User Tag List

First 2345 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 43

  1. #31
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    The idea of ending income inequality through redistribution of wealth is both a vile notion and a stupid one.
    Then why does it seem to work so well in many other countries?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    In any merit-based system of economics, you're going to have a distribution of abilities in the work force. Some will possess abilities that demand higher wages. For instance, someone like Lebron James will and should make more money than the guy selling hotdogs, because his ability brings in the customers. The lefty seeks to eliminate that natural and fair inequity through confiscatory policies such as luxury taxes, death taxes, progressive taxes, and the minimum wage. What happens when the lefty politician passes a luxury tax on yachts and rolexes? That was done in 1991 when Bush, Sr. reneged on his campaign promise and the lefties passed a 10% luxury tax; over a period of three years, 9400 boat makers lost their jobs because the rich folks stopped buying those products..
    Sweden, Germany, New Zealand, Australia and Denmark have higher taxes than the U.S and their fair share of lefty policies you're describing. How is that possible?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    What about the minimum wage? Milton Friedman called it the most anti-black law in the books because it leads to higher unemployment in black communities, teenagers, and the poor. When you raise the minimum age, you reduce the amount of capital that business owners have to hire workers. If the minimum wage is $10/hour and you have a choice between a college kid or some teenager, you're going to give the job to the college kid because you'll probably get more out of the college kid. If the minimum wage were $5/hour, you'd be able to hire both. Oh, I was wrong about the $13/hour figure for Detroit. It must've been some proposal and not the actual minimum wage.
    As I said, the minimum wage increases unemployment more so than productivity.



    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    Every quintile saw their income increase under Reagan.
    Yet the highest income quintiles achieved a much greater increase in income and that empowered them to lobby the government. In return, the government enacted policies that rigged the game in favor of the corporations and it continues to do so. The recent episode was the one where the pharmaceutical oligopolies were given the opportunity to charge the maximal prices for drugs and increase the barriers to entry that way. Now, they're trying to increase the barriers to entry in the internet and telephone industry.



    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    Supply siders like free trade. It is a good thing that Walmart saves the consumer thousands of dollars each year by selling cheap products from China.
    At the cost of flooding the markets with sub-standard products that often end up in landfills, even Wal-Mart often can't sell many of their commodities and finds itself unlawfully jettisoning toxic waste into the natural environment. See, Charles Fishman's "The Wal-Mart effect" http://www.amazon.com/Wal-Mart-Effec...2C+on+Wal-Mart.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    The competition between large corporations and small businesses is healthy.
    I agree, but deregulation eliminates competition by enabling large corporations to overtake small businesses.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  2. #32
    deplorable basketcase Tellenbach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    3,953

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker
    Then why does it seem to work so well in many other countries?
    Which nation has successfully ended income inequality?

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker
    Sweden, Germany, New Zealand, Australia and Denmark have higher taxes than the U.S and their fair share of lefty policies you're describing. How is that possible?
    The US has the highest or 2nd highest corporate tax rate in the world. Germany's corporate tax rate is 29.8% and Sweden's is 22% while the US corporate tax rate is 39%. The US individual income tax rate maxes out at 59.6% while Australia's is 45% and Denmark's is 51.7%. All of these countries tax way too much. What we should really be looking at is what happens when tax rates are cut. Significant tax cutting occured 4 times in the last century in the US: Harding/Coolidge, JFK, Reagan, and G.W. Bush. After each episode, the US economy grew and people got richer. When these policies are reversed, we enter into recessions (with Hoover, with Nixon,Carter, and with Obama).
    Senator Rand Paul is alive because of modern medicine and because his attacker punches like a girl.

  3. #33
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    Which nation has successfully ended income inequality?
    None, but wealth inequality is much lower in those countries than it is in the United States.



    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    Significant tax cutting occured 4 times in the last century in the US: Harding/Coolidge, JFK, Reagan, and G.W. Bush. After each episode, the US economy grew and people got richer.
    Cite some findings for this please, I was under the impression that these tax-cuts benefited the rich far more so than all other strata of society. I'd like to see some evidence to the contrary, especially if it includes statistics on inflation-adjusted incomes.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  4. #34
    deplorable basketcase Tellenbach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    3,953

