An example of why the wealth gap will continue to widen

Ah, but you weren't talking about that, you were discussing the very lowest class. The vast majority of ones who moved into the top 1% were already quite wealthy and in to the upper quintiles.

This does nothing to prove your idea that inequality hasn't been increasing. In fact, it would actually hurt you're whole income mobility argument because if the housing bubble would be such a big cause of it as you are implying, then it must only be a temporary high amount of mobility.

Nowhere in the report does it say that.

This is what you've been repeating the whole time, and your proof has been this one report, which I have made arguments against before. You say that inequality hasn't been decreasing because people change classes often, I show you that not many people actually go all the way to the top. You say it only takes into account income, I show you a source which shows that the wealth disparity was increasing just as well, along with income disparity.

 

The mobility is distributed frequently. The old poor move up and the old middle and 2nd highest class move up to the Top. It's not going to happen on a whim. Sometimes it does based on the activity but it's not in the blink of an eye. The rich weren't always rich, they don't always stay in the same bracket and neither does the poor. People do make it up to the Top 1 percent from the Middle or Lower Class. People start out poor and slowly become richer.

When Forbes Magazine annual list of the 400 richest people first appeared in 1982, people with inherited wealth were 21 percent of that 400. That means 4/5 of those people earned their money themselves. By 2006, fewer than 2 percent of the 400 wealthiest people on the Forbes magazine list were there because of inherited wealth.

It hasn't been increasing. The situation is merely to show how it can look like income inequality can increase. You're not tracking flesh and blood individuals, just statistical category. The poor looks stagnant because poor people become richer and the old poor makes up young people, immigrants and people entering the labor force.

The poor move up the brackets. It depends on their productivity. Anyone can own stocks. If you made a killing in the stock market you moved up to the Top 10 or Top 1 percent. If you didn't sell any stocks during that year you decreased in the brackets the next year. It all depends on how much you made in dividends.

http://www.dallasfed.org/fed/annual/1999p/ar95.pdf

Page 8

You just want to find people who make it to the top because you think that's were all the wealth is. It's not. There are only 1.1 million households in the country in the Top 1 percent. The average annual income is 1 million after taxes. Before taxes the the top 1 percent make up 2 Trillion Dollars of the Gross National Income, which only accounts for 18 percent of the national income. Wealth disparity is not increasing because you're not tracking individuals per capita income. You're just tracking statistical category.

In 2001 a household income of $84,000 was enough to put those who earned it in the top 20 percent of Americans. A couple making $42,000 each is hardly what most people would consider rich. Even to make the top 5 percent required a household income of just over $150,000. That's $75,000 for both people in a couple.

It's not the brackets, it's who comprises them.

 

Already addressed.

Irrelevant in the grand scheme of things (exception not the rule). Especially if we are talking about income mobility and not intergenerational mobility.

"You're not tracking flesh and blood individuals" Incoherent and irrevelant. If you actually read the article I linked to you before about "The United States of Inequality" you would discover that immigration can't account for much of the inequality. And yes, inequality has been rising, it is impossible to deny this, even if you add in "income mobility" into the mix, because we do not know the income mobility for years before inequality was increasing.

This has already been addressed repeatedly.

Interesting study, I think it has a lot of merit to it. I would be shocked though if (with a larger sample size of course) 29% of all of the nations lowest class in 1975 ended up in the
highest quintile by 1991. And that doesn't even take into account the quintiles within the top quintile. I'm going to guess the percentage is a lot lower for those who moved all the way to the top 1% or even top 10%.

It is where most of it is, that has been demonstrated time and time again to be true. It makes no sense, It is asinine, to claim otherwise.

Household sizes are already addressed in the article, "The United States of Inequality".

 

It is relevent because it's just one example of who comprises the brackets and how people are always moving up and down the brackets. Dispite the whole rich are getting richer and income gap increasing mantra the number of billionaires in this country declined from 500 to 434. The number of billionaires in the world declined from more than 1000 to less than 800 and the number of American Millionaires fell from 9.2 million to 6.7 million.

"Immigrants" "Young People" and "People Entering the Labor Force" account for the inequality and make up a majority of the overall lowest equintle. You're only paying attention to whatever you want to see again.

Yes we do. That's what BLS statistics are for. Why do you think people make the stupid correlation that income inequality grew the most when the 2007- 2008 economic crashed? They say that the Top 1 percent of grew the fastest but ignore the fact that housing prices were at their highest peak in 30 years. The amount of people who sold their house during that time accounted for the massive increase of the Top 1 percent. Income inequality didn't grow. The income of the Top 1 percent didn't increase. More people were just being accounted for in the Top 1 percent.

You keep referencing situations like this repeatedly.

The highest quintile is considered the Top since the tax bracket is the same. And 40 percent of the bottom income earners ended up among the highest in 1991.

That's not where the wealth is. Wealth is accumulated. The Top 1 percent just comprises of people in that tax bracket. That's income per capita. Income statistics greatly under-estimate the economic resources available to people in the lower income brackets. If you don't understand the difference then you really don't know what you're looking at when you look at tax brackets. Income inequality statistics count income before taxes and leave out both cash transfers and in-kind transfers from government. Since most of the taxes are paid by people earning above-average income and most of the income of people in the lowest income bracket comes form government transfers. Income statistics exaggerated the Top 1 percent because it doesn't account for who compresses it. Disparities between the Class A and Class B will always be greater if you exaggerate what A has and underestimate what B has.

That's all income inequality does.

You're messing the point. It still ignores that tax units which coincide with individuals and married couples are apples and orange comparisons. In most studies, tax units are often referred to loosely as "families." Couples living together and filing separately income tax returns are not two families, and to record their incomes as family incomes means artificially creating two statistical "family" averaging half the income of the real family. Your article ignores all factors which tracks individual income to see where the income gaps really are.

 

Yup, except I'm not talking about tax brackets and neither are any of the reports you cited. I'm talking about quintiles that aren't specified by the US government in the tax code.

Either way, there's no doubt that immigration contributes some to it, but it isn't the biggest factor.

False. Income inequality was growing before the housing bubble. Even if it wasn't, More people being accounted for in the top 1% doesn't negate the effects of inequality. Money is money no matter how many people hold it

I already showed you this:

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

Why do you ignore it? Taxes and transfers make a very low dent in the distribution of income, and even in accumulated wealth the gap has been growing.

 

No the Top 1 percent share of national income was fluctuating between 11 percent and 17 percent for 20 years. The highest point was the Dot Com bubble in the end of the 90s. It never went that high again until housing sales and prices started rising in 2005 at which it was 18 percent. The Bubble technically started in 2003 and the Top 1 percent share of national income has increased every year by 2 percent. Every year before that it's been fluctuating and it never went higher than 17 percent which the stock bubble popped.

I am talking about that very study.

Transfer payments make up a good portion of the income distribution. Transfer payments include taxes taken away from you and taxes given to other people. If taxes are given to other people their incomes are going to increase and your income is actually going to decrease. If taxes are taken away from people at the top and given to the people at the bottom, their share of the income is going to increase and the share of the income at the top is going to decrease.

Wages for the bottom percentage have been increasing overtime. The bottom 40 percent receive more in refundable tax credits than they actually pay in taxes. Transfer payments make up a large share of the economy. If you don't factor in transfer payments you're missing a large share of the economy.

 

*Sigh* The top 1%'s share of the national wealth increased from 20% to 38% in the period from 1979 to 1995 before the housing bubble began. You can also look at the Gini coefficient from 1980 to 1995 and and see for yourself.

Okay, now I know you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. This is all just plain conjecture and probably things you learned at your economics class. You don't have anything to pit against this particular study.

 

That's completely wrong. You're probably talking about the Top 5 percent, not top 1 percent.

Table 1C: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8885/Appendix_wtoc.pdf

I took economics so I wouldn't have to rely on studies and to give me the ability to think for myself on these matters. But you seem pretty perceptible to anything the experts spoon feed you.

​

All your study is talking about are people who receive entitlements, not benefits. Transfer payments can vary with anything, from health care benefits, real wage compensation, government subsidies to business firms. Real wages have been increasing overtime if you factor in Health Care Benefits as well as tax credits.

If you don't factor in transfer payments you're missing a large portion of the economy.

 

I was talking about wealth, not income, remember? After all, you said it yourself, that income isn't the same as total wealth. Unless you'd like to backtrack on that.

And then you come back and post information from other experts who you think back up your points. How wonderful. Hint: "Thinking for yourself" doesn't mean much if you don't have anything to back up your points.

Many people here have taken economic courses. Don't think just because you have that it makes you above everybody.

Neither of those graphs tell anything about inequality and the impact of transfer payments in the US in particular. They have an impact, but it isn't significant.

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

Second: rising wages does not mean less inequality. Surely you won't argue with that? And, transfer payments have been rising steadily for the past 50 years, yet inequality only started rising 30 years ago. Therefore, transfer payments can't make up a significant portion. Not that it matters much, but are either of those graphs adjusted for inflation? Something tells me they aren't.

