5 ms·

Income inequality can be ignored (by politicians) until a large segment of the population cannot find jobs and can't afford food/gas/healthcare. Oh wait, we're

Income inequality can be ignored (by politicians) until a large segment of the population cannot find jobs and can't afford food/gas/healthcare. Oh wait, we're there. Census estimates suggest 1 in 6 Americans live in poverty http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-us-census-poverty,0,7047443.story http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-u... 1 in 7 Americans rely on food stamps http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/21/news/economy/food_stamps/index.htm http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/21/news/economy/food_stamps/ind... Labor Force Participation Rate Drops To Fresh 25 Year Low, Adjusted Unemployment Rate At 11.7% http://www.zerohedge.com/article/labor-force-participation-rate-drops-fresh-25-year-low-adjusted-unemployment-rate-117 http://www.zerohedge.com/article/labor-force-participation-r...

HeyLaughingBoy 16y ago
And income equality can mean that we're all poor. Is that really preferable?
yummyfajitas 16y ago
But income inequality has fallen during the recession. We've all become poorer, the rich in particular. Tax revenues took a big hit because the rich lost a lot, and the rich pay the lions share of taxes. http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2009/tables/09s0673.pdf http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2009/tables/09s0673.p... http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0695.pdf http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0695.p... (Preliminary figures have suggested inequality is on the rise, now that we are recovering.)
anamax 16y ago
> Census estimates suggest 1 in 6 Americans live in poverty Which definition of poverty are we using? I have two. According to one, 90% of Americans live in poverty. According to the other, less than 1% do. Which one is correct? Note that the 1% is based on world-standards for poverty.... > 1 in 7 Americans rely on food stamps And taxing rich people more is going to change that how? Govt aid is basically a no-work/low-pay job. How is reducing the amount of money in the private sector going to put more people to work? Note that reducing the amount of money in the private sector doesn't necessarily increase the amount of money in the public sector. The US govt has never managed to collect more than 20% of GDP in taxes, so if your plan assumes that we can, you get to explain why this time will be different.

HeyLaughingBoy 16y ago

And income equality can mean that we're all poor. Is that really preferable?

yummyfajitas 16y ago

But income inequality has fallen during the recession. We've all become poorer, the rich in particular. Tax revenues took a big hit because the rich lost a lot, and the rich pay the lions share of taxes. http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2009/tables/09s0673.pdf http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2009/tables/09s0673.p... http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0695.pdf http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0695.p... (Preliminary figures have suggested inequality is on the rise, now that we are recovering.)

anamax 16y ago

> Census estimates suggest 1 in 6 Americans live in poverty Which definition of poverty are we using? I have two. According to one, 90% of Americans live in poverty. According to the other, less than 1% do. Which one is correct? Note that the 1% is based on world-standards for poverty.... > 1 in 7 Americans rely on food stamps And taxing rich people more is going to change that how? Govt aid is basically a no-work/low-pay job. How is reducing the amount of money in the private sector going to put more people to work? Note that reducing the amount of money in the private sector doesn't necessarily increase the amount of money in the public sector. The US govt has never managed to collect more than 20% of GDP in taxes, so if your plan assumes that we can, you get to explain why this time will be different.