What issues would the question, is income inequality bad for society raise?

[Moonbeam]

Your words aggravate by their focus, a response best summarized by what it missed rather than what it explained. You see people fail in a free market, and they get trampled over. I said we should focus on correcting that, on lifting people up. We should ensure a basic level of income.

I see this whole topic as taking the wrong approach to a problem that rightly grieves many. I do not care if people are not equal, so long as those at the bottom have enough. If we feel they are wanting, then we should seek remedy.

I believe in a free market... with a floor. Often described as a safety net. What this safety net looks like, and how to achieve it are the real questions. Potential answers to that, I hope are the real discussion to be found. If we seek to raise people up, rather than tear others down, then I expect we might both be surprised at the level of support for such proposals.

You would be right in saying people are conditioned to hate themselves, and that their pride in "hard work" would make opponents for us to overcome. Moreover... there is a sense of "got mine, !@#$ you" which poisons the discussion... but do we not also bleed? Are we not all human?

In our frailty there comes an honest truth they will find difficult to hide behind. That we all have moments of need. In sickness or in health. For better or for poorer. There are times in all our lives when a safety net is warranted. There is something to be said for finding a way to provide that.

The discussion is not in what we take from people, it's best found in what we give.
So no, I oppose equal outcome. So long as every outcome is decent.

I have no issue with anything you said other than equality of opportunity which I do not think exists. It is fine by me that there be some sort of safety net. But I think also that income inequality, the fact that the rich are looking out for their interests and theirs only, is what creates much of the inequality in the first place. In a libertarian world fat people can eat themselves to death if they want to, but I see that as a form of illness that may require outsiders to step in to help.

 

[boomerang]

But I think also that income inequality, the fact that the rich are looking out for their interests and theirs only, is what creates much of the inequality in the first place.

You've started a thread based in an assumption. There is much information available but here is just one link.

How much do the ultra-rich give to charity? Fact based anxiety is preferable to emotion based anxiety. It's a better basis for a thread like this too.

I suspect that your preference is for all charity to flow through the government. Take from the rich that which they now give willingly so that it may be distributed as the .gov sees fit. Well the .gov has a very poor track record. I say let those that wish to spend their millions on charitable causes pick their cause so that they may monitor what happens with that money.

On a related note, what percentage of the population of the U.S. starved to death last year? How many died from exposure? How many died from a lack of drinking water? Food, clothing and shelter are the universally agreed upon requirements for human life. Look at the population of the earth. As a species we seem to be doing extraordinarily well at providing the basics and especially so here in the U.S.

You'd serve yourself well IMO to truly examine why you have so much anxiety over a perception. Maybe you'll come to grips with it. But, you are one of many. Society as a whole through necessity must ignore those that think like you lest we get mired in causes that have existed through time and will exist for the foreseeable future. Policy should not be based in greed, jealousy and misplaced anxiety.

 

[Jhhnn]

You've started a thread based in an assumption. There is much information available but here is just one link.

How much do the ultra-rich give to charity? Fact based anxiety is preferable to emotion based anxiety. It's a better basis for a thread like this too.

I suspect that your preference is for all charity to flow through the government. Take from the rich that which they now give willingly so that it may be distributed as the .gov sees fit. Well the .gov has a very poor track record. I say let those that wish to spend their millions on charitable causes pick their cause so that they may monitor what happens with that money.

On a related note, what percentage of the population of the U.S. starved to death last year? How many died from exposure? How many died from a lack of drinking water? Food, clothing and shelter are the universally agreed upon requirements for human life. Look at the population of the earth. As a species we seem to be doing extraordinarily well at providing the basics and especially so here in the U.S.

You'd serve yourself well IMO to truly examine why you have so much anxiety over a perception. Maybe you'll come to grips with it. But, you are one of many. Society as a whole through necessity must ignore those that think like you lest we get mired in causes that have existed through time and will exist for the foreseeable future. Policy should not be based in greed, jealousy and misplaced anxiety.

So dishonest. If UHNW philanthropists average $25M in lifetime donations to "charity", that doesn't mean all UHNW people are philanthropists at all. It doesn't mean that they didn't contribute heavily to 501(c)4 groups whose message is chiefly political, either.

