The Banana Republic of America

Politics • Views: 24,264

Today’s must-read is Nicholas Kristof on the consequences of Republican economic theories: Our Banana Republic.

In my reporting, I regularly travel to banana republics notorious for their inequality. In some of these plutocracies, the richest 1 percent of the population gobbles up 20 percent of the national pie.

But guess what? You no longer need to travel to distant and dangerous countries to observe such rapacious inequality. We now have it right here at home — and in the aftermath of Tuesday’s election, it may get worse.

The richest 1 percent of Americans now take home almost 24 percent of income, up from almost 9 percent in 1976. As Timothy Noah of Slate noted in an excellent series on inequality, the United States now arguably has a more unequal distribution of wealth than traditional banana republics like Nicaragua, Venezuela and Guyana.

C.E.O.’s of the largest American companies earned an average of 42 times as much as the average worker in 1980, but 531 times as much in 2001. Perhaps the most astounding statistic is this: From 1980 to 2005, more than four-fifths of the total increase in American incomes went to the richest 1 percent.

That’s the backdrop for one of the first big postelection fights in Washington — how far to extend the Bush tax cuts to the most affluent 2 percent of Americans. Both parties agree on extending tax cuts on the first $250,000 of incomes, even for billionaires. Republicans would also cut taxes above that.

The richest 0.1 percent of taxpayers would get a tax cut of $61,000 from President Obama. They would get $370,000 from Republicans, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. And that provides only a modest economic stimulus, because the rich are less likely to spend their tax savings.

Jump to bottom

318 comments
1 bratwurst  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 9:14:17am

Can we talk about doing something to narrow this gap without being accused of attempting “redistribution of wealth”? Please?

2 marsl  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 9:15:03am

USA = Banana republic

Hmmm… does the US produces bananas?

I would like a banana-split to table 5, s’il vous plait…

3 brucee  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 9:16:46am

Trickle Down

4 marsl  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 9:17:09am

“redistribution of wealth” = communism

Don’t you listen to what the Tea Party says? They must know best.
After all, they see “Coomunism” behind any tree…

5 Four More Tears  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 9:18:36am
From 1980 to 2005, more than four-fifths of the total increase in American incomes went to the richest 1 percent.

Let’s keep bitching about unions on this blog.

6 Reginald Perrin  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 9:18:51am

re: #1 bratwurst

Can we talk about doing something to narrow this gap without being accused of attempting “redistribution of wealth”? Please?

Is that all you communists think about is taking my money and giving it to someone else?

///

7 Seltzer123  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 9:21:34am

Here is a link to Malcolm Gladwell talking about how we used to view income distribution:

fora.tv

it is hard to imagine that in the 1950’s (up through 1963) the top tax rate in the US was 91 percent.

8 JEA62  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 9:22:28am

Does anyone SERIOUSLY think this is going to change?

Even if the Democrats succeed in killing tax cuts for the rich, it’s still the middle-class ==- what’s left of it - paying the freight. That isn’t going to change. The rich will keep getting richer on our dime. Unless we get another Teddy Roosevelt, it’s only going to get worse.

9 Stephen T.  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 9:25:17am

There have been times as an employee of a company that I have been asked by my corporate masters to do the company a favor and work for a while without pay. “Times are tough, and we all have to make sacrifices.” and they would point out that the CEO had taken a pay cut.

Then, we would hear that the same CEO got a billion dollar stock option, (not subject to income tax, of course). While those of us that volunteered our time for the company kept getting asked to work for less pay, or no pay. Those who refused were terminated. Not for refusing, of course, for all the other bad things they had done. No one could remember what those bad things were, exactly.

I’m expecting a lot more of the “work for no pay” options to be requested of the poorest of our employees. My wife is already expected to work all of the required hours for a set wage. No overtime pay is available. I can see a company decide that you will get paid the same amount whether you work 60 hours a week or 40 hours a week.

10 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 9:27:06am

In my mind, banana republics are not so much characterized by economic inequality of the inhabitants but by a thoroughly corrupted political and legal system (elections and court decisions up for sale) that prevents anyone but the rich from accumulating wealth.

But it did give me some thought when I read in a GEO magazine a couple of months ago that people in the USA are more likely to get back on their feet again after going bankrupt than in Germany but only in the case when they started out rather wealthy. Correspondingly, in the USA people supposedly are more likely to stay poor when they started out poor than in Germany.

11 Four More Tears  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 9:28:00am

Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his your brow?

12 calochortus  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 9:31:32am

re: #11 JasonA

Is a man The Man not entitled to the sweat of his your brow?

FIFY

13 allegro  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 9:33:19am

Just goes to show how effective the propaganda is. This growing disparity has been in the news for the last few years, yet people still carry the tax cuts for the rich banner, very much against their own interests.

14 schnapp  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 9:34:15am

The main reason why inequality is rising ultimately is because of a bad education system. Nothing is more important than a good quality education.

15 rwmofo  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 9:35:49am

Three major red-flags here:

1) “As Timothy Noah of Slate noted in an excellent series on inequality, the United States now arguably has a more unequal distribution of wealth…”

Distribution of wealth? It’s not “distributed.” It has to be earned first. This is the left-wing author’s attempt to make his readers think that the pie is carved up based on favorites and the money is “distributed” by Washington.

2) “The richest 0.1 percent of taxpayers would get a tax cut of $61,000 from President Obama. They would get $370,000 from Republicans, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. And that provides only a modest economic stimulus, because the rich are less likely to spend their tax savings.”

Note how he words the way “the rich” would “get” more money “from Republicans.” Again, the author tries to make his readers think that Republicans want to distribute money to their rich friends. That’s not how it works. The money has to be earned first. It’s not sitting in a pile in Washington waiting to be distributed to the gold old boys. The issue is tax policy. The difference is over the amount of the fruit of one’s labor he/she is allowed to keep. Kristof is taking the position that the Government owns resources in the private sector (our labor).

3) “…the rich are less likely to spend their tax savings?”

No shit? As in less likely to hire more people or expand their businesses?

Cue the downdings.

16 allegro  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 9:36:12am

re: #14 schnapp

The main reason why inequality is rising ultimately is because of a bad education system. Nothing is more important than a good quality education.

Um, no. Good quality education is indeed important but that is not what is causing the vat income disparity.

17 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 9:36:19am

re: #9 Scarecrow237

There have been times as an employee of a company that I have been asked by my corporate masters to do the company a favor and work for a while without pay. “Times are tough, and we all have to make sacrifices.” and they would point out that the CEO had taken a pay cut.

Then, we would hear that the same CEO got a billion dollar stock option, (not subject to income tax, of course). While those of us that volunteered our time for the company kept getting asked to work for less pay, or no pay. Those who refused were terminated. Not for refusing, of course, for all the other bad things they had done. No one could remember what those bad things were, exactly.

I’m expecting a lot more of the “work for no pay” options to be requested of the poorest of our employees. My wife is already expected to work all of the required hours for a set wage. No overtime pay is available. I can see a company decide that you will get paid the same amount whether you work 60 hours a week or 40 hours a week.

I used to work for an insurance company where it wasn’t uncommon for people to ‘voluntarily’ work until nine or ten at night. I was considered a freak for often leaving at five o’clock.

These were not people on a track to anywhere. They were doing this to keep their $40,000-a-year jobs, because the work had to get done. They would chuckle about how late they’d had to be there. There was no overtime, there was no thought of tracking all the actual overtime being worked, and hiring some more people. This was how this company did business, and they thought of themselves as being, I think, very good employers with good ethics. There were nice company parties, and the brokers were very respectful of and pleasant toward the office staff.

This same place more or less plotzed when I went into the office manager’s office one fine day and said I was going to grad school, and would be leaving. The idea that anyone wouldn’t want to put up with their shit for all eternity seemed baffling to them.

18 Sol Berdinowitz  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 9:36:44am

re: #14 schnapp

The main reason why inequality is rising ultimately is because of a bad education system. Nothing is more important than a good quality education.

We are seeing what comes from a populace with an almost complete lack of basic knowledge of our nation’s history, especially its history of labor relations and taxation.

19 SteveMcGazi  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 9:36:52am

re: #14 schnapp

The main reason why inequality is rising ultimately is because of a bad education system. Nothing is more important than a good quality education.

That’s why teachers are the nation’s scapegoat.

20 allegro  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 9:37:09am

re: #15 rwmofo

As I was saying a few moments ago… classic example.

21 Gus  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 9:37:36am

It’s astonishing to watch the defense of this practice. 80 percent of wealth growth going to a mere 1 percent of America while the other 90 percent have experienced not only stagnant wage growth but a massive increase in the cost of living.

What’s astonishing is that there is a large segment of working class American that defend this inequity as if though it were a tradition. A tradition to establish a new American royalty based on wealth and eventually class.

So how can it be claimed to be the American Way when we see that “C.E.O.’s of the largest American companies earned an average of 42 times as much as the average worker in 1980, but 531 times as much in 2001.”

And this is not about taxes. This is about the way America compensates its workers with substandard wages while compensating a select few as if though that mere 1 percent have found a cure for cancer.

22 Feline Fearless Leader  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 9:38:16am

Interview with Brad Childress about him and his son in Afghanistan on ESPN right now.

23 Quant  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 9:39:23am

re: #15 rwmofo

… Distribution of wealth? It’s not “distributed.” It has to be earned first. This is the left-wing author’s attempt to make his readers think that the pie is carved up based on favorites and the money is “distributed” by Washington.
…

The author is talking about a statistical distribution of wealth.

24 Gus  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 9:39:40am

re: #1 bratwurst

Can we talk about doing something to narrow this gap without being accused of attempting “redistribution of wealth”? Please?

Can’t have that. In post-modern America Scrooge become the hero.

25 calochortus  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 9:39:49am

re: #15 rwmofo

Three major red-flags here:

1) “As Timothy Noah of Slate noted in an excellent series on inequality, the United States now arguably has a more unequal distribution of wealth…”

Distribution of wealth? It’s not “distributed.” It has to be earned first. This is the left-wing author’s attempt to make his readers think that the pie is carved up based on favorites and the money is “distributed” by Washington.

I won’t bother with downdings or the rest of the comments-this is a classic case of needing a better education. “Distribution” doesn’t necessarily refer to someone handing things out. There is a worldwide “distribution of rainfall” as well. That isn’t because someone is sitting around distributing it.

26 Sol Berdinowitz  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 9:40:24am

re: #15 rwmofo


3) “…the rich are less likely to spend their tax savings?”

No shit? As in less likely to hire more people or expand their businesses?

Got no problem with your first two points. And the upper income earners are likely to create jobs. But there is no guarantee that those jobs will be here in America. In a globalized economy, capital now flows wherever it gets the highest rate of return.

Often the only jobs we will see out of it will involve minimum-wage positions stocking shelves at the Wal-Mart for all the goods produced overseas.

27 Gus  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 9:40:45am

Let’s not fool ourselves either. There already is a redistribution of wealth. It’s all redistributed to the top 1 percent.

28 SteveMcGazi  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 9:41:21am

re: #25 calochortus

I won’t bother with downdings or the rest of the comments-this is a classic case of needing a better education. “Distribution” doesn’t necessarily refer to someone handing things out. There is a worldwide “distribution of rainfall” as well. That isn’t because someone is sitting around distributing it.

I think rwmofo knows this. Most people who use this argument know this. The ones who don’t are the ones who fall for it.

29 calochortus  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 9:42:33am

Can someone please explain to me why business will hire, no matter how much money we give them, if there is no demand for their goods or services? I’m really tired of this particular talking point.

30 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 9:42:53am

re: #1 bratwurst

Can we talk about doing something to narrow this gap without being accused of attempting “redistribution of wealth”? Please?

No. I don’t see why “inequality” is even an issue.

31 Gus  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 9:43:01am

re: #5 JasonA

Let’s keep bitching about unions on this blog.

Or it could be said this way: From 1980 to 2005, more than four-fifths of the total increase in American incomes went to the richest 1 percent — and that’s downright un-American.

32 schnapp  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 9:43:04am

re: #16 allegro

How do you expect kids from poor backgrounds to move up the income ladder in life if theyre stuck in whatever school theyare told to go and then have to pay over 100k to go to college? Income inequality has everything to do with equality of opportunity

33 FreedomMoon  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 9:43:25am

re: #3 brucee

Trickle Down

I remember learning about that in high school, political science, and thinking to myself “what a load of BS”—an economic model contingent on the spending habits and financial decisions of the wealthy. While they go unchecked, exploiting the workers, we’re supposed to just sit idly by waiting for the economy to grow? And somehow wages will parallel that growth? The logic just doesn’t check out; tax brackets must exist in order to perpetuate a healthy and sustainable economy.

34 allegro  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 9:44:11am

re: #29 calochortus

Can someone please explain to me why business will hire, no matter how much money we give them, if there is no demand for their goods or services? I’m really tired of this particular talking point.

Added to that, corporations are making record profits since the record layoffs. Coincidence?

35 NC Gray  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 9:44:30am

Tax revenue is not about how much of the top level earners income we take it is, it has been for the last 40+ years, and will continue to be about the amount of taxation on the middle class.

The payroll tax is the most regressive of taxes.

The fairest thing that we could do is to extend the payroll tax to fall on all income.

36 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 9:45:09am

Ah geeze, no sooner do I sit down than I get dragged away again. BBL

37 SteveMcGazi  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 9:45:10am

re: #33 tacuba14

For the supply siders, it doesn’t matter whether the economy grows here or on some other continent.

38 avanti  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 9:45:24am

The GOP has already rejected a compromise to keep the increase for up to million/year. They claim it would still hurt “small businesses” I ran a small business with 7 employees and my wife and I never took home even 80K a year together.
If I made a million a year, I would have gladly lived with the extra 3% increase on income over 250K. Hell, if they left me a even a half million a year I’d bet any of my 30K a year workers would trade places with me.
I have mixed feeling about the disparity in wages. While I feel a CEO deserves the big bucks, I don’t disapprove of them paying more in taxes than there employees especially when they make 100’s of times the money.
For them, it might mean a smaller third or forth home, but the extra taxes might fund a few of Joe Sixpacks kids higher education. Yep, it’s redistribution of wealth, but as was pointed out the gap between the rich and the rest is growing.

39 recusancy  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 9:47:11am

re: #15 rwmofo

^—— Moron ——^

40 Jadespring  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 9:48:40am

re: #32 schnapp

How do you expect kids from poor backgrounds to move up the income ladder in life if theyre stuck in whatever school theyare told to go and then have to pay over 100k to go to college? Income inequality has everything to do with equality of opportunity

This is different from what you initial said though. A good education system is a necessarily equalizer in terms of accessibility to knowledge and learning. You are correct that income equality can and does effect the type of education someone can get. However in your initial comment you suggested that lack of a good education is the main cause OF income disparity which suggested a first order cause. I’d argue that lack of good education or access to a good education is more a consequence of it that can perpetuate the problem. You get yourself into a vicious circle where one reenforces the other.

41 recusancy  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 9:48:45am

re: #32 schnapp

How do you expect kids from poor backgrounds to move up the income ladder in life if theyre stuck in whatever school theyare told to go and then have to pay over 100k to go to college? Income inequality has everything to do with equality of opportunity

What’s your solution?

42 schnapp  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 9:49:05am

re: #33 tacuba14

Higher productivity leads to higher wages. Thats a broadaly accepted fact in economics, not some crazy supply side theory

43 researchok  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 9:49:06am

CEO income is more often than not sanctioned and set by Boards of Directors and often based on performance.

The place to start, in my opinion is with those Boards of Directors who reward themselves with equally outrageous compensation/reward packages.

It also bears remembering that the vast majority of stock shareholders (dollar value) are pension funds and the like. Unlike individual shareholders, they have tremendous influence on Boards and at shareholder meetings. They are reluctant to rock the boat because as long as the stocks perform their pensioners are happy. They have every reason to appreciate the pay for performance efforts.

