Government and Income Inequality

cawacko said:
The article speaks about the desires of the public vs. the supposive (sp) policies that would lower inequality.



Why government probably can't close the rich-poor gap


President Barack Obama's recent comments about income inequality are providing more fuel to the debate over whether the government can really do anything to reduce it, but perhaps the bigger question is: Do voters really want them to?

"I think the president can stop it," Obama said Sunday on ABC's "This Week," when asked about the top 1 percent capturing most of the country's income gains. The problem, he said, is "you've got a portion of Congress whose policies … just want to, you know, leave things alone, they actually want to accelerate these trends."

It's easy to blame the other party for deeper economic problems, of course. But the president's comments are on the minds of economists and policymakers


Many argue inequality is an unavoidable byproduct of growth—a function of investors and entrepreneurs benefiting from successful demand for their products and value creation in financial markets. Inequality rose quickly during economic expansions (1980s and 1990s) and declined during the most recent recession. In other words, the wealthy gain more during good times and lose more during bad times.

But recent data suggest that the recovery has so far favored the rich, largely because of the run-up in stocks. New data from Emmanuel Saez at the University of California Berkeley found that the top 1 percent captured 95 percent of the gains during the recovery.

A report from The Associated Press on Monday finds that unemployment remains much higher for the middle and lower class than in higher-income groups.

(Read more: For the truly wealthy, it's not about big salaries)

In a paper titled "Why Hasn't Democracy Slowed Rising Inequality?," four political scientists asked why voters haven't forced politicians to close the gap between the rich and the rest. Adam Bonica of Stanford, Nolan McCarty of Princeton, Keith T. Poole of the University of Georgia and Howard Rosenthal of New York University cited several reasons.

First, they said, both parties have embraced free-market capitalism, which they say benefits those at the top. Second, they said, changes in immigration and voter turnout mean the voting population is now skewed toward the wealthy.

They said rising overall wealth in the country has made part of the population less reliant on government. The rich have also used their resources to "influence electoral, legislative and regulatory processes," and the political process is now distorted by gerrymandering.

The authors assume that most Americans see inequality as a leading problem. But they may not—and they may not understand the statistical extent of the problem.

A 2012 survey from GlobeScan found that 58 percent of Americans agreed with the statement that "the rich deserve their wealth." That's actually higher than it was in 2008, before the economic crisis, Wall Street bailouts and the Occupy movement.

An earlier Gallup poll found that the number of Americans who want inequality to be "fixed" has declined since 1998. In 1998, 52 percent of Americans wanted the gap between rich and poor to be fixed. Today 48 percent say so.

A majority of Americans said that inequality is "an acceptable part of our economic system," a number that has also increased since the late 1990s.

What's more, Americans dramatically understate their perceived level of inequality. When asked about the share of wealth held by the top 20 percent, most Americans were way off (they said 59 percent, it's closer to 85 percent).

So yes, government could do more to offset inequality. But voters—whether out of poor understanding or personal aspiration—don't seem to be pressing the issue as much as the president would imply.


http://www.cnbc.com/id/101037295
Click to expand...

What's happening in this Country is the employers are absolutely spitting in their employee's faces. A business is not and cannot be successful without a good workforce. If the workforce is terrible the customer will not come back and the business will do poorly. Business will have to start appreciating their work force that helps them in their success or the workforce will take measures to force appreciation, such as Unionization or voting for the party that will help them get Health Insurance when their perfectly capable employer won't. It takes lots of abuse for this to be an issue of the day, and today, it's the issue in Economics.

The Government isn't trying to "close" the income gap. It's trying to squeeze them slightly closer. The first thing that can be done is exposure and education on the topic. I know when I first made a post about it here http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...ll-the-people-say-quot-enough-is-enough-quot-.. weeks ago. The people who replied to it acted like they never heard of this topic before and the replies were with "poor understanding or personal aspiration" as stated in the link above. But all of this exposes the pay gap, puts it in peoples faces and makes them think about it.

Now what to do about this pay gap is the hard part. Raising minimum wage has been the traditional attempt to close this pay gap but Corporations just raise their prices to ensure they keep as rich as they were before minimum wage was raised. This only hurts small business in the long run because if they aren't booming yet, the shift in wages can drown them.

Unionization is the answer IMO. The workers of particular businesses need to stand together and show their employers that they would not be successful without their employees. "Don't tread on me" should be the Union Flag. And Unions should acknowledge and understand they are not perfect and like everything else can have flaws and try to fix those flaws to ensure a Union that is taken seriously. And businesses should have legal action taken against them when Unions are attempting to start. Too many people are getting fired when they try to start Unions for "other" reasons.

Unions are a good thing, here are 36 reasons why; http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/...-Union-36-Ways-Unions-Have-Improved-Your-Life
 
It's also important to note that if these large corporations with huge profits were paying fair wages, paying for health insurance/benefits....the government wouldn't be trying to fill in the gap. Places such as Wal-Mart that is something like the largest employer in America is asking their managers to hand out Government Assistance flyers to employee's who are asking for better wages or benefits. Wal-Mart can afford insurance for it's employees without raising prices. The top just has to be less greedy. The people making the most never even visit stores with employees working to make them their money. And this could be said about many big corporations.
 
Anti-Party said:
It's also important to note that if these large corporations with huge profits
Click to expand...

Profits? Huge profits? What does Walmart do with these huge profits?

You know they can't keep it like you can open a savings account. Every year they keep these "huge profits" after they earn it, it is subject to an accrued earnings tax.
 
Truth Detector said:
More evidence of what an ignorant buffoon you are. It's not undulate you moron; it's called cycles. All economies have cycles and it cannot be controlled by well intentioned Government legislation. These tend to cause wider swings in the vpusiness cycle causing severe unintended consequences.

So where did you get your degree? The school of asshattery?
Click to expand...


hey you fucking brain dead idiot.

the proof is in the pudding sphincter miner.


The undulating recessions ride WAS FUCKING STOPPED for decades.

I proved it with the numbers dickwad
 
evince said:
hey you fucking brain dead idiot.

the proof is in the pudding sphincter miner.


The undulating recessions ride WAS FUCKING STOPPED for decades.

I proved it with the numbers dickwad
Click to expand...

There's been a recession every decade going back at least a century. Maybe they weren't so deep, but how to do connect that to Glass-Steagall?
 
Taft2016 said:
Profits? Huge profits? What does Walmart do with these huge profits?

You know they can't keep it like you can open a savings account. Every year they keep these "huge profits" after they earn it, it is subject to an accrued earnings tax.
Click to expand...

They can't huh? Yet somehow, some way, they do manage to accumulate it.

Celebrity Net Worth

Top 100 Richest People In The World

These are the top 100 richest people in the world today. Below you will find a dynamically updated, real time listing of the 100 richest people in the world today.

  • #10
    7-150x150.jpg

    $38
    Billion
    Christy Walton

    Christy Walton net worth: Christy Walton is an American billionaire who is the richest woman in the world and has a net worth of $38 billion. Christy Walton was the wife
  • #11
    0468dvw.jpg

    $36.6
    Billion
    Jim Walton

    Jim Walton is an heir to the Walmart fortune with an estimated net worth of $36.6 billion dollars. Jim Walton is the youngest son of Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton.
  • #12
    0468dy0.jpg

    $35.6
    Billion
    S Robson Walton

    S Robson Walton net worth: S. Robson Walton is an heir to the Wal-Mart fortune with an estimated net worth of $35.6 billion dollars. S. Robson Walton is the
  • #13
    alicewalton-150x150.jpg

    $35
    Billion
    Alice Walton

    Alice Walton net worth: Alice Walton is the daughter of Walmart founder Sam Walton, who has a net worth of $35 billion. Alice Walton is a board

    Why are you such a liar?
http://www.celebritynetworth.com/list/top-100-richest-people-in-the-world/

You are pretty smart Taft, unlike your co-troll Truth Deflector. Tell me how long ago it was that the Walton children's average net worth was $16 billion? I can't remember.

Jeebus, it seems that the family fortune has iincreased by 80 Billion since then. That's pretty amazing for a company not making "huge profits".
 
Last edited:
you didn't look at and or study the history of recessions did you clown?


tell me how frequent they were before glass steagal?
 
Rune said:
They can't huh? Yet somehow, some way, they do manage to accumulate it.
Click to expand...

Dayum.

You 47 percenters are truly financial illiterates, aren't you?

