DC Tom Posted September 20, 2019 Posted September 20, 2019 5 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: Don't put words in my mouth. 4 minutes ago, billsfan89 said: Your argument came off to me as because you would be rich in a third world country income inequality isn't an economic issue, maybe I was brash in the way you stated it but that is the general gist of what you said? The two of you combined have the comprehension skills of a banana. This should be fun...
3rdnlng Posted September 20, 2019 Posted September 20, 2019 1 minute ago, billsfan89 said: Your argument came off to me as because you would be rich in a third world country income inequality isn't an economic issue, maybe I was brash in the way you stated it but that is the general gist of what you said? We have made so many advances in just the last few years that a poor person today has a life (when measured in "things") quite similar to a wealthy person of a couple decades ago. I'm not too worried about wealth inequality when the money going to the top gets invested in making the advancements that end of improving the lot of everyone. 2 minutes ago, DC Tom said: The two of you combined have the comprehension skills of a banana. This should be fun... Not going to happen. Save your popcorn for the highly entertaining TPS-GG debates.
KRC Posted September 20, 2019 Posted September 20, 2019 12 minutes ago, B-Man said: . Is that similar to "We are not increasing your taxes. We are just rolling back the tax cuts that have been in place for years."? 1
TakeYouToTasker Posted September 20, 2019 Posted September 20, 2019 @billsfan89 A quick point, followed by a question. The middle class is shrinking, but not in the way you think. More people are exiting the middle/working class and are joining the upper middle class. The poor and working poor are also shrinking demographics. Moving onto the question: why do you believe wealth inequality to be problematic?
billsfan89 Posted September 20, 2019 Posted September 20, 2019 1 hour ago, TakeYouToTasker said: @billsfan89 A quick point, followed by a question. The middle class is shrinking, but not in the way you think. More people are exiting the middle/working class and are joining the upper middle class. The poor and working poor are also shrinking demographics. Moving onto the question: why do you believe wealth inequality to be problematic? You are objectively wrong on the poor and working poor being shrinking demographics in 1971, 25% of people were considered lower class compared to 29% in 2016 (Pew research link included below.) You are correct in that there are portions of the middle class that are joining the upper middle class as that has gone from 14% in 1971 to 19% in 2016. However while those number might reflect mixed news (More upper class, more poor/working poor, and less in the middle) the fragility of the middle class is going to lead to the middle class shirking more and more. Automation, globalization, and less unionization is putting a much harder squeeze on the middle class and going to trend those numbers into a winner take all economy that will race to the bottom. Even within the middle class the stability of things like pensions and education for their children are no longer there likely leading to the trend of polarization increasing to a very Dickensian society where not only will the consumer base be eroded but social cohesion will be destroyed. As for why do I think wealth inequality is problematic. The truth is I don't think wealth inequality is problematic, I find wealth inequality to be a necessary component of capitalism. I think almost anyone would understand why Warren Buffett or Bill Gates has more money than them. The question is to what degree do you think wealth inequality should exceed to? Too much wealth stagnated at the top of the economic system is simply bad economics. It stagnates consumer demand, leads to a lack of public investment in things like education and infrastructure, it stagnates social cohesion, and it generates a winner take all race to the bottom that leads to a shrinking economy. It simply is bad economics that in the face of a suffering and increasingly fragile middle class to orientate an economy around giving more back to the segments of society that are doing phenomenally well thinking that somehow that is going to help the middle class when despite decades of doing those things the middle class continues to suffer and the economy becomes increasingly polarized. My political philosophy is that investments like infrastructure and infusing money into the middle class via debt forgiveness and tax funded higher education are better uses of tax payer dollars than inflating the stock market via tax cuts. So the issue of degree is the issue with wealth inequality The levels we currently see of wealth inequality are rates not seen since the late 1920's and well the 1930's weren't nearly as roaring. Numbers of people entering both the upper class and working poor/poor increasing. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/09/06/the-american-middle-class-is-stable-in-size-but-losing-ground-financially-to-upper-income-families/ What is impacting the middle class. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-the-middle-class-is-shrinking-2019-04-12 https://www.businessinsider.com/america-shrinking-middle-class-debt-homeownership-retirement-savings-2019-5
billsfan89 Posted September 20, 2019 Posted September 20, 2019 (edited) 18 hours ago, 3rdnlng said: We have made so many advances in just the last few years that a poor person today has a life (when measured in "things") quite similar to a wealthy person of a couple decades ago. I'm not too worried about wealth inequality when the money going to the top gets invested in making the advancements that end of improving the lot of everyone. Not going to happen. Save your popcorn for the highly entertaining TPS-GG debates. You are making a very optimistic and inaccurate assumption that money given to corporations and top earners gets invested in making advancements that end up improving the lot of everyone." A lot of the tax cuts went to buybacks of stocks for shareholders (many of whom aren't American thus representing a huge transfer of wealth out of the country.) A lot of the money received by upper income brackets went into assets. Once again it is poor economics to justify inequality by stating that well your TV's are better than they were 20 years ago. Inequality on a macro trend is relative and context based. If you erode the middle class in favor of an economy that is mostly working poor and upper class people that's going to destroy social cohesion and create a race to the bottom. Most economists would say that the issue with the American economy is lack of consumer demand as a result of a shrinking middle class. If your prescription for that problem is to give more tax cuts to corporations and the wealthy then I think you are disconnected from reality. Stock Buybacks https://www.marketwatch.com/story/sp-500-companies-expected-to-buy-back-800-billion-of-their-own-shares-this-year-2018-03-02 Lack of Investment https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2019/05/31/U-S-46942 Edited September 20, 2019 by billsfan89
3rdnlng Posted September 20, 2019 Posted September 20, 2019 2 hours ago, billsfan89 said: You are making a very optimistic and inaccurate assumption that money given to corporations and top earners gets invested in making advancements that end up improving the lot of everyone." A lot of the tax cuts went to buybacks of stocks for shareholders (many of whom aren't American thus representing a huge transfer of wealth out of the country.) A lot of the money received by upper income brackets went into assets. Once again it is poor economics to justify inequality by stating that well your TV's are better than they were 20 years ago. Inequality on a macro trend is relative and context based. If you erode the middle class in favor of an economy that is mostly working poor and upper class people that's going to destroy social cohesion and create a race to the bottom. Most economists would say that the issue with the American economy is lack of consumer demand as a result of a shrinking middle class. If your prescription for that problem is to give more tax cuts to corporations and the wealthy then I think you are disconnected from reality. Stock Buybacks https://www.marketwatch.com/story/sp-500-companies-expected-to-buy-back-800-billion-of-their-own-shares-this-year-2018-03-02 Lack of Investment https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2019/05/31/U-S-46942 Don't put words in my mouth.
B-Man Posted September 26, 2019 Posted September 26, 2019 Family health plan costs exceed $20,000 for first time by Christopher Snowbeck Original Article The average cost of family coverage in employer health plans pushed above the $20,000 mark for the first time this year, according to a new report, as the 5% average increase in premiums exceeded the growth rate for wages and general inflation. Low-wage workers face unique challenges, the study found, since they are less likely to be offered employer coverage and must pay a larger share of the premium when they have the chance to buy it. The numbers come from an annual national survey by the California-based Kaiser Family Foundation on cost trends for employer health plan coverage .
B-Man Posted October 17, 2019 Posted October 17, 2019 (edited) Poor People Are Still Sicker Than The Rich In Germany, Despite Universal Health Care. . Edited October 17, 2019 by B-Man 1
Koko78 Posted October 17, 2019 Posted October 17, 2019 43 minutes ago, B-Man said: <br /> You know the stock answer would be to claim that Obamacare was ruined and destroyed when Trump and the evil mecha-Nazi GOPs removed the penalty and ended the subsidies when they unjustly enriched 90% of US taxpayers in their tax cut bill.
DC Tom Posted October 18, 2019 Posted October 18, 2019 3 hours ago, Koko78 said: You know the stock answer would be to claim that Obamacare was ruined and destroyed when Trump and the evil mecha-Nazi GOPs removed the penalty and ended the subsidies when they unjustly enriched 90% of US taxpayers in their tax cut bill. I thought it was "Obamacare was a solution crippled by Republican obstruction that prevented the Democrats, holding both houses of Congress and the White House, from passing it."
GG Posted November 15, 2019 Posted November 15, 2019 Wreck it Trump is at it again. In less than 3 years, he's done more to truly shake up the healthcare biz than any president since LBJ. More of these kinds of actions are infinitely better than any schemes proposed by the lunatic left. Quote The Trump administration on Friday released a far-reaching plan that would for the first time force hospitals and insurers to disclose their secret negotiated rates. Administration officials said the final rule will compel hospitals in 2021 to publicize the rates they negotiate with individual insurers for all services, including drugs, supplies, facility fees and care by doctors who work for the facility. The administration will propose extending the disclosure requirement to the $670 billion health-insurance industry. Insurance companies and group health plans that cover employees would have to disclose negotiated rates, as well as previously paid rates for out-of-network treatment, in file formats that are computer-searchable, officials said. The insurers, including Anthem Inc. and Cigna Corp. , would have to provide a transparency tool to give cost information to consumers in advance, senior administration officials said. 1 3
B-Man Posted November 22, 2019 Posted November 22, 2019 TOTAL mystery! ABC News gets help figuring out why Americans have been getting ‘crushed by rising health insurance costs’ in the last 10 years https://twitchy.com/dougp-3137/2019/11/21/total-mystery-abc-news-gets-help-figuring-out-why-americans-have-been-getting-crushed-by-rising-health-insurance-costs-in-the-last-10-years/
Hedge Posted December 18, 2019 Posted December 18, 2019 Appeals court says Obamacare individual mandate unconstitutional and sends law back to lower court\ Quote A federal appeals court has found the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate unconstitutional, but did not invalidate the entire law, which remains in effect. The decision by the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals likely pushes any Supreme Court action on Obamacare until after the 2020 election. In the case brought by Texas and joined by the Trump administration, which argued the entire law should be thrown out, the panel has told a lower court that it must consider whether the individual mandate can be separated from the rest of the law. 1 1
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted December 18, 2019 Posted December 18, 2019 1 minute ago, Hedge said: Appeals court says Obamacare individual mandate unconstitutional and sends law back to lower court\ ...LMAO.....Obama Care......it was Hillary's Health Care Mandate with the Dynasty's cardboard cutout prop as the delivery boy.....Sham 101........ 1
B-Man Posted January 6, 2020 Posted January 6, 2020 IF YOU LIKE THE LAW YOU PASSED, YOU CAN KEEP IT! Democrats’ worries grow as ObamaCare court fight drags on. .
Recommended Posts