What can be done and is being done is changing not how much the CEO’s (or bankers or high level brokerage management) are being paid, but in how they are paid. They are less and less likely now to be able to take the money and run, so to speak. They are given deferred compensation packages and stock options, only worth the large numbers if the company performance continues. This discourages high risk plays and encourages more responsible fiscal management.

It is surprising to me as to why Kristof fails to mention these new compensation packages that are more and more a part of the corporate landscape.

Kristof wants everyone to believe this is only about tax policy. It is not. Pay for performance and tax issues are two entirely separate issues.

We can talk about and debate tax policies all day long, but pay for performance is no crime. It is up to shareholders to change that, not the government.

44 Four More Tears  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 9:49:17am

re: #38 avanti

Yours aren’t the “small businesses” they’re looking out for.

google.com

45 Quant  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 9:49:43am

re: #10 000G

… Correspondingly, in the USA people supposedly are more likely to stay poor when they started out poor than in Germany.


This surprised me too when I saw some research comparing social mobility in the US vs other OECD countries. You always hear about living the American Dream and how schlerotic European social mobility is, but it is not the case. Not any more.

46 allegro  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 9:50:30am

re: #42 schnapp

Higher productivity leads to higher wages. Thats a broadaly accepted fact in economics, not some crazy supply side theory

Nope. Productivity has consistently increased over the past 30 years while income has stagnated.

47 Gus  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 9:50:37am

re: #15 rwmofo

Red-flags meaning you will close your mind to the danger this inequity poses to the future of this nation while pretending to believe the opposite.

48 SpaceJesus  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 9:51:10am

Tax them to the hilt, invest that money in education, infrastructure, and R&D

problem solved

49 SteveMcGazi  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 9:52:17am

Higher productivity leads to higher wages. Thats a broadaly accepted fact in economics Reagonomics, not some crazy supply side theory

50 recusancy  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 9:52:25am

re: #42 schnapp

Higher productivity leads to higher wages. Thats a broadaly accepted fact in economics, not some crazy supply side theory

washingtonpost.com

“This was the first business cycle where a working-age household ended up worse at the end of it than the beginning, and this in spite of substantial growth in productivity, which should have been able to improve everyone’s well-being,” said Lawrence Mishel, president of the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal think tank.
51 calochortus  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 9:52:26am

re: #42 schnapp

Higher wages for whom? Productivity is going up but worker salaries do not appear to be doing so.

52 schnapp  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 9:52:31am

re: #41 recusancy

School choice. Income-contingent loans for higher education. The US has much less school choice and much less affordable higher education than most advanced countries.

53 Sol Berdinowitz  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 9:53:20am

So I have been teaching my daughters, aged 8 and 11, to play Monopoly. We hate the Income Tax square, so I introduced an “Obamatax” rule: income tax is only 5% or $100 (instead of 10% or $200) - until you get your first monopoly.

So at one point, my youngest daughter had a chance to get her first monopoly but said she did not want to because then she would have to pay the full income tax.!

I talked her out of that decision but also realized then and there that standard GOP economic thinking on extending the Bush tax cuts is in line with an eight-year-old learning to play Monopoly…

54 marsl  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 9:53:39am

I would accept tax deduction to the most rich if they create jobs.

If they decide to spend their money in Ferraris and Picassos (instead of creating jobs), then they should be taxed to the maximum allowed.

55 recusancy  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 9:54:10am

re: #52 schnapp

School choice. Income-contingent loans for higher education. The US has much less school choice and much less affordable higher education than most advanced countries.

School choice stops working when everyone has the choice unless you substantially increase funding. So I assume your in favor of a substantial increase to education funding?

56 Sol Berdinowitz  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 9:55:20am

We have to pay high CEO salaries to get the best people!!! As in the ones who will run America so far off the rails that the Federal Government has to pull the wreck out of the ditch.

57 Jadespring  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 9:55:28am

re: #29 calochortus

Can someone please explain to me why business will hire, no matter how much money we give them, if there is no demand for their goods or services? I’m really tired of this particular talking point.

They won’t. The idea behind it though is that if business get cuts then demand will increase as well because each business supplies something that another business needs (whether directly or indirectly through general consumer desire) in the big wide web of our economy and the cuts stimulate the overall demand.

Make sense? No? Well that’s because theory doesn’t always agree with reality. Welcome to the world of neo-classical economics.

58 schnapp  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 9:55:44am

gregmankiw.blogspot.com
Its just supply and demand. Any econs student can explain it.

59 Four More Tears  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 9:55:44am

re: #53 ralphieboy

I remember hearing people, during the presidential election, saying they didn’t want to make a penny over $250,000 because they thought all of their income would be taxed at a higher rate… Grown adults.

60 Gus  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 9:55:51am

re: #43 researchok

Good points. Because in the end they can manipulate the tax code all they want but that will not affect wages. The income disparity would still continue to grow. I would also add that this is not an ideologically based or dependent phenomenon. That is, wages would remain stagnant regardless of the political contribution made by the CEO you are working under. Greed, unfortunately, has universal appeal.

61 recusancy  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 9:56:19am

re: #58 schnapp

[Link: gregmankiw.blogspot.com…]
Its just supply and demand. Any econs student can explain it.

Great in theory. Doesn’t bare out in reality.

62 recusancy  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 9:56:56am

re: #59 JasonA

I remember hearing people, during the presidential election, saying they didn’t want to make a penny over $250,000 because they thought all of their income would be taxed at a higher rate… Grown adults.

Commenters here believe the same thing.

63 Sol Berdinowitz  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 9:57:29am

re: #59 JasonA

I remember hearing people, during the presidential election, saying they didn’t want to make a penny over $250,000 because they thought all of their income would be taxed at a higher rate… Grown adults.


How many of these Joe the Plumbers really had the prospect of earning that much and how many of them were just rationalizing?

64 researchok  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 9:57:29am

re: #48 SpaceJesus

Tax them to the hilt, invest that money in education, infrastructure, and R&D

problem solved

That doesn’t work.

That Tobacco Settlements proved that Take a look at California spending as well.

Government if not as efficient at delivering public services as we might hope.

There are no single easy answers and to pretend so is doing a great disservice.

There is no question Kristof raises some important issues. It is a shame he left out some other important issues. All he will have done is ignited yet another argument designed to make sure people are polarized even further.

65 rwmofo  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 9:57:34am

Another point with Kristof’s article (or pretty much anyone on staff at the NY Times) is that he could discuss ways in which to control spending, but he doesn’t because their default position is to make employers the bad guy. Tax policy is only 1/2 of the equation. Spending is a much larger problem. How much pork was directed into Robert Byrd’s state? You decide. Have Republicans done this as well? Yes. I don’t care who does it. Just don’t blame the voters and cripple the economy while trying to fix something politicians created.

66 schnapp  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 9:58:13am

re: #61 recusancy

Its worked well for most of the last 250 years

67 marsl  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 9:58:26am

Capitalism = unequal distribution of wealth
Communism = equal distribution of poverty

68 SteveMcGazi  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 9:58:45am

My father was a high school teacher in North Philadelphia. He has long since retired and passed on, but he predicted that education would decline because of competition from media distractions, like cable tv and video games. Plenty of kids who came from horrible homes were good students. He felt that those kids tried harder and did better on the average than the middle class kids who took things for granted.

69 recusancy  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 9:59:03am

re: #66 schnapp

Its worked well for most of the last 250 years

Yeah, it works until it doesn’t. And it currently doesn’t.

70 Four More Tears  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 9:59:11am

re: #63 ralphieboy

How many of these Joe the Plumbers really had the prospect of earning that much and how many of them were just rationalizing?

Some of them were doctors with private practices.

71 Sol Berdinowitz  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 9:59:21am

re: #64 researchok

That doesn’t work.

Government if not as efficient at delivering public services as we might hope.

Privatized schools, prisons and police forces come at a lower price, but higher hidden costs…

72 schnapp  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:00:08am

re: #46 allegro

A closer and more detailed look at the facts shows that that’s just not true.

73 Killgore Trout  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:00:35am

re: #65 rwmofo

Pork!

74 Gus  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:00:53am

re: #63 ralphieboy

How many of these Joe the Plumbers really had the prospect of earning that much and how many of them were just rationalizing?

Joe the Plumber never mad 250K in one year in all his life. Neither does the average highly experienced plumber: The median expected salary for a typical Plumber III in the United States is $50,883.

75 calochortus  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:00:57am

re: #58 schnapp

[Link: gregmankiw.blogspot.com…]
Its just supply and demand. Any econs student can explain it.

Its not supply and demand because it looks like he is assume there is a continuing robust demand for the end product. When people or companies aren’t buying, and there is high unemployment, there is no incentive to raise wages regardless of productivity.

76 SteveMcGazi  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:01:32am

re: #65 rwmofo

Pork counts for a ridiculously small percentage of spending.

77 avanti  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:01:33am

re: #44 JasonA

Yours aren’t the “small businesses” they’re looking out for.

[Link: www.google.com…]

I’ve met many of the “small business” owners they are talking about. I see them a few times a month at the casino playing thousand dollar a hand Blackjack. One even told me it’s just entertainment for him even if he drops 50K, that’s one decent Wall Street trade for him.
He makes a living off buying and selling the same stock in milliseconds. By having a fiber optic connection close to the exchange his computers can beat the regular traders by fractions of a second.

78 schnapp  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:02:31am

re: #75 calochortus

Yes but in the long run wages will catch up as they have done for the last 200 years

79 Quant  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:03:10am

re: #23 Quant

The author is talking about a statistical distribution of wealth.


Arrrgh, I should have written probability distribution. Unforgivable!

Why do the topics that really interest me happen when I have to cook supper or while I’m asleep? Hopefully this thread won’t be dead as the dodo when I get back.

80 recusancy  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:04:14am

re: #78 schnapp

Yes but in the long run wages will catch up as they have done for the last 200 years

Yeah, we may have a lost generation or two in there but fuck em. They’re just people.

81 FreedomMoon  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:04:22am

re: #42 schnapp

Higher productivity leads to higher wages. Thats a broadaly accepted fact in economics, not some crazy supply side theory

Yes in theory that works, and to a great extent we’ve seen that here in this country. But when profits become the overriding objective a natural byproduct of a “free-hand” market is greed. Entrepreneurs want to maximize profits and can do so maintaining the lowest wages possible. They will raise wages for specialized labor, (because there always should be a shortage) or if there simply aren’t enough willing to do the work. I’m not advocating communism, I’m saying that government should get involved to protect workers from the natural byproducts of an imperfect system. Creating tax brackets increases tax revenue which benefit nations and societies as a whole.

82 Gus  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:04:24am

re: #65 rwmofo

Another point with Kristof’s article (or pretty much anyone on staff at the NY Times) is that he could discuss ways in which to control spending, but he doesn’t because their default position is to make employers the bad guy. Tax policy is only 1/2 of the equation. Spending is a much larger problem. How much pork was directed into Robert Byrd’s state? You decide. Have Republicans done this as well? Yes. I don’t care who does it. Just don’t blame the voters and cripple the economy while trying to fix something politicians created.

Politicians created? Oh, you mean those politicians that scream “class warfare” every time the topic of income inequity comes to the table? Tax policy and spending aside we as a nation must nurture an environment and society that over compensates much to the detriment of the majority of Americans?

83 SteveMcGazi  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:04:29am

re: #78 schnapp

Yes but in the long run wages will catch up as they have done for the last 200 years

How long a run are we supposed to wait this time? It’s been forty years so far.

84 calochortus  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:05:25am

re: #78 schnapp

You mean like this?

Please show me where real wages have increased over the last 50 years or so.

85 Four More Tears  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:05:34am

Here’s that video of Rand Paul on This Week: abcnews.go.com

86 FreedomMoon  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:05:50am

re: #83 stevemcg

How long a run are we supposed to wait this time? It’s been forty years so far.

Great point. Statistics are always a nasty nemesis.

87 researchok  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:13:11am

re: #60 Gus 802

Good points. Because in the end they can manipulate the tax code all they want but that will not affect wages. The income disparity would still continue to grow. I would also add that this is not an ideologically based or dependent phenomenon. That is, wages would remain stagnant regardless of the political contribution made by the CEO you are working under. Greed, unfortunately, has universal appeal.

You get the Gold Star for clarity.

Tax inequities (and Lord knows there are a tsunami) have nothing to do with compensation or for that matter, wealth. Most of those inequities are legacies of decades of special interest legislation

I’ll tell you, I’m all for higher taxes for wealthier Americans- not a punitive measure (see some of the comments- insert sarc tag here) but simply as a reflection of fairness to all taxpayers. Take away the loopholes, take away the special interest influences. Tax shelters are nice bit not when they are only available to to the top 1% of income earners.

That’s right- rich people need to pay their fair share, based on their income but no more, really. Punishing the rich for being rich is about as undemocratic as it gets. Period.

88 b_sharp  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:13:25am

re: #15 rwmofo

Three major red-flags here:

1) “As Timothy Noah of Slate noted in an excellent series on inequality, the United States now arguably has a more unequal distribution of wealth…”

Distribution of wealth? It’s not “distributed.” It has to be earned first. This is the left-wing author’s attempt to make his readers think that the pie is carved up based on favorites and the money is “distributed” by Washington.

Wow, did you miss the meaning intended. Distribution does not necessarily mean it at has been handed out in some specific manner but that there is a pattern to quantities/qualities in a group of differing but linked environments.

Your argument is a reach even Mr. Fantastic couldn’t perform.

2) “The richest 0.1 percent of taxpayers would get a tax cut of $61,000 from President Obama. They would get $370,000 from Republicans, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. And that provides only a modest economic stimulus, because the rich are less likely to spend their tax savings.”

Note how he words the way “the rich” would “get” more money “from Republicans.” Again, the author tries to make his readers think that Republicans want to distribute money to their rich friends. That’s not how it works. The money has to be earned first. It’s not sitting in a pile in Washington waiting to be distributed to the gold old boys. The issue is tax policy. The difference is over the amount of the fruit of one’s labor he/she is allowed to keep. Kristof is taking the position that the Government owns resources in the private sector (our labor).

Taking money away is functionally equivalent to giving money out. They are opposite sides of the same coin.

The government doesn’t assume it owns labour, it does assume however that as a society, anarchy is detrimental to it and certain levels of cooperation are necessary for the society, and the country, to remain healthy and safe.

If you want to enjoy the benefits of a society, then you have to be willing to support the mechanisms that produce those benefits. In our culture, that either takes paying taxes, or using and abusing others to work for below subsistence wages.

89 Charles Johnson  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:15:40am

Had a little server hiccup there for a couple of minutes. It’s a good idea to reload the page to make sure everything’s cool.

90 SpaceJesus  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:15:44am

re: #64 researchok


Let’s not follow California-style policies, let’s follow Swedish ones

91 Quant  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:16:16am

re: #79 Quant

Arrrgh, I should have written probability distribution. Unforgivable! …


Oh for the ability to edit. Statistical was right (and I should know better than to second guess myself because I’m an idiot).

I’m hopless at multitasking, so I shall go and concentrate on my tagine before I burn it.

92 FreedomMoon  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:18:07am

re: #87 researchok


I’ll tell you, I’m all for higher taxes for wealthier Americans- not a punitive measure (see some of the comments- insert sarc tag here) but simply as a reflection of fairness to all taxpayers. Take away the loopholes, take away the special interest influences. Tax shelters are nice bit not when they are only available to to the top 1% of income earners.

Good luck with that, if there’s ANYTHING the wealthy are good at, it’s protecting their wealth and evading tax laws.

93 Killgore Trout  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:19:08am

re: #85 JasonA

Here’s that video of Rand Paul on This Week: [Link: abcnews.go.com…]

Thanks for posting that.

94 researchok  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:19:49am

re: #90 SpaceJesus

Let’s not follow California-style policies, let’s follow Swedish ones

No need- simply eliminate all tax loopholes. Each and every one.

