It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
(visit the link for the full news article)
Income inequality in the United States is at an all-time high, surpassing even levels seen during the Great Depression, according to a recently updated paper by University of California, Berkeley Professor Emmanuel Saez. The paper, which covers data through 2007, points to a staggering, unprecedented disparity in American incomes. On his blog, Nobel prize-winning economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman called the numbers "truly amazing."
Though income inequality has been growing for some time, the paper paints a stark, disturbing portrait of wealth distribution in America. Saez calculates that in 2007 the top .01 percent of American earners took home 6 percent of total U.S. wages, a figure that has nearly doubled since 2000.
As of 2007, the top decile of American earners, Saez writes, pulled in 49.7 percent of total wages, a level that's "higher than any other year since 1917 and even surpasses 1928, the peak of stock market bubble in the 'roaring" 1920s.'
Originally posted by grover
With every tax cut that goes to the wealthiest more and more of the nation's wealth moves upwards out of the economy instead of spread outward to all of the people
Originally posted by grover
Better than a trickle down economics is one where the wealth is most broadly spread and rises from there.
Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by grover
It's real simple to fix though. After you earn more than 5 million dollars, it is illegal for you to donate or contribute to anything politically. That way, you can't create any special interests, but you're still wealthy. I think it would work very well.
As of 2007, the top decile of American earners, Saez writes, pulled in 49.7 percent of total wages, a level that's "higher than any other year since 1917 and even surpasses 1928, the peak of stock market bubble in the 'roaring" 1920s.'
Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by drwizardphd
your concerns are going to be addressed in a very (I think) controversial thing I'm writing.
to put it briefly, sometimes a dictator is needed to save a republic.
Originally posted by grover
reply to post by yellowcard
That is the most convoluted and backward argument I have ever read...
You are totally wrong on this and no one is being a shill...
In 2004 after the bush minor tax cuts we went into deficit spending...and the GAO stated baldly that even with the invasion of Iraq we would be still running a surplus if it weren't for the tax cuts...the money was not reinvested in the economy like the trickle down economic theory suggested...it was and is hoarded.
When your wages are stagnate and the wealthiest incomes rise....where do you think that money is coming from?
[edit on 14-8-2009 by grover]
In the 50's before JFK's tax cuts the tax rate was at 80% and the wealthy did not flee in mass...sorry to tell you that but its true... As for being Marxism...hardly. When everyone has a chance to advance then the whole nation prospers...it just makes sense. Also if the tax cuts the wealthiest get are not being hoarded then where are they? Where is the rising tide of wealth trickle down economics predicts? When wages are stagnate who is zooming whom?
Originally posted by crimvelvet
reply to post by grover
Our big problem is the off shoring of industry caused by the "free trade agreements" Since signing WTO and NAFTA the USA is now competing on a flat playing field with countries like India and China. If those countries have low wages, little or no regulations like OSHA and EPA and reasonably low taxes then the wealthy live in the USA and move their businesses (and wealth) to other countries. THAT is where the wealth went.
If you want to see the jobs come back we either have to get out of WTO and NAFTA (set up by those same wealthy businessman) and impose tarriffs and border restrictions OR make the USA competitive with other countries by cutting regulations, cutting social programs and cutting business taxes.
If we do not wake up to that reality then Maurice Strong's prediction will come true. China will replace the USA as the super power and the USA will follow Iceland and the former USSR into bankruptcy and second world status.
I remember the 60's and the 70's there was no OSHA there was no EPA, you could easily live on minimum wage and my taxes were 10% instead of 65.4% Welfare was certainly not the big deal it is now, you did not see street people, they had their "rights violated" by being taken to the county home instead of left on the streets to freeze and starve. It was easy to start and run a business you didn't have reams of paperwork and regulations and licences like now.
Do you realize that for me to let a child hold my bottle lamb and take a polaroid picture for the parents, I now have to have a sales tax number, a business license, photographers license and be inspected and licensed by the USDA which includes two five foot dog proof fences around my entire 100 ac of pine forest and an animal health plan by my vet?
Tariffs are a horrible idea, no economist advocates tariffs because they are detrimental to free trade. There is nothing wrong with the U.S. competing on a level playing field...except the WTO doesn't do that. The WTO puts the U.S. on a lower level, because no one enforces China to float their currency freely, etc etc. The WTO is hurting the U.S....but not because it "levels the playing field" quite the contrary.
Originally posted by Ferris.Bueller.II
I personally don't support 'Robin Hood' monetary redistribution like the OP does. I believe people only value what they earn, not what they are given.