Discussion:
OT?: Is this also happening where you live?
(too old to reply)
g***@gmail.com
2018-07-31 01:51:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
According to this recent article:

- In much of urban California, historically middle-class professionals—firefighters, homebuilders, young lawyers and countless others lower down the economic food chain—can no longer afford to buy homes because they simply can’t compete in their local real estate markets.

https://www.fastcompany.com/90207566/how-our-budding-tech-utopia-is-setting-the-stage-for-a-working-class-dystopia
Bozo
2018-07-31 02:02:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Nor can they afford college tuition for their kids or to even afford to have kids, nor cars, nor gas, nor health care, but fear not, the trickle down from the GOP tax cuts , deregulation, ACA gutting, and tariffs is coming.
graham
2018-07-31 02:49:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-07-30 8:02 PM, Bozo wrote:
> Nor can they afford college tuition for their kids or to even afford to have kids, nor cars, nor gas, nor health care, but fear not, the trickle down from the GOP tax cuts , deregulation, ACA gutting, and tariffs is coming.
>
If you believe that, I have a bridge for sale:-)

Read:
http://tiny.cc/xmt6vy
weary flake
2018-07-31 06:16:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-07-31 02:02:04 +0000, Bozo said:

> Nor can they afford college tuition for their kids or to even afford to
> have kids, nor cars, nor gas, nor health care, but fear not, the
> trickle down from the GOP tax cuts , deregulation, ACA gutting, and
> tariffs is coming.

Why are you lumping tariffs with the other things? Does your apparent
support of
free trade depend on which party is proposing it? Up 'till recently
Trump's Party
was solidly for free trade; presumably earlier opponents of free trade
would welcome
Trump's moves in this issue, but they have been mostly from the other
Party and seem
to have gone over wholesale to support free trade, merely because Trump
opposes it,
proving they we're lying earlier when they claimed to oppose free
trade. What good
is partisanship since it breeds liars.

Here's a meaningful political test: What are the bad points of the
Party you favor?
What are the good points of the Party you oppose? If you are are
unable to think
of examples, you could be a sucker.

I strongly support the right to abortion and guns and strongly oppose
free trade and
drug legalization. So that makes one for and three against the
Democrats now that
they are the leaders in free trade, as well the Republicans, who still
mostly support
free trade and are veering towards drug legalization, and two for two with the
Libertarian Party, Green Party, and the Peace And Freedom Party, the
last two of
which I'm assuming is still against free trade if they haven't changed
their minds
because Trump "forced" them to.

Trump is against the measures to even acknowledge global warming, yet
he claims to be
against free trade, which causes global warming. So which is worse, a
climate change
denier who enacts measures to fight climate change, or those who claim strong
opposition to global warming, while enacting measures like free trade
that cause
global warming?

In other words, which is better, to talk stupid or act stupid?

"Trump Fights Global Warming!", we should be glad that headline isn't
common or then
he would be "forced" by the rule of partisanship to reverse one of his
rare positive
policies.
Raymond Hall
2018-07-31 14:07:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
... and of course, the 'trickle down' effect being the biggest myth in history, only believed by the truly gullible few.

Ray Hall, Taree
Frank Berger
2018-07-31 14:25:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 7/31/2018 10:07 AM, Raymond Hall wrote:
> ... and of course, the 'trickle down' effect being the biggest myth in history, only believed by the truly gullible few.
>
> Ray Hall, Taree
>

The myth is when the Left defines "trickle down economics" in such a way
as to make it untrue and blaming the Right for it. A poor guy who has a
job may have it because a rich guy has risked his wealth (capital) to
run a business. That's trickle down. Some changes in policy that
benefit the rich will have a trickle down effect and some won't.
weary flake
2018-07-31 16:00:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-07-31 14:25:23 +0000, Frank Berger said:

> On 7/31/2018 10:07 AM, Raymond Hall wrote:
>> ... and of course, the 'trickle down' effect being the biggest myth in
>> history, only believed by the truly gullible few.
>>
>> Ray Hall, Taree
>>
>
> The myth is when the Left defines "trickle down economics" in such a
> way as to make it untrue and blaming the Right for it. A poor guy who
> has a job may have it because a rich guy has risked his wealth
> (capital) to run a business. That's trickle down. Some changes in
> policy that benefit the rich will have a trickle down effect and some
> won't.

Trickle down works in the sense that any random economic policy works.
Since it's impossible to avoid "generating economic activity" anything
at all and even nothing at all works to "generate economic activity".
Street Crime has a powerful effect on the economy, with each dollar
stolen generating a thousand dollars in security, maybe we should
encourage more muggings to bring us out of the economic doldrums? Why,
if crime were to go away think of all those lost jobs and the costly
homes bought to avoid it!
Frank Berger
2018-07-31 16:16:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 7/31/2018 12:00 PM, weary flake wrote:
> On 2018-07-31 14:25:23 +0000, Frank Berger said:
>
>> On 7/31/2018 10:07 AM, Raymond Hall wrote:
>>> ... and of course, the 'trickle down' effect being the biggest myth
>>> in history, only believed by the truly gullible few.
>>>
>>> Ray Hall, Taree
>>>
>>
>> The myth is when the Left defines "trickle down economics" in such a
>> way as to make it untrue and blaming the Right for it.  A poor guy who
>> has a job may have it because a rich guy has risked his wealth
>> (capital) to run a business.  That's trickle down.  Some changes in
>> policy that benefit the rich will have a trickle down effect and some
>> won't.
>
> Trickle down works in the sense that any random economic policy works.
> Since it's impossible to avoid "generating economic activity" anything
> at all and even nothing at all works to "generate economic activity".
> Street Crime has a powerful effect on the economy, with each dollar
> stolen generating a thousand dollars in security, maybe we should
> encourage more muggings to bring us out of the economic doldrums?  Why,
> if crime were to go away think of all those lost jobs and the costly
> homes bought to avoid it!
>

There is no such thing as a POLICY of trickle down economics espoused by
any economists or even Republican/Conservative/Libertarian politicians.
The Left made that up in order to attack the Right.

The question, when considering, for example, a tax break for the rich,
is what the tax burden should be. You can't always just keep increasing
the taxes on the rich as social policy any more than you can favor an
all vs. nothing wealth distribution. It's possible that some taxes on
the rich are unfair or socially damaging and need correcting. It
doesn't mean you are trying to transfer even more wealth from poor to
rich as is often characterized by the Left.
Bozo
2018-07-31 16:41:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
>On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 11:16:21 AM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
> It's possible that some taxes on
> the rich are unfair or socially damaging and need correcting. It
> doesn't mean you are trying to transfer even more wealth from poor to
> rich as is often characterized by the Left.

Tax Policy Center's analysis : http://tinyurl.com/ya4dy9ex
weary flake
2018-07-31 18:07:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-07-31 16:41:36 +0000, Bozo said:

>>
>> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 11:16:21 AM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
>> It's possible that some taxes on
>> the rich are unfair or socially damaging and need correcting. It
>> doesn't mean you are trying to transfer even more wealth from poor to
>> rich as is often characterized by the Left.
>
> Tax Policy Center's analysis : http://tinyurl.com/ya4dy9ex

That article perpetuates the abuse of the term "income". Income in
the common language is the money you make; in the language of the
partisan economist capital gains and unearned income are "not income".
That apparent left-leaning article, by ommitting the subject, seems to
support lower taxes on capital gains than earned income, so reinforcing
the claim that the Left has the same economic ideas as Trump.
Frank Berger
2018-07-31 18:24:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 7/31/2018 2:07 PM, weary flake wrote:
> On 2018-07-31 16:41:36 +0000, Bozo said:
>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 11:16:21 AM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
>>> It's possible that some taxes on
>>> the rich are unfair or socially damaging and need correcting.  It
>>> doesn't mean you are trying to transfer even more wealth from poor to
>>> rich as is often characterized by the Left.
>>
>> Tax Policy Center's analysis :  http://tinyurl.com/ya4dy9ex
>
> That article perpetuates the abuse of the term "income".  Income in
> the common language is the money you make; in the language of the
> partisan economist capital gains and unearned income are "not income".
> That apparent left-leaning article, by ommitting the subject, seems to
> support lower taxes on capital gains than earned income, so reinforcing
> the claim that the Left has the same economic ideas as Trump.
>

How to you refer to capital gains if not as "income." Simply capital
gains? The correct definition is that there is earned income (earnings
from labor) and unearned income. Taxes on earnings deter work effort
and taxes on unearned income deter investment. Suppose someday we had a
flat tax. I suppose the Left in those circumstances would want a higher
rate on unearned income.
weary flake
2018-07-31 18:57:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-07-31 18:24:18 +0000, Frank Berger said:

> On 7/31/2018 2:07 PM, weary flake wrote:
>> On 2018-07-31 16:41:36 +0000, Bozo said:
>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 11:16:21 AM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
>>>> It's possible that some taxes on
>>>> the rich are unfair or socially damaging and need correcting.  It
>>>> doesn't mean you are trying to transfer even more wealth from poor to
>>>> rich as is often characterized by the Left.
>>>
>>> Tax Policy Center's analysis :  http://tinyurl.com/ya4dy9ex
>>
>> That article perpetuates the abuse of the term "income".  Income in
>> the common language is the money you make; in the language of the
>> partisan economist capital gains and unearned income are "not income".
>> That apparent left-leaning article, by ommitting the subject, seems to
>> support lower taxes on capital gains than earned income, so reinforcing
>> the claim that the Left has the same economic ideas as Trump.
>>
>
> How to you refer to capital gains if not as "income." Simply capital
> gains? The correct definition is that there is earned income (earnings
> from labor) and unearned income. Taxes on earnings deter work effort
> and taxes on unearned income deter investment. Suppose someday we had a
> flat tax. I suppose the Left in those circumstances would want a
> higher rate on unearned income.

The Left has proposed a higher tax on unearned income and enacted it in
England (that's what the Beatle's song "Taxman" refers to: a 95% tax rate).
But the Left has long abandoned the idea, and is satisfied with lower taxes
for capital gains than earned income. Leftism currently seems to consist of
mockery of politicians, such as drawing Trump in a Hitler mustache dressed
in Klan robes, claims that Trump is lousy in bed, claims that Trump isn't
rich enough because he's bad at personal finance, etc. Mockery of
politicians is supposed to be some sort of devastating political argument but
politicians are pretty thick skinned, and the general public comes to the
quiet sympathy of one who's person is being attacked. So be prepared for
Trump's re-election as a "rerun" of Bush 2004, and it's attendent ocean of
hatred.
graham
2018-07-31 22:42:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-07-31 12:57 PM, weary flake wrote:
> On 2018-07-31 18:24:18 +0000, Frank Berger said:
>
>> On 7/31/2018 2:07 PM, weary flake wrote:
>>> On 2018-07-31 16:41:36 +0000, Bozo said:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 11:16:21 AM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
>>>>> It's possible that some taxes on
>>>>> the rich are unfair or socially damaging and need correcting.  It
>>>>> doesn't mean you are trying to transfer even more wealth from poor to
>>>>> rich as is often characterized by the Left.
>>>>
>>>> Tax Policy Center's analysis :  http://tinyurl.com/ya4dy9ex
>>>
>>> That article perpetuates the abuse of the term "income".  Income in
>>> the common language is the money you make; in the language of the
>>> partisan economist capital gains and unearned income are "not income".
>>> That apparent left-leaning article, by ommitting the subject, seems to
>>> support lower taxes on capital gains than earned income, so reinforcing
>>> the claim that the Left has the same economic ideas as Trump.
>>>
>>
>> How to you refer to capital gains if not as "income."  Simply capital
>> gains?  The correct definition is that there is earned income
>> (earnings from labor) and unearned income.  Taxes on earnings deter
>> work effort and taxes on unearned income deter investment. Suppose
>> someday we had a flat tax.  I suppose the Left in those circumstances
>> would want a higher rate on unearned income.
>
> The Left has proposed a higher tax on unearned income and enacted it in
> England (that's what the Beatle's song "Taxman" refers to: a 95% tax rate).

IIRC the top US tax rate was similar then.
r***@gmail.com
2018-08-04 09:25:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 6:42:06 PM UTC-4, graham wrote:
> On 2018-07-31 12:57 PM, weary flake wrote:
> > On 2018-07-31 18:24:18 +0000, Frank Berger said:
> >
> >> On 7/31/2018 2:07 PM, weary flake wrote:
> >>> On 2018-07-31 16:41:36 +0000, Bozo said:
> >>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 11:16:21 AM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
> >>>>> It's possible that some taxes on
> >>>>> the rich are unfair or socially damaging and need correcting.  It
> >>>>> doesn't mean you are trying to transfer even more wealth from poor to
> >>>>> rich as is often characterized by the Left.
> >>>>
> >>>> Tax Policy Center's analysis :  http://tinyurl.com/ya4dy9ex
> >>>
> >>> That article perpetuates the abuse of the term "income".  Income in
> >>> the common language is the money you make; in the language of the
> >>> partisan economist capital gains and unearned income are "not income".
> >>> That apparent left-leaning article, by ommitting the subject, seems to
> >>> support lower taxes on capital gains than earned income, so reinforcing
> >>> the claim that the Left has the same economic ideas as Trump.
> >>>
> >>
> >> How to you refer to capital gains if not as "income."  Simply capital
> >> gains?  The correct definition is that there is earned income
> >> (earnings from labor) and unearned income.  Taxes on earnings deter
> >> work effort and taxes on unearned income deter investment. Suppose
> >> someday we had a flat tax.  I suppose the Left in those circumstances
> >> would want a higher rate on unearned income.
> >
> > The Left has proposed a higher tax on unearned income and enacted it in
> > England (that's what the Beatle's song "Taxman" refers to: a 95% tax rate).
>
> IIRC the top US tax rate was similar then.

If I remember correctly one of the 1966-74 Labour governments was urged by all the City financiers to reduce the budget deficit. One of the last lines in the Budget Speech (tax changes take effect that evening, to reduce speculative activity) acknowledged that pressure, and the words following were to the effect: I know they will want to make their contribution to the deficit reduction efforts, so I am raising the tax rate on large capital gains and high incomes to 105%. In effect it was a one time capital levy. Since it was both unanticipated and temporary the effects were not as devastating as they might have been otherwise, but it was still not too helpful.
Bob Harper
2018-07-31 23:09:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 7/31/18 11:24 AM, Frank Berger wrote:
> On 7/31/2018 2:07 PM, weary flake wrote:
>> On 2018-07-31 16:41:36 +0000, Bozo said:
>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 11:16:21 AM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
>>>> It's possible that some taxes on
>>>> the rich are unfair or socially damaging and need correcting.  It
>>>> doesn't mean you are trying to transfer even more wealth from poor to
>>>> rich as is often characterized by the Left.
>>>
>>> Tax Policy Center's analysis :  http://tinyurl.com/ya4dy9ex
>>
>> That article perpetuates the abuse of the term "income".  Income in
>> the common language is the money you make; in the language of the
>> partisan economist capital gains and unearned income are "not income".
>> That apparent left-leaning article, by ommitting the subject, seems to
>> support lower taxes on capital gains than earned income, so reinforcing
>> the claim that the Left has the same economic ideas as Trump.
>>
>
> How to you refer to capital gains if not as "income."  Simply capital
> gains?  The correct definition is that there is earned income (earnings
> from labor) and unearned income.  Taxes on earnings deter work effort
> and taxes on unearned income deter investment. Suppose someday we had a
> flat tax.  I suppose the Left in those circumstances would want a higher
> rate on unearned income.

Of course they would, because that would be 'fair'. In fact, such a
policy would be driven not by economic sense, but by envy.

Bob Harper
Frank Berger
2018-07-31 23:42:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 7/31/2018 7:09 PM, Bob Harper wrote:
> On 7/31/18 11:24 AM, Frank Berger wrote:
>> On 7/31/2018 2:07 PM, weary flake wrote:
>>> On 2018-07-31 16:41:36 +0000, Bozo said:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 11:16:21 AM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
>>>>> It's possible that some taxes on
>>>>> the rich are unfair or socially damaging and need correcting.  It
>>>>> doesn't mean you are trying to transfer even more wealth from poor to
>>>>> rich as is often characterized by the Left.
>>>>
>>>> Tax Policy Center's analysis :  http://tinyurl.com/ya4dy9ex
>>>
>>> That article perpetuates the abuse of the term "income".  Income in
>>> the common language is the money you make; in the language of the
>>> partisan economist capital gains and unearned income are "not income".
>>> That apparent left-leaning article, by ommitting the subject, seems to
>>> support lower taxes on capital gains than earned income, so reinforcing
>>> the claim that the Left has the same economic ideas as Trump.
>>>
>>
>> How to you refer to capital gains if not as "income."  Simply capital
>> gains?  The correct definition is that there is earned income
>> (earnings from labor) and unearned income.  Taxes on earnings deter
>> work effort and taxes on unearned income deter investment. Suppose
>> someday we had a flat tax.  I suppose the Left in those circumstances
>> would want a higher rate on unearned income.
>
> Of course they would, because that would be 'fair'. In fact, such a
> policy would be driven not by economic sense, but by envy.
>
> Bob Harper
>

I don't think that's really fair, Bob. I'd say it's driven by an
incorrect notion about what is fair. Together with the usual ignorance
about unintended consquences.
Bozo
2018-08-01 00:38:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
>On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 6:42:52 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
> Together with the usual ignorance about unintended consquences.

Like the consequences of electing Trump.

About the new cap gains plan and other little-observed inflation effects of new act already passed :

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/31/tax-cut-upper-income-treasury-department-capital-gains-716320
weary flake
2018-08-01 01:05:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-08-01 00:38:46 +0000, Bozo said:

>>
>> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 6:42:52 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
>> Together with the usual ignorance about unintended consquences.
>
> Like the consequences of electing Trump.
>
> About the new cap gains plan and other little-observed inflation
> effects of new act already passed :
>
> https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/31/tax-cut-upper-income-treasury-department-capital-gains-716320
>

His proposal is illegimate. Raising only the cost basis with inflation
means paying the tax with deflated dollars; raising the cost requires raising
the sales price to account for inflation too, which would increase the tax
cost, which may be the very result of this. If Trump is trying to increase
the capital gains tax this is a strange way to do it.
Frank Berger
2018-08-01 01:28:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 7/31/2018 9:05 PM, weary flake wrote:
> On 2018-08-01 00:38:46 +0000, Bozo said:
>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 6:42:52 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
>>> Together with the usual ignorance about unintended consquences.
>>
>> Like the consequences of electing Trump.
>>
>> About the new cap gains plan and other little-observed inflation
>> effects of new act already passed :
>>
>> https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/31/tax-cut-upper-income-treasury-department-capital-gains-716320
>>
>
> His proposal is illegimate.  Raising only the cost basis with inflation
> means paying the tax with deflated dollars; raising the cost requires
> raising
> the sales price to account for inflation too, which would increase the tax
> cost, which may be the very result of this.  If Trump is trying to increase
> the capital gains tax this is a strange way to do it.

Not sure what you mean. Attempting to clarify:

Case 1: Let's say there is no inflation. I buy an asset for 1000 and
sell it after 10 years for $1500 (a rate of return of about 3-4%) and
pay whatever the tax is on the $500 capital gain.

Case 2: inflation is 3-4% over the 10 year period. Assume the value of
hte asset rises with the general inflation rate. The nominal value of
the asset is now about $1800. I pay the tax on a capital gain of $800.

Case 3: If you adjust either the cost basis to the cost of living 10
years later or adjust the sales price of the asset back to the cost of
living at the time of purchase, you pay the same tax as in case 1.

Am I wrong?
weary flake
2018-08-01 05:16:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-08-01 01:28:29 +0000, Frank Berger said:

> On 7/31/2018 9:05 PM, weary flake wrote:
>> On 2018-08-01 00:38:46 +0000, Bozo said:
>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 6:42:52 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
>>>> Together with the usual ignorance about unintended consquences.
>>>
>>> Like the consequences of electing Trump.
>>>
>>> About the new cap gains plan and other little-observed inflation
>>> effects of new act already passed :
>>>
>>> https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/31/tax-cut-upper-income-treasury-department-capital-gains-716320
>>>
>>
>> His proposal is illegimate.  Raising only the cost basis with inflation
>> means paying the tax with deflated dollars; raising the cost requires raising
>> the sales price to account for inflation too, which would increase the tax
>> cost, which may be the very result of this.  If Trump is trying to increase
>> the capital gains tax this is a strange way to do it.
>
> Not sure what you mean. Attempting to clarify:
>
> Case 1: Let's say there is no inflation. I buy an asset for 1000 and
> sell it after 10 years for $1500 (a rate of return of about 3-4%) and
> pay whatever the tax is on the $500 capital gain.
>
> Case 2: inflation is 3-4% over the 10 year period. Assume the value of
> hte asset rises with the general inflation rate. The nominal value of
> the asset is now about $1800. I pay the tax on a capital gain of $800.
>
> Case 3: If you adjust either the cost basis to the cost of living 10
> years later or adjust the sales price of the asset back to the cost of
> living at the time of purchase, you pay the same tax as in case 1.
>
> Am I wrong?

I got it wrong at first too, but actually adjusting the cost and sales price
with inflation would increase the tax rate:

standard accounting rules:
cost basis 100
sale 200
taxable gain: 100

inflationary basis accounting:
cost basis 100
sale 200
adjusted for 10% inflation:
cost basis 110
sale 220
taxable gain: 110

the sale price is in deflated dollars, so if the cost is adjusted for inflation
the sale price has to be adjusted for inflation too. No free rides.
Frank Berger
2018-08-01 05:39:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 8/1/2018 1:16 AM, weary flake wrote:
> On 2018-08-01 01:28:29 +0000, Frank Berger said:
>
>> On 7/31/2018 9:05 PM, weary flake wrote:
>>> On 2018-08-01 00:38:46 +0000, Bozo said:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 6:42:52 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
>>>>> Together with the usual ignorance about unintended consquences.
>>>>
>>>> Like the consequences of electing Trump.
>>>>
>>>> About the new cap gains plan and other little-observed inflation
>>>> effects of new act already passed :
>>>>
>>>> https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/31/tax-cut-upper-income-treasury-department-capital-gains-716320
>>>>
>>>
>>> His proposal is illegimate.  Raising only the cost basis with inflation
>>> means paying the tax with deflated dollars; raising the cost requires
>>> raising
>>> the sales price to account for inflation too, which would increase
>>> the tax
>>> cost, which may be the very result of this.  If Trump is trying to
>>> increase
>>> the capital gains tax this is a strange way to do it.
>>
>> Not sure what you mean. Attempting to clarify:
>>
>> Case 1: Let's say there is no inflation.  I buy an asset for 1000 and
>> sell it after 10 years for $1500 (a rate of return of about 3-4%) and
>> pay whatever the tax is on the $500 capital gain.
>>
>> Case 2:  inflation is 3-4% over the 10 year period. Assume the value
>> of hte asset rises with the general inflation rate. The nominal value
>> of the asset is now about $1800.  I pay the tax on a capital gain of
>> $800.
>>
>> Case 3:  If you adjust either the cost basis to the cost of living 10
>> years later or adjust the sales price of the asset back to the cost of
>> living at the time of purchase, you pay the same tax as in case 1.
>>
>> Am I wrong?
>
> I got it wrong at first too, but actually adjusting the cost and sales
> price
> with inflation would increase the tax rate:
>
> standard accounting rules:
> cost basis 100
> sale 200
> taxable gain: 100
>
> inflationary basis accounting:
> cost basis 100
> sale 200
> adjusted for 10% inflation:
> cost basis 110
> sale 220
> taxable gain: 110
>
> the sale price is in deflated dollars, so if the cost is adjusted for
> inflation
> the sale price has to be adjusted for inflation too.  No free rides.
>

No no. You don't adjust both the cost and sales for inflation. Just
one or the other.
Bozo
2018-08-01 21:18:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
>On Wednesday, August 1, 2018 at 12:39:31 AM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
> No no. You don't adjust both the cost and sales for inflation. Just
> one or the other.

