• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Income Inequality

What should be done to battle income inequality in the USA?

  • Do not intervene

    Votes: 39 53.4%

  • Yes, do intervene

    Votes: 34 46.6%
  • Total voters
    73
Henrin said:
What welfare states usually do is take over large segments of R&D. This can help cover up some of the weaknesses of the government assuming control of so much of the wealth in the economy. This will of course lead to another weakness in not increased costs of R&D, but also make it so business is dependent on government for any movement in advancement. Funny how government dependence feeds government dependence, isn't it? lol.
Click to expand...

And funny how the liberals are so absurdly blind to it.
 
Why do you want to minimize income inequality, comrade?

Gimmesometruth said:
Uh, again, the topic is minimizing inequality, if they have a model that succeeds....well there you are.



You are oblivious to the lack of income gains for the lower and mid earners in the US since 1980. It is not an argument that all should earn the same. I wish for once conservatives could understand the argument and stop conflating EVERY FRIGGING FEAR with COMMUNISM.
Click to expand...
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Uh, again, the topic is minimizing inequality, if they have a model that succeeds....well there you are.
Click to expand...

But that doesn't exist in a vacuum, you have to have a fully functional and overall successful nation as well. Any country can just steal money from the wealthy and give it to the poor but that really leads to a stagnant culture, which is exactly what we see in Denmark. Find me a country that does what Denmark does, yet is as financially successful and creative as the United States.

You are oblivious to the lack of income gains for the lower and mid earners in the US since 1980. It is not an argument that all should earn the same. I wish for once conservatives could understand the argument and stop conflating EVERY FRIGGING FEAR with COMMUNISM.
Click to expand...

Because they haven't EARNED those income gains. They don't DESERVE those income gains. Nobody has said a thing about communism but you.
 
TobyOne said:
Raising taxes on capital won't do anything to help the middle class.
Click to expand...
Raising taxes on CAPITAL GAINS, in lieu of business not raising wages, will help the middle class, ie Piketty.
 
Cephus said:
But that doesn't exist in a vacuum, you have to have a fully functional and overall successful nation as well. Any country can just steal money from the wealthy and give it to the poor but that really leads to a stagnant culture, which is exactly what we see in Denmark. Find me a country that does what Denmark does, yet is as financially successful and creative as the United States.
Click to expand...
What measure are you using for "financially successful"? The point is that if the gains are being concentrated to the top, we are not "successful"



Because they haven't EARNED those income gains. They don't DESERVE those income gains.
Click to expand...
How are you justifying this? Are you saying that they are less productive? They have less skills? They do not work as many hours?
Nobody has said a thing about communism but you.
Click to expand...
"everyone ought to have the same thing"
 
Gimmesometruth said:
What measure are you using for "financially successful"? The point is that if the gains are being concentrated to the top, we are not "successful"
Click to expand...

Sure we are. We create things that make the planet a better place to live. The overwhelming majority of technical developments that have improved the planet come straight out of the U.S.

How are you justifying this? Are you saying that they are less productive? They have less skills? They do not work as many hours? "everyone ought to have the same thing"
Click to expand...

Less education, less skills, have made poor life choices, etc. That's speaking generally, of course, but those who do things right can improve their situation in life.
 
TobyOne said:
Why do you want to minimize income inequality
Click to expand...
Uh, the ills that it causes a society are well documented.

comrade?
Click to expand...
The irony is, that communism was a reaction to vast levels of inequality, but here again, the call to reduce inequality is being equated to communism.

The confusion of the RW is apparent.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Uh, the ills that it causes a society are well documented.
Click to expand...

Then you shouldn't have any problem pointing them out with supporting evidence that they are ills.
 
Cephus said:
Sure we are. We create things that make the planet a better place to live. The overwhelming majority of technical developments that have improved the planet come straight out of the U.S.
Click to expand...
But the creation of so many of those technologies came about DURING THE PERIOD OF EQUAL WAGE GAINS, POST WWII TO 1979.

They are not mutually exclusive.



Less education, less skills, have made poor life choices, etc. That's speaking generally, of course, but those who do things right can improve their situation in life.
Click to expand...
We have a higher educated, greater skilled workforce that is producing at higher level of productivity while wages in real terms have declined. I have shown this many times and can do so again, I want you to show, generally, that the workforce is as you say it is to justify your argument that the American workforce deserves lower pay in real terms and declining rates of wage gains.
 
