• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

income inequality debate

Nobody on this thread, nor I believe on any other, has said that having two parent households is not something that we would want to achieve.
 
How does pointing out the glaring deficiencies of the existing system---or even talking about the idea of a causal connection (no offense, Ph)---translate into this disingenuous mischaracterization?

Because, at best, I just don't think your logic connects. At worst, you are essentially arguing that financially coerced marriages to dads who otherwise have shirked their responsibility for one reason or another are preferable to single mothers with government assistance.

I'm all for the bigger conversation about birth control, better sex education, reductions of jail time for nonviolent crime, education, etc. I just don't see an economy that is already unable to provide jobs for our citizenry picking up the financial slack from a reduction in benefits. It has nothing to do with the SOFT BIGOTRY you always allege, because I trust people to do what is best for themselves their kids almost always, even if it doesn't always align with your values. I just don't trust our economy to provide jobs with livable wages on a consistent basis to support American families, because, frankly, our economy is simply not designed to do that.
 
Got nothing to do with "trusting" our economy. You can just look at the hard data and see that, in fact, all growth in our economy since about 1990 has been eaten by the top 10%, the bottom 90% have seen zero growth and the bottom 50% have seen a decline in purchasing power. All that has happened during a period of significant overall reduction of taxes on the "job creators" and reduction in availability of welfare benefits to the poor. So, if we want to talk about things that aren't working, I suggest we start with examining the government policies that have been in place since income inequality really started accelerating.
 
^Completely backasswards.

Really? This page, although dated, does a really excellent job laying out the numbers.
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/american_income_taxation.htm

The share of federal income taxes paid by the very rich has gone up in absolute numbers, but their share of national income has also shot up. As a result, the relationship between share of federal income taxes vs. share of national income looks like this:

chngshrfed.gif


This analysis ends in 2004. The trends identified in the analysis have certainly not reversed, and most likely have intensified, in the past 10 years.

You might also be interested in this page, and the rest of this website. Libertarian-leaning organizations talk a lot about who pays federal income tax, but they never talk about total tax burden. State and local taxes - mostly sales taxes - are regressive. The impact of that regressivity means that the US total tax burden is barely progressive at all. http://ctj.org/ctjreports/2014/04/who_pays_taxes_in_america_in_2014.php#.VC6gTmddX-s

wp2014c2hq.jpg
 
Because, at best, I just don't think your logic connects. At worst, you are essentially arguing that financially coerced marriages to dads who otherwise have shirked their responsibility for one reason or another are preferable to single mothers with government assistance.

I'm all for the bigger conversation about birth control, better sex education, reductions of jail time for nonviolent crime, education, etc. I just don't see an economy that is already unable to provide jobs for our citizenry picking up the financial slack from a reduction in benefits. It has nothing to do with the SOFT BIGOTRY you always allege, because I trust people to do what is best for themselves their kids almost always, even if it doesn't always align with your values. I just don't trust our economy to provide jobs with livable wages on a consistent basis to support American families, because, frankly, our economy is simply not designed to do that.

So school choice is good then, right?
 
So school choice is good then, right?

For the individuals choosing, sure. For the unable to get the better schools, of course not. I don't like education policy that resigns itself to bad schools just being a fact of life. Nice pivot though.
 
Really? This page, although dated, does a really excellent job laying out the numbers.
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/american_income_taxation.htm

The share of federal income taxes paid by the very rich has gone up in absolute numbers, but their share of national income has also shot up. As a result, the relationship between share of federal income taxes vs. share of national income looks like this:

chngshrfed.gif


This analysis ends in 2004. The trends identified in the analysis have certainly not reversed, and most likely have intensified, in the past 10 years.

You might also be interested in this page, and the rest of this website. Libertarian-leaning organizations talk a lot about who pays federal income tax, but they never talk about total tax burden. State and local taxes - mostly sales taxes - are regressive. The impact of that regressivity means that the US total tax burden is barely progressive at all. http://ctj.org/ctjreports/2014/04/who_pays_taxes_in_america_in_2014.php#.VC6gTmddX-s

wp2014c2hq.jpg


But but but somewhere on a cocktail napkin this explains it all away...

trickle-down-economics-1.gif
 
For the individuals choosing, sure. For the unable to get the better schools, of course not. I don't like education policy that resigns itself to bad schools just being a fact of life. Nice pivot though.

So you trust the parents to make your choice for them? I'll put a par down on the scorecard for you, then?
 
But but but somewhere on a cocktail napkin this explains it all away...

trickle-down-economics-1.gif


Nothing wrong with the Laffer curve other than the inability of some to realize we are on the left side of it.
 
That article discusses a range of structural factors showing the marriage crisis is not a cause but an effect.

Sure. Tens of thousands of replicatable coincidences with no causal nexus whatsoever. Who could predict whether a supportive, nurturing environment that is focused on education is better for income growth than a single parent home with insufficient resources to meet short term and long term needs? I mean it's a tough call, right? #GTFOH

Are we trying to solve this or not?

The article describes the causal nexuses that result in the marriage crisis. Did you not read the article? You continue to post information that derails your central theses on this board.
 
[tjcmd;1918758]We gotta stay right on the tip of that thing.[/QUOTE]

Good luck getting conservatives to play "just the tip."
 
The article describes the causal nexuses that result in the marriage crisis. Did you not read the article? You continue to post information that derails your central theses on this board.

Apparently, if everyone were to get married, the trickling would begin and good-wage jobs for lower middle class Americans would come home from vacation and knock on the newleywed's doors and present themselves to them as a wedding gift.
 
The article describes the causal nexuses that result in the marriage crisis. Did you not read the article? You continue to post information that derails your central theses on this board.

I'm not impressed enough with your needy, self-serving conclusions to ask you to defend this statement, but I am awed that you don't believe there is a causal connection between single parenting and income disparities.
 
You need to look up causal. Well, to be fair, there is a connection. But based on that article, its in the opposite direction you think it is.
 
Back
Top