![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 10 of 10. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by alexandra_k on September 13, 2005, at 21:40:40
these seem to be based on stats from 1998.
dunno if things would be better or worse or much the same...>The top 5 percent own more than half of all wealth... In 1998, they owned 59 percent of all wealth. Or to put it another way, the top 5 percent had more wealth than the remaining 95 percent of the population, collectively.
>The top 20 percent owns over 80 percent of all wealth. In 1998, it owned 83 percent of all wealth.
>The bottom 20 percent basically have zero wealth. They either have no assets, or their debt equals or exceeds their assets. The bottom 20 percent has typically accumulated no savings.
>A household in the middle — the median household — has wealth of about $62,000. $62,000 is not insignificant, but if you consider that the top 1 percent of households’ average wealth is $12.5 million, you can see what a difference there is in the distribution.
>The richest 10 percent of families own about 85 percent of all outstanding stocks. They own about 85 percent of all financial securities, 90 percent of all business assets. These financial assets and business equity are even more concentrated than total wealth.
>The average African-American family has about 60 percent of the income as the average white family. But the disparity of wealth is a lot greater. The average African-American family has only 18 percent of the wealth of the average white family.
>We are much more unequal than any other advanced industrial country.
>What is remarkable is that this was not always the case. Up until the early 1970s, the U.S. actually had lower wealth inequality than Great Britain, and even than a country like Sweden. But things have really turned around over the last 25 or 30 years. In fact, a lot of countries have experienced lessening wealth inequality over time. The U.S. is atypical in that inequality has risen so sharply over the last 25 or 30 years.
http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2003/03may/may03interviewswolff.html
Posted by cockeyed on September 14, 2005, at 12:19:54
In reply to wealth distribution in the usa, posted by alexandra_k on September 13, 2005, at 21:40:40
hi, alexandra I read your post. I see it all around me. I'm disabled. My company cut me loose without a blink. And what galls me is that every four years, we vote in the same gold-coast clowns who pinch every penny and cry poor when buying Junior a Lexus for graduation. and, no doubt, charging it to the "company"
New Orleans showed me the really nasty side of the U.S.
I once knew it well, I was a social-worker.
What a fool. should've become an accountant and complain about the high cost of my greygoose-sh*t
martinis.
regards, Cockeyed.
Posted by caraher on September 14, 2005, at 14:00:29
In reply to wealth distribution in the usa, posted by alexandra_k on September 13, 2005, at 21:40:40
> these seem to be based on stats from 1998.
> dunno if things would be better or worse or much the same...I'm 95%+ certain the disparities have only increased, especially given the huge tax breaks Bush has given the wealthy.
Posted by Phil on September 14, 2005, at 16:23:19
In reply to Re: wealth distribution in the usa, posted by caraher on September 14, 2005, at 14:00:29
Posted by cockeyed on September 15, 2005, at 18:15:01
In reply to Re: It seemed to start with trickle down economics (nm), posted by Phil on September 14, 2005, at 16:23:19
Phil, I haven't heard that one in a long time. A joke became current in the USA that the only
trickle down phenomenon from the fat cats was the p*ss running down their senior citizen legs.
But I'm waxing vulgar. The trouble is that we in the USA have long been known for our "hey, it's just busines" attitude whenever families and lives are crused by the rampant greed and show-boatism which seems to be universally applauded here. Mafia Dons are granted celebrity status. I gues that's a form of "free-dom." I'm not trying to put the U.S down because I'm one of those "John Wayne" types...of course that's why I post on these boards. Anyway, for what it's worth, Cockeyed.
Posted by Declan on September 15, 2005, at 21:12:31
In reply to Re: wealth distribution in the usa, posted by caraher on September 14, 2005, at 14:00:29
What about wealth distribution in the world? The top 3 individuals own more than the GDP or whatever of how many countries? I forget. 30? 100?
Not real good, whatever it is.
Declan
Posted by gromit on September 15, 2005, at 23:52:22
In reply to Re: wealth distribution in the usa, posted by Declan on September 15, 2005, at 21:12:31
> What about wealth distribution in the world? The top 3 individuals own more than the GDP or whatever of how many countries? I forget. 30? 100?
