Study Shows The Bush Plan Is Good

[Busyman]

NOT!!!!

Study: Rich Getting Richer

Over two decades, the income gap has steadily increased between the richest Americans, who own homes and stocks and got big tax breaks, and those at the middle and bottom of the pay scale, whose paychecks buy less, government data show.

The growing disparity is even more pronounced in this recovering economy. Wages are stagnant and the middle class is shouldering a larger tax burden. Prices for health care, housing, tuition, gas and food have soared.

The wealthiest 20 percent of households in 1973 accounted for 44 percent of total U.S. income, according to the Census Bureau. Their share jumped to 50 percent in 2002, while everyone else's fell. For the bottom fifth, the share dropped from 4.2 percent to 3.5 percent.

More than million jobs have been added back to the 2.6 million lost since President Bush took office, but they pay less and offer fewer benefits, such as health insurance. The new jobs are concentrated in health care, food services, and temporary employnment firms, all lower-paying industries. Temp agencies alone account for about a fifth of all new jobs.


I think article also forgot about security jobs.

[clocker]

What you don't mention is that the plan was that as the rich got richer, they would spend more and the wealth would "trickle down" to us common folk.
In my experience this has NOT happened.
My profession ( clockmaker) was dependent upon the discretionary income of the moderately well-to-do, after all, no one really needs a $10K clock.
For the past few years the rich folk I have been used to dealing with have completely stopped spending money and have instead tried to secure it.
With the uncertain stock market and stagnent economy, those with wealth have felt very uneasy about future prospects and the free-wheeling days of the late '90s are gone.

So much for Bush's economic plan...time to try another.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by clocker@17 August 2004 - 09:21
What you don't mention is that the plan was that as the rich got richer...




With the uncertain stock market and stagnent economy, those with wealth have felt very uneasy about future prospects and the free-wheeling days of the late '90s are gone.

The rich got richer?

So what?

Wealth is not a zero-sum game.


As to the economy, it is recovering, slowly but steadily.

9/11 may have added a permanent element of instability, but it too has largely rebounded from it's post 9/11 low.

If a Democrat had been in the White House, the same thing would have happened, but more slowly, because a Democrat wouldn't dream of cutting taxes as Bush did.

BTW-

If ever I am in a position to buy a really nice clock, you will find yourself building the biggest bestest clock ever.

[spinningfreemanny]

Hmm, I've wondered what "clocker" ment...

[spinningfreemanny]

Originally posted by Busyman@17 August 2004 - 14:03
NOT!!!!

The wealthiest 20 percent of households in 1973 accounted for 44 percent of total U.S. income, according to the Census Bureau. Their share jumped to 50 percent in 2002, while everyone else's fell. For the bottom fifth, the share dropped from 4.2 percent to 3.5 percent.

The top 20% also shoulders over 80% of the tax burden, though accounting for only 50% of the income.

[J'Pol]

The concept of a natural dissipation of wealth is severely flawed. It is based on the concept that those with the money will spend it, rather than hoarding it.

This assumes that the wealth holders will never get worried about their spending and will always do it.

However in an unstable economy this becomes less likely. Indeed in an economy where interest rates are kept high, in order to fight inflation the rich are likely to save rather than spending. Taking advantage of said interest rates.

So what we then get is less wealth being spread and at the same time the poor having to borrow, at higher interest rates, costing them more money.

I'm afraid the capitalist utopia is not a viable economic model. At least not for the silent minority. Who are too busy / tired working all hours God sends to become politically active and do anything about it. There's the irony, the wealthy have the time and resources to ensure that their best interests are served.

Which is why the poor need wealthy people, of good conscience, to fight their corner.

[Busyman]

Another tidbit is that affordable housing is actually becoming less affordable.

There was a sweet spot to buy your house in the US.

That was shortly after 9/11.

You had a slight spike in housing cost but ultra-low interest rates.

Very soon as we have this so-called rebound in the economy, you will have high interest rates and high housing costs, seeing that property rarely depreciates that much.

I see rinky-dink homes at exorbitent prices now. Since June rates have gone up half a point (which is still low).

The problem is that wages have not gone up so now is the time to move if you haven't.

Rich folk of course don't have to worry about such things.

[clocker]

Originally posted by j2k4@17 August 2004 - 13:42


If ever I am in a position to buy a really nice clock, you will find yourself building the biggest bestest clock ever.

I would be honored, capitalist pig.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by J'Pol@17 August 2004 - 18:02
The concept of a natural dissipation of wealth is severely flawed. It is based on the concept that those with the money will spend it, rather than hoarding it.

This assumes that the wealth holders will never get worried about their spending and will always do it.

However in an unstable economy this becomes less likely. Indeed in an economy where interest rates are kept high, in order to fight inflation the rich are likely to save rather than spending. Taking advantage of said interest rates.

So what we then get is less wealth being spread and at the same time the poor having to borrow, at higher interest rates, costing them more money.

I'm afraid the capitalist utopia is not a viable economic model. At least not for the silent minority. Who are too busy / tired working all hours God sends to become politically active and do anything about it. There's the irony, the wealthy have the time and resources to ensure that their best interests are served.

Which is why the poor need wealthy people, of good conscience, to fight their corner.

In short, "trickle down economics" is the fantasy creation of the rich, which they use to justify the legislation they approve.

It is an economic conspiracy, that is what I believe. Why? 15 years after hearing about it, and observing it in action, it doesn't pan out.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by J'Pol@17 August 2004 - 15:02
The concept of a natural dissipation of wealth is severely flawed. It is based on the concept that those with the money will spend it, rather than hoarding it.

This assumes that the wealth holders will never get worried about their spending and will always do it.

However in an unstable economy this becomes less likely. Indeed in an economy where interest rates are kept high, in order to fight inflation the rich are likely to save rather than spending. Taking advantage of said interest rates.

So what we then get is less wealth being spread and at the same time the poor having to borrow, at higher interest rates, costing them more money.

I'm afraid the capitalist utopia is not a viable economic model. At least not for the silent minority. Who are too busy / tired working all hours God sends to become politically active and do anything about it. There's the irony, the wealthy have the time and resources to ensure that their best interests are served.

Which is why the poor need wealthy people, of good conscience, to fight their corner.

Dissipation is the wrong model.

Investment is the word.

The rich are compelled to get richer, and this is not accomplished by stuffing mattresses with cash.


BTW-

J'Pol-

I've been instructed to inquire of you whether you have an unabridged version of Atlas Shrugged in audio format; MagicNakor said you might?