already on the shoulders of our grandchildren's generation.

Funny you don't apply that to the rich. Low taxes for capital gains- income for being rich. Inheritance tax at a low- income for being related to someone rich.

Phatscotty wrote:has already been taxed as it was earned.

natty_dread wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:has already been taxed as it was earned.

I don't get this argument. All of the money in the world has "already been taxed" numerous times. So what, should we just abolish all taxes?

Symmetry wrote:

natty_dread wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:has already been taxed as it was earned.

I don't get this argument. All of the money in the world has "already been taxed" numerous times. So what, should we just abolish all taxes?

Didn't make much sense to me either.

Scotty, please explain. At the moment, your tax arguments look like they're establishing a form of aristocracy. You can be born into money if one of your ancestors did the work, and that money can keep earning more money through investment, charged at a lower tax rate than people who actually work and create things.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

natty_dread wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:has already been taxed as it was earned.

I don't get this argument. All of the money in the world has "already been taxed" numerous times. So what, should we just abolish all taxes?

Didn't make much sense to me either.

Scotty, please explain. At the moment, your tax arguments look like they're establishing a form of aristocracy. You can be born into money if one of your ancestors did the work, and that money can keep earning more money through investment, charged at a lower tax rate than people who actually work and create things.

Ah, so saving money (i.e. investment) doesn't lead to the creation of wealth and work for others? I guess by your logic mass-consumption should be rewarded while saving should be punished.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

natty_dread wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:has already been taxed as it was earned.

I don't get this argument. All of the money in the world has "already been taxed" numerous times. So what, should we just abolish all taxes?

Didn't make much sense to me either.

Scotty, please explain. At the moment, your tax arguments look like they're establishing a form of aristocracy. You can be born into money if one of your ancestors did the work, and that money can keep earning more money through investment, charged at a lower tax rate than people who actually work and create things.

Ah, so saving money (i.e. investment) doesn't lead to the creation of wealth and work for others? I guess by your logic mass-consumption should be rewarded while saving should be punished.

natty_dread wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:has already been taxed as it was earned.

I don't get this argument. All of the money in the world has "already been taxed" numerous times. So what, should we just abolish all taxes?

Symmetry wrote:

natty_dread wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:has already been taxed as it was earned.

I don't get this argument. All of the money in the world has "already been taxed" numerous times. So what, should we just abolish all taxes?

Didn't make much sense to me either.

Scotty, please explain. At the moment, your tax arguments look like they're establishing a form of aristocracy. You can be born into money if one of your ancestors did the work, and that money can keep earning more money through investment, charged at a lower tax rate than people who actually work and create things.

Phatscotty wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

natty_dread wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:has already been taxed as it was earned.

I don't get this argument. All of the money in the world has "already been taxed" numerous times. So what, should we just abolish all taxes?

Didn't make much sense to me either.

Scotty, please explain. At the moment, your tax arguments look like they're establishing a form of aristocracy. You can be born into money if one of your ancestors did the work, and that money can keep earning more money through investment, charged at a lower tax rate than people who actually work and create things.

The money earned has already been taxed through income taxes when it was earned. You and your greedy friends want to tax the taxed money again. Where does that power/right come from? Why do you have more of a say over a person's money than they or their family do?

I understand I am asking a bunch of American obsessed foreigners who will have no answer, but hey it's still fun

I completely understand why you guys don't understand.