Economists say income gap hurts U.S. economy

Status
Not open for further replies.

JoyJuice

Senior Veteran
Aug 8, 2006
10,838
483
✟20,965.00
Faith
Agnostic
Politics
US-Others
...in other related news, 12pm is still noon.
"WASHINGTON —The growing gap between the richest Americans and everyone else isn't bad just for individuals.
It's hurting the U.S. economy.

So say a majority of more than three dozen economists surveyed last week by The Associated Press. Their concerns tap into a debate that has intensified as middle-class pay has stagnated while wealthier households have thrived.

A key source of the economists' concern: Higher pay and outsize stock-market gains are flowing mainly to affluent Americans. Yet these households spend less of their money than do low- and middle-income consumers who make up most of the population but whose pay is barely rising.

"What you want is a broader spending base," said Scott Brown, chief economist at Raymond James, a financial advisory firm. "You want more people spending money."

"The broader the improvement, the more likely it will be sustained," said Michael Niemira, chief economist at the International Council of Shopping Centers.

Income inequality has steadily worsened in recent decades, according to government data and academic studies. The most recent census figures show that the average income for the wealthiest 5 percent of U.S. households, adjusted for inflation, has surged 17 percent in the past 20 years. By contrast, average income for the middle 20 percent of households has risen less than 5 percent."
A myriad of sources

We are a capalist nation where the circulation of money allows demand to promote the creation of goods and services. When the vast majority of people have less money, and a small segment has more, it is counterproductive to a functioning capitalist system.
 

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Site Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,058
16,810
Dallas
✟871,401.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
If wages were higher at least one issue would be better - deficits. Lower income earners who have more disposable income would tend to spend it. That would help local and state coffers. The increase in wages would also create in increase in federal revenue and, as long as spending could be kept under control, the deficit (and perhaps the debt) could be brought under control.
 
Upvote 0

ProudMomxmany

slightly insane mom of many
Jul 6, 2013
1,323
133
✟17,163.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
If wages were higher at least one issue would be better - deficits. Lower income earners who have more disposable income would tend to spend it. That would help local and state coffers. The increase in wages would also create in increase in federal revenue and, as long as spending could be kept under control, the deficit (and perhaps the debt) could be brought under control.

But...but...if wages were higher, profits would be lower...we can't have that, that's un-American!!!!
 
Upvote 0
Feb 2, 2013
3,492
111
✟19,178.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
If wages were higher at least one issue would be better - deficits. Lower income earners who have more disposable income would tend to spend it. That would help local and state coffers. The increase in wages would also create in increase in federal revenue and, as long as spending could be kept under control, the deficit (and perhaps the debt) could be brought under control.

A minimum wage creates unemployment by discouraging employers from hiring. A better solution would be to fire all the bureaucrats and put in place a negative income tax, simultaneously ensuring that everyone is above the poverty line and there is incentive to work:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax
 
Upvote 0

ProudMomxmany

slightly insane mom of many
Jul 6, 2013
1,323
133
✟17,163.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
A minimum wage creates unemployment by discouraging employers from hiring. A better solution would be to fire all the bureaucrats and put in place a negative income tax, simultaneously ensuring that everyone is above the poverty line and there is incentive to work:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax

Can't have that...that's socialism...redistribution of wealth, that's also un-American! (heavy, heavy sarcasm)
 
Upvote 0
Feb 2, 2013
3,492
111
✟19,178.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Can't have that...that's socialism...redistribution of wealth, that's also un-American! (heavy, heavy sarcasm)

I am a libertarian and this was a policy advocated by the libertarian economist Milton Friedman.

The negative income tax would cost less than our current set of welfare programs because it would actually go to those who need it and not to the bureaucrats, so it actually saves taxpayers money.

This is just a better solution than the current one; the ideal solution is the Kingdom of God, which has no government besides God.
 
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
37,573
11,393
✟437,065.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
A minimum wage creates unemployment by discouraging employers from hiring. A better solution would be to fire all the bureaucrats and put in place a negative income tax, simultaneously ensuring that everyone is above the poverty line and there is incentive to work:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax

You would have to know almost nothing about work conditions prior to the minimum wage to believe that.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Feb 2, 2013
3,492
111
✟19,178.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Upvote 0
Feb 2, 2013
3,492
111
✟19,178.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
You would have to know almost nothing about work conditions prior to the minimum wage to believe that.

I know well that working conditions sucked before government intervened (I don't want to go into how government intervened to create industrial monopolies in the early 20th century), my point was that the negative income tax is a better social program than the minimum wage on so many levels, not that the minimum wage didn't solve anything.
 
