'The World Has Divided Into Rich And Poor As At No Time In History' (Page 11)

CoIin: I've got a thread in Travel about Indonesia/PNG. Feel free to ramble away there...

Ah, tropical dreams....

snaggletooth007: All of the worlds evils are perpetrated by the U.S. That's a great way for you not to except the blame that the countries around the world and their citizens have culpability in any wrong doing. Some how no matter what the crime it is Americas fault. Nice fairy tale, but if that helps you sleep at night, keep on believing.

Bumpa: Nice try Snaggle but no. I only mentioned those evils that USA WAS responsible for.

snaggletooth007: Bumpa let me be honest with you, I think you are a moron who is full of cr*p, and excuses. When you come up with something original that isn't an excuse drop me a line.

Bumpa: Happy for you to think that way Snaggle. These forums are supposed to generate debate but lets drop the personal attacks ok?

snaggletooth007: Debating you is akin to committing suicide by B.S. overdose.

Bumpa: well, Snaggle opinions are like arseholes, we all have one. Even you it seems

Outbackjack: Things aren’t getting much better for the gap between America’s rich and poor: a new study reveals that inequality within the United States is only getting worse.

The Sadoff Investment Research firm of Wisconsin has released the results of a recent report, and it indicates that the ongoing issue of inequality is continuing to keep America’s poor vastly separated from the more financially fortunate.

According to the investment group’s recent findings, the top one percent of wage-earning households in the US were reaping in around $1,264,065 in 2012 — or around 41-times as much as the average income for all wage-earners, who pulled in a comparable meager mean income of $30,997 that year.

The greatest demonstration of inequality is most evident in the income generated by not the top one percent, though, but by the sliver of the US population that makes more than 99.9 percent of the country. According to the firm’s research, the top 0.1 percent of Americans earned around $6,373,782 during that same 12-month span — or around 206 times what the average family in the US earned.

“The ‘top one percent’ might be the primary target of the masses' ire and envy, but it's actually the top 0.1 percent who are grabbing a bigger slice of wealth,” Matt Krantz wrote for USA Today this week.

Of course, even that small chunk of the population has an even more exclusive group to be jealous of: according to the group’s report, the top 0.01 percent of the nation’s top-earning households brought in more than $30 million apiece in 2012 — or around one thousand times what the average American earned.

With regards to the .1 percent, the researchers found that nearly a quarter of those wealthy Americans earned their money through work in the nation’s financial industry. Around 40 percent are either executive, managers and supervisors, the study found, and the ”vast majority” of them live in New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Washington D.C. or Houston.

And while efforts to raise the minimum wage across the US have been rekindled in recent months, it likely won’t give those outside of the financial industry a particularly big boost: Think Progress writer Bruce Covert wrote this week that gap between rich and poor has been growing steadily since the 1970s, but is now at a level that hasn’t been seen since the Great Depression.

“Since the 1980s, the top 0.1 percent of the wealth distribution, or those who have more than $20 million in assets, has seen big increases, and the top 0.01 percent, or those with more than $100 million, has seen even bigger ones. But there hasn’t been a big jump in wealth inequality for people below the 0.1 percent,” Covert wrote.

chronology: A lot of work is being done on 'State' level rather than Federal level Jack. The biggest breakthrough has been in finally convincing most Americans that 'Thatcherite' Economics does not work.

FDRs Administration managed to unite America in building a fine example of a country that at least tried to be fair to all it's members. But America is a different country from FDRs time, the ruling class in America today is Jewish, not WASPs, and like Davidk14 pointed out to me, there are more old people today in the US than ever, throw into the mix that the White population in the US is way smaller than it was in FDRs time, and there will be a different reaction to any 'New New Deal'

LiptonCambell: Hey jack- you're back, eh?

Can you do me a favor- can you check and see if the gap between the rich and poor is doing INTERNATIONALLY?

I noticed your article talked alot about the gap in America- but globally, the desperately poor have been making an extreme comeback. Infant mortality is the lowest it's been in recorded history, more people are educated than ever, and people in poor countries are richer.

Seven of the ten fastest growing economies of the last five years are African- Adjusted for inflation, in 1960 the income per person in Botswana was $383- now it's $12,000. In the last 50 years, income for people in India has quadrupled - incomes in Brazil has nearly quintupled- global poverty is rapidly coming to an end, which means more and more children can go to school- we've seen a rapid decline of disease that would previously prevent them from attending schools or having a normal life- and having access to education will only serve to improve their lives and give them a chance at a high paying job than if they were chronically ill, or disabled.

You talk alot about how 1% of the American population owns 70% of the countries wealth, and how that's widening, but you are looking at a small part of the bigger picture- America accounts for less than 5% of the world population. There are huge changes being made globally.

davidk14: .

Lipton responds to Chrono with:

You talk alot about how 1% of the American population owns 70% of the countries wealth..

David responds:

You both should realize that Switzerland's 1% own 71.3% of their countries wealth.

Denmark and France's 1% hover close to 70% of their countries wealth.

The 1% in UK and Canada, very very liberal countries, their 1% hover close to 60%.

Someone might suggest you hate the US.

.

chronology: david I have never once referred to any '1 per cent' of anything or anyone, go ever my Posts. Don't know where Lipton got that from. I am a big fan of 'Ice Road Truckers' Ice Road Roadtrains must be 1 per cent of Canadian Trucks.

DEEP_acheleg: the increase in the level of wealth in the upper economic classes is of absolutely no concern. the real question should not be wealth inequality, as the us government can only regulate commerce, and not guarantee income levels.

the most prominent concern should be any changes in the overall poverty level.

the correlation between wealth inequality and the poverty rate does, in no way prove causation, and to claim such is a causative logical fallacy. according to this accepted fallacy, the most often element of confusion is the "hidden variable(s)"

one cannot simply say that the wealth of one results in the poverty of another. sound economic theory would suggest that the wealthy use their money to create jobs more than they destroy jobs. and, sometimes a small number of jobs have to be destroyed to preserve a larger number of other jobs- as bane capital accomplished.

social and economic policies, such as the fed reserve inflationary policy, the inflationary results of the ease of credit, the inflationary results of union negotiations which exceed the free market wage levels among the middle class, the lack of upwards mobility within the welfare system and inequalities between educational systems (among other possible hidden variables) also need to be considered, before making the leap into a possible logical fallacy.

davidk14: .

The value of the dollar has everything to do with the level of poverty one may be in. Next month the cost of food and energy goes up just like it has been for months on end. What you could by at the grocery store last week will cost you more this week and on and on. The US Treasury will PRINT or BORROW $80 billion dollars every month to pay the 'bills'.

WE the PEOPLE need to get control of our house.

.

DEEP_acheleg: you are correct. the inflationary policy of the monetistic fed reserve encourages the wealthy to invest, thus profit off good investments, while crushing the lowest income individuals with a devalued dollar.

shrewd investments do create jobs; however, that doesnt help those whom cannot work- the elderly, the disabled, and the single mothers.

davidk14: .

I agree. My mom who is 86 and has a very sharp mind, is a San Franciscan most of her life and is very unset. She just found out that her Medicare is going to be cut due to the fact that Obamacare siphoned off 1/2 Trillion from Medicare. That is the money that was supposed to be spent on her meds and hospital visits. She is hopping mad. I don't have the heart to tell her that Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security is in the red... 150 trillion in the coming years which is called...unfunded liabilities.

.

DEEP_acheleg: in regards to lipton's "jack, u back" post- politics has a huge impact on poverty

DEEP_acheleg: to davits post- the money siphoned from medicare is being used to provide free medicaid to individuals making up to 18,000 a year, while medicare recipients, those with legitimate reasons preventing them from being able to work, have to pay a monthly premium for their medicare.

we are shafting the totally helpless to subsidize underachievement

davidk14: .

As a good citizen, I buy my health insurance through my company. Eyecare insurance is cheap. Dental insurance I waved since it is useless, and my medical, I had to take the $5000 deductible. Just think. I have to pay 5 grand before the insurance kicks in. So, let's say I stay healthy for 10 months and then, I get a boil on my butt. That's gonna cost me about $1000 once they do the procedure, and the meds and tests. So then the next month, I have a problem with my left knee and need to see a doctor. Well, just in tests and stuff, it's another $2000.

Don't forget, I have to PAY FULL PRICE and not what the insurance company would pay.

Ok. I paid 3 grand of the 5 grand deductible.

Now. Another month goes by and I need further work done on my knee and its gonna cost me 3 grand. Oooops...sorry. The 12 month period is over and the deductible is back at $5000.

Beat me with a stick. Please.

__________________________

Last year before Obamacare, my deductible was $500.

.

chronology: In the poorest districts of Glasgow in Britain, the life expectancy of people is actually lower than that of Iraq and the Gaza Strip.

There are many suggestions as to why people there live on average to around 53 but there are no hard facts. No sarcasm intended, but if folks there want to live longer, they could consider emigrating to Gaza or Iraq.

DEEP_acheleg: the government can print money and make laws, there is no excuse for what we see as government inefficiencies and "unfunded liabilities." perhaps this quote would explain the federal policies "we shall grind the bourgeois (middle class) between the grindstones of taxation and inflation" - vladimir lenin

Nicorrette: Vladimir?was the name of Lenin?there were taxes when Lenin died?and there could not be making money!there were not banks on Lenin's times.

duncan124:

Nicorrette: :XO:

Outbackjack: Washington — A widening gap in incomes between the rich and the middle class may be hitting US states where it hurts – making it harder for them to raise the tax revenue they need for balancing their budgets.

This conclusion, reached in a report released Monday by Standard & Poor’s, comes at a time when states across America are still struggling to rebuild their revenue streams more than five years after the end of a historically deep recession.

In most states, tax revenue growth has not kept pace with growth of the overall economy since the recession, according to data tracked by the US government. And in many states, tax revenue is still below its pre-recession peak.
Recommended: Are the rich getting richer? Take our quiz on inequality and incomes.

The report by S&P pushes for considering inequality as a key reason for the revenue shortfall.
Test your knowledge Are the rich getting richer? Take our quiz on inequality and incomes.
Photos of the Day Photos of the weekend

“Greater inequality may be associated with simultaneously slower and more volatile state tax revenue growth,” writes S&P credit analyst Gabriel Petek, citing research aided by economists at the credit-rating firm.

The report’s conclusion adds a new layer to already-hot public debate about income gaps in America, and the degree to which inequality is squeezing not only particular groups of Americans but the whole economy, too.

In a new Pew Research Center poll, 57 percent of registered voters said they consider economic inequality a “very important” issue in determining who they'll vote for in congressional elections this fall.

A separate Pew poll found 56 percent of Americans saying their incomes are “falling behind” the cost of living. But at higher income levels, a majority said their incomes are either staying even or going up faster than living costs.

Those perceptions have been documented by economists as a financial reality of recent decades, as incomes at the top end of the spectrum have surged while middle-tier incomes have struggled to match inflation.

S&P acknowledges that a correlation between two trends doesn’t always mean that one is caused by the other. But economists at the firm argued in a recent analysis that “at extreme levels, income inequality can harm sustained economic growth over long periods.”

The firm, citing the United States as near these extreme levels, reduced its 10-year growth forecast for the economy to a 2.5 percent annual rate, down from 2.8 percent five years ago.

Already, in the new millennium, the pace of US economic growth appears to have slowed from historic norms.

The challenges for state tax revenue flow largely from that wider challenge to economic growth. The faster the overall economy grows, the faster state tax receipts tend to rise.

Beyond that, though, states face a particular challenge: When a larger share of overall income goes to the rich, it means also that more income is coming in the form of capital gains on stock rather than traditional wages.

So, in addition to experiencing lean times, states are generally in an era of higher volatility in their fortunes – with big ups and downs in taxes tied to stock market trends and the behavior of investors.

The new report argues that, despite this volatility problem, tax hikes on upper-income residents are one approach states can take in trying to close revenue gaps, while also ameliorating inequality. But some of the states with the highest inequality (California, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut) have already raised their top marginal tax rates in recent years, the report says.

Traditionally, inequality has often been viewed as more of an aid to economic growth than a hindrance. Gaps in income represent free-market forces, the incentives by which entrepreneurial people can reap the rewards of new ideas and skills. That, in turn, helps the whole economy grow.

Today, some economists at places like the International Monetary Fund and S&P are arguing another side to the coin – that too much inequality can damage growth if it starts to corrode political systems or to impede the spread of skills and productivity to a wider set of workers