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker
    None, but wealth inequality is much lower in those countries than it is in the United States.
    This is where supply-siders and lefties differ. I don't mind income inequality since it's natural and inevitable in every merit based economics system. What's more important is the availability of opportunity and growing prosperity. Yes, the rich got richer under Reagan but so did everyone else, so what's the problem? If everyone is better off, but some become super wealthy, how does that negatively impact the poor person? It doesn't. As I've said earlier, the lefty errs by equating money with happiness when he should really be looking at factors that limit opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker
    Cite some findings for this please, I was under the impression that these tax-cuts benefited the rich far more so than all other strata of society.
    That's true. The rich did benefit more, but everyone benefited. When Hoover, FDR, Nixon, LBJ, and Carter reversed those supply-side policies, we got recessions. Hoover engaged in bailouts and inflated wages; FDR started a trade war by raising tariffs; Carter set price controls for oil; and LBJ wasted trillions in his war on poverty. There is no reason for us to repeat any of these mistakes.
    Senator Rand Paul is alive because of modern medicine and because his attacker punches like a girl.

  5. #35
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    If everyone is better off, but some become super wealthy, how does that negatively impact the poor person?
    According to the statistics you cited earlier, the Median household income only increased by $4000 in the eight years Reagan was in office. According to the same source you cited, the inflation rate stayed well above 5% each year he was in office. Thus, to retain the same purchasing power would need to increase their income by over $14,000! The problem is that the wages of the ordinary citizens were not growing nearly fast enough to keep up with inflation

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    What's more important is the availability of opportunity and growing prosperity. Yes, the rich got richer under Reagan but so did everyone else, so what's the problem?
    The lack of opportunity for most citizens is the problem. As I've explained in my first reply to you, the absence of social welfare programs that the European citizens take for granted makes it much more difficult for an average American to achieve upward socio-economic mobility. The lower he is in our socio-economic hierarchy, the more difficult it will be for him to be more financially well off than his parents. It is a well-documented fact that upward mobility has been declining precipitously in the United States and the U.K since the early 80s.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/us...anted=all&_r=0

    Quote Originally Posted by Jason DeParle with the New York Times
    But many researchers have reached a conclusion that turns conventional wisdom on its head: Americans enjoy less economic mobility than their peers in Canada and much of Western Europe.
    This makes sense to me, most members of the lower and the middle class simply find it too difficult to simultaneously work 50-60 hours per week to put food on the table and devote another 20-40 hours on trade school, the university or any other activity that would enable them to lay down the foundations of their career. On the other hand, the underprivileged citizens of Germany, Canada, Australia and Switzerland are paid much more than their American counterparts and receive the needed training at a fraction of the cost. For example, students in Germany can often cover their tuition with just a couple thousand Euros each year. I know quite a few Canadians college kids who paid their entire tuition working a part time minimum wage job earning over $9 per hour. That is unheard of in the United States and our collective student debt is comparable to our national debt. Now do you see why the "availability of opportunity" you talk about is not quite there?
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  6. #36
    deplorable basketcase Tellenbach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    3,953

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker
    Thus, to retain the same purchasing power would need to increase their income by over $14,000! The problem is that the wages of the ordinary citizens were not growing nearly fast enough to keep up with inflation
    I'm pretty sure those figures have been adjusted for inflation, but I'll go back to the original source (later this week) to confirm.

    As I've explained in my first reply to you, the absence of social welfare programs that the European citizens take for granted makes it much more difficult for an average American to achieve upward socio-economic mobility. The lower he is in our socio-economic hierarchy, the more difficult it will be for him to be more financially well off than his parents. It is a well-documented fact that upward mobility has been declining precipitously in the United States and the U.K since the early 80s.
    Under Reagan, 80% in the bottom quintile rose to a higher quintile; that's significant upward mobility. I also don't see the connection between upward mobility and social welfare programs since the poverty rate has only decreased 2% despite the US spending $15 trillion since LBJ to fight poverty. Also, under Obama, we've doubled the number of food stamp recipients and drastically increased the welfare state; by your reasoning and Nancy Pelosi's, we should be seeing significant upward mobility, but instead the labor participation rate is at a 50 year low.

    The true factors that promote economic opportunity are less regulations and less taxation. Lefty policies like their war on fossil fuels, the minimum wage, high corporate tax rates, and Obamacare all limit opportunities.
    Senator Rand Paul is alive because of modern medicine and because his attacker punches like a girl.

  7. #37
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    I'm pretty sure those figures have been adjusted for inflation, but I'll go back to the original source (later this week) to confirm.
    I pressed control F on that document and searched for "adjusted" and nothing came up.



    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    Under Reagan, 80% in the bottom quintile rose to a higher quintile; that's significant upward mobility.
    I didn't see that in the document you cited, where are you getting these figures from?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    I also don't see the connection between upward mobility and social welfare programs since the poverty rate has only decreased 2% despite the US spending $15 trillion since LBJ to fight poverty.
    What's your source? This Wikipedia report provides dramatically different figures. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Society

    Quote Originally Posted by Wikipedia, on the Great Society
    One of Johnson's aides, Joseph A. Califano, Jr., has countered that "from 1963 when Lyndon Johnson took office until 1970 as the impact of his Great Society programs were felt, the portion of Americans living below the poverty line dropped from 22.2 percent to 12.6 percent, the most dramatic decline over such a brief period in this century."
    As maligned as Wikipedia is, studies confirmed the majority of its factual claims tend to be accurate.

    http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  8. #38
    deplorable basketcase Tellenbach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    3,953

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker
    I didn't see that in the document you cited, where are you getting these figures from?
    "Figure 12 shows that 86 percent of households that were in the poorest income quintile in 1980 had moved up the economic ladder to a higher income quintile by 1990."

    It's from the same link I posted on page 2.

    What's your source? This Wikipedia report provides dramatically different figures.
    "In 1964, the poverty rate was about 19 percent. Census data from 2010 indicates that 15.1 percent are in poverty within a much larger population."

    The 2010 figure is 15.1%; it's higher today.

    "A policy analysis by the Cato Institute found that federal and state anti-poverty programs have cost $15 trillion over the last five decades but have had little effect on the number of people living in poverty. That amounts to $20,610 per poor person in America, or $61,830 per poor family of three."

    Source: The War on Poverty at 50

    As maligned as Wikipedia is, studies confirmed the majority of its factual claims tend to be accurate.
    If you look at a 7 year slice, you'll get a different picture, but today, we're at about 2% lower while having spent $15 trillion. Unacceptable and ridiculous waste of resources.
    Senator Rand Paul is alive because of modern medicine and because his attacker punches like a girl.

  9. #39
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    "Figure 12 shows that 86 percent of households that were in the poorest income quintile in 1980 had moved up the economic ladder to a higher income quintile by 1990."
    Interesting, but this boils down to the question of inflation adjusted wages. Would living in a higher quintile in 1985 entitle you to a better quality of life than living in a lower quintile in 1980? That is not clear.

    It's from the same link I posted on page 2.





    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    If you look at a 7 year slice, you'll get a different picture, but today, we're at about 2% lower while having spent $15 trillion. Unacceptable and ridiculous waste of resources.
    According to the source I cited, we're four percent lower. Prior to the Great Society Reforms, the poverty level was at 19% and in the 1950s, it was well over 20%. Although these improvements came at a high cost, the reduction in poverty rates were significant. Abolishing the social welfare programs will increase the poverty rate again: the underprivileged simply won't be in the position to take advantage of the majority of new opportunities that the markets will offer.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  10. #40
    deplorable basketcase Tellenbach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    3,953

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker
    Interesting, but this boils down to the question of inflation adjusted wages.
    Here's the quote from Art Laffer's book "The End of Prosperity", page 112:

    "The liberals like to play a trick with the income numbers by stating that from 1978 to 1989 real average income of poor households took a nosedive. But from 1979 to 1981 the Reagan tax cuts were not in effect. In those Carter years family income for the poorest fifth of households plummeted from $9,650 to $8,906. But after the Reagan tax cuts, the income of the poorest fifth rose to $9,431. (All these numbers are adjusted for inflation.)"

    I don't think anyone can seriously argue that Carter's policies were better than Reagan's policies. Obama's policies are unfortunately a reversal of Reagan's policies and that's why we're seeing a stagnant economy.
    Senator Rand Paul is alive because of modern medicine and because his attacker punches like a girl.

Similar Threads

  1. MBTI Type and I.Q.
    By RansomedbyFire in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 1059
    Last Post: 08-20-2017, 08:04 AM
  2. MBTI Types and Guitar Learning Styles: My Observations
    By simulatedworld in forum Academics and Careers
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 07-21-2012, 08:42 PM
  3. Replies: 26
    Last Post: 12-02-2008, 01:28 PM
  4. Your MBTI type and your Socionics type
    By 527468 in forum Socionics
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 11-28-2008, 04:03 PM
  5. MBTI type and Hypnotizability
    By Usehername in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02-20-2008, 02:05 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO