INCOME INEQUALITY IS GOOD

This is worth the watching!

HankD

 

I don't even have to watch it to agree.

 

Spot on; now if only the socialist wannabes in our gov't would listen and HEED! Yeah, I know; but I can dream can't I?

 

I never was real good at economics

HankD

 

Well, that was simplistic. "Is the gap between the 1% and the rest of us bad? NO." (well, that settles it then. Ha ha.)

We don't have $200 cell phones because the 1% bought $4,000 cell phones back in the 80's. We don't have $800 flat screen HDTV's because the wealthy bought $8,000 flat screens in the late 90's. We have them because manufacturers did market research, determined there was enough demand to mass produce these things if they could get the cost down. The 1% were merely the early adopters. If the manufacturers knew they could never mass produce flat screens and get the price down so the middle class could afford them, they would never have proceeded with their plans.

In a free society there will always be income inequality. There is nothing wrong with income inequality, so long as the government does not make policies that disproportionately favor the wealthy.

 

Why would a government disproportionately favor the wealthy?

HankD

 

I don't know.
Because they are big donors to the politicians reelection committees?

Why did the upper brackets get a 20% tax rate reduction under Reagan's tax cuts of 1982 but the middle class only got 3% or 4%?
Why did the upper 2% get a tax rate reduction of 4.6% under George W. Bush's tax cuts and the middle class only got 3%?

 

Right - especially to "Funds" named after politicians.

HankD

 

Uh - Trickle Down? - AKA Voodoo Economics?

HankD

 

Supposedly to give bigger tax breaks to those who are in the upper echelons of income and wealth stimulates the release of their (upper crust) money to invest in the economy.

I personally don't know if that theory has been proven or not.The democrat (JFK Democrat) thinking section of my brain says that it sounds like a ploy to help "the good ole boys" keep more of their money.
I don't have a Republican section anymore, it's been fried.
The Libertarian says Eh, who knows?",
The independent - Does it really matter?"

HankD

 

That phrase "invest in the economy" is quite nebulous.

The way to get the economy going is to have an increased demand for goods and services. The best way to do that is to have millions of middle class people keeping more of their money so they can spend it on middle class things like appliances, furniture, electronics, dining out, etc. Better to have millions of middle class people doing this than having a thousand uber-wealthy buying jewelry, country club dues, art work, or some more Apple stock. Middle class people buying goods and services creates demand which creates jobs.

So give the lion's share of the tax cuts to the middle class. The rich should get one too, just doesn't need to be as big as the middle class's.

 

Is there empirical truth via experimentation for this claim?

HankD

 

It's basic economics. More buying and selling of goods and services creates more participants in economic activity which means more jobs. More buying and selling creates a multiplier effect of economic activity. When you buy something from me, I get an income. I turn around and buy something from someone else, and so on...

It just makes sense that the more people involved in this, the more benefit to the economy.

 

That doesn't address my inquiry about empirical evidence.

It's OK to say you don't know - neither do I.

It all sounds well and good but empirical evidence through experimentation can and often does bring certain unknown, unthought of entities to the surface.


HankD

 

Do I really have to point out the flaws in this story, again? It would be the third or fourth time.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk