Another CBO Study Superfreak Will Ignore

This is quite the amusing thread Dung. You accuse me of 'ignoring' the studies you post and then in the very same thread ignore all data presented against your position. Instead you just say 'dat stooopit' and run away.
 
Superfreak said:
This is quite the amusing thread Dung. You accuse me of 'ignoring' the studies you post and then in the very same thread ignore all data presented against your position. Instead you just say 'dat stooopit' and run away.
Click to expand...


The data does not show what you think it shows. You are arguing that income inequality isn't a big deal because we have tremendous social mobility in the United States, but we don't.
 
David St. Hubbins said:
The data does not show what you think it shows. You are arguing that income inequality isn't a big deal because we have tremendous social mobility in the United States, but we don't.
Click to expand...

LMAO.... keep ignoring the results of the study Dung.... it shows that you are wrong. I also didn't stated that income inequality 'isn't a big deal', but rather it is not as wide as you are pretending it is. The Treasury department study shows the flaws in the CBO report you desperately cling to.
 
Superfreak said:
LMAO.... keep ignoring the results of the study Dung.... it shows that you are wrong. I also didn't stated that income inequality 'isn't a big deal', but rather it is not as wide as you are pretending it is. The Treasury department study shows the flaws in the CBO report you desperately cling to.
Click to expand...

The United States ranks third worst among OECD countries for social mobility. The single largest predictor of income is parental income. I'd love for your theory of equal economic opportunity to be true, but it isn't:

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/2/7/45002641.pdf


Interesting that the Treasury Department study from 2007 shows the flaws in the CBO report releases yesterday? That's a neat trick. Can you be more specific as to which flaws the Treasury Department study uncovered?



Edit: Yes, income inequality is as wide as the CBO says it is. The 275% figure includes cash and in-kind payments to low income folks and also takes into account taxation such that Garrett's criticism is not applicable.
 
So the 1 percent did great
Top next 20 percent did dam good
Next 40 percent did pretty good
Poor got the shaft

Please see the platoon comment about the rich n poor
 
Onceler said:
Let me just paint a hypothetical for you. What if there was some fatal flaw in the capitalist system, whereby the following happened: once someone got rich through their own hard work, they found out that they could get richer just by virtue of the money they had, in a way no longer really related to work. Beyond that, their kids and the generations beyond them kept using this loophole to stay rich and get richer, without any work at all. Through this method, a significant amount of the nation's wealth basically stayed in the same group's hands, an amount that continued to grow, without any visible work being done.

And higher education, one of the few means whereby someone not in that group could hope to aspire to join that group, slowly & gradually grew in cost to the point where many of those not in the group either couldn't afford to attend, or attended at great debt to themselves, so that instead of accumulating wealth afterwards with their hard work, they spent many years just paying off that debt.

Would you have an suggestions on what could be done to address that flaw?
Click to expand...


This is one of the biggest problem the world has.....

The trouble with the world is not that people know too little, but that they know so many things that aren't true." ----------------- attributed to Mark Twain.

Everyone throwing in their two cents about the US economy is guilty of this......some person with an agenda, whether it be left or right, maybe does "a study on income and wealth"......

and in order to support their agenda they will take a fact about income or taxes or race or education, or anything that will work for them, and then take another fact to act as the conclusion and correlate the two, marry them together....

As...income for the rich grew in so an so years while income for the poor dropped, and try to convince us that one was the cause and other the effect......

Its usually bullshit, and one fact has little or nothing to do with the other.....
================================
While I agree, it is true that the old saying, "It takes money to make money" has some basis in fact....

Those with the capital, HAVE to invest their money in some enterprise in hopes of making a profit....that investing in some business is what creates more wealth .... wealth for the investor and wealth for the business and businessmen and women that put the investment to good use....thats capitalism...

Some startup, receives that investment capital and hires workers and pays them a salary and benefits and buys machines and raw material and supplies technical knowledge to produce a product.....thats capitalism..

Those workers, other workers, and people all over the world hopefully buy your product and your business grows....the investor makes money, the business makes money, the workers makes money, the raw material suppliers make money, etc.......thats capitalism..

And in the end, I don't give a shit how many generations of investors are supported by that money, or how many generations of workers, or how many generations of business owners are supported by that money....and NONE of these people owe any of their earned wealth, (and all of it is earned wealth in one way or another) , to anybody else.....all should be treated with equal respect and equal tax treatment, etc.....
 
David St. Hubbins said:
The United States ranks third worst among OECD countries for social mobility. The single largest predictor of income is parental income. I'd love for your theory of equal economic opportunity to be true, but it isn't:

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/2/7/45002641.pdf
Click to expand...

You truly are either a dishonest hack or just a complete fucking idiot.

1) I do not have a theory of 'equal economic opportunity' and I have never even come close to stating anything resembling that. It is just a fucking ignorant straw man creation you wish to knock down.