I think you're the only one confused. Maybe you meant reduce inequality but minimizing inequality is the goal of communism.

Gimmesometruth said:
Uh, the ills that it causes a society are well documented.

The irony is, that communism was a reaction to vast levels of inequality, but here again, the call to reduce inequality is being equated to communism.

The confusion of the RW is apparent.
Click to expand...
 
A left wing french economist told him so, so it must be true.



Cephus said:
Then you shouldn't have any problem pointing them out with supporting evidence that they are ills.
Click to expand...
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Uh, the ills that it causes a society are well documented.

The irony is, that communism was a reaction to vast levels of inequality, but here again, the call to reduce inequality is being equated to communism.

The confusion of the RW is apparent.
Click to expand...

Redistribution of wealth in the way in which you practice it is a socialist idea. It isn't even much better than the older socialist idea that everyone is entitled to equal property and when someone has more than another it is theft.

The older idea had to be ignorant of differences in land, while your idea must be ignorant of the differences in people.
 
TurtleDude said:
workers who want to be middle class in terms of US standards need to be able to compete better than the middle classes in India, China, Mexico etc
Click to expand...

And how do American workers do that? Lower their wage demands? Make themselves as cheap as possible?
 
Cephus said:
Then you shouldn't have any problem pointing them out with supporting evidence that they are ills.
Click to expand...
That is simple, what do think was the driving force behind Marx's argument, what do you think was the driving force behind the Russian Revolution? What inequality do you think Marx (and Engels) and Lenin saw?

What do you think drove TR to bust up Trusts?
 
Henrin said:
Redistribution of wealth in the way in which you practice it is a socialist idea. It isn't even much better than the older socialist idea that everyone is entitled to equal property and when someone has more than another it is theft.

The older idea had to be ignorant of differences in land, while your idea must be ignorant of the differences in people.
Click to expand...
Again, instead of understanding that the argument by me is to reduce revolution (civil unrest) by reducing economic inequality, the argument is turned on it's head to where equalizing economic gains becomes communism.

But then as I have said many time, libertarians are among the most ignorant when it comes to history.
 
TobyOne said:
Why do you want to minimize income inequality, comrade?
Click to expand...



What's happened is a huge shift in earning power. The wealth of earnings in this country has shifted way toward the 1% and away from what was our middle class. That's the income inequality that people are talking about. Those with the most money are buying income in blocks; particularly in industry and they are monpolizing our economy - again. It's a classic pryramid scheme and whole sectors of the country are getting poorer and poorer with less and less disposable income.
 
TobyOne said:
I think you're the only one confused. Maybe you meant reduce inequality but minimizing inequality is the goal of communism.
Click to expand...
Sad, you can't identify what inequality I am speaking to.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Again, instead of understanding that the argument by me is to reduce revolution (civil unrest) by reducing economic inequality, the argument is turned on it's head to where equalizing economic gains becomes communism.

But then as I have said many time, libertarians are among the most ignorant when it comes to history.
Click to expand...
That's basically why the founders founeded the country in the first place was to reduce unrest, keep their property, and stem a truly populist revolution.

Also no one ever tried communism all the way through.... They always get stuck on the second or third step because power is consolidated and getting ppl to give it up is very hard...
 
TobyOne said:
I can only imagine the horrors that entails.
Click to expand...
Horrors like paying ppl fairly for their labor? Or single payer so insurance company's aren't artificially jacking up prices?
 
How does simply citing him prove your point? Not at all. I gave a specific example of how raising taxes on capital would hurt the middle class. All you did was mention a Marxist in a beret. Say specifically how it would help the middle class. Or the poor for that matter.

Gimmesometruth said:
I have no idea what politics Piketty practices, but exactly how does that refute his studies?
Click to expand...
 
Oh brother.



b_dubz said:
Horrors like paying ppl fairly for their labor? Or single payer so insurance company's aren't artificially jacking up prices?
Click to expand...
 
Cephus said:
Good for them. What have they done for the planet with that higher standard of living? I'm not trying to insult Denmark, but saying "we're better than you are, but we've been totally useless on the world stage" just isn't impressive.
Click to expand...
What do we do for the planet besides destroy it? And enslave its ppl for the gains of a few vastly wealthy ones?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom