How the rich keep geting richer,look over there!

[Fletch 27]

Poverty is declining, that's a fact... Also a fact, more people are getting richer... Middle income earners are getting richer.. the Rich are getting richer...

And then we still have the ones that simply refuse to help themselves creating a "Gap"...

Single Family dwelling prices are on a rise! And they get gobbled up.. The Lefts stance that the middle income earners are being hit hardest is simply all null talking points and goes against the proof and facts...

[Michael Hardner]

Poverty is declining, that's a fact...

Cite it then.

[Fletch 27]

Cited:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-politics/poverty-decline-canada-don-t-thank-government-191229622.html

"But don't thank the Government"...

And this..

http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/prb0917-e.htm

Cite it then.

Edited April 26, 2013 by Fletch 27

[Canuckistani]

We have no official measure of poverty, but the but people under the LICO are at the lowest since the stat was kept in '76. OTOH, child poverty, after declining has risen again:

Is the child poverty rate declining in Canada?

Not according to the latest statistics from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). In 1989, the Canadian House of Commons unanimously resolved to eliminate child poverty by the year 2000, and there was some initial success; the child poverty rate fell from 15.8 per cent in the mid-1980s to 12.8 in the mid-1990s. Since then, however, the rate has increased—to 15.1 per cent in the late 2000s—reversing earlier progress.

Of the 13 countries for which historical data are available, Canada had the third-highest jump in the child poverty rate between the mid-1990s and the mid-2000s. Sweden had the largest increase—from 2.5 per cent to 7.0 per cent. Five countries—Italy, Germany, the U.K., Netherlands, and the U.S.—reduced their child poverty rates, although the U.S. still has the highest child poverty rate. Italy made the most progress.

http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/details/society/child-poverty.aspx

[eyeball]

Is poverty increasing or not ?If you mean that "personal income is increasing in real terms for the top x% faster than the bottom y%" then ok. That is clear. But that doesn't mean poverty is increasing does it ?

My experience and what I see on the ground and water tells me impoverishment must be increasing. The boats keep getting bigger and the fleet is getting smaller.

And my statement is a lot clearer than "the rich are getting richer". If a rich person only added $1 to his net worth at the end of the year, then he "got richer" but that doesn't seem like he did so well either.Hopefully you can now see what I'm looking for in terms of clarity, from my previous examples.

The problem is your examples and most everyone else's, completely leave the dwindling pool of natural capital - the material stuff we need to be economic - out of the equation. This clinches my experience better than any pie chart or piece thereof could tell me, that plus the fact that it's the same in just about every other fishing community on the planet. It's also absent in virtually every sector of an economy that's otherwise often accounted for down to the nth quintile. Especially when evading costs and inflating profits.

If you refuse to use math, then I can't force you to - but hopefully you can see that I'm not trying to deceive or "feign" anything at all. You're just hard to read.

My sentiments exactly but is it any wonder when you're not even reading everything I write? Natural capital exists, why can't you deal with that?

Edited April 27, 2013 by eyeball

[jacee]

We have no official measure of poverty, but the but people under the LICO are at the lowest since the stat was kept in '76. OTOH, child poverty, after declining has risen again:

http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/details/society/child-poverty.aspx

Growing inequality isn't just about poverty. Now it's about growing inefficiency due to gutting of the middle incomes:

In fact equality appears to be an important ingredient in promoting and sustaining growth. The difference between countries that can sustain rapid growth for many years or even decades and the many others that see growth spurts fade quickly may be the level of inequality. Countries may find that improving equality may also improve efficiency, understood as more sustainable long-

run growth. 7

In fact, the authors argue the recent global financial crisis may have resulted, in part at least, from the increase in inequality. 8 This is because, they argue, inequality tends to be related to financial crisesas inequality rises, people on the bottom of the income scale tend to borrow more in order to keep up, which, in turn, increases the risk of a major crisis. Second, severe inequality increases social and, in turn, political instability, which reduces foreign investment.

Large income gaps can also diminish economic growth if these gaps mean the country is not fully using the skills and capabilities of all its citizens or if they undermine social cohesion, leading to increased social tensions.

Inequality today is similar to 'the Gilded Age' of the 'robber barons' when there was little income tax and weak worker rights. It grew to financial collapse, the depression and then to workers' rights and union movements as well as income supports for the poorest.

Since the 'deregulation' movement of the '80's, inequality has been rising and now we're in the new 'Gilded age' of increasing social strife and economic inefficiency.

It does not improve society when most of the wealth flows to the superrich. It tears it apart.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

Too bad the emphasis in the tax negotiations last year was all about uselessly raising the income tax rates a few % instead of closing all the dumb loopholes. Everyone talks about closing loopholes, but no one actually goes and closes any of them.

While there may be a valid argument for the top 0.1% to pay a higher tax rate, it must be realized that going by the number, even if you raised taxes on these few highest earners to 90% and none of them were able to use any loopholes, that would still not eliminate the deficit. If you look at US federal budget numbers, it's not the revenues that are outside of historical norms, but the spending.

Taxing corporations is dumb. Here's why:

- Higher taxes increase their incentive to move elsewhere to lower tax jurisdictions, and this is a time when we need to keep the jobs here

- Higher taxes just means higher costs to the consumer

- Corporations are taxed anyway, on the income they pay to employees, on the goods and services they sell as consumption tax, on the dividends they pay out, and on capital gains on their stock

- Corporations are the entities most able to effectively hide their revenues/profits and to lobby the government to create/maintain tax loopholes

If one wants to tax corporate profits, just raise the consumption tax, dividend taxes, and capital gains taxes. It has the exact same effect, is more transparent, and much easier and cheaper to administer. Taxing corporate profits/revenues directly is an accounting nightmare and an incentive for corporations to constantly try to modify/evade the tax code. It is just not an efficient tax.

All ideology.

Current practice for corporations is to take handouts and tax decreases and spend them overseas, dividends, lobbying for more anti-consumer policies. The net benefit of dropping their taxes is NOT being realized because the theory that corporations benevolently pass savings on to the consumer is a lie, the theory that they share gains with employees never held true for the overwhelming majority of corporations and is less true today in this austerity climate.

If corporations want to move to some crappy 3rd world country and live tax free they'd have done it already, earnings are taxed in the jurisdiction they are made. (or should be, without loopholes) If they want to do business here they have to pay the tax here.

[WWWTT]

I have to agree with you here middleclass.

This thread was about the wealthy not paying their fare share through personal and corporate taxes.

Causing our social structure growth to stunt.

The percentage of our population that is in poverty is somewhat relevant to the economic environment and really has no bearing.Let alone become an excuse for the top earners to be delinquent in paying their share!

WWWTT