- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Republicans Need To Start Acting Like Adults, And Embrace Income Inequality
Posted on 1/28/14 at 7:57 pm to Cockopotamus
Posted on 1/28/14 at 7:57 pm to Cockopotamus
quote:Cockopotamus, you would do far better listening, inquiring, & learning more, while assuming/asserting less. As you mature, you'll wish you had some of these opportunities back.
They both fall under the umbrella of economic inequality dumbass
In some cases there is a GARGANTUAN disconnect between wealth and income (at least taxable income). Having been on both sides of the equation, I can personally attest to the difference. Trust me, wealth trumps income in a big way.
1
Posted on 1/28/14 at 8:03 pm to VOR
quote:No doubt, Einstein would suffer in the shadow of your legal expertise VOR. Not kidding.
You make me blush when you compare me to Einstein. But thanks.
ETA: FWIW, I'd certainly say the same of a few other lawyers here too btw.
This post was edited on 1/28/14 at 8:07 pm
Posted on 1/28/14 at 8:08 pm to NC_Tigah
To say income and wealth aren't correlated is beyond dumb and to say income and wealth inequality don't both refer to economic inequality is just wrong
Posted on 1/28/14 at 8:09 pm to LSURussian
quote:
LSURussian
So you're implying that it is somehow beneficial?
Please, enlighten me
Posted on 1/28/14 at 8:24 pm to Cockopotamus
quote:Alright you clueless dumbass,
To say income and wealth aren't correlated is beyond dumb
I've tried to be civil.
I have,
but at this stage I'll ask more capable posters to compare a multiBILLIONAIRE who over the course of his 80yrs of life not only makes no money, but loses $1Mn/yr.
No income.
NONE!
ZIP!
NADA!
Now then, let's discuss your idiotic misperceptions , dumbass.
Posted on 1/28/14 at 8:27 pm to Cockopotamus
quote:Run away!
Cockopotamus
This post was edited on 1/29/14 at 5:48 am
Posted on 1/28/14 at 9:08 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
I've tried to be civil.
If you really think you tried to be civil then I pity your idea of it and those that have to deal with you irl.
Posted on 1/28/14 at 9:35 pm to deltaland
quote:
I agree that there must be a strong middle class filling in the gap between the low income group and the wealthy.
The problem is Obama touts income inequality as a problem, yet his administrations policies just make the problem worse.
Fed QE monetary policy artificially drives up the stock market. Wall street gets richer, while the spending power of the low income people is reduced, due to inflation. Rich get richer, poor get more welfare. Middle class is squeezed with higher taxes and inflation.
Taxing the rich more creates a negative attitude for company expansion, or causes outsourcing of jobs, or fleeing the country for more business friendly environments. Same effect with the over regulation of business. This leads to jobs lost. More people fall out of the middle class and into poverty.
This is where the high rate of income inequality has come from. Current policy is destroying the middle class...rich people aren't investing money in businesses, they are hoarding their money.
The only way to fix it is not by increasing minimum wage, nor taxing the rich, etc. It's by creating a more business friendly policy through deregulation and lowering taxes.
To attack the inequality issue, you have to do things that give low income people opportunity to find work, and move up. You can't bring down the top earners, but rather you have to bring up the bottom earners, and that is through creating opportunity, not handouts.
it really says something about this group of Obama/de Blasio/Warren - era progressives when a random message board poster is more enlightened than our elected "leaders."
wish more of the electorate couldn't grasp common fricking sense like this. it's there in black and white for anyone who can get away from their own self-importance long enough to embrace it. ditto for the green crowd. intellectually bankrupt populist ideology is handcuffing the country and hurting the less fortunate.
Posted on 1/28/14 at 11:47 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
Whether you agree with the proposed solutions or not, doesn't it bother you that we do make less now than we did 30 years ago?
Is that not a problem?
We work longer hours than ever (I think).
And as conservative as I might lean, there is a moral problem when CEOs of companies that have to lay off thousands of employees still find enough money in their coffers to pay the big wigs millions upon millions.
Chase laid off 7,500 people in 2013 but found enough room to give Jamie Dimon $20 million? That bothers me.
Is that not a problem?
We work longer hours than ever (I think).
And as conservative as I might lean, there is a moral problem when CEOs of companies that have to lay off thousands of employees still find enough money in their coffers to pay the big wigs millions upon millions.
