Friday, September 13, 2013
Welcome to the new Gilded Age
http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/09/12/20458133-welcome-to-the-new-gilded-age?lite Due 23 Sep 2013. What are the repercussions of having income inequality at these levels? What policy changes would you suggest??
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The opportunities of all Americans are inherently limited. The strength of the upper class seems to be impossible to achieve without the diminishing of the lower and middle classes. The gap between the classes is a result of overestimating the ability of the upper class to spend and invest in the economy. Most will probably just hold onto their money. However, in my view, the lower and middle classes power the economy since they require new products for entertainment and sustenance and they ARE the economy. The top 1% can make as much of the nation's pre-tax income as they want, but ultimately, the work horses are the power of the American economy and are responsible for the very concept of the American dream. I believe that policies should be changed to balance out the inequalities of between the classes. Get rid of tax cuts for the wealthy and encourage them to spend money in stocks and in everyday purchases. If they have nearly 20% of the national income, what's the point if only the other 80% are spending it? The gap must be filled between the rich and poor to create a nation of opportunity.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with having inequality at these levels is that it makes it alot harder for people in the middle to lower class to move up in the economy. The rich basically control the rising and falling of stocks and whatever they decide to do affects everyone else because they own so much of the company. Also if the rich don't give back, the economy will not flourish and that makes it alot harder for the lower middle class. Its not really that bad for the top 1% because they have so much money already. A policy that I would change is to stop having tax cuts for the rich and actually have them pay more so it gives the lower middle class a chance to grow.
ReplyDelete1) The repercussions of having income inequality like this is that this could lead to another stock market crash and following that would be the great depression. This data is almost the same as in the late 20's when the market crashed, history will repeat itself if we don't find ways to balance the income sort of like what happened in the 50's or sixties.
ReplyDelete2 I think the rich should be taxed accordingly to their income. Get rid of the tax cuts the Bush had placed to sneak around the system. instead of increasing taxes so that the middle class pays in suffice to the higher earning income people.Make it so that everyone is paying their share of what is supposed to be paid.
These income levels of the top 1% compared to the rest of the population is mind blowing. With the top 1% making around 20% of the total income, the rest of the population has to share a "measly" 80%. With statistics like these, the rich is literally controlling the economy and could easily alter the money makers, such as the stock market, to their liking. Some policy changes that would help out the population would be to make the tax rate the same for everyone, including the top 1%, especially since they will fuel the majority of the cash into the economic system.
ReplyDeleteThe income inequality that we are dealing with will have some very severe repercussions that could possibly lead to another stock market crash. These income levels of the top 1% compared to the rest of the population are just outrageous. Most of the wealth accumulates at the top of the income scale. The top 1% can make as much of the nation's pre-tax income as they want. But in reality, the economy is based on the middle and lower classes. I do believe that the middle and lower classes power the economy unlike the top 1% do. I do not think that the upper class should have to be taxed more just because they are more successful than the rest of the nation. One of the ways that they should help the economy prosper thought is by spending their money on the economy like investing in the stock market.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe income inequality between the rich 1% and the bottom 99% is at a staggering number. It has not been this severe since the early 1900's. This could lead to many severe consequences in the economy. Since there is only about 80% of money left for the bottom 99%, the middle and low class will suffer tremendously. Money will be less abundant for those classes, and the cost of living will be much more of a burden to afford. Putting food on one and one's family's plates will be more of a difficult task to achieve. A policy change I would suggest is to tax the bottom 99% less, and tax the wealthy 1% more. This way, money will be balanced a little more evenly and the inequality level will be downgraded to more of an extent than it currently is.
ReplyDelete-Anita Pizzirani (Pizza)
Period: 1
It is a tragic thing when the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. When the top 1% gets almost all of the money, the bottom 99% get almost none of it and the elite group of the rich people continue to flourish while the rest of the country suffers, leaving the middle and lower classes living at a lower quality of life just to make ends meet. I think that to change this, we should let up on the taxes for the bottom 99% and give the top 1% more taxes, rather than tax cuts.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that the rich people get to own the majority of the wealth of the nation plays a big role in determining whether or not we are going to have our next Great Recession. When the rich people own most of the money, the poor people can only make limited amount of money, thus making the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The way we can fix the issue is to raise the tax on the corporations and to reduce the tax on the ordinary people like us.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe repercussions of having such an extensive gap between the top 1% and the rest of the country are deleterious to the chances of the poor getting rich. With the difference growing wider every year, the power of the rich will only increase as they reap higher concentrations of the country's income. With such an advantage, they could easily suppress the poor's efforts to climb up the financial ladder. Many Americans will try to argue that "everyone is given the same opportunities," and though this is true in many aspects, it doesn't help the fact that technology is slowly taking over many jobs that once employed low-income workers. The richer the top 1% gets, the more they can afford advanced machines to do people-jobs.
ReplyDeleteSomething to consider in this situation is shushing the Republican Party and their absolutely absurd efforts to increase tax cuts for the rich. The rich should pay taxes that correspond to their earnings. That's the least they could do if they're not investing their massive amount of cash into the country's economy.
The drastic inequality between the top 1% and the bottom 99% has only grown, and it hasn't been this bad since the the 1920s. As the richer get richer and flourish, all they desire to do is take more of the country's income than before. In fact, majority of the country's income lies within the hands of a small elite group, that only seems to get richer by the moment and therefore bottom 99% of the country suffers. As previously stated, I agree that the best policy to suppress what is occurring is to raise taxes on this elite group and let the low income workers have less taxes. A good economy, is a working economy. These people need to work, and be able to have money to spend to keep the economy going.
ReplyDeleteThe income distribution inequality that exists in the United States today is dangerous to our economy for several reasons. First, a concentration of wealth in the top one percent means that middle class consumers can do little to contribute to the economy, causing it to become stagnant. Also, the concentration of money makes it hard for the cash to get back to government or circulate through the economy in any form, not only causing the aforementioned stagflation but also harming the economy over time.
ReplyDeleteThe best policy option is to increase taxes on the wealthy, because it will get more money back into the economy. Unfortunately, it seems as though government intervention is the only way to get money back into the economy, thus taxation is the best policy option. GOP concerns about rights and liberty pale in comparison to the tangible impacts of a sanguine economy.
The income inequality that we are dealing with could lead to another stock market crash. The income levels to top 1% compared to the rest of the population are just outright crazy.
ReplyDeleteThey should tax the top 1% at a much higher rate than they do to the middle or lower class as well the rich should help the economy prosper by spending their money on the economy for example investing in the stock market
ReplyDeleteSuch significant gaps between the incomes and power between the middle class and extreme upper class are causing many issues here in America. This gap has hindered the power of the middle class to move the economy and the rich have gained more control than ever. Inequalities as seen in the graph make it nearly impossible for middle class citizens to move up the financial ladder. Trends like this can lead to another stock market crash. There is a multitude of policies that could be made to help shrink this gap while still benefiting the economy. Laws to fill the tax loopholes big CEO’s abuse would be an important fix. Another policy to fix this would be incentives for middle and lower class citizens to buy things and stimulate the economy.
ReplyDeleteThe inequality in income between the rich 1% and the bottom 99% is extreme. A situation has not been this severe since the 1920's. This could lead to another crash in the stock market. The richer people are only going to grow more powerful over the years, The top are getting all the money while the bottom (most of the people) are getting almost nothing, As the rich people continue to grow in power, the rest are left to struggle, In order to change this the taxes should be raised for the top 99% and lowered for the bottom 1% to make it an even playing field.
ReplyDeleteWith an unequal distribution of income among the rich and the poor, there are less opportunities for the lower class. Less money is in the hands of the middle lower class, which means there is less money in circulation in the economy. As a result, the overall levels of supply and demand of goods drops, as less people are able to afford them. The economy prospers when more money is in circulation and people spend money investing, but that is not possible with these numbers. In 2010, 23% of the nation’s wealth was in the hands of the top 1% highest-income households. With a population as huge as the United States, roughly 314 million, the economy cannot afford to have this high number. Raising the tax on the wealthy by a small percentage will show a significant change and essentially benefit the economy.
ReplyDeleteThe Gilded Age of the 1870’s a period in American history where there was enormous economic growth as well as enormous poverty. The current state of the U.S. economy is being compared to this previous Gilded Age in that there is the greatest disparity ever between the 1% and the other 99% of U.S. taxpayers. While every country has a defined system of “haves and have-nots” this graph indicates that the concentration of wealth at the top of the income scale continues to grow. Krugman likens it to, “a tiny elite.”
ReplyDeleteWhile Democrats insist on leading the charge for needed economic growth change through strong labor movements, the Republicans would rather not have this discussion for fear that it will lead to “class warfare.” The Republicans choose to pacify the people by calling out for more tax cuts for the rich. As the middle class becomes more and more obsolete, the need for this section of the economy to revitalize and restore is with more jobs, affordable housing ownership, and lower taxes. The middle class serves as a cushion between the rich and the poor, and is a vital sector that revitalizes the economy by buying goods and services. Along with changes to help establish a stronger middle class, changes must be instituted for the wealthy as well. As stated by Griffin Polk, there is a need for changes in the loopholes. Wealthy Americans have been able to find loopholes and tax shelters in current taxation laws and these must be nullified in order to stop the 1% from not paying their fair share of taxes. Furthermore, although taxes can be raised for these wealthy Americans, perhaps a better way to infuse the economy would be for them to spend a certain percentage of their income on the purchase of goods and supplies like construction, transportation, and education. Although this idea may at first be difficult to implement and enforce, having the wealthy contribute to the economy will also re-infuse it.
