The Pardu

The Pardu
Watchful eyes and ears feed the brain, thus nourishing the brain cells.
Showing posts with label Income inequity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Income inequity. Show all posts

Monday, August 10, 2015

Rand Paul Decrees You Are Suffering Income Inequity Due To "Not Working Hard"

The Eyes Depict The Soul

Huffington Post 8/09/2015
"The thing is, income inequality is due to some people working harder and selling more things," Paul told host Chris Wallace on "Fox News Sunday." "If people voluntarily buy more of your stuff, you'll have more money." 

Paul has proposed what he calls a "flat and fair tax," which would put a flat 14.5 percent tax on all types of income. An analysis by the Tax Foundation found that under the plan, households earning more than $1 million per year would see their after-tax incomes rise by 13 percent. Households earning between $50,000 and $75,000 per year, meanwhile, would see their after-tax income rise only by 3 percent. 

"Doesn't your plan massively increase income inequality?" Wallace asked. 

"It's a fallacious notion to say, 'Oh, rich people get more money back in a tax cut,'" Paul responded. "If you cut taxes 10 percent, 10 percent of a million is more than 10 percent of a thousand dollars. So, obviously, people who pay more in taxes will get more back.""We all end up working for people who are more successful than us," Paul went on, "and that's a good thing, that more money will be back in the economy."
And therein lies the Republican answer to an obvious economic problem that beset the nation in the early 1980s. Who served in the Oval Office between 1981 through the late 1980s? Hint: the nation's 40th US President promulgated and nourished an economic theory that without question led to the current income inequality as surely as he sold arms to Iran for hostages and to fund the Nicaraguan Contras. Linked for those too young to recall or for the political novice. 

Ronald Reagan and his adaptation of Paul Harvey's Trickle- Down Supply Side economics: Reaganomics. 

In 2014, The New Yorker's John Cassidy published a piece with six charts based on noted economist Thomas Piketty's position on Reaganomics.

Piketty’s Inequality Story in Six Charts


If you read the Cassidy piece you have a greater understanding of the scope and depth of Rand Paul's lack of acumen regarding matters of income inequality. Moreover, and more likely Paul is spewing common GOP strategy mantra when pushed to answer question that no politician can effectively answer. In much more simple terms Paul is doing what he and his Dad do best: spew inane verbiage while sharing undiluted manure  to their listeners. 

Now, think about Paul's remarks again.
"The thing is, income inequality is due to some people working harder and selling more things," 
Does the following graphics validate or refute Paul's asinine and insensitive remarks? Look closely at the Top 1% red trend-line and pay particular attention the time period fer 1976.

If you actually need more credible data to understand Rand Paul is as empty a suit as the GOP can muster, follow the PowerPoint slides from the Federal Reserve Bank.

The Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco

Learn about the U.S. household income distribution as a jumping-off point for understanding income inequality. (Larger version)

Additional FRBSF resource information
"The Evolution of Top Incomes in the United States." FRBSF Video: Economics in Person (June 28, 2012).

"Rising U.S. Wage Inequality: Whither the Middle Class?" FRBSF Video: Economics in Person (June 28, 2012).

I doubt from his teen years forward Donald Trump never word as hard as the construction workers who now build his buildings. He cannot have worked as hard as his kitchen workers at his various failed casino enterprises. Additionally, there is no way Paul's comments stand to logic when we compare compensation levels of CEOs and pay scales of the vast majority of the CEO's employees.

Paul should be forced to address the lack of support for increasing the minimum wage as a matter of GOP policy. Maybe he should be forced to address gender pay inequity for 53 percent of the nation's a workforce: women. And, considering weak remarks regarding taxation, he should be forced to provide more definitive answers as to why the GOP refuses to increase taxes for the wealthy.

While inception income inequity predates the Bush "Dubya" years by two decades, all members of the GOP should be forced to view the following chart on a daily basis. There Great Bush Recession probably resulted in part from the vestige of Trickle-down GOPism.


Monday, March 3, 2014

Income Inequity: A Warning Of Things To Come!

photo: Occupy* Posters
If anyone seriously thinks raising the minimum wage and extracting additional revenues via taxing the wealthy are ridiculous liberal policy, you should pay close attention.

Since the late 1970s and through its early stages feed copiously by Reaganomics (Trickle-down, supply-side economics), income disparity has gone virtually unreported. Let' face facts, the US Media now owned by six mega conglomerates, media will not expose and report on the gift to its owners and top executives. The GOP damned well would never have opened the topic for scrutiny and probing. Thus, were it not for probing progressives, a President who cares, and Internet media, you would suffer from blissful ignorance about the scope of disparity. 

Since our artificial economic heaven burst with the Bush Great Recession (December 2007, denied by Bush until December 2008 after the 2008 General Election), the following charts figures have stop points in 2007. Each figure is a well known exhibition that should be at the forefront of all progressive political advertisements.

Mother Jones
For those who are a bit laisezz-faire about graphics, this one clearly delineates the telling data.

This chart was updated to include 2010. It looks as if the uber wealthy took the Great Recession "Hit", but recuperated and has launched itself on another upward trend,  on the strength of their "trickle-down" economy.
USNews Dot Com
US citizens should make no mistake. Regardless of you politics, your social paradigm (shy of bigoted or racist hatred) what you are about to see is inexcusable.  

Rob-servations Dot Com is running a very basic, in-your-face reality check.  We are going to post a few Robsevations and link the page for your viewing.

Income Inequality, Series 1 (from Feb. 19)
See more 

Monday, January 6, 2014

Peggy Noonan Deflects From Income Inequity to ObamaCare! WOW!

"....did you know that the average CEO's pay is 1,039 times more generous than that of the average worker? 


Morgan is the editor of Co.Exist.

The conservative joins other conservatives in "WE DO NOT CARE."
After a while conservative pundit resistance to matters important to the nation becomes an indication of various cognitive abnormality and extreme insensitivity mixed with over-the-top short-shortsightedness. 

Highly compensated pundits appear of the network and cable Sunday morning news talk shows as reliably as the 24 hour clock. A better analogy would be the likeness and reliability of conservative pundits (on Sunday morning) and their unyielding support for protecting the current tax structure; thus protecting the earnings power of the nation's Top 20 percent income earners. Earning power that contributed one such pundit' active  deflection this past Sunday.

Pundits like Peggy Noonan (in all of her splendid self-aggrandizing elitism), George Will (Fox News's newest propagandist) and Charles Krauthammer (Pulitzer-Prize winning demagogue), are contracted for appearances Sunday, after Sunday.
 They offer constant feed for people who thrive on anti-Democratic/anti-Obama rhetoric and they do so with the most acute examples of stubbornness and zaniness imaginable. Their harm to the nation and efforts to provide a better life for allow Americans is suppressed only be the ridiculousness of networks who have the demagogues contracted each Seventh Day.

Media Matters published a detailed review of guest on the Sunday Morning shows. The review reflected results that shouldn't surprise.  Not only do certain networks book a preponderance of conservative guest, they almost exclusive book white males. The Media Matters review spanned the first three quarters  of 2013 (illustrated as September = Q3). Pay particular attention to the graphic illustration of Q3. 

It is obvious the major networks booked pundits and surrogates to leverage viewership incited by the implementation of the "Affordable Care Act (ACA). The October 1, 2013 open enrollment date and complete and utter failure from the HHS (and the Administration) via providing a website tool to facilitate enrollment, was a literal gold mine for the graphed networks. How best to garner viewers, book guest who are dogmatic in their opposition to  the ACA?   

Those same networks become booking bastions for white males in the very same manner the GOP reflects a 92% white membership. The Libertarian Party reflects similar racial demographics. 
Both parties/political ideology are also as male dominant as conservative and GOP ideology and practice as exemplified by the ongoing GOP War on Women. A War on women that focuses almost exclusively on unmarried, younger (than aged 50) women. We shudder to think of why married older women march in "lock-step" with their husbands in obvious indifference to equal rights for women (i.e., equal pay, health services for the child bearing women, unemployment payments etc.). We actually know why the dynamics exists, but do not care to pursue our opine in this screed.

We Digress! The real danger in Network facilitation of right-wing ideology strikes at teh core of out future. 

Over this past weekend CBS occupied a seat with one of the most pompous right-wing pundits alive: Peggy Noonan. CBS broke the predominance of white males, but got the very same twisted right-wing dogma as that spewed by dominate party white males.  It is important to note, Noonan earns a hefty paycheck from the Ruppert Murdoch owned Wall Street Journal. Therefore, we should expect no less than delivery of extreme Right dogma for the CBS audience. 

We offer one additional fact, before moving to the inimitable Noonan. Since, Noonan posited about income disparity/inequity (an Obama 2014 focus and a sure State of the Union Speech item) as a strategy to take the nation away from the failures of "ObamaCare."

Noonan spews "hopeful" Right-wing anti-ACA talking points embodied in one (without any credible basis) statement.

While we certainly cannot assume the ACA( AKA ObamaCare) will not suffer reality setbacks in 2014. We posit the Administration has dealt effectively with setback since October 1, 2013, and we assume any glitches will be address similarly).  How can pundits like Noonan secure air-time to spew pure hopeful rhetoric without counter probing for details vs. GOP "playbook" Mantra? Why can't host ask about the nine million (reported) benefactors of the law? Why can't a host try this, "What happens to the medical coverage fore nine million reported ACA benefactors?" Now, how hard was that? Put them on the spot vs. providing a ideology platform that cannot help, but influence minds.

Media Matters...
Noonan responded to host Bob Schieffer's question about why Democrats were focusing on income inequality and increasing the minimum wage by claiming that they "need to change the subject" away from Obamacare:

NOONAN: [Obama] does not want to talk about Obamacare. It is widely assumed that in 2014 the bad news of Obamacare, the dislocations, the lost coverage, the price hikes, the premium hikes, et cetera, et cetera, that all of this will continue. It's not the website. The website is the old story. It is the program. It will unveil over the next two years and it's going to be problematic. The president does not want to talk about it. The Democrats do not want to talk about it. Therefore,  income equality, minimum wage, et cetera, et cetera. They need to change the subject.

Linked video; CLICK and scroll-down

Noonan also dropped a bomb via labeling newly elected Mayor of New York a Sandanista. While, she quickly attempted to rephrase the remark, I have little doubt the mission was accomplished. You can rest assured her words will surface in right-wings memes, websites and probably some host of Fox will share the B/S.

We should not expect better from Noonan regarding incommode inequity. she served in the Reagan Administrations, we we suspect remains dogmatic about "trickle-down" economics.

Maybe, Noonan,s lack of regard for the less economically privileged has deep conservative roots. the real question is how can CBS continue to pay her a hefty paycheck to show-up on Sundays with GOP 'playbook"; B/S that literally makes no sense at all. On top of her flawed punditry, viewers are forced to tolerate her over-the-top pompous non-verbal demeanor.

Reagan's "Trickle-down"...did not trickle! Noonan was there!

Noonan was there!

How crass to deflect from income inequity at a time when her party is denying unemployment payments to millions?

Income inequity...

CNN 2010 segment 1:00 minute: Linked

RT Network 2010 segment 5:26 minutes: Linked

We linked the two links above due solely to the timing of the broadcast. Obama has only just begun to speak about income inequity. We suggest the two links and Noonan's inane deflection (to OBamaCare) reflects the shallowness of counter progressive arguments from the Right.

Surely Noonan is aware of The Stanford Center for the Study of Poverty and Inequality study. The following infographic--by Kristy Tillman for Objects in Repeat--explains 15 different facts about American inequality that might tweak your worldview a little. 

Larger Version: Linked (CLICK again image after large version)

CBS should seriously consider re-formatting its revenue model to include credible sources of information and credible pundits (or more balanced pundits) for sharing information critical to the nation's economic and social health. Simply booking guest to spew GOP ideology or guest to refute the GOP demagogues may garner revenue, but falls well shy of journalistic social responsibility. 

We would not expect Noonan in any way to agree to intelligently discuss income inequity (Or for that matter national healthcare), but we should expect surface efforts to deflect from a critical issue would be mitigated.  Bob Schieffer's responses to Noonan were proper journalistic probing and retort, but even he pulled-up shy of fully challenging the propagandist. If challenged with demeanor and comment denoting pundit lunacy, these people will restrict their insanity to Fox News, and the new CNN.


Wednesday, September 11, 2013

Income Inequity: As Dangerous To The Nation As Some External Threats

President Obama referenced this data during a recent tour around the country. The GOP called the president's tour a campaign tour, we considered it interacting with the people on issues that matter most.  The relevancy of the chart comes to light in just a bit.
We at the TPI written worn-out many keyboards on screeds related to income inequality. Our belief,  the nation is now seeing the full rotten-fruit of income disparity planted by Reagan's "supply-side economics" or "trickle-down economics" if that rolls through the grey matter more easily.

Media Matters has published a piece regarding the lack of media coverage of issues related to growing income inequity. The significance of the piece cannot be overstated.  If we are given opportunity to educate ourselves, we become an informed populace and informed voters can improve life in the United States.  Simply watching until the inequity becomes a matter of revolution is unacceptable. Or worse, inattention condemns future generations to lives of virtual servitude. Servitude which by policy and practice is leading to an undeniable plutocracy. 

We will visit the Media Matters piece after a brief journey through excerpts from Jobeconomics.  

In November 2012,  Jobeconomics published a piece that not only echoes many sources regarding income disparity/inequity, the piece lays-out the issue from definition of income brackets through irrefutable details of the GOP economic failures. Economic failure for the middle and lower income strata; quite the contrary for upper income people. 

The data that gets most political and media attention is from the US Census Bureau’s Income Inequality Historical Tables[5].  The Census Bureau reports historical income inequality data in current dollars (not adjusted for inflation) and inflation adjusted dollars.
The US Historical Income Inequality chart was created by Jobenomics using Census 2011 dollars (adjusted for inflation) over the last 45 years.  Over the last 4 ½ decades, the bottom 95% of US households have not made significant income gains.  The top 5% average household income increased from $111,866 in 1967 (note: unadjusted 1967 household income for the top 5% was $19,000) to $186,000 in 2011 for a gain of 66%, or 1.5% per year— significant but certainly not great.  To get to great numbers, one must use top 1% or top 0.1% data that is addressed below.
 Here is the same chart showing current dollars that are not adjusted for inflation.   In current dollars the top 5% increased their average household income by 879% ($19,000 in 1967 to $186,000 in 2011) as opposed 66% ($111,866 in 1967 to $186,000 in 2011) using 2011 Dollars that were adjusted for inflation.  Jobenomics believes that inflation adjusted dollars give more of an apples-to-apples comparison, than non-adjusted current dollar comparisons.
Jobenomics created the Top 1% chart using the most recent bipartisan US Congressional Budget Office report[6], updated August 2012 (note: the US Census Bureau does not report on the top 1%).  The chart shows that the top 1% far exceeds all other taxpayer incomes.  In 2009 Dollars, the top 1% earned an average after-tax income of $886,700 down from $1,120,500 a year before the recession.  The CBO also reports that there are 1.1 million top 1% households out of a total of 117.6 million US households, and that their share of total after-tax income was 11.5%.  In other words, the top 1% represents 1% of all households and earns 11.5% of total US income.
See more

Now for a look at how media appears to avoid the issue.  

Media Matters....

Media Remain Silent As Inequality Reaches Landmark High

Blog ››› ››› ALBERT KLEINE

New research shows that the gap between the rich and poor in the United States in 2012 rose at the fastest rate since 1928. This revelation comes at a time when television and print media outlets largely underreport economic inequality. 
According to research from economists at the University of California, Berkeley, the Paris School of Economics, and Oxford University, in 2012, incomes for those in the top 1 percent of earners rose by roughly 20 percent. According to the Associated Press, the share of income captured by the wealthiest was the highest since 1928, a year before the onset of the Great Depression . 
The remaining 99 percent of earners, meanwhile, saw a 1 percent increase in income. 
The research findings reinforce previous warnings from economists that rising income inequality poses a threat to economic well-being.

Media Matters article teaser...


The lack of media coverage of the growing disparity is literally inexcusable.

If media avoids the issue, people have no opportunity to explore growing income inequity. 

If we are not aware of a problem, it is impossible to address the problem.  

If an entity wants to advance an agenda with little interference from the masses, what is the best way to proceed?  The answer is simple: 

"Keep the problem under wraps and restrict understanding or knowledge of the problem, thus keeping the problem in a closet."

I learned many years ago, "Information is only as good as how you use it."  If we ignore the growing disparity, desperate measures may one day come forth. 

People are like that, yes they are. 

Sunday, April 28, 2013

Income Inequality Part I: A Worldwide Problem With Major US Fissure
Income inequality is not a economic phenomenon restricted to the United States.  It is a worldwide reality with inequality in some countries sitting at the high-end of the scale; surpassing indicators of other countries. In all cases except the nations of  Scandinavia and a few other nations, the less fortunate denizens of nations live vastly different lives from the wealthy.  The spectrum spans lavish opulence to overwhelming poverty and death, the numbers are stark and revealing.

