Doc Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 http://finance.yahoo.com/news/nobel-prize-winner-stiglitz---three-steps-to-solving-income-inequality-153834471.html. another expert weighs in on income and wealth inequality, its causes and possible solutions. btw, he has a nobel prize but don't you far righties hold that against him. In his new book, “The Great Divide: Unequal Societies and What We Can Do About Them,” Stiglitz traces the modern divide of inequality back to the Reagan era. Though inequality was a huge problem at the turn of the last century and in the lead up to the Great Depression, Stiglitz says the income divide in the U.S. was reduced after World War II and that the country “grew at its fastest pace” and “grew together.” He says the turning point was the Reagan Administration and its rolling out of supply-side economics, deregulation, and lower tax rates. The goal of these policies was to spur economic growth overall and make everyone wealthier. Stiglitz says it caused a divide instead Do you think it's the fault of the Repubs, Dems, or both? And do you think something could have been done about it in 2009 when the Dems had full control of Congress. Why didn't they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 (edited) First, he says, "reform the tax and transfer system in the U.S. to “make it at least fair that those at the top pay at least the same share,” Excuse me? WTF numbers is he looking at? The rich don't pay the same share in taxes as those of lesser income? Utter nonsense. what percentage of income did romney report in taxes when he was running for prez? i don't think he's atypical for his wealth and income level. it was a hell of alot less than the percentage i paid. i suspect some of the numbers he's looking at are capital gains, the vast majority of which are garnered by wealthy folks. Do you think it's the fault of the Repubs, Dems, or both? And do you think something could have been done about it in 2009 when the Dems had full control of Congress. Why didn't they? both. i think they should have done more. absolutely. there are very few in washington not beholden to big business and big banks. Edited April 23, 2015 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 what percentage of income did romney report in taxes when he was running for prez? i don't think he's atypical for his wealth and income level. it was a hell of alot less than the percentage i paid. i suspect some of the numbers he's looking at are capital gains, the vast majority of which are garnered by wealthy folks. As far as I know 100% of Romney's income was from capital gains, which is taxed at a lower rate than 'regular' income. A huge portion of wealth generated by capital gains is in the average schmoe's investment/retirement accounts. To say that the vast majority that benefits from a lower capital tax rate are the wealthy seems to me to be a mischaracterization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 First, he says, "reform the tax and transfer system in the U.S. to “make it at least fair that those at the top pay at least the same share,” Excuse me? WTF numbers is he looking at? The rich don't pay the same share in taxes as those of lesser income? Utter nonsense. If that were the case people with little income would actually have their taxes increased. what percentage of income did romney report in taxes when he was running for prez? i don't think he's atypical for his wealth and income level. it was a hell of alot less than the percentage i paid. i suspect some of the numbers he's looking at are capital gains, the vast majority of which are garnered by wealthy folks. Which are now very steep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 (edited) what percentage of income did romney report in taxes when he was running for prez? i don't think he's atypical for his wealth and income level. it was a hell of alot less than the percentage i paid. i suspect some of the numbers he's looking at are capital gains, the vast majority of which are garnered by wealthy folks. both. i think they should have done more. absolutely. there are very few in washington not beholden to big business and big banks. Romney is retired and earns his money from investments. He paid about 15% in taxes, it'll be higher now as cap gains rates are higher. You can have the argument about whether or not investment income should be taxed as ordinary income (or not taxed at all) but who is dumb enough to fall for the argument that because Romney or people like him only paid 15% in taxes, others are suffering or earning less. We all know that top 5% in this country are mostly not earning investment income only and are subject to much higher rates of taxation. Edited April 23, 2015 by keepthefaith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 (edited) Romney most likely pays about 23.8% on is cap gains. Someone making $150k pays a little less than 20%. Can we quit bitching about tax inequality please. Oh and if Romney lived in CA his cap gains rate would be 33.8% Edited April 23, 2015 by Chef Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 Do you think it's the fault of the Repubs, Dems, or both? And do you think something could have been done about it in 2009 when the Dems had full control of Congress. Why didn't they? They shot their wad and ran out the clock on the porkulus and Obamacare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 http://finance.yahoo.com/news/global-watchdog-warns-economic-cost-rising-inequality-090224569.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 If the focus from policy makers is how to even out incomes, there will never be sustainable strong growth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 http://finance.yahoo.com/news/global-watchdog-warns-economic-cost-rising-inequality-090224569.html If you're out of work, you get 99 weeks of unemployment, free health care, free food, free cellphone, pay no taxes and in some cases actually get a tax credit. In what world do you think the "have nots" will start pulling their own weight in order to catch up to the "haves" based on these simple truths? Some, yes. But never enough to narrow the gap until you take away the "freebies." You're seeing the Obama economy in full stride: friends and donors are raking in the cash; have nots content with their handouts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 The main problem with liberal economics in a nutshell, are that the incentives structures are completely out of whack. In any company that employs sales, you give bonuses to those who produce. This gives incentives to do more. Whereas liberal economics is the complete opposite. The incentives are for those that do less. This may help those in the bottom, but it provides incentives for them to continue meandering through life, getting by and not fully producing to their capabilities. I'm not against helping those in need, but I am against helping those that are capable of helping themselves knowing that they can do more if they applied themselves all while receiving federal and state assistance. There needs to be some serious reforms with many of these programs. In regards to the growing income gap, stop focusing on the rich, as if they are the problem. We've talked about this before, the main reason why this is happening are for two main reasons, globalization and technology. Adapt or fall behind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 Now that is a really funny report. OECD claims that wealth inequality is hurting global growth, while the article goes to pains to point out that the problem is especially acute in the US .... But forgets to mention that the economic growth in the US is about double the rate of the other western economies in the OECD. So which is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 I'm not against helping those in need, but I am against helping those that are capable of helping themselves knowing that they can do more if they applied themselves all while receiving federal and state assistance.. Dennis Miller put it best: We are feathering the screw up nest. I'm all for helping the helpless. It's the clueless I'm tired of helping. Just under four minutes of ranting, but it's the kind of thing that makes perfect sense...unless you're a liberal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 The main problem with liberal economics in a nutshell, are that the incentives structures are completely out of whack. In any company that employs sales, you give bonuses to those who produce. This gives incentives to do more. Whereas liberal economics is the complete opposite. The incentives are for those that do less. This may help those in the bottom, but it provides incentives for them to continue meandering through life, getting by and not fully producing to their capabilities. I'm not against helping those in need, but I am against helping those that are capable of helping themselves knowing that they can do more if they applied themselves all while receiving federal and state assistance. There needs to be some serious reforms with many of these programs. In regards to the growing income gap, stop focusing on the rich, as if they are the problem. We've talked about this before, the main reason why this is happening are for two main reasons, globalization and technology. Adapt or fall behind. What do you suggest? The best solution of all is more jobs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 What do you suggest? The best solution of all is more jobs Actual capitalism will accomplish this. Not the tyrannical crony kind we have now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 Actual capitalism will accomplish this. Not the tyrannical crony kind we have now. What is "actual capitalism" Not sure we have ever had that anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 What do you suggest? The best solution of all is more jobs And the best way to create more jobs is to have government stop interfering with business. Oh wait....retards like you think 'more jobs' means further burdening taxpayers by paying more people to shuffle useless papers for the government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 What do you suggest? The best solution of all is more jobs Created by the government of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 The Economy Is Still Terrible for Young People. “The era of the overeducated barista is here to stay. College graduates are still spending more and more years (and money) to get worse and worse entry-level jobs.” Fundamentally transformed! Meanwhile, of course, older people suffer from the Obama era’s Senior Squeeze. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 And the best way to create more jobs is to have government stop interfering with business. Oh wait....retards like you think 'more jobs' means further burdening taxpayers by paying more people to shuffle useless papers for the government. No, no no. Nancy Pelosi's solution was to extend unemployment benefits in order to not reduce employment levels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts