We're NOT Number 1: Guess Which Country Now Has a More Affluent Middle Class Than....

Bonestorm said:
Then read this one:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/23/u...le-class-is-no-longer-the-worlds-richest.html
Click to expand...

It's parroting the same moronic leftist pabulum of AlterNet; how gullible and stupid are you?

So does this mean that we can surmise fom all this bad news about the middle class, inequity and massive wealth accumulation of the 1% represent that this Administrations economic policies are a glaring failure? After all, it has been more than five years now hasn't it? At what point is this Obamas problem and not George Bush's, or even Reagan's?
 
Last edited:
cawacko said:
I'm not questioning the numbers I'm commenting on the alternet writer's way of explaining them.
Click to expand...

It's alternet. It's an opinion piece. What do you expect? I gave you a NYTimes news piece so that you can read about the numbers without the editorializing.
 
Bonestorm said:
I don't know who "they" refers to, but:

Bl1DLPMIMAAUOUu.png:large


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/23/u...rican-living-standards.html?smid=tw-upshotnyt
Click to expand...

Odd, but that shows that it did not begin with Reagan as you claimed. Also... what did the chart look like in the 60's and 70's?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States
 
Bonestorm said:
Uh, what?
Click to expand...

Uh... unless you are defining the 'middle class' as '30th percentile' then you are wrong. Also... when you look at Norway and Canada, both are benefiting from the high oil prices we have seen since the mid 2000's. Both have relatively small populations by comparison. Canada at 32mm, Norway at 5.5mm, Austria at 9mm.... not too hard to shift a middle class with a small population.
 
Also... Norway, Canada etc... improving their middle class does not mean ours is necessarily 'deteriorating' as the liberal press is pretending.
 
XLVIII DOMINATORS said:
The real reason Canada's middle class is thriving is OIL.
Click to expand...

No, its liberalism, that provides real opportunity for the middle class instead of making sure the rich can keep their money generation after generation regardless of if the work for it.
 
Jarod said:
No, its liberalism, that provides real opportunity for the middle class instead of making sure the rich can keep their money generation after generation regardless of if the work for it.
Click to expand...

Ok, Jarod. How does liberalism do this?
 
cawacko said:
Ok, Jarod. How does liberalism do this?
Click to expand...

In many ways, but most specifically by making class mobility based on achievement more possible. When you tax the rich more, and give the poor and middle class more of a break.. you break up the log jam the wealth have on the power and access.

As achievement is rewarded over having been born with wealth the middle class rises. What class works the hardest, Id say, and studies prove.. its the middle.
 
Jarod said:
In many ways, but most specifically by making class mobility based on achievement more possible. When you tax the rich more, and give the poor and middle class more of a break.. you break up the log jam the wealth have on the power and access.

As achievement is rewarded over having been born with wealth the middle class rises. What class works the hardest, Id say, and studies prove.. its the middle.
Click to expand...

So redistribution of wealth, or going after those who have economically achieved the most, is the best way to boost achievement.
 
cawacko said:
So redistribution of wealth, or going after those who have economically achieved the most, is the best way to boost achievement.
Click to expand...

It's the best way to deal with income inequality. I mean, the basic idea is that the benefits of economic growth accure to the high end of income distribution and not to the low end of the income distribution. The best way to correct that is to lower the benefits accruing to the high end and increase the benefit accruing to the lower end. Redistribution, through taxation on the upper end of income earners and benefits provided to lower income earners, is a fairly efficient way of doing it.

P.S. - I'm ignoring your "going after" rhetoric becuase I think it's stupid.
 
cawacko said:
So redistribution of wealth, or going after those who have economically achieved the most, is the best way to boost achievement.
Click to expand...

No, that is clearly not what I said.

Creating a system that allows those who work hardest, or are able to accomplish the most is the best way to boost the middle class. If you look at the nations who are inching up on us with regards the wealth of the middle class, you will see that they all have a very large inheritance tax, and the percent of tax paid by the upper class is much higher, percentage wise than what our wealthy pay.

One of the major problems economically currently is that huge amounts of wealth is stuck with the wealthy and they are sitting on it, because of low interest rates. If they were investing there would be an argument that they help the economy. I would argue that the money would still provide more benefit if it were with the middle class. Currently, a person born middle class can work very hard, achieve a great amount of benefit to society, yet will have very little different to show for it than what he started with. That is why our middle class does not grow as fast as those nations whose tax structure is based on a "Scandinavian socialist model."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top