Here we were talking about corporate profits, and you respond with irrelevance about accumulated individual wealth.

SMH.

Really.... you folks shouldn't be allowed to vote.
 
they just refuse to admit this glory time they want to go back to was created with a top tax tier of 90% and big regulations on industry
 
Taft2016 said:
Dayum.

You 47 percenters are truly financial illiterates, aren't you?

Here we were talking about corporate profits, and you respond with irrelevance about accumulated individual wealth.

SMH.

Really.... you folks shouldn't be allowed to vote.
Click to expand...

Nice fail. Answer my question Taft. How long did it take Walmart to produce 80 billion in after tax profits for the owners of the corporation?

Or just run like you usually do.
 
Taft2016 said:
Dayum.

You 47 percenters are truly financial illiterates, aren't you?

Here we were talking about corporate profits, and you respond with irrelevance about accumulated individual wealth.

SMH.

Really.... you folks shouldn't be allowed to vote.
Click to expand...

did you study the recession list?

or did you just ignore the facts?
 
Rune said:
Nice fail. Answer my question Taft. How long did it take Walmart to produce 80 billion in after tax profits for the owners of the corporation?

Or just run like you usually do.
Click to expand...

You're the track star with the proven running track record.

The owners of a corporation like Walmart do not get to keep corporate profits. SMH... this is the most fundamental shit imaginable...

They get dividends, salaries and bonuses as board members.

A well-run corporation zeroes out all profits at the end of the years to avoid the accrued earnings tax. Salaries and bonuses are what are used as taxable deductions to zero out profits.

Curiously, dividends are not tax deductible from the profit ledger. You want to spread more wealth around, make dividends tax deductible from corporate ledgers, and individual shareholders will be able to receive large dividends.

Yeah, Sam Walton got rich as the largest shareholder of a public-traded company. Just because you own the most shares doesn't mean you get to walk into corporate HQ and fill your pockets with money.
 
Taft2016 said:
You're the track star with the proven running track record.

The owners of a corporation like Walmart do not get to keep corporate profits. SMH... this is the most fundamental shit imaginable...

They get dividends, salaries and bonuses as board members.

A well-run corporation zeroes out all profits at the end of the years to avoid the accrued earnings tax. Salaries and bonuses are what are used as taxable deductions to zero out profits.

Curiously, dividends are not tax deductible from the profit ledger. You want to spread more wealth around, make dividends tax deductible from corporate ledgers, and individual shareholders will be able to receive large dividends.

Yeah, Sam Walton got rich as the largest shareholder of a public-traded company. Just because you own the most shares doesn't mean you get to walk into corporate HQ and fill your pockets with money.
Click to expand...

Answer the fucking question, track star, I hardly need a lesson in corporate structure from you.

The 3rd and last time, how many years to earn $ 80 billion? Do I really need to dig out all my back issues of Forbes?
 
evince said:
did you study the recession list?

or did you just ignore the facts?
Click to expand...

Citing a correlation as a causation is not a fact. It's an opinion, which is this case is pretty weak because you offer nothing to support it.

In case you don't understand (which is quite likely), consider:

All murderers have chewed gum. Therefore, everyone who chews gum is a murderer?

Less deep recessions since Glass-Steagall enacted, therefore Glass-Steagall is responsible.

Early in the 20th century the federal government outlawed the drinking of absinthe. It was re-legalized just in time for the crash of 2008. I could use your logic and blame absinthe.

Now, explain the connection between Glass-Steagall and recessions...
 
Taft2016 said:
Citing a correlation as a causation is not a fact. It's an opinion, which is this case is pretty weak because you offer nothing to support it.

In case you don't understand (which is quite likely), consider:

All murderers have chewed gum. Therefore, everyone who chews gum is a murderer?

Less deep recessions since Glass-Steagall enacted, therefore Glass-Steagall is responsible.

Early in the 20th century the federal government outlawed the drinking of absinthe. It was re-legalized just in time for the crash of 2008. I could use your logic and blame absinthe.

Now, explain the connection between Glass-Steagall and recessions...
Click to expand...





what a pack of fucking stupid mumbo jumbo.

the list of recession is cold hard fucking facts you idiot.


Now tell me why you talked about one recession a decade?


because you have NO fucking idea what the FACTS are
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top