why do people talk about racial and gender equality...

[rudeguy]

Rest assured that the "fix" for income inequality, just like the "fix" to global warming, or anything else for that matter involves giving more money and power to government and liberal groups.

We all remember how well the last global warming thread worked out. I simply asked "What positive changes would you like to make" and I was treated like a Nazi for daring to ask a question that required a real answer.

Here's the thing: There cannot be income equality. Even if we distributed the world's wealth equally among all people, tomorrow we would have income inequality again. Even if we do away with money, there will be income inequality since some people will work harder and collect more twigs and berries while others lay around waiting for someone to hand them the twigs and berries.

 

[rudeguy]

The Dems? Nothing. They are a party of the rich.

Liberals, on the other hand, would restore the inheritance tax and restore the progressive income tax. The current regressive tax scheme is a throwback to the middle ages. "Only the little people pay taxes."

Please provide proof this is true.

 

[IronWing]

Please provide proof this is true.

"We don't pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes."

-Leona Helmsley

..

 

[sm625]

Because the media is controlled by a select few who profit greatly by shifting the public focus away from issues of economic inequality. If the bottom 99% knew how badly they were being raped, they might actually act. But when you own the ability to control the information people receive, you own their worldview and you can use that tool to distract them from the obvious. Everyone is equal. All genders. All races. Equally poor and equally powerless. Equally subservient. All races and all creeds pay the same taxes to their feudal lord. Drowning in debt, no wealth, no political power. But distracted by silly little rectangular bobbles.

 

[MovingTarget]

We all remember how well the last global warming thread worked out. I simply asked "What positive changes would you like to make" and I was treated like a Nazi for daring to ask a question that required a real answer.

Here's the thing: There cannot be income equality. Even if we distributed the world's wealth equally among all people, tomorrow we would have income inequality again. Even if we do away with money, there will be income inequality since some people will work harder and collect more twigs and berries while others lay around waiting for someone to hand them the twigs and berries.

Even the most liberal among us don't have any problem with income inequality per se. Most would argue that it is beneficial, up to a point. The question we should be asking is at what level does income inequality become excessive and/or economically destructive. What level of income inequality is considered optimal for economic growth? If the current level is suboptimal, which I feel that it is, then how do we correct it?

 

[PokerGuy]

Rest assured that the "fix" for income inequality, just like the "fix" to global warming, or anything else for that matter involves giving more money and power to government and liberal groups.

The Dems? Nothing. They are a party of the rich.

Liberals, on the other hand, would restore the inheritance tax and restore the progressive income tax.

See? Right on queue, the "fix" is to take money from people and hand it over to libs in government for them to dole out to the more deserving constituents. Was there ever any doubt?

 

[PokerGuy]

Even the most liberal among us don't have any problem with income inequality per se. Most would argue that it is beneficial, up to a point. The question we should be asking is at what level does income inequality become excessive and/or economically destructive. What level of income inequality is considered optimal for economic growth? If the current level is suboptimal, which I feel that it is, then how do we correct it?

Now that seems like a much more reasonable position and a good starting point for real discussion.

 

[IronWing]

See? Right on queue, the "fix" is to take money from people and hand it over to libs in government for them to dole out to the more deserving constituents. Was there ever any doubt?

It has a proven track record of working far better for far more people than the current regressive tax system which works very, very well for a small number of people and not so well for the rest.

Your kneejerk reaction in support of the ultra weathly screwing you over is puzzling.

 

[rudeguy]

It has a proven track record of working far better for far more people than the current regressive tax system which works very, very well for a small number of people and not so well for the rest.

Your kneejerk reaction in support of the ultra weathly screwing you over is puzzling.

Is your solution going to fix income inequality?

 

[IronWing]

Is your solution going to fix income inequality?

Yes, over time it will as the inheritance tax serves to break up consolidated wealth and a progressive tax system allows workers to keep more of their money. Currently, we have a bizzarre system that taxes unearned income at the lower rate than earned income, shifting the burden of taxation onto working people. This has promoted income concentration at the top and sucked money out of workers' paychecks.

A second approach is for workers to stand up for their self interests, re-unionize this country, and vote their self interests. Unions once had the clout to influence elections through providing solid voting blocks. That was the strength of unions, not the ability to bribe a few politicians.

 

[rudeguy]

Yes, over time it will as the inheritance tax serves to break up consolidated wealth and a progressive tax system allows workers to keep more of their money. Currently, we have a bizzarre system that taxes unearned income at the lower rate than earned income, shifting the burden of taxation onto working people. This has promoted income concentration at the top and sucked money out of workers' paychecks.

A second approach is for workers to stand up for their self interests, re-unionize this country, and vote their self interests. Unions once had the clout to influence elections through providing solid voting blocks. That was the strength of unions, not the ability to bribe a few politicians.

So tomorrow the federal government starts taxing unearned income at the same rate as earned income. How does that get rid of income inequality?

 

[IronWing]

So tomorrow the federal government starts taxing unearned income at the same rate as earned income. How does that get rid of income inequality?

It provides the government with new (restored, really) revenues to either attack the deficit (yeah, right) or to reduce taxes on earned income allowing people just like you to keep more of what your labor earns. You get an effective raise as you are no longer paying higher taxes to cover the lower tax rates currently paid on unearned income. The effect is to push money down the foodchain. This in turn, creates more economic activity as lower income folks tend to spend a greater percentage of their income than higher income folks.

 

[rudeguy]

It provides the government with new (restored, really) revenues to either attack the deficit (yeah, right) or to reduce taxes on earned income allowing people just like you to keep more of what your labor earns. You get an effective raise as you are no longer paying higher taxes to cover the lower tax rates currently paid on unearned income. The effect is to push money down the foodchain. This in turn, creates more economic activity as lower income folks tend to spend a greater percentage of their income than higher income folks.

How does more money going to the government eliminate income inequality? There are 46,000,000 poor people in the US. Exactly how much cash is your plan going to create and how is that cash going to go from the "rich" to the poor?

 

[berzerker60]

How does more money going to the government eliminate income inequality? There are 46,000,000 poor people in the US. Exactly how much cash is your plan going to create and how is that cash going to go from the "rich" to the poor?

Not sure how that's not clear: more money taken from the very rich by taxing unearned income + less money taken from the poor by lowering taxes on earned income = less income inequality. The CBO can and will estimate a dollar figure for you if anyone ever actually suggests such legislation.

That's super unlikely though, because Republicans act 100% in the interests of rich businessmen and Democrats act 80% in the interests of rich Wall Street and Hollywood people.

And again: no one is trying to eliminate income inequality. Many of us think income inequality has gotten to a harmful extreme, where it reduces opportunity to succeed through hard work. We want to reduce income inequality, not eliminate it.

 

[rudeguy]

Not sure how that's not clear: more money taken from the very rich by taxing unearned income + less money taken from the poor by lowering taxes on earned income = less income inequality. The CBO can and will estimate a dollar figure for you if anyone ever actually suggests such legislation.

That's super unlikely though, because Republicans act 100% in the interests of rich businessmen and Democrats act 80% in the interests of rich Wall Street and Hollywood people.

And again: no one is trying to eliminate income inequality. Many of us think income inequality has gotten to a harmful extreme, where it reduces opportunity to succeed through hard work. We want to reduce income inequality, not eliminate it.

No...Iron clearly said his plan would fix income inequality.

But lets go with your explanation: So the problem isn't that the poor people don't have enough money, its that the government is taking too much of it? If they didn't have to pay any taxes, would that fix income inequality?

 

[cbrunny]

Those in control were alive during the Cold War.

 

[MovingTarget]

How does more money going to the government eliminate income inequality? There are 46,000,000 poor people in the US. Exactly how much cash is your plan going to create and how is that cash going to go from the "rich" to the poor?

Eliminate? Nobody is talking about eliminating income inequality altogether. It will certainly reduce income inequality even if it does not go to the poor. Simply "bringing the rich down a notch" does reduce income inequality, but that is a bit of a red herring.

As far as how money goes from the rich to the poor, history provides many effective (and some noneffective) examples during the 20th century. You can expand social safety nets, provide jobs via public works and large infrastructure projects, or even do straight up redistribution via a guaranteed national income or other tax reduction scheme for those who work for a living. The possibilities are limitless, but not all of them are created equal in terms of creating more optimal economic conditions.

 

[Exophase]

I don't have an intrinsic problem with people making different amounts of money. What I think should be up for more conversation is the institutions that make it much easier for the wealthy to accumulate more wealth and pass on wealth to their children, and those which make it very difficult for adults in poverty to escape it and almost as difficult for their children to not succumb to it.

 

[rudeguy]

Eliminate? Nobody is talking about eliminating income inequality altogether. It will certainly reduce income inequality even if it does not go to the poor. Simply "bringing the rich down a notch" does reduce income inequality, but that is a bit of a red herring.

As far as how money goes from the rich to the poor, history provides many effective (and some noneffective) examples during the 20th century. You can expand social safety nets, provide jobs via public works and large infrastructure projects, or even do straight up redistribution via a guaranteed national income or other tax reduction scheme for those who work for a living. The possibilities are limitless, but not all of them are created equal in terms of creating more optimal economic conditions.

Oh sweet. That's what I was looking for.

What examples during the 20th century are there for effective income redistribution plans?

 

[blastingcap]

You guys talking about income inequality, need to look at WEALTH inequality. No matter how hard you work, you are unlikely to ever be anywhere as wealthy as the Walton heirs for instance. There is way too much focus on the ephemeral "income" and not enough on the vast chunks of inherited wealth. A $200k/year business owner can lose her business. A $200k/year banker can get laid off. A kid born into a $10 million trust fund might only get $100k/year from it (lower income), but they didn't do anything to earn it. WEALTH inequality in the US is much worse and insidious than income inequality.

 

[berzerker60]

No...Iron clearly said his plan would fix income inequality.

But lets go with your explanation: So the problem isn't that the poor people don't have enough money, its that the government is taking too much of it? If they didn't have to pay any taxes, would that fix income inequality?

"fixing" doesn't necessarily mean "eliminating," but now we're just into unproductive semantics.

If we removed all taxes on the poor - sales taxes, fees to access services, better public transportation, etc. - then it would certainly help, yes. There is no golden bullet that will fix everything though.

Oh sweet. That's what I was looking for.

What examples during the 20th century are there for effective income redistribution plans?

Social Security changed our country from having the large majority of the elderly in abject poverty to most people at least getting by. Highly progressive taxes plus public works projects around World War II and the early Cold War were extremely effective.

http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/how-to-think-about-inequality

You guys talking about income inequality, need to look at WEALTH inequality. No matter how hard you work, you are unlikely to ever be anywhere as wealthy as the Walton heirs for instance. There is way too much focus on the ephemeral "income" and not enough on the vast chunks of inherited wealth. A $200k/year business owner can lose her business. A $200k/year banker can get laid off. A kid born into a $10 million trust fund might only get $100k/year from it (lower income), but they didn't do anything to earn it. WEALTH inequality in the US is much worse and insidious than income inequality.

Agreed, but unfortunately this country is too terrified of even reasonable tax policy for this to be imaginable.

 

[rudeguy]

"fixing" doesn't necessarily mean "eliminating," but now we're just into unproductive semantics.

If we removed all taxes on the poor - sales taxes, fees to access services, better public transportation, etc. - then it would certainly help, yes. There is no golden bullet that will fix everything though.



Social Security changed our country from having the large majority of the elderly in abject poverty to most people at least getting by. Highly progressive taxes plus public works projects around World War II and the early Cold War were extremely effective.

http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/how-to-think-about-inequality

Agreed, but unfortunately this country is too terrified of even reasonable tax policy for this to be imaginable.

So I'm confused.

Ironwing said his plan would fix income inequality but you are saying there is no magic bullet to fix everything? Hmm...

And is social security the great example? People relying on social security are well below poverty. And the people at the top 1% still get social security. So....yea I don't see how that is a good example.

 

[IronWing]

Rudeguy, serious question: why do you consistently support policies that are against your self interest?

 

[rudeguy]

Rudeguy, serious question: why do you consistently support policies that are against your self interest?

what policy am I supporting?

 

[JEDIYoda]

But never talk about economic equality?

So what are your thoughts on economic equality?
Should somebody with a PHD make mor than somebody working at Burger King??