The rich will pay their fair just like everyone else.

No loopholes, no exceptions.

95 schnapp  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:20:09am

re: #84 calochortus

you’re quoting a pro-union site and you expect it to be a fair and faithful representaion? I quoted a harvard economist in my comment above who explains the link between wages and productivity and the reason why the offcial statistics can be misleading.

96 researchok  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:20:47am

re: #92 tacuba14

Good luck with that, if there’s ANYTHING the wealthy are good at, it’s protecting their wealth and evading tax laws.

It’s not the rich who protect themselves- it’s Congress.

97 Gus  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:21:16am

re: #85 JasonA

Here’s that video of Rand Paul on This Week: [Link: abcnews.go.com…]

Short on specifics just like Michelle Bachmann.

98 calochortus  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:21:44am

re: #95 schnapp

I’ll see what I can find elsewhere-but I don’t see you providing any actual numbers, just an opinion even if it is from a genuine economist.

99 insert name here  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:22:03am

re: #96 researchok

It’s not the rich who protect themselves- it’s Congress.

Not sure there’s much of a difference, there!

100 b_sharp  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:23:12am

re: #30 Dark_Falcon

No. I don’t see why “inequality” is even an issue.

Because the current inequality is not fully based on merit, but is based more so on social bias and structure.

Because economic inequality leads to social friction and violence.

101 researchok  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:23:40am

re: #99 insert name here

Not sure there’s much of a difference, there!

This crap goes back decades.

A guy who makes a million a year in income ought not be able to shelter 60 percent of that income. He needs to pay his fair share.

102 schnapp  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:24:55am

re: #98 calochortus
from the st. louis fed:
research.stlouisfed.org

103 Aceofwhat?  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:26:40am

“The rich are less likely to spend their tax savings”???

Bullshit. Higher-income earners are far more sensitive to marginal tax rates than middle- or lower-income folks. If this is representative of Kristof’s general economic skill, he should write about something else.

104 Charles Johnson  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:27:10am

re: #43 researchok

CEO income is more often than not sanctioned and set by Boards of Directors and often based on performance.

I disagree. There’s no rational measure of performance that could possibly justify the gigantic salaries CEOs of top corporations receive — and the salaries are only the beginning. These people are wealthy beyond your wildest dreams. They deserve fair compensation, sure, but the current system is an obscenity.

And often, it’s completely disconnected from performance. CEOs who fail get the same huge payoffs as CEOs who succeed.

105 Gus  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:27:10am

re: #93 Killgore Trout

Thanks for posting that.

He calls for cutting the military! Doesn’t bother me but wait until the right wingers here this.

106 bluecheese  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:27:16am

re: #29 calochortus

Can someone please explain to me why business will hire, no matter how much money we give them, if there is no demand for their goods or services? I’m really tired of this particular talking point.


I agree. a business will hire when the work said employee does, earns them more than what it costs them to employ the worker. Everything else is just window dressing.

It’s demand for the product that drives hiring new people. Higher taxes can just be rolled into the cost of the product if demand is there, lower taxes result in more earnings for share holders.

107 Elisa  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:27:17am
You always hear about living the American Dream and how schlerotic European social mobility is, but it is not the case. Not any more.

My very unscientific observation from my 49 years on this planet is that wages alone do not move a person from the middle class to the upper class - investing does. Whether it’s investing in stocks, real estate, or a business.

Likewise, wages alone will not move a person from the lower class to the middle class. They need either the above investments (yeah, when you’re POOR??) or a college education (again, when you’re POOR??)

All of my middle class adult life (I had some lower class adult life, college degree turned that around) I’ve wanted to own a business or invest in real estate. Once I had the money for a real estate investment and turned a very tidy profit. Unfortunately, given the market at the time the profit was a fluke so I couldn’t use said profit to reinvest.

Ever tried to open a business in CA? No matter what type of business or business plan I come up with, a middle class income simply won’t pay for all the red tape, licenses, fees, inspections, and taxes - some which (taxes, that is) you have to pay before you ever open your doors!

Congress, both federal and state of CA, makes laws designed for inner cities; they are often unsuited to and damaging to suburbs and rural areas.

108 insert name here  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:27:25am

re: #101 researchok

This crap goes back decades.

A guy who makes a million a year in income ought not be able to shelter 60 percent of that income. He needs to pay his fair share.

I wish I could see things changing. But as long as the rich donate to campaigns, Congress will pass bills to keep them happy. One hand washes the other…

109 Gus  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:27:29am

re: #105 Gus 802

Hear not here.

110 Four More Tears  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:28:14am

re: #105 Gus 802

He calls for cutting the military! Doesn’t bother me but wait until the right wingers here this.

Too bad they didn’t actually, you know, look into the Libertarian platform or anything.

111 Aceofwhat?  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:28:15am

re: #100 b_sharp

Because the current inequality is not fully based on merit, but is based more so on social bias and structure.

Because economic inequality leads to social friction and violence.

Accordingly, a focus on increasing the role of merit is a far superior pastime than attempting to wield the tax code to muddle towards some conception of ‘fairness’.

112 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:28:31am

If the republicans had truly cared about job, they would not have tried to kill the jobs bill. If the Republicans truly cared about the deficit they would not try to keep so many vested private interests suckling at the public trough in terms of health, education and services.

If they cared about the middle class, they would not fight for the “rights” of credit card companies, insurance companies and banks to screw the middle class over. If they cared about a functioning economy, rather than just letting their cronies feed - we would not have had the SnL crisis, Enron or the Wall Street crash.

Pro-business to them means not having anything to impede the excess of business. It means no pesky morality or sense of long term damage to get in the way. It means no one in government protects you from those excesses - which then always blow up and cripple the economy overall.

If the Republicans cared about energy independence, we would have had an updated grid and wind, nuclear and solar power a decade ago.l That also would have grown the economy, paid for itself and created millions of jobs.

Of course, the GOP does not care about the average American. They are all about servicing their corporate masters. They always have been dedicated to that first and the proof is in their crazy economic theories and their actions.

113 schnapp  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:28:48am

re: #100 b_sharp

yes, the inequality is too high, but who decides what “merits” a certain level of income? every system will be unfair to somebody, ut the sstem which is best at creating wealth and improving the lives of ordinary working men and women is the market.

114 FreedomMoon  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:29:13am

re: #101 researchok

This crap goes back decades.

A guy who makes a million a year in income ought not be able to shelter 60 percent of that income. He needs to pay his fair share.

If the tea partiers really wanted to make a difference, they would be pressing congress for that very purpose, but seriously trying to target the wealthy and their tax loopholes is as easy as grabbing a slippery snake in oily water. These people have an ENORMOUS choke hold on politicians—if any significant legislation were to take a chunk out of their pockets it would be shot down. Just look at the concessions Democrats are considering (and will soon concur upon) to the Bush tax cuts, it sounds good to say but getting something down it downright impossible.

115 insert name here  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:29:46am

re: #107 Elisa


Ever tried to open a business in CA? No matter what type of business or business plan I come up with, a middle class income simply won’t pay for all the red tape, licenses, fees, inspections, and taxes - some which (taxes, that is) you have to pay before you ever open your doors!

Elisa, I’m curious what kinds of red-tape and their associated costs you’ve run into. Thanks!

116 Gus  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:31:01am

re: #110 JasonA

Too bad they didn’t actually, you know, look into the Libertarian platform or anything.

He also mention “bringing troops home” and he includes Korea.

117 ihateronpaul  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:31:31am

I’m sick of wealthy people using “creative accounting”

118 MarkAM  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:32:15am

re: #113 schnapp

The market worked really well during the Gilded Age, before the rise of unions, anti-trust laws, etc., etc.//

119 researchok  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:33:07am

re: #104 Charles

I disagree. There’s no rational measure of performance that could possibly justify the gigantic salaries CEOs of top corporations receive — and the salaries are only the beginning. These people are wealthy beyond your wildest dreams. They deserve fair compensation, sure, but the current system is an obscenity.

And often, it’s completely disconnected from performance. CEOs who fail get the same huge payoffs as CEOs who succeed.

Boards of Directors usually approve of senior management compensation. That is one their primary functions as is determining dividend payouts, etc.

As I noted there has been a shift in how these CEO’s are paid. You are right to note that there are still plenty of CEO’s who get paid obscene amounts of cash irrespective of performance.

Nevertheless, how do we set limitations in a free market system? Who would make the rules? What is to prevent income caps not just on CEO’s but on employees as well? In the case of intellectual workers, wouldn’t that only increase outsourcing (think Indian programmers)?

120 HoosierHoops  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:33:56am

re: #104 Charles

I disagree. There’s no rational measure of performance that could possibly justify the gigantic salaries CEOs of top corporations receive — and the salaries are only the beginning. These people are wealthy beyond your wildest dreams. They deserve fair compensation, sure, but the current system is an obscenity.

And often, it’s completely disconnected from performance. CEOs who fail get the same huge payoffs as CEOs who succeed.


Just like shareholders pay off fired CEO’s with hundreds of Millions of dollars in Golden parachutes..When the rest of us get fired we get unemployment insurance..

121 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:34:26am

All of the salespeople in my office are paid on commission only.

Some of the salespeople in my office make around $200,000.00 per year but potential is unlimited.

Some of the salespeople in my office are significantly less talented (and/or work significantly less) than the ones on the upper end and make fifty to sixty thousand dollars a year.

Putting current tax tables aside; I’d like to ask a question to see what people here think.

Should the salesperson on the upper end pay a higher percentage Federal Income Taxes as the ones on the lower end for the same job?

122 calochortus  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:34:56am

re: #102 schnapp

I’m not sure if those graphs factor in inflation or what, and they are pretty short-term. The stats I posted earlier are sourced to the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the same numbers appear on Wikipedia with the same source.
I couldn’t immediately find them at the BLS’s site, but I’d be very interested in seeing the real wages over 40 or 50 years from the site of your choosing.

123 Killgore Trout  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:34:56am

re: #105 Gus 802

He calls for cutting the military! Doesn’t bother me but wait until the right wingers here this.

I enjoyed his fundamentalist logic. He estimates 2 billion in revenues, 4 billion budget and advocates blint adherence to a balanced budget amendment. Without raising taxes that’s a 50% cut in everything. It’s just insanity.

124 FreedomMoon  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:35:11am

re: #113 schnapp

yes, the inequality is too high, but who decides what “merits” a certain level of income? every system will be unfair to somebody, ut the sstem which is best at creating wealth and improving the lives of ordinary working men and women is the market.

Uhh I don’t know, maybe being able to provide healthy food for your children, give them an education, buy a car, have air-conditioning, be able to provide a christmas for your family. If you can’t do these things, (which many Americans can not) than we ought to strive to improve the system. Obama (all presidents share this mentality) said that his goal isn’t to target wealth, that he wants all Americans to be wealthy. Sure it sounds cliche but it’s true. Responsible societies want wealth to evenly perpetuate so all improve their way of life.

125 researchok  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:35:38am

re: #114 tacuba14

If the tea partiers really wanted to make a difference, they would be pressing congress for that very purpose, but seriously trying to target the wealthy and their tax loopholes is as easy as grabbing a slippery snake in oily water. These people have an ENORMOUS choke hold on politicians—if any significant legislation were to take a chunk out of their pockets it would be shot down. Just look at the concessions Democrats are considering (and will soon concur upon) to the Bush tax cuts, it sounds good to say but getting something down it downright impossible.

I absolutely agree.

The fair and responsible spending of tax dollars is no more relevant than the fair and responsible collecting of tax dollars.

If the Tea Party won’t address that issue they will go the way of the Dodo bird.

126 bluecheese  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:37:55am

re: #121 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Should the salesperson on the upper end pay a higher percentage Federal Income Taxes as the ones on the lower end for the same job?

yes

127 schnapp  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:38:13am

re: #118 MarkAM

actually it did. never before in human history have ordinary working people seen their living standards rise as in the industrial revolution. by today’s standards it isnt great, but the people in 1900 were mu better off than the people in 1800 because of free markets.
unions get higher was for their members but always at a cost to someone else. there are two effects of unions on non-union workers. one, higher union wages y also drive up non-union wages at a cost of higher unemployment or a lower employment rate. or higher union wages decrease employment in unionized industries and increase employment in non-union indusris pushing down the wages of other workers. which effect dominates is debatable

128 Aceofwhat?  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:38:34am

re: #112 LudwigVanQuixote

If the republicans had truly cared about job, they would not have tried to kill the jobs bill.

That is utter nonsense. Were you here complaining when Reid killed the larger and more bipartisan jobs bill and substituted a much smaller one, or have you sacrificed your already limited economic ken on the altar of partisanship?

129 FreedomMoon  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:39:55am

re: #120 HoosierHoops

Just like shareholders pay off fired CEO’s with hundreds of Millions of dollars in Golden parachutes..When the rest of us get fired we get unemployment insurance..

Or the CEO’s that ran the lending institutions into the ground, emanating the worst recession since the great depression. All those CEOs took home mult-million dollar bonuses, and for what? Being greedy, that’s what hands-free capitalism does. Proof that unchecked capitalism fails. 1929? same story.

130 researchok  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:40:00am

re: #121 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

All of the salespeople in my office are paid on commission only.

Some of the salespeople in my office make around $200,000.00 per year but potential is unlimited.

Some of the salespeople in my office are significantly less talented (and/or work significantly less) than the ones on the upper end and make fifty to sixty thousand dollars a year.

Putting current tax tables aside; I’d like to ask a question to see what people here think.

Should the salesperson on the upper end pay a higher percentage Federal Income Taxes as the ones on the lower end for the same job?

He should pay the taxes his income bracket calls for.

131 b_sharp  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:40:26am

re: #111 Aceofwhat?

Accordingly, a focus on increasing the role of merit is a far superior pastime than attempting to wield the tax code to muddle towards some conception of ‘fairness’.

There are consequences to having a large gap between the richest and the poorest and they aren’t always desirable. This comes down to whether you value the individual or the society the most, or are willing to compromise between the two.

Pulling money away from people who will not feel it to support people, who by dint of their economic position are unable to pull themselves up, to such an extent they do not have to resort to illegal means to support themselves, do not feel bitter enough to resort to violence or despondent enough to turn to abuse of drugs, is a direct benefit to the rich.

As unrealistic as the above scenario is, there is still a large personal and societal benefit to working towards the ideal.

132 allegro  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:40:58am

re: #121 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Should the salesperson on the upper end pay a higher percentage Federal Income Taxes as the ones on the lower end for the same job?

The sale people earning $200,000 are paying the same tax percentage as those earning $60,000. They will continue to pay the same percentage on their earnings up to $250,000 based on the current proposal. Anything OVER that amount will be taxed at about 2 - 3% (don’t remember the exact amount) more.

Yes, this is fair.

133 researchok  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:42:02am

re: #71 ralphieboy

Privatized schools, prisons and police forces come at a lower price, but higher hidden costs…

Apples and oranges. Two different problems.

Besides, I didn’t mention privatization as a primary option.

134 schnapp  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:42:34am

re: #122 calochortus

yes they do factor in inflation i just checked. i thought they would because it’s real wages that matter, not nominal. but aas it said it’s total compensation that matters, not just wages.

135 calochortus  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:43:58am

re: #134 schnapp

Ya know, the more I think about it the more complicated it all gets. Wages are stagnant, but benefits have gone up-largely swallowed up by health care costs. Household incomes have risen, but housing costs have eaten up the increase in income caused by having two wage earners. People are going to look at this from whatever perspective they have and probably not come to an agreement. I think we have a problem, but I’m guessing you don’t.

I think maybe I’ll give up and do some thing more constructive.

136 Aceofwhat?  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:44:12am

re: #131 b_sharp

There are consequences to having a large gap between the richest and the poorest and they aren’t always desirable. This comes down to whether you value the individual or the society the most, or are willing to compromise between the two.

Pulling money away from people who will not feel it to support people, who by dint of their economic position are unable to pull themselves up, to such an extent they do not have to resort to illegal means to support themselves, do not feel bitter enough to resort to violence or despondent enough to turn to abuse of drugs, is a direct benefit to the rich.

As unrealistic as the above scenario is, there is still a large personal and societal benefit to working towards the ideal.

A gap which mirrors the disparities in talent and work ethic is not undesirable. I am all for helping those who are unable to pull themselves up, but I would guess that our differences mainly lie in how we’d define that term. Does that make sense?

137 insert name here  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:44:20am

re: #132 allegro

The sale people earning $200,000 are paying the same tax percentage as those earning $60,000. They will continue to pay the same percentage on their earnings up to $250,000 based on the current proposal. Anything OVER that amount will be taxed at about 2 - 3% (don’t remember the exact amount) more.

Yes, this is fair.

Isn’t the Federal Tax Bracket for those earning 200K versus those earning 60K 33% to 25%? So the tax percentage is not the same, unless I’m misunderstanding your post (and apologies if I am).

138 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:44:40am

re: #130 researchok

Putting the current tax tables aside.

139 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:45:43am

re: #121 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

All of the salespeople in my office are paid on commission only.

Some of the salespeople in my office make around $200,000.00 per year but potential is unlimited.

Some of the salespeople in my office are significantly less talented (and/or work significantly less) than the ones on the upper end and make fifty to sixty thousand dollars a year.

Putting current tax tables aside; I’d like to ask a question to see what people here think.

Should the salesperson on the upper end pay a higher percentage Federal Income Taxes as the ones on the lower end for the same job?

140 MarkAM  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:47:06am

re: #127 schnapp

Hard to decipher what you’ve written, but suffice it to say that the Gilded Age and the Industrial Revolution are two different things. The excesses of the Gilded Age and the myriad of problems (including extreme concentrations of wealth and monopolistic practices that thwarted competition) associated with those excesses are exactly what’s wrong with unfettered markets.

This is something that libertarians always seem to ignore ignore

141 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:47:31am

Boy, Miami got lucky as hell in that exchange right there.

142 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:48:25am

re: #128 Aceofwhat?

That is utter nonsense. Were you here complaining when Reid killed the larger and more bipartisan jobs bill and substituted a much smaller one, or have you sacrificed your already limited economic ken on the altar of partisanship?

Well no actually. To pretty much everything you are claiming falsely.

First off, The far larger jobs bill was filibustered from the get go. Don’t go and say Reid killed it. That is just not true. The Dems had to wrangle for months to get the 60 votes.

Second off, you managed to ignore every other point I made in the course of YOUR blind partisanship - or perhaps you think that GOP corporate deregulation a la Enron was a good thing? Shall we count the number of times that has bitten all of America in the ass?

And while we are at it - shall we forget that the largest threat facing our civilization is climate change, which to benefit the very short term bottom lines of their masters, the GOP lies about, claims isn’t real and does everthing in their power to prevent any action?

Or what about Rove being so proud that there will be no government regulation of hydrofracking? When that destroys water supplies - how mach damage will that do to the economy? Shall we forget how the GOP apologized to BP for the gulf as well?

The evidence is clear to anyone who isn’t utterly blinded by partisanship. Unfortunately you are so blinded by it that you project it on others.

143 recusancy  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:48:28am

re: #139 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

They should be progressively taxed as Allegro stated. Do you prefer a flat tax?

144 schnapp  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:48:45am

re: #135 calochortus

I think inequality is a problem but the most important way to adress it is to fix the education system (and the health care system).

145 b_sharp  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:49:07am

re: #113 schnapp

yes, the inequality is too high, but who decides what “merits” a certain level of income? every system will be unfair to somebody, ut the sstem which is best at creating wealth and improving the lives of ordinary working men and women is the market.

I somewhat disagree. The best method of levelling the playing field is a regulated and guided market. Without guidance, the market becomes less like evolution and more like chaos. Many of the fittest are artificially hobbled by purely social and economic constraints. Much of what currently passes as fitness is not based on ability but on preferential opportunities.

146 Aceofwhat?  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:49:07am

re: #141 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Boy, Miami got lucky as hell in that exchange right there.

The NFL Redzone channel is addicting as all get-out…do you have that one?

147 insert name here  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:49:51am

re: #139 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Putting current tax tables aside; I’d like to ask a question to see what people here think.

Should the salesperson on the upper end pay a higher percentage Federal Income Taxes as the ones on the lower end for the same job?

Well, it depends on what the differences in tax rates are, doesn’t it? With the current tax-bracket differences, I’d say, sure, tax them differently (at the current differential). It doesn’t seem to have stymied productivity. But, if this differential were increased, I suppose one could argue that productivity would drop at some point. What point would that be? I don’t know…

148 recusancy  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:49:56am

re: #144 schnapp

I think inequality is a problem but the most important way to adress it is to fix the education system (and the health care system).

How do we fix those?

149 researchok  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:50:37am

There is another facet to this discussion.

How do we define ‘corporate pay’? Is it the CEO’s of large public corporations only or the is the guy who has 6 burger franchises and works 60 hours a week also a CEO? How about the guy with 14 dry cleaner outlets and makes a couple of million a year. Is he a CEO in the same way a Wall Street executive is? Suppose he’s been working those stores for 25 years and has amassed a nice net worth?

What is the Middle Class, anyway?

Are the Middle Class is defined as the college educated manager/teacher/engineer types? Most doctors, lawyers and accountants see themselves as ‘Middle Class.’ Others see the ‘real’ Middle Class as the small business people who employed others in small offices, factories or retail shops. Still others see the Middle Class populated with skilled tradespeople or unionized factory workers, Still others see the real Middle Class as the highly motivated group of people with pickup trucks who place classified ads stating they will do anything, anytime, anywhere and have enough skills to get the job done. Others clean 2 houses a day, 5 days a week for $150 a day, cash ($1500 a week, tax free- not too shabby).

Then there are the ‘others’ of another and parallel Middle Classes- blacks, Asians, Jews, immigrants and so one.

Defining the Middle Class isn’t so easy. The only thing these groups have in common is that they are consumers.

150 schnapp  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:51:42am

re: #140 MarkAM

unions are a monopolistic barrier to competition. and yes i believe in anti-trust legislation.
and sorry for the typos but this keyboard is useless.

151 Aceofwhat?  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:51:44am

re: #142 LudwigVanQuixote

Well no actually. To pretty much everything you are claiming falsely.

First off, The far larger jobs bill was filibustered from the get go. Don’t go and say Reid killed it. That is just not true. The Dems had to wrangle for months to get the 60 votes.

Second off, you managed to ignore every other point I made in the course of YOUR blind partisanship - or perhaps you think that GOP corporate deregulation a la Enron was a good thing? Shall we count the number of times that has bitten all of America in the ass?

And while we are at it - shall we forget that the largest threat facing our civilization is climate change, which to benefit the very short term bottom lines of their masters, the GOP lies about, claims isn’t real and does everthing in their power to prevent any action?

Or what about Rove being so proud that there will be no government regulation of hydrofracking? When that destroys water supplies - how mach damage will that do to the economy? Shall we forget how the GOP apologized to BP for the gulf as well?

The evidence is clear to anyone who isn’t utterly blinded by partisanship. Unfortunately you are so blinded by it that you project it on others.

Reid pulled the 85-billion dollar bill. Period. How you can claim that is false is beyond me, but it’s dishonest of you to do so. Let me know if you need a link…i have about 47.

Second - this isn’t about climate change. I realize that’s where your intellectual security blanket is, but stick to the economics or make a separate point, LudwigvonNonSequitur. Thanks.

152 Gus  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:52:06am

re: #138 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Putting the current tax tables aside.

I would say no. Given that he is making 200K would mean he is paying more in taxes although at the same percentage. So if it was 10% (arbitrary figure here) then he would pay 20K and the guy making 50,000 would pay 5K. But that’s not the whole picture since there are deductions, dependents, etc.

153 FreedomMoon  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:52:34am

re: #139 Fat Bastard Vegetarian


I think so, the higher earners regardless of the tax percentage disparities, are still making more money. So the only question is, at what rates to we set each individual tier. You don’t want it to be too much, there still needs to remain the original incentive to make more money, but those who earn more should be taxed more in order to push along the collective society.

154 schnapp  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:54:16am

re: #148 recusancy

promote choice and competition and ensure that everyone has access to affordable health care and receives a decent education

155 researchok  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:54:48am

re: #138 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Putting the current tax tables aside.

Putting the tax tables aside means a flat tax.

I want to be clear- is that what you are asking about?

156 calochortus  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:55:05am

re: #144 schnapp

I think it will take a great deal more than that-its really not fair to give an equal education to the average poor kid from the inner city or the middle of nowhere and the child of a wealthy and well connected family and figure that will take care of it.

And now I really gotta go.

157 Killgore Trout  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:55:12am

GOP: We Owe It to People to Repeal Health Care

McConnell Attacks Reform Law; Clyburn: I’d Like to See GOP Try to Take Fundamental Right to Health Care Away From People

Video here: GOP Leader Concentrating on Reducing Spending

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell told Bob Schieffer his party is willing to negotiate with President Obama on extending tax cuts to the upper class and his stance on banning earmarks and repealing the health care bill.


The talking point seems to be the Bush tax Cuts for the rich are really for “small business”

158 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:55:33am

re: #152 Gus 802
I was asking to get an idea.

I agree with you on this.

There are those who think the 200,000 guy should pay a higher percentage simply because he can better afford it. That always personally struck me as a poor reason.

159 Killgore Trout  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:57:03am

re: #157 Killgore Trout

GOP: We Owe It to People to Repeal Health Care

Video here: GOP Leader Concentrating on Reducing Spending


The talking point seems to be the Bush tax Cuts for the rich are really for “small business”

“we don’t have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem”
-Same talking point as Rand Paul

160 HoosierHoops  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:57:06am

re: #153 tacuba14

I think so, the higher earners regardless of the tax percentage disparities, are still making more money. So the only question is, at what rates to we set each individual tier. You don’t want it to be too much, there still needs to remain the original incentive to make more money, but those who earn more should be taxed more in order to push along the collective society.

I make good money..And I pay 38 dollars less a month in federal taxes under Obama than Bush…I think he called it a middle class tax cut..It’s a fact..
Now if you are making millions a dollars a year and will have to pay more taxes..Boo hoo..Buy your next Mercedes in Europe and import it..You’ll get no tears from me..

161 researchok  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:57:21am

re: #158 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

I was asking to get an idea.

I agree with you on this.

There are those who think the 200,000 guy should pay a higher percentage simply because he can better afford it. That always personally struck me as a poor reason.

Agreed. Tax income. No need to punish success.

162 MarkAM  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:57:39am

re: #150 schnapp

Unions have their flaws, but to call them monopolistic barriers to competition is to engage in up-is-downism. They are a way for workers to level the playing field; they played a very important role in creating the standard of living that 20th century Americans were accustomed to, as did high marginal tax rates.

163 FreedomMoon  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:57:46am

re: #158 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

I was asking to get an idea.

I agree with you on this.

There are those who think the 200,000 guy should pay a higher percentage simply because he can better afford it. That always personally struck me as a poor reason.

Well, hehe I guess that means you shoot down my opinion. Fair enough.

164 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:57:48am

re: #151 Aceofwhat?

Reid pulled the 85-billion dollar bill. Period. How you can claim that is false is beyond me, but it’s dishonest of you to do so. Let me know if you need a link…i have about 47.

When was this and what was the history? Will you include that also? I am sure to enjoy trashing you. Actually let’s not and say we did. Do you deny that the GOP filibustered the jobs bill for over a year or not?

Second - this isn’t about climate change.

It is when you look at GOP policies that help the rich and fuck everyone else over - which is the context of my post.

I realize that’s where your intellectual security blanket is, but stick to the economics or make a separate point, LudwigvonNonSequitur. Thanks.

Boy, you sure get cranky and insulting when you get your ass handed to you with actual facts don’t you? Typical GOP reaction really.

165 recusancy  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:58:00am

re: #154 schnapp

promote choice and competition and ensure that everyone has access to affordable health care and receives a decent education

Congratulations. You sound like every politician, ever. How do you propose we actually do that besides making generic statements?

166 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:58:41am

re: #153 tacuba14

A tea party would highlight the word “collective” and call you a commie.

167 Sol Berdinowitz  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:58:49am

Just as the USSR fell victim to rigid adherency tothe ideology of Marxist socialism, the USA is starting to fall victim to the idology of the unfettered Free Market.

We make a mistake when we see the Free Market as an idology and not a mechanism: one that relies on a stable infrastructure to function.

And not just a physical infrastucture in the form of communications, energy and transportation networks, but a social and legal infrastructure that depends on health care, law enforcement and health care for the people who work in the system.

That system costs money to maintain, and that is where I see a key role of government, and a key justification for taxation and tax brackets: those who gain more from the infrastructure of the market owe more to maintain it.

168 Gus  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 10:59:34am

re: #158 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

I was asking to get an idea.

I agree with you on this.

There are those who think the 200,000 guy should pay a higher percentage simply because he can better afford it. That always personally struck me as a poor reason.

I’m trying to understand why someone like that should pay a higher percentage if he’s already paying more by virtue of his labor.

169 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 11:02:25am

re: #157 Killgore Trout

GOP: We Owe It to People to Repeal Health Care

Video here: GOP Leader Concentrating on Reducing Spending


The talking point seems to be the Bush tax Cuts for the rich are really for “small business”

And somehow fighting for the rights of insuruance companies to draw health care dollars away from doing something silly like caring for the ill, is for our benefit too.

The thing that gets me the most about the GOP is that they are telling the average American - WE ARE GOING TO BEND YOU OVER AND VIOLATE YOU IN CREATIVE WAYS WITH VERY WIDE AND JAGGED INSTRUMENTS BUT IT IS FOR YOUR BENEFIT!

They could not be more clear about this again and again and again - and people like ACE are still somehow believing that the GOP is on the side of the average American, despite having his rectum so broadened, stretched and distorted by the gentle love of the GOP for the average man, that he no longer makes noise when he passes gas.

170 b_sharp  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 11:03:01am

re: #121 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

All of the salespeople in my office are paid on commission only.

Some of the salespeople in my office make around $200,000.00 per year but potential is unlimited.

Some of the salespeople in my office are significantly less talented (and/or work significantly less) than the ones on the upper end and make fifty to sixty thousand dollars a year.

Putting current tax tables aside; I’d like to ask a question to see what people here think.

Should the salesperson on the upper end pay a higher percentage Federal Income Taxes as the ones on the lower end for the same job?

Should a person making $500,000 per year with no effort or talent be taxed at a higher rate than someone making $20,000 a year working 3 part time jobs, because s/he could not afford a higher education and all that is available are part-time jobs?

Your question is a very narrow concern taken from a very large and complex question. Because of expensive logistics, taking into account every different situation that, perhaps in an ideal world, would require different solutions, is economically not feasible, you quickly fall afoul of the law of diminishing returns.

171 Elisa  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 11:04:01am
Elisa, I’m curious what kinds of red-tape and their associated costs you’ve run into. Thanks!

I recently looked into the possibility of converting a personal hobby into additional income. Mind you, this was just for supplemental income until my husband is employed again, not a serious I’m-putting-my-all-into-this business.

I make jams and jellies, some fairly unusual, such as rose petal jam. You can find such things sold on the internet so I looked into going that route to keep costs down.

For starters there’s the usual - business license and fictitious business name, liability insurance. Then there are the CA food licensing requirements. I wish it were just a matter of paying for a health permit, but no, CA does not allow food prepared in a residence to be sold, period. No amount of remodeling, cleaning or following strict hygiene and production practices will change that.

The cost of buying time in a commercial kitchen puts that plan right into the crapper - I can’t produce enough product to make a profit and still keep competitive prices, no matter where I sell. (And yes, many of the small producers you see selling such things in CA are operating illegally in violation of this law).

But even if I managed to clear that hurdle there are the labeling laws and food testing laws - uber expensive. And if I want to protect myself by making my little venture a limited liability company so I don’t lose the house if someone claims to find a hair in a jar I have to pay a minimum of $800 in taxes every year, in advance.

Every business I’ve ever conceived has run the same course, different details.

172 schnapp  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 11:04:11am

re: #162 MarkAM

If anything they retard growth. They only benefit their members and it is always at other workers’ expense becaue they get pushed into lower paid jobs or into unemployment.
Workers get higher wages and better working conditions from higher productivity, more capital investment and better skills.
Unions are usefull if there is a monopsony, were employers act together to drive down wages, but that situation is the exception rather than the rule. I also support unions over health and safety issues.

173 FreedomMoon  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 11:04:54am

re: #166 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

A tea party would highlight the word “collective” and call you a commie.

Yeah well, the tea party would think I was from the Soviet Union. Look, let me be a little clearer. Just because I believe in progressive tax rates doesn’t signify that someone making 200k should be taxed 40% and the 60k 20%. I think it should be much more subtle. Maybe a couple percentages as your income increases 5, 10, 15, 25% That’s all I’m advocating. Like I stated in my post, if it’s too much than that removes the incentive to want to make more—also it feeds the desire the search out corrupt means of evading taxes which is another great loss for all.

174 Shiplord Kirel  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 11:04:58am

Recommended reading:
What’s the Matter with Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America
by Thomas M. Frank.
This is as significant as Frank’s groundbreaking historical study of media culture, The Conquest of Cool:Business Culture, Counterculture, and the Rise of Hip Consumerism
What’s the Matter with Kansas?, published in 2004, essentially examines how modern “conservatism” has persuaded the middle and working classes to vote against their own interests:

According to his analysis, the political discourse of recent decades has dramatically shifted from the class animus of traditional leftism to one in which “explosive” cultural issues, such as abortion and gay marriage, are used to redirect anger towards “liberal elites.”
175 schnapp  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 11:06:27am

re: #165 recusancy

well im not a policy-maker so it’s not up to me to come up with detailed solutions to the problems. I’ll support whoever i think has the best solutions.

176 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 11:06:54am

re: #170 b_sharp
I have no talent and don’t like to exert effort. Can you tell me where to apply for that 500K job?

177 Aceofwhat?  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 11:07:43am

re: #164 LudwigVanQuixote

When was this and what was the history? Will you include that also? I am sure to enjoy trashing you. Actually let’s not and say we did. Do you deny that the GOP filibustered the jobs bill for over a year or not?

It is when you look at GOP policies that help the rich and fuck everyone else over - which is the context of my post.

Boy, you sure get cranky and insulting when you get your ass handed to you with actual facts don’t you? Typical GOP reaction really.

That wasn’t cranky and insulting. That was funny.

1. There was a bill crafted with Senator Grassley’s help which clearly had the votes to pass. The filibustering that had occurred prior, which you reference, was before the democrats actually accepted some Republican input. Big f-ing deal.
2. Obama would have signed it, and in fact released a statement about how they were looking forward to the bill just minutes before Reid killed it.
3. This is why you fail.
4. There i go again.

Simple enough?

178 insert name here  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 11:08:00am

re: #171 Elisa

Thanks, Elisa. I very much appreciate your explanation!

Now you’ve got me wondering about some of those vendors at the local farmer’s market…

179 researchok  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 11:08:01am

re: #170 b_sharp

Should a person making $500,000 per year with no effort or talent be taxed at a higher rate than someone making $20,000 a year working 3 part time jobs, because s/he could not afford a higher education and all that is available are part-time jobs?

Your question is a very narrow concern taken from a very large and complex question. Because of expensive logistics, taking into account every different situation that, perhaps in an ideal world, would require different solutions, is economically not feasible, you quickly fall afoul of the law of diminishing returns.

Why should how the income is earned make a difference?

Should a widow making a union pension income of 75k a year pay more in taxes than someone else who has a job? How about a fireman’s young widow with 3 kids to raise- should she pay more?

Should a college professor who teaches a few grad classes and does research be taxed at a higher rate than a TA who works his ass off?

And who gets to make the rules?

180 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 11:09:11am

I am fairly certain that Michael Moore and Barbra Streisand employ tax professionals.

181 Aceofwhat?  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 11:09:24am

re: #169 LudwigVanQuixote

And somehow fighting for the rights of insuruance companies to draw health care dollars away from doing something silly like caring for the ill, is for our benefit too.

The thing that gets me the most about the GOP is that they are telling the average American - WE ARE GOING TO BEND YOU OVER AND VIOLATE YOU IN CREATIVE WAYS WITH VERY WIDE AND JAGGED INSTRUMENTS BUT IT IS FOR YOUR BENEFIT!

They could not be more clear about this again and again and again - and people like ACE are still somehow believing that the GOP is on the side of the average American, despite having his rectum so broadened, stretched and distorted by the gentle love of the GOP for the average man, that he no longer makes noise when he passes gas.

let us hope that you are more concerned about data and facts in your chosen profession than on the subject of economics…

182 b_sharp  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 11:09:33am

re: #127 schnapp

actually it did. never before in human history have ordinary working people seen their living standards rise as in the industrial revolution. by today’s standards it isnt great, but the people in 1900 were mu better off than the people in 1800 because of free markets.

They are much better off now because of technology, which is produced by curiosity more than by desire for money, and civil right improvements. The free markets of the 19th century were much less controlled/regulated than they are now. In other words, they were closer to the ideal of free markets than the current markets are.

183 schnapp  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 11:09:50am

re: #176 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

somewhere in the GOP

184 recusancy  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 11:10:34am

re: #180 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

I am fairly certain that Michael Moore and Barbra Streisand employ tax professionals.

I’m also pretty sure they pay taxes and don’t advocate for lower taxes for rich people.

185 Gus  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 11:10:38am

re: #170 b_sharp

Should a person making $500,000 per year with no effort or talent be taxed at a higher rate than someone making $20,000 a year working 3 part time jobs, because s/he could not afford a higher education and all that is available are part-time jobs?

Your question is a very narrow concern taken from a very large and complex question. Because of expensive logistics, taking into account every different situation that, perhaps in an ideal world, would require different solutions, is economically not feasible, you quickly fall afoul of the law of diminishing returns.

It becomes a little more tricky as the differences widen. That’s what deductions are for. “No talent and effort” aside what about those that put a lot of effort. Take the guy making 200K a year. Let’s say he’s a truckers or traveling salesman. He is already providing tax revenue in the form of fuel taxes, hotel or lodging taxes, meals, tips, etc. After deductions though 20K is considered poverty level if I’m not mistaken. I think 20K falls into what I would consider a special circumstance.

186 b_sharp  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 11:11:05am

re: #136 Aceofwhat?

A gap which mirrors the disparities in talent and work ethic is not undesirable. I am all for helping those who are unable to pull themselves up, but I would guess that our differences mainly lie in how we’d define that term. Does that make sense?

Yes.

187 Gus  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 11:12:35am

Well, like I said earlier. I don’t see it as much about taxes then about wages. The bottom line: pay people more.

188 Aceofwhat?  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 11:12:37am

re: #170 b_sharp

Should a person making $500,000 per year with no effort or talent be taxed at a higher rate than someone making $20,000 a year working 3 part time jobs, because s/he could not afford a higher education and all that is available are part-time jobs?

Yes.

However, most people making that coin have either a lot of talent and at least some effort or a lot of effort and at least some talent.

These debates are easier when we don’t use extreme, rare situations to make key points.

189 recusancy  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 11:13:44am

re: #175 schnapp

well im not a policy-maker so it’s not up to me to come up with detailed solutions to the problems. I’ll support whoever i think has the best solutions.

Are you pro Affordable Healthcare Act of 2010? That was a policy that achieved your stated goals of everyone having access to affordable health care.

190 Aceofwhat?  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 11:13:55am

re: #187 Gus 802

Well, like I said earlier. I don’t see it as much about taxes then about wages. The bottom line: pay people more.

i’m not sure that i understand. by and large, why shouldn’t people be paid the approximate market rate?

191 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 11:14:22am

I have chores…. ugh…

192 schnapp  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 11:15:30am

re: #189 recusancy

it wasn’t perfect but it was an enormous improvement

193 Charles Johnson  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 11:15:49am

My web connection just completely dropped for almost an hour, always a fun experience. Thank you, Time Warner.

194 b_sharp  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 11:15:51am

re: #176 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

I have no talent and don’t like to exert effort. Can you tell me where to apply for that 500K job?

Talk to your rich parents.

195 PT Barnum  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 11:16:11am

re: #188 Aceofwhat?

Yes.

However, most people making that coin have either a lot of talent and at least some effort or a lot of effort and at least some talent.

These debates are easier when we don’t use extreme, rare situations to make key points.

Philosophical reasons aside, is it good for a small group of people to control a large percentage of a nations resources? From history and examples in other countries, it never turns out all that well, either for the haves (think French Revolution) or the have nots.

196 researchok  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 11:16:24am

re: #191 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

I have chores… ugh…

I hear that.

I’ve got work to do myself.

197 b_sharp  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 11:16:57am

re: #179 researchok

Why should how the income is earned make a difference?

Should a widow making a union pension income of 75k a year pay more in taxes than someone else who has a job? How about a fireman’s young widow with 3 kids to raise- should she pay more?

Should a college professor who teaches a few grad classes and does research be taxed at a higher rate than a TA who works his ass off?

And who gets to make the rules?

Reread my post.

198 Gus  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 11:17:15am

re: #190 Aceofwhat?

i’m not sure that i understand. by and large, why shouldn’t people be paid the approximate market rate?

Because I think we can and it would be better for the economy in the long run. Higher salaries means higher retail sales and spending. Ironically it also increases tax revenue. Now, I realize that it’s wishful thinking. But I see it as an alternative to addressing the problem by way of taxes. We can increase the taxes on the super rich but it would probably have little effect on the poor, working and middle classes.

199 FreedomMoon  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 11:17:15am

re: #184 recusancy

I’m also pretty sure they pay taxes and don’t advocate for lower taxes for rich people.

But make no mistake, EVERYONE (99%) of people who have the means to hire tax professionals are looking at every single legal avenue (and there are maaany) available to retain their wealth. Now, what percentage of those that are dishonest look to unscrupulous means remains a mystery.

200 researchok  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 11:17:26am

re: #193 Charles

My web connection just completely dropped for almost an hour, always a fun experience. Thank you, Time Warner.

Don’t go all Ted Kazncyski on us,
//

201 Aceofwhat?  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 11:17:33am

re: #193 Charles

My web connection just completely dropped for almost an hour, always a fun experience. Thank you, Time Warner.

i may have drawn on some of the walls with crayons and i think that b_sharp peed on the rug.

other than that, things are fine here/

202 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 11:17:40am

re: #30 Dark_Falcon

No. I don’t see why “inequality” is even an issue.

lol

203 Feline Fearless Leader  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 11:19:18am

re: #56 ralphieboy

We have to pay high CEO salaries to get the best people!!! As in the ones who will run America so far off the rails that the Federal Government has to pull the wreck out of the ditch.

So let’s tax it so heavily that some of these best people think of federal service as a viable alternative!

/ ;)

204 researchok  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 11:20:05am

re: #197 b_sharp

Reread my post.

I did.

I was referring to the idea itself.

The fact that it may be unfeasible is a separate issue.

205 Elisa  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 11:20:22am

The bottom line: pay people more.

Good in theory, but aren’t that and payroll taxes why jobs are being outsourced? Dictating wages that have no correlation to the current market is just as bad as allowing slave wages.

206 b_sharp  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 11:20:40am

re: #188 Aceofwhat?

Yes.

However, most people making that coin have either a lot of talent and at least some effort or a lot of effort and at least some talent.

These debates are easier when we don’t use extreme, rare situations to make key points.

That was the reason for my post and the use of the extreme. We either consider each situation individually, which would kill the economy, or we use blanket rules and treat every situation the same through a rules based algorithm.

207 Sol Berdinowitz  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 11:20:43am

re: #127 schnapp

actually it did. never before in human history have ordinary working people seen their living standards rise as in the industrial revolution. by today’s standards it isnt great, but the people in 1900 were mu better off than the people in 1800 because of free markets.

Adam Smith was not for full laissez-fair market ideology, he was just against state-run and licensed monoplies, trade restrictions and professional guilds.

He had no problem with regulation, he even said that “markets are there to serve people, people are not there to serve markets”.

And the latter seems to be the path we are heading down.

208 FreedomMoon  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 11:21:03am

re: #194 b_sharp

Talk to your rich parents.

Are you being facetious? Presumptive? Sarcastic? You’re messages are coming across a bit convoluted.

209 insert name here  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 11:21:04am

re: #199 tacuba14

EVERYONE (99%) of people who have the means to hire tax professionals are looking at every single legal avenue (and there are maaany) available to retain their wealth. Now, what percentage of those that are dishonest look to unscrupulous means remains a mystery.

98.9% ?

(Just kidding! My step-father, for example, was always very scrupulous in paying his taxes. But I’ve known others…)

210 Aceofwhat?  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 11:21:05am

re: #195 PT Barnum

Philosophical reasons aside, is it good for a small group of people to control a large percentage of a nations resources? From history and examples in other countries, it never turns out all that well, either for the haves (think French Revolution) or the have nots.

I don’t think that it is good. At the same time, i think it is far worse to abruptly redistribute it because we don’t want to do the more difficult work of making sure that each of us have the opportunity to progress, financially, to the natural limit of our respective talent and work ethic.

So i do not mean to appear sanguine about the current situation; i am simply not in favor of using tax policy for any purpose other than the extraction of the maximum amount of revenue for the least economic harm.

211 Gus  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 11:21:08am

IOW one guy making 500 million a year theoretically only needs one washer/dryer. If you can increase the wages of 50,000 families (for example) that translates to 50,000 washer/dryers being sold.

212 Sol Berdinowitz  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 11:21:20am

re: #203 oaktree

So let’s tax it so heavily that some of these best people think of federal service as a viable alternative!

/ ;)


That might drive them into politics…

213 Aceofwhat?  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 11:22:00am

re: #206 b_sharp

That was the reason for my post and the use of the extreme. We either consider each situation individually, which would kill the economy, or we use blanket rules and treat every situation the same through a rules based algorithm.

i can dig it

214 b_sharp  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 11:22:07am

re: #205 Elisa

The bottom line: pay people more.

Good in theory, but aren’t that and payroll taxes why jobs are being outsourced? Dictating wages that have no correlation to the current market is just as bad as allowing slave wages.

Where does the money come from?

There are only so many dollars out there.

215 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 11:22:32am

re: #211 Gus 802

IOW one guy making 500 million a year theoretically only needs one washer/dryer. If you can increase the wages of 50,000 families (for example) that translates to 50,000 washer/dryers being sold.

But that’s like liberal socialism muslim redistribution something I forget what Sean Hannity said but it’s that

216 Sol Berdinowitz  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 11:22:44am

re: #211 Gus 802

IOW one guy making 500 million a year theoretically only needs one washer/dryer. If you can increase the wages of 50,000 families (for example) that translates to 50,000 washer/dryers being sold.


I guy making that sort of money wears his clothes once and then donates them to the Salvation Army…

217 Gus  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 11:23:21am

re: #216 ralphieboy

I guy making that sort of money wears his clothes once and then donates them to the Salvation Army…

Then claims it as a tax deduction…

218 b_sharp  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 11:23:30am

re: #208 tacuba14

Are you being facetious? Presumptive? Sarcastic? You’re messages are coming across a bit convoluted.

Keep reading.

It was an extreme based on people like what’s her name Hilton.

219 b_sharp  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 11:24:30am

BBIAW

220 Sol Berdinowitz  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 11:25:35am

The Swiss approach is a low base tax rate and very few exemptions and deductions. It means that people actually do put their effort into making money rather than finding ways to hide their incomes and assets.

Of course, the way many of them make their money in the first place is by offering other a chance to hide their incomes and assets…

221 Elisa  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 11:26:19am

re: #214 b_sharp

Where does the money come from?

There are only so many dollars out there.

False. The Fed is printing more money to flood into the economy even as we speak.

222 Gus  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 11:27:00am

Nor Luap!

223 Elisa  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 11:27:29am

re: #220 ralphieboy

The Swiss approach is a low base tax rate and very few exemptions and deductions.

That would mean…fewer tax lawyers. Huzzah!!

224 Aceofwhat?  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 11:27:38am

re: #198 Gus 802

Because I think we can and it would be better for the economy in the long run. Higher salaries means higher retail sales and spending. Ironically it also increases tax revenue. Now, I realize that it’s wishful thinking. But I see it as an alternative to addressing the problem by way of taxes. We can increase the taxes on the super rich but it would probably have little effect on the poor, working and middle classes.

Let me try to build on that. One of the most effective ways, historically, to raise wages across the board is to transition the economy. It happened when we moved from farming to industrialization, and it’s been happening again as it moved from industrialization to knowledge and service.

Forcing a company to pay a higher wage for the same job leads to fewer jobs. That’s not what we want. We want people to stop fighting the loss of “simple” jobs to lower-wage markets overseas and start training themselves to qualify for a different, higher-wage job here at home.

So I am far more excited about subsidizing retraining and adult education courses than i would be about spending the same money on higher wages.

Does that make sense? I think that your goal is laudable but the devil is in the path that we choose to higher wages for all…

225 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 11:28:46am

re: #177 Aceofwhat?

That wasn’t cranky and insulting. That was funny.

1. There was a bill crafted with Senator Grassley’s help which clearly had the votes to pass. The filibustering that had occurred prior, which you reference, was before the democrats actually accepted some Republican input. Big f-ing deal.
2. Obama would have signed it, and in fact released a statement about how they were looking forward to the bill just minutes before Reid killed it.
3. This is why you fail.
4. There i go again.

Simple enough?

Which bill when? And, what about the filibuster? Please stop fixating. You go on about facts but do not provide them. You also give no context.
Tell you what, let’s just for the sake of argument, give you this point what about the dozen others?

226 FreedomMoon  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 11:31:08am

re: #206 b_sharp

That was the reason for my post and the use of the extreme. We either consider each situation individually, which would kill the economy, or we use blanket rules and treat every situation the same through a rules based algorithm.

Well just to be clear, we DO have blanket rules in place. Enforcement is the issue, we need laws in place with teeth. These blanket rules have many vulnerabilities that to date are being severely exploited, keeping billions and billions from the coffers.

227 Gus  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 11:31:22am

re: #224 Aceofwhat?

Let me try to build on that. One of the most effective ways, historically, to raise wages across the board is to transition the economy. It happened when we moved from farming to industrialization, and it’s been happening again as it moved from industrialization to knowledge and service.

Forcing a company to pay a higher wage for the same job leads to fewer jobs. That’s not what we want. We want people to stop fighting the loss of “simple” jobs to lower-wage markets overseas and start training themselves to qualify for a different, higher-wage job here at home.

So I am far more excited about subsidizing retraining and adult education courses than i would be about spending the same money on higher wages.

Does that make sense? I think that your goal is laudable but the devil is in the path that we choose to higher wages for all…

I know. I don’t think they should be forced. Just pie in the sky thinking on my part. There’s no way I would agree to some Federal wage standard department. It should instead become more of a trend and voluntary aspect of American society.

228 Elisa  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 11:31:41am

re: #224 Aceofwhat?

…Forcing a company to pay a higher wage for the same job leads to fewer jobs. …So I am far more excited about subsidizing retraining and adult education courses than i would be about spending the same money on higher wages.

Does that make sense? I think that your goal is laudable but the devil is in the path that we choose to higher wages for all…

amen!

229 Gus  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 11:33:01am

Higher wages. Greed is not good.

230 insert name here  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 11:33:11am

re: #224 Aceofwhat?

Let me try to build on that. One of the most effective ways, historically, to raise wages across the board is to transition the economy. It happened when we moved from farming to industrialization, and it’s been happening again as it moved from industrialization to knowledge and service.

…clip…

So I am far more excited about subsidizing retraining and adult education courses than i would be about spending the same money on higher wages.

Except, I’d argue (as an engineer in Silicon Valley), we’re now seeing the “knowledge” sector off-shoring more and more jobs. Where do we transition to from there? More lawyers?

231 Aceofwhat?  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 11:33:16am

re: #225 LudwigVanQuixote

Which bill when? And, what about the filibuster? Please stop fixating. You go on about facts but do not provide them. You also give no context.
Tell you what, let’s just for the sake of argument, give you this point what about the dozen others?

i figured you didn’t know.

thehill.com

let me know if you need eleventy other links for verification. it ain’t hard.

232 Sol Berdinowitz  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 11:33:17am

re: #223 Elisa

That would mean…fewer tax lawyers. Huzzah!!

Sort of in line with the desirability of putting one’s effort into creating wealth rather than finding creative ways to camouflage it.

233 Shiplord Kirel  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 11:33:48am

re: #211 Gus 802

IOW one guy making 500 million a year theoretically only needs one washer/dryer. If you can increase the wages of 50,000 families (for example) that translates to 50,000 washer/dryers being sold.

That’s a crucial point. It is remarkable that people who sell cars and houses, for example, are typically dead set against a substantial increase in the minimum wage. Is McDonald’s going to outsource their burgers to Bangladesh if they suddenly have to pay another $3 an hour? Will it put them out of business? Every dittohead will leap to scream “yes!” but how will that happen when the same increase applies to their competitors? Will it really increase unemployment? A few marginal jobs may have to go, but the ones that really have to be done (that is, most of them) will stay. The loss would be more than compensated by increased consumer spending, which is a much higher percentage at the low end than the high. Btw, if the burger flipper can suddenly afford a home of his own, it won’t be in Bangladesh either, and you might even start getting a lot better burgers as well.
What drives the growing income gap is the fetish for cheap labor in the business world, both here and (through outsourcing) overseas. I thought we settled that question in this country in 1865.

234 Sol Berdinowitz  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 11:36:52am

re: #233 Shiplord Kirel


I agree in letting foreign countries compete with us on wages and benefits, that is our motivation to become more productive. But we are cutting our own throats when we allow them to compete with us on lower safety and environmental protection costs. That is where I say free trade be damned, we need a tariff, to offset that cost differential.

Which would provide impetus for those nations to clean up their acts: once they are up to US standards, we would drop the tariff requirement.

235 Aceofwhat?  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 11:39:07am

re: #227 Gus 802

I know. I don’t think they should be forced. Just pie in the sky thinking on my part. There’s no way I would agree to some Federal wage standard department. It should instead become more of a trend and voluntary aspect of American society.

And there are many companies who do. But your point illustrates why i’m complimentary of Obama and hard on legislators who fail to understand the benefits of free trade. (Ludwig - pay attention).

Few subjects unite left-leaning and right-leaning economists like the benefits of free trade agreements. We risk losing jobs that can be done more cheaply elsewhere (to the chagrin of some unions who spend too much time protecting relics in lieu of equipping their members to perform more complicated and technical work) and we risk gaining jobs that offer more opportunity and higher wages.

236 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 11:42:29am

re: #231 Aceofwhat?

i figured you didn’t know.

[Link: thehill.com…]

let me know if you need eleventy other links for verification. it ain’t hard.

Yes yes yes, and I had asked for context which you continue to not provide.

Is this what passes for debate in GOP land. That happened in February.

Did Reid force the GOP to filibuster? So after the bill changed in negotiations - that’s politics - the entire GOP had a gun to their head forcing them not to work to do anything?

Were the GOP actually going to vote yes for that bill anyway? Every other thing they negotiated on, they drew out for months and then refused to vote yes on after negotiating in bad faith.

I really can’t believe you fall for this propaganda.

Now that you have shown your brain-addled partisanship on this complete with the false superiority of someone who is talking out of his ass while ignoring salient points, shall we move on to the other dozen or so points I made?

I’m sorry Ace, I am not going to let you whitewash this.

237 Elisa  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 11:47:04am

re: #234 ralphieboy

I agree in letting foreign countries compete with us on wages and benefits, that is our motivation to become more productive. But we are cutting our own throats when we allow them to compete with us on lower safety and environmental protection costs. That is where I say free trade be damned, we need a tariff, to offset that cost differential.

Which would provide impetus for those nations to clean up their acts: once they are up to US standards, we would drop the tariff requirement.

Agreed! This and simplifying the tax code would alone do wonders for our economy.

238 Romantic Heretic  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 11:47:23am

re: #43 researchok

CEO income is more often than not sanctioned and set by Boards of Directors and often based on performance.

The place to start, in my opinion is with those Boards of Directors who reward themselves with equally outrageous compensation/reward packages.

It also bears remembering that the vast majority of stock shareholders (dollar value) are pension funds and the like. Unlike individual shareholders, they have tremendous influence on Boards and at shareholder meetings. They are reluctant to rock the boat because as long as the stocks perform their pensioners are happy. They have every reason to appreciate the pay for performance efforts.

What can be done and is being done is changing not how much the CEO’s (or bankers or high level brokerage management) are being paid, but in how they are paid. They are less and less likely now to be able to take the money and run, so to speak. They are given deferred compensation packages and stock options, only worth the large numbers if the company performance continues. This discourages high risk plays and encourages more responsible fiscal management.

It is surprising to me as to why Kristof fails to mention these new compensation packages that are more and more a part of the corporate landscape.

Kristof wants everyone to believe this is only about tax policy. It is not. Pay for performance and tax issues are two entirely separate issues.

We can talk about and debate tax policies all day long, but pay for performance is no crime. It is up to shareholders to change that, not the government.

I’m afraid it doesn’t that.

What it does is encourage upper management to manipulate the stock prices a la Enron and World Crossing. Who can blame them? It’s always easier to manipulate than to actually do things. Furthermore we live in a society that encourages manipulation.

IMO.

239 Jadespring  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 11:47:49am

Bah my internet connection is being stupid today.

I was actually getting into this economics discussion when ‘bam’ nope not anymore.

240 Aceofwhat?  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 11:50:03am

re: #236 LudwigVanQuixote

Yes yes yes, and I had asked for context which you continue to not provide.

Is this what passes for debate in GOP land. That happened in February.

Did Reid force the GOP to filibuster? So after the bill changed in negotiations - that’s politics - the entire GOP had a gun to their head forcing them not to work to do anything?

Were the GOP actually going to vote yes for that bill anyway? Every other thing they negotiated on, they drew out for months and then refused to vote yes on after negotiating in bad faith.

I really can’t believe you fall for this propaganda.

Now that you have shown your brain-addled partisanship on this complete with the false superiority of someone who is talking out of his ass while ignoring salient points, shall we move on to the other dozen or so points I made?

I’m sorry Ace, I am not going to let you whitewash this.

this bill had the votes to pass. what filibuster are you talking about? it never got to the floor for the final vote…it’s hard to filibuster something in advance, you know.

and no, we aren’t going to get to your dozen other points about either (a) AGW or (b) crude references to buttsex. You haven’t bought me nearly enough drinks today…

241 Romantic Heretic  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 11:50:15am

re: #48 SpaceJesus

Tax them to the hilt, invest that money in education, infrastructure, and R&D

problem solved

A little factoid from my favorite writer: In the late 1950’s, early 60s, the jointly held stock companies carried 30 to 40 per cent of the tax burden in the West. By the early 90s this had fallen to 10 to 15 per cent.

As I’ve said before, we’re not in a debt crisis, we’re n a taxation crisis.

242 Aceofwhat?  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 11:50:30am

re: #239 Jadespring

Bah my internet connection is being stupid today.

I was actually getting into this economics discussion when ‘bam’ nope not anymore.

go ahead, dive in - we’re still here!

243 Jadespring  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 11:51:26am

re: #242 Aceofwhat?

go ahead, dive in - we’re still here!

Yes I know but I lost my momentum! :)

244 Romantic Heretic  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 12:14:17pm

re: #167 ralphieboy

Just as the USSR fell victim to rigid adherency tothe ideology of Marxist socialism, the USA is starting to fall victim to the idology of the unfettered Free Market.

We make a mistake when we see the Free Market as an idology and not a mechanism: one that relies on a stable infrastructure to function.

And not just a physical infrastucture in the form of communications, energy and transportation networks, but a social and legal infrastructure that depends on health care, law enforcement and health care for the people who work in the system.

That system costs money to maintain, and that is where I see a key role of government, and a key justification for taxation and tax brackets: those who gain more from the infrastructure of the market owe more to maintain it.

In my opinion there is one thing ‘Marxists’ and ‘capitalists’ agree on: how a capitalistic society works.

The only difference is the ‘Marxists’ think this is a bad thing and the ‘capitalists’ think this is a good thing.

I put the terms in quotes because usually both parties are neither. They’re just grabbing some philosophy to gain power for themselves.

245 researchok  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 12:17:18pm

re: #238 Romantic Heretic

I’m afraid it doesn’t that.

What it does is encourage upper management to manipulate the stock prices a la Enron and World Crossing. Who can blame them? It’s always easier to manipulate than to actually do things. Furthermore we live in a society that encourages manipulation.

IMO.

They engaged in criminal activity.

That is an entirely different matter.

246 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 12:24:51pm

re: #240 Aceofwhat?

Are you not reading your own link, Ace?

What Reid ‘killed’ in the jobs bill was the tax cuts that didn’t have to do with job creation.

The bill was becoming a massive, overstuffed mess with a hundred things unrelated to job creation in there. I’m surprised that you’re using this as example of Reid killing a larger jobs bill— I assume you’re counting all of the money in the bill that wasn’t for jobs as for jobs.

Normally, don’t you dislike kitchen-sink bills?

247 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 12:25:58pm

re: #245 researchok

Whether or not corporations engage in illegal behavior is a function of regulation. What is illegal behavior under a regulatory environment is perfectly legal if you deregulate. Something to keep in mind; illegal isn’t a bright line, but depends on how well we regulate.

248 Sol Berdinowitz  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 12:26:09pm

re: #245 researchok

They engaged in criminal activity.

That is an entirely different matter.

True, but the sort of activity that is both encouraged and unregulated, which is all but inviting it. After all, if everybody else is doing it, why should we allow ourselves to be put at a disadvantage.

And this in an atmosphere of deregulation in the name of encouraging the Free Market.

249 researchok  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 12:28:26pm

re: #247 Obdicut

Whether or not corporations engage in illegal behavior is a function of regulation. What is illegal behavior under a regulatory environment is perfectly legal if you deregulate. Something to keep in mind; illegal isn’t a bright line, but depends on how well we regulate.

Corporations do not engage in illegal activity. Those who run them make a deliberate choice to do so.

The vast majority of corporations do not make that same choice.

250 researchok  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 12:30:14pm

re: #248 ralphieboy

True, but the sort of activity that is both encouraged and unregulated, which is all but inviting it. After all, if everybody else is doing it, why should we allow ourselves to be put at a disadvantage.

And this in an atmosphere of deregulation in the name of encouraging the Free Market.

Deregulation by itself does not encourage illegal activities.

251 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 12:30:50pm

re: #249 researchok

Corporations do not engage in illegal activity. Those who run them make a deliberate choice to do so.

The vast majority of corporations do not make that same choice.

That wasn’t my point. My point was that if there is a regulatory environment that allows a corporation to make decisions that are really terrible for others in the economy but really good for that corporation— or even really terrible for that corporation in the long-run but good for them in the short-term, they will usually make that decision unless they have excellent leadership.

What is ‘illegal’ in corporate behavior is determined by the regulatory environment they exist in.

252 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 12:31:11pm

re: #250 researchok

Deregulation by itself does not encourage illegal activities.

