Growing disparity between rich and poor


Tyr
#1
One of the basic tenents of a healthy society is a large middle class. As the poles of rich and poor get further apart, the middle class is also shrinking. i.e. there is a greater number of people who are desperately poor or filthy rich


The United States no longer boasts anywhere near the world’s longest life expectancy. It doesn’t even make the top 40. In this and many other ways, the richest nation on earth is not the healthiest. [Majid] Ezzati’s finding is unsettling on its face, but scholars find further cause for concern in the pattern of health disparities. Poor health is not distributed evenly across the population, but concentrated among the disadvantaged.
Disparities in health tend to fall along income lines everywhere: the poor generally get sicker and die sooner than the rich. But in the United States, the gap between the rich and the poor is far wider than in most other developed democracies, and it is getting wider. That is true both before and after taxes: the United States also does less than most other rich democracies to redistribute income from the rich to the poor.
 
EagleSmack
#2
Whats's the matter Tyr... getting lonely today? Trying to stir it up?

Constantly looking for the attention of us Americans today because you are clearly obsessed with us.

I tell you what, if you want to be American just apply for citizenship. Then you can come down here and talk to Americans all day instead of trolling CanCon for them.
 
RanchHand
#3
What a touch hole. Shouldn't you at least give the link for your cut and paste.
 
Tyr
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmack View Post

Whats's the matter Tyr... getting lonely today? Trying to stir it up?

Constantly looking for the attention of us Americans today because you are clearly obsessed with us.

I tell you what, if you want to be American just apply for citizenship. Then you can come down here and talk to Americans all day instead of trolling CanCon for them.

I renounced my american citizenship when I was 18. Didn't think it was worth getting shot in the streets or sucked into an illegal war
 
EagleSmack
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by Tyr View Post

I renounced my american citizenship when I was 18. Didn't think it was worth getting shot in the streets or sucked into an illegal war

Suuuuure you did. You're about as American as Uncle Sam.

You adore us and you know it. You are about as green as a third of that Irish Flag you have in your profile. Heck you are so embarrassed about being Canadian that you replace your own flag with an Irish one.
 
Zzarchov
#6
Actually I'd concur, alot of American's are getting pissed off with the US system.

As alot of the baby boomers age, especially vets, and find the rules around them change to a bunch of multinational corporations hosing them over and not playing by the rules, you'll see a big change in US policy.

A guy dubbed socialist had a landslide victory, and part of it is because Socialism isn't such a bad word in the US anymore.

Alot of people saying "Fugg it, If I lose money to the bank from a failed business thats my loss..but if the bank loses money from failed business planning..thats also my loss? May as well be Pinko if the rich people are"

The Bank Bailout is shifting alot of people to the Pinko side..because the Bank Bailout really destroyed the concept of the American dream, that anyone can make it rich.

Not everyone can be rich, thats understood as a fact of life, only the best and the brightest (in the American system as it is supposed to be) can be rich in the long haul. A fool and his money are soon seperated.

If you prevent the existing rich from becoming poor for being stupid, that means the best and the brightest of the poor can't move up and be rich.

Add in the fact that if your rob from the hardworking poor (bumping them back down for their work) to prop up the lazy and stupid wealthy (which is what this was), you utterly destroy the possibility of the American dream.

Republican's killed the concept of the Capitalist dream when they went socialist to bail out their friends and neighbours at the expense of those who voted for them (but don't live across the street from them and they don't have to see everyday).
 
Tyr
#7
The scenario is that

The poor pay few (if any taxes) and the rich pay few (if any taxes - they are very successful at hiding their income), so the vast majority of gov't revenues come from the "middle class".

If the middle class continues to shrink, one of two things can happen

There taxes go up
There is less money in the gov't pot from tax revenue

The former has a break point where, individuals just "give up". The latter's solution is to run a deficit

What's the solution? Tax the "hidden revenue" of the rich.
 
Cannuck
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by RanchHand View Post

What a touch hole. Shouldn't you at least give the link for your cut and paste.

