Democrats Causing Income Inequality?

Rich and Poor

 

If Democrats want to combat income inequality in the USA, then perhaps they should start where it is the greatest … in cities dominated by the Democratic Party.

As cited by the New York Times, the Brookings Institution has published a study that shows where in the USA income inequality is the greatest.

Here is a chart from the study that says plenty:

Inequality

 

In an article published by the Huffington Post, Mark Gongloff writes the following:

Cities tend to have higher inequality in part because they have more progressive politics, offering housing, transportation and other support to the poor, Berube notes in his study.

Those cities at the bottom half of the above chart also offer housing, transportation and other support to the poor.   So, the second half of Gongloff’s statement can be left out.  He gets it right when he links progressive politics to greater income inequality.

So, if Democrats want to combat income inequality, then why don’t they promote higher taxation in the cities with greatest income inequality? They can promote higher local taxation without promoting higher federal taxation.

Since income inequality is the greatest in particular cities (as shown in the above chart), why don’t Democrats promote a minimum wage in those cities that is higher than the federal minimum wage?   They can promote a higher local minimum wage without promoting a higher federal minimum wage.

Come on, Democrats, get to work! If you can’t eliminate income inequality in the cities that you dominate, then why should anyone believe that you can eliminate income inequality throughout the entire USA?

Shortlink:

Posted by on February 20, 2014.
Filed under Democrats, General, Politics.
Tagged with: .
A refugee from Planet Melmac masquerading as a human. Loves cats*. In fair condition. A fixer-upper. Warranty still good. Not necessarily sane. [*Joke in reference to the TV sit-com "Alf", which featured a space alien who liked to eat cats. Disclaimer: No cats were harmed in the writing and posting of this profile.]

You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
  • George Washington

    Today is a terrible embarrassment for statistics. The only thing this chart, this statistical application tells us, is where really rich people live, where poor people live, and the health of the location’s real estate market. That’s it. Nothing else can be gleaned from this information.

    Really rich people cluster in NYC, Boston, San Fransisco, and LA. These are also cities where property values have soared over the past 15 years. A one bed apartment in NYC or SF runs north of $1.5 million.

    This graph also tells us where REALLY poor people live (Atlanta and Chicago). The discrepancy between really poor and some wealthy people puts those two cities on this list.

    The cities with the “lowest inequality” are also cities with some of the lowest property values in the USA. The median home price in Las Vegas is $160k, much lower than the cities on the top list. The cities on the bottom list also have large suburban populations who were hit hard and have not recovered from the financial crisis.

    • jim_m

      Income inequality in and of itself is not a problem. If income inequality is generated by people who produce goods and services that people need and they become rich off of providing something that benefits their fellow man then, while income inequality may increase, all people benefit from an increase in their standard of living. Also, the data seems to indicate that this tends to generate less inequality over all.

      Income inequality is bad when it is generated by people who get wealthy primarily due to their political connections and through corruption and cronyism. This is the condition we have with obama and what we see in most large democrat run cities today. Productive people are driven away, while corrupt politicians and their friends get rich off of government largesse and produce little if anything that benefits anyone but themselves. In these cases income rises for the cronies and drops for the poor. Income inequality increases at a greater rate because rather than improving everyone’s lives the inequality is essentially a theft of the connected from the masses.

      That is what is behind this data.

      • George Washington

        Where do you live? Do you think most of the wealthy people in NYC generate their wealth from the government, either State or Federal??? If you do, you have literally no idea what what dynamics exist in NYC. The wealthiest people in NYC don’t work, their parents never worked, these people live off investments that were set in place generations ago. They live in NYC not because they are closer to the Democrat or Government “tit” but because they like the City, culture, vibrant energy, snobby restaurants, and being around other ridiculously rich people like them. These cities hosted uber wealthy people long before Obama, Bush, or Clinton.

        • jim_m

          The point is not that most people generate their income from government but that government creates a climate where businesses can get ahead through using government to choose winners and losers. This is patently the case with the obama admin.

          As for wealthy people who live off of their trust funds, they are not the source of increasing income inequality. By and large they are not dramatically increasing their wealth by sitting on those trust funds. The people who are increasing their wealth are doing so through business and through businesses that benefit either by direct interaction with the government or by the government enforcing laws in a selective manner that benefits them.

          All one needs to do to find examples of obama choosing winners and losers is to look at his green energy policy, which has done nothing to generate new technologies or sustainable new companies but has done a great deal to enrich his friends and donors. One can also look at the example of Gibson Guitar for a company that was targeted for the offense of donating to the GOP..

        • jim_m

          The point is not that most people generate their income from government but that government creates a climate where businesses can get ahead through using government to choose winners and losers. This is patently the case with the obama admin.

          As for wealthy people who live off of their trust funds, they are not the source of increasing income inequality. By and large they are not dramatically increasing their wealth by sitting on those trust funds. The people who are increasing their wealth are doing so through business and through businesses that benefit either by direct interaction with the government or by the government enforcing laws in a selective manner that benefits them.

          All one needs to do to find examples of obama choosing winners and losers is to look at his green energy policy, which has done nothing to generate new technologies or sustainable new companies but has done a great deal to enrich his friends and donors. One can also look at the example of Gibson Guitar for a company that was targeted for the offense of donating to the GOP..

      • George Washington

        Where do you live? Do you think most of the wealthy people in NYC generate their wealth from the government, either State or Federal??? If you do, you have literally no idea what what dynamics exist in NYC. The wealthiest people in NYC don’t work, their parents never worked, these people live off investments that were set in place generations ago. They live in NYC not because they are closer to the Democrat or Government “tit” but because they like the City, culture, vibrant energy, snobby restaurants, and being around other ridiculously rich people like them. These cities hosted uber wealthy people long before Obama, Bush, or Clinton.

  • Paul Hooson

    The biggest problem with politicians in general is that they tax persons like me who work hard to produce to pay many who refuse to work at all.

  • Par4Course

    Dems only talk as if they want to help the poor. Their policies, from ObamaCare to hight minimum wage, hurt the working poor or those poor who would like to be working by making it more expensive for employers to hire anyone. The fact that making anything more expensive lowers demand is an economic principle that even Democrats should be able to grasp but refuse to understand when applied to their pet programs and policies.

    • Hank_M

      “Dems only talk as if they want to help the poor”

      Exactly! Unfortunately, they’ve expanded their programs and propaganda to now include the middle class.
      And the really sad part is that people believe them.

      • jim_m

        Of course. If they actually helped the poor then the poor would no longer need them. The whole purpose of their policy is to create an impression that they are trying to help while their policies actually make the problems worse.

  • GarandFan

    Given the results of the liberal “War on Poverty”, isn’t it time we surrendered?

  • AT

    “Hi, I’m a Democrat politician fighting against income inequality. Here are some handouts that ensure that I say in power, and thus very rich – while you live/depend on the crumbs I throw you, such as public transportation; section 8 housing (enjoy the skyrocket crime!); and food stamps. It’s a hand-up, that never actually brings you up! You’re welcome! Keep voting for me to stay rich and never really help you in any meaningful way – don’t worry, you won’t need ID to do it.”

    *spits*