No, it allows activities that would be illegal under the regulatory environment to occur.

It legalizes them.

253 Sol Berdinowitz  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 12:31:51pm

re: #250 researchok

Deregulation by itself does not encourage illegal activities.

No, it makes those activities legal: activities like concealing or misrepresenting a company’s assets to the point that the entire financial system hits gridlock and requires a government bailout to prevent complete collapse.

Which is the cheaper alternative - regulation or intervention?

254 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 12:34:17pm

re: #181 Aceofwhat?

let us hope that you are more concerned about data and facts in your chosen profession than on the subject of economics…

That was low as hell, Ace.

255 Kruk  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 12:37:03pm

Texas Republicans want to opt out of Medicaid:

nytimes.com

Cantor: No compromises on extending tax cuts:

huffingtonpost.com

The modern GOP, ladies and gentlement. The party of “screw you, I’ve got more than I’ll ever need”.

256 djameswrites  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 12:37:56pm

re: #5 JasonA

Let’s keep bitching about unions on this blog.

Somtimes there are reasons to bitch

In 2006 Andy Stern’s salary was $229,960. Better than the average dude working at your local restaurant, huh?

His salary is now 249.000 pus travel, hotels(1st class) breakfast, lunch dinner. Chauffeur etc. When he want a raise he tells his board they need a raise and to include him.

But don’t use the restaurant numbers, use the salaries of the cleaners who pay dues to the SEIU…about $12.00 per hour with no per diems, no travel expenses, and the privilege of paying not only the salaries of those like Stern but a myriad of ‘union management’.

I am not going to argue that the numbers are not skewed way out of proportion, they are, and it sucks, big time. To pretend that unions are not a part of the problem though is disingenuous.

To touch also on the biased nature of that last paragraph, let’s either use percentages or whole numbers, don’t use both. In other words, if .1% get the same percentage (the reality is that it is smaller) tax cut as the rest of us, the whole number is going to be huge, they make more money. This is simple math, and one of the most popular head fakes of both sides of the aisle.

257 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 12:40:24pm

re: #256 djameswrites

What the fuck are you talking about, dude? Unions are the problem with what?

Andy Stern is making about eight times what I did as a bartender.

Compare that to the 531 times of a CEO.

Your point sucks.

258 Jadespring  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 12:40:59pm

The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state. The expense of government to the individuals of a great nation is like the expense of management to the joint tenants of a great estate, who are all obliged to contribute in proportion to their respective interests in the estate. In the observation or neglect of this maxim consists what is called the equality or inequality of taxation.”

259 djameswrites  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 12:41:05pm

re: #256 djameswrites

That sucked, there are two links there…the top one relates to Stern being investigated for being a thief, the second one deals with the amount he was paid before he tried to hide in the White House from the FBI’s investigation.

260 Aceofwhat?  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 12:41:32pm

re: #254 Obdicut

That was low as hell, Ace.

But ‘brain-addled partisanship’ and talking out of my ass bla bla bla, that’s ok? It was ok with me, mind you, because i threw a little barb or two of my own.

i didn’t complain about the snide remarks flying both ways…i’m not sure why you need to either.

261 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 12:44:27pm

re: #260 Aceofwhat?

Impugning Ludwig’s professionalism is a hell of a lot worse than impugning your partisan politics, Ace.

Unless you’re going to try to claim that you’re not partisan in your politics.

262 Aceofwhat?  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 12:44:54pm

re: #246 Obdicut

Are you not reading your own link, Ace?

What Reid ‘killed’ in the jobs bill was the tax cuts that didn’t have to do with job creation.

The bill was becoming a massive, overstuffed mess with a hundred things unrelated to job creation in there. I’m surprised that you’re using this as example of Reid killing a larger jobs bill— I assume you’re counting all of the money in the bill that wasn’t for jobs as for jobs.

Normally, don’t you dislike kitchen-sink bills?

Oh, i read it. Did i say one way or another whether i liked the original job bill better? If i did, help me out. My preference is not the point here.

The point is that bipartisanship = compromise, which Reid clearly killed, despite accusations that i am making false claims. Placing the blame squarely on the GOP, as Ludwig did, is ill-informed at best and…well…i won’t give the worst-case.

//And don’t democrats like massive, overstuffed bills…

263 Cheese Eating Victory Monkey  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 12:45:07pm

I liked these quotes from the article:

Rising inequality also led to more divorces, presumably a byproduct of the strains of financial distress. Maybe I’m overly sentimental or romantic, but that pierces me. It’s a reminder that inequality isn’t just an economic issue but also a question of human dignity and happiness.

Mounting evidence suggests that losing a job or a home can rock our identity and savage our self-esteem. Forced moves wrench families from their schools and support networks.

In short, inequality leaves people on the lower rungs feeling like hamsters on a wheel spinning ever faster, without hope or escape.

This is where the GOP “family values” theme clashes with reality. If parents don’t have job stability and decent conditions like health insurance, how can that be conducive to family values and strong communities? Why be punished not just for losing a job by also losing your health care package and the resulting conflict within the family over the need to move?

This is one of the reasons I supported the health care reform and even think it didn’t go far enough. Not having health insurance due to job status must be like having a Sword of Damocles hang over your head.

264 djameswrites  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 12:45:51pm

re: #257 Obdicut

Stern’s real income was over a million and you know it. Your bartender money is not the money of the majority of workers who make up the locals of the SEIU, I know, I am a member of 32BJ, I know what the cleaners make, I know that the local defends the hiring of illegals (yes I can link that, it’s in the philly Inquirer), and the point is that while the pay for most CEO’s is way out of whack, so are the salaries of the union bosses.
When the workers of a union are scraping to get bus fare and Stern is using the unions jet to visit the White House while stealing money (allegedly), I think I can point out that discussing unions when discussing pay parity is valid.

265 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 12:46:44pm

re: #262 Aceofwhat?

You called Ludwig’s post utter nonsense, because Reid killed a larger ‘jobs’ bill. I’m pointing out that much of what made that bill larger was not connected to jobs in the least, so calling it a ‘larger’ bill is disingenuous.

Do you understand?

266 Sol Berdinowitz  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 12:47:29pm

re: #258 Jadespring

Stop that obfustication, sounds too much like “to each according to his needs, from each according to his means”

let’s get back to that Wondrous Being that Adam Smith called into exixtence The Invisible Hand.

salon.com

Which is one of the Hands of God.

Who dare restrict its majestic sweep through regulation or intervention?

/

267 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 12:49:03pm

re: #264 djameswrites

Can you provide any proof that his ‘real income’ was over a million?

When the workers of a union are scraping to get bus fare and Stern is using the unions jet to visit the White House while stealing money (allegedly)

Oh for fuck’s sake.

268 Aceofwhat?  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 12:49:44pm

re: #261 Obdicut

Impugning Ludwig’s professionalism is a hell of a lot worse than impugning your partisan politics, Ace.

Unless you’re going to try to claim that you’re not partisan in your politics.

give me a break

269 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 12:51:38pm

re: #268 Aceofwhat?

give me a break

In what way, Ace? I don’t think Ludwig’s personal attack on your personal politics was fair or good. I do think that your attack on his professionalism was completely out of line.

270 Aceofwhat?  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 12:52:57pm

re: #265 Obdicut

You called Ludwig’s post utter nonsense, because Reid killed a larger ‘jobs’ bill. I’m pointing out that much of what made that bill larger was not connected to jobs in the least, so calling it a ‘larger’ bill is disingenuous.

Do you understand?

not agreeing that tax incentives can stimulate job creation and thinking that the removed tax incentives were “not connected to jobs in the least” are two very different things. you are incorrect.

and it is still beside the point. a bipartisan bill was all but ready, some Dems complained, Reid killed it. these bread crumbs aren’t hard to follow. I find the point quite ingenuous. and i don’t think i’ve ever used that word before, but i kinda like it….

271 Aceofwhat?  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 12:54:53pm

re: #269 Obdicut

In what way, Ace? I don’t think Ludwig’s personal attack on your personal politics was fair or good. I do think that your attack on his professionalism was completely out of line.

In this way: we took a few jabs and moved on, none the worse for wear. Don’t worry about it. I don’t really think that Ludwig hates me, and i don’t really think that he can’t handle data. We’ll all be ok.

272 Jadespring  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 12:56:58pm

re: #266 ralphieboy

Stop that obfustication, sounds too much like “to each according to his needs, from each according to his means”

let’s get back to that Wondrous Being that Adam Smith called into exixtence The Invisible Hand.

[Link: www.salon.com…]

Which is one of the Hands of God.

Who dare restrict its majestic sweep through regulation or intervention?

/

I was just reading some net yabber that apparently Smith really was a Marxist (mostly because of that quote I posted). Talk about mind bending logic. I think his Invisible Hand is safe though, it’s too useful, regardless of the fact that it was actually a very minor point in his writings.

273 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 12:57:54pm

re: #270 Aceofwhat?

not agreeing that tax incentives can stimulate job creation and thinking that the removed tax incentives were “not connected to jobs in the least” are two very different things. you are incorrect.

Were they tax incentives for jobs created? No.

Are you simply saying that all tax breaks are related to jobs because the companies could, if they wanted to, use that money to create jobs?

Do you know what tax incentives there were in the Baucus bill?

274 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 12:58:18pm

re: #271 Aceofwhat?

In this way: we took a few jabs and moved on, none the worse for wear. Don’t worry about it. I don’t really think that Ludwig hates me, and i don’t really think that he can’t handle data. We’ll all be ok.

I think less of you now, though, if that’s in the least important to you.

275 djameswrites  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 1:02:49pm

re: #267 Obdicut

The allegedly was so you didn’t point out that he hasn’t been found guilty yet, the investigation is still ongoing.

The other was the reported 230 plus the 270 advance noted in the first link plus a liberal estimate of travel expenses. No I can not provide proof.

By your spirited defense though you seem to feel that someone like Stern should be making, with his ‘straight’ salary, 10 times that of the workers who pay his salary.

And, the point, from the get-go, was that an immediate “don’t talk about unions” in regard to this article, was hypocritical at best. I picked one president of one union, and only because I know the facts first hand.

You can hold the opinion that unions are wonderful and that corps are evil, that’s your right, and I will not question that right, as a matter of fact, I will defend your right to hold those opinions and try to discuss them with you…

At least give me the respect that I have different opinions than you do, can you do that without reverting to profanity and the incredible debating point of telling my my point ‘sucks’ without any proof that it actually does, in fact, suck?

276 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 1:04:52pm

re: #275 djameswrites

By your spirited defense though you seem to feel that someone like Stern should be making, with his ‘straight’ salary, 10 times that of the workers who pay his salary.

I’m saying it’s a hell of a lot different than 541 times. Do you get that?


You can hold the opinion that unions are wonderful and that corps are evil, that’s your right, and I will not question that right, as a matter of fact, I will defend your right to hold those opinions and try to discuss them with you…

Except that’s not what I hold. That’s an idiotic strawman you’ve constructed.

277 Charles Johnson  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 1:08:16pm

re: #275 djameswrites

Are you ‘Stonemason,’ by the way?

278 djameswrites  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 1:09:57pm

re: #276 Obdicut

I’m saying it’s a hell of a lot different than 541 times. Do you get that?

Except that’s not what I hold. That’s an idiotic strawman you’ve constructed.

LOL

I win on points, two ad hominems to my one straw man.

I posted twice that the parity sucks…hey, that means your straw man is canceled by my straw man…and I have not resorted to personal attacks.

Can a discussion of parity of pay between workers and CEO’s include a discussion of the increasing parity of pay between union workers and union presidents?

279 Aceofwhat?  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 1:10:45pm

re: #274 Obdicut

I think less of you now, though, if that’s in the least important to you.

it is. i apologized upstairs. i’d much rather fail to make my point, win my argument, dominate the derision, etc. but succeed at conducting myself with integrity and honesty. i don’t think it was worth apologizing for but i’d much rather apologize unnecessarily than fail to apologize when necessary. my pride can go fuck itself.

(insert Pulp Fiction quote here)

cheers

280 Aceofwhat?  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 1:11:08pm

dun-dun-dunnn

281 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 1:11:56pm

re: #278 djameswrites

LOL

I win on points, two ad hominems to my one straw man.

I posted twice that the parity sucks…hey, that means your straw man is canceled by my straw man…and I have not resorted to personal attacks.

Can a discussion of parity of pay between workers and CEO’s include a discussion of the increasing parity of pay between union workers and union presidents?

Sure. In both cases, how many times do you think it is reasonable to multiply an average worker’s salary before the top dude is making an unreasonable amount of money?

282 Jadespring  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 1:12:02pm

re: #278 djameswrites

LOL

I win on points, two ad hominems to my one straw man.

I posted twice that the parity sucks…hey, that means your straw man is canceled by my straw man…and I have not resorted to personal attacks.

Can a discussion of parity of pay between workers and CEO’s include a discussion of the increasing parity of pay between union workers and union presidents?

Hi I’m the magical balance fairy and I say “Why yes it sure should. Weeeee”

283 djameswrites  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 1:14:21pm

re: #277 Charles

Funny, if I lie and say no, I can hang around, if I tell the truth I will probably be banned again for simply disagreeing with the majority on the blog.

284 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 1:15:15pm

re: #283 djameswrites

What makes people like you come back after you’re banned? I really don’t get it.

I know you’re probably about to be banned again, but dude: Get over it. It’s a blog. Don’t embarrass yourself by obsessing over it.

285 Jadespring  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 1:15:33pm

re: #283 djameswrites

Well there’s the clincher post…

286 Charles Johnson  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 1:15:43pm

Right, that’s what I thought. You’ll feel much more welcome elsewhere, I’m sure, so I’m blocking your second sock puppet account. No need to thank me.

287 Aceofwhat?  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 1:15:59pm

re: #283 djameswrites

Funny, if I lie and say no, I can hang around, if I tell the truth I will probably be banned again for simply disagreeing with the majority on the blog.

that’s weird. i’m a republican, which i would guess is a minority on this blog at the moment, and yet somehow i’ve managed to avoid being banned.

prolly just luck, right? Stinky’s standing right behind me, isn’t he?

288 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 1:17:30pm

re: #283 djameswrites

Dude you already whined over at Dod when you got the banning you deserved for a lot more than just disagreeing with Ice. You hate us right? Why are you back here?

I mean let’s be clear.. you don’t simply dissagree or present any cogent arguments to support your side. You hyperventilate rightwing talking points and then get flustered when called on it and asked to actually prove you silly cases.

Now the twits over at Dod and are just like that. They also whine like bitches that they were banned. But please, you were banned for being an ignorant jackass. Accept it.

289 b_sharp  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 1:20:41pm

re: #250 researchok

Deregulation by itself does not encourage illegal activities.


No, but it does make some things legal that perhaps shouldn’t be . It also removes barriers for companies that just don’t care.

290 Aceofwhat?  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 1:26:25pm

re: #289 b_sharp

No, but it does make some things legal that perhaps shouldn’t be . It also removes barriers for companies that just don’t care.

it really depends on the regulation. “deregulation” is neither devil nor angel.

291 b_sharp  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 1:35:59pm

re: #290 Aceofwhat?

it really depends on the regulation. “deregulation” is neither devil nor angel.

Yes, it depends on the regulation swept aside. If the regulation was something that attempted to prevent what we saw this past summer with BP, then that particular deregulation can be considered wrong.

If you make the point that generic deregulation has no moral value, then you would be hard pressed to say regulation has a moral value.

292 sagehen  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 1:37:50pm

re: #74 Gus 802

Joe the Plumber never mad 250K in one year in all his life. Neither does the average highly experienced plumber: The median expected salary for a typical Plumber III in the United States is $50,883.

Plus, his name’s not really Joe and he’s not a licensed plumber.

But, y’know, let’s not get all caught up in the details.

293 Aceofwhat?  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 1:56:53pm

re: #291 b_sharp

Yes, it depends on the regulation swept aside. If the regulation was something that attempted to prevent what we saw this past summer with BP, then that particular deregulation can be considered wrong.

If you make the point that generic deregulation has no moral value, then you would be hard pressed to say regulation has a moral value.

exactly. some regulation is necessary, and some can be an obstacle. using either ‘regulation’ or ‘deregulation’ as some sort of indicator that Satan is at work is silly, and both parties do it.

oh, hey - there’s my soapbox! found it//

294 sagehen  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 1:58:06pm

re: #149 researchok

There is another facet to this discussion.
snip
What is the Middle Class, anyway?
snip
Defining the Middle Class isn’t so easy. The only thing these groups have in common is that they are consumers.

I’m going to take a stab at this one… YMMV

anything up to the poverty line is Poor.
From the poverty line to double that is Lower Middle Class.
From 2x p.l to double the median is Middle Class.
From double the median to 4x the median is Upper Middle Class.

Anything over 4x the median is Rich.

295 Quant  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 2:17:35pm

re: #42 schnapp

Higher productivity leads to higher wages. Thats a broadaly accepted fact in economics, not some crazy supply side theory

re: #95 schnapp

you’re quoting a pro-union site and you expect it to be a fair and faithful representaion? I quoted a harvard economist in my comment above who explains the link between wages and productivity and the reason why the offcial statistics can be misleading.


Is the NBER acceptable to you? It is not a pro-union site.

Where Did the Productivity Growth Go? Inflation Dynamics and the Distribution of Income (Link to .pdf file.)

From the abstract:

A basic tenet of economic science is that productivity growth is the source of growth in real income per capita. But our results raise doubts by creating a direct link between macro productivity growth and the micro evolution of the income distribution. We show that over the entire period 1966-2001, as well as over 1997-2001, only the top 10 percent of the income distribution enjoyed a growth rate of real wage and salary income equal to or above the average rate of economy-wide productivity growth. Growth in median real wage and salary income barely grew at all while average wage and salary income kept pace with productivity growth, because half of the income gains went to the top 10 percent of the income distribution, leaving little left over for the bottom 90 percent. Half of this inequality effect is attributable to gains of the 90th percentile over the 10th percentile; the other half is due to increased skewness within the top 10 percent.

296 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 2:18:10pm

re: #149 researchok

Defining the Middle Class isn’t so easy. The only thing these groups have in common is that they are consumers.


They have their income in common.


I like this definition, seems simple enough and free of politics:

As social classes lack clear boundaries and overlap there are no definite income thresholds as for what is considered middle class. Sociologist Leonard Beeghley identifies a male making $57,000 and a female making $40,000 with a combined households income of $97,000 as a typical middle class family.[31] Sociologists William Thompson and Joseph Hickey estimate an income range of roughly $35,000 to $75,000 for the lower middle class and $100,000 or more for the upper middle class. Many social scientists including economist Michael Zweig and sociologist Dennis Gilbert contend that middle class persons usually have above median incomes.

297 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 2:18:57pm

re: #292 sagehen

Plus, his name’s not really Joe and he’s not a licensed plumber.

But, y’know, let’s not get all caught up in the details.

Oh god that guy, what a rube

298 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 2:26:43pm

re: #181 Aceofwhat?

let us hope that you are more concerned about data and facts in your chosen profession than on the subject of economics…

Here’s a thing I notice:

I notice that Ludwig’s professionalism/competence/even the facts about where he works and whether he has a degree or not, get slammed here more than everyone else’s combined

Kinda get tired of it!

299 Quant  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 2:33:50pm

re: #134 schnapp

yes they do factor in inflation i just checked. i thought they would because it’s real wages that matter, not nominal. but aas it said it’s total compensation that matters, not just wages.


If you are looking at real total compensation, as opposed to real wages and salaries, won’t that skew the income distribution even further in favour of the wealthy (thereby increasing measures of inequality), since CEOs and higher paid employees receive a greater proportion of their total compensation in benefits, stock options etc?

Likewise, the very wealthy receive a smaller proportion of their total income from wages and salaries (and a much greater proportion from investments, etc.) relative to less wealthy people.

300 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 2:42:18pm

re: #299 Quant

If you are looking at real total compensation, as opposed to real wages and salaries, won’t that skew the income distribution even further in favour of the wealthy (thereby increasing measures of inequality), since CEOs and higher paid employees receive a greater proportion of their total compensation in benefits, stock options etc?

Likewise, the very wealthy receive a smaller proportion of their total income from wages and salaries (and a much greater proportion from investments, etc.) relative to less wealthy people.

We already have a defacto flat tax.

America rules!

301 Aceofwhat?  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 2:52:02pm

re: #298 WindUpBird

Here’s a thing I notice:

I notice that Ludwig’s professionalism/competence/even the facts about where he works and whether he has a degree or not, get slammed here more than everyone else’s combined

Kinda get tired of it!

i apologized upstairs, as honestly and forthrightly as i could. not sure what else folks want at this point.

302 Quant  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 2:55:05pm

re: #300 WindUpBird

We already have a defacto flat tax.

America rules!


Those pesky unionists at MSN broke your link and hid the article, but I outfoxed them!

Interesting article. Ouch!

303 Romantic Heretic  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 3:47:33pm

re: #258 Jadespring

The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state. The expense of government to the individuals of a great nation is like the expense of management to the joint tenants of a great estate, who are all obliged to contribute in proportion to their respective interests in the estate. In the observation or neglect of this maxim consists what is called the equality or inequality of taxation.”

If you really want to make people’s heads explode quote this piece of Adam Smith at them.

He is not a wise and good man that does not at all time prefer the public good to his own.

304 Romantic Heretic  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 3:53:36pm

re: #275 djameswrites

The allegedly was so you didn’t point out that he hasn’t been found guilty yet, the investigation is still ongoing.

The other was the reported 230 plus the 270 advance noted in the first link plus a liberal estimate of travel expenses. No I can not provide proof.

By your spirited defense though you seem to feel that someone like Stern should be making, with his ‘straight’ salary, 10 times that of the workers who pay his salary.

And, the point, from the get-go, was that an immediate “don’t talk about unions” in regard to this article, was hypocritical at best. I picked one president of one union, and only because I know the facts first hand.

You can hold the opinion that unions are wonderful and that corps are evil, that’s your right, and I will not question that right, as a matter of fact, I will defend your right to hold those opinions and try to discuss them with you…

At least give me the respect that I have different opinions than you do, can you do that without reverting to profanity and the incredible debating point of telling my my point ‘sucks’ without any proof that it actually does, in fact, suck?

Corporations and unions are tools. Tools have no ethical component. They are neither good nor evil.

Unions have their function. So do corporations. That function can be to help people or hurt them. They only do what people direct them to do.

So saying either corporations or unions are evil, or good, is imputing characteristics to them they do not possess.

Also, if unions are destroyed we are striking at one of the fundamental freedoms of democracy: the right to assembly. Getting rid of unions will say that we are restricting that right according to people’s politics and social position. That will be a very big step on the road to tyranny.

305 Shiplord Kirel  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 4:04:10pm
C.E.O.’s of the largest American companies earned an average of 42 times as much as the average worker in 1980, but 531 times as much in 2001.

Going farther back the difference is even more striking. According to the Encyclopedia of Aero Engines by Bill Gunston, Pratt & Whitney president Frederick Rentschler was reputedly the highest paid executive in America during World War 2. Was he worth it?
Rentschler presided over an expansion of about 5000 % in the company’s capacity in just 4 years. P&W was the allies’ top producer of aircraft engines and its enignes powered some of the most important allied warplanes. Sales topped a billion dollars in 1945. (This was when a billion dollars was still a lot of money, as the joke goes). Rentschler had helped invent the air-cooled radial engine in the first place and was the driving force behind wartime aviation technology. He literally did live in his office in Hartford, or in Washington hotel rooms, for weeks at a time during the war. What was the princely sum he received for this absolutely vital work? According to Gunston, it was around $250,000 for everything. That was an awful lot in 1945, but the equivalent amount in present-day dollars, around 5 million, would not rank on anybody’s list of high paid executives.

306 lostlakehiker  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 4:11:19pm

re: #1 bratwurst

Can we talk about doing something to narrow this gap without being accused of attempting “redistribution of wealth”? Please?

How? Technology has leveraged top performers. A good singer can still only sing before an audience of a thousand or so before sheer distance attenuates their voice. But now, with perfect fidelity, the song can be distributed in billions of copies.

CEO’s manage larger corporations than ever before, and the consequences of strategic errors can be huge. How much is it worth to Boeing to have the CEO of Ford come over? A lot. How much did it cost HP to be stuck with Fiorina?

Top coaches and athletes are paid more because a good game can draw a big audience, not just a stadium full.

Fans will pay for Harry Potter books and movies, but shun lesser authors. Or better authors, perhaps, but in a commercial sense, lesser.

Even the best engineered auto needs masses of skilled human labor for its assembly, right? No. Now robots do an amazing fraction of the work.

The world has changed in ways that leverage the economic value of top performers.

We can, and we should, work to correct situations in which bad performance reaps mega rewards. There has to be some way to write the laws so that you can’t run your company into the ditch and walk away richer than Croesus. But that kind of situation is not the main story. The main story is that a single woman, eking out a living on welfare, can have a bright idea and hunker down in a garret and write a book, and wind up a billionaire. It is not in society’s interest to somehow make sure she stays on welfare, or to cap her take at one million. She, personally, through talent and initiative, has created many billions worth of value to the world economy. It’s churlish to insist that she should get only a tiny fraction of that.

307 sagehen  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 4:19:54pm

re: #306 lostlakehiker

How? Technology has leveraged top performers. A good singer can still only sing before an audience of a thousand or so before sheer distance attenuates their voice. But now, with perfect fidelity, the song can be distributed in billions of copies.

Top coaches and athletes are paid more because a good game can draw a big audience, not just a stadium full.

Fans will pay for Harry Potter books and movies, but shun lesser authors. Or better authors, perhaps, but in a commercial sense, lesser.

yeah, but…


For Bruce Springsteen to sell X number of records in a year, or J K Rowling to sell Q number of books, isn’t dependent entirely on the quality of their records and books.

It also requires that X and Q number of people have the disposable income, after putting a roof overhead and food on the table, to be able to buy records and books.

308 palomino  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 4:20:19pm

re: #305 Shiplord Kirel

Sure, some of the CEO compensation looks absurd, especially when it goes to people who clearly failed.

But the real problem is not high CEO pay, imho, but rather the fact that middle/working class wages have stagnated for the last 35 years. The purchases made by this huge group of consumers is largely what drives our economy. For decades we got around the problem of stagnant wages with easy credit, which allowed more consumption even with flatlined middle class incomes. Now that easy credit is gone, as the chickens have finally came home to roost.

309 lostlakehiker  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 4:22:14pm

re: #211 Gus 802

IOW one guy making 500 million a year theoretically only needs one washer/dryer. If you can increase the wages of 50,000 families (for example) that translates to 50,000 washer/dryers being sold.

If you have somebody making 500 million a year, they’re already paying 150 million in taxes or so per year. If you put their tax rate up to 90%, you could get 450 million a year out of them. Right?

Unless they decide that the money they already have can see them through without working one whit more. An extra 350 million, keepers after taxes, is more of a carrot than an extra 50 million, after all.

Super earners are geese that lay golden eggs for the government. It’s a mistake to cut them open to get all the eggs at once.

We can talk about whether the rate should got to 38% of 40% from 35%, but putting it so high as to utterly defeat ambitions of mega-wealth will turn out to be counterproductive. It’s been tried before, with just that result.

310 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 4:22:41pm

re: #306 lostlakehiker

CEOs are not top performers.

311 lostlakehiker  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 4:29:24pm

re: #310 Obdicut

CEOs are not top performers.

Some are, some aren’t. For the exact same reason that quarterbacks are highly paid, even losers, CEO’s are highly paid. A good CEO is worth an incalculable amount to a company. Whoever it was who bet the whole existence of Corning on fiber optics, for instance, and brought it off against all odds, changed history as well as making Corning a bundle. A wild ride. There’s football games that go like that from time to time, for that matter.

some of the ups and downs.

312 sagehen  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 4:31:15pm

re: #309 lostlakehiker

Super earners are geese that lay golden eggs for the government. It’s a mistake to cut them open to get all the eggs at once.

We can talk about whether the rate should got to 38% of 40% from 35%, but putting it so high as to utterly defeat ambitions of mega-wealth will turn out to be counterproductive. It’s been tried before, with just that result.

There’s no definitive single answer to where the Laffer Curve peaks vis-a-vis taxation v. motivation (and it probably varies somewhat by country and generation, in addition to individual differences), but the various estimates by economists, sociologists and psychologists all range between 55 and 85%.

And remember, the Fords and Rockefellers didn’t retire to tropical islands to sit on their asses when they were paying 92% — they established tax-free foundations and spread that money around (which took even more effort, just like the Gates Foundation. Society’s most productive people get *bored* really easily too.)

313 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 4:37:39pm

re: #311 lostlakehiker

Some are, some aren’t. >

Exactly. They’re not, as a class, top performers. Very few of them are.

For the exact same reason that quarterbacks are highly paid, even losers, CEO’s are highly paid.

No, you really don’t get it. The worst third-string quarterback on a backwater team is still an amazing athelete.

Whereas many CEOs run their companies into the ground, making poor decision after poor decision— not just ‘not as good as the other guys’, but actually, objectively stupid and moronic decisions that wouldn’t make sense at any point.

You are comparing things that have nothing to do with each other. Some CEOs are like the NFL quarterbacks. Others are as though a guy from marketing was allowed to play as the quarterback.

314 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 5:16:52pm

re: #306 lostlakehiker

This is like saying that only good senators and good congresspeople get elected, because you know, they have a lot of power, that must mean they’re brilliant

315 bratwurst  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 7:10:45pm

re: #306 lostlakehiker

How? Technology has leveraged top performers. A good singer can still only sing before an audience of a thousand or so before sheer distance attenuates their voice. But now, with perfect fidelity, the song can be distributed in billions of copies.

Um, I am pretty sure this was also the case 40 years ago when the gap between the “have”s and “have nots” in this country was not reminiscent of a banana republic. Back to the drawing boards with this nonsense.

316 vofr  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 8:58:23pm

Here’s a great video comparing statistics vs. reality regarding this myth that the rich are getting richer etc. In two minutes, Thomas Sowell just cuts through the smoke and mirrors.

Youtube Video
317 Decatur Deb  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 9:00:48pm

re: #316 vofr

Welcome. You are posting at the end of a very dead thread, so almost no one will see it. The subject will come around again.

318 celticdragon  Sun, Nov 7, 2010 9:26:47pm

re: #235 Aceofwhat?

And there are many companies who do. But your point illustrates why i’m complimentary of Obama and hard on legislators who fail to understand the benefits of free trade. (Ludwig - pay attention).

Few subjects unite left-leaning and right-leaning economists like the benefits of free trade agreements. We risk losing jobs that can be done more cheaply elsewhere (to the chagrin of some unions who spend too much time protecting relics in lieu of equipping their members to perform more complicated and technical work) and we risk gaining jobs that offer more opportunity and higher wages.


What jobs would those be?

Middle class skilled jobs are also being outsourced, and we are now being left with only those service sector jobs that must be performed on site. We can’t have a nation of medical professionals and fast food cooks.

I actually interviewed for an aviation prodection job on the new Boeing 787…in China.

Increasingly, you will see Americans leaving the country and not coming back.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
The Pandemic Cost 7 Million Lives, but Talks to Prevent a Repeat Stall In late 2021, as the world reeled from the arrival of the highly contagious omicron variant of the coronavirus, representatives of almost 200 countries met - some online, some in-person in Geneva - hoping to forestall a future worldwide ...
Cheechako
3 days ago
Views: 116 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
2 weeks ago
Views: 277 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1