rickyp wrote:doctor fate

If a country has the best, most modern, efficient, near-perfect infrastructure that has ever existed, that does not guarantee a business will succeed. That is the result of hard work, good people, good ideas, good marketing, and probably good location.

Of course not. But take the same person, with the same basic intellect and skills and plop him down in a village in Pakistan, or Kenya, or Syria or Moldova ....
That person is unlikely to produce the same inventions, generate the same businesses as he would in the US or other Western nations.
And thats mostly because of the "infrastructure" that allows the bright capable person to operate to their potential. And that infrastructure was delivered by the leaders (i.e. governments) of those nations. Whereas in the third world countries the greatest reason for a lack of infrastructure is poor governments (leaders) who made the wrong choices or made choices that were aimed only at benefitting a small section of the populace, especially themselves...
The US is still, despite what you think of your government over the decades, one of, if not the best place in the world to do business. Largely because the engines of govenrment have mostly served the needs of industry very well,
And yes, for that business leaders should be very greatful. And for that, they should be prepared to pay their fair share of taxes without hiding it in Bahamian or Swiss banks.

Yes, but there is a massive gap between "allows" (your word) and "causes." If it "caused" success, then there would be obligation. However, everyone is "allowed" the same opportunity. Some take advantage of it. Some don't.

I'm still waiting to hear from a liberal on what exactly is a "fair share." We hear that term, but it is not defined. Further, why is it that the "fair share" for almost 50% of America is zero or nearly zero? Note to liberals: SSI insurance does nothing for infrastructure. All the other taxes the taxless class pay are minimal when considering the infrastructure the President was crowing about.

Again, they also PAY for the infrastructure. They PAY for it as they make money. They PAY a lot more than most of us do. The President's point is they should pay more. Why? Because it gins up his base.


doctor fate

Of course, she glosses over the point that without infrastructure, none of us would be able to get around, so we'd all have to raise our own food (and store it for the winter). So, the idea that infrastructure exists (entirely or primarily) to give a chance for some to become rich is rubbish.

One thing you gloss over, or perhaps confuse, is that "infrastructure" is more than bricks and mortar. More than roads and dams. its also the institutions of govenrnance. There are many, like patents offices, the financial system, federal aviation authority, etc. that are primarily in existence to serve commercial interests. As such they are they specifically to help businesses prosper. (Which creates a prosperous middle and working class...)

Apparently it "confused" the President too since he was not referring to these things. Address your complaints to him.

The rest of your diatribe/detour is off topic too. You're in rare form.

I'm not going to address holes in the President's speech. If you don't like what he left out, send him a letter. You don't get to write a supplemental speech for him after his speech and demand to know why I didn't address the issues YOU wrote about when he didn't mention them.

In the end, it was much of what Romney wants that created the horrible business environment.
Thats where the election should be fought... And Obama should be more direct in fighting the election on that point. By cozying around the issue of "fairness" he isn't addressing the issue of "what works".

The President, thankfully, changed the topic. He displayed that he is out of touch with mainstream American thought. I knew that. I am just pleased he made it clear.

I get it that one is a more emotional approach and the other more rationale. And that its emotional arguement that is the order of the day....

Yes, the President's speech was an emotional one, wasn't it? It was sadly lacking in reality, but it was loaded with political poison for him. So, there's that.

Doctor Fate wrote:No, I say it is bad not to work. I say it is bad to leech off the government and not work. I am appalled at the number of people who are now on SSDI because the rate of increase is not consistent with anything other than fraud.

How about the deepest recession since the 1930s? Would that increase claims legitimately perhaps?

I do laud rich entrepreneurs. I believe they ought to be lauded. However, not everyone can or does choose that path. That doesn't make everyone else bad or inferior.

Of course, there is the problem that many of the rich are not entrepreneurs, and that many entrepreneurs don't actually do it all by themselves.

The President's point was that infrastructure entitles the government to more money from those who have been successful. I disagree. The successful have already paid for infrastructure. They pay, in aggregate, far more than the middle class or poor. I am willing to debate tax policy, but that's not really what this debate is about. It is about the President's speech and its function. I believe it was to justify raising taxes on the well-to-do for no other reason than politics. I have asked for anyone to analyze the speech and come out with a different understanding. So far, no one has done that.

There is another reason to raise taxes on the rich - there's a massive deficit, partly caused by tax cuts, from which the rich have benefitted the most. That's not politics, it's accounting.

Because that's not the point. We all get the same access to the same infrastructure. There is no inherent advantage to those who succeed. They already pay more, far more, than those who do not. I have asked what percentage the successful should pay to make things "fair." So far, no one has answered that.

I can throw a number out there. How about we start at a baseline of 35% in actual taxation, so they are paying the same on income as other taxpayers?

And then hey, let's make it a little more. 40% on income over a certain threshold. Is that too scary for you?

Of course, in reality you don't set tax rates by starting just at the tax rates. You set them by working out what it is you need them for.

First of all, I did not lie. I said the poor pay nothing into the infrastructure except gasoline taxes (I think I allowed there may be some other minor taxes of which I'm not aware). That is true. If you pay SSI, that money does not go into infrastructure. Period.

So, you lied about me lying.

Actually, no. Because it's not just Federal Income tax that pays for infrastructure. State taxes will do as well. And licenses and tariffs go into the general federal funds, so when costs are passed on to consumers, all of them contribute. I guess indirect contributions don't count, huh?

You acknowledged only one kind of tax, and didn't allow for others until this post. Are State taxes, licences and tariffs all 'minor'? Maybe to you.

I did not say that ALL the poor are lazy. However, for the most part, they are poor because of choices they have made, not because the game is rigged. I started life working in a warehouse (union, btw) with temperatures that reached over 130 degrees Fahrenheit in some areas. I made minimum wage. There were people who had been working there 20 to 25 years. If I'd stayed there, which would have been easy, I could be poor too.

There are people who choose to live in public housing and accept public assistance their entire lives. Why? Because it's easy. Why is there generational poverty? In many cases, because the government provides no incentive to work. That's just reality.

Are you going to claim that generational poverty did not happen much before government welfare? Because that appears to be the implication of your statements.

I included luck, because it is no one's fault if you suffer some catastrophic accident, get downsized, etc. However, this is a minority of situations. The exception does not prove the rule.

No, but the problem with many broad-brush approaches to poverty and taxation is that they tend to hit the marginal cases more, and the deserving get caught up with the undeserving just the same.

And you've kinda grudgingly accepted that roads and schools and the internet at whatnot are good things, but where would the people who are currently rich be without them?

No. And, we would not be the United States without them. We could not have won World War 2 without them.

Sorry? The internet did nothing for WW2. Roads did a bit, but the ones in Europe were perhaps more significant than those in the USA. Schools, sure. Well done. Useful things, schools. Give a grounding to millions of people, without which they would get no chance in life. You can have schools for both, and Roads for the USA.

And hey, being in the USA, the place where the American Dream is made, those who benefit from tha rewards of that dream clearly got most out of the actual existence of your country.

However, the opposite is not necessarily the case (as you recently trumpeted): the rich are not rich simply because the infrastructure exists. They don't owe their success to the existence of the infrastructure alone.

I never said that they did. I've clearly pointed to some who inherited great wealth, and to some who made it with little assistance from government directly. But my argument is that much of that wealth is still derived from the fact that they are in a stable society with little chance of invasion, where order is pretty well maintained, where trade routes are open and subsidised and regulated, where potential employees come with an education, where customers are guaranteed at least a basic income, where agriculture is subsidised, where electronic commerce has been able to flourish due to investment and where the government likes to spend lots of money on military equipment and other contracts from the private sector.

Furthermore, they pay the lion's share of the upkeep.

Is that proportional to income and weath, or just in absolute terms?

Your hypothetical (could they be rich without infrastructure) is ridiculous. Infrastructure does not cause the poor or middle class to become wealthy. If it does, why don't all become wealthy?

It's all silly. We have infrastructure because we are a country. That should be obvious in the age of "nation-building." What are we doing in Afghanistan? Trying to build infrastructure. Why, so people can become rich? No, because it is infrastructure that is necessary to the sense of a unified nation. Afghanistan is really more of a grouping of tribes than a nation because they lack infrastructure, for one thing--but, it's a major aspect of it.

Well, there's more to Afghanistan's problems than a lack of infrastructure. Religious and tribal differences are pretty major, and there's little history of unity at a national level. Buildling loads of infrastructure won't actually deal with those differences. No more than massive Soviet projects stopped the break up of the USSR as soon as the politics changed.

Perhaps your picture of nation building is based on the relatively young history of the USA. Countries like Switzerland were forming a united tight national identity for centuries before the USA was established, and the 'infrastructure' of the middle ages was not really as advanced as it is in Afghanistan today.

Of course, different countries have different levels of infrastructure for a reason. Mainly because previous generations paid for it (or they borrowed against future generations). Given that it didn't appear out of thin air, and given that it still needs to be maintained and improved upon, clearly it needs to be paid for going forward.

I'm not sure you are up on the definition of 'allows'. If something (Y) 'allows' X to happen, then it implies that without Y, X doesn't happen. Y may not be the only cause, but a lack of Y would suggest that X won't happen.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:No, I say it is bad not to work. I say it is bad to leech off the government and not work. I am appalled at the number of people who are now on SSDI because the rate of increase is not consistent with anything other than fraud.

How about the deepest recession since the 1930s? Would that increase claims legitimately perhaps?

Perhaps you are arrogant?

You can't possibly know what SSDI is and write that. An economic downturn has nothing to do with whether someone is disabled or not.

I do laud rich entrepreneurs. I believe they ought to be lauded. However, not everyone can or does choose that path. That doesn't make everyone else bad or inferior.

Of course, there is the problem that many of the rich are not entrepreneurs, and that many entrepreneurs don't actually do it all by themselves.

The vast majority of the rich do not inherit their money, so they either collect pennies they find on the street, win the lottery, or earn it.

And, this "don't actually do it all by themselves" argument is pure bunk. Society is not responsible for the hard work they put in and risks they take. If someone starts a business and Obama invests tax money in it, it's going to go belly up. By and large, businesses are built by risk-takers who make it in spite of government restrictions and taxation.

There is another reason to raise taxes on the rich - there's a massive deficit, partly caused by tax cuts, from which the rich have benefitted the most. That's not politics, it's accounting.

Go ahead. Impress me. Tell me how much money the tax increase will reduce the deficit next year. Just link the President's plan so we can all evaluate it . . . oh, that doesn't exist.

He's not arguing for reducing the deficit. He's arguing for "fairness."

]I can throw a number out there. How about we start at a baseline of 35% in actual taxation, so they are paying the same on income as other taxpayers?

Actually, that is the highest rate right now. I don't know that anyone actually pays it.

Of course, the President could have proposed actual tax reform. However, that would have required leadership, something he has yet to demonstrate. His biggest move on deficit reduction/entitlement reform/tax restructuring was the Bowles-Simpson committee, which he promptly ignored.

And then hey, let's make it a little more. 40% on income over a certain threshold. Is that too scary for you?

Nothing is too scary for me, if it makes sense. However, an actual 40% rate would stop the economy cold. If one lives in NYC, for example, that would put an enormous tax burden on someone. At $250K, 40% would be $100K. Add in State tax, City tax, property tax, sales tax, and I don't know that the "rich" wouldn't qualify for food stamps. Then again, maybe that's what you and the President want--everyone equally impoverished, while the government squanders money on every liberal pet project.

Of course, in reality you don't set tax rates by starting just at the tax rates. You set them by working out what it is you need them for.

Which is what the President has not really done.

Then again, he's never gone through the budget "line by line" like he promised. And, he's never reduced the deficit in half, like he promised. He just wants to raise taxes!

First of all, I did not lie. I said the poor pay nothing into the infrastructure except gasoline taxes (I think I allowed there may be some other minor taxes of which I'm not aware). That is true. If you pay SSI, that money does not go into infrastructure. Period.

So, you lied about me lying.

Actually, no. Because it's not just Federal Income tax that pays for infrastructure. State taxes will do as well. And licenses and tariffs go into the general federal funds, so when costs are passed on to consumers, all of them contribute. I guess indirect contributions don't count, huh?

You acknowledged only one kind of tax, and didn't allow for others until this post. Are State taxes, licences and tariffs all 'minor'? Maybe to you.

Do they teach context in your public schools? This is a conversation about President Obama's speech. So, no, State taxes don't apply.

And again, if you want to count them, who do you suppose pays more in State and local taxes--someone who makes $250K a year or someone who makes $25K a year? You can't have it both ways by saying "someone else" (the government) builds the infrastructure and yet failing to notice that the "rich" pay by far the most to the government. They are the "someone else."

I did not say that ALL the poor are lazy. However, for the most part, they are poor because of choices they have made, not because the game is rigged. I started life working in a warehouse (union, btw) with temperatures that reached over 130 degrees Fahrenheit in some areas. I made minimum wage. There were people who had been working there 20 to 25 years. If I'd stayed there, which would have been easy, I could be poor too.

There are people who choose to live in public housing and accept public assistance their entire lives. Why? Because it's easy. Why is there generational poverty? In many cases, because the government provides no incentive to work. That's just reality.

Are you going to claim that generational poverty did not happen much before government welfare? Because that appears to be the implication of your statements.

Thanks for asking.

No, I'm saying the government has made it easier. We have spent trillions on the "War on Poverty," yet the poverty rate is essentially unchanged. Government programs have not helped.

And you've kinda grudgingly accepted that roads and schools and the internet at whatnot are good things, but where would the people who are currently rich be without them?

No. And, we would not be the United States without them. We could not have won World War 2 without them.

Sorry? The internet did nothing for WW2.

Oh brother. I meant the whole "infrastructure" argument. It's all baloney.

"It's the infrastructure that allowed you to get rich, therefore you should pay the government."

Rubbish. The infrastructure is available to all. As I said, the infrastructure makes society possible. Without it, we're all using horses and wagons. This is just a dumb argument you/the President are making.

Let's look at it from the other end of the spectrum: the poor. The infrastructure failed them, so shouldn't they get a refund? Shouldn't their teachers be imprisoned? Does the government owe them?

However, the opposite is not necessarily the case (as you recently trumpeted): the rich are not rich simply because the infrastructure exists. They don't owe their success to the existence of the infrastructure alone.

I never said that they did. I've clearly pointed to some who inherited great wealth, and to some who made it with little assistance from government directly.

There's nothing wrong with inheriting wealth. If you have kids, don't you want to leave them something or should the government get it all?

Btw, again, the number of "rich" who inherited their wealth is fairly paltry.

But my argument is that much of that wealth is still derived from the fact that they are in a stable society with little chance of invasion, where order is pretty well maintained, where trade routes are open and subsidised and regulated, where potential employees come with an education, where customers are guaranteed at least a basic income, where agriculture is subsidised, where electronic commerce has been able to flourish due to investment and where the government likes to spend lots of money on military equipment and other contracts from the private sector.

So what? The US and the UK are pretty tough to invade. So is Japan. So what?

More businesses fail than succeed. Should the government bail them all out? Or, is the answer just to punish those who don't?

Bottom line: if Obama wants to run as a "soak the rich" candidate, he's welcome to do that. The last guy who tried did really well. Name was Walter Mondale.

Furthermore, they pay the lion's share of the upkeep.

Is that proportional to income and weath, or just in absolute terms?

In absolute terms.

I'm not sure you are up on the definition of 'allows'. If something (Y) 'allows' X to happen, then it implies that without Y, X doesn't happen. Y may not be the only cause, but a lack of Y would suggest that X won't happen.

I know you are up on the definition of jerk. You've got it down to a 't.'

Again, you miss the point, but that's what makes you what you are. The "rich" pay for infrastructure now. The idea that they haven't is a straw man in the first place. The idea that their successful business popped up and now they owe the munificent government for providing the infrastructure is rubbish. People work their butts off to become successful. If the infrastructure wasn't there, then they could not do that. So freaking what? They would not work 90 hours a week, the government would not get to slap them silly with taxes and regulations, and the nation would be poorer.

President Obama made a class warfare argument. You agree with him.

So what? You don't get to vote.

I disagree with him. I do get to vote.

Many gullible people and socialists will vote for the Man, hoping he will seize the property of the evil rich and distribute it to the good, kindly poor and middle class.

That's fine. He's going to lose. His speech was un-American. That's why you like it.

Doctor Fate wrote:You can't possibly know what SSDI is and write that. An economic downturn has nothing to do with whether someone is disabled or not.

No, it doesn't. But it may make a difference to whether they claim or not. I was asking a question. You have one (and only one) possible reason for increased SSDI recipients, and it's the one that is (as ever) the worst implication on them. There are many other possibilities. For example, improved diagnosis, increasing obesity, and more awareness of the programme.

The vast majority of the rich do not inherit their money, so they either collect pennies they find on the street, win the lottery, or earn it.

If you go back to my 'superficial' analysis of the top 10 richest, 5 inherited weath.

I can throw a number out there. How about we start at a baseline of 35% in actual taxation, so they are paying the same on income as other taxpayers?

Actually, that is the highest rate right now. I don't know that anyone actually pays it.

Indeed. Let them actually pay the highest rate. That would be a start. I don't see that we can disagree on that one.

And then hey, let's make it a little more. 40% on income over a certain threshold. Is that too scary for you?

Nothing is too scary for me, if it makes sense. However, an actual 40% rate would stop the economy cold. If one lives in NYC, for example, that would put an enormous tax burden on someone. At $250K, 40% would be $100K. Add in State tax, City tax, property tax, sales tax, and I don't know that the "rich" wouldn't qualify for food stamps. Then again, maybe that's what you and the President want--everyone equally impoverished, while the government squanders money on every liberal pet project.

It may be that I was not clear enough, so I'll point out what I meant. "40% on income over a certain threshold" does not mean "40% of all income". I was describing a 'marginal rate', in that up to the threshold it does not apply, and it only applies to income over that level.

So, in your example (and I'm not advocating this threshold by the way), if someone n $250K now is paying 30% of their total income in taxes, that would be $75,000 now. If a 40% rate was introduced on all income over $200K, that would push it up to $80,000. A difference of $5K. That's not going to bankrupt someone on $250K. It's an effective increase of only 2% of total income.

Of course, my example threshold may seem low to you. I've paid that rate on income over (in today's money at current exchange rates) about $60K, so it seems high to me. I believe there is a suggestion of a lower increased rate (to 38%?) on income over $250K. Which is less of an impact than my figures.

Point being, that this will not 'stop the economy cold'. At a high enough threshold, it would barely affect most people, and barely affect the bulk of economic activity.

Do they teach context in your public schools? This is a conversation about President Obama's speech. So, no, State taxes don't apply.

Here's my problem. When you talk about 'government' and 'taxes', it is not specific. It's ambiguous. While there is this context, just because Obama was talking about them does not mean that the question of who pays what for what only applies at a Federal level, generaly or in his speech (did he at any time say he was excluding State level taxation or infrastructure? By including roads & teachers, I think he was actually including it). Besides, States and the Federal government do work together on infrastructure projects.

And again, if you want to count them, who do you suppose pays more in State and local taxes--someone who makes $250K a year or someone who makes $25K a year? You can't have it both ways by saying "someone else" (the government) builds the infrastructure and yet failing to notice that the "rich" pay by far the most to the government. They are the "someone else."

Actually, the effect of State taxes is slightly regressive. Meaning that people on low-middle incomes tend to pay more as a proportion of their income to States than the rich do.

The 'someone else' is also past taxpayers. A lot of them are dead and pay no taxes any more, and we can't go back to them, however rich they were. We who came along later emerged into a world with the infrastructure already set up. But it is not 'free'.

No, I'm saying the government has made it easier. We have spent trillions on the "War on Poverty," yet the poverty rate is essentially unchanged. Government programs have not helped.

But I think we can both agree that while the poverty rate has not changed much, the effects of poverty are much lower on people. In absolute terms, poverty is much lower. The point of welfare is not to eliminate poverty, it is to mitigate it. It is not designed to remove unemployment, but to insure people against the effects of it.

But when you do get high rates of deep poverty, you also tend to get increased social unrest, increased crime and bigger societal problems. Especially when juxatposed with increased wealth for a few. Those are not generally desirable outcomes, and they can cause all kinds of problems (expensive ones, at times).

Let's look at it from the other end of the spectrum: the poor. The infrastructure failed them, so shouldn't they get a refund? Shouldn't their teachers be imprisoned? Does the government owe them?

Why do you have to keep talking about prison?

We could argue that they are getting a refund, in Welfare.

There's nothing wrong with inheriting wealth. If you have kids, don't you want to leave them something or should the government get it all?

