Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   (Real) Wealth gains and the distribution of it.
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 1 of 12 (787381)
07-11-2016 6:02 PM


I have found a site with an inflation calculator. In this site, below, you put in a dollar amount for any given year then it will translate it to a year of your choice.
CPI Inflation Calculator
I found another site that shows what people made in past years (though it looks like post 2013 years (around there) are based on speculation) in all the countries.
Here is the UK from 1980 to 2016.
GDP per Capita by Country | Forecast from IMF | 2020-2024 - knoema.com
Here is how it can work.
In 1980 the U.K. person made an average of $10,030.50 U.S. Adjust it for inflation and the 1980 amount was $17,589.89 in 1993 dollars and $29,243.78 in 2016 U.S. dollars. The actual 1993 average U.K. income was 18,440.80 U.S. in 1993 and around $43,000 in actual (near) present 2015-2016 (before the Brexit collapse). The 1993 (REAL and HISTORICAL)average per person income was 18,440.80 and adjusted for inflation, it would be $30,658.44 in 2016.
In the United States, here are the numbers.
In 1980 the average per person income was $12,575.6 and adjusted for inflation it would have been $22,053.08 in 1993 and $36,663.98 in 2016. The actual 1993 amount was $26,441.60 and 2016 will be about $56,000-$57,000. In 1993 the actual average per person income was $26,441.60 and adjusted for inflation, it would have been $43,960.03 in 2016. The actual amount in 2016 will be around $57,000 per person average.
NOW.
THE SECOND ISSUE.
We clearly have real wealth gains.
But why is there still no constitutional right to health care in the United States?
But why are there still only 300,000 shelter beds in the United States (and only 250,000 outside New York)?
Why is it that over 66% of homeless men in the United States can't get shelter (outside of New York)?
Why, in rich San Francisco (average income over $70,000 per person), re there 8000 homeless people but only 1000 shelter beds? Why is shelter impossible to get? Why must poor people sell drugs or their bodies to survive?
It seems that the U.K. was able to have right to shelter (London has 20,000 homeless people and all but 300 are in hotels! Only those who want to be homeless actually are there) and healthcare when their average income was only about $29,000 (1980) or $30,000 (1993) in 2016 U.S. dollars.
The world average income is about $12,000 U.S. in 2016 (not nearly as much as the U.K. was from 1980 to 1993 , but not so much less that the "affordability" of 1980 U.K. programs FOR ALL HUMANS should not be pondered), so perhaps we can begin to talk about worldwide standards that every human should have a right to?
Human rights are on the radar thanks to Bernie Sanders and his supporters. Hillary Clinton was the one person who stood between the idea of certain "human rights for all" Americans and its actual ballot box success. But the dream might not be dead as it is very much on the radar. I wish we would speak in non-nationalistic terms as opposed to just focusing on Americans only.
Comments?

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Phat, posted 07-12-2016 1:43 AM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 2 of 12 (787383)
07-11-2016 9:13 PM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the (Real) Wealth gains and the distribution of it. thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 3 of 12 (787390)
07-12-2016 1:43 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by LamarkNewAge
07-11-2016 6:02 PM


Reality Must Consider Everyone
Its all well and good to talk about worldwide standards but the fact of the matter is this: Where would the money come from? Would those individuals who "had" to give it up really want to give it up? Would there be a fight?

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by LamarkNewAge, posted 07-11-2016 6:02 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by LamarkNewAge, posted 07-12-2016 12:39 PM Phat has not replied
 Message 5 by nwr, posted 07-12-2016 3:25 PM Phat has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 4 of 12 (787399)
07-12-2016 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Phat
07-12-2016 1:43 AM