Gfmag Dot Com published an interactive world map of income inequality.  The map is supported via use of the the GINI Index.

GINI index

Gini index measures the extent to which the distribution of income or consumption expenditure among individuals or households within an economy deviates from a perfectly equal distribution. A Lorenz curve plots the cumulative percentages of total income received against the cumulative number of recipients, starting with the poorest individual or household. The Gini index measures the area between the Lorenz curve and a hypothetical line of absolute equality, expressed as a percentage of the maximum area under the line. Thus a Gini index of 0 represents perfect equality, while an index of 100 implies perfect inequality.

Wealth Distribution and Income Inequality by Country Data is from the World Bank Development Indicators.
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution Share Alike
Other widely used measures of economic inequality are the percentage of people living with under US$2 a day (at 2005 international prices) and the share of national income held by the wealthiest 10% of the population.
According to World Bank data, income inequality tends to be lower in Northern Europe, with countries such as Sweden, Norway and Finland showing some of the world's lowest GINI coefficients. It is also surprisingly low in much less affluent countries like Afghanistan and Ethiopia. 
The highest levels of income inequality were found, in the last decade, in countries such as the Central African Republic, Honduras, Angola, Haiti, South Africa and Namibia.

In the late 2000s, Chile had the highest GINI coefficient, after taxes and transfers, among OECD member countries. The United States, Turkey and Mexico came right before it.
The highest levels of income inequality were found, in the last decade, in countries such as the Central African Republic, Honduras, Angola, Haiti, South Africa and Namibia. 
In the late 2000s, Chile had the highest GINI coefficient, after taxes and transfers, among OECD member countries. The United States, Turkey and Mexico came right before it.
Read more
(Posted Under Creative Commons License: Attribution Share Alike)
Huffington Post recently published an infographic depicting "the mind blowing" reality of US income inequity.

Pay special attention to the bottom 90 percent of Americans, who collectively held just a little more than half of the nation's wealth in 2010, all while the wealthiest 0.01 percent held nearly five percent. It's a stark divide many too easily forget.
income distribution

The infographic a very basic, yet effective exposition of information that will follow. It provides a quick reference message and it delivers the message effectively.   For those who are not averse to data and charts, there is more to come. Much of what's to come is poignant in delivering a message, "Income inequity is a problem that will eventually boil-over like an overflowing pot of your mother's Oatmeal."

There is one glaring message from the infographic that relates to current budget deliberations. We suggest among other more drastic recommendations, removal of the Social Security Cap for the Top 20% to 30% income earners. The 2013 social security (payroll tax) maximum is $113,700. The maximum has been increased annually for many years. Why are people who earning at the higher income levels 'excused' from paying a tax most of us pay throughout the year?

Why are these income earners exempt from 

payroll taxes when their 
income reaches $113,700?
Basically, income earners on left side of the infographic could pay Social Security taxes throughout the year in support of maintaining solvency of Social Security well into the 22nd Century. Higher income tax rates for the top income earners is another fair way of leveling the disparity 'playing field' while maintaining a hands-off the actual reality of income inequity. The vast majority of Americans do not resent the earnings of the uber wealthy, Those same people, however, may find the current tax rates somewhat offensive and unfair. 

Speaking in terms of fairness is not a viable option for the GOP as it smacks against its unwritten, but existential role of guardians of all things wealthy and majordomo (P) of any measure that facilitates conducting business in America. If you need an example consider Eric Cantor's persistent attacks on the Fair Labor Standards Act. (Cantor would sponsor a bill to lessen the need for companies to pay Overtime work at tine and one-half). US Citizens contribution via income taxes to Cantors $194,000 plus House Leader congressional; compensation. Do you actually believe such a measure would work for the betterment of the family, as Cantor claims? Is it possible many companies will abuse such law? I posit such law will actually work to widen American income inequity. How about a bill to improve job creation or job development. 

We are committed to our position that income inequity is a metastasized economic cancer from political policy of the early 1980s.


An unavoidable digression.
Who was president in the early 1980s?

Another consideration of 'life' handed to the middle and lower income strata: spending leading to our current debt and deficits. 

Which US Presidents contributed most to our current financial woes?
Excuse the digression, let's get back to income "trickle-down" economics.