• 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
They obtain it through government sanctioned theft though. If I steal some of the stuff of the richest guy on the block and give it to the poorest there is little doubt I will raise living standards overall. Economic policies that amount to theft are really nothing more than grand school idiocy.


Grand school idiocy?

Yes, their taxes are no doubt a bit higher than ours in the USA, but if you add up all of the taxes we pay, add in the cost of medical insurance, add in college tuition, and we'd be paying more than they do in Denmark. For their taxes, they get a higher standard of living.

And, I seriously doubt they are able to pay for everything by taxing the rich.
 
The main determinant of how much wealth a person has is how much wealth their parents had. By all means, we all want hard work and ingenuity and whatnot to be rewarded, many of us just think that we need to counterbalance the massively disproportionate access to opportunity that people get at birth. We'd rather a country where hard work or intelligence were the main determinant of success, but smart, hard working, people whose parents aren't rich face awfully long odds these days.

If you only compare the colors black and white, you will always find "massively disproportionate" differences. However, that's not what life is ... that is a fantasy.

Are you telling me that the poor today face a disproportionate amount of hurdles, when compared to the poor of yesterday?
 
do you have any kids? I sort of doubt it. most of what I do, in terms of spending, and investment-is based on my desire to leave my son in a better position when I die, than where I was when my father died. and that was his goal and the goal of his father etc going back to the 1780s. that is why my family has been wealthy since Nicholas Longworth was the first millionaire west of Pittsburgh.

Not sure how you think that is relevant to what I said. Can you explain?
 
It's indisputable fact that income inequality in the United States has grown substantially in the past few decades.

Median nominal incomes, adjusted for inflation, have not gone up in the USA since the 50's. (Median is the halfway point, so we are talking about the middle-earner). In contrast, the per capita GDP has risen quite dramatically, due to the increased purchasing power of the upper echelon.


I pose three questions to you:

1.) What has caused this phenomenon
2.) What are the long term implications if the trend is allowed to continue
3.) What, if anything, should be done to adjust our course


Thanks

For what has caused this phenomenon, I posted this on another thread earlier:

Much has been distorted about those tax rates of the 50's compared to tax rates now. But an honest evaluation of that shows that we now have only a small fraction of the deductions and tax shelters that were available to the rich back then. That is why when those deductions and tax shelters were reduced, as soon as the behaviors changed as a result, the rich were paying more than ever in taxes at the lower rates and were paying a slightly higher percentage of their income. The lowered profit margins, however, were more than offset by vastly increased volume and the rich did profit mightily. But so did everybody else too.

And in the 1950's we had a tiny fraction of the government regulation and interference into every aspect of society than we do now.

The problem is not how much the rich earns or how much the rich pay in taxes. The problem is in government meddling, manipulation, and spending that has generated runaway inflation and stifled American entreprenourship.

(The figures here only go through 2012 as no hard verifiable numbers are going to be available for 2013 until after the election.)

In 1950, the United States was #1 in GDP per capita.

In 2012, the United States is #13 in GDP per capita.

In 1950, redistribution of wealth was considered to be something that "the communists" did.

In 2012, the U.S. government redistributes more wealth than anyone else in the world.

In 1950, each retiree's Social Security benefit was paid for by 16 workers.

In 2012, each retiree's Social Security benefit is paid for by approximately 3.3 workers.

In 1950, the United States loaned more money to the rest of the world than anybody else.

In 2012, the United States owes more money to the rest of the world than anybody else.

In 1950, the U.S. national debt was about 257 billion dollars.

In 2012, the U.S. national debt is 59 times larger. It is currently sitting at a grand total of $15,435,694,556,033.29 (and is increasing at $1 trillion plus each year since). Surely our children and our grandchildren will thank us for that.

The latest I've read is that the wealth of the middle class is shrinking. But it is not because somebody else is wealthier. It is because they are having to spend so much more than they earn just to maintain the status quo. And each deficit they run cuts into their aggregate wealth.

That phenomenon has nothing to do with the rich. It has everything to do with increasing government meddling, regulation, and punishment of success that has pushed inflationary trends into the stratosphere.
Comparing the inflated cost of living today from 1950 to 2014: How declining purchasing power has hurt the middle class since 1950.

If the trend continues:

We increasingly become timid citizens who give up all our liberties for the government to assign back to us and dictate what kind of society we will be.

What should be done?