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
37,573
11,393
✟437,065.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I know well that working conditions sucked before government intervened (I don't want to go into how government intervened to create industrial monopolies in the early 20th century), my point was that the negative income tax is a better social program than the minimum wage on so many levels, not that the minimum wage didn't solve anything.

Fair enough then. Since I'm not big on clicking links, do we have any working examples of a "negative income tax" to compare successes and failures?
 
Upvote 0
Feb 2, 2013
3,492
111
✟19,178.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Fair enough then. Since I'm not big on clicking links, do we have any working examples of a "negative income tax" to compare successes and failures?

Unfortunately, most countries' tax codes would have to be completely rewritten to implement the NIT, which creates a significant barrier to implementation.

However, it has been implemented for a certain bracket of low incomes in Israel:

Knesset approves negative income tax in preliminary reading Israel News | Haaretz

Not a full implementation though, as the unemployed didn't benefit.

And a quick summary of what the NIT is (from Wikipedia) so you don't have to click the link:

In a negative income tax system, people earning a certain income level would owe no taxes; those earning more than that would pay a proportion of their income above that level; and those below that level would receive a payment of a proportion of their shortfall, which is the amount their income falls below that level.
 
Upvote 0

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Site Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,058
16,810
Dallas
✟871,401.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Sorry, I shouldn't have inferred that was what you were talking about. How do you think wages should be raised otherwise?

Employers should raise wages. See Henry Ford for what I'm talking about.

AbuJYhX3prc

Yeah, I'm not going to watch a five minute animation by an Austrian School website. I haven't seen any data that the existence of a minimum wage discourages hiring.

The minumum wage doesn't even guarantee that all will be kept above the poverty line, unlike the negative income tax, so as a social program, it is a failure.

Indeed. It would be better if employers kept track of the CPI and raised low end wages in accordance with it (as long as it didn't effect the balance sheet adversely obviously). That's unlikely to happen so I guess a minimum wage is what we have for now in terms of providing income to the employed.

Ideally, employers would get back to the Henry Ford model.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
37,573
11,393
✟437,065.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Unfortunately, most countries' tax codes would have to be completely rewritten to implement the NIT, which creates a significant barrier to implementation.

However, it has been implemented for a certain bracket of low incomes in Israel:

Knesset approves negative income tax in preliminary reading Israel News | Haaretz

Not a full implementation though, as the unemployed didn't benefit.

And a quick summary of what the NIT is (from Wikipedia) so you don't have to click the link:

In a negative income tax system, people earning a certain income level would owe no taxes; those earning more than that would pay a proportion of their income above that level; and those below that level would receive a payment of a proportion of their shortfall, which is the amount their income falls below that level.

It's an interesting concept...and it will be interesting to see played out. Off the top of my head, the main problem I see is that (much like the minimum wage) it would need to be raised continually...and it might discourage anyone from earning much more than the "line". We could imagine a system where say 90% of people are under...10% over...problems would begin to show.
 
Upvote 0

Jeffwhosoever

Faithful Servant & Seminary Student
Christian Forums Staff
Chaplain
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Sep 21, 2009
28,133
3,878
Southern US
✟393,789.00
Country
United States
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Sounds like "capitalism" isn't all its cracked up to be...

I still think a more socialistic government is better....

The fate of the Soviet Union and the situation in Greece and much of southern Europe contradict your assertion.
 
Upvote 0
Feb 2, 2013
3,492
111
✟19,178.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Employers should raise wages. See Henry Ford for what I'm talking about.

Voluntarily? I agree strongly

Yeah, I'm not going to watch a five minute animation by an Austrian School website. I haven't seen any data that the existence of a minimum wage discourages hiring.

If you are forced to pay someone more than their labor is worth, that is discouraging hiring.

Ideally, employers would get back to the Henry Ford model.

The Henry Ford model is only possible when capital is available and our economy is a production rather than a consumption economy. Current policies discourage the Henry Ford model by discouraging savings and encouraging consumption.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Feb 2, 2013
3,492
111
✟19,178.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
It's an interesting concept...and it will be interesting to see played out. Off the top of my head, the main problem I see is that (much like the minimum wage) it would need to be raised continually...

That only occurs because of inflation, which ideally shouldn't occur. Inflation is a regressive tax.

and it might discourage anyone from earning much more than the "line". We could imagine a system where say 90% of people are under...10% over...problems would begin to show.

No, because with a negative income tax for every dollar you make you lose 50cents of benefits, so there is always incentive to earn more.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.