An obvious point rarely made about income inequality
We’ve heard a lot over the past four years about income inequality. The unequal distribution of wealth, and efforts to redistribute it more “fairly,” arguably have been the chief animating concerns of the Obama presidency, from tax laws to social-welfare policies.
With that in mind, I recommend the latest post by economist and blogger Mark J. Perry, who simply compiled census data to show what we know about the characteristics of U.S. household income. There’s a complete chart and fuller discussion of the data in his post, some of which echoes points I’ve made in the past about the correlation between marriage rates and poverty. I recommend reading the whole thing.
But in this space I want to touch on two other points he makes that ought to be blindingly intuitive, but aren’t always mentioned amid the heated rhetoric:
On average, there are significantly more income earners per household in the top income quintile households (2.03) than earners per household in the lowest-income households (0.44). It can also be seen that the average number of earners increases for each higher income quintile, demonstrating that one of the main factors in explaining differences in income among U.S. households is the number of earners per household. …
Almost 62 percent of U.S. households in the bottom fifth of Americans by income had no earners for the entire year in 2011. In contrast, fewer than 3 percent of the households in the top fifth had no earners in 2011, providing more evidence of the strong relationship between household income and income earners per household.
Simply put, the more people working in a given household, the higher its income is likely to be. This is probably the chief reason marriage rates matter when it comes to poverty. Education also matters, as do other factors Perry discusses in his post.
How influential is this factor? Here’s one simple, somewhat crude, but illustrative way to look at the data:
The average income in the top quintile is almost 16 times higher than that of the lowest quintile ($178,020 vs. $11,239). But when we take each group’s average income and divide it by its number of earners, the average earner in the top quintile makes only 3.4 times as much as the average earner in the bottom quintile ($87,695 vs. $25,543). Given that a person in the top quintile is more than 5 times as likely as a person in the bottom group to have a college degree (62.3 percent vs. 12.1 percent), that difference doesn’t seem unreasonable.
In fact, let’s go one step further. If you take the average earner’s income in the top and bottom groups (again, $87,695 vs. $25,543) but flipped the average number of earners for each, the average income in the bottom quintile would be $51,853 — and the average income in the top quintile would be just $38,586. That’s right: The two groups would trade places (actually, the second-lowest quintile would have the highest average income in that scenario).
Should anyone be surprised that having more workers means a household has more money? So why is this almost never part of the discussion about income inequality? As Perry points out: If demographics explain much of the inequality, then “because the key income-determining demographic variables change over a person’s life, so does income mobility.” And mobility is really the key when it comes to assessing inequality.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
154 comments Add your comment
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
January 8th, 2013
12:06 pm
The words Equality and Justice are dog whistles for the weak minded.
Responsibility, Effort and Achievement all illicit an opposite response from them.
Puck
January 8th, 2013
12:11 pm
I see Kyle ignored the lack of quality low cost child care in his article. It is kind of pointless for a low end wage earner to get a job when most of the earnings go to providing for child care. Cue the “don’t have kids if you can’t afford them” response in 3 .. 2 .. 1.
Dunwoody Granny
January 8th, 2013
12:14 pm
Ah. when you put it that way, it’s really simple!
So all that anyone needs to do to be in the top quintile is go to college, marry someone who went to college, and get a job!
Boy, all those marrried college grads who lost their jobs a few years ago and have looked and looked and finally taken retail and fast food jobs to put food on the table will certainly be chagrined when they find out how easily they could be earning $87K each.
I’m a little chagrined, too. Even though I’m unmarried, I’m a college grad and have been working for more than 30 years but still don’t make $87K.
Skip
January 8th, 2013
12:17 pm
I guess that explains why the wife makes $10.000 a year less than ten years ago doing the same thing.
td
January 8th, 2013
12:17 pm
I have been saying this now for a couple years on these blogs that the poverty problem is mostly due to single income families and no one wants to address this problem. If you have a single mom making $7.25 per hour with two children the you have poverty. If you have a mom and dad in a home with each making $7.25 per hour then to do not have a poverty problem.
The minimum wage example on compounds itself when you think about the fact that almost all people never receive just the minimum wage and when you consider education. Top pay for an individual is around between $10 to $15 per hour so a household of a single uneducated parent could NEVER reach the level of two parents making top pay.
F. Sinkwich
January 8th, 2013
12:24 pm
“Simply put, the more people working in a given household, the higher its income is likely to be. This is probably the chief reason marriage rates matter when it comes to poverty.”
They certainly do, Kyle. But anytime someone brings up that fact, one or more lib ilks scream racism, refuse to acknowledge the problem, then blame “the man,” whoever that is. Their answer?
Raise taxes on the rich, as though that fixes everything.
td
January 8th, 2013
12:25 pm
Dunwoody Granny
January 8th, 2013
12:14 pm
Those married college grads that were laid off several years ago quickly found jobs. Unemployment rate for college grad is 3.9% vs a non HS grad is 11.7%
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t04.htm
td
January 8th, 2013
12:26 pm
Skip
January 8th, 2013
12:17 pm
I guess that explains why the wife makes $10.000 a year less than ten years ago doing the same thing.
And what field does your wife work in? What is her college degree in?
MANGLER
January 8th, 2013
12:28 pm
Yes, in a perfect GOP world, everyone comes from enough money and the type of household where you just go off to college, and can graduate, start a budding career, then meets someone and gets married, and then has kids who then can repeat the scenario. That’s a nice Disney World view of things.
However, in reality, life happens and it does not provide a level playing field for everyone. If you start off poor, the world doesn’t make silly little things like college, climbing a career ladder, or family planning very easy for you (I didn’t say impossible, just not as easy).
I’m not in any way saying that well to do or wealthy people are bad people and they do not work hard (and I hate this new anti wealthy sentiment that has taken over lately), I’m just suggesting that when someone has means or comes from means, they don’t feel all the kicks in the rear that life doles out.
Scott Fresno
January 8th, 2013
12:28 pm
Let’s bring back shotgun marriages and make divorce illegal.
SBinF
January 8th, 2013
12:28 pm
Kyle, you’re on to something. If only people would get married, then our problems would be fixed!
Dunwoody Granny
January 8th, 2013
12:30 pm
td
I understand the statistics, but those statistics don’t square with the people I know (admittedly an older crowd). Some did find jobs, but most are now significantly underemployed. Others found ways to leave the labor market (disability, under-the-table work, etc) and simply aren’t counted in the statistics.
joe
January 8th, 2013
12:31 pm
“Somebody’s got to pay…for all these children and all our suffering.” — mother of 16 kids with no male figure in the house.
xxx
January 8th, 2013
12:32 pm
Puck,
Unlike other commhodities that aen produced cheaper by substituiting ingredients or modifying processes, child care, regulated by the state, cost what it cost. The income of the parents of the child do not influence the minimum cost required to meet the state guidelines. So the myth of low cost child care is a favorite whipping boy but really what is meant is subsidized child care. You want someone else to pay the difference.
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
January 8th, 2013
12:34 pm
When will gay marriage worm it’s way into this discussion?
Rafe Hollister preparing for an Obamanist America
January 8th, 2013
12:34 pm
Statistics, only please the side that agrees with them, the other side argues their validity.
People are born different, (duh!) some are motivated to live life to excess, with their Ferrari’s and penthouses, others are only interested in raising their children in a safe environment, and some only in having a good time and living for today. We got off track when we as a society decided that we were so intellectual and compassionate that we knew, what was best for everyone. Short of collecting all the money and redistributing it equally there is no way the Gov can insure that financial equality. As is often said, if that happened, within 2 months the motivated would have most of the money again.
As my grandfather used to say, happy people are that way, because they choose to be happy. Successful people are successful because they choose to be. Every effort we make to control peoples lives fails, but we keep trying. The Left in America loves to control things to insure fairness, equality, standard of living, and security. The Right tries to control things to make people do what they think is right. Neither side seems to be accomplishing their goals and it is time to give up and let people do as they please, unless they endanger other citizens or property.
We need to spend our efforts teaching the children that the choices they make are permanent, you get no mulligans or do overs in life, so choose wisely.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
January 8th, 2013
12:39 pm
Just as I’ve always thought. The main cause of low income is not working.
Get a job, Democrats.
East Cobb RINO, Inc (LLC)
January 8th, 2013
12:42 pm
So all the poor low wage earners should just live in 1 apartment? Oh wait never mind, this thread is not about immigration.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
January 8th, 2013
12:43 pm
SBinF: Kyle, you’re on to something. If only people would act responsibly, then our problems would be fixed!
——–
Fixed.
Kyle Wingfield
January 8th, 2013
12:44 pm
Dunwoody Granny @ 12:14: Each quintile has almost 23 million households. Of course there will be exceptions when we are talking about averages within groups that large. And, as should be clear from the fact that I wrote 12.1 percent of those in the lowest-income households have college degrees, a college degree is not a guarantee of anything.
All that said, I do think these numbers describe some important factors that are often lost or ignored in the rush by some people to blame inequality on greedy CEOs and others who have “made enough money.”
Darwin
January 8th, 2013
12:45 pm
But I guess since the right wing opposes both birth control and abortion, continuing the poverty life for single women who get pregnant is acceptable?
SBinF
January 8th, 2013
12:45 pm
“If only people would act responsibly, then our problems would be fixed!”
Good heavens, and if wishes were peppermints, I’d have the biggest candy store this side of the Mississippi.
You can continue to hope that people will act responsibly. I’ll continue to stay here in reality.
Kyle Wingfield
January 8th, 2013
12:46 pm
Aesop @ 12:06: If it’s a dog whistle for the weak-minded, how did you hear it?
Just teasing. But I am always amazed at how many of these “dog whistles” are audible to people outside their intended audience. (Maybe because “dog whistle” is a lousy metaphor…)
Politico
January 8th, 2013
12:50 pm
Aesop @ 12:43
Appears it did when you brought it up.
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
January 8th, 2013
12:51 pm
Kyle – Did you see what they are printing on the first class postage stamp nowadays? One says “Justice” and the other says “Equality.” I guess this made somebody feel like they were fulfilling their duty at one of the most failed government institutions there is.
Scooter
January 8th, 2013
12:51 pm
Unfortunately politicians promote their job security by legislatively addressing symptoms rather than illnesses. Legislating America toward the lowest common denominator.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
January 8th, 2013
12:53 pm
Darwin: continuing the poverty life for single women who get pregnant is acceptable?
———-
Why do folks who can’t afford a child get pregnant?
Irresponsibility.
Kyle Wingfield
January 8th, 2013
12:53 pm
Darwin @ 12:45: The “right wing” does not oppose birth control. But nice job keeping a recent campaign lie alive.
td
January 8th, 2013
12:59 pm
Darwin
January 8th, 2013
12:45 pm
But I guess since the right wing opposes both birth control and abortion, continuing the poverty life for single women who get pregnant is acceptable?
Conservatives do not oppose birth control. If you understand that being single and having a child results in poverty then why are you having unprotected sex outside of marriage?
guest
January 8th, 2013
1:08 pm
td,
Personal responsibility is a foreign concept to liberals. Their motto is “my life sucks and it’s your fault”.
Dearie
January 8th, 2013
1:08 pm
Puck 12:11 pm
Ever heard “where there’s a will there is a way.” When people want to make something happen they will.
When I had young children and could not afford day care I organized a babysitting co-op. It took some effort, but the outcome was good for everyone involved. No money was exchanged, just use of your free time. If you are not able to work you have free time, but no money. Barter what you have to get what you want. Be creative. Use your head to solve your problem instead of asking others to solve them.
Question is ~ If someone else always solves your problems what incentive do you have to solve your own?
HDB
January 8th, 2013
1:11 pm
In many cases, when people decry income inequality, the focus is actually upon CEO compensation as compared to labor compensation….which in many cases…is 250 TIMES that of the lowest-paid employee. The question becomes why should one person reap greater benefits than the work force that GOT him the riches.
When that answer is better addressed, then many more would understand why the focus on income inequality exists………….
Lynnie Gal
January 8th, 2013
1:11 pm
That doesn’t explain or justify the CEO’s salaries that are now sitting at 209.4 times their workers salaries. “Income inequality between CEOs and workers has consequently exploded, with CEOs last year earning 209.4 times more than workers, compared to just 26.5 times more in 1978 — meaning CEOs are taking home a larger percentage of company gains.” Middle class jobs have almost disappeared. And wealthy households in this country own 288 times more than you do. It’s not just that two people are working, Kyle. But it certainly helps if you’re married to a CEO. http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/11/news/economy/wealth-net-worth/index.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/02/ceo-pay-worker-pay_n_1471685.html
Bruno
January 8th, 2013
1:14 pm
Should anyone be surprised that having more workers means a household has more money? So why is this almost never part of the discussion about income inequality?
In addition to having more workers in successful households, I would bet my bottom dollar that those in the more affluent households also work more hours per week per person than in the lower tier homes. Personally, I’ve averaged 50 hours per week for nearly 40 years now with minimal vacation time. Most of my less successful friends barely put in 40 hours and take off whenever possible.
guest
January 8th, 2013
1:15 pm
HDB,
Another way of looking at it is why should the lowest-paid employee be paid as much as the person that GOT him his job in the first place. Suggesting that the lowest-paid employee and a CEO, while at the same time ignoring their job duties, education, etc, be similarly paid is pure BS.
td
January 8th, 2013
1:18 pm
Education level and children out of wedlock are the best ways to indicate level of success in this country.
Divorce rates went down during the recession because upper middle class people realized that you can not raise children with one parent. If we tightened the requirements for welfare programs then the poverty rate would decrease and the marriage rate would increase because people (i might as well say women because they control all sex) would realize that getting pregnant without a man in the house would have them at a lower standard of living instead of a higher one with all the government support.
JamVet
January 8th, 2013
1:19 pm
So why is this almost never part of the discussion about income inequality?
Because it is a canard to deflect attention away from the new American plutocracy?
But as good (self-destructive) Republicans let focus on the factors that comprise 10% of the equation and not the other 90%…
F. Sinkwich
January 8th, 2013
1:20 pm
“The question becomes why should one person reap greater benefits than the work force that GOT him the riches.”
Uh, because that “one person” works harder, is smarter, more motivated, willing to self-sacrifice, more innovative, can positively influence and lead people for the greater good of stakeholders, and stuff like that?
getalife
January 8th, 2013
1:22 pm
When the gap is too large, there is revolution.
Read history.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
January 8th, 2013
1:23 pm
“Conservatives oppose birth control”
———
I guess liberals are even dumber than we thought–they apparently don’t use birth control because someone else opposes it.
td
January 8th, 2013
1:23 pm
JamVet
January 8th, 2013
1:19 pm
So why is this almost never part of the discussion about income inequality?
Because it is a canard to deflect attention away from the new American plutocracy?
