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

[Vic]

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

Bring it. This isn't an argument because I already know how it's gonna work out for you.

 

[Zorkorist]

I know you don't care about the argument, Vic. You are full of hate.

-John

 

[Vic]

I know you don't care about the argument, Vic. You are full of hate.

-John

Why should I love you when you wish me harm?

Seriously, buddy, you just don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Zorkorist]

I don't wish you harm, Vic. But I have obviously offended your ideas, and I hope you can bring your hate under control.

-John

 

[rudeguy]

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.

Can you tell me what you think the main reason we rebelled from the British was?

 

[brycejones]

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

Jefferson was a communist?

 

[Slew Foot]

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

Is it an English PHD? Because if it is, they're probably working at BK anyway

 

[mammador]

But never talk about economic equality?

Historical/social reasons.

Poor people in Western cultures were never oppressed to the same degree that blacks and women were.

 

[berzerker60]

Can you tell me what you think the main reason we rebelled from the British was?

Mostly just that the local elite wanted to run things instead of a distant elite, and also the distant elite was pretty onerous in its governance, honestly. And even if it was actually were entirely Freedom and Justice, I wouldn't really care what the Founders thought about how our government should run, because they're dead and it's our world now and we should decide for ourselves what's just and right. I'm mostly appealing to ideals of "what the Founders wanted" because the mythical side of the American Revolution makes for good common ground with rightwing people, same as it's useful to quote the Bible when talking to Christians even if you don't believe in its literal truth.

Still, cynical as I am, several of the Founders were legit smart and well-read dudes with good ideas. Their ideas shouldn't be cherished because they came from Jefferson, but when Jefferson et al made good arguments we should still see the merits. For example, not allowing an entrenched nobility. (Less so the "let's keep slavery around as the basis of our economic system stuff)

 

[rudeguy]

Mostly just that the local elite wanted to run things instead of a distant elite, and also the distant elite was pretty onerous in its governance, honestly. And even if it was actually were entirely Freedom and Justice, I wouldn't really care what the Founders thought about how our government should run, because they're dead and it's our world now and we should decide for ourselves what's just and right. I'm mostly appealing to ideals of "what the Founders wanted" because the mythical side of the American Revolution makes for good common ground with rightwing people, same as it's useful to quote the Bible when talking to Christians even if you don't believe in its literal truth.

Still, cynical as I am, several of the Founders were legit smart and well-read dudes with good ideas. Their ideas shouldn't be cherished because they came from Jefferson, but when Jefferson et al made good arguments we should still see the merits. For example, not allowing an entrenched nobility. (Less so the "let's keep slavery around as the basis of our economic system stuff)

So you don't think perceived unfair taxation was even a bit of it?

 

[inachu]

Had a few female engineers upgrading blade servers.

They wanted me to carry them to the server room. Heh.... If you can not do your job 100% do not expect others to do it for you.

I transferred out of there so they had to do their own job. lazy bastards.

 

[berzerker60]

So you don't think perceived unfair taxation was even a bit of it?

A little bit, yeah, in that it was a particular onerous policy that everyone could understand. But I also don't think revoking (or even never passing) the Stamp Act would have done anything meaningful to prevent the revolution.

Regardless, you can't possibly think that returning to 1950s-1960s tax brackets (during a tremendously prosperous time, and that helped reduce income inequality in America by raising the lower and middle classes more quickly than the richest) would be such a horrendous injustice as to cause a revolution in America. Hell, we tax without representation 660,000 Americans living in DC every year, and they don't rise up.

Had a few female engineers upgrading blade servers.

They wanted me to carry them to the server room. Heh.... If you can not do your job 100% do not expect others to do it for you.

I transferred out of there so they had to do their own job. lazy bastards.

Thanks for this daily dose of random misogyny, I guess? God forbid you help others who are good enough at most of their jobs to get hired, but lack one relatively unimportant capability. Only hulking he-man engineers allowed, because we all knew going into engineering that physical fitness would be a key job responsibility.

 

[Sonikku]

Had a few female engineers upgrading blade servers.

They wanted me to carry them to the server room. Heh.... If you can not do your job 100% do not expect others to do it for you.

I transferred out of there so they had to do their own job. lazy bastards.

Darn those female engineers! *shakes fist*

 

[Rakehellion]

But never talk about economic equality?

They do.

 

[rudeguy]

A little bit, yeah, in that it was a particular onerous policy that everyone could understand. But I also don't think revoking (or even never passing) the Stamp Act would have done anything meaningful to prevent the revolution.

Regardless, you can't possibly think that returning to 1950s-1960s tax brackets (during a tremendously prosperous time, and that helped reduce income inequality in America by raising the lower and middle classes more quickly than the richest) would be such a horrendous injustice as to cause a revolution in America. Hell, we tax without representation 660,000 Americans living in DC every year, and they don't rise up.



Thanks for this daily dose of random misogyny, I guess? God forbid you help others who are good enough at most of their jobs to get hired, but lack one relatively unimportant capability. Only hulking he-man engineers allowed, because we all knew going into engineering that physical fitness would be a key job responsibility.

Your memory of history is flawed my friend.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intolerable_Acts

The Colonies initial problem was taxes and continued to be taxes, stripping of rights and tyrannt. Nobility had nothing to do with it. If it did, we would not have so closely allied with the French.

Please don't try to change history. Ours is already awesome.

 

[berzerker60]

Your memory of history is flawed my friend.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intolerable_Acts

The Colonies initial problem was taxes and continued to be taxes, stripping of rights and tyrannt. Nobility had nothing to do with it. If it did, we would not have so closely allied with the French.

Please don't try to change history. Ours is already awesome.

My argument was never that dislike of nobility was a cause of the American Revolution. I said that the Constitution (and Articles of Confederation before it) explicitly forbids titles of nobility, because the ability to pass down enormous political power without any question of merit is anti-democratic and corrosive to a system in which all are created equal. That same sentiment is relevant to our times, when immense mega-fortunes get passed down, leading politicians of both parties to cater to these people above all others despite the fact that the Paris Hiltons of the world did nothing to earn this massive power. It corrupts our democracy. It's also terrible for our economy since there's much less aggregate demand.

On the unrelated issue of the American Revolution, as I said, taxes were one of the issues at stake, but they were hardly the only ones. Quartering of troops, moving accused people to England for trials, etc., were at least as important. The Intolerable Acts were not all especially tax-related. I'm not trying to change history, nor is my memory of it particularly flawed.

 

[Atreus21]

But never talk about economic equality?

Because we don't like your definition of equality.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

...your economic conditions are 100% completely under your control. Not much or mostly or almost all under your control, but 100%.

Oh wait, you're serious. Let me laugh even harder.

 

[TheVrolok]

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.

Probably best post in the thread.

 

[waggy]

There is nothing you can do about wealth inequality. there are things you can do to make it better overall.

1) get the money out of politics (hahahahha yeah that will happen)
2) close up all of the looopholes in the tax code. No reason a guy making million pays a less % then the middle class.
4) make a basic income. Though that needs some major changes in policy and thought in the US.

Also make the first $25k a person makes tax free and a reduction on "income". such as a person who makes 40k would only be taxed on $15k. Also get rid of many deductions and EIC.

i'm sure there are things i'm missing with this though.


But never think you will eliminate income equality. There will always be those that make (and deserve) more and those that just refuse to put in effort.

 

[Exterous]

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.

$100k isn't that far off given the 40% tax that most of the trust disinterment will be subject to and the 3% withdrawal rate recommended to not diminish the funds. But the greater question is what is going to happen to that money? Theoretically that money is invested in holding debt (bonds) owning real estate or investing in companies (stock). If the inheritance\trust fund is taken - will those investments need to be sold? Will the government manage it? I would also argue that by letting most of the money sit in the funds that the inheritor is letting 'his money work' - that his continual investment has provided organizations with continual capital to run their organization

So clueless. What Jefferson wanted (and helped in very large part to create) was a government that had a vested interest in individual success.

He also wanted a primarily agrarian country not to mention defunding the navy and being a protectionist to the point of notably damaging the country

 

[Exterous]

2) close up all of the looopholes in the tax code. No reason a guy making million pays a less % then the middle class

The problem is not so much the 'loopholes' as that the tax code is complicated as both parties continually inject pet projects and policies into it. Combine that with a complicated economy and you end up with situations like the CLT\'Jackie O' trusts situation. Couple historic low interest rates with superb market gains and you have unintended consequences run amok

 

[waggy]

The problem is not so much the 'loopholes' as that the tax code is complicated as both parties continually inject pet projects and policies into it. Combine that with a complicated economy and you end up with situations like the CLT\'Jackie O' trusts situation. Couple historic low interest rates with superb market gains and you have unintended consequences run amok

exactly. There needs to be a overhaul of the tax code. close up all the bullshit. Since the highest tax rate is what? 39% fine. close up the BS so they pay that rate.

Also the really poor can make out pretty "well". Close up those bullshit items too. That's why i think a basic income (though with limits. you canb't just decide to not work if you can) with the first $25k not taxed would be good.

Though i'm sure there are reasons that won't work that i just dont know and i am missing.

 

[Rakehellion]

But never talk about economic equality?

Wasn't there that whole "Occupy Wall Street" thing a while ago?

 

[gdansk]

Economic equality is worthless. Income with a floor is useful and worth more.