> Not real good, whatever it is.I've read several places that Michael Jordan once made more for one commercial than the combined salary of all Nike workers in Malaysia for that year. I have no idea if that's true.
The "middle class" is an endangered species here in the US. IMHO opinion this is completely intentional. I wonder what others think about Leo Strauss and some who alledgely follow his teachings occupying high positions in the Bush Administration. Personally I'm not big on conspiracy theories, besides the entertainment, but sometimes they really are out to get you.
Still tired of getting trickled on,Rick
Posted by cockeyed on September 16, 2005, at 22:21:47
In reply to Re: wealth distribution in the usa, posted by gromit on September 15, 2005, at 23:52:22
Jeez, that's all I can say and be civil. You are so damn right. Grab everything you can and screw the rest. And the U.S. electorate voted for it. Suddenly Bush gets his butt kicked and gasoline prices drop overnight. Maybe Katrina was sent by god. Or just a form of good fortune
because much of what is good in this country is being sold to the highest or in-the knowingest-bidder. Cockeyed
Posted by jay on September 17, 2005, at 12:05:21
In reply to wealth distribution in the usa, posted by alexandra_k on September 13, 2005, at 21:40:40
Liberal, Social-Democratic Welfare State *Must* Exist
I've been quite vocal about my political views, and have a reason why. Studying Politics is like eating through a New York Style Cherry Cheesecake for me....yuuuuuuuummm. :-) This is one of the reasons I am working on my grad degree in Political Economy, and (Besides using going back to school as an excuse to meet smart women..lol.) have abandoned front-line social work.
Now...my reason and link to this post: A major Bank (yes...you read that right...a Big Bank!!!) here in Canada has co-chaired a revolutionary (well...sort of...the things us wonderful social-democratic liberals have been saying all along) report that the Welfare State *must* exist, and there *must* be a healthy social safety net for any country to survive. The report blasts past cuts to human services, education, infrastructure spending, health services, etc. Yes, us liberals where *right* all along! :-)
Here is a press release with a summary of the findings. (Note: it talks about past actions of Conservative government here in Ontario and Canada, but is applicable universally to any country/state/nation.)
Thursday, September 8, 2005
ANALYSIS OF SOCIAL SAFETY NET REVEALS MAJOR GAPS, SAYS TASK
FORCE OF CIVIC LEADERS
TORONTO – A new report prepared by TD Economics on behalf of the Task Force forModernizing Income Security for Working Age Adults (MISWAA) highlights the need forbroad-based income security reform in Canada. The MISWAA Task Force, of which TDBank Financial Group is a member, was launched last year by the Toronto City Summit Alliance (TCSA) and Toronto’s St. Christopher House to identify failings in the present income security system and recommend a road map for change. The Task Force is composed of leaders from the business, academic, government and non-profit sectors, including those with first-hand experience dealing with income security issues.
“While Canadian governments have made great strides in recent years in improving the financial security of children and senior citizens, the needs of low-income working ageadults have been comparatively neglected,” said David Pecaut, Chair of the Toronto City
Summit Alliance and co-Chair of the MISWAA Task Force. “There is overwhelming evidence that current policies and programs do little to support adults in gaining economic independence and forming a stable attachment to the labour force – and, in some cases, run contrary to this objective.” There is a social and an economic urgency to tackling these problems. “The challenges posed by an aging population make it imperative that no effort be spared to bring adults who can work into the labour force,” noted Pecaut. “And,while this is true across the country, it has particular relevance in Ontario, where changes in the way that income security programs are funded and delivered mean that municipal governments will face a serious financial crunch during the next economic downturn.”
The TD paper being released today focuses on a segment of the working age population that is particularly at risk – recipients of social assistance, who have been hard hit by a decade of cuts to welfare delivered by provincial governments intent on trimming deficits. “TD’s report is a major contribution to the work of the Task Force,” said Pecaut. It clearly lays out the scope and complexity of the problem, and provides valuable insight into the policy recommendations the Task Force is weighing.”