2) You do understand the difference between social mobility of a person and intergenerational social mobility? The study by the Treasury department shows the movements of the SAME household. It is not looking at the difference between the parent's household and a child's.


Interesting that the Treasury Department study from 2007 shows the flaws in the CBO report releases yesterday? That's a neat trick. Can you be more specific as to which flaws the Treasury Department study uncovered?
Click to expand...

They were listed above. You ignored them.

Edit: Yes, income inequality is as wide as the CBO says it is. The 275% figure includes cash and in-kind payments to low income folks and also takes into account taxation such that Garrett's criticism is not applicable.
Click to expand...

So you should be able to quote and reference the page of the CBO report that says it does that.... I will wait....
 
The growth in average income for different groups over the
1979–2007 period reflects a comparison of average
income for those groups at different points in time; it
does not reflect the experience of particular households.
Individual households may have moved up or down the
income scale if their income rose or fell more than the
average for their initial group. Thus, the population
with income in the lowest 20 percent in 2007 was not
necessarily the same as the population in that category
in 1979.
Click to expand...

I wonder who stated the above....
 
Superfreak said:
You truly are either a dishonest hack or just a complete fucking idiot.

1) I do not have a theory of 'equal economic opportunity' and I have never even come close to stating anything resembling that. It is just a fucking ignorant straw man creation you wish to knock down.

2) You do understand the difference between social mobility of a person and intergenerational social mobility? The study by the Treasury department shows the movements of the SAME household. It is not looking at the difference between the parent's household and a child's.
Click to expand...


Ooooh, name-calling from SF. There's something new.

(1) Well, you say that you don't, but that's what you are arguing.

(2) I understand the difference.



Superfreak said:
They were listed above. You ignored them.
Click to expand...

Which post?



Superfreak said:
So you should be able to quote and reference the page of the CBO report that says it does that.... I will wait....
Click to expand...

It's right in the definitions of "after tax income" and "transfer income" in the definitions section of the report:

After-tax income is equal to market income plus transfer income minus federal taxes paid. In assessing the impact of various taxes, individual income taxes are allocated directly to households paying those taxes. Social insurance, or payroll, taxes are allocated to households paying those taxes directly or paying them indirectly through their employers. Corporate income taxes are allocated to households according to their share of capital income. Federal excise taxes are allocated to households according to their consumption of the taxed good or service.
Click to expand...

Transfer income includes cash payments from Social Security, unemployment insurance, Supplemental Security Income, Aid to Families with Dependent Children, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, veterans’ benefits, workers’ compensation, and state and local government assistance programs, as well as the value of in-kind benefits, including food stamps, school lunches and breakfasts, housing assistance, energy assistance, Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (health benefits are measured as the fungible value, a Census Bureau estimate of the value to recipients).
Click to expand...
 
It seems your prediction of Superfreak's ignorance was highly exaggerated. I've noticed him making salient points showing he read and understands the report.
 
David St. Hubbins said:
Ooooh, name-calling from SF. There's something new.

(1) Well, you say that you don't, but that's what you are arguing.

(2) I understand the difference.
Click to expand...

LMAO.... NO, it is not what I am arguing you dolt. Not even close. Again, it is just a pathetic straw man on your part.

If you understand that the two are different studies about different things, then why did you attempt to use that study to say I was wrong? The income mobility of an individual household HAS been as great as the Treasury department indicated. Period.




Which post?
Click to expand...

The one with the links to St. Louis Fed... this thread is only 30 posts long.... it is quite easy to see.

It's right in the definitions of "after tax income" and "transfer income" in the definitions section of the report:
Click to expand...
 
David St. Hubbins said:
I'm *shocked* that you agree with SF. Truly.
Click to expand...

What in that statement shows "agreement" with anything? It is likely that I do agree, but I certainly have made no sign of such an agreement or suggested anything other than his lack of "ignorance" which you predicted.
 
Damocles said:
What in that statement shows "agreement" with anything? It is likely that I do agree, but I certainly have made no sign of such an agreement or suggested anything other than his lack of "ignorance" which you predicted.
Click to expand...


I didn't say SF was ignorant. I said he would ignore the study. Those words mean different things.
 
Superfreak said:
Seriously... do you get a deal on straw?
Click to expand...


If you aren't saying that income inequality is no big deal, what it the point of cherry-picking the Treasury study? You're making the same argument that the Bush treasury made, that Garrett made, that IBD made, that the Wall Street Journal editors made, that Paul Ryan made, that Eric Cantor made: income inequality isn't a problem because we have tremendous social mobility in the U.S.
 
David St. Hubbins said:
I didn't say SF was ignorant. I said he would ignore the study. Those words mean different things.
Click to expand...

Right, you predicted that Superfreak would remain in directed and purposeful ignorance of the report. I noted that he clearly has a strong knowledge of the report rather than any ignorance, neither purposeful ignorance or accidental.

Again, where is the "agreement" you said I have presented?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top