Not to mention that charity never was and never will be adequate to serve the needs of the People living in a Lootocracy.

 

[Rebel_L]

You've started a thread based in an assumption. There is much information available but here is just one link.

How much do the ultra-rich give to charity? Fact based anxiety is preferable to emotion based anxiety. It's a better basis for a thread like this too.

I suspect that your preference is for all charity to flow through the government. Take from the rich that which they now give willingly so that it may be distributed as the .gov sees fit. Well the .gov has a very poor track record. I say let those that wish to spend their millions on charitable causes pick their cause so that they may monitor what happens with that money.

On a related note, what percentage of the population of the U.S. starved to death last year? How many died from exposure? How many died from a lack of drinking water? Food, clothing and shelter are the universally agreed upon requirements for human life. Look at the population of the earth. As a species we seem to be doing extraordinarily well at providing the basics and especially so here in the U.S.

You'd serve yourself well IMO to truly examine why you have so much anxiety over a perception. Maybe you'll come to grips with it. But, you are one of many. Society as a whole through necessity must ignore those that think like you lest we get mired in causes that have existed through time and will exist for the foreseeable future. Policy should not be based in greed, jealousy and misplaced anxiety.

I am unsure of how your article shows that wealthy are great philanthropists. They donate an average of around 10% of their net worth over their life times. While the article is a little lacking on statistics for the average person we do get an average household giving a year at 3k.

Let's try some simple math then. Let's go counting adults as officially starting a household at 18 and live until 80, that's 62 years of donating or about 186k (if your unhappy with such a long donating period we could go with say 40 years of a working career which is still 120k)

So what do you think the average household net worth is? Over 1.2 to 1.8 mill? Then let's see about subtracting out an amount from that average net worth that said households will need for retirement and see what kind of percentage of networth the average household donates over its life time. Oddly enough under this kind of light the wealthy don't look so good anymore. In my experience those that have known actual suffering are far more generous than everyone else.

 

[Moonbeam]

boomerang, I started the thread with a question that implied that inequality might not be good, the very gut reaction I have acquired over a lifetime in a society dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal, and additionally, to my childhood exposure to the Christian religion, Christs obvious sympathy for those at the bottom of the inequality of income scale and His contempt both for money changers and religious, or so called religious folk who think the kingdom of heaven is open to folk who merely follow external forms like, say, charity and laws.

The greatest assumption I made was that like myself, some sort of rationalization would be required to help me sleep through the near universal apathy I see regarding any sense of urgency to address this issue, one getting worse by the day, I am told, in our present day society, an assumption that if accurate may not be obvious at all given the fact that indifference to inequality superficially at least, looks like callousness itself.

In later posts I amplified on the notion that inequality can't be good and that excuses based on the premise that it is just don't work to help my sleep.

My thread is more about exploring why we do nothing, to which you have made an additional contribution. Thank you for that.

 

[glenn1]

So dishonest. If UHNW philanthropists average $25M in lifetime donations to "charity", that doesn't mean all UHNW people are philanthropists at all. It doesn't mean that they didn't contribute heavily to 501(c)4 groups whose message is chiefly political, either.

Not to mention that charity never was and never will be adequate to serve the needs of the People living in a Lootocracy.

It would truly be a better world if the rich were to forego the income of selling their wares to you. Anyone who speaks of a "lootocracy" ought to be forced into self-sufficiency and not be allowed to contribute to further increasing the wealth of those they hate. The truth is without the rich people like Jhhnn would be little more than subsistence farmers.

 

[Moonbeam]

It would truly be a better world if the rich were to forego the income of selling their wares to you. Anyone who speaks of a "lootocracy" ought to be forced into self-sufficiency and not be allowed to contribute to further increasing the wealth of those they hate. The truth is without the rich people like Jhhnn would be little more than subsistence farmers.

Probable one of the finest forms of sleep is to be had by folk who can announce truth to be whatever they desire and then believe it. Thanks for this contribution.

 

[boomerang]

I am unsure of how your article shows that wealthy are great philanthropists. They donate an average of around 10% of their net worth over their life times. While the article is a little lacking on statistics for the average person we do get an average household giving a year at 3k.