I never said there was anything wrong with it. But one thing it is not, is earned income.

Of course, a true meritocrat, who believed in 'equality of opportunity' would oppose inherited wealth. There are alternatives to 'the government' getting the proceeds of inheritance, by the way.

Btw, again, the number of "rich" who inherited their wealth is fairly paltry.

50% of the top ten is not 'paltry'.

More businesses fail than succeed. Should the government bail them all out? Or, is the answer just to punish those who don't?

No. Not sure where I said that should happen. I was pointing out a list of the advantages that government-backed infrastructure gives to companies and people in a modern wealthy western state.

Some do get very rich in those countries, and in no insignificant part, that infrastructure supports them.

Furthermore, they pay the lion's share of the upkeep.

Is that proportional to income and weath, or just in absolute terms?

In absolute terms.

I see. Of course, even though they currently do pay more in absolute terms, they don't pay much more in relative terms. The reason they pay much more in absolute terms is that a very small proportion of the country's population controls a majority of its wealth and garners a majority of the income.

However even after having to pay up to 35% (and that would be rare given how tax accountants can help disguise income as something else), the rich are still rich. And getting richer. So it doesn't seem to be stopping them. Your argument is that higher rates of tax than you have now will stop people becoming rich by hard work. You also argue that most of the rich have become so because of hard work. However, given that taxes were higher only 12 years ago, and many of the rich in society didn't just get rich in the last 12 years, could it be that tax rates under Reagan and Clinton were not actually a deterrent to the 'hard work' path?

President Obama made a class warfare argument. You agree with him.

I don't agree that it was 'class warfare'. It's part of an ongoing debate about how you deal with a massive fiscal issue in the USA, and what the impact will be on a very small number of people who are best equipped to be able to handle a but of change.

So what? You don't get to vote.

Thank you Captain Obvious. Of course, I do get to vote, just not in your country. We have the same questions here (recently shown in the changes to the higher rate of Income Tax over the past few years). Even though I don't have a vote, that does not mean I cannot express an opinion.

I disagree with him. I do get to vote.

Whoop-de-doo.

Many gullible people and socialists will vote for the Man, hoping he will seize the property of the evil rich and distribute it to the good, kindly poor and middle class.

Really? A few points on very high incomes, and wanting to close loopholes is, to you, equivalent to Bolshevism?

That's fine. He's going to lose. His speech was un-American. That's why you like it.

I am so glad for you that in that whole post you strenuously avoided using any personal jibes against me, after to assidiously pointing out how it is wrong to do that to anyone other than the President. Well, I may have skipped over a few ad hominem attacks, but hey, we know you are the 'better man' here. You would never ever 'sink' to my level, right? So, that aside...

You don't know that Obama will lose. He may not. Just as Ricky was premature to state categorically that Obama will win, you are to state the opposite. There's much to come in the next few months, but the incumbent has a reasonable chance of winning.

His speech was not 'Un-American'. That phrase belongs to the McCarthy years, when people were being hounded out of their livelihoods by a politically motivated witch hunt. It is not 'Un-American' to take a particular side in a debate. Free Speech is itself an American concept. What he's sayiing is not (as you like to imply) that he wants to take all of the rich, strip of them of all of their wealth and further 'punish' them just for being rich. He's saying that the rich should pay a slightly higher share of their wealth to keep the nation going, based on their wealth being, in some part, reliant on the things that the whole nation does. He invoked a version of the American Dream. How is that 'Un-American'?

Why can't you just stick with not agreeing. Why do you have to use words designed to 'other' people who you disagree with?

And finally, I don't 'like' or 'dislike' the speech. It's just a speech. It evokes strong emotion in you, but there's no need to project. I see his arguments in context for what they are, and I dispute your scaremongering. And I am not anti-American. I like Americans (most of them). I like a lot about America. I'm not too happy about the militarism, the jingoism, the social conservatism or the delusions of grandeur, but hey, it's a nice place.

Danivon:

Actually, the effect of State taxes is slightly regressive. Meaning that people on low-middle incomes tend to pay more as a proportion of their income to States than the rich do.

Per this source, more than slightly. http://www.accountingtoday.com/news/Stu ... 520-1.html

The average state and local tax rate on the wealthiest 1 percent of families is 6.4 percent before accounting for the savings from federal itemized deductions. After the federal offset, the effective tax rate on the wealthiest 1 percent is a mere 5.2 percent.

The average tax rate on families in the middle 20 percent of the income spectrum is 9.7 percent before the federal offset and 9.4 percent after — almost twice the effective rate that the richest people pay. The average tax rate on the poorest 20 percent of families is the highest of all. At 10.9 percent, it is more than double the effective rate on the very wealthy.

fate

I'm still waiting to hear from a liberal on what exactly is a "fair share."

Any tax rate between 1960 and 2000 would be fairer than today. And, at any point in that period, most Americans thought they lived in a capitalist, free market nation where if you worked hard and were smart you could get ahead.
At what point did the tax rates of the 60's through 90s become unfair and unworkable for society?At what point did the tax rates crush American enterprise or deprive millionares of the proper fruits of their labour?

fate

Rubbish. The infrastructure is available to all. As I said, the infrastructure makes society possible. Without it, we're all using horses and wagons. This is just a dumb argument you/the President are making.

Yes that is the arguement he's making. Why is it dumb?
I haven't heard the American Exceptionalism thing lately. But its in this area that it definitely applies. The USA built an exceptional infrastructure, particularly through the decades after WWII. Its that infrastructure that attracted immigrants . Because that infrastructure is what provided them "opportunity". (Part of that infrastructure is the set of laws that provided both freedom and protection under law...")
The only question is, who's suppossed to pay for that infrastructure? Because no one is paying the ongoing cost for that infrastructure, nor have for many years. Instead, debt has accumulated since the early 80's.
It is truly unfortunate that the debate over an apprpriate tax structure and rate becomes about class war fare. But, thats not a new phenomenon. The rage against taxation was first raised by those who wanted to lower rates to fairer levels... Job creators were being discriminated against....

What is new in the debate is the Tea Party (Libertarian) attitude toward governance and the institutions of government. Somehow they want to accept the notion the idea that the Gilded Age after the Civil War and before the 29 crash represented an enviable period for most Americans .
If Obama's somewhat clumsy speech makes people more aware that a great society needs a great infrastructure, and that that infrastructure has to be paid for.... then its a worthwhile speech.
If detractors want to describe it as class war fare, ratehr than a debate about whats fair in taxation policy, then they've picked a particularly vulnerable candidate to fight a class war.

And Danivon, my prediction is only premature if I end up being wrong. So far, over two months have gone by, and the trajectory is about what it was when i made the prediction...

Good news: you are quickly losing this argument.

Bad news: you keep trying.

Worst news: you don't bother fact-checking and you're turning into an erudite rickyp.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:You can't possibly know what SSDI is and write that. An economic downturn has nothing to do with whether someone is disabled or not.

No, it doesn't. But it may make a difference to whether they claim or not. I was asking a question. You have one (and only one) possible reason for increased SSDI recipients, and it's the one that is (as ever) the worst implication on them. There are many other possibilities. For example, improved diagnosis, increasing obesity, and more awareness of the programme.

A 1984 law made it easier to claim benefits. The downturn made it more likely that people would apply. You will search in vain for the idea of "improved diagnosis" being a reason.

Since mid-2010, precisely the time millions of US citizens used up all of their 99 week of unemployment insurance, disability claims have risen by 2.2 million. Those on disability are not counted in the workforce and are not considered unemployed.

The number of workers receiving Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) jumped 22 percent to 8.7 million in April from 7.1 million in December 2007, Social Security data show. That helps explain as much as one quarter of the decline in the U.S. labor-force participation rate during the period, according to economists at JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Morgan Stanley.

The phrase "any port in a storm" comes to mind. It certainly appears fraud is a major reason for the increase.

The vast majority of the rich do not inherit their money, so they either collect pennies they find on the street, win the lottery, or earn it.

If you go back to my 'superficial' analysis of the top 10 richest, 5 inherited weath.

Well, yes, that was superficial. So, why bother spouting off about it? The highest figure I found is 20%. The lowest was 6%. No one cites 50%.

Most Americans don't have a problem with parents leaving something to their children. I'd love to see Obama make an issue of this.

Indeed. Let them actually pay the highest rate. That would be a start. I don't see that we can disagree on that one.

Actually, we do. To do this, a number of deductions would have to be eliminated. There would be many unintended consequences. For example, let's say you wipe out home interest as a deduction, what would happen? To some extent, the benefit of home ownership would be seen as diminished, so property values would take another hit. This whole "soak the rich" mantra has consequences.

Nothing is too scary for me, if it makes sense. However, an actual 40% rate would stop the economy cold. If one lives in NYC, for example, that would put an enormous tax burden on someone. At $250K, 40% would be $100K. Add in State tax, City tax, property tax, sales tax, and I don't know that the "rich" wouldn't qualify for food stamps. Then again, maybe that's what you and the President want--everyone equally impoverished, while the government squanders money on every liberal pet project.

It may be that I was not clear enough, so I'll point out what I meant. "40% on income over a certain threshold" does not mean "40% of all income". I was describing a 'marginal rate', in that up to the threshold it does not apply, and it only applies to income over that level.

So, it would be another "soak the rich" proposal? Again, I would love to see Obama take your advice. He might get less than 40% of the vote.

So, in your example (and I'm not advocating this threshold by the way), if someone n $250K now is paying 30% of their total income in taxes, that would be $75,000 now. If a 40% rate was introduced on all income over $200K, that would push it up to $80,000. A difference of $5K. That's not going to bankrupt someone on $250K. It's an effective increase of only 2% of total income.

I think you'd find most people in this range are already paying this kind of rate between all the different taxes I listed, depending on where they live. We have a very progressive tax code.

The answer, in my opinion, is to reduce rates, especially on investment, eliminate most deductions, and simplify things. Ideally, I would like to see tax accountants go out of business--that's how simple things should be.

Point being, that this will not 'stop the economy cold'. At a high enough threshold, it would barely affect most people, and barely affect the bulk of economic activity.

Where would investment come from if you soak the investor class? The ether?

Do they teach context in your public schools? This is a conversation about President Obama's speech. So, no, State taxes don't apply.

Here's my problem. When you talk about 'government' and 'taxes', it is not specific. It's ambiguous.

It's not 'me" talking. This whole conversation is about President Obama's speech and what "HE" said. He was not speaking about raising State, local, or any taxes other than Federal Income Taxes.

While there is this context, just because Obama was talking about them does not mean that the question of who pays what for what only applies at a Federal level, generaly or in his speech (did he at any time say he was excluding State level taxation or infrastructure? By including roads & teachers, I think he was actually including it). Besides, States and the Federal government do work together on infrastructure projects.

Outside the scope of his speech and not a rationale for jacking up Federal taxes, which is what he was justifying.

And again, if you want to count them, who do you suppose pays more in State and local taxes--someone who makes $250K a year or someone who makes $25K a year? You can't have it both ways by saying "someone else" (the government) builds the infrastructure and yet failing to notice that the "rich" pay by far the most to the government. They are the "someone else."

Actually, the effect of State taxes is slightly regressive. Meaning that people on low-middle incomes tend to pay more as a proportion of their income to States than the rich do.

The 'someone else' is also past taxpayers. A lot of them are dead and pay no taxes any more, and we can't go back to them, however rich they were. We who came along later emerged into a world with the infrastructure already set up. But it is not 'free'.

1. The President was not trying to justify raising State or local taxes.
2. Federal taxes are excessively progressive; nearly half pay zero Income tax.
3. Dead people can't get "paid back," which is what he was saying.
4. The rich pay more than the rest of us put together, by far, no matter how you slice it.

No, I'm saying the government has made it easier. We have spent trillions on the "War on Poverty," yet the poverty rate is essentially unchanged. Government programs have not helped.

But I think we can both agree that while the poverty rate has not changed much, the effects of poverty are much lower on people. In absolute terms, poverty is much lower. The point of welfare is not to eliminate poverty, it is to mitigate it. It is not designed to remove unemployment, but to insure people against the effects of it.

Trillions of dollars and the rate is nearly the same. The effects may be less, but not to hear liberals bewail the point.

But when you do get high rates of deep poverty, you also tend to get increased social unrest, increased crime and bigger societal problems. Especially when juxatposed with increased wealth for a few. Those are not generally desirable outcomes, and they can cause all kinds of problems (expensive ones, at times).

And, we don't--so it ain't broke.

Let's look at it from the other end of the spectrum: the poor. The infrastructure failed them, so shouldn't they get a refund? Shouldn't their teachers be imprisoned? Does the government owe them?

Why do you have to keep talking about prison?

We could argue that they are getting a refund, in Welfare.

Yup, nothing like handouts to help people.

Of course, a true meritocrat, who believed in 'equality of opportunity' would oppose inherited wealth. There are alternatives to 'the government' getting the proceeds of inheritance, by the way.

Of course there are. A person who believes in freedom, believes that the one making the money should determine what is done with it.

Btw, again, the number of "rich" who inherited their wealth is fairly paltry.

50% of the top ten is not 'paltry'.

See above. I can't even believe you would cite the 50% as if it had some value.

More businesses fail than succeed. Should the government bail them all out? Or, is the answer just to punish those who don't?

No. Not sure where I said that should happen. I was pointing out a list of the advantages that government-backed infrastructure gives to companies and people in a modern wealthy western state.

Everyone benefits; not everyone succeeds. Why not?

The answers are clear: hard work, better ideas, better choices. The key to success is NOT government, ever.

I see. Of course, even though they currently do pay more in absolute terms, they don't pay much more in relative terms. The reason they pay much more in absolute terms is that a very small proportion of the country's population controls a majority of its wealth and garners a majority of the income.

But, not to the extent where we have rioting. OWS could not even make a dent.

