I forgot everything I learned about calculus, so the equations make no sense to me when I look at them to determine this stuff.
However Obama has pushed for various tax hikes on the well off (repeal of Bush supply side tax cuts, medicare taxes of 3.8% on investment income and higher incomes, he has also attempted to raise capital gains taxes and soc. security taxes above the cap, etc) as well as subsidies for the lower classes, middle class and poor (COBRA subsidies, UI extensions and bonuses, health insurance subsidies, FICA tax cuts, etc).
It’ll probably take another 5-10 years for a noticeable effect to be made, but have Obama’s policies lowered the Gini coefficient any?
Obama has also pushed for taxes on the working class (sin taxes to fund SCHIP, being open to middle class taxes to close the deficit hole) which I am fine with seeing how far in debt we are, but which may also play a role in affecting the gini coefficient.
Nonsense, allowing a temporary tax break to sunset as provided for in the original law, does not constitute ‘repealing’.
Are the rest of your facts as faulty as this one?
I took a look around, and the most recent data I could find was for 2008. The data probably exists out there, but I couldn’t find it. If you’re interested, income inequality data can be found at the census bureau site.
My guess is that labor market trends far outweigh government policy in determining the Gini coefficient (which is not to say that the latter doesn’t change market behavior in subtler but important ways). The Gini coefficient fell under Reagan/Bush but rose under Clinton, mainly because the tech boom increased the productivity, and therefore value, of high-skill workers.
Generally, yes. The only times I can speak knowledgeably are when the subjects of heavy metal music, good luck trolls or pop tart flavors come up. The rest of the time I just pull stuff out of my ass.
To date, Mr Obama’s policies are likely to have the net effect of raising the Gini coefficient for the US. The Gini coefficient measures heterogeneity as much as anything else. A country which contains broad and diverse populations, and which trends toward opening its borders, is going to see its coefficient rise.
You can’t tax your way to equality of income or wealth–at least it’s never been accomplished so far–in any capitalist system where there is private ownership of property (and that’s every successful nation so far). So if you want a low coefficient as a primary goal, you gotta get rid of your immigrants and illegals, and also find a way to redistribute wealth. I don’t see Mr Obama doing the first, and no-one has figured out how to do the second. The best we’ve done is to make sure the wealthier folks pay most of what taxes there are…
It’s almost impossible to tax wealth, (and Mr Obama’s trust’s own little Rezko land deal serves as a perfect example of that, imo, but that’s another thread). As long as we tax income as the proxy for wealth, we’ll never lower the Gini coefficient.