Let's try some simple math then. Let's go counting adults as officially starting a household at 18 and live until 80, that's 62 years of donating or about 186k (if your unhappy with such a long donating period we could go with say 40 years of a working career which is still 120k)

So what do you think the average household net worth is? Over 1.2 to 1.8 mill? Then let's see about subtracting out an amount from that average net worth that said households will need for retirement and see what kind of percentage of networth the average household donates over its life time. Oddly enough under this kind of light the wealthy don't look so good anymore. In my experience those that have known actual suffering are far more generous than everyone else.

So let's cut to the chase. How much is enough and how do you wish to see it collected?

 

[blastingcap]

So let's cut to the chase. How much is enough and how do you wish to see it collected?

I'm not the person you addressed, but higher top-bracket capital gains tax and putting a stop to overseas loopholes would be a nice start.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...er-taxes-under-obamas-capital-gains-proposal/

Also, how about the red states start pulling their own weight for a change?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_reck..._guess_who_benefits_more_from_your_taxes.html

 

[Jhhnn]

It would truly be a better world if the rich were to forego the income of selling their wares to you. Anyone who speaks of a "lootocracy" ought to be forced into self-sufficiency and not be allowed to contribute to further increasing the wealth of those they hate. The truth is without the rich people like Jhhnn would be little more than subsistence farmers.

One has only to examine the distribution of wealth & income in the third world to see unfettered lootocracy in action. All too many of them *are* subsistence farmers, often merely tenant farmers. We have but to recall colonialism to see it at the international level. We can see it today in the declining fortunes of median families.

Don't misunderstand me- Unlike Moonbeam, I see inequality as inevitable in human society. OTOH, that doesn't mean there's no such thing as too much of it, particularly from a concentration of power perspective. It diminishes the relative power of the common man in no small way, in the marketplace and particularly in politics.

Witness the Tea Party, built & financed by Koch bros money, AFP leadership & Fox News publicity.

 

[boomerang]

Also, how about the red states start pulling their own weight for a change?

It's just redistribution. It sounds like you're for that. Or do you prefer to narrowly define it?

 

[Rebel_L]

So let's cut to the chase. How much is enough and how do you wish to see it collected?

I am not well versed enough in the current economic system to know where the actual loopholes are that would make for a more balanced system nor do I know of great way to try any kind of balanced system that would not require global buy in. I do however know that the wealthy are only wealthy as a result of large scale cooperative society and would only be subsistence farmers like everyone else without it. It would be neat to see some sort of networth cap that ties the max allowed to a function of the lowest there is.

In the end scarcity is still going to keep us back from making to many changes unless we're comfortable with a lot of violence to go with the changes. Hopefully that will be something we can get sorted out fairly quickly and before we destroy our planet. It's encouraging to see though that some of the ultra wealthy are starting to recognize that they truly have too much, so much even that it would take them more than a lifetime to give it away.

 

[Jhhnn]

It's just redistribution. It sounds like you're for that. Or do you prefer to narrowly define it?

I don't have a problem with the redistributionist aspects of it. I just have a problem w/ the denial & spite of the recipients.

I figure that if their way of doing things was so great then the rest of us wouldn't feel the need to subsidize them.

See how that works?

 

[glenn1]

I don't have a problem with the redistributionist aspects of it. I just have a problem w/ the denial & spite of the recipients.

I figure that if their way of doing things was so great then the rest of us wouldn't feel the need to subsidize them.

See how that works?

Pity poor little baby isn't being recognized for his generosity in giving away other people's money. Just one more example of "what's the matter with Kansas" that they don't realize how incapable they are and sing your praises for helping them out.

 

[Moonbeam]

Don't misunderstand me- Unlike Moonbeam, I see inequality as inevitable in human society.

As to whether income inequality is inevitable in human society, I have expressed no opinion. I do know, however that bumble bees are aerodynamically incapable of flight, that the human body can't handle velocities over 100 MPH, and that nobody will ever break the 4 MIN mile. There is no more effective way to disappear a problem that I can think of than to categorize its solution as impossible.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I would like to see a breakdown of voters who receive aid in the "Red" states, my bet is most of these people are in the large cities and tend to vote Democratic.

