$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('oiless', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cube', 'F')or example it is a fact that rich people have more of their money tied into *investments*. The stock market is a good example.
Therefore if the stock market goes up then the rich will benefit more and Income inequality increases.
If the stock market crashes the rich losses more so therefore Income inequality decreases.
You noticed that I picked the New Deal as my start point? The point where the stock market had been pummelled and had pretty much no where to go but up? So, from that point on income inequality should have increased, as the well-to-do saw gains. (Albeit slow and faltering ones, it wasn't until the early fifties that the DOW crossed it's 1929 high again. ) Yet income inequality decreased until the late 60's/early 70's.
PeakOil is You
Inequality (US Vs. Europe)
This may seem like a technicality but this is an important difference. If the average man were to move up 2 steps and a rich man only 1, then that would mean the distance between the two is decreasing. Or in other words income inequality is decreasing.
That is not the same thing as making a rich man take 1 step down and redistributing the money to everybody else so they can move 1 step up which is the entire premise of my original statement.
//
here's another Q:
How come there is no such thing as a nation that has French social welfare and Hong Kong tax rates? Countries that have generous social welfare also have very high tax rates on the middle class. I thought the whole point of "income redistribution" was to put a tax on a rich man not the middle class!
Compare the USA and France. Yes the French have things like universal health care but the tax rates on the middle class is also higher.
They certainly aren't better off then Americans.
The French seem to be simply receiving more government services at the expense of paying higher taxes.
But again like I said, I thought the whole point of "income redistribution" was to put a tax on a rich man!
*interesting huh*
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('oiless', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cube', 'T')he stock market tends to go up when the economy is good and down when it is bad so an argument can be made that the financial fortunes of the average man tends to also follow the rich.
Both move up together and both move down together.
It appears to me as though the fortunes of the rich are following the fortunes of the average man at the moment.That is not the same thing as making a rich man take 1 step down and redistributing the money to everybody else so they can move 1 step up which is the entire premise of my original statement.
//
here's another Q:
How come there is no such thing as a nation that has French social welfare and Hong Kong tax rates? Countries that have generous social welfare also have very high tax rates on the middle class. I thought the whole point of "income redistribution" was to put a tax on a rich man not the middle class!
Compare the USA and France. Yes the French have things like universal health care but the tax rates on the middle class is also higher.
They certainly aren't better off then Americans.
The French seem to be simply receiving more government services at the expense of paying higher taxes.
But again like I said, I thought the whole point of "income redistribution" was to put a tax on a rich man!
*interesting huh*
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('oiless', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cube', 'T')he stock market tends to go up when the economy is good and down when it is bad so an argument can be made that the financial fortunes of the average man tends to also follow the rich.
Both move up together and both move down together.
- cube
- Intermediate Crude
- Posts: 3909
- Joined: Sat 12 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