Your argument is that higher rates of tax than you have now will stop people becoming rich by hard work.

No, that's not my argument. I don't believe higher rates are justified, particularly when the government wastes so much of what is paid now and has made no genuine attempt to reduce spending. For that, I thank the leadership of President Obama.

You also argue that most of the rich have become so because of hard work. However, given that taxes were higher only 12 years ago, and many of the rich in society didn't just get rich in the last 12 years, could it be that tax rates under Reagan and Clinton were not actually a deterrent to the 'hard work' path?

What would you argue? That the government made people rich?

You've already seen that the vast majority do not inherit wealth, so what do YOU think makes them rich? The lottery?

Were you an American tax accountant during the Clinton and Reagan years? it's difficult to compare different climates and different laws. To simply look at the rates is simplistic and inaccurate.

I was not a tax accountant. I'm not going to pretend to have vast knowledge of the tax code or changes in it over the past 30+ years. If you want to pretend, go ahead.

President Obama made a class warfare argument. You agree with him.

I don't agree that it was 'class warfare'.

Because it's right up your alley.

On the bigger picture: OBAMA extended the rates for the rich; OBAMA said you don't raise taxes during a bad economy--that was when growth was 3x what is now.

So, why, when he knows it won't get through Congress, is he pushing this increase NOW?

Class-warfare politics. Either you know it and won't admit it, or you're so blindly in love with the man that you don't get it.

It's part of an ongoing debate about how you deal with a massive fiscal issue in the USA, and what the impact will be on a very small number of people who are best equipped to be able to handle a but of change.

But, it's a debate between Obama and Obama. He was against these tax increases before he was for them. How much will it save? The estimate is $80B for 2013. Given that Obama has racked up well over a trillion a year, is that a serious answer to our debt problem?

***Edit*** I stand corrected, President Obama's proposed increase would be $28B. That's what, maybe 3% of the deficit????

Of course, I do get to vote, just not in your country.

Well, thank you, Captain Obvious. However, since I'm most interested in my own country, this is fine with me.

Many gullible people and socialists will vote for the Man, hoping he will seize the property of the evil rich and distribute it to the good, kindly poor and middle class.

Really? A few points on very high incomes, and wanting to close loopholes is, to you, equivalent to Bolshevism?

Funny, I didn't say anything like that. For anyone who reads this, they will recognize your blatant distortion.

That's fine. He's going to lose. His speech was un-American. That's why you like it.

[/quote]I am so glad for you that in that whole post you strenuously avoided using any personal jibes against me, after to assidiously pointing out how it is wrong to do that to anyone other than the President. [/quote]

Apparently, you need another dose of Captain Obvious.

His speech was, at best, of the socialist democratic stripe. That is not the American way, or it has not been until now. We don't prize the collective; we prize the individual. We do prize the "common good," but believe that is best achieved when free individuals have the freedom to pursue their own goals, so long as those don't infringe on the rights of others.

Well, I may have skipped over a few ad hominem attacks, but hey, we know you are the 'better man' here. You would never ever 'sink' to my level, right? So, that aside...

That's a fact. What I don't do, and you can't seem to help yourself, is taking personal info and using it in a nasty way. I've said nothing about your professional experience, or your person. Your ideas are something altogether different.

You don't know that Obama will lose. He may not. Just as Ricky was premature to state categorically that Obama will win, you are to state the opposite. There's much to come in the next few months, but the incumbent has a reasonable chance of winning.

Yes, he does. However, based on the economy, he won't. Based on his arguments, he won't.. Based on Obamacare, he won't.

It's going to take a miracle.

His speech was not 'Un-American'. That phrase belongs to the McCarthy years, when people were being hounded out of their livelihoods by a politically motivated witch hunt.

Bleh. Insisting on making the rich out to be the beneficiaries of the rest of us is un-American. Class warfare is un-American. You can say whatever you want, but the idea that the successful made it on the backs of the unsuccessful is un-American.

What he's sayiing is not (as you like to imply) that he wants to take all of the rich, strip of them of all of their wealth and further 'punish' them just for being rich. He's saying that the rich should pay a slightly higher share of their wealth to keep the nation going, based on their wealth being, in some part, reliant on the things that the whole nation does. He invoked a version of the American Dream. How is that 'Un-American'?

First of all, it's false. He could get the economy going by reducing his assault on business, specifically oil and coal.

Secondly, he's changed his position for purely political reasons.

Thirdly, the amount of money he's talking about won't put a dent in the deficit. And, he's not said what the money would be used for. He knows it won't pass anyway and just wants to fire up his base.

Fourthly, as I said before, his version of the American dream is novel. I know of few who dream of being wealthy one day so they can "give back" in gratitude for the infrastructure. To put it another way, I've never heard one rich person say their motivation to succeed was in part or wholly "to give back." Now, people may want to do that as they look back, but no one is motivated by that. However, that's what he said was part of "the American dream." He's just wrong.

Why can't you just stick with not agreeing. Why do you have to use words designed to 'other' people who you disagree with?

Why does the President do it? Why does the media do it?

The President has said Romney is rich and out of touch. Many in the media have gone after Romney's religion.

So, I won't seek your forgiveness for pointing out that Obama's speech is un-American and his version of the American dream is not American either. In fact, properly analyzed, both his speech and his twist on the American dream are outside the mainstream.

And finally, I don't 'like' or 'dislike' the speech. It's just a speech. It evokes strong emotion in you, but there's no need to project. I see his arguments in context for what they are, and I dispute your scaremongering. And I am not anti-American. I like Americans (most of them). I like a lot about America. I'm not too happy about the militarism, the jingoism, the social conservatism or the delusions of grandeur, but hey, it's a nice place.

Gee thanks.

rickyp wrote:fate

I'm still waiting to hear from a liberal on what exactly is a "fair share."

Any tax rate between 1960 and 2000 would be fairer than today.

That's not an answer; it's a moving target. If we went to 2000, would that be "fair share?" If so, for how long?

During those periods, we did not have 47% paying zero income taxes. Should we raise the taxes on the poor too? If not, why not?

fate

Rubbish. The infrastructure is available to all. As I said, the infrastructure makes society possible. Without it, we're all using horses and wagons. This is just a dumb argument you/the President are making.

Yes that is the arguement he's making. Why is it dumb?

Because the infrastructure itself does not benefit only those who are hardworking and successful. Without infrastructure, you have no society--can you not read?

The only question is, who's suppossed to pay for that infrastructure? Because no one is paying the ongoing cost for that infrastructure, nor have for many years. Instead, debt has accumulated since the early 80's.

False. The government has redirected money. Where does the gas tax go? It's supposed to go to the highway fund, but it has been regularly raided. The government has chosen NOT to improve/repair the infrastructure.

Even the Great Man failed to do this. His Stimulus could have been all directed at infrastructure, was it?

It is truly unfortunate that the debate over an apprpriate tax structure and rate becomes about class war fare. But, thats not a new phenomenon.