Re: Reality Must Consider Everyone
First of all, there is always a fight when it comes to allowing immigrants to migrate, social programs, etc.
Where will the money come from?
You mean the money taxed to pay for the programs.
The evidence shows that the programs (like single payer health care) improve the societies so much (and in so many ways) that average income shoots up.
Worldwide, Median Household Income About $10,000
Here is a link with the top countries in individual and household per capita income (in U.S. PPP).
Worldwide, Median Household Income About $10,000
The USA is only at (less than) $15,500 while Norway, Denmark, and Sweden are all at over $18,000 (2006-2012 average per person median income in U.S. ppp). Finland is higher too. The Netherlands in only $1000 per person behind up.
The average PPP income in the world is about $15,000 per person and in actual U.S. $ it is about $12,000.
Single payer health care tends to cost about 10% of the economy (much less than non single payer healthcare).
That would mean that the total cost would be about $1,200 per world citizen on average. I bet the benefits of such a system (which would be reflected in enough growth to add thousands of $$$ to the worldwide average income in actual U.S. $$$) would prove the programs to be "paid for", but people would still bitch at the funding mechanism (whatever tax) for sure.
Idiots.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Phat, posted 07-12-2016 1:43 AM Phat has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 5 of 12 (787406)
07-12-2016 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Phat
07-12-2016 1:43 AM


Re: Reality Must Consider Everyone
Its all well and good to talk about worldwide standards but the fact of the matter is this: Where would the money come from? Would those individuals who "had" to give it up really want to give it up? Would there be a fight?
I see that as a misunderstanding.
Money isn't a thing. Rather, it's a token that we use to manage the exchange of goods. If productivity increases, there can be more goods for everyone. Nobody has to give up anything.

Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Phat, posted 07-12-2016 1:43 AM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by LamarkNewAge, posted 07-12-2016 5:15 PM nwr has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 6 of 12 (787409)
07-12-2016 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by nwr
07-12-2016 3:25 PM


Re: Reality Must Consider Everyone
quote:
If productivity increases, there can be more goods for everyone. Nobody has to give up anything.
Imagine if we had a 21st century worldwide "Marshall Plan" type of program that made it a goal to spend all that was required to give every nation in the world the miles of roads (per square) that we have in the USA.
The economic benefit from that level of development would really pay for itself easily when you consider the additional incomes (never mind the direct payment to workers to build them) that the (more) developing countries would see among their citizens, and the resulting benefits from those places being able to fund a much higher number of educated people (more engineers, doctors, etc. for both us and them would result), plus their producing of richer consumers (to buy our goods), and the future worldwide population improvement that would result from the usual benefits of development equaling lower birth rates (the anti-immigration crowd never has any ideas for creating a climate that leads to fewer worldwide births).
quote:
Money isn't a thing. Rather, it's a token that we use to manage the exchange of goods
I always have said that the best way to reduce taxes (for those so obsessed with it) is to double (or triple or quadruple) the average income, then the flood of revenue could enable future tax cuts.
But tax cuts should be based on the worldwide level of development.
Lets wait till we make the necessary investments to enable the entire world to have a minimum level of income per person (say 2000 USA levels).
Lets wait till we have enough funding to cover grants to all cancer researchers who apply for an NIH grant (as opposed to just 10% to 15% presently in 2016) (the NIH did a study around 2000 and found that the 33 percentile of researchers had just as many positive research results as the 25th percentile, when approved grants to applicants were able to be funded at a higher rate than usual due to increased funds for the year) (The NIH director says that the next really really "big" discovery/cure in cancer research could very well be missed, and for certain MANY quite good discoveries are being lost due to inadequate funding)
How about making sure that the next generation isn't one with much lower levels of education than could/would be the case with adequate public funds available to guarantee every human "FREE EDUCATION" so we can all have higher incomes, living standards, and (yes!) lower taxes?
Cut taxes too soon ("instant gratification"), and we cut our throats.
We are doing just that.
Lets raise taxes (now spelled "N", "O", "W") so they can be much lower in the future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by nwr, posted 07-12-2016 3:25 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by nwr, posted 07-13-2016 12:01 AM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 7 of 12 (787410)
07-12-2016 6:26 PM


Remember the growth numbers.
U.K. income.
In 1980 the U.K. person made an average of $29,243.78 in 2016 U.S. dollars.
In 1993 the average U.K. income was U.S. $30,658.44 in 2016 dollars.
Before the mid 2015 collapse of the British pound (due to Brexit fears that sadly came true), the average was (in 2014-2015) about $47,000 or (slightly) more in U.S. 2016. About $46,000 U.S. in U.S. 2014 dollars.
United States income.
In 1980 the average per person income was $36,663.98 in 2016 dollars.
In 1993, the average per person income amount was $43,960.03 in 2016 dollars.
The amount in 2016 will be around $56,000 per person average.
Growth of over 50% for both (till the Brexit disaster).
Imagine how tough the fiscal situation would be for both without all the growth. This doesn't even include growth from population increases (and if not for the immigrants, every individual would be make somewhat less per person) which is reflected in the GDP numbers.

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 8 of 12 (787419)
07-13-2016 12:01 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by LamarkNewAge
07-12-2016 5:15 PM


Re: Reality Must Consider Everyone
I always have said that the best way to reduce taxes (for those so obsessed with it) is to double (or triple or quadruple) the average income, then the flood of revenue could enable future tax cuts.
You have to start with food, shelter, etc.

Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by LamarkNewAge, posted 07-12-2016 5:15 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by LamarkNewAge, posted 07-13-2016 2:11 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 9 of 12 (787432)
07-13-2016 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by nwr
07-13-2016 12:01 AM


"You have to start with food, shelter, etc."
That doesn't often happen among the governments of the world.
It happened in Scandinavia though.
And Switzerland.
Netherlands?
Where else?
These countries make either the same as the U.S.A in average income, or (more often) much more.
Switzerland has an average income of over $100,000 in 2016 U.S. dollars. (I think)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by nwr, posted 07-13-2016 12:01 AM nwr has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by anglagard, posted 07-16-2016 6:23 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 837 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


(3)
Message 10 of 12 (787528)
07-16-2016 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by LamarkNewAge
07-13-2016 2:11 PM


Interesting, LamarkNewAge, you know what the problem is with increasing income inequality, but the content of your posts offers few solutions.
May I humbly offer a few? These suggestions apply to the USA as I know this nation directly and know others only indirectly, but some may also be of use in other situations.
1. Eliminate the income cap on social security. Regressive taxes inevitably increase income inequality.
2, Medicare for all. Socialized medicine is vastly less expensive than epidemics or emergency room visits for preventable conditions.
3. Reinstitute reasonable estate taxes. Why should people who work subsidize the Hiltons or Kardashians -- the real welfare queens.
4. Tax all charities and religious organizations that do not remit at least 90% of their donations to the sick or poor.
5. Equalize the tax rate for investing with honest labor, meaning tax capital gains at the same rate as other earnings depending on income. This discrepancy is why corporate raider and job destroyer Mitt Romney pays 15% and the middle class pays over 30%.
6. Free college for anyone serious.
7. Institute Finland's model for K-12 public education, namely respect and just compensation for teachers at the price of absolute competence.
8. Eliminate school finance by property tax and replace it with a more universal form of taxation so minorities and the poor are no longer consigned to lower quality.
9. Institute subsidized vocational education and apprenticeship programs. We don't need an MD, JD, or MFA to fix the car or the plumbing. Ask Germany if any questions.
10. Hire people to fix the damn infrastructure, create a new CCC. The one thing I agree with Trump on, it is a national disgrace.
11. Release all drug offenders from prison, regardless of drug or dealing, if non-violent. Ban for profit prisons. Treat drug abuse as a health problem instead of a money-making opportunity. Decriminalize all.
12. Legalize and regulate prostitution. Questions? ask Nevada or Europe.
13. After Trump gets elected in 2016 and the New Founding Fathers take over in 2020, the poor and homeless will be exempt -- only rich assholes like Marvin Shkreli can be purged. (not great movies, but shout out for awesome Statue of Liberty costume).
Food for thought?

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider. - Francis Bacon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by LamarkNewAge, posted 07-13-2016 2:11 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by LamarkNewAge, posted 07-17-2016 12:46 PM anglagard has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 11 of 12 (787553)
07-17-2016 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by anglagard
07-16-2016 6:23 PM


quote:
1. Eliminate the income cap on social security. Regressive taxes inevitably increase income inequality.
We need revenue neutral changes.
Take the 6.2% tax paid by the employee(that maxes out at around $120,000 then stops being taxed) plus the 6.2% matching tax paid by the employer (12.4% total) and turn it into a flat 8% tax plaid by the income earner. End the tax against job creation. End the income cap.
Make the benefit index the same as was before this vital change (hopefully) happens.
I'm dreaming but we need good policy for a change.
NOTE Social security is in good shape. It will be able to pay 100% of benefits for the next 20 years with NO REVENUE CHANGES! And no other changes at all. (my solution, above, is revenue neutral so this applies whether we keep the same unfair job-killing funding scheme or make my pro-growth changes)
By 2035-2037 (round there), the current system will be able to pay 73% of benefits
By 2050, the benefits can be funded up to 79% of current levels.
That means that the solution requires NO REVENUE CHANGES for 20 years!
After 20 years we should do 3 things:
1 keep the exact retirement age.
2 keep same benefit level
(changes coming in next area)
3 we will need to raise the payroll tax (based on the current system) 2.1% in 2035-2037 then down to 1.6% by 2050. It will be 7.8% in 2050 and not 6.2%
OR
raise taxes on my flat 8% rate by about 35% more in 2037 and about 25% more in 2050.
That means the total tax will be 10% instead of 8% by 2050 (perhaps somewhat less depending on revenue situations and average income wealth growth; I suspect it would be more like 9% or less if we have pro-growth policies)
quote:
2, Medicare for all. Socialized medicine is vastly less expensive than epidemics or emergency room visits for preventable conditions.
The U.K. pays like $3,500 per person (almost all from the government) on healthcare while we are nearly at $10,000 per person. They live longer.
If not for the Brexit b.s., the U.K. was making an average income of about $6,000 to $7000 less per year than Americans, but their cheaper health-care shows that cost of living reductions can make people actually more wealthy with lower income.
We better take not of that when we consider the outrageous housing scheme that eats up over 50% of (lower 1/3 income scale)peoples after tax income, Senior citizens are just killed by the housing scheme that artificially jacks up prices. I was just talking to a guy that lived near San Diego and he remembers back 40 years ago when you could get a house there for less than $20,000.
Now it is a big deal just to have a bordello (which was made illegal).
quote:
3. Reinstitute reasonable estate taxes. Why should people who work subsidize the Hiltons or Kardashians -- the real welfare queens.
The $100 billion home mortgage deduction is the worst policy existing, perhaps.
quote:
4. Tax all charities and religious organizations that do not remit at least 90% of their donations to the sick or poor.
The government funding religion is a scheme for sure. They actually will pay a single millionaire like millions of $$$ per year to fund John Hagee or David Jeremiah and the hateful anti middle-easterner pro-war crap. A powerful state-funded mouthpiece for the defense industry comes from endless thousands of pulpits nationwide.
April 15 is government payout day for millionaires, when they get their "charitable deductions". [/quote] 5. Equalize the tax rate for investing with honest labor, meaning tax capital gains at the same rate as other earnings depending on income. This discrepancy is why corporate raider and job destroyer Mitt Romney pays 15% and the middle class pays over 30%. [/quote]
Government manipulation coming from those who claim to want limited government interference.
At least the truth is coming out that the rich aren't as soaked as their (once)popular propaganda has popularly suggested.
Bernie Sanders almost had a breakthrough win (stopped cold, however, by Jew-hating black voters in the Democratic party being exploited by Hillary), so the times are a-changing.
quote:
6. Free college for anyone serious.
We have done such a (cough) wonderful job at educating people, that we need to get most of our doctors from overseas. Free college, high-school, middle, etc. for anybody in the world, because "united we stand, divided we fall". Pay for their ticket to come here. Just check off "I'm serious" and "We/I hold these truths to be self-evident", "I agree with the preamble saying 'ALL' because 'all' means ALL!" , and you are enrolled in any of the 50 states of your choice!
quote:
7. Institute Finland's model for K-12 public education, namely respect and just compensation for teachers at the price of absolute competence.
Just educate every child and we will have plenty of teachers after a decade or so. Especially decades down the road.
quote:
8. Eliminate school finance by property tax and replace it with a more universal form of taxation so minorities and the poor are no longer consigned to lower quality.
Would be nice to have more doctors, engineers, scientists, etc.
Really nice.
We can THEN lower all taxes down the road.
quote:
9. Institute subsidized vocational education and apprenticeship programs. We don't need an MD, JD, or MFA to fix the car or the plumbing. Ask Germany if any questions.
David Dinkins attempted to educate homeless in New York, but his successors felt that education was a bad idea. God help us!
quote:
10. Hire people to fix the damn infrastructure, create a new CCC. The one thing I agree with Trump on, it is a national disgrace.
We don't have anything but myopia in so many areas of policy.
quote:
11. Release all drug offenders from prison, regardless of drug or dealing, if non-violent. Ban for profit prisons. Treat drug abuse as a health problem instead of a money-making opportunity. Decriminalize all.
12. Legalize and regulate prostitution. Questions? ask Nevada or Europe.
Get rid of borders and let females have control over their own bodies. "Compassion" means letting females starve to death in the tens of thousands (every day DAY DAY DAY)and "morality" means using government force to not allow them to HAVE their (what should be a) natural right to market their own bodies for financial compensation - in order to provide food, housing, health-care for themselves. This is an ugly world and the desperation is sickening. But people who deliberately and deplorably limit others God given right to survival deserve to suffer the worst fate imaginable (in this life and the here-after is there is something "on the other side").
The government should have no place in regulating the trafficking, selling, and use of natural substances like pot, heroin, crack, etc.
The government should produce the stuff to make sure it is pure and dirt cheap so we can limit robberies (due to artificially high prices the black market situation causes).
The government should find a way to produce HPV tests and then have a universal national HPV data-base so we can see who has what strain, but it better not lead to discrimination.
My solutions anyway.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by anglagard, posted 07-16-2016 6:23 PM anglagard has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 12 of 12 (807843)
05-06-2017 2:39 AM


Bottom 40% have only 0.3% ($60 billion? ) of wealth! Right wing "free stuff" a myth.
I was looking at an article in the Review section of the April 29-30 Wall Street Journal. It was by 3 Yale experts. They are Christina Starmans, Mark Sheshkin, and Paul Bloom. The WSJ article is based on a recent Nature Human Behavior journal paper they recently published.
Section C3
quote:
A 2011 study in the journal Perspectives on Psychological Science, by Michael Norton and Dan Ariely, asked a sample of more than 5,500 Americans to estimate the actual distribution of wealth in the U. S., and then to suggest what they saw as an ideal distribution. One of their main findings was that Americans were unaware of just how unequal their society is: They thought that the bottom 40% had 9% of the wealth and the top 20% had 59%, while the actual proportions were 0.3% and 84%
That would put the bottom 40% in an interesting light.
The Home Mortgage Interest Deduction costs the government $100 billion a year to give "free stuff " to the voters.
The combined wealth of the bottom 40% is less than that expenditure.
The bottom earners clearly won't benefit from the expensive program which pays out an average dollar amount that totals $25,000 per American resident (330 million is the number I am using ) over the average persons life (79 years).
An expensive per person "free stuff " cost that goes to the wealthy mostly. Almost none of it will ever go to the bottom 40% and that is obvious in more ways than one.
But could there be a better way to spend the national treasury?
Consider this :
The average house is as cheap as $64,000 in Cleveland and some Atlanta suburbs are almost as cheap. Riverdale has nice houses sell for as cheap as $43,000.
Perhaps a one time "matching fund " (say up to $15,000) could be offered to low income (or no income ) individuals if they could demonstrate that they have ZERO debt and can demonstrate that the combined down payment (up to $30,000 with $15,000 being money the individual saved plus the federal government "match") would be at least 40% of the house cost.
The total lifetime cost would be about half the dollar amount per beneficiary as the current Home Mortgage program costs per American resident (most of whom don't get the benefit anyway, so benefits stack towards the wealthy ). That means the cost is like ten times cheaper than the $100 billion current program cost.
It would actually be a benefit that goes to those who most need it ( which would be an actual benefit to society unlike the present program which is a liability ) plus it would encourage lower cost homes for a change.
Will my low cost, high benefit idea ever happen?
No way.
There is no "free stuff " for lower tier folk in this country.
There just isn't enough of a political center of gravity to even cause consideration.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024