Tyr believes that some people really think his cut and pastes aren't cut and pastes and that the words he plagiarizes are actually his.

As a side note, this is the only web forum I've ever been to where this type of action is tolerated. All the rest expect you to provide a link when you post somebody elses opinion.
 
Tyr
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by Cannuck View Post

Tyr believes that some people really think his cut and pastes aren't cut and pastes and that the words he plagiarizes are actually his.

As a side note, this is the only web forum I've ever been to where this type of action is tolerated. All the rest expect you to provide a link when you post somebody elses opinion.

Thanks for answering for me. Didn't realize we were so "tight"

It's a "bog", not a thesis, get over it
 
Cannuck
#10
Plagiarists justify their actions in many different ways.
 
Tyr
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by Cannuck View Post

Plagiarists justify their actions in many different ways.



We're still "tight" though aren't we Cannuck? I'll try to do better.

I'll pray, help old people across the street and buy an entire "skid" of Girl Guide cookies
 
Vicious
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by Tyr View Post

The scenario is that

The poor pay few (if any taxes) and the rich pay few (if any taxes - they are very successful at hiding their income), so the vast majority of gov't revenues come from the "middle class".

If the middle class continues to shrink, one of two things can happen

There taxes go up
There is less money in the gov't pot from tax revenue

The former has a break point where, individuals just "give up". The latter's solution is to run a deficit

What's the solution? Tax the "hidden revenue" of the rich.

There is a third solution. Redefine the middle class so there are more of them. If you graph families by income it would be a fairly normal distribution. Take the standard deviation either side of the mean and you have your middle class. As a lefty you can tax the piss out of that group. I'd rather leave them alone but I'm a conservative.

If you tax success (the rich) then there is no value in being successful. If being innovative and creating employment for others is going to cost more in taxation then why bother. Take a paycheck like everyone else, work 40 instead of 80 hours a week and let the government supplement my income with their programs. The result is after a while there are fewer and fewer employers and the jobs dry up.
 
Tyr
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by Vicious View Post

There is a third solution. Redefine the middle class so there are more of them. If you graph families by income it would be a fairly normal distribution. Take the standard deviation either side of the mean and you have your middle class. As a lefty you can tax the piss out of that group. I'd rather leave them alone but I'm a conservative.

If you tax success (the rich) then there is no value in being successful. If being innovative and creating employment for others is going to cost more in taxation then why bother. Take a paycheck like everyone else, work 40 instead of 80 hours a week and let the government supplement my income with their programs. The result is after a while there are fewer and fewer employers and the jobs dry up.

and your standard deviation would be? 12.5%, 7.5%, 5%?
 
Vicious
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by Tyr View Post

and your standard deviation would be? 12.5%, 7.5%, 5%?

Standard deviation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In a normal distribution one standard deviation covers 68.2% of the population. I don't know what the Family income values would be to mark the boundaries but it shouldn't be too difficult to figure out if you had all the data.
 
Tyr
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by Vicious View Post

Standard deviation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In a normal distribution one standard deviation covers 68.2% of the population. I don't know what the Family income values would be to mark the boundaries but it shouldn't be too difficult to figure out if you had all the data.

set the median at $40,000 and that whould work. The problem is the "gubernment" sets the median too low and hence there really aren't many poor people according to them
 
Vicious
#16
The median income sets itself. It is what it is. Various groups will take the numbers, trim them, change the definitions, select groups or subsets and get just about any number they want. The goal is to start with the most unadulterated numbers you can find. And that in itself can be challenging. The definition of income for instance can include pensions and investment income or not the chart I found uses something called market income which seems to be an all-in income measure. It says $28,800 for singles and $73,000 for families in 2006 http://www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/famil22a-eng.htm.
The footnotes give the definition of market income and economic family so at least you know what you are starting with.
I Can't find an income distribution graph to find the boundaries of the 'middle class' as I've defined it.

But I think my point stands. If you don't like the size of the middle class you can always redefine it to fit your needs.
 
Zzarchov
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by Vicious View Post

There is a third solution. Redefine the middle class so there are more of them. If you graph families by income it would be a fairly normal distribution. Take the standard deviation either side of the mean and you have your middle class. As a lefty you can tax the piss out of that group. I'd rather leave them alone but I'm a conservative.

Lefties tend to support the middle class (populist), its really more of a Conservative issue.

Quote: Originally Posted by Vicious View Post

If you tax success (the rich) then there is no value in being successful. If being innovative and creating employment for others is going to cost more in taxation then why bother. Take a paycheck like everyone else, work 40 instead of 80 hours a week and let the government supplement my income with their programs. The result is after a while there are fewer and fewer employers and the jobs dry up.

Uh huh, bull. You know what the value in being rich is? BEING RICH. I'd rather have a million dollars and lose half to taxes, then make 50,000 and lose 10%. Its a bullship arguement that doesn't hold water.

No one who is super wealthy (and hit hardest) works 80 hours a week. Thatsm iddle clas.
 
Stretch
#18
give it another 12 months....see how big the disparity is then.
 
Vicious
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by Zzarchov View Post

Lefties tend to support the middle class (populist), its really more of a Conservative issue.

Uh huh, bull. You know what the value in being rich is? BEING RICH. I'd rather have a million dollars and lose half to taxes, then make 50,000 and lose 10%. Its a bullship arguement that doesn't hold water.

No one who is super wealthy (and hit hardest) works 80 hours a week. Thatsm iddle clas.

I was implying that lefties tend to want tax more. I've yet to here a left leaning party advocate for tax cuts for the middle class.

I can agree that the value of being rich is being rich. And with your million dollar and $50K examples. The problem is if you tax the wealthy at 50% and there is a country to the south that will tax them less, they might move and then you get nothing and possibly lose jobs. The wealthy are surprisingly mobile.

I don't know anyone who is super wealthy but the wealthy people I know who created their own businesses from scratch and employ people did and still occasionally work 80 hours a week. I know some people are born wealthy and don't work at all. But to build something from scratch takes effort and commitment. If you kill that be reducing the rewards of success, less people are likely to make that commitment.
 
Zzarchov
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by Vicious View Post

I was implying that lefties tend to want tax more. I've yet to here a left leaning party advocate for tax cuts for the middle class.

Almost all of them support tax cuts for the middle class, that was Obama's whole spiel, thats where "Mike the Plumber" (note, not named Mike and not a Plumber) fits in.

Thats the nature of populism, its not always right either. Zimbabwe's Seizure of White Owned Farms is another example thats very negative.

Supporting the middle against the rich is the Lefty way. The Right Wing method is (in theory) the support of the rich on the grounds that anyone can be rich and they have earned their due. With a well run government this is even possible...in the same way a well run benevolent dictatorship is perfect..if only you had a reliable benevolent dictator.


Quote: Originally Posted by Vicious View Post

I can agree that the value of being rich is being rich. And with your million dollar and $50K examples. The problem is if you tax the wealthy at 50% and there is a country to the south that will tax them less, they might move and then you get nothing and possibly lose jobs. The wealthy are surprisingly mobile.

Sure, but you don't stay wealthy that way. If the Rich leave, new people become Rich. Thats the nature of America, that is the American dream. The right wing abandoning the concept of new people becoming rich and the old money fading away is why its losing.

People look at Paris Hilton and say "Why is she still rich? Why haven't a new generation of hardworking American Entrepreneurs pushed her kind to the poor house on their rise?"

The Wealthy are mobile, but wealth is fleeting and requires constant regeneration.

Quote: Originally Posted by Vicious View Post

I don't know anyone who is super wealthy but the wealthy people I know who created their own businesses from scratch and employ people did and still occasionally work 80 hours a week. I know some people are born wealthy and don't work at all. But to build something from scratch takes effort and commitment. If you kill that be reducing the rewards of success, less people are likely to make that commitment.

