Why have the rich gotten richer?

No, I don't think you can.

I posted a link, as well in post 73. I even gave a brief description of how it works. And not just some stupid link, but one by MIT that explains exactly how it works.

You didn't bite on that one, so....

 

Precisely. And inequality exploded.

 

It is the nature of the system that the rich steal more and more unless the mugs fight back, rather than vote for a senile buffoon as a gesture.

 

??? First, 1970 was not the lowest part of the chart. 1953 is lower, and probably 1944 as well. Second, that insignificant 1% blip from 1970 to 1971 was followed by 10 years where the inequality ratio remained in the same 32-35% range where it had been for 40 years. There was no significant growth in inequality starting in 1971. I don't know what you are talking about.

In the 10 years from 1981 to 1991, inequality grew by 6 percentage points to levels it had not been at since the 1930s. Are you trying to argue that the blip in 1970 is equivalent to what happened in 1981?

Minor changes can happen for a variety of reasons. But there isn't any significant change in inequality for 40 years until 1981.

But sure, tell us why you think there was an insignificant blip in 1970. Then you can share with us your explanation of why we saw a blips up in 1947, 1950, 19653, 1957, 1960, 1962, 1963, 1966, and 1967, and blips down in the other years.

 

There was no "explosion" in inequality in 1971. I appreciate some like to blame the Fed for every perceived ill in the economy, but if that is your mantra, it helps if you at least do it when there are actual facts that fit your ideology.

 

Inequality was trending down from 1968 through 1970. But in 1971, the trend reverses, and since then inequality has skyrocketed. What happened in 1971 that reveresed the trend towards equality?

 

Either...

Tax should be fair. Equal.

No person should pay a single £ more or less than another person.


Or.... people should pay for their services at the point of use.
So you pay only for what you use.

 

So the "to the gov-edu-union-contractor-grantee-trial lawyer-MSM Complex" is what caused inequality to skyrocket in 1981? Okay ....

Relative to their income they do not.

SS (12.4% total tax, half paid directly from the employer half withheld) is capped at only $127k of income. Any income over than is not subject to the tax. A working guy making $20,000 is paying the full 12.4%. A guy making $20,000,000 is paying .0124%, and insignificant fraction of his income.

Furthermore, wealthy folks living off investment income pay -zero- FICA taxes.

FICA taxes along with income taxes are by far the biggest federal tax revenue items. In 2016, FICA taxes were $1,115B of tax revenues while income taxes were $1,546B. But FICA taxes are extremely regressive, and impose a far higher burden on middle income people than the wealthy. That is why, when conservatives post data purportedly showing the wealthy pay a disproportionate share of the taxes, they almost always only show data from income taxes, and not FICA taxes.

Ah. It was the release of MS-DOS that caused income inequality to explode in 1981. Nevermind that only a tiny fraction of households had computers in 1981, (and half them probably didn't know how to use it!)

Apologists for the richest get so agitated when data is produced showing that the bottom 90% of working Americans have not shared in the growth of income and wealth they helped create since 1981, and it is suggested that they should.

 

I appreciate your "Fed is responsible for everything bad that has ever happened economically" ideology, but your claims are not supported by data on the chart as I have pointed out multiple times now. The fact that you totally dodged my question bears that out.

Others can make their own determinations.

 

Have The Blind got Blinder

 

So in your view it is fair that a guy making a 100 million pays $20k in taxes and a guy making $20k pays $20k in taxes?

Sure, I'll buy everyone paying the same amount in taxes would be fair, if we make everyone's income equal too. Fair's fair.

 

Putting more and more of the nation's income in the pockets of the wealthy hasn't proved to be a very effective economic growth inducer.

 

You're explanation is not consistent with the chart. Inequality is going down prior to 1971 and then reverses itself and starts to rise. It's right there.

Also, why do you point to 1981 when, according to your chart, inequality was rising well before then?

