Comments on: Discretionary Income: Don’t Believe The Hype

By: Tom Blumer

Tom Blumer — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 18:25:51 +0000

#2, I will try to remember to copy and store if you can’t get from spam.

The rich are paying more in taxes and a higher percentage of all taxes, while the bottom half as a whole isn’t paying any (unless you count SocSec, which is supposed to be a contribution-driven retirement program, and really doesn’t belong in the discussion). You can’t get much more distributionist than that. Well, I guess you could if you want to head into 1960s-style “guaranteed annual income” land.

By: Eric

Eric — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 15:29:39 +0000

It’s not intentional, Tom. I rescued this one from spam. We’ve never marked anything of yours as spam, so not sure why it got in there. The others must have done the same. We often just delete all of the several hundred instead of sorting through them all. Next time if you don’t see it, shoot one of us a note so we can look for it and release it.

As to the substance of your reply, stop with the “redistribution” clap trap. Should I frame your like for tax cuts as wanting to “redistribute” money to the wealthiest Americans? It’s what that policy seems to have done. If we’re going to have an argument there, then yes, I think getting more money in the hands of the middle class is more important than the wealthiest having an extra $60k in the bank.

The reality is that between 2005 and this last report, those making $50k and less had LESS discretionary income (from $2,075 to $1,900), while those earning more than $100,000 had more (from $62,110 to $66,451).

So now we’re going to mix up Conference Board numbers and Census Bureau numbers to make an argument? The Conference Board clearly shows the rich have more disposable income and the poor have less. Let’s use one measure at a time.

Or let’s dispense with the measure all together as you and I both know The Conference Board doesn’t really measure “discretionary income”.

By: Tom Blumer

Tom Blumer — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 14:20:08 +0000

Assuming you break from past practice and actually let a comment of mine through (2-3 previous attempts did not get through about 6 weeks ago) —

The post was about the existence of discretionary income, how it exists for twice as many people now as it did a quarter century ago, and how it exists for a roughly 25% higher proportion of the population (12.5 increase divided by 51) than a couple of years ago.

The income inequality canard has been addressed in the fact that the Census Bureau’s Gini coefficient of income inequality has gone up by only .08 during Bush 43 (2001-2006) after going up .29 during the Clinton Admin. Almost no one currently whining about income inequality was complaining then. As such, they’ve lost their right to be seen as credible now.

Just for the heck of it — If everyone had discretionary income, but most had only a few bucks extra and a few had most of it, would you STILL insist on income redistribution?