But as good (self-destructive) Republicans let focus on the factors that comprise 10% of the equation and not the other 90%…
And how many households in the bottom 50% of wage earners are headed by a single parent vs how many people in the top 50%?
JamVet
January 8th, 2013
1:30 pm
Framing the argument in terms of households instead of individual people is asinine. But a tasty red herring for those not terribly interested in intellectual honesty.
INDIVIDUALS in the “middle class” have gotten crushed for four straight decades.
As in FLAT-LINED WAGES. And this is not by accident.
And the lower class in this country?
They have gotten absolutely crushed.
To wit, the minimum wage is worth less today than it was in 1968!!!
Again, not by accident.
But it’s all good, you Reaganbots keep on licking the super-wealthy’s boots and stay patient.
Maybe in another forty years you will see some of that wealth trickle down…
Cutty
January 8th, 2013
1:33 pm
Yeah because Repubs believe that employers shouldn’t have to pay for any form birth control. Viagra, that’s acceptable. Conservatives may not be against B.C. but they sure aren’t for it either. They rather a woman balance an aspirin between their knees, or something along those lines.
td
January 8th, 2013
1:35 pm
JamVet
January 8th, 2013
1:30 pm
Framing the argument in terms of households instead of individual people is asinine. But a tasty red herring for those not terribly interested in intellectual honesty.
INDIVIDUALS in the “middle class” have gotten crushed for four straight decades.
As in FLAT-LINED WAGES. And this is not by accident.
I can not let you get away with that broad brush. Define middle class as in wages and education levels?
ByteMe - Got ilk?
January 8th, 2013
1:35 pm
The problem with “quintile” is that you push a whole bunch of dissimilar people into a large enough category and then call them all the same.
Someone making in the top 20% is not the same as someone making in the top 1%.
Someone making in the top 1% is soooo not the same as someone making in the top 0.01%.
Those are all very different circumstances. The problem isn’t that if you get a college education you could be making $87K. The problem is that we have some people earning $100 million or more each year spending their money on buying politicians to make sure they don’t have to pay as much in taxes (as a percent of income) as someone making $87K. And we’re damn sick of it.
HDB
January 8th, 2013
1:38 pm
guest
January 8th, 2013
1:15 pm
It’s not so much that the lowest-paid and CEO make comparable salaries……but when you look at the wage disparity….and add benefits…..then the question needs to be asked.
When the CEOs of Ben and Jerry’s only make 25 times their lowest-paid employee….but other CEOs make 250 TIMES their lowest-paid employee……then the question still remains.
F. Sinkwich
January 8th, 2013
1:20 pm
“The question becomes why should one person reap greater benefits than the work force that GOT him the riches.” Uh, because that “one person” works harder, is smarter, more motivated, willing to self-sacrifice, more innovative, can positively influence and lead people for the greater good of stakeholders, and stuff like that?”
Not necessarily! Note the CEO’s that basically destroy a company, reap the riches, then leave!! Hostess Bakery is a good example!! The EMPLOYEES are just as valuable stakeholders as is the financiers behind them!!
Aynie Sue
January 8th, 2013
1:39 pm
About income inequality and redistribution… the preposterous inequality in income and wealth is due to the malfunction of our free enterprise economic system; the redistribution of income through government taxation and spending is essential to economic stability and growth .
In a perfectly functioning free enterprise system there would be no billionaires, a few more millionaires, and a prosperous and expanding middle class. Any highly lucrative enterprise would soon face competitors who offer cheaper and better products and services. Alas, financial sector manipulation, patent laws, and political favoritism have perverted our free enterprise system and created corporate monstrosities like Apple, Microsoft, Walmart, and Boeing. Glance at a list of those Americans who command high income! Few are entrepreneurs or innovators; most are financial manipulators .
Redistribution of income and wealth is essential to the functioning of our imperfect economy. Glance at a list of the wealthiest Americans! Few accumulated their fortunes by honest enterprise; most have inherited their wealth or gained it through financial manipulation. Many protect their wealth by taking it out of the economy rather than investing it in the economy. Some move American capital into off-shore. Others put American capital into speculative financial instruments, like derivatives, that create no jobs. Still others invest American capital directly in foreign countries.
Money is meant to circulate. There is no such thing as my money and your money. We are all part of the economy. My money becomes someone else’s as soon as I spend it or pay taxes. Money should not rise to the top and be taken out of play. Americans deserve the opportunity to earn back some of the accumulated wealth that their spending has created. Redistribution of income and wealth through taxation corrects some of the defects in our economic system, and keeps the money flowing.
F. Sinkwich
January 8th, 2013
1:41 pm
Poor Jammie.
One might have thought that recent tax increases on those undeserving ingrates (”the rich”) would have put a smile on his face for at least a few days…
But alas, Jammie has realized that his miserable lot in life is still miserable therefore he must continue to search out those whom he believes are responsible.
Jammie should find a job, get a new hobby, or at least get therapy.
Kyle Wingfield
January 8th, 2013
1:42 pm
Lynnie Gal @ 1:11: From that CNN article: “The average wealth of the top 1% dropped just 15.6% between 2007 and 2010, while the median net worth of American households sank 47.1% That large decline in median wealth is largely responsible for driving the gap to such heights.”
What happened between 2007 and 2010? A housing crash that disproportionately affected those who had the bulk of their wealth tied up in their homes, i.e. the middle class. That’s not to say it’s unimportant or that policy makers shouldn’t be concerned about it at all. But if you wanted to make the gap appear as large as possible — say, due to some ideological motivation guiding your policy preferences — you would choose the worst comparison possible and argue for making public policy based on that comparison.
But what if we based our comparison on the pre-crash figures for 2007? The ratios in the article imply a wealth ratio of 180:1 in 2007, vs. 288:1 in 2010. That’s an enormous difference — a far greater difference than the one between 125:1 in 1983 and 180:1 in 2007. Now, the wealth at the peak of the bubble may not have been real, but neither is the reduced level of wealth in 2010 — home prices have rebounded somewhat since then and will probably continue to do so. So the real figure is somewhere between 180 and 288. Admittedly, I don’t know where. But nor do any of the sources you’ve cited attempt to account for the reasons behind these differences of wealth. Such as: Has education become more important? How have family structures changed? To what degree do such factors account for the gap being wider today than in the past?
Which brings me back to the whole point of the OP …
JamVet
January 8th, 2013
1:47 pm
Looks like Andy/I Report/Sinkwink is trying to get red carded yet again.
How many times would that make, Andy?
Which is fine by me, the man contributes next to nothing of value on these forums…
Whaddya think of this character, Kyle?
Does he serve any useful purpose?
LOL…
@@
January 8th, 2013
1:48 pm
And the feds have been penalizing marriage with what?
A tax, of course.
schnirt
td
January 8th, 2013
1:48 pm
Aynie Sue
January 8th, 2013
1:39 pm
Just go ahead and use the words “The bourgeoisie” because everything else you are talking about is right out of the Communist manifesto.
Kyle Wingfield
January 8th, 2013
1:48 pm
Cutty @ 1:33: Your arguments would be stronger if you made any effort to understand the points conservatives actually make, as opposed to the Maddowized caricatures of what we say.
F. Sinkwich
January 8th, 2013
1:48 pm
I used to think people like Aynie Sue were kinda scary, but at least they were in the minority.
But now the majority of voters in this country elected someone just like Aynie Sue to the White House.
Aynie Sue’s are now the majority!
RIP USA 1776-2012
JamVet
January 8th, 2013
1:53 pm
…right out of the Communist manifesto.
Alan West agrees 100%!!
From the unemployment line.
How insane is it that Joseph McCarthy is still one of the very most important people in the GOP?
Old timer
January 8th, 2013
1:53 pm
I am very conservative…..and I and all my friends do not oppose birth control. In fact after one or two children we must support, I wish the government would require it. Have 10 plus children you cannot care for should be a crime.
MarkV
January 8th, 2013
1:58 pm
It is easy to see what is the first thing that is wrong with Kyle’s arguments and the Perry’s analysis. Remember the latest round of negotiation about taxes? It was about whether to increase taxes for the top 1-2% earners. The most striking income inequality is between those and the other population groups. When Perry takes the “top” as 20% of the income earners, his numbers have little to do with where the real inequality lies.
Kyle Wingfield
January 8th, 2013
1:59 pm
JamVet @ 1:47: I think you’re mixing up some different people. At least two different people.
Hillbilly D
January 8th, 2013
2:00 pm
And the feds have been penalizing marriage with what?
Let’s not forget the big misstep that was made way back. A woman receiving public assistance, in many cases, couldn’t receive it if the man stayed in the home. In my opinion, this has played a major role in the breakdown of the family, in this country. It was brought on with good intentions, to keep deadbeat guys from living off the woman and the government but we’ve paid a huge price for the unintended consequences. The men left the home, and as generation after generation has been raised that way, it’s just snowballed and it’s become almost the norm.
Should anyone be surprised that having more workers means a household has more money?
That’s just common sense and one of the many good arguments for two parent households.
Note the CEO’s that basically destroy a company, reap the riches,
This has also become way too prevalent in today’s world. The game is rigged to a large degree and to say otherwise is to deny reality, in my opinion.
There are any number of occupations in this country, which make less in real wages than they made 40 years ago. There’s no denying that fact, either.
My synopsis on this is that these problems run far deeper and are far more complicated that most realize and/or want to admit. I think the usual slogans from both sides are just missing the boat.
Until we put the emphasis back on building families (which the government really isn’t equipped to do) and get back to producing things, rather than just shuffling pieces of paper, we’re in for a mighty rough road.
Cutty
January 8th, 2013
2:04 pm
And what points are conservatives making on birth control? They’re not against, but the individual should bear the responsibility of paying for it? Are you all making the same point for E.D. drugs as well? And the ‘Maddowized’ comment puts you on the same level as Lil Barry, I Report, and the rest of the commenters that offer nothing of substance except lib this, and lib that. I in no way tried to insult or caricaturize your comments, and I would expect the same modicum of respect from you.
Further, how can you separate what conservatives say from your so-called points your party makes? All the cries of the infringement of religious freedoms is fine when it involves women reproductive issues. The same criteria should apply to men and their erectile issues. You want Cialis, pay for it yourself.
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
January 8th, 2013
2:05 pm
Time to discredit the NOAA.
I’ll be right back.
Kyle Wingfield
January 8th, 2013
2:05 pm
JamVet @ 1:30: “Framing the argument in terms of households instead of individual people is asinine.”
Asinine? Frankly, I think that statement is asinine. Most people I know think about their finances in terms of the income and expenses of their entire family — you know, household. As the data show, about half of middle-income households include two adults (though not necessarily two workers).
And before you start complaining about others’ comments, I suggest refraining from telling the rest of us we’re a bunch of boot-lickers.
Kyle Wingfield
January 8th, 2013
2:08 pm
Cutty @ 2:04: You will never find me calling for mandating subsidized purchases of Viagra. Nor do I think anyone has said, “Religious organizations should not have to subsidize birth control via their health plans, but they should have to subsidize Viagra.” Which is the implication when you bring that into the conversation.
MarkV
January 8th, 2013
2:10 pm
To put it very plainly, Perry and Kyle would want us to believe that all the standard methods of measuring income inequality, according to which the US is pretty much at the bottom among the developed, industrialized nations, are all wrong. It is the global warming/climate change kind of debate again. It does not matter what the consensus of specialists is, let’s believe the arguments of one or a few deniers, which suit our political belief.
Stevie Ray...Clowns to my Left and Jokers to my Right here I am....
January 8th, 2013
2:12 pm
KYLE,
Be careful with that axe Eugene..”
Those on the left and vitriolic BO supporters see no need to look under the inequality carpet. It is very rare that we hear from Liberals that technology, capitalism 101, and global markets have more to do with the alledged plight of the “common’ man. It takes about 4 guys and 3 machines to lay asphault compared to just 5 years ago (unless it is a union job). The entire advent of the early auto unions was the extortion for the likes of Ford to make doing the same thing on an assembly line over and over a protected and overly compensated worker. The techology that has replaced bricks and mortar….
The broken home is an issue on most government assisted households. I don’t see your comments as anything new, just suppressed by economists turned pundits….
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
January 8th, 2013
2:13 pm
That didn’t take long -
Eastern Europe, Russia, Asia and Alaska are being pummeled with their second straight winter of record cold and snow, and NOAA is about to announce that 2012 is the hottest year ever in the US – based on massively tampered data which in no way resembles the thermometer readings it is derived from.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/data-tampering-at-ushcngiss/
Why would they want to tweak the data?
Stevie Ray...Clowns to my Left and Jokers to my Right here I am....
January 8th, 2013
2:16 pm
Hillbilly D
January 8th, 2013
2:00 pm
CEO’s ruining organizations for personal gain is such an infintessimal part of the problem that gets all the hype…part of the current presentation of the wealthy and big business being the root of all the problems President Trillions and his crew continue to ignore.
I’d sure like someone to cite me a list of companies whereby the CEO personally took a company down for personal gain and in the process costs a meaningful number of jobs…
JohnnyReb
January 8th, 2013
2:16 pm
There are a lot of tax rules that on the surface appear unfair. The laws were not put into effect to screw the little guy or give the big guy a break. Instead, they were passed so the big guy would invest more thus providing the little guy a place to work instead of him being in the soup line at the mission with no idea from where the next meal.
Democrats like to spout past tax rates as being much higher. What they don’t tell you are the write-offs and deductions allowed under those extremely high rates mitigated the rate.
Class dividers and those hell bent on destroying America as we know it, such as Obama, use rhetoric to fire up their supporters knowing the low intelligence voter does not understand but it sounds good.
As to Kyle’s piece, its good but I don’t much go into the quintile this or that. The bottom line is, single parent families are a problem for America both economically and morally.
Instead of the government telling a woman before she has unprotected sex she best know how to grow a garden and raise chickens, it extorts money from others and freely gives it to the takers so they can continue their irresponsible life style.
Now, before Moonbats blow a gasket, there can always be exceptions to the rule and some people become single parents not of their own choosing, but they aren’t the problem, now are they?
Stevie Ray...Clowns to my Left and Jokers to my Right here I am....
January 8th, 2013
2:20 pm
Aesop’s Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
January 8th, 2013
2:13 pm
No recorded temperature rise in the past decade or so…I am now of the opinion that man-made climate change is bogus for several reasons the least of which is that sometimes things are so obvious, that folks get blinded. So we have these “scientists” who are arguably financially conflicted, practicing a science with a mere decades or so of existence, making predictions about the weather in 50 years…when have any predictions from these scaremongers (a tactic in sales known as making them sick to make them better) over any meaningful span of time been accurate?
Reality
January 8th, 2013
2:22 pm
Kylie-
Congrats! You, like so many con repub, are a master of the distraction from reality.
The “most wealthy” described most everyone in the universe (except for you evidently) is NOT by household. It is individual income.
I have never ever heard anyone ever say that the Ted Turner “household” makes more…. or that the Paris Hilton “household” makes more.
When incomes are compared, it is INDIVIDUAL and not household. So, your entire blog is entirely bogus!
1961_Xer
January 8th, 2013
2:23 pm
Should anyone be surprised that having more workers means a household has more money? So why is this almost never part of the discussion about income inequality?
There are so many cultural and political reasons why this is so… its mind boggling.
1) It reaffirms the notion that marriage IS important in raising children
2) It reaffirms the notion that working IS important to escaping poverty
3) It reaffirms the notion that those richer households with multiple workers EARNED what they have
4) It reaffirms the notion that POVERTY IS A RESULT OF A SERIES OF BAD CHOICES. Democrats will refuse to say this even if the data is irrefutable.
5) It reaffirms the notion that the U.S. nanny state is CAUSING this income equality by enabling no-worker households. Heck, Obama just got rid of the only real requirement for work … this should enable even MORE no-worker households
6) link in educational achievement of kids in the no-worker households, and I would bet that we see consistent scholastic under-achievement /dropout rates as well.
I could go on and on. Government enabling government dependency is a vicious cycle.
Obama puts out a video of a composite girl, using all the redistribution of government to escape her no-income home to create another no-income home for her own out-of-wedlock children…. cradle to grave subsidization of the poverty lifestyle. Democrats cheered.
Hillbilly D
January 8th, 2013
2:25 pm
Stevie Ray
Bob Nardelli. Presided over Home Depot and during his tenure, sales went down, profits went down, market share went down, stock prices went down, virtually every measure of company success went down and he wound up with bonuses and a golden parachute. Home Depot is still around but no thanks to Bob.
1961_Xer
January 8th, 2013
2:27 pm
When incomes are compared, it is INDIVIDUAL and not household. So, your entire blog is entirely bogus!
Studies come out regularly using Census data that analyzes HOUSEHOLDS. The government collects HOUSEHOLD data with the census, and that is how researchers have been analyzing data for the past 100 years. The government bases new programs on HOUSEHOLD data produced by the census. The government apportions political representation based on the HOUSEHOLD data supplied by the census. YOUR comment is entirely bogus.
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
January 8th, 2013
2:27 pm
Texas cut taxes, spending, ends up with $8 billion surplus.
Reality
January 8th, 2013
2:34 pm
The disparity in income by INDIVIDUAL has become more and more of an issue in the US.
In the days of John Adams, a general rule of thumb was that the CEO would make about 7 or 8 times as much as the lowest paid person in the company. Think about this – 7 or 8 times – that is a lot, right?
Let’s look at today…. Assume the lowest paid person makes $7 per hour (maybe a custodian, maybe a data entry person, whatever). That is just under $15,000 per year (before taxes). Now, let’s look at the CEO’s of today. Think of CEO of Coca-cola, of GE, of Microsoft, of Ford, of whatever big company you want. Their salary alone can be $1.5 million per year (again, before taxes) and that is a very conservative number (look it up if you doubt me). That is a factor of 100!
And, that CEO salary does not include other additional compensation such as stocks, limo, plane, etc.
THIS is what is wrong. THIS is why the US is in trouble – in my opinion. It is that the greedy most wealthy continue to gobble up more and more.
Hillbilly D
January 8th, 2013
2:35 pm
The government collects HOUSEHOLD data with the census, and that is how researchers have been analyzing data for the past 100 years.
That’s true but as people who do a lot of genealogical research know, the census has been filled with mistakes/lies/omissions since they started doing more than just listing the head of household and the ages of the people, in 1850. Some folks lie on their questionnaire and some just don’t fill out certain parts of it and some folks, for various reasons, just never get counted.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
January 8th, 2013
2:35 pm
And just to set the liberal fascists straight, my life is MY life, my labor is MY labor, and my money is MY money until such time as I choose to exchange it for a product or service I want, which is then also MINE.
Reality
January 8th, 2013
2:37 pm
@1961_Xer –
I never claimed that the government did not collect household data. Why do you bother to argue that point.
What I said was that it is the disparity of INDIVIDUAL income that is the problem. The government also collects this data.
Putz.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
January 8th, 2013
2:38 pm
According to salary.com, average CEO pay is $730k.
Someone is cherry-picking the intelligence.
Reality
January 8th, 2013
2:45 pm
@JohnnyReb -
What you describe is called the “trickle down” theory of economics. This is what Reagan sold to the US as a solution to our problems.
Cut taxes on the most wealthy. Provide the most wealthy with more money. Then, this wealth will “trickle down” to the rest of us.
Guess what happened? The most wealthy kept the money! They just became more wealthy and thus starting the destruction of the middle class – because more of those folks became lower class.
The government cannot force the most wealthy to create jobs or to do anything of the sort. By providing loop holes for the most wealthy, all that assures is that they pay less taxes. That’s it. Nothing more.
Reality
January 8th, 2013
2:47 pm
@ Lil’ Barry Idiot….
That AVERAGE includes small companys. Someone has reading comprehension problems.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
January 8th, 2013
2:50 pm
Only 10% of CEOs make over $1 million.
I’m still right, and you are still cherry-picking the intelligence to justify your liberal fascism.
Don't Tread
January 8th, 2013
2:52 pm
The liberals don’t care about marriage, “earners per household”, doing well in school, risk vs. reward, making bad choices, etc. Logical arguments don’t even register with them.
All they care about is that someone else has money and they somehow have a “right” to it – it’s “not fair”, there needs to be some “social justice” applied against the “evil rich”, and so forth.
The usual group of Bookmanites will be happy to re-parrot the usual liberal talking points, if they haven’t done so already.
Reality
January 8th, 2013
2:53 pm
@ Lil’ Barry Idiot….
Where do you get that statistic? From your ‘lower hole’??? Someone needs to stop letting sound come out of their lower hole.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
January 8th, 2013
2:57 pm
I already told you. Salary.com
Don’t fear facts.
Reality
January 8th, 2013
3:01 pm
@Lil’ Barry Idiot….
Just went to your “salary.com” and guess what? None of your “facts” were there. If I am wrong, then provide the link. Otherwise, stop your ‘lower hole’ from making noise.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
January 8th, 2013
3:04 pm
Texas cut taxes, spending, ends up with $8 billion surplus.
Texas is a welfare state. Like most red states they get back way more than they send in to Washington.
When they are so ignorant they start denying a well established fact like climate change.
Well its time to move along.
See ya guys.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
January 8th, 2013
3:05 pm
www1.salary.com/chief-executive-officer-salary.html
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
January 8th, 2013
3:07 pm
See? You’re wrong.
Lower hole yourself.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
January 8th, 2013
3:09 pm
The climate change deniers are real similar to those in the 40’s and 50’s that would have told you cigarettes dont cause cancer.
The tobacco industry purposely muddied the waters and lied until they were caught red handed.
The same thing will happen here. It will just take a little time to bring the knuckle draggers around as usual.
But eventually. There will be no more denying.
Reality
January 8th, 2013
3:12 pm
@Lil’ Barry Idiot -
Even if you want to include the mom and pop company paying their CEO $20,000 per year in your ‘average’, that changes the factor to 53.
Are you trying to say that 53 is acceptable? Are you realy? LOL!
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
January 8th, 2013
3:14 pm
Guess who’s the “tobacco company” in the global warming story?
You and your filthy automobile, refrigerator, air conditioner, and BBQ grill.
Hypocrite.
Jack ®
January 8th, 2013
3:16 pm
It appears that those who are not CEOs or business owners know more about owning and running a business than those that do. If you know more about a business than your boss, start a business of your own. But if that takes place, it might take away from your time posting in a blog.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
January 8th, 2013
3:16 pm
The salary data make Reality sad.
td
January 8th, 2013
3:19 pm
Reality
January 8th, 2013
2:45 pm
@JohnnyReb -
What you describe is called the “trickle down” theory of economics. This is what Reagan sold to the US as a solution to our problems.
Cut taxes on the most wealthy. Provide the most wealthy with more money. Then, this wealth will “trickle down” to the rest of us
You are forgetting the little fact that the top 1% of income earners make 17% of all income and already pays 36% of all income taxes and these are numbers before the new Obama taxes which will push them probably over 40% of all taxes paid.
Rafe Hollister preparing for an Obamanist America
January 8th, 2013
3:19 pm
Cutty you and the other LIbs have your falsehoods that you continue to hang on to despite having the errors pointed out constantly.
Most, probably 95% of medical insurance, prior to Obamacare requirements, did not pay for birth control pills or ED drugs. You continue to say that men are getting ED paid for and women can’t get B/C pills, not true, neither are covered, and should not be.
You say Conservatives are against B/C, no we are against paying for B/C. Is their anything that Libs think they are responsible for doing for themselves? What us to buy your soap, razors, and deodorant, after all how do you expect poor people to get a job if they can’t afford to be well groomed?
CEO’s make too much as compared with their workers. No one requires the workers to stay there, they all have the opinion of leaving or starting a company and going into business competing with the one they used to work for. It is a free country, if you are being mistreated and think your value to the company deserves higher compensation, just move on. The CEO is paid well for producing results, if he doesn’t he gets fired. Do the CEO’s get overpaid, well, do athlete’s get paid too much , sure, but they get what the market will pay, that is the way America works.
Reality
January 8th, 2013
3:20 pm
@Lil’ Barry Idiot,
By the way, on your ’salary.com’, if you include salary plus bonus for the CEO, the median is $1.23 million. So, my original number of $1.5 million was not that far off in any case.
http://swz.salary.com/SalaryWizard/chief-executive-officer-Salary-Details.aspx?&hdcbxbonuse=on
It is so like a con republican to try to hard to diverge from a valid point that you cannot grasp.
Dusty
January 8th, 2013
3:20 pm
Kyle writes a fine sensible column citing the sensibilities that a two dedicated people (married) household will usually manage better financially and otherwise than single adults. He gives figures to support his presentation which most of us knew already even without figures. . Sooooo
Liberals here jump up and down saying he is incorrect (about his own opinion!). That households are not people, that the figures are not correct, and furthermore the government should be more giving (communistic) and control all money so that it is dispersed evenly. What a crock!
Liberals want to accept the figures of every scientist who believes in global warming and ignore the rest. Yes sir. But give them statistics on income, households, poverty and such as that, and they do not believe one bit of it. It is just those rich people ruling the poor workers who make less than the thinkers and promoters of the company. Oh the cries: it aint fair that I aint making that much money! .
Ah so, they might as well keep on saying “Bush did it!” Their thinking does not extend much farther than that ignorant rant so long extended to replace any clarity of thought..
cranky old man
January 8th, 2013
3:20 pm
You make some interesting points here, Kyle. You’ve given us the averages, but do you also have access to the median and the mode for each group? When trying to understand the relevance of statistics, it is often useful to have all three.
Also, while I agree with your points generally, we must also consider that even modest changes to income, either positive or negative, will have a much greater impact on those at the bottom. Layoffs, illnesses, furloughs, reduced working hours, and unexpected expenses, such as car or home repairs, can turn “getting by okay” into “broke and in debt” rather quickly when one is living paycheck-to-paycheck, even if there are two bread winners, and only one of them is effected.
I’m not fond of the idea of the government paying people who don’t work, except on a temporary emergency basis due to an illness or loss of a job. Welfare should not be a decades long (or worse yet, a multi-generational) career path. That’s no way to live, and it’s not really good for anyone involved, in the long run. I have some sympathy with conservative arguments on that point. On the other hand, I think there is a place for government in smoothing out some of the rough spots for those who are working hard, doing the right thing, but simply not making enough to accumulate a rainy-day fund. When the rain comes, I don’t think it’s too outrageous for the government to loan them an umbrella until the storm passes.
Hillbilly D
January 8th, 2013
3:22 pm
Like most red states they get back way more than they send in to Washington.
And back in the 1850’s the vast majority of the tariffs were collected in the south and the vast majority of the money was spent in the north, and even then, they doubled the tariff with the Morrill Tariff of 1861. So it’s nothing new, it’s just that the shoe is on the other foot now.
td
January 8th, 2013
3:22 pm
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
January 8th, 2013
3:04 pm
Texas cut taxes, spending, ends up with $8 billion surplus.
Texas is a welfare state. Like most red states they get back way more than they send in to Washington.
This has already been proven to be lib spam and worthless information. Most of these southern states that receive more then they pay also have very large military bases that the pay in states do not have. Take out the numbers for funding military bases and then let us see your numbers.
Reality
January 8th, 2013
3:23 pm
td –
First of all, huh? What you said has nothing to do with what I said.
Second of all, what you said is wrong. That ’sound bite’ from FOX news is wrong. It has been proven wrong. Yet, FOX news is proof that if you repeat a lie enough times, folks believe it.
Reality
January 8th, 2013
3:25 pm
td –
Are you saying that military bases don’t matter? Are you saying that the federal government should not be paying the States for the military bases?
You are an expert at interjecting random, tangent, useless, and often incorrect information into a point in some failed effort to discredit that point.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
January 8th, 2013
3:30 pm
This has already been proven to be lib spam and worthless information. Most of these southern states that receive more then they pay also have very large military bases that the pay in states do not have. Take out the numbers for funding military bases and then let us see your numbers.
Nonsense.
Most of the “moochers” are in Red States.
There is no denying it
td
January 8th, 2013
3:31 pm
Reality
January 8th, 2013
3:23 pm
Here are the numbers I quoted. Look in the bottom right hand corner and you will find that it is IRS data. Now go and see how many other stats from from the tax foundation Bookman publishes or Obama uses if you think this is a right wing site. Sorry that you will not believe the real facts but they are the facts.
http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-individual-income-tax-data-0
td
January 8th, 2013
3:37 pm
Reality
January 8th, 2013
3:25 pm
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
January 8th, 2013
3:30 pm
Military spending is not moocher spending. These are the bases that the Federal government set up to house and train our military. Part of the reason is because it cost less in the south to house troops then in the north and training is better for more of the year.
As far as the Moochers in the south it has been proven over and over again that the majority of them are Obama supporters and I am more then happy if they would move to blue states and leave this one.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
January 8th, 2013
3:54 pm
It’s also true that the majority of welfare hounds live in blue states.
Reality
January 8th, 2013
3:56 pm
@Cheesy….
I saw a very interesting news report (don’t recall which station) that analyzed this…
They stated that there are a number of Countries around the world where sections of those Countries want to secede from that Country. One Country I recall specifically was France. Northern France wants to secede because the vast majority of the wealthy is in the north and they are tired of sending money to the south.
In any case, every example they gave around the world was similar. One section of the Country was upset that they were funding a different section of the Country. In addition to France, there was Spain, the Netherlands, and others (as I recall).
Then, they discussed the US. They listed the states that had the secede registration on the White House web site. These states included GA, LA, AL, TX, and others. Without exception, these states really did “take more from the federal government than paid into the federal government.” They pointed out that only in the US do the “takers” want to secede.
Maybe the US should let them….
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
January 8th, 2013
3:56 pm
We’ve established several times on this thread that Reality is a factophobe.
Reality
January 8th, 2013
3:59 pm
td -
So let me clearly understand what you are saying….
You are saying that money paid from the federal government to a State for a military base should NOT count. In other words, that State getting the money does NOT benefit from the military base in their State.
Is this what you are saying?
josef
January 8th, 2013
4:00 pm
HILLBILLY
@ 2:00
Exactly. The system is oriented to the breakdown of the nuclear family as the fundamental “way out of poverty.” With the transference of the responsibility for birth control from the male to the female, added to the “don’t need a man” mantra which became the cause celebre of the late 20th Century, and what happened? The male was let lose with no sense of responsibility.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
January 8th, 2013
4:01 pm
As far as the Moochers in the south it has been proven over and over again that the majority of them are Obama supporters
Wrong again. The majority of “takers” or “moochers” are southern whites from red states.
All Romney voters.
This is undeniable.
In fact if the welfare extremely poor southern states were to secede the rest of the union would be in great financial shape.
Heck the South wouldn’t even have electricity if not for Northern federal dollars.
Reality
January 8th, 2013
4:01 pm
@Lil’ Barry Idiot -
You are an idiot. Who is this “we”? And exactly what “fact” are you referring?
If you think I ever stated that it is a fact that the average CEO pay was $1.5 million, then you are wrong.
Do you ever tire of being wrong?
td
January 8th, 2013
4:02 pm
Lil’ Barry Bailout – OBAMAPHONE!!!
January 8th, 2013
3:56 pm
We’ve established several times on this thread that Reality is a factophobe.
Yep, as soon as I provided the information and website for what the rich really pays then he gave up his class envy argument and went for a different one.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
January 8th, 2013
4:04 pm
Is this what you are saying?
Yes thats what he is saying.
Its the type of doublethink ( see 1984 ) that is only possible in the Republican brain.
Ill give another example.
George W Bush, a coward who had his daddy get him out of combat during Vietnam. Well he is a mans man to Republicans.
John Kerry…who volunteered to serve his country and was wounded in combat. Well he is a coward to them.
Only in the Republican mind is such deception possible.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
January 8th, 2013
4:11 pm
That’s real nice, Reality, calling folks who support our troops “moochers”.
carlosgvv
January 8th, 2013
4:15 pm
Gosh, I must have somehow missed that Obama speech where he said “the unequal distribution of wealth, and efforts to redistribute it more fairly, is the chief animating concern of my Presidency”.
Kyle, do you have a link?
kevin
January 8th, 2013
4:18 pm
There will always be problems with income for the citizens of Georgia and America as a whole. Not that we can treat everyone fairly and decent with pay. The stain that has been put on all of the citrizens has been nothing but a grave misjustice….we want power over one and other; more pay, living large, driving big expensive cars…don’t want others to enjoy the same. Countries around the world has no more respect for us and then, we have rob the people who invesed their money and worked hard to be consider confort when they retire. So while we thing were better than anyone countries; look who help one and other, most certainly not us who lives among one and other. But we know how to take and steal from those who have tried to live a good life. Shame on those who look down on one and other for keep so many down in the slums; non support for the homelessness, etc. I to am gravely dissappointed!
JamVet
January 8th, 2013
4:20 pm
How many more decades before our trickled-on, trickle down fools wake up?
A few more disastrous (for the faux conservatives) elections like the last one and the problem will resolve itself…
Rafe Hollister preparing for an Obamanist America
January 8th, 2013
4:26 pm
Fineesy
I’ll give you another example.
Heroin and Cocaine are illegal, but plentiful, because no one can figure out how to make them scarce or hard to get, even though they are not made in this country.
Firearms, made in this country, and are plentiful already, but Dems think that if they make some of them illegal, we will all be safer.
Only in the Democrat mind is this a logical or reasonable approach.
JamVet
January 8th, 2013
4:31 pm
That’s real nice, you Republicans calling veterans who participated in last year’s massive protests, Occutards, moochers, rapists and arsonists.
Occupy that ,swiftboaters.
td
January 8th, 2013
4:40 pm
JamVet
January 8th, 2013
4:31 pm
I do not remember one story about a large amount of vets that was part of the occupy movement. Most of those people were spoiled college students and just normal crazies.
Politico
January 8th, 2013
4:44 pm
td
In which post did Jamvet say a “large amount”?
Rafe Hollister preparing for an Obamanist America
January 8th, 2013
4:45 pm
George W Bush, a coward who had his daddy get him out of combat during Vietnam. Well he is a mans man to Republicans.
Algore, a multimillionaire, who had his daddy get him a job as a reporter, to keep him out of combat during Vietnam, claims to be an environmentalist. He flies around in a charter jet, fueling it with money from a polluting big oil exporting country, that abuses their female population and is an apologist for terrorist organizations. He is a “green” hero for the left.
JamVet
January 8th, 2013
4:47 pm
Your faulty memory is irrelevant.
As evidenced by your infantile and wholesale slurs of the protesters.
But I love you for it! Really, I do. I never appreciated just how valuable you were until this past November 6th.
And I have very little doubt that the depraved reaction by America’s fascistic right wing hurt them big time at the polls in that election.
Along with their Limbaugh led views about sluts, prostitutes and FemiNazis.
Keep up the great work and better luck in 2024!
Politico
January 8th, 2013
4:56 pm
Jamvet
td was one of the ones touting the “skewed” polls and polling data by siting articles from such sites as theblaze, breitbart and quoting Morris and Rove…………
JamVet
January 8th, 2013
4:59 pm
Politico, did you see the bet he made with me regarding Obama vs. Romney?
Ask him about it.
Talk about COMPLETELY out of touch with reality, the guy is a hoot.
And a holler.
Politico
January 8th, 2013
5:02 pm
Jamvet
He provides as much laughs as he does hyperbole and rhetoric……… Funny little guy he is
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
January 8th, 2013
5:23 pm
JamVet: That’s real nice, you Republicans calling veterans who participated in last year’s massive protests, Occutards
———————————-
Link please.
Didn’t think so.
Kyle Wingfield
January 8th, 2013
5:38 pm
That’s it for tonight. Immediate commenting will be back tomorrow morning.
Halftrack
January 8th, 2013
5:45 pm
Most people are looking at more equal outcomes. Capitalism is based on working, ingenuity, and new ideas to supply demand for a product. It’s the individual and their desire as to what they are willing to strive for. Our forefathers, the Pilgrims, at Plymouth Rock tried a form of communism and it did not work out. They had to resort to the principle ” that if you did not work, you did not eat.”
clem
January 8th, 2013
6:46 pm
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/30/inequality-is-most-extreme-in-wealth-not-income/?emc=patrick.net
Paul
January 8th, 2013
6:47 pm
I believe the ‘explanation’ misses the point of the discussion.
I don’t recall ever hearing ‘income inequality’ being about those in poverty and those making what even Republicans call a middle-class household income. Rather, it’s been about those at the very top – the top 1 or 2 percent – those making well in excess of (minimum) double the upper limit Kyle cites who’ve been able to retain more of their earnings thru favorable tax treatment and options not practically available to the mass of earners.
For example, a person with a compensation package en excess of a million a year is NOT going to have it all subject to earned income rates. The comp will be broken down into several categories to minimize or avoid taxation.
The person who earns a living owning resources will find the tax take a fraction of what it would be if he earned a living thru labor.
A person earning a median wage will have a stunningly higher percentage of wages subject to payroll tax compared to the person with the multi-layered comp package.
No, Kyle. The concern is not those in poverty compared to a median-level income. The concern is unequal and favorable tax treatment of those at the very upper limits of the income strata.
Bob
January 8th, 2013
9:17 pm
Reality, if you knew history you would know that after Reagan and the democrat house cut taxes they then increased taxes 14 times. You would also know that revenue to gov increased close to 100% during Reagan’s 8 years, how did that lead to our downfall.
MrLiberty
January 8th, 2013
10:39 pm
Even better numbers are had when you look at these same statistics before the government’s failed “war on poverty” and today. Blacks, hispanics, and every “minority” group were all FAR better off before the war on poverty and the country as a whole was of course richer because that money wasn’t being wasted on the hoards of government employees required to administer all of these failed programs.
Of course the same could be said for the war on illiteracy, the war on drugs, and now the war on terror. All abject failures that will never achieve their goals because government is a failure.
The only war in this country that has been successful – wildly successful – is the government’s war on freedom and liberty.
Old Timer
January 9th, 2013
12:05 am
Mother/Father familes and education are the time tested answer. Not ignorance and government entitlements.
DeborahinAthens
January 9th, 2013
6:30 am
I wouldn’t disagree that it would be a better world with no divorce, no death of a spouse, no thugs knocking up young, stupid girls and then refusing to support their spawn. However, the income equality that really irks me is when my CEO runs my company into the ground making the stock drop from $58 to 87 CENTS, then lays off employees, cuts the producers salaries 33% and walks away with a multi million dollar severance. Then, the well heeled board puts another failure in as CEO, who completes the job and HE walks away with a multimillion dollar severance package. In th past few decades in THIS country, CEO and upper management pay has gone up several hundred fold (some cases, over a thousand fold) while the average employees’ pay, adjusted for inflation, is actually less than it was twenty years ago. Technology has enabled companies to slash employees from the payroll with impunity, while expecting the remaining drones to take up the slack. I don’t think this is what this county needs. Any country that has no middle class, a state which we are fast approaching, becomes a Banana Republic. I used to be a Republican, but I voted for Obama twice. I am a true Capitalist, and I do NOT think the President is trying to redistribute the wealth. By the way, most industrialized countries such as Germany, have not seen this glaring disparity in wages develop. Their upper level managers and CEOS get much less than ours, and their companies seem to be better run in most cases. Why do we reward these awful CEOs and punish our workers?
Paps Mear
January 9th, 2013
7:22 am
Kyle,
Also important to this discussion is the fact that countries with the greatest income inequality tend to exhibit the greatest economic growth. Opportunity and free market capitalism is the key.
So, can the left explain again why income inequality is so bad?
guy
January 9th, 2013
7:22 am
Keep knocking those “rich folks” and start the high taxation more and more. Guess what,they will close up shop or move out .They don’t have to go through that hell hacking.Then,who’s going to pay the bills? I am way off from being wealthy by a long shot but I work and am thankful someone helps provide an income. I admire those who are successful and made it without going by the rules. There are a lot of honest wealthy folks.Yes, there are crooks that are wealthy too. You can’t change that!
guy
January 9th, 2013
7:24 am
admire those who made it by going by the rules,not made it without going by the rules.
clem
January 9th, 2013
8:48 am
hey dusty, another big business (and there are so many) without values& integrity:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/09/aig-bailout-lawsuit_n_2436679.html#comments
MarkV
January 9th, 2013
8:50 am
Dusty @ 3:20 pm
I love it how Dusty swallows whatever Kyle presents, hook, line, and sinker. I am still waiting for that one time she will have some independent opinion and reasoning instead of fawning, but it is getting less and less likely.
What Kyle has written is not about “the sensibilities that a two dedicated people (married) household will usually manage better financially and otherwise than single adults.” It is an attempt to muddy water and deflect the charge that the income inequality in the US is too high compared with other developed countries. Which is what all standard measures of income inequality show.
I do not know who has “jumped up and down” that figures were not correct; the main issue is not correctness of the numbers, but which numbers are used and how. And the first tactic of Mr. Perry was not to look at the real high earners as the top earners, but at the whole top 20%. The numbers NOT used are such data as the CBO report showing that between 1979 and 2007, after-tax income grew by 275 percent for the top 1 percent of households, 65 percent for the next 19 percent, just under 40 percent for the next 60 percent, and18 percent for the bottom 20 percent. (http://www.cbo.gov/publication/42729).
Or that the 1.2 million households whose incomes put them in the top 1 percent of the U.S. saw their earnings increase 5.5 percent in 2011, according to estimates by the U.S. Census Bureau. And that earnings fell 1.7 percent for the 96 million households in the bottom 80 percent — those that made less than $101,583.
And that the top 1 pct. earned 23.5% of the nation’s income in 2007, while it was around 10% between the early 50s and early 80s, increasing steeply since. But no, according to Messrs Perry and Kyle, we do not have income inequality.
I would like to ask Dusty: What would have to be the percentage of income of the 1 pct earners, to make it too high for YOU: 50%? 75%? 90%? Or should the 1 percenters just take all the money and then give the rest of us allowances?
Thulsa Doom
January 9th, 2013
9:10 am
The connection between poverty and single parent households has been known for some time now. But we avoid a serious discussion about it because with it comes some uncomfortable discussion about demographics and single mothers.
Doug B
January 9th, 2013
9:13 am
Oh, so income inequality is easily solved then, right Kyle? All people have to do is get off their lazy butts and get a job. Nevermind that there aren’t enough jobs to be had. Those lazy people just aren’t trying hard enough.
tiredofIT
January 9th, 2013
9:33 am
With power and wealth concentrated in small group of people you end of with an Aristocracy and we are heading there quickly.
Beside the Point
January 9th, 2013
10:17 am
“Income inequality” isn’t $11K vs. $178K. In the grand scheme of things, those people are varying degrees of poor. Inequality is an engineer making $80K, a physician making $200K, and a hedge fund manager making $500 MILLION to $2 BILLION a year. Unless you work in financial services these days, you’re relegated to the lower class and have next to no influence on legislation.
williebkind
January 9th, 2013
10:35 am
“Most of the “moochers” are in Red States.”
That would be the democratic plantation members mostly.
zeke
January 9th, 2013
11:18 am
ABSOLUTELY!
zeke
January 9th, 2013
11:19 am
Point is, THE TRUTH DOES NOT MATTER WHEN LEFTIST SOCIALIST PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATS PROMOTE THEIR LEFT WING COMMIE AGENDA OF CLASS WARFARE AND REDISTRIBUTION!!!!
Kyle Wingfield
January 9th, 2013
11:31 am
Immediate commenting is back on, and there’s a new post upstairs.
Hillbilly D
January 9th, 2013
11:34 am
Our forefathers, the Pilgrims, at Plymouth Rock
They’re not everybody’s “forefathers”. Mine were at Jamestown before the Pilgrims ever made their travel plans. There were Spanish settlements here before that, not to mention those folks who were already living here, just waiting to be “discovered”.
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
January 9th, 2013
11:36 am
And everyone has the same level of “mobility”. Everyone has the same access to the drivers of “mobility”.
willie lynch
January 9th, 2013
11:38 am
So all you need to do is have a job to avoid the income inequality dilemma? Great article!
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
January 9th, 2013
12:01 pm
The income inequality “dilemma” only exists in the minds of those greedy for other folks’ property. AKA Obozo’s loser base.