 

The rich "own" the politicians and media and the industrial part of the military-industrial complex. What more do you need to know in order to understand the 'rich getting richer' concept? The left have a right to complain about it. If the right isn't joining them in protest then it is about time that they do ....... they are both getting screwed by the rich.

 

Thanks for sharing your opinions. I disagree that the data in the chart is consistent with your assertions for reasons I've explained multiple times. Others can decide for themselves.

 

Yep, the chart speaks for itself. The trend toward equality reverses in 1971. People can decide for themselves.

 

The serious answer is that there are winners and losers, both self made- and the current crop of winners are very good. They recognize that opportunity is everywhere, and they are making the most of it.

The popular answer is that "You have to have money to make money and the rich are hogging it all which is why I'm not rich.... "

The difference in the two is how they think.
One thinks of themselves as winners, and enable their power and ability.
The others think of themselves as losers, AKA victims, and disable their power and ability

 

I will agree that extreme income inequality is a danger. Especially as extreme wealth equals extreme political power. On the other hand, such wealth is rarely accumulated illegimately. How would a society remedy this? Can we justify forcible confiscation?

I submit that campaign finance reform, and political lobbying reform, and reform of PAC financing rules would be a better place to put our focus.

 

Why? The dismantling of the FDR economic model which allowed for the scheme of open borders free trade slave labor globalism to replace what the founders put into place, and which made america great in the first place. It is as simple as that. Our economy now serves only the elites. Not america, nor her population. If the only goal is to max out profits at any and all costs, there is a cost involved. Someone will have to save capitalism once again, at some point. Unless you want an america that looks like Chicago and their problem with criminality and killing. Or the return of people demanding socialism so they can just eat. To bring this madness to an end, would be helped out by the GOP getting rid of, or shrinking welfare spending, and other social safety nets. America is headed towards being a third world nation, just give it enough time, given what the trends are, with more people being impoverished with no hope. How quickly we forgot why FDR did what he did. He saved america from a particular destructive form of capitalism which is designed to take away from everyone else and to fill the pockets of the elites. We never learn, or so it seems.

 

Folks didn't suddenly start thinking of themselves as winners or losers starting in 1981 when income inequality began skyrocketing.

Something else happened that year.

 

I've done well, considering my beginnings and lack of ambition. I never expected, nor recieved, any free gifts from government. I am certainly not an elite.

Why are successful people successful?
They understand, and work within, the reality of the system they are in.

This is a progressive creation.

 

Addressed clearly in prior posts. Not responsive.

Who is "they" this time? the "10%?" the "1%?" the "very rich?" Which narrowly tailored semantics are you using this time instead of just stating plain, undistorted facts? The nature of FICA as "contributions," not a standard tax previously posted. Ignored. It is more accurately defined as a "mandatory investment with greater rate of return the less invested, and lower rate of return the more invested." So the high income contributions are in fact -subsidizing- the low income contributions. So it's more a transfer program than a tax, surprise. Therefore, analysis as to "tax fairness" is inapt, especially outside of necessary context of what the investors -get- in return for their investment.

1. To repeat, what are their respective, expected RETURNS from their -mandatory- contributions? Outside of that necessary context, trying to shoehorn payroll taxes into "tax fairness analysis" is inapt. It's not the same, but feel free to muddy the waters by treating FICA as a tax all you like, you're in numerous, if bad and dishonest, Complex company 2. And right on schedule, using a $20,000,000 earner, .00X% of U.S. taxpayers, we are into outlier land when trying to build the wealth resentment lie narrative. Only .1% of U.S. returns make $2,000,000 or more, let alone $20,000,000. Do you EVER start honest and reasonable, or always running a con? 3. So let's get more real and look at $200,000+ incomes as a non outlier "high income." The accurate, no bullshit way of assessing those people's tax picture and fairness, with respect to federal taxes only, is as follows:

200k+ earners pay an average, effective federal income tax rate of ~20%, ~$40,000 per year in federal income taxes, and this represents about the same percentage, 20%, of all federal income taxes collected. Their FICA -contributions- are about ~$15,000 a year, including employer contributions, and this will give them a -capped out- SS monthly payment -return- on retirement of $2-3,000, depending on when they retire.

