Total Posts:13|Showing Posts:1-13
Jump to topic:

Misleading Income Inequality Video

Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2013 2:13:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
https://www.youtube.com...

Besides the various typical misleading items, while watching this, I had an epiphany:
Where are the babies?

By this, I mean babies would have no wealth. In fact, most people under the age of 20, which would be about 20-25% of the population, should have little to no wealth. Therefore, the lowest quintile of wealth would have a very, very low percentage of total wealth. (I believe the video said 0.5%)

I see nothing wrong with that, or am I missing something?
My work here is, finally, done.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2013 7:29:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/6/2013 2:13:08 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

Besides the various typical misleading items, while watching this, I had an epiphany:
Where are the babies?

By this, I mean babies would have no wealth. In fact, most people under the age of 20, which would be about 20-25% of the population, should have little to no wealth. Therefore, the lowest quintile of wealth would have a very, very low percentage of total wealth. (I believe the video said 0.5%)

I see nothing wrong with that, or am I missing something?

You can only believe in the concept of class warfare if you are misled by leftist propaganda to start.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2013 12:47:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I've always had a hard time distinguishing between "class warfare" and "rich people who want to stay right living alongside poor people who don't want to stay poor in an environment with limited resources."
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2013 1:04:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/6/2013 12:47:14 PM, Wnope wrote:
I've always had a hard time distinguishing between "class warfare" and "rich people who want to stay right living alongside poor people who don't want to stay poor in an environment with limited resources."

Here's how you distinguish.

If the other people pursue policies like high tax rates, large regulations, and large welfare states, it is class warfare. These policies have the effect of making all of society poorer.

If they advocate the opposite so poor people are able to start businesses and get jobs, then it is not class warfare.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2013 1:08:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/6/2013 1:04:44 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 3/6/2013 12:47:14 PM, Wnope wrote:
I've always had a hard time distinguishing between "class warfare" and "rich people who want to stay right living alongside poor people who don't want to stay poor in an environment with limited resources."


Here's how you distinguish.

If the other people pursue policies like high tax rates, large regulations, and large welfare states, it is class warfare. These policies have the effect of making all of society poorer.

If they advocate the opposite so poor people are able to start businesses and get jobs, then it is not class warfare.

Right, because nothing helps the poor quite like low tax rates for the rich and zero restrictions on creating barriers to entry or predatory practices.

And I'm sure poor people are fascinated with any and all policies that are guaranteed to hurt them AS LONG AS they get a blow against the mean ol' rich people.
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2013 1:16:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/6/2013 1:08:55 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 3/6/2013 1:04:44 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 3/6/2013 12:47:14 PM, Wnope wrote:
I've always had a hard time distinguishing between "class warfare" and "rich people who want to stay right living alongside poor people who don't want to stay poor in an environment with limited resources."


Here's how you distinguish.

If the other people pursue policies like high tax rates, large regulations, and large welfare states, it is class warfare. These policies have the effect of making all of society poorer.

If they advocate the opposite so poor people are able to start businesses and get jobs, then it is not class warfare.

Right, because nothing helps the poor quite like low tax rates for the rich and zero restrictions on creating barriers to entry or predatory practices.

And I'm sure poor people are fascinated with any and all policies that are guaranteed to hurt them AS LONG AS they get a blow against the mean ol' rich people.

Actually, sarcasm aside, low tax rates (for everyone) and low amounts of regulation are the best polices for reducing poverty and helping the poor. You can make sarcastic comments about this, but that is what evidence shows. Economic freedom is much better for reducing poverty than government programs and regulations.

And, unfortunatley, the Democratic party advocates economically bad policies that are aimed at hitting the rich just to get teh votes of poor people who, like the Democrats, don't understand economics.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2013 1:27:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/6/2013 1:16:36 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 3/6/2013 1:08:55 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 3/6/2013 1:04:44 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 3/6/2013 12:47:14 PM, Wnope wrote:
I've always had a hard time distinguishing between "class warfare" and "rich people who want to stay right living alongside poor people who don't want to stay poor in an environment with limited resources."


Here's how you distinguish.

If the other people pursue policies like high tax rates, large regulations, and large welfare states, it is class warfare. These policies have the effect of making all of society poorer.

If they advocate the opposite so poor people are able to start businesses and get jobs, then it is not class warfare.

Right, because nothing helps the poor quite like low tax rates for the rich and zero restrictions on creating barriers to entry or predatory practices.

And I'm sure poor people are fascinated with any and all policies that are guaranteed to hurt them AS LONG AS they get a blow against the mean ol' rich people.


Actually, sarcasm aside, low tax rates (for everyone) and low amounts of regulation are the best polices for reducing poverty and helping the poor. You can make sarcastic comments about this, but that is what evidence shows. Economic freedom is much better for reducing poverty than government programs and regulations.

And, unfortunatley, the Democratic party advocates economically bad policies that are aimed at hitting the rich just to get teh votes of poor people who, like the Democrats, don't understand economics.

I would argue that the Democrats's bite doesn't match their bark. That they throw the poor a couple of bones to keep the votes coming while never actually curtailing subsidies for the wealthy, then spin out more regulations which are pretty much designed to be barriers to market entry because they provide useless busy work for well-connected bourgeoisie liberals. They also keep in place policies like the war on drugs which devastate poor communities, chip away at crucial rights just as readily as Republicans, and oppose voucher programs which would allow the destitute to remove their children from poorly performing public schools (while their own children more often than not enjoy a cozy private education.) Whenever the Democrats have the chance to choose between their upper-middle class supporters and the poor, they choose the former, because they know on which side their bread is buttered.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2013 1:38:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/6/2013 1:27:37 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/6/2013 1:16:36 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 3/6/2013 1:08:55 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 3/6/2013 1:04:44 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 3/6/2013 12:47:14 PM, Wnope wrote:
I've always had a hard time distinguishing between "class warfare" and "rich people who want to stay right living alongside poor people who don't want to stay poor in an environment with limited resources."


Here's how you distinguish.

If the other people pursue policies like high tax rates, large regulations, and large welfare states, it is class warfare. These policies have the effect of making all of society poorer.

If they advocate the opposite so poor people are able to start businesses and get jobs, then it is not class warfare.

Right, because nothing helps the poor quite like low tax rates for the rich and zero restrictions on creating barriers to entry or predatory practices.

And I'm sure poor people are fascinated with any and all policies that are guaranteed to hurt them AS LONG AS they get a blow against the mean ol' rich people.


Actually, sarcasm aside, low tax rates (for everyone) and low amounts of regulation are the best polices for reducing poverty and helping the poor. You can make sarcastic comments about this, but that is what evidence shows. Economic freedom is much better for reducing poverty than government programs and regulations.

And, unfortunatley, the Democratic party advocates economically bad policies that are aimed at hitting the rich just to get teh votes of poor people who, like the Democrats, don't understand economics.

I would argue that the Democrats's bite doesn't match their bark. That they throw the poor a couple of bones to keep the votes coming while never actually curtailing subsidies for the wealthy, then spin out more regulations which are pretty much designed to be barriers to market entry because they provide useless busy work for well-connected bourgeoisie liberals. They also keep in place policies like the war on drugs which devastate poor communities, chip away at crucial rights just as readily as Republicans, and oppose voucher programs which would allow the destitute to remove their children from poorly performing public schools (while their own children more often than not enjoy a cozy private education.) Whenever the Democrats have the chance to choose between their upper-middle class supporters and the poor, they choose the former, because they know on which side their bread is buttered.

Yup.
Logic_on_rails
Posts: 2,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2013 1:40:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
To answer the OP, it's an interesting point. However, many governments survey the income of households , which weakens the strength of your point. That said, I'd have to do some research.

I may reply more in depth later.
"Tis not in mortals to command success
But we"ll do more, Sempronius, we"ll deserve it
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2013 3:31:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/6/2013 1:40:36 PM, Logic_on_rails wrote:
To answer the OP, it's an interesting point. However, many governments survey the income of households , which weakens the strength of your point. That said, I'd have to do some research.

I may reply more in depth later.

The video mentions 311 million americans, not 140 million (or so) households.
Even if it is households, it is still skewed. If I am single and have $1 million in assets (which is what I assume wealth measures, not net worth), and my neighbor's household of 5 has the same, how is this calculated? If we both treated as one, then it would seem that wealth/capita is higher than it is (as the family's share is $200K). However, if it is portioned out, then any family's wealth is eroded, again, skewing the numbers.

