President Trump?

[flashpipe1]

Interesting...saw him on the Today show this morning. He had some good things to say about the budget, getting out of other countries, focusing on domestic issues, preserving Medicare, levying high import taxes against China and strong-arming OPEC. Of course he also had some things to say about Obama's birth certificate, being anti-abortion and running the country like a business.

Would be interesting to see what would happen, but, all I can envision is him sitting in the Oval office and telling anyone who comes in to see him "You're fired!"

Opinions?

[silverx2]

no thanks

[jAQUAN]

Jack-ass. Sure he has the balls to throw down in the conference room but this whole "run the country like a business" sentiment is short sited. Successful businesses have key contributing departments... and mail rooms. Who do you think gets the attention?

[gerbick]

Somebody had to replace Steve Forbes.

[jAQUAN]

I actually would have taken Forbes seriously (sans foreign policy)

[silverx2]

Jack-ass. Sure he has the balls to throw down in the conference room but this whole "run the country like a business" sentiment is short sited. Successful businesses have key contributing departments... and mail rooms. Who do you think gets the attention?

I don't want to sound like a *****, but i feel like the country is already being run like a company. The rich continue to prosper, the poor continue to flounder. Things meant for the lower class continually get cut. Just like when a business lays off Thousands and then gives its ceo Multi million dollar bonuses 3 days before it declares bankruptcy.

[jAQUAN]

If that company is a bank with global reach, a credit institution, a major lender or insurance company then you're right. A real company subject to loss and unhappy shareholders would actually be a welcome change to what we have now. As it stands, those companies have senator-shaped pens to write law with and access to a money printing press. Every time they add more money to the system, the dollar suffers. I feel it everyday when I convert my paycheck to Euro's and lose 25% of my money.

[FlashLackey]

I don't want to sound like a *****, but i feel like the country is already being run like a company. The rich continue to prosper, the poor continue to flounder. Things meant for the lower class continually get cut. Just like when a business lays off Thousands and then gives its ceo Multi million dollar bonuses 3 days before it declares bankruptcy.

On what basis do you hold these beliefs?

Entitlement spending has gone through the roof (the opposite of "continually cut") while the top 20% wage-earners are paying over 80% of the entire nations tax burden, a proportion that has increased for the last 30 years. The top 1% pays 40% of all taxes.

The facts suggest that the opposite of what you say is occurring.

[jAQUAN]

I'm not debating that statement FL but you could elaborate on where the entitlement spending has increased dramatically? "Too Big to Fail" companies ARE getting bailed out, that parts true. It's not right. It certainly doesn't protect the middle class but an increase in taxes might. I don't want socialist spread-the-wealth mentalities prevailing any more than you do but frankly much of that 1% is responsible for the state we're in. On this path their money will be worthless. They broke it, they should help pay for it.

[FlashLackey]

Entitlement spending has increased dramatically primarily in the medicaid, medicare and social security programs along with their associated interest costs.

How is the top 1% of wage-earners a group that is responsible for government entitlement programs that are not fiscally sound? Government leadership broke the system by promising programs that are unsustainable.

We're hearing the same kinds of arguments that we heard when Clinton signed the Republican Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act. "They want to leave the poor people in the snow!" What really happened? We had a surplus (that liberals often take credit for) and poverty rates went down.

[jAQUAN]

Wait, republicans are responsible the for the surplus during the clinton era?
I suppose democrats are responsible for the medicare part D prescription drug act? You know the one that was voted on at 3 am, doormen prevented republicans who voted nay from leaving and a cell phone was passed around with Bush on the other end until it passed 2.5 hours later? The one that was never paid for and exploded the budget? You don't think the top 1% had anything to do with that?

[FlashLackey]

Wait, republicans are responsible the for the surplus during the clinton era?

The Republicans were responsible for the welfare reform bill that Clinton signed.

Considering that debts and surpluses are a product of spending vs revenues, it would seem logical to credit people drafting a bill that significantly cuts spending as being responsible for the outcome.

I suppose democrats are responsible for the medicare part D prescription drug act? You know the one that was voted on at 3 am, doormen prevented republicans who voted nay from leaving and a cell phone was passed around with Bush on the other end until it passed 2.5 hours later? The one that was never paid for and exploded the budget? You don't think the top 1% had anything to do with that?