I think weary flake is correct (?). If there is inflation, the proposed cost basis index will increase cost basis, but sales prices will also increase , unless prices are offset by major interest rate increases.In fact. I suspect in most past inflationary eras, real estate prices increase a greater % than the average national inflation rate ( I could be wrong ), just as medical and college tuition costs have.
weary flake
2018-08-01 22:50:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-08-01 21:18:38 +0000, Bozo said:

>>
>> On Wednesday, August 1, 2018 at 12:39:31 AM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
>> No no. You don't adjust both the cost and sales for inflation. Just>
>> one or the other.
>
> I think weary flake is correct (?). If there is inflation, the proposed
> cost basis index will increase cost basis, but sales prices will also
> increase , unless prices are offset by major interest rate increases.In
> fact. I suspect in most past inflationary eras, real estate prices
> increase a greater % than the average national inflation rate ( I could
> be wrong ), just as medical and college tuition costs have.

You're talking about macro-ecomonics, while I'm just talking about the proposal
on capital gains by Trump. Frank is correct on how the bad tax
proposal by Trump
works, though he likes the proposal. What I'm saying is if the sale
price of the
asset is paid in deflated dollars, so if the cost is adjusted to
inflation the sale
should too. Actually, what makes sense to me is to tax capital gains
the same as
salaries, and revoke the tax break for capital gains that has been enacted from
1990 to the present.

About housing costs? How about eliminating tax deductions on loans for
real estate,
whether buying or selling? Why should housing costs be increased by
subsidizing
the loans to buy housing? Remember, a tax break is a subsidy paid by those not
getting the tax break, and it can be seen that subsidizing mortgages raises the
price of housing and is economically equivalent to the feds handing cash grants
to landlords for the public service of increasing the rent.
Steven Bornfeld
2018-08-01 23:14:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 8/1/2018 5:18 PM, Bozo wrote:
>> On Wednesday, August 1, 2018 at 12:39:31 AM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
>> No no. You don't adjust both the cost and sales for inflation. Just
>> one or the other.
>
> I think weary flake is correct (?). If there is inflation, the proposed cost basis index will increase cost basis, but sales prices will also increase , unless prices are offset by major interest rate increases.In fact. I suspect in most past inflationary eras, real estate prices increase a greater % than the average national inflation rate ( I could be wrong ), just as medical and college tuition costs have.
>


In the long run real estate prices should not be able to outpace income;
but as Lord Keynes said, "In the long run we're all dead".

Steve
Frank Berger
2018-08-02 02:33:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 8/1/2018 7:14 PM, Steven Bornfeld wrote:
> On 8/1/2018 5:18 PM, Bozo wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, August 1, 2018 at 12:39:31 AM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
>>> No no.  You don't adjust both the cost and sales for inflation.  Just
>>> one or the other.
>>
>> I think weary flake is correct (?). If there is inflation, the
>> proposed cost basis index will increase cost basis, but sales prices
>> will also increase , unless prices are offset by major interest rate
>> increases.In fact. I suspect in most past inflationary eras, real
>> estate prices increase a greater % than the average national inflation
>> rate ( I could be wrong ), just as medical and college tuition costs
>> have.
>>
>
>
> In the long run real estate prices should not be able to outpace income;
> but as Lord Keynes said, "In the long run we're all dead".
>
> Steve

Yes, we'll all starve when housing consumes 100% of our income. We're
Doomed.

To the extent that the anecdotal evidence presented here that the middle
class is being squeezed out of (some) urban housing is true: Is this a
new or merely a continuing phenomena? Isn't that what suburbanization
is about? Most of our (then) young middle class friends who managed to
buy homes in LA in the 70s (we didn't, duh) have moved away in order to
cash in on their profits. Perhaps the problem is government
restrictions that prevent or hinder the housing market's natural means
of producing "affordable" housing: filtering, or trickle down if you prefer.
g***@gmail.com
2018-08-02 04:38:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, August 1, 2018 at 4:33:11 PM UTC-10, Frank Berger wrote:
> On 8/1/2018 7:14 PM, Steven Bornfeld wrote:
> > On 8/1/2018 5:18 PM, Bozo wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, August 1, 2018 at 12:39:31 AM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
> >>> No no.  You don't adjust both the cost and sales for inflation.  Just
> >>> one or the other.
> >>
> >> I think weary flake is correct (?). If there is inflation, the
> >> proposed cost basis index will increase cost basis, but sales prices
> >> will also increase , unless prices are offset by major interest rate
> >> increases.In fact. I suspect in most past inflationary eras, real
> >> estate prices increase a greater % than the average national inflation
> >> rate ( I could be wrong ), just as medical and college tuition costs
> >> have.
> >>
> >
> >
> > In the long run real estate prices should not be able to outpace income;
> > but as Lord Keynes said, "In the long run we're all dead".
> >
> > Steve
>
> Yes, we'll all starve when housing consumes 100% of our income. We're
> Doomed.
>
> To the extent that the anecdotal evidence presented here that the middle
> class is being squeezed out of (some) urban housing is true: Is this a
> new or merely a continuing phenomena? Isn't that what suburbanization
> is about? Most of our (then) young middle class friends who managed to
> buy homes in LA in the 70s (we didn't, duh) have moved away in order to
> cash in on their profits. Perhaps the problem is government
> restrictions that prevent or hinder the housing market's natural means
> of producing "affordable" housing: filtering, or trickle down if you prefer.

- I finally know what distinguishes man from the other beasts:
financial worries.

Jules Renaud
weary flake
2018-08-02 06:20:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-08-02 04:38:03 +0000, ***@gmail.com said:

> On Wednesday, August 1, 2018 at 4:33:11 PM UTC-10, Frank Berger wrote:
>> On 8/1/2018 7:14 PM, Steven Bornfeld wrote:
>>> On 8/1/2018 5:18 PM, Bozo wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, August 1, 2018 at 12:39:31 AM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
>>>>> No no.  You don't adjust both the cost and sales for inflation.  Just
>>>>> one or the other.
>>>>
>>>> I think weary flake is correct (?). If there is inflation, the> >>
>>>> proposed cost basis index will increase cost basis, but sales prices>
>>>> >> will also increase , unless prices are offset by major interest
>>>> rate> >> increases.In fact. I suspect in most past inflationary eras,
>>>> real> >> estate prices increase a greater % than the average national
>>>> inflation> >> rate ( I could be wrong ), just as medical and college
>>>> tuition costs> >> have.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In the long run real estate prices should not be able to outpace
>>> income;> > but as Lord Keynes said, "In the long run we're all dead".
>>>
>>> Steve
>>
>> Yes, we'll all starve when housing consumes 100% of our income. We're> Doomed.
>>
>> To the extent that the anecdotal evidence presented here that the
>> middle> class is being squeezed out of (some) urban housing is true:
>> Is this a> new or merely a continuing phenomena? Isn't that what
>> suburbanization> is about? Most of our (then) young middle class
>> friends who managed to> buy homes in LA in the 70s (we didn't, duh)
>> have moved away in order to> cash in on their profits. Perhaps the
>> problem is government> restrictions that prevent or hinder the housing
>> market's natural means> of producing "affordable" housing: filtering,
>> or trickle down if you prefer.
>
> - I finally know what distinguishes man from the other beasts:
> financial worries.
>
> Jules Renaud

My cats worry if my finances don't bring home the cat food.
dk
2018-08-02 07:00:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, August 2, 2018 at 8:20:24 AM UTC+2, weary flake wrote:
>
> My cats worry if my finances
> don't bring home the cat food.

My cats live on a dollar a day.
But they worry the world might
run out of tunes! ;-)

dk
Raymond Hall
2018-08-02 08:09:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
-My cats live on a dollar a day. 
-But they worry the world might 
-run out of tunes! ;-) 

-dk 

Dogs are by nature egalitarians and share their food.

Ray Hall, Taree
weary flake
2018-08-02 16:15:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-08-02 08:09:25 +0000, Raymond Hall said:

> -My cats live on a dollar a day. 
> -But they worry the world might 
> -run out of tunes! ;-) 
>
> -dk 
>
> Dogs are by nature egalitarians and share their food.

So dogs are left wing and cats are right wing. With more cats
than dogs in America now we know who's to blame for who gets
elected. I have to sometimes build a wall when I adopt a new cat.
Frank Berger
2018-08-02 17:05:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 8/2/2018 12:15 PM, weary flake wrote:
> On 2018-08-02 08:09:25 +0000, Raymond Hall said:
>
>> -My cats live on a dollar a day.
>> -But they worry the world might
>> -run out of tunes! ;-)
>>
>> -dk
>>
>> Dogs are by nature egalitarians and share their food.
>
> So dogs are left wing and cats are right wing.  With more cats
> than dogs in America now we know who's to blame for who gets
> elected.  I have to sometimes build a wall when I adopt a new cat.
>
>

Studies have shown that Republicans give more to charity than Democrats.
JohnGavin
2018-08-02 17:36:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
From an M.I.T. Study:

However, there is another issue to address which is: what to count as charity? All of these studies use the IRS definition of "charity" rather than the biblical definition. In the bible, God defines charity as giving to the needy without receiving, or expecting to receive, anything in return. Most "charity" conservatives give is in the form of tithes to their church. The vast majority of that money goes to salaries and building expenses -- for people and buildings that provide the giver with services. A tiny, miniscule fraction goes to the poor and needy.

So, in actuality, it seems that liberals give quite a bit more to biblical charity than conservatives.

You can read more support for this at conservatives give to religious organizations; liberals to secular charitable organizations and are conservatives more charitable or simply more religious.

You also might be interested in We're Stealing the Tithe Again; What Should a Christian Church Be Like? and The "We Don't Want Your Money" Church.



Read more: http://www.gospelpolitics.com/debunking-the-conservatives-give-more-to-charity-myth.html#ixzz5N2kUhdZT
Frank Berger
2018-08-06 19:25:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 8/2/2018 1:36 PM, JohnGavin wrote:
> From an M.I.T. Study:
>
> However, there is another issue to address which is: what to count as charity? All of these studies use the IRS definition of "charity" rather than the biblical definition. In the bible, God defines charity as giving to the needy without receiving, or expecting to receive, anything in return. Most "charity" conservatives give is in the form of tithes to their church. The vast majority of that money goes to salaries and building expenses -- for people and buildings that provide the giver with services. A tiny, miniscule fraction goes to the poor and needy.
>
> So, in actuality, it seems that liberals give quite a bit more to biblical charity than conservatives.
>
> You can read more support for this at conservatives give to religious organizations; liberals to secular charitable organizations and are conservatives more charitable or simply more religious.
>
> You also might be interested in We're Stealing the Tithe Again; What Should a Christian Church Be Like? and The "We Don't Want Your Money" Church.
>
>
>
> Read more: http://www.gospelpolitics.com/debunking-the-conservatives-give-more-to-charity-myth.html#ixzz5N2kUhdZT
>

Biblical charity? The Jews in the OT were obligated (not forced) to
give 10% of their income to support the Temple infrastructure in
Jerusalem. Among many orthodox Jews today that 10% is still a guideline.
Much of the money given to a synagogue goes to support the costs of
operating the synagogue, sure. But some goes to the funds (Rabbi's
discretionary fund, for example) used for directly helping people in
need. As for considering this a payment for a service, most of your
so-called "services" you get from paying synagogue dues are available
for free. Being a dues-paying member may get you a discount on high
holiday seats and maybe a discount on using the social hall for a
function. But mostly you go to a synagogue to pray, to study, to ask
the Rabbi for advice and so forth. All of that is absolutely free. I
suspect that everything I said applies to churches as well. Correct me
if I'm wrong. Another factor you didn't consider is that if the
religious types didn't give to their churches, some of that would be
given to "real" charity. So just deducting church membership costs or
the money you put in the plate or whatever, would bias the result away
from conservative.
Bob Harper
2018-08-08 18:39:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 8/6/18 12:25 PM, Frank Berger wrote:
> On 8/2/2018 1:36 PM, JohnGavin wrote:
>>  From an M.I.T. Study:
>>
>> However, there is another issue to address which is: what to count as
>> charity? All of these studies use the IRS definition of "charity"
>> rather than the biblical definition. In the bible, God defines charity
>> as giving to the needy without receiving, or expecting to receive,
>> anything in return. Most "charity" conservatives give is in the form
>> of tithes to their church. The vast majority of that money goes to
>> salaries and building expenses -- for people and buildings that
>> provide the giver with services. A tiny, miniscule fraction goes to
>> the poor and needy.
>>
>> So, in actuality, it seems that liberals give quite a bit more to
>> biblical charity than conservatives.
>>
>> You can read more support for this at conservatives give to religious
>> organizations; liberals to secular charitable organizations and are
>> conservatives more charitable or simply more religious.
>>
>> You also might be interested in We're Stealing the Tithe Again; What
>> Should a Christian Church Be Like? and The "We Don't Want Your Money"
>> Church.
>>
>>
>>
>> Read more:
>> http://www.gospelpolitics.com/debunking-the-conservatives-give-more-to-charity-myth.html#ixzz5N2kUhdZT
>>
>>
>
> Biblical charity?  The Jews in the OT were obligated (not forced) to
> give 10% of their income to support the Temple infrastructure in
> Jerusalem. Among many orthodox Jews today that 10% is still a guideline.
>  Much of the money given to a synagogue goes to support the costs of
> operating the synagogue, sure.  But some goes to the funds (Rabbi's
> discretionary fund, for example) used for directly helping people in
> need.  As for considering this a payment for a service, most of your
> so-called "services" you get from paying synagogue dues are available
> for free.  Being a dues-paying member may get you a discount on high
> holiday seats and maybe a discount on using the social hall for a
> function.  But mostly you go to a synagogue to pray, to study, to ask
> the Rabbi for advice and so forth.  All of that is absolutely free.  I
> suspect that everything I said applies to churches as well. Correct me
> if I'm wrong.  Another factor you didn't consider is that if the
> religious types didn't give to their churches, some of that would be
> given to "real" charity.  So just deducting church membership costs or
> the money you put in the plate or whatever, would bias the result away
> from conservative.
>
Lots of 'secular' charitable organizations have notoriously small
percentages of contributed funds used for their alleged purpose, with
large percentages going to fund-raising and salaries. Like Frank to his
synagogue, I give to my church not for 'services', but in my case for
the sacraments (which would be available to me whether I gave a cent or
not; no one is going to ask me at the communion rail or as I go into the
confessional whether I've given X to the parish), the mutual support,
and the corporal and spiritual works of mercy done by the people and the
parish. And like many of my co-religionists, I give also to secular
charities I find worthy of my support. So please don't lecture me about
'real' charity.

Bob Harper
dk
2018-08-06 08:03:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, August 2, 2018 at 9:15:11 AM UTC-7, weary flake wrote:
> On 2018-08-02 08:09:25 +0000, Raymond Hall said:
>
> > -My cats live on a dollar a day. 
> > -But they worry the world might 
> > -run out of tunes! ;-) 
> >
> > Dogs are by nature egalitarians and share their food.
>
> So dogs are left wing and cats are right wing. With more
> cats than dogs in America now we know who's to blame for
> who gets elected.

Non-sense! Cats are apolitical by nature! ;-)

dk
dk
2018-08-06 08:01:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, August 2, 2018 at 1:09:28 AM UTC-7, Raymond Hall wrote:
> -My cats live on a dollar a day. 
> -But they worry the world might 
> -run out of tunes! ;-) 
>
> Dogs are by nature egalitarians and share their food.

But who wants to eat dog food ?!?
Frank Berger
2018-08-02 02:15:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 8/1/2018 5:18 PM, Bozo wrote:
>> On Wednesday, August 1, 2018 at 12:39:31 AM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
>> No no. You don't adjust both the cost and sales for inflation. Just
>> one or the other.
>
> I think weary flake is correct (?). If there is inflation, the proposed cost basis index will increase cost basis, but sales prices will also increase , unless prices are offset by major interest rate increases.In fact. I suspect in most past inflationary eras, real estate prices increase a greater % than the average national inflation rate ( I could be wrong ), just as medical and college tuition costs have.
>

I'm probably confused (I often am). If you simply wanted to avoid
bracket creep (which implies a progressive tax structure is in place),
you can discount the sales price back to the cost basis (using the
general cpi inflation rate). Imagine you've bought an piece of property
and sell it for x% more. Suppose there is no general inflation at all
(or only real estate went up in price) and you've just cleverly made a
great investment. The increase you've realized is all "real" and should
be taxed. If you discounted the sales price back using a real
estate-specific price index, your capital gain would be zero, by definition.

As to the article and what is being proposed, I haven't read it so
probably misunderstand what is being proposed.
Frank Berger
2018-08-01 01:20:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 7/31/2018 8:38 PM, Bozo wrote:
>> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 6:42:52 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
>> Together with the usual ignorance about unintended consquences.
>
> Like the consequences of electing Trump.
>
> About the new cap gains plan and other little-observed inflation effects of new act already passed :
>
> https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/31/tax-cut-upper-income-treasury-department-capital-gains-716320
>

It's sad that a simple change that makes sense becomes politicized.
r***@gmail.com
2018-08-04 09:35:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 7:09:05 PM UTC-4, Bob Harper wrote:
> On 7/31/18 11:24 AM, Frank Berger wrote:
> > On 7/31/2018 2:07 PM, weary flake wrote:
> >> On 2018-07-31 16:41:36 +0000, Bozo said:
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 11:16:21 AM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
> >>>> It's possible that some taxes on
> >>>> the rich are unfair or socially damaging and need correcting.  It
> >>>> doesn't mean you are trying to transfer even more wealth from poor to
> >>>> rich as is often characterized by the Left.
> >>>
> >>> Tax Policy Center's analysis :  http://tinyurl.com/ya4dy9ex
> >>
> >> That article perpetuates the abuse of the term "income".  Income in
> >> the common language is the money you make; in the language of the
> >> partisan economist capital gains and unearned income are "not income".
> >> That apparent left-leaning article, by ommitting the subject, seems to
> >> support lower taxes on capital gains than earned income, so reinforcing
> >> the claim that the Left has the same economic ideas as Trump.
> >>
> >
> > How to you refer to capital gains if not as "income."  Simply capital
> > gains?  The correct definition is that there is earned income (earnings
> > from labor) and unearned income.  Taxes on earnings deter work effort
> > and taxes on unearned income deter investment. Suppose someday we had a
> > flat tax.  I suppose the Left in those circumstances would want a higher
> > rate on unearned income.
>
> Of course they would, because that would be 'fair'. In fact, such a
> policy would be driven not by economic sense, but by envy.
>
> Bob Harper

There are two effects of tax rates. One is that you mention- an effect on incentives at the margin. The other is the effect on net total income of the taxpayer, which has a budget effect: if you cannot afford what you were used to you may be forced to work harder, or sell assets.
There were some 1950s UK surveys of surtax payers which I heard about in grad school. One was from an accountant who made about $125k. At the time the average wage was about $700 per year.
His response to an increase in the tax rate to 97% was to work much harder as he had big bills to pay, and no other way to do it.
Bozo
2018-07-31 19:15:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
>On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 1:07:37 PM UTC-5, weary flake wrote:
> That article perpetuates the abuse of the term "income". ... so reinforcing
> the claim that the Left has the same economic ideas as Trump.

I think rather the article recognizes capital gain income is often not annually re-occurring , as capital assets tend to be held longer term, and that capital assets are much more randomly spread among the population ( many people have no capital assets while most people have some earned income and non-capital assets like bank accounts ), thus not possible to include cap gain income in the study's estimates.

If you are poor, but have some cap gains income, your cap gains rate may be as low as 0 % , not 15-20 % ( for 2017 0 % if taxable income including cap gains and qualified dividends, line 43 Form 1040 , less than $75K filing married-joint) which 0 % poor rate the Left would support , not the same economic ideas/reasons as Trump evidenced by the effects on lower brackets of his recent new tax law.

The Left , eg. Bernie Sanders, seem to advocate for higher taxes on " the wealthy ", even on those Lefties so fortunate.
weary flake
2018-07-31 20:48:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-07-31 19:15:10 +0000, Bozo said:

>>
>> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 1:07:37 PM UTC-5, weary flake wrote:
>> That article perpetuates the abuse of the term "income". ... so reinforcing
>> the claim that the Left has the same economic ideas as Trump.
>
> I think rather the article recognizes capital gain income is often not
> annually re-occurring , as capital assets tend to be held longer term,
> and that capital assets are much more randomly spread among the
> population ( many people have no capital assets while most people have
> some earned income and non-capital assets like bank accounts ), thus
> not possible to include cap gain income in the study's estimates.

Capital gains are not mentioned in the article. Many rich people have
the flexibility
to draw money from their companies as either salary or as capital
gains, as they
so choose. So in my view, it's common sense to have the same tax rates
for capital
gains and earned income.

> If you are poor, but have some cap gains income, your cap gains rate
> may be as low as 0 % , not 15-20 % ( for 2017 0 % if taxable income
> including cap gains and qualified dividends, line 43 Form 1040 , less
> than $75K filing married-joint) which 0 % poor rate the Left would
> support , not the same economic ideas/reasons as Trump evidenced by the
> effects on lower brackets of his recent new tax law.
>
> The Left , eg. Bernie Sanders, seem to advocate for higher taxes on "
> the wealthy ", even on those Lefties so fortunate.

So did Bill Clinton, except he didn't actually do it. If "the wealthy"
is defined
as "high salaries" then neither would Sanders. Bill Gates, for
example, became the
richest man in the world from capital gains, not from salaries. He had
the choice
which way to book his income, and capital gains are taxed at a lower rate.
Bozo
2018-07-31 22:59:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
>On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 3:49:00 PM UTC-5, weary flake wrote:
> So in my view, it's common sense to have the same tax rates
> for capital gains and earned income.

Yes, but capital assets , capital gains , and the flexibility to allocate income to cap gains are not widely shared among the population, thus the study's estimates dont consider for those apolitical reasons.

> If "the wealthy"
> is defined
> as "high salaries" then neither would Sanders.

I'm reasonably sure Bernie Sanders would tax the wealthiests' cap gains higher !!
weary flake
2018-07-31 17:51:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-07-31 16:16:14 +0000, Frank Berger said:

> On 7/31/2018 12:00 PM, weary flake wrote:
>> On 2018-07-31 14:25:23 +0000, Frank Berger said:
>>
>>> On 7/31/2018 10:07 AM, Raymond Hall wrote:
>>>> ... and of course, the 'trickle down' effect being the biggest myth in
>>>> history, only believed by the truly gullible few.
>>>>
>>>> Ray Hall, Taree
>>>>
>>>
>>> The myth is when the Left defines "trickle down economics" in such a
>>> way as to make it untrue and blaming the Right for it.  A poor guy who
>>> has a job may have it because a rich guy has risked his wealth
>>> (capital) to run a business.  That's trickle down.  Some changes in
>>> policy that benefit the rich will have a trickle down effect and some
>>> won't.
>>
>> Trickle down works in the sense that any random economic policy works.
>> Since it's impossible to avoid "generating economic activity" anything
>> at all and even nothing at all works to "generate economic activity".
>> Street Crime has a powerful effect on the economy, with each dollar
>> stolen generating a thousand dollars in security, maybe we should
>> encourage more muggings to bring us out of the economic doldrums?  Why,
>> if crime were to go away think of all those lost jobs and the costly
>> homes bought to avoid it!
>>
>
> There is no such thing as a POLICY of trickle down economics espoused
> by any economists or even Republican/Conservative/Libertarian
> politicians. The Left made that up in order to attack the Right.
>
> The question, when considering, for example, a tax break for the rich,
> is what the tax burden should be. You can't always just keep
> increasing the taxes on the rich as social policy any more than you can
> favor an all vs. nothing wealth distribution. It's possible that some
> taxes on the rich are unfair or socially damaging and need correcting.
> It doesn't mean you are trying to transfer even more wealth from poor
> to rich as is often characterized by the Left.

Reagan approved of the Democratic pushed law taxing capital gains the same as
earned income in the last couple years of his administration. There's never
been anything like it before or since. It is Reagan at his best, but the Left
since then has been happy with lower tax rates for capital gains.

I recall a fraud perpetuated by the Bill Clinton presidency, the so-called
Millionaires Tax; it only taxed earned incomes of above a million dollars
a year, and leaving unearned income unaffected. And the title of the act was
misleading. Informal titles of acts like calling the Affordable Care Act
"Obamacare" is stupid too, we don't call Medicare "Johnsoncare" or HMOs
"Nixoncare".
Frank Berger
2018-07-31 18:07:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 7/31/2018 1:51 PM, weary flake wrote:
> On 2018-07-31 16:16:14 +0000, Frank Berger said:
>
>> On 7/31/2018 12:00 PM, weary flake wrote:
>>> On 2018-07-31 14:25:23 +0000, Frank Berger said:
>>>
>>>> On 7/31/2018 10:07 AM, Raymond Hall wrote:
>>>>> ... and of course, the 'trickle down' effect being the biggest myth
>>>>> in history, only believed by the truly gullible few.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ray Hall, Taree
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The myth is when the Left defines "trickle down economics" in such a
>>>> way as to make it untrue and blaming the Right for it.  A poor guy
>>>> who has a job may have it because a rich guy has risked his wealth
>>>> (capital) to run a business.  That's trickle down.  Some changes in
>>>> policy that benefit the rich will have a trickle down effect and
>>>> some won't.
>>>
>>> Trickle down works in the sense that any random economic policy works.
>>> Since it's impossible to avoid "generating economic activity" anything
>>> at all and even nothing at all works to "generate economic activity".
>>> Street Crime has a powerful effect on the economy, with each dollar
>>> stolen generating a thousand dollars in security, maybe we should
>>> encourage more muggings to bring us out of the economic doldrums?  Why,
>>> if crime were to go away think of all those lost jobs and the costly
>>> homes bought to avoid it!
>>>
>>
>> There is no such thing as a POLICY of trickle down economics espoused
>> by any economists or even Republican/Conservative/Libertarian
>> politicians. The Left made that up in order to attack the Right.
>>
>> The question, when considering, for example, a tax break for the rich,
>> is what the tax burden should be.  You can't always just keep
>> increasing the taxes on the rich as social policy any more than you
>> can favor an all vs. nothing wealth distribution.  It's possible that
>> some taxes on the rich are unfair or socially damaging and need
>> correcting. It doesn't mean you are trying to transfer even more
>> wealth from poor to rich as is often characterized by the Left.
>
> Reagan approved of the Democratic pushed law taxing capital gains the
> same as
> earned income in the last couple years of his administration.  There's
> never
> been anything like it before or since.  It is Reagan at his best, but
> the Left
> since then has been happy with lower tax rates for capital gains.
>
> I recall a fraud perpetuated by the Bill Clinton presidency, the so-called
> Millionaires Tax; it only taxed earned incomes of above a million dollars
> a year, and leaving unearned income unaffected.  And the title of the
> act was
> misleading.  Informal titles of acts like calling the Affordable Care Act
> "Obamacare" is stupid too, we don't call Medicare "Johnsoncare" or HMOs
> "Nixoncare".
>


We sometimes forget that a Politician's primary objective is to get
elected and re-elected. That will explain a lot of his behavior. More
charitably, it is the nature (or was) if politics to compromise one's
principles in one area to satisfy them in another.
weary flake
2018-07-31 18:22:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-07-31 18:07:49 +0000, Frank Berger said:

> On 7/31/2018 1:51 PM, weary flake wrote:
>> On 2018-07-31 16:16:14 +0000, Frank Berger said:
>>
>>> On 7/31/2018 12:00 PM, weary flake wrote:
>>>> On 2018-07-31 14:25:23 +0000, Frank Berger said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 7/31/2018 10:07 AM, Raymond Hall wrote:
>>>>>> ... and of course, the 'trickle down' effect being the biggest myth in
>>>>>> history, only believed by the truly gullible few.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ray Hall, Taree
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The myth is when the Left defines "trickle down economics" in such a
>>>>> way as to make it untrue and blaming the Right for it.  A poor guy who
>>>>> has a job may have it because a rich guy has risked his wealth
>>>>> (capital) to run a business.  That's trickle down.  Some changes in
>>>>> policy that benefit the rich will have a trickle down effect and some
>>>>> won't.
>>>>
>>>> Trickle down works in the sense that any random economic policy works.
>>>> Since it's impossible to avoid "generating economic activity" anything
>>>> at all and even nothing at all works to "generate economic activity".
>>>> Street Crime has a powerful effect on the economy, with each dollar
>>>> stolen generating a thousand dollars in security, maybe we should
>>>> encourage more muggings to bring us out of the economic doldrums?  Why,
>>>> if crime were to go away think of all those lost jobs and the costly
>>>> homes bought to avoid it!
>>>>
>>>
>>> There is no such thing as a POLICY of trickle down economics espoused
>>> by any economists or even Republican/Conservative/Libertarian
>>> politicians. The Left made that up in order to attack the Right.
>>>
>>> The question, when considering, for example, a tax break for the rich,
>>> is what the tax burden should be.  You can't always just keep
>>> increasing the taxes on the rich as social policy any more than you can
>>> favor an all vs. nothing wealth distribution.  It's possible that some
>>> taxes on the rich are unfair or socially damaging and need correcting.
>>> It doesn't mean you are trying to transfer even more wealth from poor
>>> to rich as is often characterized by the Left.
>>
>> Reagan approved of the Democratic pushed law taxing capital gains the same as
>> earned income in the last couple years of his administration.  There's never
>> been anything like it before or since.  It is Reagan at his best, but the Left
>> since then has been happy with lower tax rates for capital gains.
>>
>> I recall a fraud perpetuated by the Bill Clinton presidency, the so-called
>> Millionaires Tax; it only taxed earned incomes of above a million dollars
>> a year, and leaving unearned income unaffected.  And the title of the act was
>> misleading.  Informal titles of acts like calling the Affordable Care Act
>> "Obamacare" is stupid too, we don't call Medicare "Johnsoncare" or HMOs
>> "Nixoncare".
>>
>
>
> We sometimes forget that a Politician's primary objective is to get
> elected and re-elected. That will explain a lot of his behavior. More
> charitably, it is the nature (or was) if politics to compromise one's
> principles in one area to satisfy them in another.

Yes, and lots of the anti-whatever-president behavior is "if the president
is for it it must be bad". What that attitude rarely admits is that these
opponent's policies are being determined by the hated president, as they
have to change their minds to align themselves against the president.
Trump's opponents are just like Obama's oppenents were.
Frank Berger
2018-07-31 18:26:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 7/31/2018 2:22 PM, weary flake wrote:
> On 2018-07-31 18:07:49 +0000, Frank Berger said:
>
>> On 7/31/2018 1:51 PM, weary flake wrote:
>>> On 2018-07-31 16:16:14 +0000, Frank Berger said:
>>>
>>>> On 7/31/2018 12:00 PM, weary flake wrote:
>>>>> On 2018-07-31 14:25:23 +0000, Frank Berger said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 7/31/2018 10:07 AM, Raymond Hall wrote:
>>>>>>> ... and of course, the 'trickle down' effect being the biggest
>>>>>>> myth in history, only believed by the truly gullible few.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ray Hall, Taree
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The myth is when the Left defines "trickle down economics" in such
>>>>>> a way as to make it untrue and blaming the Right for it.  A poor
>>>>>> guy who has a job may have it because a rich guy has risked his
>>>>>> wealth (capital) to run a business.  That's trickle down.  Some
>>>>>> changes in policy that benefit the rich will have a trickle down
>>>>>> effect and some won't.
>>>>>
>>>>> Trickle down works in the sense that any random economic policy works.
>>>>> Since it's impossible to avoid "generating economic activity" anything
>>>>> at all and even nothing at all works to "generate economic activity".
>>>>> Street Crime has a powerful effect on the economy, with each dollar
>>>>> stolen generating a thousand dollars in security, maybe we should
>>>>> encourage more muggings to bring us out of the economic doldrums?
>>>>> Why,
>>>>> if crime were to go away think of all those lost jobs and the costly
>>>>> homes bought to avoid it!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There is no such thing as a POLICY of trickle down economics
>>>> espoused by any economists or even
>>>> Republican/Conservative/Libertarian politicians. The Left made that
>>>> up in order to attack the Right.
>>>>
>>>> The question, when considering, for example, a tax break for the
>>>> rich, is what the tax burden should be.  You can't always just keep
>>>> increasing the taxes on the rich as social policy any more than you
>>>> can favor an all vs. nothing wealth distribution.  It's possible
>>>> that some taxes on the rich are unfair or socially damaging and need
>>>> correcting. It doesn't mean you are trying to transfer even more
>>>> wealth from poor to rich as is often characterized by the Left.
>>>
>>> Reagan approved of the Democratic pushed law taxing capital gains the
>>> same as
>>> earned income in the last couple years of his administration.
>>> There's never
>>> been anything like it before or since.  It is Reagan at his best, but
>>> the Left
>>> since then has been happy with lower tax rates for capital gains.
>>>
>>> I recall a fraud perpetuated by the Bill Clinton presidency, the
>>> so-called
>>> Millionaires Tax; it only taxed earned incomes of above a million
>>> dollars
>>> a year, and leaving unearned income unaffected.  And the title of the
>>> act was
>>> misleading.  Informal titles of acts like calling the Affordable Care
>>> Act
>>> "Obamacare" is stupid too, we don't call Medicare "Johnsoncare" or HMOs
>>> "Nixoncare".
>>>
>>
>>
>> We sometimes forget that a Politician's primary objective is to get
>> elected and re-elected. That will explain a lot of his behavior.  More
>> charitably, it is the nature (or was) if politics to compromise one's
>> principles in one area to satisfy them in another.
>
> Yes, and lots of the anti-whatever-president behavior is "if the president
> is for it it must be bad".  What that attitude rarely admits is that these
> opponent's policies are being determined by the hated president, as they
> have to change their minds to align themselves against the president.
> Trump's opponents are just like Obama's oppenents were.
>

The question is whether the transparent "vocally oppose anything and
everything Trump says and does" for the purpose of regaining political
control will backfire (again) and get him re-elected.
Bozo
2018-07-31 20:17:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
>On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 1:26:41 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
> The question is whether the transparent "vocally oppose anything and
> everything Trump says and does.."

As the Right was saying in 1964:

"Extremism in support of virtue is no vice; moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue." Sen.Barry Goldwater
Frank Berger
2018-07-31 20:22:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 7/31/2018 4:17 PM, Bozo wrote:
>> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 1:26:41 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
>> The question is whether the transparent "vocally oppose anything and
>> everything Trump says and does.."
>
> As the Right was saying in 1964:
>
> "Extremism in support of virtue is no vice; moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue." Sen.Barry Goldwater
>

Not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing. The problem is in making
the decision that your opponent is the devil himself. Then the first
cause does apply.
drh8h
2018-07-31 13:13:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 9:51:30 PM UTC-4, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> According to this recent article:
>
> - In much of urban California, historically middle-class professionals—firefighters, homebuilders, young lawyers and countless others lower down the economic food chain—can no longer afford to buy homes because they simply can’t compete in their local real estate markets.
>
> https://www.fastcompany.com/90207566/how-our-budding-tech-utopia-is-setting-the-stage-for-a-working-class-dystopia

I don't know anything about CA, but here in my heartland, new starter homes are not being built even though job growth is bringing in large numbers of young workers. The economics do not work for the builders. Some want to build more but cannot. Part of it is after years of telling everyone they can go to college or get a tech job, very few join the trades. A good example of how supply and demand do not work to classical models.

DH
Frank Berger
2018-07-31 14:12:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 7/31/2018 9:13 AM, drh8h wrote:
> On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 9:51:30 PM UTC-4, ***@gmail.com wrote:
>> According to this recent article:
>>
>> - In much of urban California, historically middle-class professionals—firefighters, homebuilders, young lawyers and countless others lower down the economic food chain—can no longer afford to buy homes because they simply can’t compete in their local real estate markets.
>>
>> https://www.fastcompany.com/90207566/how-our-budding-tech-utopia-is-setting-the-stage-for-a-working-class-dystopia
>
> I don't know anything about CA, but here in my heartland, new starter homes are not being built even though job growth is bringing in large numbers of young workers. The economics do not work for the builders. Some want to build more but cannot. Part of it is after years of telling everyone they can go to college or get a tech job, very few join the trades. A good example of how supply and demand do not work to classical models.
>
> DH
>


When were "middle-class professionals-firefighters........" able to
afford to buy homes in "much of urban Californai?" Not 35 years ago
when I moved from LA to Dallas in order to be able to buy a home.

Not really sure what a "starter" home is. In urban areas the way
housing markets have traditionally worked is that richer folks by new
housing and poorer folks buy older (filtered down) housing. That's an
oversimplification, but generally true. It doesn't male economic sense
for builders to build new "starter" homes. This applies particularly to
denser urban areas where land is expensive. Levittown worked in the late
40s and early 50s because land was cheap. My grandmother criticized my
parents for moving from the city to the "wilderness."
Bozo
2018-07-31 13:52:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Will this Trump proposal help lower housing costs ? :

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-tax-cut-capital-gains-inflation-index-plan-2018-7
weary flake
2018-07-31 15:46:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-07-31 13:52:13 +0000, Bozo said:

> Will this Trump proposal help lower housing costs ? :
>
> https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-tax-cut-capital-gains-inflation-index-plan-2018-7
>

If the cost basis of capital gains is to be raised with inflation
then the sales price should be raised with inflation too, because the
sale was made with deflated dollars, so it would come about to the
same tax rate. Instead, the proposal is a tax break, paid by those
who aren't getting the tax break.
Bozo
2018-07-31 14:56:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
>On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 8:51:30 PM UTC-5, ***@gmail.com wrote:
>,,,—can no longer afford to buy homes because they simply can’t compete in their local real estate markets.


Or even to rent : https://www.businessinsider.com/why-people-are-leaving-san-francisco-2018-3

The widening income gaps should also be of concern to rich guys who own companies needing workers.
Ed Presson
2018-07-31 19:07:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
wrote in message
news:77d1c844-52ab-4d6a-bdab-***@googlegroups.com...

According to this recent article:

>- In much of urban California, historically middle-class
>professionals-firefighters, homebuilders, young lawyers and countless
>others lower down the economic food chain-can no longer afford to buy homes
> >because they simply can't compete in their local real estate markets.

>https://www.fastcompany.com/90207566/how-our-budding-tech-utopia-is-setting-the-stage-for-a-working-class-dystopia

This is a very real problem in the greater Seattle area.
Frank Berger
2018-07-31 19:21:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 7/31/2018 3:07 PM, Ed Presson wrote:
> wrote in message
> news:77d1c844-52ab-4d6a-bdab-***@googlegroups.com...
>
> According to this recent article:
>
>> - In much of urban California, historically middle-class
>> professionals-firefighters, homebuilders, young lawyers and countless
>> others lower down the economic food chain-can no longer afford to buy homes
>>> because they simply can't compete in their local real estate markets.
>
>> https://www.fastcompany.com/90207566/how-our-budding-tech-utopia-is-setting-the-stage-for-a-working-class-dystopia
>
> This is a very real problem in the greater Seattle area.
>
>

I understand there is affordable housing in Detroit.
r***@gmail.com
2018-08-04 09:45:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 3:21:31 PM UTC-4, Frank Berger wrote:
> On 7/31/2018 3:07 PM, Ed Presson wrote:
> > wrote in message
> > news:77d1c844-52ab-4d6a-bdab-***@googlegroups.com...
> >
> > According to this recent article:
> >
> >> - In much of urban California, historically middle-class
> >> professionals-firefighters, homebuilders, young lawyers and countless
> >> others lower down the economic food chain-can no longer afford to buy homes
> >>> because they simply can't compete in their local real estate markets.
> >
> >> https://www.fastcompany.com/90207566/how-our-budding-tech-utopia-is-setting-the-stage-for-a-working-class-dystopia
> >
> > This is a very real problem in the greater Seattle area.
> >
> >
>
> I understand there is affordable housing in Detroit.

There's cheap housing in Detroit, and in Camden NJ, but it's priced by willingness and ability to pay locally. I had a boss in NJ originally from Detroit. His family home was unsaleable at $2500 when his mother died (1980s). In NJ it would have been about 40x that.
Steven Bornfeld
2018-08-04 17:13:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 8/4/2018 5:45 AM, ***@gmail.com wrote:
>> I understand there is affordable housing in Detroit.
>
> There's cheap housing in Detroit, and in Camden NJ, but it's priced by willingness and ability to pay locally. I had a boss in NJ originally from Detroit. His family home was unsaleable at $2500 when his mother died (1980s). In NJ it would have been about 40x that.
>

And yet--I've heard that parts of Detroit are gentrifying; that some
tech companies have set up shop. Ditto Pittsburgh.
Of course, anyone living in NYC in the mid-late '70s knows how far back
the city has come. It's been good for some, obviously not so good for
others. Tough to predict, esp. about the future (to paraphrase Yogi).
Bozo
2018-08-04 19:17:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
>On Saturday, August 4, 2018 at 12:13:26 PM UTC-5, Steven Bornfeld wrote:
>It's been good for some, obviously not so good for
> others. Tough to predict, esp. about the future (to paraphrase Yogi).

Deja vu all over again.
Steven Bornfeld
2018-08-01 18:42:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 7/30/2018 9:51 PM, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> According to this recent article:
>
> - In much of urban California, historically middle-class professionals—firefighters, homebuilders, young lawyers and countless others lower down the economic food chain—can no longer afford to buy homes because they simply can’t compete in their local real estate markets.
>
> https://www.fastcompany.com/90207566/how-our-budding-tech-utopia-is-setting-the-stage-for-a-working-class-dystopia
>

I live in Brooklyn NY, so yes--it's happening all around me.

Steve
Raymond Hall
2018-08-02 04:38:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
-I live in Brooklyn NY, so yes--it's happening all around me. 
-Steve 

Sydney, there are many suburbs unavailable for professionals. Some like Chatswood, have grown with an increasing Chinese presence, raising house prices. Not that I am anti-chinese in any way but it is a fact. Also the greater discrepancy between professional salaries and executive salaries in this age of neo-conservative values does not help, including the very wealthy who buy up about 20 properties and ride the property bubble, extracting government handouts in the process (called negative gearing in Oz). These are the very people who then whinge about the people getting welfare to put crusts on the table to survive.

Ray Hall, Taree
Frank Berger
2018-08-02 04:55:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 8/2/2018 12:38 AM, Raymond Hall wrote:
> -I live in Brooklyn NY, so yes--it's happening all around me.
> -Steve
>
> Sydney, there are many suburbs unavailable for professionals. Some like Chatswood, have grown with an increasing Chinese presence, raising house prices. Not that I am anti-chinese in any way but it is a fact. Also the greater discrepancy between professional salaries and executive salaries in this age of neo-conservative values does not help, including the very wealthy who buy up about 20 properties and ride the property bubble, extracting government handouts in the process (called negative gearing in Oz). These are the very people who then whinge about the people getting welfare to put crusts on the table to survive.
>
> Ray Hall, Taree
>

Here's a report on research that shows the common perception of
increasing income inequality is exaggerated. The researchers are not
right-wingers.

https://tinyurl.com/y7gypmwg

The question remains is there real evidence of the middle class being
squeezed?
g***@gmail.com
2018-08-02 04:59:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, August 1, 2018 at 6:55:26 PM UTC-10, Frank Berger wrote:
> On 8/2/2018 12:38 AM, Raymond Hall wrote:
> > -I live in Brooklyn NY, so yes--it's happening all around me.
> > -Steve
> >
> > Sydney, there are many suburbs unavailable for professionals. Some like Chatswood, have grown with an increasing Chinese presence, raising house prices. Not that I am anti-chinese in any way but it is a fact. Also the greater discrepancy between professional salaries and executive salaries in this age of neo-conservative values does not help, including the very wealthy who buy up about 20 properties and ride the property bubble, extracting government handouts in the process (called negative gearing in Oz). These are the very people who then whinge about the people getting welfare to put crusts on the table to survive.
> >
> > Ray Hall, Taree
> >
>
> Here's a report on research that shows the common perception of
> increasing income inequality is exaggerated. The researchers are not
> right-wingers.
>
> https://tinyurl.com/y7gypmwg
>
> The question remains is there real evidence of the middle class being
> squeezed?

- The forces in a capitalist society, if left unchecked, tend to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

Jawaharlal Nehru (d.1964)
g***@gmail.com
2018-08-05 03:53:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, August 1, 2018 at 6:59:04 PM UTC-10, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 1, 2018 at 6:55:26 PM UTC-10, Frank Berger wrote:
> > On 8/2/2018 12:38 AM, Raymond Hall wrote:
> > > -I live in Brooklyn NY, so yes--it's happening all around me.
> > > -Steve
> > >
> > > Sydney, there are many suburbs unavailable for professionals. Some like Chatswood, have grown with an increasing Chinese presence, raising house prices. Not that I am anti-chinese in any way but it is a fact. Also the greater discrepancy between professional salaries and executive salaries in this age of neo-conservative values does not help, including the very wealthy who buy up about 20 properties and ride the property bubble, extracting government handouts in the process (called negative gearing in Oz). These are the very people who then whinge about the people getting welfare to put crusts on the table to survive.
> > >
> > > Ray Hall, Taree
> > >
> >
> > Here's a report on research that shows the common perception of
> > increasing income inequality is exaggerated. The researchers are not
> > right-wingers.
> >
> > https://tinyurl.com/y7gypmwg
> >
> > The question remains is there real evidence of the middle class being
> > squeezed?
>
> - The forces in a capitalist society, if left unchecked, tend to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.
>
> Jawaharlal Nehru (d.1964)

In these times, the rich are now being driven out by the richer:

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/article214756520.html
g***@gmail.com
2018-08-02 04:59:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, August 1, 2018 at 6:55:26 PM UTC-10, Frank Berger wrote:
> On 8/2/2018 12:38 AM, Raymond Hall wrote:
> > -I live in Brooklyn NY, so yes--it's happening all around me.
> > -Steve
> >
> > Sydney, there are many suburbs unavailable for professionals. Some like Chatswood, have grown with an increasing Chinese presence, raising house prices. Not that I am anti-chinese in any way but it is a fact. Also the greater discrepancy between professional salaries and executive salaries in this age of neo-conservative values does not help, including the very wealthy who buy up about 20 properties and ride the property bubble, extracting government handouts in the process (called negative gearing in Oz). These are the very people who then whinge about the people getting welfare to put crusts on the table to survive.
> >
> > Ray Hall, Taree
> >
>
> Here's a report on research that shows the common perception of
> increasing income inequality is exaggerated. The researchers are not
> right-wingers.
>
> https://tinyurl.com/y7gypmwg
>
> The question remains is there real evidence of the middle class being
> squeezed?

Do those 'researchers' also believe that global warming is not happening?
Bozo
2018-08-02 13:16:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
>On Wednesday, August 1, 2018 at 11:55:26 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
> The question remains is there real evidence of the middle class being
> squeezed?

I feel the squeeze. We rarely eat good beef ( probably a good thing health wise but at my age that ship has largely sailed ), and IF I sold my current 3-BR home, purchased in 1989, to downsize to a smaller 2 BR condo, my house sale net would not cover the price of the new condo. I don not live in a growth area.

Then there is the cost of good red wine !
Frank Berger
2018-08-02 13:27:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 8/2/2018 9:16 AM, Bozo wrote:
>> On Wednesday, August 1, 2018 at 11:55:26 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
>> The question remains is there real evidence of the middle class being
>> squeezed?
>
> I feel the squeeze. We rarely eat good beef ( probably a good thing health wise but at my age that ship has largely sailed ), and IF I sold my current 3-BR home, purchased in 1989, to downsize to a smaller 2 BR condo, my house sale net would not cover the price of the new condo. I don not live in a growth area.
>
> Then there is the cost of good red wine !
>

My whole adult life (including into retirement) I didn't have has much
money as I would have liked, couldn't afford the kind of car I wanted to
drive, couldn't afford the house I would have liked, struggled to
educate my kids, can't visit my grandchildren in Israel as often as I
would like, etc. But I made (and continue to make) do. I never felt I
was being middle-class squeezed or entitled to any more than I had. I
figured I didn't work hard enough or didn't get educated enough or in
the right field or have enough ambition or was too lazy or just wasn't
smart enough to have all that stuff. I got exactly what I deserved.
Bozo
2018-08-02 13:46:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In 1974, room , board and tuition at my small, private, Midwest college was $3300. For 2017-18, same school,$66500.

Per the US Census Bureau, median US household income in 1974 was $11000 ; in 2016 , $59039.
r***@gmail.com
2018-08-04 09:51:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, August 2, 2018 at 9:46:37 AM UTC-4, Bozo wrote:
> In 1974, room , board and tuition at my small, private, Midwest college was $3300. For 2017-18, same school,$66500.
>
> Per the US Census Bureau, median US household income in 1974 was $11000 ; in 2016 , $59039.

In 1972 tuition at Stanford was $4392. Room $400 per quarter, food a la carte (I could not afford a meal plan). Those numbers have gone up tenfold, or more. Books etc have gone up more.
g***@gmail.com
2018-08-04 15:40:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, August 3, 2018 at 11:51:18 PM UTC-10, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, August 2, 2018 at 9:46:37 AM UTC-4, Bozo wrote:
> > In 1974, room , board and tuition at my small, private, Midwest college was $3300. For 2017-18, same school,$66500.
> >
> > Per the US Census Bureau, median US household income in 1974 was $11000 ; in 2016 , $59039.
>
> In 1972 tuition at Stanford was $4392. Room $400 per quarter, food a la carte (I could not afford a meal plan). Those numbers have gone up tenfold, or more. Books etc have gone up more.

"6 common expenses that used to be insanely cheap":

http://www.mcall.com/business/mc-common-expenses-that-used-to-be-cheap-20170511-story.html
Steven Bornfeld
2018-08-02 15:32:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 8/2/2018 12:55 AM, Frank Berger wrote:
> On 8/2/2018 12:38 AM, Raymond Hall wrote:
>> -I live in Brooklyn NY, so yes--it's happening all around me.
>> -Steve
>>
>> Sydney, there are many suburbs unavailable for professionals. Some
>> like Chatswood, have grown with an increasing Chinese presence,
>> raising house prices. Not that I am anti-chinese in any way but it is
>> a fact. Also the greater discrepancy between professional salaries and
>> executive salaries in this age of neo-conservative values does not
>> help, including the very wealthy who buy up about 20 properties and
>> ride the property bubble, extracting government handouts in the
>> process (called negative gearing in Oz). These are the very people who
>> then whinge about the people getting welfare to put crusts on the
>> table to survive.
>>
>> Ray Hall, Taree
>>
>
> Here's a report on research that shows the common perception of
> increasing income inequality is exaggerated.  The researchers are not
> right-wingers.
>
> https://tinyurl.com/y7gypmwg
>
> The question remains is there real evidence of the middle class being
> squeezed?


Interesting--thanks for posting this. I usually watch Solmon on the
Newshour, and I remember the splash Piketty's book made when it came out.
Do you know how this analysis figures capital gains into income, or
wealth distribution?

Steve
Frank Berger
2018-08-02 15:49:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 8/2/2018 11:32 AM, Steven Bornfeld wrote:
> On 8/2/2018 12:55 AM, Frank Berger wrote:
>> On 8/2/2018 12:38 AM, Raymond Hall wrote:
>>> -I live in Brooklyn NY, so yes--it's happening all around me.
>>> -Steve
>>>
>>> Sydney, there are many suburbs unavailable for professionals. Some
>>> like Chatswood, have grown with an increasing Chinese presence,
>>> raising house prices. Not that I am anti-chinese in any way but it is
>>> a fact. Also the greater discrepancy between professional salaries
>>> and executive salaries in this age of neo-conservative values does
>>> not help, including the very wealthy who buy up about 20 properties
>>> and ride the property bubble, extracting government handouts in the
>>> process (called negative gearing in Oz). These are the very people
>>> who then whinge about the people getting welfare to put crusts on the
>>> table to survive.
>>>
>>> Ray Hall, Taree
>>>
>>
>> Here's a report on research that shows the common perception of
>> increasing income inequality is exaggerated.  The researchers are not
>> right-wingers.
>>
>> https://tinyurl.com/y7gypmwg
>>
>> The question remains is there real evidence of the middle class being
>> squeezed?
>
>
> Interesting--thanks for posting this.  I usually watch Solmon on the
> Newshour, and I remember the splash Piketty's book made when it came out.
> Do you know how this analysis figures capital gains into income, or
> wealth distribution?
>
> Steve

I know nothing about the study. My rule of thumb is to be skeptical
of every popular notion, everything ever said by every politician,
everything that appears in my facebook news feed. I once almost missed
seeing the northern lights when in school in Madison, Wisconsin. People
kept running into my room telling me to come outside and see the
northern lights. Yeah, right. Go smoke some more dope. Finally I went
outside and was blown away. Some day someone is going to tell me to
take cover from the meteor about to hit earth and I will die. This
personality does have some advantages. I will never fall for a
telephone scam. Mother Theresa couldn't sell me an insurance policy.
Steven Bornfeld
2018-08-02 17:54:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 8/2/2018 11:49 AM, Frank Berger wrote:
> On 8/2/2018 11:32 AM, Steven Bornfeld wrote:
>> On 8/2/2018 12:55 AM, Frank Berger wrote:
>>> On 8/2/2018 12:38 AM, Raymond Hall wrote:
>>>> -I live in Brooklyn NY, so yes--it's happening all around me.
>>>> -Steve
>>>>
>>>> Sydney, there are many suburbs unavailable for professionals. Some
>>>> like Chatswood, have grown with an increasing Chinese presence,
>>>> raising house prices. Not that I am anti-chinese in any way but it
>>>> is a fact. Also the greater discrepancy between professional
>>>> salaries and executive salaries in this age of neo-conservative
>>>> values does not help, including the very wealthy who buy up about 20
>>>> properties and ride the property bubble, extracting government
>>>> handouts in the process (called negative gearing in Oz). These are
>>>> the very people who then whinge about the people getting welfare to
>>>> put crusts on the table to survive.
>>>>
>>>> Ray Hall, Taree
>>>>
>>>
>>> Here's a report on research that shows the common perception of
>>> increasing income inequality is exaggerated.  The researchers are not
>>> right-wingers.
>>>
>>> https://tinyurl.com/y7gypmwg
>>>
>>> The question remains is there real evidence of the middle class being
>>> squeezed?
>>
>>
>> Interesting--thanks for posting this.  I usually watch Solmon on the
>> Newshour, and I remember the splash Piketty's book made when it came out.
>> Do you know how this analysis figures capital gains into income, or
>> wealth distribution?
>>
>> Steve
>
>  I know nothing about the study.  My rule of thumb is to be skeptical
> of every popular notion, everything ever said by every politician,
> everything that appears in my facebook news feed.  I once almost missed
> seeing the northern lights when in school in Madison, Wisconsin.  People
> kept running into my room telling me to come outside and see the
> northern lights.  Yeah, right.  Go smoke some more dope.  Finally I went
> outside and was blown away.  Some day someone is going to tell me to
> take cover from the meteor about to hit earth and I will die. This
> personality does have some advantages.  I will never fall for a
> telephone scam. Mother Theresa couldn't sell me an insurance policy.


We were in Reykjavik for a couple of nights in early March, and reserved
a "Northern Lights" tour. Froze our asses, saw nothing. The week
before, we'd heard of someone in northern Wisconsin seeing them.

Steve
Frank Berger
2018-08-02 18:00:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 8/2/2018 1:54 PM, Steven Bornfeld wrote:
> On 8/2/2018 11:49 AM, Frank Berger wrote:
>> On 8/2/2018 11:32 AM, Steven Bornfeld wrote:
>>> On 8/2/2018 12:55 AM, Frank Berger wrote:
>>>> On 8/2/2018 12:38 AM, Raymond Hall wrote:
>>>>> -I live in Brooklyn NY, so yes--it's happening all around me.
>>>>> -Steve
>>>>>
>>>>> Sydney, there are many suburbs unavailable for professionals. Some
>>>>> like Chatswood, have grown with an increasing Chinese presence,
>>>>> raising house prices. Not that I am anti-chinese in any way but it
>>>>> is a fact. Also the greater discrepancy between professional
>>>>> salaries and executive salaries in this age of neo-conservative
>>>>> values does not help, including the very wealthy who buy up about
>>>>> 20 properties and ride the property bubble, extracting government
>>>>> handouts in the process (called negative gearing in Oz). These are
>>>>> the very people who then whinge about the people getting welfare to
>>>>> put crusts on the table to survive.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ray Hall, Taree
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Here's a report on research that shows the common perception of
>>>> increasing income inequality is exaggerated.  The researchers are
>>>> not right-wingers.
>>>>
>>>> https://tinyurl.com/y7gypmwg
>>>>
>>>> The question remains is there real evidence of the middle class
>>>> being squeezed?
>>>
>>>
>>> Interesting--thanks for posting this.  I usually watch Solmon on the
>>> Newshour, and I remember the splash Piketty's book made when it came
>>> out.
>>> Do you know how this analysis figures capital gains into income, or
>>> wealth distribution?
>>>
>>> Steve
>>
>>   I know nothing about the study.  My rule of thumb is to be skeptical
>> of every popular notion, everything ever said by every politician,
>> everything that appears in my facebook news feed.  I once almost
>> missed seeing the northern lights when in school in Madison,
>> Wisconsin.  People kept running into my room telling me to come
>> outside and see the northern lights.  Yeah, right.  Go smoke some more
>> dope.  Finally I went outside and was blown away.  Some day someone is
>> going to tell me to take cover from the meteor about to hit earth and
>> I will die. This personality does have some advantages.  I will never
>> fall for a telephone scam. Mother Theresa couldn't sell me an
>> insurance policy.
>
>
> We were in Reykjavik for a couple of nights in early March, and reserved
> a "Northern Lights" tour.  Froze our asses, saw nothing.  The week
> before, we'd heard of someone in northern Wisconsin seeing them.
>
> Steve

You have to make a reservation. Being stoned helps.
Steven Bornfeld
2018-08-02 18:12:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 8/2/2018 2:00 PM, Frank Berger wrote:
>
> You have to make a reservation.  Being stoned helps.

LOL
O
2018-08-05 14:37:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <pjvhi5$1btc$***@gioia.aioe.org>, Steven Bornfeld
<***@earthlink.net> wrote:

> On 8/2/2018 2:00 PM, Frank Berger wrote:
> >
> > You have to make a reservation.  Being stoned helps.
>
> LOL

The Northern lights are truly the most spectacular lightshow you can
ever see. But they are capricious and unpredictable. I have only seen
them once and was truly blown away.

-Owen
Bozo
2018-08-02 16:02:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
>On Wednesday, August 1, 2018 at 11:55:26 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
> Here's a report on research that shows the common perception of
> increasing income inequality is exaggerated.

From their chart notes, it appears the researchers excluded capital gains, but I may be in error.

While calling their study "good work " , another economist quoted in the Solmon article notes :

“It’s still fairly clear,” Steuerle writes, “that the before-tax, before-transfer distribution of income has become significantly worse. That’s important if you want to examine such issues as options and power in society. (It also correlates somewhat to what is happening to the wealth distribution, which is usually estimated with respect to ownership of private, not public, assets such as entitlement benefits.)"
Frank Berger
2018-08-02 16:14:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 8/2/2018 12:02 PM, Bozo wrote:
>> On Wednesday, August 1, 2018 at 11:55:26 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
>> Here's a report on research that shows the common perception of
>> increasing income inequality is exaggerated.
>
> From their chart notes, it appears the researchers excluded capital gains, but I may be in error.
>
> While calling their study "good work " , another economist quoted in the Solmon article notes :
>
> “It’s still fairly clear,” Steuerle writes, “that the before-tax, before-transfer distribution of income has become significantly worse. That’s important if you want to examine such issues as options and power in society. (It also correlates somewhat to what is happening to the wealth distribution, which is usually estimated with respect to ownership of private, not public, assets such as entitlement benefits.)"
>

The use of the word "worse" is interesting. What is the "best"
distribution of income? Should everyone have the same income? When did
we have the "best" distribution? 1960? 1980? 1580? We know what has
happened when societies have tried (supposedly) to achieve a flat
distribution. Is any change in the direction of greater disparity
necessarily a bad thing? How bad? If everyone's standard of living is
increasing (I'm not saying it is), does the distribution matter much?
Obviously if the distribution becomes uneven enough you will get
societal disruption, even revolution. Are we close to that?

What I am saying is that we have a lot more questions than answers.
Bozo
2018-08-02 16:41:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
>On Thursday, August 2, 2018 at 11:14:58 AM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
> Obviously if the distribution becomes uneven enough you will get
> societal disruption, even revolution. Are we close to that?

With the many reports of unaffordable housing,crushing student loan debt, out of control health care costs, insolvent safety net programs, increasing amount of National GNP needed to service the ballooning Deficit, dysfunctional governments, we may be closer than we think and soon know the answer.
Frank Berger
2018-08-02 17:09:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 8/2/2018 12:41 PM, Bozo wrote:
>> On Thursday, August 2, 2018 at 11:14:58 AM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
>> Obviously if the distribution becomes uneven enough you will get
>> societal disruption, even revolution. Are we close to that?
>
> With the many reports of unaffordable housing,crushing student loan debt, out of control health care costs, insolvent safety net programs, increasing amount of National GNP needed to service the ballooning Deficit, dysfunctional governments, we may be closer than we think and soon know the answer.
>

All of sudden I'm glad my remaining life expectancy is only around 15
years.
g***@gmail.com
2018-08-03 17:22:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, August 2, 2018 at 7:10:00 AM UTC-10, Frank Berger wrote:
> On 8/2/2018 12:41 PM, Bozo wrote:
> >> On Thursday, August 2, 2018 at 11:14:58 AM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
> >> Obviously if the distribution becomes uneven enough you will get
> >> societal disruption, even revolution. Are we close to that?
> >
> > With the many reports of unaffordable housing,crushing student loan debt, out of control health care costs, insolvent safety net programs, increasing amount of National GNP needed to service the ballooning Deficit, dysfunctional governments, we may be closer than we think and soon know the answer.
> >
>
> All of sudden I'm glad my remaining life expectancy is only around 15
> years.

Considering the looming insolvency of Medicare and Social Security (and God knows what ELSE the Gov't is hiding from us), count your blessings.
g***@gmail.com
2018-08-03 18:37:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, August 3, 2018 at 7:23:02 AM UTC-10, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, August 2, 2018 at 7:10:00 AM UTC-10, Frank Berger wrote:
> > On 8/2/2018 12:41 PM, Bozo wrote:
> > >> On Thursday, August 2, 2018 at 11:14:58 AM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
> > >> Obviously if the distribution becomes uneven enough you will get
> > >> societal disruption, even revolution. Are we close to that?
> > >
> > > With the many reports of unaffordable housing,crushing student loan debt, out of control health care costs, insolvent safety net programs, increasing amount of National GNP needed to service the ballooning Deficit, dysfunctional governments, we may be closer than we think and soon know the answer.
> > >
> >
> > All of sudden I'm glad my remaining life expectancy is only around 15
> > years.
>
> Considering the looming insolvency of Medicare and Social Security (and God knows what ELSE the Gov't is hiding from us), count your blessings.

- ...Prega per noi, prega per noi, prega.
Ave Maria . . .
Nell'ora della morte...

'Otello' (Verdi)
Frank Berger
2018-08-06 19:31:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 8/2/2018 12:14 PM, Frank Berger wrote:
> On 8/2/2018 12:02 PM, Bozo wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, August 1, 2018 at 11:55:26 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
>>> Here's a report on research that shows the common perception of
>>> increasing income inequality is exaggerated.
>>
>>  From their chart notes, it appears the researchers excluded capital
>> gains, but I may be in error.
>>
>> While calling their study "good work " , another economist quoted in
>> the Solmon article notes  :
>>
>> “It’s still fairly clear,” Steuerle writes, “that the before-tax,
>> before-transfer distribution of income has become significantly worse.
>> That’s important if you want to examine such issues as options and
>> power in society. (It also correlates somewhat to what is happening to
>> the wealth distribution, which is usually estimated with respect to
>> ownership of private, not public, assets such as entitlement benefits.)"
>>
>
> The use of the word "worse" is interesting.  What is the "best"
> distribution of income?  Should everyone have the same income?  When did
> we have the "best" distribution?  1960?  1980?  1580?  We know what has
> happened when societies have tried (supposedly) to achieve a flat
> distribution.  Is any change in the direction of greater disparity
> necessarily a bad thing?  How bad? If everyone's standard of living is
> increasing (I'm not saying it is), does the distribution matter much?
> Obviously if the distribution becomes uneven enough you will get
> societal disruption, even revolution.  Are we close to that?
>
> What I am saying is that we have a lot more questions than answers.

This article will be rejected out of hand by some because of the source,
but makes some good points. For example part of the decline in the
membership of the "middle class" is due to some of them rising into the
"upper class." We tend to think of people and families belonging
irrevocably to one class or another, but many studies have show this to
be untrue. Upper mobility does exist. Other factors generally not
considered are mentioned too. Like the like the large currently mostly
retired baby boom generation, whose income as a group fell when they
chose retirement. Also pointed out that simple income isn't the
appropriate measure for making comparisons anyway. It's wealth.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/01/middle-class-income-not-stagnating/
g***@gmail.com
2018-08-06 23:39:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, August 6, 2018 at 9:31:27 AM UTC-10, Frank Berger wrote:
> On 8/2/2018 12:14 PM, Frank Berger wrote:
> > On 8/2/2018 12:02 PM, Bozo wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, August 1, 2018 at 11:55:26 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
> >>> Here's a report on research that shows the common perception of
> >>> increasing income inequality is exaggerated.
> >>
> >>  From their chart notes, it appears the researchers excluded capital
> >> gains, but I may be in error.
> >>
> >> While calling their study "good work " , another economist quoted in
> >> the Solmon article notes  :
> >>
> >> “It’s still fairly clear,” Steuerle writes, “that the before-tax,
> >> before-transfer distribution of income has become significantly worse.
> >> That’s important if you want to examine such issues as options and
> >> power in society. (It also correlates somewhat to what is happening to
> >> the wealth distribution, which is usually estimated with respect to
> >> ownership of private, not public, assets such as entitlement benefits.)"
> >>
> >
> > The use of the word "worse" is interesting.  What is the "best"
> > distribution of income?  Should everyone have the same income?  When did
> > we have the "best" distribution?  1960?  1980?  1580?  We know what has
> > happened when societies have tried (supposedly) to achieve a flat
> > distribution.  Is any change in the direction of greater disparity
> > necessarily a bad thing?  How bad? If everyone's standard of living is
> > increasing (I'm not saying it is), does the distribution matter much?
> > Obviously if the distribution becomes uneven enough you will get
> > societal disruption, even revolution.  Are we close to that?
> >
> > What I am saying is that we have a lot more questions than answers.
>
> This article will be rejected out of hand by some because of the source,
> but makes some good points. For example part of the decline in the
> membership of the "middle class" is due to some of them rising into the
> "upper class." We tend to think of people and families belonging
> irrevocably to one class or another, but many studies have show this to
> be untrue. Upper mobility does exist. Other factors generally not
> considered are mentioned too. Like the like the large currently mostly
> retired baby boom generation, whose income as a group fell when they
> chose retirement. Also pointed out that simple income isn't the
> appropriate measure for making comparisons anyway. It's wealth.
>
> https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/01/middle-class-income-not-stagnating/

According to the following recent article:

- The U.S. is one of only four high income economies amongst 50 economies with the lowest rates of relative upward mobility.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/aparnamathur/2018/07/16/the-u-s-does-poorly-on-yet-another-metric-of-economic-mobility/#2c681ed26a7b
weary flake
2018-08-02 16:43:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-08-02 16:02:08 +0000, Bozo said:

>>
>> On Wednesday, August 1, 2018 at 11:55:26 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
>> Here's a report on research that shows the common perception of>
>> increasing income inequality is exaggerated.
>
> From their chart notes, it appears the researchers excluded capital
> gains, but I may be in error.

The chart in the article is incomplete. It had lines to indicate
before and after
tax for earned income and a line that combines capital gains and earned income
before tax but no line for that combination after tax.

>
> While calling their study "good work " , another economist quoted in
> the Solmon article notes :
>
> “It’s still fairly clear,” Steuerle writes, “that the before-tax,
> before-transfer distribution of income has become significantly worse.
> That’s important if you want to examine such issues as options and
> power in society. (It also correlates somewhat to what is happening to
> the wealth distribution, which is usually estimated with respect to
> ownership of private, not public, assets such as entitlement benefits.)"
Loading...