Posted on 03/15/2016 4:52:59 AM PDT by expat_panama
Despite appearances to the contrary, this year’s presidential follies have managed to feature at least a few policy discussions amid all the name-calling.
Income inequality in particular has animated voters on both sides of the partisan divide, but the solutions advocated by candidates from each party are markedly different.
Democrats claim higher taxes on the rich and more benefits for the poor are the best ways to reduce inequality...
...To be clear, spending power remains extremely unequal.
Our point is that the fiscal system, taken as a whole, does materially reduce inequality, not in what people own or earn, but in what they get to spend.
This limits the scope to further equalize spending power by taxing the top 1 percent at a much higher rate. Indeed, among 40-49 year-olds, confiscating all the remaining spending power of the top 1 percent (with a 100 percent tax rate) and giving it to the poorest 20 percent would leave the latter group with 16.1 of total spending power...
...Another key finding is that U.S. fiscal policy acts as a serious disincentive to work longer hours or harder for more pay...
...The facts revealed in our study should change views. Inequality, properly measured, is extremely high, but is far lower than generally believed. The reason is that our fiscal system, properly measured, is highly progressive. And, via our high marginal taxes, we are providing significant incentives to Americans to work less and earn less than they might otherwise...
...As candidates and voters debate inequality and the best ways to reduce it, it’s important to start with the actual facts. That will make it far easier to figure out which policies, if any, should be changed going forward.
Raising taxes and benefits as Democrats advocate will...
(Excerpt) Read more at newrepublic.com ...
Thanks for posting this.
Happy "Ides of March" everyone and for stocks the headlines are "Stocks Bide Time Ahead of Fed" as in "mostly unchanged in light volume". Futures put today's stock index trends as flat/off and they see gold -1.87% and silver -1.44%. .
Just look at all we got going on today:
8:30 AM Retail Sales
8:30 AM Retail Sales ex-auto
8:30 AM PPI
8:30 AM Core PPI
8:30 AM Empire Manufacturing
10:00 AM Business Inventories
10:00 AM NAHB Housing Market Index
4:00 PM Net Long-Term TIC Flows
--and:
Good step in the right direction.
When discussing ‘wealth inequality’, I often think they omit the appreciation of assets. Like farm ground purchased before the Great Recession @ ~$3000/acre now being valued @ ~$10,000/acre. It is important.
u bet!
Ya know, someday I’d really like someone to ‘splain why diversity is good but inequality is bad.
“splain why diversity is good but inequality is bad”
Why is water wet?
Another metric to counter the “inequality” claim might be to compare production instead of income, or at least to compare the ratio of production to income for the groups in question.
Since the leech class produces zero, their ratio will always be zero. Meanwhile, the capitalists earn billions, but produce billions as well.
Diversity is good because it creates tribal units for politicians to manipulate. Pick your groups, pander appropriately, stay in office forever.
Inequality is ‘bad’ because this gives politicians an excuse to increase their power to make everybody (else) more ‘equal.’
“Like farm ground purchased before the Great Recession @ ~$3000/acre now being valued @ ~$10,000/acre. It is important.”
Most of the price for farm ground occurred during the drought years when the price of commodities went up. What then happened was that real estate taxes on the ground then shot up. Commodity prices are now 1/3 to 1/2 of the high, the real estate taxes are at their high and production costs have not come down significantly. The only to benefit from the higher land prices is to sell and take the capitol gains tax hit.
I was talking about ‘wealth redistribution’. (Seems with this article the ‘Progressives’ are slightly backing off ‘Income redistribution’.)
The claim that the top 1% own the 34.5% of the wealth is so misleading. I have been trying to explain that assets have appreciated (land, equities, etc.).
I know what Ag commodities are doing. My business is Bulk Ag. Last year the average was down 38% from the year before, this year they’re predicting another 5% drop. And as you stated, ‘production costs have not come down significantly’.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.