BTW, thanks for being the only one to address the OP.
My work here is, finally, done.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2013 3:53:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/6/2013 1:16:36 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 3/6/2013 1:08:55 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 3/6/2013 1:04:44 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 3/6/2013 12:47:14 PM, Wnope wrote:
I've always had a hard time distinguishing between "class warfare" and "rich people who want to stay right living alongside poor people who don't want to stay poor in an environment with limited resources."


Here's how you distinguish.

If the other people pursue policies like high tax rates, large regulations, and large welfare states, it is class warfare. These policies have the effect of making all of society poorer.

If they advocate the opposite so poor people are able to start businesses and get jobs, then it is not class warfare.

Right, because nothing helps the poor quite like low tax rates for the rich and zero restrictions on creating barriers to entry or predatory practices.

And I'm sure poor people are fascinated with any and all policies that are guaranteed to hurt them AS LONG AS they get a blow against the mean ol' rich people.


Actually, sarcasm aside, low tax rates (for everyone) and low amounts of regulation are the best polices for reducing poverty and helping the poor. You can make sarcastic comments about this, but that is what evidence shows. Economic freedom is much better for reducing poverty than government programs and regulations.

And, unfortunatley, the Democratic party advocates economically bad policies that are aimed at hitting the rich just to get teh votes of poor people who, like the Democrats, don't understand economics.

It depends on what regulation you're reducing. And we aren't starting with a neutral status quo. There are job-placement programs and other "welfare" policies that do help economic mobility for the lower class. Taxing a people the same whether they are just able to feed their family or whether they want to buy a new yacht is its own form of class warfare.

Simply leaving the poor on their own won't change that there are structural and social barriers which can be addressed to increase economic mobility, but not without substantial funds used in an effective manner.

Heck, you can argue the public school system is class warfare because those who can afford private schools still pay for poor kids to go to school. Using excess funds towards after-school preventative programs in poor neighborhoods is class warfare against suburban areas. It's class warfare to provide job-training for poor areas but not rich areas.
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2013 4:02:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/6/2013 3:53:10 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 3/6/2013 1:16:36 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 3/6/2013 1:08:55 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 3/6/2013 1:04:44 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 3/6/2013 12:47:14 PM, Wnope wrote:
I've always had a hard time distinguishing between "class warfare" and "rich people who want to stay right living alongside poor people who don't want to stay poor in an environment with limited resources."


Here's how you distinguish.

If the other people pursue policies like high tax rates, large regulations, and large welfare states, it is class warfare. These policies have the effect of making all of society poorer.

If they advocate the opposite so poor people are able to start businesses and get jobs, then it is not class warfare.

Right, because nothing helps the poor quite like low tax rates for the rich and zero restrictions on creating barriers to entry or predatory practices.

And I'm sure poor people are fascinated with any and all policies that are guaranteed to hurt them AS LONG AS they get a blow against the mean ol' rich people.


Actually, sarcasm aside, low tax rates (for everyone) and low amounts of regulation are the best polices for reducing poverty and helping the poor. You can make sarcastic comments about this, but that is what evidence shows. Economic freedom is much better for reducing poverty than government programs and regulations.

And, unfortunatley, the Democratic party advocates economically bad policies that are aimed at hitting the rich just to get teh votes of poor people who, like the Democrats, don't understand economics.

It depends on what regulation you're reducing. And we aren't starting with a neutral status quo. There are job-placement programs and other "welfare" policies that do help economic mobility for the lower class. Taxing a people the same whether they are just able to feed their family or whether they want to buy a new yacht is its own form of class warfare.

Simply leaving the poor on their own won't change that there are structural and social barriers which can be addressed to increase economic mobility, but not without substantial funds used in an effective manner.

Heck, you can argue the public school system is class warfare because those who can afford private schools still pay for poor kids to go to school. Using excess funds towards after-school preventative programs in poor neighborhoods is class warfare against suburban areas. It's class warfare to provide job-training for poor areas but not rich areas.

Actually, job training programs are incredibly ineffective. Welfare programs contribute to a trap of poverty and a culture of dependancys.

State attempts to reduce inequity end up just holding the poor back. You need to seperate intentions from actual results.