Chase laid off 7,500 people in 2013 but found enough room to give Jamie Dimon $20 million? That bothers me.
Posted on 1/29/14 at 12:24 am to Cockopotamus
(no message)
This post was edited on 1/30/14 at 7:02 pm
Posted on 1/29/14 at 12:38 am to bigblake
Why do we give a frick how we compare to other countries? How do we compare to ourselves 30 years ago? Can a middle class family live on 1 income like the good ole days? Has purchasing power decreased?
Posted on 1/29/14 at 12:44 am to ocelot4ark
quote:
We work longer hours than ever (I think).
Way more productive as well
And iirc the major reason household median income is higher than hourly wages is because more women entered the work force, therefore increasing the income a single household with two working parents earns
Posted on 1/29/14 at 1:02 am to ocelot4ark
(no message)
This post was edited on 1/30/14 at 7:02 pm
Posted on 1/29/14 at 1:08 am to bigblake
quote:
Income inequality is not bad from an economic standpoint
quote:
For two decades after 1960, real incomes of the top 5 percent and the remaining 95 percent increased at almost the same rate: 4 percent a year for those at the top, and 3.9 percent for everyone else. But incomes diverged between 1980 and 2007, with those at the bottom seeing annual increases of 2.6 percent, while income growth for the top 5 percent accelerated to 5 percent a year.
For decades, households at the bottom compensated for that by increasing household debt, which kept consumption — and the broader economy — growing even as interest rates were low and inflation was in check. The paper says the debt-to-income ratio rose nearly 12 times as much for those at the bottom as for those at the top between 1980 and 2007.
quote:
Traditional economic theory holds that during lean times, people draw down on savings or increase debt to sustain their lifestyles. But in the case of the last recession, people in the bottom 95 percent were already tapped out from years of debt-fueled consumption, leaving them with next to nothing to draw on or borrow.
And now, nearly five years into the recovery, the top 5 percent are back to normal, consuming as they did before the downturn. But everyone else is still hurting, and their consumption levels are far below what they had maintained for nearly two decades before the downturn, the paper says.
That is a big problem for the larger economy. Those tapped-out consumers represent about half of the nation’s overall economic activity. With them financially shackled, slow overall growth is all that can be expected, the paper argues.
Again, its extreme income inequality that is bad. Income inequality is always going to exist and is a good thing as it provides incentives and what not.
If you think the top 5 percent can make up for nearly half of the economy then I can understand why you're not concerned. Color me skeptical though
quote:
"Income" is the cause, "Wealth" is the effect.
Watch out- NC Tigah is gonna lose his mind.
I only said there was a correlation between the two. You straight up said theres a cause and effect between income and wealth. NC Tigah may just show up at your house to yell at you in person
Posted on 1/29/14 at 1:17 am to bigblake
quote:
Yes a middle class family can live on 1 income
Healthcare and education costs have drastically increased since the 60-70s. When you factor in that most households no longer have just one or two cars but 3 or 4 for mom and dad to both get to work and the kids to get to school gasoline expenses have increased as well. Not to mention that car payments have increased since more cars are required.
Considering what a middle class household got for one income in 60s-70s and what it get for two incomes now its not a favorable comparison.
I've actually never heard anybody try and claim the middle class now is better off than it was pre 1980.
Posted on 1/29/14 at 1:31 am to Cockopotamus
(no message)
This post was edited on 2/25/14 at 12:46 am
Posted on 1/29/14 at 1:36 am to Cockopotamus
(no message)
This post was edited on 2/25/14 at 12:46 am
Posted on 1/29/14 at 1:53 am to bigblake
School buses don't run for extra curricular activities.
And it better illustrates that middle class families have less disposable income/savings now than they did in the 60/70s.
And it better illustrates that middle class families have less disposable income/savings now than they did in the 60/70s.
Posted on 1/29/14 at 1:56 am to Cockopotamus
(no message)
This post was edited on 2/25/14 at 12:46 am
Posted on 1/29/14 at 2:00 am to bigblake
quote:
Why not use 5-6 then, since it better illustrates the less disposable income. I personally prefer to look at reality, which would be 2 in most cases.
Well most middle class family own more than two cars. Hence the three or four
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News