Unemployment rate hits 5-month high
POSTED BY: FellowTraveler
UPDATED: Wednesday, August 9, 2006 21:39
VIEWED: 7321
PAGE 10 of 11
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
And here is a whole site dedicated to exploring income inequality. I found this article especially interesting. What I gather from this article is that the overall history of the United States from its agragrian roots was that of relative wealth EQUALITY up until 1916. http://benmuse.typepad.com/ben_muse/income_wealth_distribution/index.h
tml
Hmm. I got a whole 'nother take from it. Looking at the charts in the 'Trends in Wealth Distribution' and 'Being Rich Isn't What It Once Was' articles, I see that the top 1% held 28% of the wealth in 1869, there was an increase to almost 40% during the 1920s, and a decline to slightly above 20% where we are now.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No, I very clearly said "What happens when..." without ever implying that any economy achieved that state. I also said in several following posts that it was HYPOTHETICAL. I'm beginning to wonder if you know what "hypothetical" means. It's a thought experiment. And sometimes the best way to figure out what happens next is to think about a process at the extreme. That's what I did.
It was hypothetical. I picked the numbers to force people to consider what happens at the end-state of capital concentration- Signy
So you lied. Okay.-Geezer
---------------------------------
Economics is never simple. It's always mixed with politics.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The chart you're referring to is "wealth", not "income", and it seems like it should be referring to the same thing but it isn't. It's part of a larger discussion about the shift at the top from assest ownership to "income". That is reflected by a shift to multi-hundred-million-dollar salaries and bonuses.
Hmm. I got a whole 'nother take from it. Looking at the charts in the 'Trends in Wealth Distribution' and 'Being Rich Isn't What It Once Was' articles, I see that the top 1% held 28% of the wealth in 1869, there was an increase to almost 40% during the 1920s, and a decline to slightly above 20% where we are now.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Slick,
You seem to think the estate tax is going to cut into 'everyman's' inheritance. There are many mechanisms for wealth-transfer (including trust funds), inheritance is only one of them.
When it comes to estate tax, looking through your table, estates worth 1 - 2.5M (within range of the well-to-do middle class) had total assets of ~70M and total deductions of ~87M. I can see they are HARD hit by the estate tax. 
So, assuming that hardworking people who've managed to accummulate an ~2.5M estate will owe no tax:
WHAT WERE YOUR OBJECTIONS AGAIN?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Slick,
http://www.chicagofed.org/publications/workingpapers/wp2005_10.pdf
This reference shows that 1% of the US holds 1/3 of US wealth AS OF 2001. Since then, wealth disparity has grown.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
No, I very clearly said "What happens when..." without ever implying that any economy achieved that state.
"What happens when the top 0.1% control 90% of the money? Who do they sell to? The abysmally poor? By eliminating most people from consumption, you have just caused the economy to grind to a halt. that's what happened in the many depressions before the Great Depression, and in the Great Depression itself.
You used the ".1% controls 90%" as an example of what causes depressions. You obviously had the correct figures, based on the links you provided, and could have used them. Instead, you made something up and represented it as the case which caused depressions in the past.
Call it a lie, call it spin, call it propaganda; You knowingly provided invalid information to support your argument. Now that I'm aware that you do this, I'll just have to be more thorough in checking your claims.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
http://www.chicagofed.org/publications/workingpapers/wp2005_10.pdf
This reference shows that 1% of the US holds 1/3 of US wealth AS OF 2001. Since then, wealth disparity has grown.
Hmm. It disagrees a bit with some of the sources whaich SignyM provided. Perhaps different models provide different results. So we have a range between 22% and 33%. Rich people have more money. I know this. What's your point?
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Oh- I see. That was badly written on my part. The first part of the para was meant as a thought experiment on what happens when money is concentrated... basically reduction of purchasing power. The second part of the para is an application of that concept to the cause of depressions. I wasn't trying to tie the two parts together in a quantitative way... what I should have said was What happens when the top 0.1% control 90% of the money? Who do they sell to? The abysmally poor? By eliminating most people from consumption, you have just caused the economy to grind to a halt. Without reaching those extremes of inequality that's what happened in the many depressions before the Great Depression, and in the Great Depression itself. I didn't put that separator in. Wasn't my intention to mislead.
What happens when the top 0.1% control 90% of the money? Who do they sell to? The abysmally poor? By eliminating most people from consumption, you have just caused the economy to grind to a halt. that's what happened in the many depressions before the Great Depression, and in the Great Depression itself
But the interesting thing is my misphrasing sort of shot my case in the foot and your correction bolstered my point by making it obvious that depressions are triggered even under more "normal" circumstances. So, thanks for catching that poor wording.
Quote:I think it goes back to MY point that monetary (wealth or income... it's been variously argued) inequality stagnates the economy.
Hmm. It disagrees a bit with some of the sources whaich SignyM provided. Perhaps different models provide different results. So we have a range between 22% and 33%. Rich people have more money. I know this. What's your point?
And that's why I keep going back to what the different portions of that bill are "worth" and what their probable effect might be. Because it does no good (economically-speaking) equalizing the economy on the one hand if on the other you make it even more disparate. Back of the envelope calcuations seem to indicate that about $390 billion will go to wealthier people and create an equivalent deficit because it comes out of Federal moneys. This does several things:
It sequesters about $270 billion (if I recall correctly) with the wealthy, who generally do not add as much to aggregate demand.
It creates a deficit, which has the effect of raising interest rates, which makes money less vailable to the people who need to borrow to purchase homes, cars etc. (And if you think rising interest rates can't shake an economy, just keep an eye out over the next couple of years.)
It may cause various welfare programs (transfers of money to the less wealthy) to be cut.
OTOH, let's look at the opposite side of the bill- the increase in minimum wage. My best estimate is that is will increase aggregate purchasing power by about $100 billion over ten years.
That will increase Federal income by some amount... but not enough to offset the estate tax loss.
It will also reduce the demand for money and reduce interest rate pressure- but again, not as much as the projected deficit.
So in the end I'm not sure that the increasing the minimum wage is "worth" losing the estate tax, economically speaking.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Slick,
Quote:It seemed to be an issue for you as you brought it up here with (nearly) the same figures:
Rue
This reference shows that 1% of the US holds 1/3 of US wealth AS OF 2001.
Slick
Rich people have more money. I know this. What's your point?
Quote:
Slick
And don't forget that the folks who earn more money pay more taxes. The top 1% of taxpayers (taxable income over about $300,000.00) already pay 34% of all income taxes ($256 billion in 2003).
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html
But in general, my points are that the rich don't need the tax break.
It's not just a 'little' federal income lost.
And it's not an even trade like you keep saying.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME