The rich are getting richer much, much faster.

[Ben Kenobi]

Wrong as always. Capital is part of the equation

And you have to be rich to accumulate capital. Ergo, more rich people = more capital.

an equal part is demand created by consumers.

Which is why aborting 30 percent of future consumers is biting us in the ass. Yes, demand is important, and there are solid reasons why we are trying to stave off a deflationary depression by inflating our way out of it futilely. Decisions that were made 40 years ago are impacting us now.

When you impoverish the middle class you decrease demand greatly which decreases job creation.

Which is why housing prices have to come down to the point where they are about 3x household income. Which means letting them come to the market rather then trying to hold back the tide and keep housing prices up. Of course, when you try to inflate your debt away - holding the line also hurts you.

capitalists only hire as a measure of last resort when demand REQUIRES them to do so.

Umm, what? Hiring's the first step of expanding a business. Capitalists expand when they have money to spend towards it. Take away their money through confiscatory taxation, and they don't expand and more people are out of work.

[Ben Kenobi]

A lot of members here are tools for the one percent.

Can I get a t-shirt that says it? "I work for the one percent!" Apparently choosing to be poor and sticking your finger at the man is 'cool' and 'righteous'. Working hard to get ahead is 'unrighteous' and 'wicked'.

How's that attitude working out for ya, Mr. Fun?

Edit: FFS - having a degree on Poly is the norm, and that right away puts you in the top quarter in America. We have a disproportionate number of men, as well as those in technical fields.

We are the man!

[Ben Kenobi]

If you wanted to tax people for their food stamps, you could simply decrease the amount of food stamps they get and achieve the same result. I don't know why, when presented with two different policies with identical effects, you would choose the more complicated one.

Which is why foodstamps shouldn't be considered income! Thanks for playing!

[Kuciwalker]

Btw, properly measured the people who were the top 0.1% or maybe even 1% in income in 2007 should have had negative income in 2008.

[Jon Miller]

Including transfers, I think that some of the poor make ~40k?

JM

[Jon Miller]

Btw, properly measured the people who were the top 0.1% or maybe even 1% in income in 2007 should have had negative income in 2008.

For one (two) year, yes. And obviously for that year they would pay no taxes (if we decide to tax based on income, as I said, I think it makes more sense to tax based on consumption/wealth due to difficulty in accounting).

But if we go on the ~30 year average it is very high.

JM

[Ben Kenobi]

Including transfers, I think that some of the poor make ~40k?

The average is around 33k. And that's not including income off the books, that's just verified benefits.

[giblets]

Which is why foodstamps shouldn't be considered income! Thanks for playing!

What is the matter with you. If you are measuring the income people have after taxes and transfers have taken place, yes, food stamps, social security checks, and other such entitlements do add to the amount of income they have. If you are measuring the income before taxes and transfers, no, they don't count as income.

[giblets]

And you have to be rich to accumulate capital. Ergo, more rich people = more capital.



Which is why aborting 30 percent of future consumers is biting us in the ass. Yes, demand is important, and there are solid reasons why we are trying to stave off a deflationary depression by inflating our way out of it futilely. Decisions that were made 40 years ago are impacting us now.



Which is why housing prices have to come down to the point where they are about 3x household income. Which means letting them come to the market rather then trying to hold back the tide and keep housing prices up. Of course, when you try to inflate your debt away - holding the line also hurts you.



Umm, what? Hiring's the first step of expanding a business. Capitalists expand when they have money to spend towards it. Take away their money through confiscatory taxation, and they don't expand and more people are out of work.

Housing prices are as a matter of fact coming down. When the government "inflates" it changes nominal prices, it doesn't change the price of houses relative to everything else.

[MrFun]

Working hard to get ahead is 'unrighteous' and 'wicked'.

No, that's not true.

[Ben Kenobi]

If you are measuring the income people have after taxes and transfers have taken place, yes, food stamps, social security checks, and other such entitlements do add to the amount of income they have. If you are measuring the income before taxes and transfers, no, they don't count as income.

But it's not income because it cannot and should not be taxed in the same way. Income has to be earned - transfers from the state don't count because you 'tax' them, by lowering the benefits given.

[Ben Kenobi]

Housing prices are as a matter of fact coming down. When the government "inflates" it changes nominal prices, it doesn't change the price of houses relative to everything else.

It does if the government inflates and provides benefits to those who are selling houses, ensuring that they keep prices up. Oh wait - look at what they did with Fanny and Freddy.

Gosh Obama - thanks for keeping houses expensive, AND jacking up prices on the stuff that I have to buy at the same time. Appreciate it Obama. I want the prices of houses to fall, and the prices of everything else to fall - but they don't because they owe money and that means that they have to pay more rather than less.

[giblets]

But it's not income because it cannot and should not be taxed in the same way. Income has to be earned - transfers from the state don't count because you 'tax' them, by lowering the benefits given.

No, any money someone receives is income.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income

Welfare lets someone consume more -> welfare is income

[Ben Kenobi]

No, any money someone receives is income.

So if someone leaves me a gift I'm required to report it? Income is earned - state benefits don't count as income because they are unearned.

Welfare lets someone consume more -> welfare is income

That's a terrible definition. Does this mean I can get money off my taxes for each dollar I invest?

Investment lets someone consume less -> Investments are not income.

[giblets]

It does if the government inflates and provides benefits to those who are selling houses, ensuring that they keep prices up. Oh wait - look at what they did with Fanny and Freddy.

Gosh Obama - thanks for keeping houses expensive, AND jacking up prices on the stuff that I have to buy at the same time. Appreciate it Obama. I want the prices of houses to fall, and the prices of everything else to fall - but they don't because they owe money and that means that they have to pay more rather than less.

Expected inflation is priced into interest rates, so inflation does not help the government reduce its debt burden unless it is unusually high inflation. Also, it's silly to assume inflation will make the things you buy more expensive relative to the value of your labor. I have no idea why you think "providing benefits to those who are selling houses" would drive up housing prices- subsidies lead to lower prices.