 

[Matt1970]

As to whether income inequality is inevitable in human society, I have expressed no opinion. I do know, however that bumble bees are aerodynamically incapable of flight, that the human body can't handle velocities over 100 MPH, and that nobody will ever break the 4 MIN mile. There is no more effective way to disappear a problem that I can think of than to categorize its solution as impossible.

So now we are just throwing out random bullshit myths? You really are taking things to a whole new level now.

 

[Matt1970]

I would like to see a breakdown of voters who receive aid in the "Red" states, my bet is most of these people are in the large cities and tend to vote Democratic.

Na, it's just that blue states ass rape their citizens with sate income tax rates as high as 11% then cry that red states take a few extra federal tax dollars.

 

[Jhhnn]

Pity poor little baby isn't being recognized for his generosity in giving away other people's money. Just one more example of "what's the matter with Kansas" that they don't realize how incapable they are and sing your praises for helping them out.

Please don't make false attributions. Expressions of gratitude are neither expected nor desired. A little less hatefulness & a little more rationality would be appreciated.

I pay my taxes willingly & prefer that my modest contributions be spent helping less fortunate Americans rather than on waging war against people on the other side of the planet.

 

[fskimospy]

I would like to see a breakdown of voters who receive aid in the "Red" states, my bet is most of these people are in the large cities and tend to vote Democratic.

Nope.

Residents of rural areas are on public assistance at significantly higher rates than those in urban areas. A big reason the south is a net recipient of funds is because it is more rural than average.

 

[fskimospy]

Na, it's just that blue states ass rape their citizens with sate income tax rates as high as 11% then cry that red states take a few extra federal tax dollars.

High state income taxes would actually REDUCE the amount of federal funds contributed as they can be deducted from federal tax returns.

It is a simple fact that red states on average get more money from the federal treasury than they put in. I have no problem with that because that's the way our system works where wealthier areas help out poorer ones.

It would be nice if people stopped trying to argue that states with more republicans in them got more aid money because they have more democrats though.

 

[Jhhnn]

I would like to see a breakdown of voters who receive aid in the "Red" states, my bet is most of these people are in the large cities and tend to vote Democratic.

So what? Federal assistance to states enables commerce, builds infrastructure & raises the standard of living for everybody who lives there. That's particularly true in low population areas where residents don't even have the resources to maintain the roads.

 

[Matt1970]

High state income taxes would actually REDUCE the amount of federal funds contributed as they can be deducted from federal tax returns.

It is a simple fact that red states on average get more money from the federal treasury than they put in. I have no problem with that because that's the way our system works where wealthier areas help out poorer ones.

It would be nice if people stopped trying to argue that states with more republicans in them got more aid money because they have more democrats though.

It's not a matter of deductions. It's a matter of your state taking an extra 11% from it's citizens to perform it's day to day operations at the sane time claiming you require less tax money to operate.

 

[fskimospy]

It's not a matter of deductions. It's a matter of your state taking an extra 11% from it's citizens to perform it's day to day operations at the sane time claiming you require less tax money to operate.

Federal taxes are not disbursed to citizens based on what their states are doing. No one said anything about what level of tax revenue a specific state requires to operate. The simple fact is that blue states pay their state taxes, their federal taxes, and for part of red state spending as well.

 

[Moonbeam]

High state income taxes would actually REDUCE the amount of federal funds contributed as they can be deducted from federal tax returns.

It is a simple fact that red states on average get more money from the federal treasury than they put in. I have no problem with that because that's the way our system works where wealthier areas help out poorer ones.

It would be nice if people stopped trying to argue that states with more republicans in them got more aid money because they have more democrats though.

Your posts kind of remind me of some of the issues we would have to face if we sought to equally distribute rational thinking. We would soon discover, I think, a primary impediment to be the assumption of those in short supply that they already possess it in abundance. Blaming democrats in republican majority states for red states being the primary takers looks for all the world to me to be the results of conservative brain defective thinking, the inculcation of self reliance in childhood as a virtue, the lack of which is a sin, and the subsequent denial in adulthood as an affront to their ego that they could actually be takers.

The problem always with looking down on others is that one blinds oneself to seeing the same in oneself.