USA presidential elections - Page 16

sz_matyas · 13-02-2008, 06:45

Here is the most recent article I could find where he mentions it, though I know there was a longer article where he details more on the economic mobility idea, but I wasn't able to find it (I had read it in a hard copy of the Rapid City Journal a couple of years ago and can't find the link). He is generally willing to list sources of information and I have found him reliable (on economic matters, some of his social policy ideas not as much) when I have checked him.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/T...oguery_part_ii

Side note: The IRS and Treasury department don't include anyone under 25 for studies of this nature, so it doesn't count your high school paper route money as being in the bottom 20% (not mentioned in this article, but is listed on the official statistics)

You are right that I don't have much direct knowledge of income mobility though. I'll see if I can find the 60% are in the top 20% as a harder statistic, though I hold out less hope since I can't remember the source.

Regarding the rich getting a raw deal, the few rich people I know put in so much more work than I did to get off the ground, I would never want the deal they made. One of the professors in my department had started his own business, was making >$1M/year and quit to go to the 80hr/wk professor position because being a CEO was too stressful (he's still making out very well since he got a clause to get ~5% of his group's research money paid to him, coming out to a couple hundred thousand a year). Similarly for tax reasons, I've excluded several states from my potential job search (being close enough to graduating to worry) even though it likely means 10-15K less per year in base salary and would be easily willing to cut off another 5-10K for a lower stress position.

romeothemonk · 13-02-2008, 13:30

For information on wealth movement as well as understanding on how economics, and in general money works I recommend 2 books. The first is Freakonomics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freakonomics and the second is The Millionare next door. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Millionaire_Next_Door

10 an hour seems like a lot, then you realize many of them have second jobs, are single moms/ got divorced from their loser husbands (not many of them are winners themselves). Out of that 10, you take 401k, health bennies, plus tax. It really ain't pretty. I don't know if they are leasing or not, but everyone keeps saying the word buy, and I know one of them truely did buy. I agree that they should make more and our executives less, but I don't control that. The executives have a good point on pay not motivating them, as whenever we are hiring, we stick out our sign "now hiring" and have a line of people that wnat to work for $7.60 an hour!! Walmart pays more than that, and has more guaranteed hours in our town.

Anyway, I am convinced that labor unions (not with the UAW's power) but with local negotiating power could really help improve the quality of life of many people.

Stapel · 13-02-2008, 14:11

I'm very much opposed to the concept of "wealth redistribution". However that is not the same as taxing the rich more progressively. There is a simple priciple that the strongest shoulders can bear the heaviest burdon. I simple example:

To live in moderately luxuary (home/shelter, food, clothing, home entertainment, education for the kids, holiday trips, and what more), an average family needs $50.000 a year. Anything on top of that, can be used for exotic stuff. So, it would be fair not to tax people on the money they need for moderate luxuary, but to tax them on exotic stuff. Of course, it is arbitrary where to draw the line for minimum needs, basic needs, luxuary needs and exotic needs.

The point remians valid: the further into luxuary, the lesser the pain of taxes.

akots · 13-02-2008, 16:01

Quote:

quote:Originally posted by sz_matyas
... This means that "real" income has grown ~50% which is very significant (again if you don't want a 50% raise, I would be more than willing to take that money off your hands). ...

Well, first, I never was and probably never will be within low income 20%.

I'm more close to the median even considering I don't have a green card. Second, "real" income is quite an abstract category. I'm not sure what you mean by saying it has grown by 50%.

akots · 13-02-2008, 16:13

Quote:

quote:Originally posted by sz_matyas
...
Also if you think that the poor only buy necessities you haven't been around too many trailer parks recently (granted my experience with these is only in SD and WI, having lived close to them in those locations). Romeo can testify to this (as he lived in one for over a year), but there are a significant number of plasma screen TVs, nice but not extravagent boats, and medium/high end cars (cadillac/Lexus level).
...

Well, when I came here, I've lived in a nice neighborhood mostly white with an average income at that zip code of about 65K. The neighborhood was quite nice, and I mean really nice. After 2002 though, it started to deteriorate and it peaked with Katrina and all refugees from the Big Easy. Substantial part of those guys moved down to Houston and part settled in that area gradually trying to turn it into ghetto for a couple of years. The crime rate greatly increased, they started selling drug in the apartment complex where I lived and eventually I had to move out. But yes, the average income in the zip code dropped over the period of these 6 years from 65K down to 42K. Many new nice and shining cars appeared though and all my neighbors had a plasma TV, nice computers and such. Before that, it were quite modest actually.

How do they get the money? I think, it is mostly credit card debt. Also, electronics is not quite as expensive as it used to be. You can nowdays buy a very nice HD-TV for less than a grand.

This all however does not change things. These people are not starving, they have enough in their pocket to go to the movies and some of them even work two shifts. $42K is not that bad in the Houston area. In Houston, IMO, there are very few places where really poor people live. It is not Alabama after all. But very little is improving in terms of "real" income. Actually, it seems to be going down.

socralynnek · 13-02-2008, 17:06

The terms used are quite interesting to see how people understand such "taxes".

You are talking about "wealth distribution" which has the point of view that you will always be able to earn money.

Over here the term "unemployment insurance" (translated of course) is used. Man, that's what I want. I want to have the security to not have to starve when I lose my job for whatever reason (caused by myself or by some accident or by some managment failure or whatever). That's why I happily pay some of my wage for the currently unemployed. Because I might be unemployed at some point myself (Surely one can talk about how much money is needed and how much unemployed people should get)

The same with health insurance...

I don't blame you for your point of view, romeo, it is just different.

Matrix · 13-02-2008, 17:12

Quote:

quote:Originally posted by socralynnek

Over here the term "unemployment insurance" (translated of course) is used. Man, that's what I want. I want to have the security to not have to starve when I lose my job for whatever reason (caused by myself or by some accident or by some managment failure or whatever). That's why I happily pay some of my wage for the currently unemployed. Because I might be unemployed at some point myself (Surely one can talk about how much money is needed and how much unemployed people should get)

Certainly when you can get fired for (almost?) no reason, like in the US.

grahamiam · 13-02-2008, 17:34

We do have the ability to collect unemployment benefits for ~26 weeks when fired.

ProPain · 14-02-2008, 00:51

Mate van overeenkomst per kandidaat
Kandidaat Overeenkomst
Barack Obama (D)
Hillary Clinton (D)
John McCain (R)
Mike Huckabee (R)

it was a tie between obama and clinton

socralynnek · 14-02-2008, 09:09

I know you have some benefits as well ( I mean in Germany they have cut the real sum of unemployment benefits to 1 year. Afterwards everyone just gets a small sum of money which is IMO a little too less to have a life, but enough to survive)

I was talkng about the perspective. If one talks about "wealth redistribution", than one sees the money given from one to the other. If I am talking about "unemployment insurance" then I see it from a perspective that I am doing it for myself.

Although it is basically the same (I hope I am never unemployed to benefit so maybe I will be just giving...), the first term has something communistic in it, the 2nd not. (Although the word communism in US means something different than in the rest of the world...)

13-02-2008, 06:45	#151
sz_matyas Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Madison, WI. Posts: 555	Here is the most recent article I could find where he mentions it, though I know there was a longer article where he details more on the economic mobility idea, but I wasn't able to find it (I had read it in a hard copy of the Rapid City Journal a couple of years ago and can't find the link). He is generally willing to list sources of information and I have found him reliable (on economic matters, some of his social policy ideas not as much) when I have checked him. http://www.townhall.com/columnists/T...oguery_part_ii Side note: The IRS and Treasury department don't include anyone under 25 for studies of this nature, so it doesn't count your high school paper route money as being in the bottom 20% (not mentioned in this article, but is listed on the official statistics) You are right that I don't have much direct knowledge of income mobility though. I'll see if I can find the 60% are in the top 20% as a harder statistic, though I hold out less hope since I can't remember the source. Regarding the rich getting a raw deal, the few rich people I know put in so much more work than I did to get off the ground, I would never want the deal they made. One of the professors in my department had started his own business, was making >$1M/year and quit to go to the 80hr/wk professor position because being a CEO was too stressful (he's still making out very well since he got a clause to get ~5% of his group's research money paid to him, coming out to a couple hundred thousand a year). Similarly for tax reasons, I've excluded several states from my potential job search (being close enough to graduating to worry) even though it likely means 10-15K less per year in base salary and would be easily willing to cut off another 5-10K for a lower stress position. __________________ \"All men are frauds. The only difference between them is that some admit it. I myself deny it\" H. L. Mencken