The increasing income disparity between the upper class and the remaining people has many potential consequences. One of the repercussions includes change in demand. Even though the top 2% spend more money, the wealthy handle money differently than the rest, saving money and investing in fixed assets like homes, which does not create jobs or demand for things that fuel the economy. The middle class spends money on basic commodities produced in factories and farms that creates jobs and demand for resources that allow money to circulate throw the economy. A huge factor in a country’s economic growth is education. Education becomes much less accessible to the poor and even the middle class unless a country has a pretty even income distribution. This growing inequality in income may lead to a decrease in the affordability of college and this would curb and lock economic growth. The inequality limits opportunity and economic mobility leading to even more disparity. One of the few solutions to this problem could be increasing taxes on the top earners and even the very upper middle class, or even to just get rid of tax breaks to even out the income gap. The government also needs to invest in education more so the educational system isn’t dauntingly unaffordable amount. This way, more people can afford college and more people can get higher earning jobs that contribute to the economy and close the gap.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with these inequality levels is that the rich are getting richer and the poor ate getting poorer. Its even more disturbing because the 2012 republican platform called for more tax cuts for the rich. If it was up to me the poorer citizens would be getting the tax cuts and the rich would bee getting taxed more. That would bee my new policy.
ReplyDeleteHaving such a large wealth inequality would make it difficult for other contributing members of the economy to flourish. Less money to go around. To remedy this I would enact a bartering system.
ReplyDeleteIn recent decades, Americans have made a lot of money at the top of the imcome scale. But according to this week, there hasnt been anything like the status quo since the goverment started keeping track. "of the gains made by the top 10 percent, almost none went to the 90-95 group. The rich seem to be getting richer.
ReplyDeletethe repercussions of having income inequality at these levels are evident in a multitude of ways. Both the lower and middle class are detrimentally affected by this immense income inequality. The gap is so vast that it further delineates the rich from both the middle class and lower class to an extent that makes it much harder for the gap to shrink. The fact that the top 1% pulls in 19.3% of total household income in 2012 alludes to the massive problem that economic inequality is fostering. This growing inequality only serves to further exacerbate money troubles for the "99%" and proves very disastrous to the economic prosperity of the middle class. A policy change that I would personally suggest would be very drastic, and would induce heavy taxation towards the top 1% to be redirected to the 99%. Although seemingly far-fetched, this would directly address the problem of economic inequality.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFor starters, the graph and the article don’t line up. “The U.S. pulled in 19.3% of total household income in 2012, which is their biggest slice of total income in more than 100 years.” Yet, the graph shows that in 2005 it was higher than it is now. 2nd of all, this is The Maddow Blog. Maddow is so liberally biased (as is everyone on MSNBC) that I’m surprised you showed us this article. Anyway, to answer your question, one repercussion would be raising prices. An example would be college tuition. The rich are able to send their kids to college easily and often pay in full right away if they can. Colleges will then raise their tuitions to get more money out them. They know their buying price is very high so they raise their selling price. Now the middle class doesn’t have enough money to pay for college and too much money to apply for financial aid. I think tax rates should be even across the board. If someone earns a certain amount, then a specific fraction of that should go to taxes. If one person works mediocrely and makes two apples and another person works hard and makes 10 apples, does it make sense for the first person to give one apple to the government while the other gives nine? No. If the first person gives 1, then the second person should give five. So I think the appropriate solution would be to equalize tax rates across the board.—Ian Hunt
ReplyDeleteFor starters, the graph and the article don’t line up. “The U.S. pulled in 19.3% of total household income in 2012, which is their biggest slice of total income in more than 100 years.” Yet, the graph shows that in 2005 it was higher than it is now. 2nd of all, this is The Maddow Blog. Maddow is so liberally biased (as is everyone on MSNBC) that I’m surprised you showed us this article. Anyway, to answer your question, one repercussion would be raising prices. An example would be college tuition. The rich are able to send their kids to college easily and often pay in full right away if they can. Colleges will then raise their tuitions to get more money out them. They know their buying price is very high so they raise their selling price. Now the middle class doesn’t have enough money to pay for college and too much money to apply for financial aid. I think tax rates should be even across the board. If someone earns a certain amount, then a specific fraction of that should go to taxes. If one person works mediocrely and makes two apples and another person works hard and makes 10 apples, does it make sense for the first person to give one apple to the government while the other gives nine? No. If the first person gives 1, then the second person should give five. So I think the appropriate solution would be to equalize tax rates across the board.—Ian Hunt
ReplyDeleteThe inequality between incomes of the rich and the poor is reaching an all-time high. Increasingly diverging socioeconomic strata creates only more wealth and power for those of the higher classes. The consequences are only harming for the poor. When the wealthy acquire more, they invest it in personal deals. For instance, they might buy homes-- fixed assets that have no effect on the demand of products or create jobs. The best way to better this situation is a change in taxes- higher for those that earn more, and lower for those that earn less. Though it would technically be unfair to do so, I also believe that the Extremists in the Republican Party, such as the Tea Party, should be shut down. They are only hurting the rest of us with their preference for disparity.
ReplyDelete