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

[berzerker60]

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.

I'm not Ironwing, I don't have any responsibility for whether his proposals would solve everything. I don't think there is any one solution that will solve our problem of extreme income inequality. I think there are a variety of solutions that, taken together, can help. I agree with Ironwing that more progressive taxation is an important part of that.

Social Security is one program that helped, yes. It did not eliminate poverty, no. It made things worlds better than before it existed, though, by bringing people in abject poverty up to not-starving-to-death-poverty. Not enough by itself, but one step. If we removed the cap on contributions it would help still more.

You act like we have to point to one single policy that completely solved the problem in the past or else there's nothing that could possibly help in the present. That's just not how the world works.

 

[rudeguy]

I'm not Ironwing, I don't have any responsibility for whether his proposals would solve everything. I don't think there is any one solution that will solve our problem of extreme income inequality. I think there are a variety of solutions that, taken together, can help. I agree with Ironwing that more progressive taxation is an important part of that.

Social Security is one program that helped, yes. It did not eliminate poverty, no. It made things worlds better than before it existed, though, by bringing people in abject poverty up to not-starving-to-death-poverty. Not enough by itself, but one step. If we removed the cap on contributions it would help still more.

You act like we have to point to one single policy that completely solved the problem in the past or else there's nothing that could possibly help in the present. That's just not how the world works.

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that taking from one person under the guise of curing poverty is wrong. I'm saying that if there is a real plan on the table, lets talk about it. But to continue treating being poor as some kind of disease that the only cure is taking from someone else is just absurd.

Please feel free to state what your goal is. Its not ending poverty, so I'm curious to know if you have a goal.

 

[blastingcap]

If all you have is a job, then no matter how you save or invest you are unlikely to ever be anywhere near as rich as Paris Hilton, even if you earn $250k/year. There are trust fund babies out there with 7-figures or more to their name AT BIRTH. They make more from interest and dividends than the vast majority of working stiffs. You can't hope to compete with that if all you have is a job, even a "high paying" job. Wealth inequality is the root of income inequality, but much more unequally distributed than even income.

http://fortune.com/2014/10/31/inequality-wealth-income-us/

If you are patting yourself on the back because you think you are well off because of a job that pays less than $250k/year, get a clue. You're not really rich. You can lose your job in any number of ways, or get hit by a car and be unable to work, and you will be royally screwed, whereas people like Paris Hilton are immune to all of that. Unless you are similarly immune, you are not really rich. It's about WEALTH, not INCOME. And wealth is 10x more unequally distributed than income. So all you read about income disparity? Multiply that by 10.

 

[PokerGuy]

If all you have is a job, then no matter how you save or invest you are unlikely to ever be anywhere near as rich as Paris Hilton, even if you earn $250k/year.

So what? What right do I have to the money Paris Hilton's parents accumulated and decided to give to her? Sounds like simple jealousy.

 

[rudeguy]

So what? What right do I have to the money Paris Hilton's parents accumulated and decided to give to her? Sounds like simple jealousy.

That's what this whole thing breaks down to: jealousy.

 

[blastingcap]

Talking to poor people who are True Believers in "the free market" is frustrating. Y'all just vote for rich people (Congress) who pass laws that further guard privileges for the rich, and it's too much irony for me on a Friday.

You want to go into efficient capital allocation, maximizing utility for society? You want to get into why markets are broken and not efficient? The whole "leave it to the free market" myth is just that, a myth. You want to get into why spending dollars on lobbying instead of innovation, is actually the most lucrative thing for many industries, and why that isn't good for anyone in the long run?

I doubt you even understand any of what I said. So why should I even bother explaining. Go read David Graeber's book Debt: 5000 years and Heilbroner's Worldly Philosophers if you want to get started on even starting to understand.

 

[rudeguy]

Talking to poor people who vote for rich people (Congress) who pass laws that further guard privileges for the rich, is too much irony for me on a Friday. You want to go into efficient capital allocation, maximizing utility for society? You want to get into why markets are broken and not efficient? That spending dollars on lobbying instead of innovation, is actually the most lucrative thing for many industries, and why that isn't good for anyone in the long run? You wouldn't even comprehend it. Go read David Graeber's book Debt: 5000 years and Heilbroner's Worldly Philosophers if you want to get started on even starting to comprehend.

in other words:

I can't clearly state a logical opinion so go read this book

 

[bshole]

So what? What right do I have to the money Paris Hilton's parents accumulated and decided to give to her? Sounds like simple jealousy.

What right does SHE have to it? She certainly didn't earn it. Bring back the inheritance tax now motherfuckers!

 

[blastingcap]

in other words:

In other words I was right, you don't understand and are likely a True Believer in the religion that is "the free market will take care of everything." Conveniently ignoring that the free market is a myth conjured by Adam Smith (who actually stole the idea from someone else by the way), and that market failures are incredibly pervasive in real life.

 

[rudeguy]

What right does SHE have to it? She certainly didn't earn it. Bring back the inheritance tax now motherfuckers!

What right do you have to your money?

There are poor people who need it much more than you.

 

[inachu]

But you follow Timothy Sykes advice then you too can make millions!

When it dips buy!

 

[Naer]

That's what this whole thing breaks down to: jealousy.

Look at the swiss. More equal nation= better public health

 

[Naer]

What right do you have to your money?

There are poor people who need it much more than you.

He is not of the elite and doesn't have the responsibility like the concentrated wealth upper class does

 

[blastingcap]

Look at the swiss. More equal nation= better public health

Also happiness. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Happiness_Report

 

[Naer]

Also happiness. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Happiness_Report

Portugal is ranked 85. Wot

 

[berzerker60]

That's what this whole thing breaks down to: jealousy.

No, it really doesn't, no matter how often you repeat that.

Answer me this: Why do you think the founders refused to allow a class of nobles in the United States? Were they just jealous of the nobles, and we should all have contempt for their jealousy?

 

[rudeguy]

No, it really doesn't, no matter how often you repeat that.

Answer me this: Why do you think the founders refused to allow a class of nobles in the United States? Were they just jealous of the nobles, and we should all have contempt for their jealousy?

For the same reason they set up a constitutional republic instead of a monarchy. The idea is that we are all created equal.

 

[berzerker60]

For the same reason they set up a constitutional republic instead of a monarchy. The idea is that we are all created equal.

Yes, and the notion that inherited power is destructive to a republic in which all are created equal. When wealth inequality gets extreme, and continues to be inherited, that's really no different than a title of nobility. Nobles didn't earn their ancestors' title, though surely their ancestor earned it through performing some deed or another. Junior Walton IV didn't earn his vast wealth, though Sam Walton was a great businessman. Yet Junior Walton IV gets far, far more of a say in the politics of this country than everyone else, and so will his sons, and his sons. Politicians today have to care less and less what the vast majority want, because money is concentrated into a relatively tiny number of hands, and so they only really have to serve the Sheldon Adleson's (or however it's spelled) of the world.

Wealth inequality isn't a problem because we're jealous of the wealthy. It's a problem because it corrupts democracy, and is bad for the economy.

 

[sandorski]

Yes, and the notion that inherited power is destructive to a republic in which all are created equal. When wealth inequality gets extreme, and continues to be inherited, that's really no different than a title of nobility. Nobles didn't earn their ancestors' title, though surely their ancestor earned it through performing some deed or another. Junior Walton IV didn't earn his vast wealth, though Sam Walton was a great businessman. Yet Junior Walton IV gets far, far more of a say in the politics of this country than everyone else, and so will his sons, and his sons. Politicians today have to care less and less what the vast majority want, because money is concentrated into a relatively tiny number of hands, and so they only really have to serve the Sheldon Adleson's (or however it's spelled) of the world.

Wealth inequality isn't a problem because we're jealous of the wealthy. It's a problem because it corrupts democracy, and is bad for the economy.

Exactly.

 

[Zorkorist]

It's only destructive when Government has control of individual lives. Otherwise, wealth can effect only those that choose to associate themselves with it.

Government, however, can force people to associate themselves with them, and do as they beckon.

You show me a rich guy with an army, and I'll be afeared.

Otherwise, I'll continue to fear Government, not wealth.

-John

 

[Vic]

"I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable. But the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property..[a] means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise." -- Thomas Jefferson, Letter to James Madison (October 28, 1785).

 

[Zorkorist]

"I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable. But the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property..[a] means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise." -- Thomas Jefferson, Letter to James Madison (October 28, 1785).

Yes, it is in law, and the thoughts of the founders. This is what makes it such a bitch today. The Constitution is flawed. Government is flawed. We are destined to go down like so many Societies before us.

According to that statement, Government will only be happy when we are living three families deep in a third floor apartment.

Communism. Socialism.

-John

 

[Zorkorist]

I started to read the Federalist Papers once, and stopped when I realized that it was all legal. It was all okay.

The more Government the better.

These are the guys that instituted the Federal Government, after all.

Nobody came to them, crying for Government... they instituted Government, all on their own.

They want Government. They want LOTS of Government. They want FEDERAL Government, in addition to State Government.

The Bill of Rights is just a speed bump.

-John

 

[Vic]

Yes, it is in law, and the thoughts of the founders. This is what makes it such a bitch today. The Constitution is flawed. Government is flawed. We are destined to go down like so many Societies before us.

According to that statement, Government will only be happy when we are living three families deep in a third floor apartment.

Communism. Socialism.

-John

So clueless. What Jefferson wanted (and helped in very large part to create) was a government that had a vested interest in individual success. You don't see that because, while you might have a vested interest in your own success, you do not have a vested interest in the success of others, and our government is required, per the Constitution, to consider all interests equally.

So.. um.. fuck off.

 

[Zorkorist]

So clueless. What Jefferson wanted (and helped in very large part to create) was a government that had a vested interest in individual success. You don't see that because, while you might have a vested interest in your own success, you do not have a vested interest in the success of others, and our government is required, per the Constitution, to consider all interests equally.

So.. um.. fuck off.

Yet we have race riots in Ohio, poverty all over the place, old men being thrown down by young police officers, airport agents asking for our "papers, please," and all this, is your idea of a successful Government or Society?

What's more like it, is that we are living on the wealth created by our parents, in a time when Government was a lot less onerous. And today we have huge debts that mean each of us owe something like $60,000 to some unknown.

I feel pretty confident in telling you, go fuck yourself.

-John