13-02-2008, 13:30	#152
romeothemonk King Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Yankton, SD. Posts: 1,310	For information on wealth movement as well as understanding on how economics, and in general money works I recommend 2 books. The first is Freakonomics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freakonomics and the second is The Millionare next door. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Millionaire_Next_Door 10 an hour seems like a lot, then you realize many of them have second jobs, are single moms/ got divorced from their loser husbands (not many of them are winners themselves). Out of that 10, you take 401k, health bennies, plus tax. It really ain't pretty. I don't know if they are leasing or not, but everyone keeps saying the word buy, and I know one of them truely did buy. I agree that they should make more and our executives less, but I don't control that. The executives have a good point on pay not motivating them, as whenever we are hiring, we stick out our sign "now hiring" and have a line of people that wnat to work for $7.60 an hour!! Walmart pays more than that, and has more guaranteed hours in our town. Anyway, I am convinced that labor unions (not with the UAW's power) but with local negotiating power could really help improve the quality of life of many people. __________________ I am not crazy cause I take the right pills..................................... Everyday

13-02-2008, 14:11	#153
Stapel Emperor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Netherlands. Posts: 3,196	I'm very much opposed to the concept of "wealth redistribution". However that is not the same as taxing the rich more progressively. There is a simple priciple that the strongest shoulders can bear the heaviest burdon. I simple example: To live in moderately luxuary (home/shelter, food, clothing, home entertainment, education for the kids, holiday trips, and what more), an average family needs $50.000 a year. Anything on top of that, can be used for exotic stuff. So, it would be fair not to tax people on the money they need for moderate luxuary, but to tax them on exotic stuff. Of course, it is arbitrary where to draw the line for minimum needs, basic needs, luxuary needs and exotic needs. The point remians valid: the further into luxuary, the lesser the pain of taxes. __________________ Vrooooooooooommmmmm Stapel doesn't like cricket

13-02-2008, 17:06	#156
socralynnek Moderator Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: USS Defiant Posts: 3,827	The terms used are quite interesting to see how people understand such "taxes". You are talking about "wealth distribution" which has the point of view that you will always be able to earn money. Over here the term "unemployment insurance" (translated of course) is used. Man, that's what I want. I want to have the security to not have to starve when I lose my job for whatever reason (caused by myself or by some accident or by some managment failure or whatever). That's why I happily pay some of my wage for the currently unemployed. Because I might be unemployed at some point myself (Surely one can talk about how much money is needed and how much unemployed people should get) The same with health insurance... I don't blame you for your point of view, romeo, it is just different. __________________ Being without a signature since November 2004.

14-02-2008, 00:51	#159
ProPain Customized Admin :) Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: sailing the seas of cheese. Posts: 5,852	Mate van overeenkomst per kandidaat Kandidaat Overeenkomst Barack Obama (D) Hillary Clinton (D) John McCain (R) Mike Huckabee (R) it was a tie between obama and clinton __________________ I fed my Dog the American Dream Well, he rolled over and he started to scream He said, I dig the taste of salt but it don't keep me alive yeah, yeah

13-02-2008, 17:34	#158
grahamiam Emperor Join Date: May 2004 Location: USA, East Coast. Posts: 2,673	We do have the ability to collect unemployment benefits for ~26 weeks when fired.

14-02-2008, 09:09	#160
socralynnek Moderator Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: USS Defiant Posts: 3,827	I know you have some benefits as well ( I mean in Germany they have cut the real sum of unemployment benefits to 1 year. Afterwards everyone just gets a small sum of money which is IMO a little too less to have a life, but enough to survive) I was talkng about the perspective. If one talks about "wealth redistribution", than one sees the money given from one to the other. If I am talking about "unemployment insurance" then I see it from a perspective that I am doing it for myself. Although it is basically the same (I hope I am never unemployed to benefit so maybe I will be just giving...), the first term has something communistic in it, the 2nd not. (Although the word communism in US means something different than in the rest of the world...) __________________ Being without a signature since November 2004.