Guess what, they aren't wealthy, they are middle class almost always. When people say "Tax the rich", they almost always level it at a point above what you can get working. This is the nature of how they get in power, that is populism.

If its run right its a fair society, if they do it wrong its just abusing the rights of the minority. Given that the poor and middle class just had to subsidize the rich, they are given certain moral entitltments.
 
Vicious
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by Zzarchov View Post

Almost all of them support tax cuts for the middle class, that was Obama's whole spiel, thats where "Mike the Plumber" (note, not named Mike and not a Plumber) fits in.

Thats the nature of populism, its not always right either. Zimbabwe's Seizure of White Owned Farms is another example thats very negative.

Supporting the middle against the rich is the Lefty way. The Right Wing method is (in theory) the support of the rich on the grounds that anyone can be rich and they have earned their due. With a well run government this is even possible...in the same way a well run benevolent dictatorship is perfect..if only you had a reliable benevolent dictator.

I have a different definition of left and right. In my definition for a given problem the left believe the solution is the government, on the other hand the right believe the solution is the person. I've tried to stay away from the parties; Democrats and Republics and Liberals and Conservatives because they no longer operate in a left/right big government/small government way.

I still see no reason to demonize the wealthy, they are getting hammered by the crisis as well.


Quote: Originally Posted by Zzarchov View Post

Sure, but you don't stay wealthy that way. If the Rich leave, new people become Rich. Thats the nature of America, that is the American dream. The right wing abandoning the concept of new people becoming rich and the old money fading away is why its losing.

People look at Paris Hilton and say "Why is she still rich? Why haven't a new generation of hardworking American Entrepreneurs pushed her kind to the poor house on their rise?"

The Wealthy are mobile, but wealth is fleeting and requires constant regeneration..

Sounds like we are agreeing that creating wealth and maintaining it is hard work. I'm just saying that if you raise taxes on the rich there is a point where the return for that effort is no longer worth it, or persuing wealth in another country becomes more attractive.

Quote: Originally Posted by Zzarchov View Post

Guess what, they aren't wealthy, they are middle class almost always. When people say "Tax the rich", they almost always level it at a point above what you can get working. This is the nature of how they get in power, that is populism.

If its run right its a fair society, if they do it wrong its just abusing the rights of the minority. Given that the poor and middle class just had to subsidize the rich, they are given certain moral entitltments.

Again this is a matter of definition. Where is the line for rich? Income of $500,000 / year, $1M? or net worth of multiple million or hundreds of million. When you speak about taxing the rich most often that is income tax or business tax, the lines for both are pretty low.

What makes you think society should be fair?
 
L Gilbert
#22
The people with the highest incomes are taxed at the highest rate They also pay more than 50% of the personal income tax collected in Canada. As far as property taxes, GST, etc. They do the same as everyone else. Sounds pretty fair to me and it's ridiculous that some people think the rich don't do their share.
It is gov't action that widens the gap, IMO, as it seems to like taxing as much as possible the people who are less likely to afford high taxes. Instead of figuring out how to be more efficient and effective, gov'ts up taxes.
 
Zzarchov
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by Vicious View Post

Sounds like we are agreeing that creating wealth and maintaining it is hard work. I'm just saying that if you raise taxes on the rich there is a point where the return for that effort is no longer worth it, or persuing wealth in another country becomes more attractive.

No, we are agreeing that it should take hard work. The thing is the first thing anyone smart enough to earn wealth does is change the rules so their children can't lose it all by being stupid lazy snots. Thats why a free market requires regulation to keep it free.
 
Spade
#24
Wealth or poverty is not just brains or lack thereof, often it's happenstance.
YouTube - Joan Baez - 500 Miles & There But Fortune (live)
 

Similar Threads

5
Bee in the Bonnet: Rich Man, Poor Man
by CDNBear | Dec 29th, 2006
15
GAP BETWEEN RICH AND POOR and POVERTY
by jimmoyer | Oct 26th, 2006
62
Rich and Poor Gap widdening : NDP
by Jersay | May 15th, 2006
2