Warfare? It has certainly been argued that there was no real correction until at least the buildup to WWII...
I think the war had the most to do with it, but certainly the recovery was on before the dip due to suspending the programs in 37.
The most surprising part, to me at least, is the state at the top of the table: https://itep.org/whopays/ SEVEN OF THE 10 STATES DO NOT LEVY A BROAD-BASED PERSONAL INCOME TAX — FLORIDA, SOUTH DAKOTA, NEVADA, TENNESSEE, TEXAS, WASHINGTON, AND WYOMING. Tennessee currently levies a limited personal income tax that only applies to interest and dividend income, but it will be eliminated by 2021. THREE STATES DO LEVY PERSONAL INCOME TAXES BUT HAVE STRUCTURED THEM IN A WAY THAT MAKES THEM MUCH LESS PROGRESSIVE THAN IN OTHER STATES. Pennsylvania and Illinois use a flat rate, which taxes the income of the wealthiest family at the same marginal rate as the poorest wage Oklahoma has a graduated rate structure but applies the top rate starting at taxable income of $12,200 for married couples — making the tax virtually flat in practice. SIX OF THE 10 MOST REGRESSIVE TAX SYSTEMS —FLORIDA, NEVADA, TENNESSEE, TEXAS, SOUTH DAKOTA, AND WASHINGTON — RELY HEAVILY ON REGRESSIVE SALES AND EXCISE TAXES. These states derive roughly half to two-thirds of their tax revenue from these taxes, compared to the national average of 35 percent in fiscal year 2014-2015.
Maybe we can say there's more disparity now in terms of money, with the astronomical figures handled today in the much larger world-wide economy, but certainly not in terms of distribution of power and tangible assets, which is what matters most.
When asked about reducing income inequality, many Americans do not know what decreases income inequality compared to what increases average income without changing inequality. The article "What Do Americans Talk about When They Talk about Inequality?" by Eunji Kim, Rasmus T. Pedersen, and Diana C. Mutz did a survey where respondents were given one choice that decreases income inequality and one choice that increases average income without changing inequality. The article is from 2016. The respondents were asked multiple questions, including which policy would be best at reducing income inequality and which policy the respondents preferred. The policy that decreases income inequality varied, so some people were given a policy that decreases the income of rich people, some people were given a policy that increases the income of poor people, and some people were given a policy that does both. It says: "Overall, Americans’ understanding of the impact of various economic policies is shockingly low. In total, only 22% of respondents correctly chose both the policy best for purposes of redressing inequality, and the policy best for raising average incomes in the country as a whole." People who don't know what income inequality is can't advocate for reducing income inequality.
And look, the entire paper. https://sites.duke.edu/preferenceso...16/04/MPSA2016_Understanding-Inequality-1.pdf
Job cuts for you, a cut of this bonus for me... Let me get this straight: Sears has $25 million laying around to pay out executives who ran the company into the ground, but doesn't have any money to give the thousands of workers they laid off severance pay? https://t.co/nA0yXDmyS5— Robert Reich (@RBReich) December 16, 2018
Per the paper, being Republican was a statistically significant factor for giving less-accurate answers. What a surprise.
I'm going to leave this here. Interesting thread. 1088171717845868545 is not a valid tweet id Sounds a lot like Elysium.
Some real NYC billionaire R.E. news: A hedgefunder has just bought the most expensive home in US history — a $238 million four-story condo on Central Park South in a building dubbed the billionaires’ bunker.” Ken Griffin is a globe-trotting house collector who also owns a $58.75 million condo in Chicago; a $60 million penthouse at Faena House in Miami; $250 million worth of land to build a Palm Beach compound and a $122 million London mansion. https://nypost.com/2019/01/23/most-expensive-home-in-us-history-sells-for-238m-by-central-park/
I continue to be amused that the party for the rich is adored by the poor, and the party for the poor is popular with the rich. Was just going through a list of states with the highest percentage of millionaires. The 8 fewest were all blood red. The 12 most were all blue, except for Alaska, New Hampshire, and Virginia (which looks to me to be turning pretty reliably blue).
Well, the thing is, rich people can live anywhere, but they are gonna want to live in nice places. Poor people live where they are and if they'd like to move some place nicer, too bad, because they can't afford it. If you had the choice, would you really want to live in a Red State shithole?
I think in some cases, is the other way around: Billionaires want to make the places they live into a Red State shithole. See Koch-Kansas.
The places where most of the serious money-makers are would be big cities. No one makes a killing trading on the Topeka Stock Exchange. Coastal Elites have a lot of money and they live on the coasts, most of which are blue. The most expensive real estate isn't going to be a beach house on the Gulf of Mexico, as nice as some of those might be. It will be in Blue areas like California, the Hamptons, Nantucket, or even purple areas like Florida.
Just because they are rich and live in large cities (with second homes in the country side) does not mean they vote democrat. But going by exit polls, if I remember correctly Clinton did win the top income bracket by 1 or 2% points.
ok, I was slightly wrong. Clinton won the almost very rich, and a draw for the top group. I wonder what the breakdown would be for 1 million and over and for 10 million and over. https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls
Agreed, I would imagine lots of the Filthy Rich liked them-seffs some massive tax cuts. But they want to live in good places. Basically that means blue states, where there are actually services and stuff.
Strange. I live in a very, very blue city and they did such a bad job of cleaning the streets after this last storm that 14 school buses got stuck and had to be towed...more than 48 hours after the snow stopped and in the midst of a nearly 50 degree rise in temperature and rain to help melt what was there.
I live in one now. I have a choice, but it involves more people than just myself. Without the constraints, I don't think anyone would make that choice but a shitty person.
Meaning that Hillary played relatively well among the wealthiest whites, because almost all those very rich are white, and overall she got beaten among white voters by 20 percentage points.