5 ms·

> Everyone but the most well off living conditions continue to decline. This is objectively false. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N https://fr

> Everyone but the most well off living conditions continue to decline. This is objectively false. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N > Instead of the obvious problem that Inequality is rising I'm old enough to remember when progs all shrieked that poverty was the big scary problem. Capitalism solved that with minimal expense. You know that scary 15% in poverty figure you hear during election season? That's based on census income data, which excludes ~90% of all welfare programs, even CASH programs like refundable tax credits! So with poverty overwhelmingly sorted, they've moved on to inequality! But even calculations of income inequality are doped up--high earners incomes are counted BEFORE taxes, and low earners BEFORE benefits. Keep that in mind whenever progs advocate for more welfare spending--even if you give it to them, they won't count it! They exclude it from the very calculations which they use as evidence of the need for ever more spending!

mempko 2y ago
That's now how you measure inequality. Look here. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WFRBSN40188 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WFRBSN40188 And https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WFRBST01134 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WFRBST01134 And https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SIPOVGINIUSA https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SIPOVGINIUSA You aren't looking at the right data. This is why it's so hard to educate the public about this, even intelligent people on HN get it wrong.
- marcusverus 2y ago
  The GINI can be measured before or after taxes. The link you shared is after--this one is used in defense of the metric. A 'before tax' version[3] is invariably used when on offense. Sure, wealth inequality is growing, but this isn't a problem, it's merely an emotionally resonant issue. The left love it for the same reason they lofted the 'poverty' banner for so long--it's a Philosopher's Stone. This particular stone hails from a failed German novelist and promises to transmute other people's money into votes! Regardless, median income[0] and median net worth[1] are rising and poverty is in the doldrums--points which make it difficult to make an honest argument that we are in need of radical change. [0] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA646N https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA646N [1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/BOGZ1FL192090005Q https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/BOGZ1FL192090005Q [3] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gini-coefficient-before-tax-wid https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gini-coefficient-before-t...
  - mempko 2y ago
    Ok, so you agree inequality is growing and but don't recognize it as a problem. Let me ask you something, when you are buying a house, and you are competing with multi-millionaires and billionaires for the bid, who do you think will win? There are limited amount of real assets available at any given time and wealth inequality means regular people hold less of the assets each year, making them poorer. If the vast majority of people are losing wealth every year, how is that not a problem?
    - Acrobatic_Road 2y ago
      Not him, but I will reply on his behalf... >There are limited amount of real assets available at any given time This is correct. >and wealth inequality means regular people hold less of the assets each year, making them poorer This is not. New wealth is constantly being created. There isn't a fixed amount of pie on the table.
      - olleromam91 2y ago
        Don't disagree that new wealth is being created, what matters when talking about quality of life and inequality, is who are the beneficiaries of this new wealth? Is it the already wealthy? If so, that's part of the positive feedback loop to drive inequality further. More assets, Yay. Held by fewer and fewer people over time. Boo.
      - mrguyorama 2y ago
        The new wealth is being created BY and FOR the already wealthy. That's literally what capitalism is! New wealth creation is certainly not driven by poor Steve who does not have money to start a new business or market his new IP. How much of the money made by the Harry Potter Franchise went to JK rowling vs her publishers? Supposedly she got a 15% royalty rate, which is considered "High" That should be revealing on it's own.
      - mempko 2y ago
        Yes, wealth is constantly being created, however let's look at the facts - Market prices: ~15% annualized increase over the last two years - House prices: 5-7% annualized increase - Gold: 10-12% annualized increase - Compared to GDP growth of only 2.1-2.7% annualized If GDP growth is only 2.7% while the wealth of the top who own assets is up 15% annualized, where is the 12.3% coming from? It's coming the bottom. We live in an economy that has wealth redistribution. It's being distributed from the majority to a small minority. In other words, yes the pie is growing, but the slice of a the top 10% of the pie is growing much faster.
araes 2y ago
Adding to @mempko's comment, in the most recent tax filing season data available, there were tax returns of: Top 1% Top 5% Top 10% Top 25% Top 50% Bottom 50% All Taxpayers Number of Returns 1,535,899 7,679,495 15,358,991 38,397,477 76,794,954 76,794,954 153,589,908 Average Income Taxes Paid $653,730 $187,468 $108,251 $50,963 $27,891 $667 $14,279 Adjusted Gross Income (Millions) $3,872,395 $6,182,180 $7,745,525 $10,613,602 $13,191,209 $1,531,038 $14,722,247 If we then break those into the actual groups, and numbers per group, then we find their Average Per Capita Income 1 2-5 6-10 11-25 26-50 51-100 Number of Returns 1,535,899 6,143,596 7,679,496 23,038,486 38,397,477 76,794,954 Income Taxes Paid (Millions) $1,004,063 $435,594 $222,966 $294,234 $185,068 $51,225 Adjusted Gross Income (Millions) $3,872,395 $2,309,785 $1,563,345 $2,868,077 $2,577,607 $1,531,038 Average Tax Rate 25.9% 18.9% 14.3% 10.3% 7.2% 3.3% Average Per Capita Income $2,521,256.28 $375,966.29 $203,573.91 $124,490.69 $67,129.59 $19,936.70 There are 76,794,954 making $19,936 on average. The filing thresholds are "single, under 65 = $12,950" and "head of household, under 65 = $19,400". Many of the bottom 50% of America would "barely" even qualify to file.
- sieabahlpark 2y ago
  [dead]
maeil 2y ago
One simple chart to rule them all. https://archive.is/ZFnAT https://archive.is/ZFnAT

mempko 2y ago

That's now how you measure inequality. Look here. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WFRBSN40188 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WFRBSN40188 And https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WFRBST01134 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WFRBST01134 And https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SIPOVGINIUSA https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SIPOVGINIUSA You aren't looking at the right data. This is why it's so hard to educate the public about this, even intelligent people on HN get it wrong.

