Income Inequality-Effects: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Created page with "=====Inside the Fight to Define Extreme Poverty in America===== [https://slate.com/business/2019/06/2-dollars-a-day-poverty-america-research.html Slate 6/06/2019] Kathryn Edi...") |
m (Kirk moved page Income Inequality to Income Inequality-Effects: more defined) |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
= | {{#seo: | ||
|title=Curated News Gallery from all over the Web | |||
|description=Curated news selected for its relevance, longevity and non-prescriptive content. | |||
|keywords=BLM, black lives matter,Portland,federal forces,climate change,Ruth Bader Ginsberg,systemic racism,custom search engine,free classified ads | |||
|image=https://www.gannett-cdn.com/presto/2020/07/23/USAT/ee3a642b-9c02-403b-960f-cffaaef37a62-LaT.jpeg?width=1320&height=882&fit=crop&format=pjpg&auto=webp | |||
|image_width=300 | |||
|image_height=200 | |||
}} | |||
<gallery mode="packed-hover"> | |||
Income Inequality Chart 1.png|[https://inequality.org/facts/income-inequality/ Income Inequality in the US] | |||
</gallery> | |||
‘Socialism for the rich’: the evils of bad economics | |||
=====‘Socialism for the rich’: the evils of bad economics===== | |||
[https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2019/jun/06/socialism-for-the-rich-the-evils-of-bad-economics The Guardian 6/06/2019] | [https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2019/jun/06/socialism-for-the-rich-the-evils-of-bad-economics The Guardian 6/06/2019] | ||
In both the US and the UK, from 1980 to 2016, the share of total income going to the top 1% has more than doubled. After allowing for inflation, the earnings of the bottom 90% in the US and UK have barely risen at all over the past 25 years. More generally, 50 years ago, a US CEO earned on average about 20 times as much as the typical worker. Today, the CEO earns 354 times as much. | In both the US and the UK, from 1980 to 2016, the share of total income going to the top 1% has more than doubled. After allowing for inflation, the earnings of the bottom 90% in the US and UK have barely risen at all over the past 25 years. More generally, 50 years ago, a US CEO earned on average about 20 times as much as the typical worker. Today, the CEO earns 354 times as much. | ||
| Line 9: | Line 19: | ||
The income tax cuts for the rich of the past 40 years were originally justified by economic arguments: Laffer’s rhetoric was seized upon by politicians. But to economists, his ideas were both familiar and trivial. Modern economics provides neither theory nor evidence proving the merit of these tax cuts. Both are ambiguous. Although politicians can ignore this truth for a while, it suggests that widespread opposition to higher taxes on the rich is ultimately based on reasons beyond economics. | The income tax cuts for the rich of the past 40 years were originally justified by economic arguments: Laffer’s rhetoric was seized upon by politicians. But to economists, his ideas were both familiar and trivial. Modern economics provides neither theory nor evidence proving the merit of these tax cuts. Both are ambiguous. Although politicians can ignore this truth for a while, it suggests that widespread opposition to higher taxes on the rich is ultimately based on reasons beyond economics. | ||
==Resources== | |||
[https://inequality.org/facts/income-inequality/ Income Inequality in the US.org] | |||
Latest revision as of 17:51, 2 December 2021
‘Socialism for the rich’: the evils of bad economics
In both the US and the UK, from 1980 to 2016, the share of total income going to the top 1% has more than doubled. After allowing for inflation, the earnings of the bottom 90% in the US and UK have barely risen at all over the past 25 years. More generally, 50 years ago, a US CEO earned on average about 20 times as much as the typical worker. Today, the CEO earns 354 times as much. We adopt narratives to justify inequality because society is highly unequal, not the other way round. So inequality may be self-perpetuating in a surprising way. Rather than resist and revolt, we just cope with it. Less Communist Manifesto, more self-help manual.
The income tax cuts for the rich of the past 40 years were originally justified by economic arguments: Laffer’s rhetoric was seized upon by politicians. But to economists, his ideas were both familiar and trivial. Modern economics provides neither theory nor evidence proving the merit of these tax cuts. Both are ambiguous. Although politicians can ignore this truth for a while, it suggests that widespread opposition to higher taxes on the rich is ultimately based on reasons beyond economics.