 

It's not the same as wealth. Wealth is accumulated. Wealth is totally irrelevant when you're talking about who is getting richer or poorer. You can have a million dollars in the bank and still be poverty stricken simply because you make no income.

Share of Income dictates income mobility and who is getting richer. Not wealth.

I posted information from the U.S. Treasury and the Dallas Federal Reserve. What experts are you talking about? Those are not agenda based institutions.

All you have been doing was posting sources exactly the opposite.

I have statistics.

I just ran into someone who mistook Profits for Revenue. If people do have taken economic courses it was obviously a prerequisite or a requirement for a major.

Yes it does. It shows that transfer payments have sky rocketed since the 1980s. Transfer payments are an enormous pay of the economy and real wages have been increasing through transfer payments.

That's exactly what it means. If someone Per Capita income is increasing they are making more money. A person's share of income doesn't tell you anything about their condition.

Transfer payments under exaggerates the lower share of income. Transfer payments make up a large percent of the economy and inequality hasn't started rising. Less and less people were being consider poor. They were moving up to the 2nd bottom and the middle class which have been increasing.

Everything the St. Louis Economic Research Fed is adjust for inflation.

 

Oh my God, I didn't think even you would backtrack THAT far. I see that there's no point in this discussion to go any further.

So...They're not an expert if they agree with you? Wow. I don't know what you're trying to accomplish here, but thinking for yourself is pretty good, but it especially helps if you actually back up with your saying with facts. But since they're "experts" as you put it, you ignore them? That's pretty weak.

Yup, and your arguments against those sources have been weak and often without anything to back them up. And when you do choose to back your arguments up with something, they don't coincide with your specific arguments.

You're like a broken record. I've ALREADY SHOWED you that they don't make that much of a difference. If you want to disregard expert opinions simply because they are "experts", then be my guest, just don't expect me to take you seriously.

This is ridiculous. We're not talking about their condition WE'RE TALKING ABOUT INEQUALITY. Good lord.... Do you not realize that when wages are rising, that means for everybody? That the upper middle class is getting richer too? That it doesn't mean that the rich aren't getting richer.

Have you not been paying attention to my posts? I've argued against both your "income mobility" and "transfer payment" arguments MANY times, with facts to back it up, but all you can do in response to my arguments is repeat your same arguments again and again...

 

Where was the back track? You think income is the same as wealth. Income mobility accounts for who is getting richer. You have no concept of understanding mobility. You just use other people's opinions

So...They're not an expert if they agree with you? Wow. I don't know what you're trying to accomplish here, but thinking for yourself is pretty good, but it especially helps if you actually back up with your saying with facts. But since they're "experts" as you put it, you ignore them? That's pretty weak.

Name the experts I have referenced or sourced? There aren't any. All you've done was reference G. William Domhoff, who has pretty much made a career of class warfare. If you even take the time to look at his sources it's not from anything independent. It's from other class warfare books and sources.

I referenced reports from an institution, not from an expert or particular person. The US Treasury, The Dallas Federal Reserve the Congressional Budget Office and the St. Louis Federal Reserve for Economic Research.

They all coincide with my analysis.

Actually my argument is on point. They don't account or anything I have mentioned which really does account for income mobility. Assuming that you actually have taken the time to read your own data it doesn't account for anything which ignores or over exaggerate class A and under exaggerate class B.

And I already showed you that he only accounts for entitlements. Not health care benefits, subsidies or tax credits. And these aren't just my estimates. Economist like Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez pretty much concur. But if I wanted you to debate those people I'd just post their articles.

Wages have been rising for everyone. Rich and poor alike.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. Another one of those "experts" I have used.

No, fact is what I have posted. All you have done was quote people.

 

No I do not. More lying and blatant intellectual dishonesty.

So do you. I'm at least honest about that fact. We all get our info from somewhere.

Good to know you get to delegate who the "experts" are.
When you can't argue against the information, attack the messenger, right? Lol at class warfare. Class warfare eh? It's only class warfare if it hurts the poor delicate feelings of the rich, apparently.

I've already argued against your "analysis" and the (wrong) conclusions you have drawn. I'm not going to repeat myself because you keep going in circles while disregarding for my previous arguments in a blatant attempt at obfuscation.

This is the problem with you. You have a predetermined opinion in your head and you don't think you need to justify it with anything. You feel insulted when people want evidence for what you say. You just keep repeating it again and again, somehow thinking that means your argument is correct. You have some data, but just because you have data doesn't mean the conclusions you're drawing from it are right.

Seriously, you're far too stubborn. It's okay to admit that your wrong.

No you didn't. You stated an opinion with nothing to back it up.

It hasn't been equal for everybody, but thank you. Therefore, you agree with me that this data proves nothing regarding inequality because obviously if everybody's wages are rising it has a net effect of zero on wealth distribution. This is something even the least intellectually honest person should derive from this info, but I will watch how you try to create a long and complicated argument filled with vague economic terms that you hope will be able to obfuscate it properly, as you usually do.

I apologize for actually backing up my opinions. Clearly, I should be taking everything the great MissJonelyn says without question.

 

Not anymore now that you've learned the difference.

No, I get my information through statistics. You get your information through points of view.

Nope. I'm just merely saying that I can quote experts and points of view all day. We'll just have experts refute each other. In the end, the data and statistics are what shows what the reality is.

In order for their to be class warfare one has to exaggerate the net benefit for one class and net lose for another. It's pretty much why we have lies that Warren Buffet pays less taxes than his secretary. Pure exaggerate.

There are no wrong conclusions. Everyone is getting richer and wages have been increasing. People get richer or poorer depended upon their productiveness.

I have provided evidence of what I said. And I only repeat things I say WHILE elaborating with my previous point, which I have done throughout this post.

You haven't proven me wrong. You haven't provided anything of your own. All you did was just quoted other people, which I have refuted with my own statistics.

Seriously, read your own data. I have shown you that he only accounted for entitlements once already.

Transfer payments account for much more than just entitlements and it's not factored into income distribution. And I have backed up that Transfer Payments make up a large share of the economy.

​

Income increase based on productivity. It doesn't have to be equality for everyone. Capitalism rewards people who work harder, work longer hours and have a different human capital.

Nope, what you said was pretty much stupid. It's equal opportunity, not equal outcomes. Wealth is not distributed, wealth is earned and so is income. Simple enough for you?

Most cases the rich get richer but the poor gets richer faster than the rich does.

I back up my opinions with statistics. You back up your opinions with sources with self made sources. There's a difference.

 

I see this is going nowhere. Transfer payments are simply money transferred by taxes to individuals by the government. The programs he analyzed fall into that category and make up the vast majority of all transfer payments. Transfer payments ARE entitlements. Even if you add in subsidies, that in no way means that inequality has not been rising and it simply means that the government giving out subsidies is a factor in it. It doesn't dismiss the fact all together or even at all.

With that though, I'm tired of this. You just repeat the same things over and over again that I have already addressed.

Good day.

PS -WTF is a "self made source"? They're all "self made".

 

Someone finally looked up the term transfer payments.

Where does government get these payments from?

Wrong. Transfer payments are also employee benefits.

14.7% of personal income in 2004 up from 9.3% in 1980 are from Transfer payments in social security alone.

You have addressed it and I keep refuting it. I only repeat myself because you keep addressing it. If you actually had evidence to show or your own ideas we'd actually be getting somewhere.

[/QUOTE]

Not really. A source is self made if I create it myself. Nothing I have created was self made. G. William Domhoff creates his own sources.

 

Already knew it, but thanks for playing. I wasn't sure if you yourself knew it since you were so adamant about private wages being transfer payments.

Proof that employee benefits are magically remove the effects of inequality?

Employee benefits in the US haven't exactly been on the rise.

Already not shown to make a huge difference in inequality.

And your source from the Dallas Federal reserve was self made by the Dallas Federal reserve. Ta da! And no he doesn't, if you bothered to look you would see that he cited several studies.

 

I specifically outline were transfer payments were any how the worked in this post.

http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...h-gap-will-continue-widen-19.html#post4513635

Employee benefits are merely wages paid in benefits by employers which don't go de

Nope all you did was just quote someone who said they it doesn't. It actually does.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6863

The first "expert" I've actually quoted all day.

 

Yes, but we were discussing private wages as it relates to transfer payments, remember? How can that be a transfer payment if transfer payments are payments given by a government to an individual?

Thanks for this, wish you would have posted it earlier, would have saved a lot of time. I apologize for any frustration that might have been unwarranted, but it annoys me when people don't put the information out there.

What makes you think he's any more of an "expert" then anybody else? Because he writes for CATO?

At any rate, never mind the fact that he barely mentions transfer payments, Reynolds has been found wrong on a number of counts:

http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/answer-WSJreynolds.pdf
http://www.cato-unbound.org/2007/02/11/mark-a-thoma/yes-virginia-income-inequality-is-still-rising/

Some of the reporting issues can be attributed to problems with top-coding.