marcusverus 2y ago
The GINI can be measured before or after taxes. The link you shared is after--this one is used in defense of the metric. A 'before tax' version[3] is invariably used when on offense. Sure, wealth inequality is growing, but this isn't a problem, it's merely an emotionally resonant issue. The left love it for the same reason they lofted the 'poverty' banner for so long--it's a Philosopher's Stone. This particular stone hails from a failed German novelist and promises to transmute other people's money into votes! Regardless, median income[0] and median net worth[1] are rising and poverty is in the doldrums--points which make it difficult to make an honest argument that we are in need of radical change. [0] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA646N https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA646N [1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/BOGZ1FL192090005Q https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/BOGZ1FL192090005Q [3] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gini-coefficient-before-tax-wid https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gini-coefficient-before-t...
- mempko 2y ago
  Ok, so you agree inequality is growing and but don't recognize it as a problem. Let me ask you something, when you are buying a house, and you are competing with multi-millionaires and billionaires for the bid, who do you think will win? There are limited amount of real assets available at any given time and wealth inequality means regular people hold less of the assets each year, making them poorer. If the vast majority of people are losing wealth every year, how is that not a problem?
  - Acrobatic_Road 2y ago
    Not him, but I will reply on his behalf... >There are limited amount of real assets available at any given time This is correct. >and wealth inequality means regular people hold less of the assets each year, making them poorer This is not. New wealth is constantly being created. There isn't a fixed amount of pie on the table.
    - olleromam91 2y ago
      Don't disagree that new wealth is being created, what matters when talking about quality of life and inequality, is who are the beneficiaries of this new wealth? Is it the already wealthy? If so, that's part of the positive feedback loop to drive inequality further. More assets, Yay. Held by fewer and fewer people over time. Boo.
    - mrguyorama 2y ago
      The new wealth is being created BY and FOR the already wealthy. That's literally what capitalism is! New wealth creation is certainly not driven by poor Steve who does not have money to start a new business or market his new IP. How much of the money made by the Harry Potter Franchise went to JK rowling vs her publishers? Supposedly she got a 15% royalty rate, which is considered "High" That should be revealing on it's own.
    - mempko 2y ago
      Yes, wealth is constantly being created, however let's look at the facts - Market prices: ~15% annualized increase over the last two years - House prices: 5-7% annualized increase - Gold: 10-12% annualized increase - Compared to GDP growth of only 2.1-2.7% annualized If GDP growth is only 2.7% while the wealth of the top who own assets is up 15% annualized, where is the 12.3% coming from? It's coming the bottom. We live in an economy that has wealth redistribution. It's being distributed from the majority to a small minority. In other words, yes the pie is growing, but the slice of a the top 10% of the pie is growing much faster.

araes 2y ago

Adding to @mempko's comment, in the most recent tax filing season data available, there were tax returns of: Top 1% Top 5% Top 10% Top 25% Top 50% Bottom 50% All Taxpayers Number of Returns 1,535,899 7,679,495 15,358,991 38,397,477 76,794,954 76,794,954 153,589,908 Average Income Taxes Paid $653,730 $187,468 $108,251 $50,963 $27,891 $667 $14,279 Adjusted Gross Income (Millions) $3,872,395 $6,182,180 $7,745,525 $10,613,602 $13,191,209 $1,531,038 $14,722,247 If we then break those into the actual groups, and numbers per group, then we find their Average Per Capita Income 1 2-5 6-10 11-25 26-50 51-100 Number of Returns 1,535,899 6,143,596 7,679,496 23,038,486 38,397,477 76,794,954 Income Taxes Paid (Millions) $1,004,063 $435,594 $222,966 $294,234 $185,068 $51,225 Adjusted Gross Income (Millions) $3,872,395 $2,309,785 $1,563,345 $2,868,077 $2,577,607 $1,531,038 Average Tax Rate 25.9% 18.9% 14.3% 10.3% 7.2% 3.3% Average Per Capita Income $2,521,256.28 $375,966.29 $203,573.91 $124,490.69 $67,129.59 $19,936.70 There are 76,794,954 making $19,936 on average. The filing thresholds are "single, under 65 = $12,950" and "head of household, under 65 = $19,400". Many of the bottom 50% of America would "barely" even qualify to file.

sieabahlpark 2y ago
[dead]

maeil 2y ago

One simple chart to rule them all. https://archive.is/ZFnAT https://archive.is/ZFnAT