TD study highlights challenges associated with welfare reform
In the mid-1990s, the Ontario government took steps to reduce the size of its welfare program, by tightening eligibility requirements for social assistance and slashing benefits. “The provincial government defended the measures on the grounds that they would help nudge more adults into workforce, thereby laying the groundwork for a more enduring solution to the problem of poverty,” said Don Drummond, Senior Vice President and Chief Economist of TD Bank Financial Group. “But, while welfare caseloads did fall in the ensuing years, a closer look at the data suggests the real driver was fewer people being able to get on welfare – not the intended exodus of welfare recipients into the workforce.”
Part of the reason is that, even when the real value of welfare allowances is substantially reduced, the structure of most welfare programs gives recipients little financial incentive to get off social assistance. When people exit welfare, they lose cash and non-cash benefits, and incur new work-related expenses, that their employment earnings often aren’t sufficient to cover, leaving them no better, or even worse off, as a result of taking a job. “It’s important to recognize that this is not a problem that policy makers can completely resolve,” cautioned Drummond. To keep the income security system affordable, needs-tested benefits like welfare have to be scaled back as recipients’ incomes rise. But, the phase-out inevitably raises marginal effective tax rates, limiting the gains that people realize from earning extra income. “Still, while the trade-off can’t be eliminated, better program design can mitigate some of its worst aspects.”
In August 2005, the McGuinty government made an effort to do just that with Ontario’s welfare system, introducing a new set of rules for Ontario Works (OW). The TD report studies the impact of those changes on a couple of hypothetical welfare recipients in the province, to see how well the new rules live up to their stated purpose of helping OW clients make a permanent and successful transition into the workforce.
Main findings of the TD report:
• With respect to the primary goal of ‘making work pay’, the new Ontario Works rules represent an improvement over their predecessors, delivering a measurable reduction in the marginal effective tax rates that OW recipients face as they try to work their way off welfare. “This was one of the principal criticisms of the old system, with welfare recipients facing marginal effective tax rates of 100 per cent or more at most stages along the welfare/work spectrum – giving them virtually no incentive to boost their market income,” remarked Drummond. “The new earnings exemption, which lowers the taxback rate on employment income, goes a long way toward easing this problem, as does the temporary extension of the drug and dental benefits, which makes the welfare wall at the point of exit from OW a little more permeable.”
• Still, the reality is that, even with the changes, welfare recipients in Ontario still face marginal effective tax rates of well over 50 per cent. “That’s higher than the top marginal rate faced by Canada’s highest income earners,” noted Drummond, “and for OW clients, these high taxback rates go hand in hand with disposable incomes that are very low in absolute terms.” However, there is only so much the welfare system alone can do to remedy the latter problem.
• Similarly, the August 2005 rules exacerbate existing inequities between low-income adults inside and outside the welfare system, but a closer examination of the reasons why suggests that the main cause is weaknesses in the rest of Canada’s income security apparatus. “Welfare can and should be reformed to improve work incentives for social assistance recipients,” argued Drummond. “But, it is not a substitute for a well-defined set of social policies, and when it’s called upon to play that role, no one is well served.”
More clarity needed regarding welfare’s proper scope
“It’s essential to have realistic expectations about what welfare can and cannot be expected to do,” said Drummond. In recent years, welfare systems have been pressed into service to paper over too many cracks in the rest of the income security system – a prime example being poverty among working adults. Many adults outside the welfare system today aren’t
earning an adequate income, despite having a significant attachment to the labour force.“No amount of tinkering with welfare rules can solve this. Complementary measures are needed to boost after-tax incomes at the low end of the income scale – and, the welfare system is the wrong vehicle to provide them.” Susan Pigott, CEO of St. Christopher House and co-Chair of MISWAA, said, “This is where TD Bank’s research showcases the importance of what the Task Force is trying to do. As a front-line agency working in the community, St. Christopher House has firsthand experience with the struggles that low-income adults encounter, and it’s clear that these problems are not confined to the welfare system.” Social assistance recipients do face major barriers to entering the workforce. But, even if they succeed in making that transition, their problems are far from over. “People want to work, but when they find a job and still can’t make ends meet, it’s terribly discouraging for them,” said Pigott. “And, it should be for us, too. We shouldn’t settle for a system where people are working but still not able to support themselves and their families.”