Do you think that there is a "1% club" that involves a bunch of people working together? Or, do you think that those in the top 1% come from all kinds of unrelated industries from oil to Hollywood?

Bush didn't help in the spending area. However, Part D cost $50 billion in 2008 while the total Medicare cost was $600 billion. It was an increase. But, the budget would be "exploded" with or without Part D.

[Loyal Rogue]

...the top 20% wage-earners are paying over 80% of the entire nations tax burden,...

...The top 1% pays 40% of all taxes.

Considering the top 1% has more than 40% of all the wealth in America, and the top 20% hold about 90% of America's wealth, it sounds only fair.

...a proportion that has increased for the last 30 years.

That's not the only interesting proportion that has increased for the last 30 years.
30 years ago the top 10% shared 33% of the income growth in America and the bottom 90% shared 67% of all income growth.
Since then, that has steadily changed so that now the top 10% experiences all of the income growth in America and the bottom 90% have experienced an income decline.

I don't know why there is suddenly so much talk lately about Obama wanting to "redistribute the wealth" when there has clearly been a major redistribution of wealth in the opposite direction going on for a long time now.

[FlashLackey]

Most people don't stay in the same income category over time. For example, I'm sure you make more money now than you did when you were 18. It doesn't make much sense to speak about the top 1% "having" an amount of wealth as if they are a constant group.

During the 30 year period you cite the majority of people in the bottom 20% moved to the top 20%. What your numbers show is that Americans are making more than they used to once they get jobs out of college. That is a positive trend.

[Loyal Rogue]

Most people don't stay in the same income category over time. For example, I'm sure you make more money now than you did when you were 18.

Agreed.
You could just as correctly state that most people make more when they are 30 than they did when they were 5, and it would be just as relevant.

It doesn't make much sense to speak about the top 1% "having" an amount of wealth as if they are a constant group.

I have to disagree.
When you set the bar down at the bottom of the top 20% household incomes (about $90k with 2 wage-earners) I'm sure you see lots of turnaround, but when talking about the top 1% I'm certain there is a lot more "old" money billionaires than new.
According to a Forbes article on the richest families in America,
"Of the 25 families we've identified, 44% owe their fortunes to companies founded in the 19th century. Another 36% trace their wealth to businesses started in the first half of the 20th century."
http://www.forbes.com/2009/12/03/ame...-families.html

Unfortunately, there really isn't enough detailed stats on the top 1% to have a good factual conversation apart from conjecture.

During the 30 year period you cite the majority of people in the bottom 20% moved to the top 20%.

I've heard that impressive sounding statistic tossed around before so I did some looking into what that represents in real-world dollars, and it's not nearly as impressive anymore.

At first glance it sounds like a majority of people in America will move from being poor to being rich, but when matched up to household incomes, anyone who makes $45k at any point in their life can say that they were in the top 20%, and since everyone starts at zero we can safely assume that everyone started in the bottom 20%.

Basically, the huge income and wealth inequality in America makes being in the top 20% a very low bar.
You'd have to make it all the way into the top 5% before you were making $100k/yr.

What your numbers show is that Americans are making more than they used to once they get jobs out of college. That is a positive trend.

I think your train of thought is stuck back on the 20% to 20% talking point.
You might want to look at those numbers again in a more visual way:



Those numbers don't have anything to do with earning more or less out of college.
What they do show is a very stark and troublesome picture of widening inequality between the top 10% and the bottom 90% of Americans over the last 30 years.
I really don't see anything in that as a positive trend at all.

[FlashLackey]

Agreed.
You could just as correctly state that most people make more when they are 30 than they did when they were 5, and it would be just as relevant.

There are many ways that people go between income levels. They can start a business that takes off. Change jobs. Get a degree later in life. Or, in the other direction, they retire and leave top categories while living off of savings.

The point remains that there is no such thing as a top x% that doesn't change on a daily basis.

I have to disagree.
When you set the bar down at the bottom of the top 20% household incomes (about $90k with 2 wage-earners) I'm sure you see lots of turnaround, but when talking about the top 1% I'm certain there is a lot more "old" money billionaires than new.

The top 1.5% households are at $250k. That is good money. But, hardly enough to fund a dynasty. These are mostly people with successful local businesses. Not Michael Moore, Bill Maher or John Stewart levels of wealth.

The old billionaire families you're referring to are more like the top .00001%.

I've heard that impressive sounding statistic tossed around before so I did some looking into what that represents in real-world dollars, and it's not nearly as impressive anymore.

At first glance it sounds like a majority of people in America will move from being poor to being rich, but when matched up to household incomes, anyone who makes $45k at any point in their life can say that they were in the top 20%, and since everyone starts at zero we can safely assume that everyone started in the bottom 20%.

Basically, the huge income and wealth inequality in America makes being in the top 20% a very low bar.
You'd have to make it all the way into the top 5% before you were making $100k/yr.

For individuals, the 20% mark is $57k. Not $45k.

And you're only underscoring my point. Liberals try to use these numbers to refer to constant groups when, as you say, everyone starts in the bottom 20% and moves up. The bottom 20% isn't "the poor" when it includes students and retirees who are either going to or coming out of higher income groups.

I think your train of thought is stuck back on the 20% to 20% talking point.
You might want to look at those numbers again in a more visual way:



Those numbers don't have anything to do with earning more or less out of college.
What they do show is a very stark and troublesome picture of widening inequality between the top 10% and the bottom 90% of Americans over the last 30 years.
I really don't see anything in that as a positive trend at all.

Actually, I think you are still stuck on the idea that arbitrary percentages of income groups are constant. It is mathematically impossible for incomes in the US to improve on average without the top percentages becoming higher than the lower percentages. Not everyone gets to be a Bill Gates. Still, most people make it to the higher percentages during the working phase of their lives. Income increases in the higher percentages are increased rewards for hard work and ingenuity.

(I'm surprised that you would be willing to show such an obvious manipulation of a chart from the liberal EPI. Comparing a 30 year span with a 7 year one and leaving out all time between 1980-2000? Good one guys.)

[Loyal Rogue]

The top 1.5% households are at $250k. That is good money. But, hardly enough to fund a dynasty. These are mostly people with successful local businesses.

The top 1% starts at $350k which is more than 3 times what the average small business owner makes, and it increases exponentially with every fraction of a percent above that.
Even your $250k figure is more than 98% of successful small business owners' income.
According to the IRS data the average Sub Chapter S Corp made it's owner about $100k, and the average Sole Proprietorship only netted it's owner about $12k and there's a lot more Sole Proprietorships than there are Sub S.

You and I are small business owners.
Did you take home $250k last year?
I know that I didn't even clear $100k.

For individuals, the 20% mark is $57k. Not $45k.

I was just going off of average household income divided by average number of earners of which the last figures I saw were $92k divided by 1.95 earners, so about $47k, but that's just splitting hairs... 45, 47, 57... it doesn't make much difference when compared to the hockeystick from hell that income and wealth distribution is in the US.

And you're only underscoring my point. Liberals try to use these numbers to refer to constant groups when, as you say, everyone starts in the bottom 20% and moves up. The bottom 20% isn't "the poor" when it includes students and retirees who are either going to or coming out of higher income groups.

Wait... so you're saying that the bottom 20% doesn't include poor people, or are you saying that poor people don't exist? ...or maybe you're saying that students and seniors can't be poor also?

And let's just drop the labels for a minute. Liberal this, Conservative that... it really doesn't matter.
We are all just American working stiffs here trying to live off a few crumbs while the top 1% buys politicians, writes their own tax laws, and own all of the media that tells us what to think.

It is mathematically impossible for incomes in the US to improve on average without the top percentages becoming higher than the lower percentages.

Huh?
So if the lower 90% has an increase in income and the top 10% has a decrease, it's mathematically impossible for the average income to improve?
I'm no math major, but that makes no sense.

(I'm surprised that you would be willing to show such an obvious manipulation of a chart from the liberal EPI. Comparing a 30 year span with a 7 year one and leaving out all time between 1980-2000? Good one guys.)

So are you saying that the figures or the trend isn't true?
Are you saying that the trend had some wild hidden anomaly between 1980-2000 where it reversed or something, and the rich didn't get richer while the poor didn't get poorer?
Facts don't have political labels.
If the facts are wrong, say so.
If the actual trend is something different than what was illustrated, please let me know.


Bleh... all this reading, research, and typing is putting no money in my pocket... I need to pay more attention to my footer and jAQUAN.

[FlashLackey]

The top 1% starts at $350k which is more than 3 times what the average small business owner makes, and it increases exponentially with every fraction of a percent above that.

Based on what definition of small business?

Also, I wrote "successful" small businesses. Most small businesses fail. A lot of them are part time or even abandoned legal entities.

According to the IRS data the average Sub Chapter S Corp made it's owner about $100k, and the average Sole Proprietorship only netted it's owner about $12k and there's a lot more Sole Proprietorships than there are Sub S.

This isn't surprising considering that most sole proprietorships and many s-corps are simply single workers using dbas or legal entities for liability and tax purposes. Are you saying that freelancers should be paid as much as larger businesses simply because they set up an s-corp?

You and I are small business owners.
Did you take home $250k last year?
I know that I didn't even clear $100k.

Is your business your sole source of income or do you also have another job?

Wait... so you're saying that the bottom 20% doesn't include poor people, or are you saying that poor people don't exist? ...or maybe you're saying that students and seniors can't be poor also?

I'm saying that the income disparity complaint makes no sense because it does not account for economic mobility. In order for the charts to look the way you suggest they should, students waiting tables after class and retirees should be making the same amount of income as a 40-year-old business owner. Makes no sense.

And let's just drop the labels for a minute. Liberal this, Conservative that... it really doesn't matter.
We are all just American working stiffs here trying to live off a few crumbs while the top 1% buys politicians, writes their own tax laws, and own all of the media that tells us what to think.

I know several business owners that fall into the 1% category. None of them have any influence on politicians. Again, you're thinking of the top .0001% rather than the top 1%.

According to census data, there are 1,131,460 households in the top 1%. I'm sorry, but there are not 1,131,460 different families pulling strings in Washington, writing their own tax laws, etc. A few individuals do have influence. George Soros for example. But, most of the time the influence comes from large groups of people pooling their money together, a la special interests, unions, large corporations, etc.

Huh?
So if the lower 90% has an increase in income and the top 10% has a decrease, it's mathematically impossible for the average income to improve?
I'm no math major, but that makes no sense.

LR, if the lower 90% has an increase, 40% of that increase falls above the median.

So are you saying that the figures or the trend isn't true?

What trend? Those charts do not demonstrate a trend. Trend data would be a diagram showing incremental changes over a stretch of time.

Those charts are a comparison of two uneven time periods.

Are you saying that the trend had some wild hidden anomaly between 1980-2000 where it reversed or something, and the rich didn't get richer while the poor didn't get poorer?
Facts don't have political labels.
If the facts are wrong, say so.
If the actual trend is something different than what was illustrated, please let me know.

You still aren't factoring for economic mobility.

Most people in the lower categories are moving into the higher categories as they establish careers and then out of those categories when they retire. The "poor" are mostly still becoming the "rich" by these income percentage definitions.

Bleh... all this reading, research, and typing is putting no money in my pocket... I need to pay more attention to my footer and jAQUAN.

The way I see it, conversations like this may very well put money in your pocket.

If more people can understand that the 20% vs. 20% argument liberals appeal to is a falsehood, they might not be as easily hoodwinked by politicians pandering for votes. My hope is that more people will understand that raising taxes on Joe-six-pack's boss is not an effective way to help Joe-six-pack's economic situation. It doesn't take rocket science to see this.

[Loyal Rogue]

I'm saying that the income disparity complaint makes no sense because it does not account for economic mobility. In order for the charts to look the way you suggest they should, students waiting tables after class and retirees should be making the same amount of income as a 40-year-old business owner. Makes no sense.

What makes no sense is your notion of economic mobility and the influence you have been hoodwinked into believing it has.
According to your arguments there are no actual "poor people"... everything is equal, everyone starts off poor waiting tables, then become rich business owners, and then poor retirees, and it all evens out in the wash.
All because some political thinktank working for the top 1% took a few figures, hid the actual numbers from you, and spun the summary into something they wanted you to believe.

Again, the fact that most people who started with a $15k minimum wage job and eventually made $45k at some point in their adult life has no bearing on the issue of inequality at hand.
It is a red herring and a vague manufactured talking point to hoodwink people like you into voting against their own best interests and the best interests of 90% of America.

Here is a more recent and not-so-vague quote from a PEW economic mobility study in 2008,
"Nearly three-quarters of individuals born into the bottom half of the income distribution improved their economic standing relative to their parents by at least one percentile, yet less than half moved up more than 20 percentiles, and fewer than two in five moved into the top half of the distribution, according to a new report issued by The Economic Mobility Project, an initiative of The Pew Charitable Trusts."

I know several business owners that fall into the 1% category. None of them have any influence on politicians. Again, you're thinking of the top .0001% rather than the top 1%.
...
According to census data, there are 1,131,460 households in the top 1%. I'm sorry, but there are not 1,131,460 different families pulling strings in Washington, writing their own tax laws, etc.

I call BS.
There are well over 2 million individual millionaires in the US.
To be in the top 1% of wealthholders you would've had to have a net wealth of over $3.3 million after deducting all expenses and debt in 1998.
(With the current income and wealth disparity trend, that threshold is certainly over $4 million today.)
To believe that a millionaire in that bracket does nothing to influence politicians and make the lobbyists rich is beyond ridiculous.

LR, if the lower 90% has an increase, 40% of that increase falls above the median.

You stated, "It is mathematically impossible for incomes in the US to improve on average without the top percentages becoming higher than the lower percentages." as a counterpoint to the charts showing an economic disparity trend in the US.

This is one of the problems with trying to have a debate with you.
You end up going off on a tangent, trying to score points with irrelevant "weasel-words" instead of addressing the actual subject.
While in some cases your math above would be correct, in this case it is not.
We were originally talking about average incomes and growth between the bottom 90% and the top 10% in those charts, not the bottom and top 50%.
Looking back now, it seems this kind of math substitution drives most of your arguments when you get backed into a corner.

What trend? Those charts do not demonstrate a trend. Trend data would be a diagram showing incremental changes over a stretch of time.

Those charts are a comparison of two uneven time periods.

Seriously?
You can research it enough to attack the person who made the chart from the data but you can't research it enough to know that there is a trend?

Does this make the trend easier to see?

and leaving out all time between 1980-2000? Good one guys.

Here you go.
All the time between 1980-2000 looks exactly as you would expect from this kind of trend.

It doesn't take rocket science to see this.

No, it certainly doesn't... just common sense, a grasp of the facts, and basic math... all of which the top 1% hopes you don't use so that they can keep you hoodwinked into voting for their best interests instead of your own... and apparently from the last election they're successfully hoodwinking over half the population.

[FlashLackey]

According to your arguments there are no actual "poor people"... everything is equal, everyone starts off poor waiting tables, then become rich business owners, and then poor retirees, and it all evens out in the wash.

Where have I argued that? I pointed out that most people in the bottom 20% move to the top 20%. That is a fact.

Your argument seems to be that our free market economy is supposed to somehow lead to equal incomes for all people no matter what they do in life.

All because some political thinktank working for the top 1% took a few figures, hid the actual numbers from you, and spun the summary into something they wanted you to believe.

Who are you referring to? The only person citing thinktanks in this thread is you. (And they're using flawed data. See below.)

Again, the fact that most people who started with a $15k minimum wage job and eventually made $45k at some point in their adult life has no bearing on the issue of inequality at hand.

(Your numbers are wrong. See below.)

It does have a bearing on the merits of the income disparity complaint that you and others cite. In fact, it completely undermines the substance of that argument.

Here is a more recent and not-so-vague quote from a PEW economic mobility study in 2008,
"Nearly three-quarters of individuals born into the bottom half of the income distribution improved their economic standing relative to their parents by at least one percentile, yet less than half moved up more than 20 percentiles, and fewer than two in five moved into the top half of the distribution, according to a new report issued by The Economic Mobility Project, an initiative of The Pew Charitable Trusts."

Most people doing better than their parents did is supposed to be a bad thing?

You seem to be arguing that it's wrong if anyone doesn't grow up to make as much as George Soros.

I call BS.
There are well over 2 million individual millionaires in the US.
To be in the top 1% of wealthholders you would've had to have a net wealth of over $3.3 million after deducting all expenses and debt in 1998.
(With the current income and wealth disparity trend, that threshold is certainly over $4 million today.)
To believe that a millionaire in that bracket does nothing to influence politicians and make the lobbyists rich is beyond ridiculous.

It's your assertion. The burden is on you to demonstrate that all or even most individual millionaires are hiring lobbyists and writing tax laws. So, I get to call BS on this one.

Lobbyists are very expensive and there is never a guarantee that their efforts will be successful. A winery owner in Oregon isn't going to risk $200k+ of a two million dollar business to hopefully win tax breaks on grapes.

This is one of the problems with trying to have a debate with you.
You end up going off on a tangent, trying to score points with irrelevant "weasel-words" instead of addressing the actual subject.

There were no "weasel-words" about it. My statement just wasn't very clear. I'll take responsibility for that and clarify:

My point is that when people reach higher levels of success than they previously did, it will increase the income disparity charts that you are referring to. However, people reaching higher levels of success is not a bad thing.

Seriously?
You can research it enough to attack the person who made the chart from the data but you can't research it enough to know that there is a trend?

Does this make the trend easier to see?

What are you talking about? My criticism of the presentation didn't require any research and I simply pointed out the fact that the chart you posted didn't demonstrate a trend. I don't see why you should get upset with me over how you choose to make your own case.

But, thank you for posting these new charts. Because they include some reference information in the images, I was able to research and learn that they are based off of substantially flawed numbers. Shame on me for taking these charts at face value:

P&S conclude that if a different price indicator were used and adjustments were made for the missing incomes, changing family sizes, and rising benefits, “from 1973 to 2000, the average income of the bottom 99% would have grown by about 50% in real terms instead of stagnating (as displayed on the figure above.” This remarkable difference is rarely acknowledged by the many writers who cite P&S findings.

This is not the only problem with IRS data: there are close to 30 percent more IRS “filers” than families, and most of these extra filers have very low incomes. As a result, an-IRS based poverty rate would be nearly triple the official rate and the IRS median income level is 40 percent lower than the comparable figure derived from Census data. Researchers who use IRS data concur that the only logical explanation for this discrepancy is that many income-earning minors file separately from their parents in order to avoid paying taxes at the parents’ higher rates. By contrast, the Census approach of combining the income of all family members into a common pool would mean that the income of these extra filers should actually be added to the incomes of the rest of their families.

Why are these criticisms so important? Because so many journalists and editorialists have cited the P&S findings as evidence of economic stagnation among all but the super-rich. Among them are such well-known critics as Paul Krugman, Robert Reich, Robert Kuttner, Peter Gosselin, and Kevin Phillips.
Former New York Times reporter David Cay Johnston cited these results in several front-page news stories, as well as featuring them in his recent best-selling book Free Lunch, where he writes that the average income of the bottom 90 percent of the population had an income of $29,000 in 2005, which was almost $4,000 (or $75 a week) less than the comparable figure in 1973.

In some ways, it is hard to believe that anyone could write that the average income of the bottom 90% of households in 2005 was under $30,000. The real number according to the, the annual current population surveys (the gold standard for studies on socioeconomic conditions) is 81 percent higher—over $52,400. Further, instead of dropping by $4,000 over these years, the average incomes of the bottom 90 percent increased by $8,000.

http://stats.org/stories/2008/myth_i..._aug22_08.html

As I wrote before: "Good one guys."

No, it certainly doesn't... just common sense, a grasp of the facts, and basic math... all of which the top 1% hopes you don't use so that they can keep you hoodwinked into voting for their best interests instead of your own... and apparently from the last election they're successfully hoodwinking over half the population.

Let me know when you find a study that demonstrates any of this without playing games with the numbers.