20k earners pay an average, effective federal income tax rate of ~1%, $200 per year... if that... they will probably pay $0 in federal taxes, especially under the current tax reform, and this represents 1% (0%) or less of all federal income taxes collected. Their FICA -contributions- are about ~$2400 per year, and this will give them a roughly calculated SS monthly payment -return- on retirement of $800-1200, depending on when they retire.

And we see that the income tax structure is irrefutably progressive, the top 30% pay close to ALL federal income taxes, and 40-50% pay nothing, and a significantly large percentage of those nonpayers are actually paid by it instead of paying anything. The Complex has a hard time crafting lie narratives on "fairness" in that context alone, so they falsely expand into "payroll taxes," not really taxes in any reasonable sense, but rather mandatory contributions into an investment program. When all facts are considered, not their cherry-picks and distortions alone? What result as to the "fairness" of FICA?

One person contributes 6-7 times more over a career (and I'm not even factoring the MASSIVE difference in TVM over an average 30 year career, accounting that variable could have the 200k guy actually contributing up to 100x more over a career), yet receives only 2.5-3x more in return on their contributions when paid out? There's a term for that, it begins with a "prog" and ends with an "ity." So don't believe their BS with respect to the "regressivity" of SS. It's progressive with a capital P when all the reasonable, necessary context is considered. I shouldn't have to spell all this out, but in a world of dishonest propaganda and lie narratives issuing from the Complex, have to unfortunately.

Apply the Complex > Honest decoder ring to the above and the result is "People who do not earn income, rich, poor, young, old, do not have to make mandatory contributions to an income based government retirement program." The wealthy pay a vast majority of capital gains taxes and income tax on investment income. The lie narrative equates to "but but they didn't pay for any oranges!" Well they didn't buy or eat the oranges. They bought and paid for apples instead. Did they fool you?

As established, though casually referred to as a tax, FICA is a mandatory investment program, or was sold as such to the taxpayers. Conservatives, nor anyone else, should include FICA in tax fairness analysis in any way other than a COMPLETE way, as I did above. Turns out that FICA is irrefutably progressive when all necessary context is considered.

What a disingenuous joke Just like the TREND of income inequality you are claiming, the advent of personal computers, telecomm and net boom are ongoing trends that continue today. That's the prime mover in making some Americans obscenely wealthy compared to others, not tax policy, and good for them... good for ALL of us.

Folks, it's not about "the richest" or even "the top 10%" or "the poor" or the "90%," it's about the outsized benefits of the fat, incompetent, corrupt, greedy, and most of all involuntary gov-edu-union-contractor-grantee-trial lawyer-MSM Complex, and the brutal, immense costs that the rest of us regular private sector folks are forced to pay at the end of a gun barrel.

 

Except what has happened for you is not the rule, and this is rather obvious.

What I noted is backed up by history. We should know by now what a great disparity in income creates. You can set your watch by it, given how true it is, and how it repeats. You cannot impoverish your own people in order to enrich the top and expect this to endure. To think otherwise is to bury your head in the sand, because you ideology disallows accepting historical fact.

This attitude of , "I am doing fine, so everyone else can do fine too" is a delusion, given what we have seen to happen in america since slave labor globalism has taken over. Since what the founders put into place was destroyed by an ideology which is a disconnected from reality belief. This has nothing to do with me being right, and everything to do with what history has tried to teach us, to no avail. History can teach common sense, as long as an ideology does not get in the way. But it always gets in the way. This is insanity, a repeating insanity and we do not seem to be able to escape it. For it always returns. It returned in 1981. But no nation can tolerate it for long. For it tears apart society.

 

Because it fits his preconceived "Republicans bad, Democrats gud!" world-view.

 

I submit that campaign finance reform, and political lobbying reform, and reform of PAC financing rules would be a better place to put our focus.[/QUOTE]

No, it is because the data in the chart does not reflect income inequality exploding beginning in 1971, but in 1981.