The rich are getting richer much, much faster.
 

Yeah, of course almost all of the income gains from the recovery went to the top 1%. Their income is highly volatile and they took a large part of the income losses from the recession. The wealthy can tolerate a lot more risk than the not-so-wealthy. That doesn't have much to do with the fact that most of the American population is not earning much more now than it did in the 1970's.

This is false.

There's nothing "incoherent" about defining income as the amount someone takes in.

The rich are above reproach.

Taxing people for foodstamps. http://www.discussworldissues.com/im...ons/icon14.gif

Food stamps actually create demand because poor people actually spend the money at stores, sure, you can't have your economy relay to much on that but as a direct stimulus to increase demand it is good. Tax cuts for rich people? Not so much, they already have everything they need so they often save the money or pay down debt. Long term that's good but in the short to medium term it does nothing to increase demand which is what stimulus is supposed to do.

It's ben. He always chooses the dumb option.

Prove that statement.

JM

That is the one I was thinking of.

I don't think that they are economically equivalent.

I couldn't make a model that worked, and ignore one.

Just because they are degenerate in one equation does not mean they are equivalent.

JM

Uh, why isn't pension accruals something that a person is taking in?

We are talking about having a consistent definition.

JM

? What are you asking ?

That's generally the consensus among many on Apolyton. A lot of members here are tools for the one percent.

Because there are lots of things that I implicitly "take in" that aren't included!

In that case no one should care about income, unless by "what a person takes in" you're including all of the things I've described. In that case your definition is fine but it's not what's being measured by your statistic.

This.

A lot of members here are tools for the one percent. Can I get a t-shirt that says it? "I work for the one percent!" Apparently choosing to be poor and sticking your finger at the man is 'cool' and 'righteous'. Working hard to get ahead is 'unrighteous' and 'wicked'.

How's that attitude working out for ya, Mr. Fun?

Edit: FFS - having a degree on Poly is the norm, and that right away puts you in the top quarter in America. We have a disproportionate number of men, as well as those in technical fields.

We are the man!

Btw, properly measured the people who were the top 0.1% or maybe even 1% in income in 2007 should have had negative income in 2008.

For one (two) year, yes. And obviously for that year they would pay no taxes (if we decide to tax based on income, as I said, I think it makes more sense to tax based on consumption/wealth due to difficulty in accounting).

But if we go on the ~30 year average it is very high.

JM

What is the matter with you. If you are measuring the income people have after taxes and transfers have taken place, yes, food stamps, social security checks, and other such entitlements do add to the amount of income they have. If you are measuring the income before taxes and transfers, no, they don't count as income.

No, that's not true.