Read carefully: class warfare is the entire purpose of the President's argument. He knows it won't pass Congress. He himself supported the Bush-Obama tax cuts two years ago. Why didn't he raise them two years ago, when the economy was much stronger (about 6% vs. less than 2%)?

What is new in the debate is the Tea Party (Libertarian) attitude toward governance and the institutions of government.

If you want to say the TEA Party is libertarian, you also have to say they are indifferent about social issues. Do you want to stipulate to that? If not, be careful how you throw around the "libertarian" tag.

"Taxed Enough Already" means just that--no more taxes. Why? Because people saw Obamacare for what it was: a series of taxes. That was long before Roberts ruled it so. Many people believe the government has to focus on its core responsibilities and cut waste.

President Obama has cut virtually nothing and can't help himself in finding new "investments."

Somehow they want to accept the notion the idea that the Gilded Age after the Civil War and before the 29 crash represented an enviable period for most Americans .

Not what anyone is saying.

If Obama's somewhat clumsy speech makes people more aware that a great society needs a great infrastructure, and that that infrastructure has to be paid for.... then its a worthwhile speech.
If detractors want to describe it as class war fare, ratehr than a debate about whats fair in taxation policy, then they've picked a particularly vulnerable candidate to fight a class war.

That's not what he said. He certainly didn't care about paying for the Stimulus, which was supposed to be for "shovel-ready" infrastructure jobs, right? If our infrastructure is crumbling, that was an ideal opportunity, wasn't it?

And Danivon, my prediction is only premature if I end up being wrong. So far, over two months have gone by, and the trajectory is about what it was when i made the prediction...

Not at all. Actually, the trajectory points toward a pretty health Romney win. Obama has brought out his best arguments against Romney, spent tens of millions advertising against him, and is in, at best, a dead heat. Furthermore, he's not at 50%, which is a very bad sign for Obama.

Krauthammer:

Obama's infrastructure argument is easily refuted by what is essentially a controlled social experiment. Roads and schools are the constant. What's variable is the energy, enterprise, risk-taking, hard work and genius of the individual. It is therefore precisely those individual characteristics, not the communal utilities, that account for the different outcomes.

But the ultimate Obama fallacy is the conceit that belief in the value of infrastructure, and willingness to invest in its creation and maintenance, is what divides liberals from conservatives.

More nonsense. Infrastructure is not a liberal idea, nor is it particularly new. The Via Appia was built 2,300 years ago. The Romans built aqueducts too. And sewers. Since forever, infrastructure has been understood to be a core function of government.

The argument between left and right is about what you do beyond infrastructure. It's about transfer payments and redistributionist taxation, about geometrically expanding entitlements, about tax breaks and subsidies to induce actions pleasing to planners.

It's about free contraceptives for privileged students and welfare without work — the latest Obama entitlement-by-decree that would fatally undermine the great bipartisan welfare reform of 1996. It's about endless government handouts that, ironically, are crowding out necessary spending on, yes, infrastructure.

What divides liberals and conservatives is not roads and bridges but Julia's world, an Obama campaign creation that may be the most self-revealing parody of liberalism ever.

This debate gets to this point: is it the State that causes or the State that permits? Is the State or the individual responsible for a person's success, health, or even birth control? The Obamavision is the State at the center of everything.

A fine summary:

Beyond infrastructure, the conservative sees the proper role of government as providing not European-style universal entitlements but a firm safety net, meaning Julia-like treatment for those who really cannot make it on their own — those too young or too old, too mentally or physically impaired, to provide for themselves.

Limited government so conceived has two indispensable advantages. It avoids inexorable European-style national insolvency. And it avoids breeding debilitating individual dependence. It encourages and celebrates character, independence, energy and hard work as the foundations of a free society and a thriving economy — precisely the virtues Obama discounts and devalues in his accounting.

Without using the phrase, Krauthammer gets to the same point I did. Obama's view is decidedly European and therefore un-American.

Apparently the New Deal was "un-American" too.

The problem with the "conservative" theory is what happens when the "average' person, as opposed to the young or the old, or the mentall y ill or physically impaired, cannot get a job? What happens when external circumstances, not under the control of the individual, make it impossible for many to get a job? The safety net is not for them?

If you look at the economy prior to 2008 it was primarily based on consumer spending--since wages for average workers was flat a lot of that spending was based on credit cards and housing equity. After 2008, credit cards and housing equity were no longer available for consumers to tap . The only way to fill that gap in demand was through government spending. (which of course was opposed by conservatives).

I just posted an article from the Economist which indicated that American firms may be adjusting to be more export-oriented, a good thing with consumer demand going to be somewhat flat for the forseeable future. For the most part, large businesses have done quite well under Obama (as evidenced by the rise in the Dow) by cutting costs (cutting labor costs) to meet that anemic demand. If you want to create more jobs, you are going to have to export something.

The government has a role in creating infrastrucuture that people can tap into. That can be roads, bridges and it can also be high speed access to the internet. Government can also spur investment into technologies (which conservatives I guess oppose). If we can gain an edge in new technologies, presumably we will able to export products made from the techonology and create new jobs.

In any case, people who are unemployed for the most part want to work--they are not simply not enough jobs. The only possible thing that the government could have done to create demand was to spend massively (and in relation to the size of the economy the stimulus plan was not enough). Therefore, there are plenty of people who are willing to work but there is simply not enough work for them and they were cut-off from unemployment. Fate is concerned about the increase in disability claims means fraud. However, people like to work and I suspect that there a lot of people in the work force who have chronic disease or injuries that could be grounds for a disability--when they are unemployed and desparate they apply for disability based on those medical conditions. It makes sense that there would an uptick in fraud based on people getting into desparate situations, but I would bet that most of the cases do not involve fraud and to the extent that they do it involves an exaggeration of a real medical condition.

The idea that we can restructure our economy within 3.5 years from one primarilriy based on consumer spending to one with more of a mixed economy seems ludicrous. And certainly just throwing cuts in tax rates does nearly nothing. How we treat our disadvantaged while we struggle to remake our economy says something about ourselves. For the conservatives, the old accusations that the poor are lazy and criminals comes out--that's sad (if you pardon my using one of Fate's favorite expressions)

freeman2 wrote:Apparently the New Deal was "un-American" too.

The problem with the "conservative" theory is what happens when the "average' person, as opposed to the young or the old, or the mentall y ill or physically impaired, cannot get a job? What happens when external circumstances, not under the control of the individual, make it impossible for many to get a job? The safety net is not for them?

Really? You have nothing to offer but straw men? Are we talking about dismantling the safety net or raising taxes on the rich?

If you look at the economy prior to 2008 it was primarily based on consumer spending--since wages for average workers was flat a lot of that spending was based on credit cards and housing equity. After 2008, credit cards and housing equity were no longer available for consumers to tap . The only way to fill that gap in demand was through government spending. (which of course was opposed by conservatives).

So, your testimony is that people were living over their heads prior to 2008? No wonder the downturn hit so hard. If you're living on credit, your days are numbered (memo to the Federal government).

The government has a role in creating infrastrucuture that people can tap into. That can be roads, bridges and it can also be high speed access to the internet. Government can also spur investment into technologies (which conservatives I guess oppose). If we can gain an edge in new technologies, presumably we will able to export products made from the techonology and create new jobs.

Conservatives oppose the "take a flyer" approach of the Obama administration. They see a company whose technology they approve of, and often whose politics they approve of (as in their bundler, Mr. Westly), and they "invest" our tax money. Sadly, the record is not so great.

In any case, people who are unemployed for the most part want to work--they are not simply not enough jobs.

Some people do. On other hand, there has been an unprecedented increase in disability claims. And, some people don't want to work, period.

The only possible thing that the government could have done to create demand was to spend massively (and in relation to the size of the economy the stimulus plan was not enough).

Not true. President Obama has strangled job growth via new regulation and new taxation (Obamacare).

Therefore, there are plenty of people who are willing to work but there is simply not enough work for them and they were cut-off from unemployment.

After a mere 99 weeks!

Fate is concerned about the increase in disability claims means fraud. However, people like to work and I suspect that there a lot of people in the work force who have chronic disease or injuries that could be grounds for a disability--when they are unemployed and desparate they apply for disability based on those medical conditions. It makes sense that there would an uptick in fraud based on people getting into desparate situations, but I would bet that most of the cases do not involve fraud and to the extent that they do it involves an exaggeration of a real medical condition.

Opinion.

The idea that we can restructure our economy within 3.5 years from one primarilriy based on consumer spending to one with more of a mixed economy seems ludicrous. And certainly just throwing cuts in tax rates does nearly nothing. How we treat our disadvantaged while we struggle to remake our economy says something about ourselves. For the conservatives, the old accusations that the poor are lazy and criminals comes out--that's sad (if you pardon my using one of Fate's favorite expressions)

Oh, Mr. Obama has restructured the economy. He's taken the legs out from it. Don't believe me?

Watch what happens within 6 months of him losing.

As for Americans seeing their financial condition decline:

The study compares the incomes of people in their 40s with the incomes of their parents at a similar age. Using income data through 2009, it found that 84 percent of Americans surpass the inflation-adjusted income their parents earned. For males, who compete with females in the workforce to a far greater extent than their fathers did, the number is 59 percent.

The rise in incomes holds across the economic spectrum. Among the poorest fifth, inflation-adjusted income grew by 74 percent, from $11,064 to $19,202. It grew even more substantially in the highest quintile but, as discussed below, the Pew study may well understate growth in the real income of the poor.

The study also shows that movement across class lines has been reasonably robust. 60 percent of children born to the richest fifth of Americans in the late 1960s fell out of that category, with 8 percent landing in the bottom fifth. 57 percent of children born into the bottom fifth moved up, and more than half of them moved into the middle fifth or higher. Overall, 70 percent of children didn’t end up in their parents’ quintile.

The study's link is at the site I linked.

First here is an article examining the study.. http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/ ... orer-poor/.

I have reservations that a study of 2,000 children of the original Pew families is going to give an accurate picture of US society as a whole. It would seem to a herculean task to find a representative sample of U.S. society. Other data out there conflicts with this information. Also there is the problem with women working more so that adds income at the expense of other priorities (if families work more they have less time with the kids, less time for leisure, etc.) The other thing is that it wealth has not increased for the average family. If people are having to spending more money on education, more money on child care, more money on car expenses, then the fact a family is making more money doesn't necessarily affect the standard of living. Your conservative website blames it on "credit cards" but this is just opinion--what we need is a more detailed analysis of family income vs. expenses. And the analysis of family income includes government assistance, which I guess counts but if the average American family needs governmental assistance to keep up income that is not good.

freeman2 wrote:First here is an article examining the study.. http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/ ... orer-poor/.

I have reservations that a study of 2,000 children of the original Pew families is going to give an accurate picture of US society as a whole. It would seem to a herculean task to find a representative sample of U.S. society. Other data out there conflicts with this information. Also there is the problem with women working more so that adds income at the expense of other priorities (if families work more they have less time with the kids, less time for leisure, etc.) The other thing is that it wealth has not increased for the average family.

Your source may or may not overstate the success of the rich--you can debate that with the link I provided which says that.

If people are having to spending more money on education, more money on child care, more money on car expenses, then the fact a family is making more money doesn't necessarily affect the standard of living. Your conservative website blames it on "credit cards" but this is just opinion--what we need is a more detailed analysis of family income vs. expenses.

Actually, it was you who blamed it on credit cards. Scroll up a couple of posts. You said the economy before 2008 was supported by credit cards and home equity loans.

Why do people have to spend more money on college? In no small measure, it's because of government involvement. Colleges would never be able to charge what they do without the government increasing demand and increasing the availability of funds for college.

Why do people spend more on childcare? Because more women are in the workforce. You can't both put that down as an expense and as a reason relative wealth may have risen, can you?

Again, I think the standard of living for the vast majority of people is a lot higher than it was 50 years ago.

And the analysis of family income includes government assistance, which I guess counts but if the average American family needs governmental assistance to keep up income that is not good.

"Needs" may or may not apply. I think there is too much help for the able-bodied. And, the President has just unilaterally removed the work requirement from Clinton's "end of welfare as we know it" bill. Congress? He don't need no stinkin' Congress!

Americans raised at the top and bottom of the income ladder are likely to remain there themselves as adults. Forty-three percent of those who start in the bottom are stuck there as adults, and 70 percent remain below the middle quintile. Only 4 percent of adults raised in the bottom make it all the way to the top, showing that the “rags-to-riches” story is more often found in Hollywood than in reality. At the other end of the ladder, 40 percent of those raised in the top stay there as adults, and 63 percent remain above the middle quintile.
This lack of relative mobility is called “stickiness at the ends” because those at the ends of the income distribution tend to be stuck there over a generation. By contrast, those raised in the middle income quintile come closer to experiencing mathematically perfect mobility, in which they are equally likely to end up in each quintile of the distribution

Fate the Pew study does support the idea that the poor are better off than they used to be...and the middle class too. But only looking at inflation adjusted income...
But it also supports the notion that there is little mobility out of the lowest quintile. (See above)

One particular problem with just looking at "inflation adjusted income" is that not all elements of a householders budget have increased at the general rate of inflation.
Specifically two important elements: Health care costs (including insurance ) and costs for higher education.

As these two elements take up a larger and larger portion of the household budget they put greater stress on the ability of a working class or middle class family to provide all of the things they got used to in their life style.
Sacrificing access to higher education for one's children will limit their chances at sustaining their class or moving up... The option of saddling a young adult with a massive debt in order to get that option is an increasingly difficult choice.

Remember that the US economy is now made up of 17% health care costs. For all kinds of reasons this is higher than any way else in the world and is a primary reason people below the top quintile feel squeezed . After all if 17%GDP is the highest in the world it means that it is narrowing the economic activity in other areas...

If the US was a corporation and one of its divisions was so inefficient that it began to affect the other divisions operations OR damaged profits of the corporation they would do take decisive action.