Comprehensive approach means tackling welfare, and the world beyond
While the August 2005 OW rules achieve their primary goal of strengthening work incentives, there is room for further improvement in the system.
• Asset limits: “One area that stands out in particular – and received no attention with last month’s rule changes – is the asset side of the equation,” remarked Drummond. At present, OW clients are permitted to accumulate savings equivalent to only 1-2 months’ worth of their monthly cash allowance. “That suggests insufficient attention to enhancing opportunities to save – surely an important corollary to promoting incentives to work,” he added. “In the financial community, we’re always urging Canadians to save more, because we know how important even a small pool of savings can be in cushioning families through a financial shock.”
So, a clear case can be made for raising OW asset limits, to give people more room to build up their savings. But, that is about the only additional reform that Ontario Works can be expected to make on its own. The remaining flaws in the system arise largely from situations where welfare has had to expand beyond its natural domain of providing shortterm income support, into offering broader forms of assistance. As such, these flaws cannot be corrected without supporting changes in the rest of the income security system.
The TD report raises several ideas for consideration that MISWAA Task Force will be taking under advisement as it proceeds with its work:
• Working income supplement/refundable tax credit for low-income Canadians:
One of most pervasive needs is tackling the broader problem of poverty, among people on and off welfare. “Raising welfare rates to help the former group isn’t the answer, because it reduces the relative attractiveness of work,” warned Drummond. “And, substantially increasing the minimum wage risks labour market repercussions”. Two options that might be considered are a working income supplement and a refundable tax credit for low-income adults. Some jurisdictions in Canada have had success with measures of both sorts, on a smaller scale. “It’s not a perfect solution – there would be a net cost, and because both measures would need to be income-tested, they would
raise marginal effective tax rates over some range of income. But, if properly
designed, the two measures would take some of the pressure off welfare to shore up
the financial security of low-income adults. And, they would have the virtue of doing so through anonymous, rules-based programs that are free of the stigma and intrusive administrative oversight that go along with discretionary programs like welfare.”
• Completing the National Child Benefit (NCB) initiative: The 1998 NCB initiative offers provincial and territorial governments an opportunity to use the federal NCB
Supplement as a platform for developing an integrated, income-tested benefit for Canadian children that would eventually replace welfare-based child benefits.
“Ontario is part of the way there, with the Ontario Child Care Supplement for Working Families (OCCS),” commented Drummond, “but the program serves only a small segment of the low-income population – namely, low-income families with children under the age of 7.” That leaves a healthy chunk of income support for low-income children in Ontario to be paid through the welfare system. As a result, OW has to pay parents a substantially higher allowance than it pays single adults, and this produces a number of distortions in the work incentives and opportunities available to these two household types. Completing the NCB initiative would eliminate the source of these distortions, enhancing OW’s ability to function as a temporary income support program that provides genuine and fair work opportunities to all recipients.
• Employment Insurance (EI) reform: A decline in the share of the unemployed population covered by the federal government’s EI program has left low-income adults with fewer resources to fall back on when they lose their jobs. This has put more pressure on provincial welfare systems, and many have responded by raising entry barriers – chiefly, by imposing disqualification periods during which earnings exemptions that existing clients can claim are denied to new applicants. The result is a growing problem with horizontal inequity, where two households with similar financial profiles end up in very different economic circumstances, because one hasaccess to all the supports of OW and the other doesn’t.
“It’s possible that reforms to EI implemented in the 1990s may have gone too far in raising hours of work requirements, particularly in areas with low unemployment rates,” acknowledged Drummond. “But, the problem seems to be related more to shifts in the composition of the labour force that the present EI system is ill-equipped to deal with.” A rising trend toward self-employment, and an increase in the number of recent immigrants, who have no prior work experience in Canada – two groups who would have been ineligible for EI benefits even prior to the 1990s rule changes – stand out as obvious examples. “Complementary, stand-alone programs might be of some use here, to ensure that individuals who are not eligible for direct unemployment insurance do not also lose out on related services, like assistance with skills development and training,” said Drummond. If unemployed adults were better served by EI, there should be correspondingly less need for provincial governments to keep entry barriers to welfare so high that they risk denying access to people who are legitimate candidates for social assistance.
7
The TD report, From Welfare to Work in Ontario: Still the Road Less Travelled, is available in PDF format on TD Economics’ Home Page at www.td.com/economics.
For more information on the TD report, please contact:
Don Drummond Gillian Manning
Senior Vice President and Chief Economist Economist
TD Bank Financial Group TD Bank Financial Group
416-982-2556 416-982-2559
For more information on the MISWAA Task Force, please contact :
Meg Routley
Administrative Coordinator, MISWAA Task Force
Project Officer, Toronto City Summit Alliance
416-955-4220
About the Task Force on Modernizing Income Security for Working Age Adults
(MISWAA)
MISWAA was launched in late 2004 by the Toronto City Summit Alliance (TCSA) and
Toronto’s St. Christopher House and comprises over fifty civic leaders from many sectors
including business, academia, community service, and organized labour, as well as lowincome
adults and front-line agencies with first-hand experience dealing with income
security issues. MISWAA’s goal is to discover why the current system of income security
is failing and to make recommendations for reform aimed at the federal, Ontario and
municipal levels of government, as well as other parts of society that can be part of the
solution. MISWAA will then focus on ensuring that its recommendations are
implemented.
The Atkinson Charitable Foundation is MISWAA’s lead sponsor and provided seed
money to set up the Task Force. Additional funding is being provided by the private sector
including TD Bank Financial Group and KPMG, the United Way of Greater Toronto, and
foundations including the Laidlaw Foundation, the Law Foundation of Ontario, the
Maytree Foundation, and The J.W. McConnell Family Foundation.
About the Toronto City Summit Alliance
The Toronto City Summit Alliance (TCSA) is a non-partisan coalition of civic leaders
from the private and public sectors, labour, voluntary associations and agencies, think
tanks and academia in the Toronto region, as well as a network of hundreds of volunteers
– who all share a concern about the challenges to the future of the city region such as poor
economic integration of immigrants, decaying infrastructure, and lack of affordable
housing. In April 2003, the TCSA published Enough Talk: An Action Plan for the Toronto
Region. Since then it has been advocating for its recommendations and working with
community partners and governments towards their implementation.
8
About St. Christopher House
St. Christopher House is a Toronto-based neighbourhood centre with 93 years of
experience working with diverse individuals, families and groups. It provides support to
people of all ages, including immigrants and people who are lower-income, and is strongly
committed to community development in all aspects of its work.
Posted by caraher on September 23, 2005, at 0:33:38
In reply to wealth distribution in the usa, posted by alexandra_k on September 13, 2005, at 21:40:40
Article on the latest income figures for the US... http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/05/09/21_poverty.html
Some highlights:
"...this marks the first time since the Census Bureau began keeping records that household incomes failed to increase for five consecutive years. Since President Bush took office, the average annual household family income has declined by $2,572, approximately 4.8 percent."
"Although the portion of the total national income going to the bottom 60 percent of families did not increase last year, the portion going to the wealthiest five percent of families rose by 0.4 percent. And while the average inflation-adjusted family income of middle-class Americans declined by 0.7 percent in 2004, the wealthiest five percent of families enjoyed a 1.7 percent increase."
" Not surprisingly, the report revealed that poverty increased last year. There were 37 million (12.7 percent) people living in poverty, an increase of 1.1 million people since 2003. This was the fourth consecutive year in which poverty has increased. In fact, since President Bush took office, 5.4 million more people, including 1.4 million children, have found themselves living in poverty. There were 7.9 million families living below the poverty level in 2004, an increase of 300,000 families since 2003."
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.