A low flat tax plus spending limits with teeth in them would go a long way to reversing an every more bloated monstrosity of a government that mows down everything in its past. It would free up those who drive an expanding economy so that they could calculate their risks and move ahead without fear. And it would take away government's ability to irresponsibly spend money we do not have and therefore would provide incentive for government to govern competently and effectively for all.
 
Are you telling me that the poor today face a disproportionate amount of hurdles, when compared to the poor of yesterday?

Yes definitely. Wages for the bottom 90% have stagnated for almost 2 decades in a row now. All- literally all- of the GDP growth in the past 15 years has gone to the top 1%. That wasn't the case at all up until the 1960s or so. In those days, everybody was able to participate in the economic success of the country.
 
No you owe society as a whole.
Do you use roads?
Are their pipes to your house to hook up to for gas? Did you pay to have the electrical lines ran? Can you call the cops or fire department if necessary?

I thought as much.

You might think that is a strong argument, but it's actually pretty weak. Even if I owed the government anything for services I never asked to receive that debt would not lead to such things as paying for other peoples shelter, education, clothing, food, water, healthcare, or what have you. All I would owe the government is payment for what I use, which in this case would be roads, pipes, electrical lines, cops and the fire department.
 
Not sure how you think that is relevant to what I said. Can you explain?


the parasitic left constantly whines about those who inherit wealth
 
you didn't prove anything
I most certainly did. Just like how cons give more than libs right? Or the meaning of the word starving...

Its not my problem you try to refute fact...

Believe me, I don't have to lie.

But,you have CLEARLY demonstrated your unwillingness to even remotely consider anything that does not fit neatly into your fantasy world.

Congratulation on the close-minded approach ... you've taken it to a whole new level. You don't even want to hear that there might be alternatives to your position. It must be really boring to be so positive that you are always right.

Don't worry ... you won't hear my story ... I wouldn't want to bore you.

Yea that's what they all say when they don't have a story to backup what they say...

Notice how I told you the ish hole I'm from?

And I'm actually extremely open minded... Problem is I have heard these arguments several times before, and see right through em... Not to mention if it were up to you the world would starve to death, be wage slaves forever, and be a much bigger ish hole than it already is....

Look back in this thread, someone tried to make almost the exact same claim... Problem was his numbers simply did not add up...

He snitched on me for calling him a "dum dum" I might add...
 
You might think that is a strong argument, but it's actually pretty weak. Even if I owed the government anything for services I never asked to receive that debt would not lead to such things as paying for other peoples shelter, education, clothing, food, water, healthcare, or what have you. All I would owe the government is payment for what I use, which in this case would be roads, pipes, electrical lines, cops and the fire department.

Some things are an individual benefit, and should be paid for by the individual. Some things are a collective benefit, and should be paid for collectively. Education, roads, police and fire protection, a military to keep hostile nations at bay, and yes, hospitals are all in the latter category.
 
Some things are an individual benefit, and should be paid for by the individual. Some things are a collective benefit, and should be paid for collectively. Education, roads, police and fire protection, a military to keep hostile nations at bay, and yes, hospitals are all in the latter category.

You could honestly put almost everything in the collective benefit category. I benefit from all sorts of things people do in their life indirectly, but that doesn't mean I owe them anything.
 
You could honestly put almost everything in the collective benefit category. I benefit from all sorts of things people do in their life indirectly, but that doesn't mean I owe them anything.

No, a house/apartment to live in, a car to drive, food in the frige, those things are an individual benefit. I shouldn't have to pay for someone else's rent. It is to my benefit to have a fire house handy, just in case your or my house catches fire, however. That is a collective benefit to be paid for collectively.
 
I most certainly did. Just like how cons give more than libs right? Or the meaning of the word starving...

Its not my problem you try to refute fact...



Yea that's what they all say when they don't have a story to backup what they say...

Notice how I told you the ish hole I'm from?

And I'm actually extremely open minded... Problem is I have heard these arguments several times before, and see right through em... Not to mention if it were up to you the world would starve to death, be wage slaves forever, and be a much bigger ish hole than it already is....

Look back in this thread, someone tried to make almost the exact same claim... Problem was his numbers simply did not add up...

He snitched on me for calling him a "dum dum" I might add...

no you didn't. you merely made the claim. there were not millions of americans STARVING during DDE's administration
 
No, a house/apartment to live in, a car to drive, food in the frige, those things are an individual benefit. I shouldn't have to pay for someone else's rent. It is to my benefit to have a fire house handy, just in case your or my house catches fire, however. That is a collective benefit to be paid for collectively.

Why? Is it not to your benefit that they are not homeless, have a car to get to work, and food to eat? Is it not to your benefit that children are not hungry when they go to school? Why doesn't this argument of collective benefit apply to almost anything people do to better their life?
 
I most certainly did. Just like how cons give more than libs right? Or the meaning of the word starving...

Its not my problem you try to refute fact...



Yea that's what they all say when they don't have a story to backup what they say...

Notice how I told you the ish hole I'm from?

And I'm actually extremely open minded... Problem is I have heard these arguments several times before, and see right through em... Not to mention if it were up to you the world would starve to death, be wage slaves forever, and be a much bigger ish hole than it already is....

Look back in this thread, someone tried to make almost the exact same claim... Problem was his numbers simply did not add up...

He snitched on me for calling him a "dum dum" I might add...

You want my story?? Would it make a difference, or would you just discount it as an 'anecdote'? When, actually, it is proof that what you say is false. See, if I were to tell you my story, you would call it a lie, or an anecdote, and provides no proof at all. But, I would say ... quite to the contrary, it proves it can be done ... and, if I can do it, anybody can. They simply choose not to. And, THAT, does not compute in your fantasy world.

So, if it were up to me, "world would starve to death, be wage slaves forever, and be a much bigger ish hole than it already is....". Interesting ... how do you know that to be true about me? Big on assumptions ... short on facts. You claim to be open minded ... but that's only when it fits neatly into your little paradigm. You have no tolerance for anything that violates YOUR perception of the world.
 
You could honestly put almost everything in the collective benefit category. I benefit from all sorts of things people do in their life indirectly, but that doesn't mean I owe them anything.
It is good to read your admission that you feel you have no obligations to society as a whole. I always knew you held to this selfish viewpoint.
 
Why? Is it not to your benefit that they are not homeless, have a car to get to work, and food to eat? Is it not to your benefit that children are not hungry when they go to school? Why doesn't this argument of collective benefit apply to almost anything people do to better their life?

I had to think about that one. Yes, no doubt it is to my benefit that my neighbors are not homeless. Their having or not having a car is immaterial to me. They can ride the bus or walk, it makes no difference to me. Yes, it's better that they have food to eat. It makes them less likely to try to steal mine.

You just made a good argument for rent subsidies and food stamps, maybe.

But, it's also to my benefit that others be able to provide those basic things for themselves, which argues for employment and training, and that such things as rent subsidies and food stamps be temporary.
 
I had to think about that one. Yes, no doubt it is to my benefit that my neighbors are not homeless. Their having or not having a car is immaterial to me. They can ride the bus or walk, it makes no difference to me. Yes, it's better that they have food to eat. It makes them less likely to try to steal mine.

You just made a good argument for rent subsidies and food stamps, maybe.

But, it's also to my benefit that others be able to provide those basic things for themselves, which argues for employment and training, and that such things as rent subsidies and food stamps be temporary.
It "should" be "temporary", just as it "should" that wage gains and job availability were a realistic expectation.
 
It is good to read your admission that you feel you have no obligations to society as a whole. I always knew you held to this selfish viewpoint.

do you know what real selfishness is

demanding others pay for the government goodies you want

demanding others pay higher taxes so you can get what you want without paying for it
 
It "should" be "temporary", just as it "should" that wage gains and job availability were a realistic expectation.

and since it's not temporary, as we all know, does that mean we...

continue payments indefinitely just so people aren't homeless and starving, or
work to increase the number of well paying jobs and train people for them?
 
You want my story?? Would it make a difference, or would you just discount it as an 'anecdote'? When, actually, it is proof that what you say is false. See, if I were to tell you my story, you would call it a lie, or an anecdote, and provides no proof at all. But, I would say ... quite to the contrary, it proves it can be done ... and, if I can do it, anybody can. They simply choose not to. And, THAT, does not compute in your fantasy world.
No, your experience is not true for everyone.....OBVIOUSLY.

So, if it were up to me, "world would starve to death, be wage slaves forever, and be a much bigger ish hole than it already is....". Interesting ... how do you know that to be true about me? Big on assumptions ... short on facts. You claim to be open minded ... but that's only when it fits neatly into your little paradigm. You have no tolerance for anything that violates YOUR perception of the world.
See, that is the irony of your argument, you rely on the absolute that anyone "could" have the same outcome as you, but when they don't, you either assign a personal failing to them or reject the possibility of failure from circumstance.

With RWers, failure is always a matter of ethics.
 
and since it's not temporary, as we all know, does that mean we...
Of course, because market perfection is a pipe dream.

continue payments indefinitely just so people aren't homeless and starving, or
work to increase the number of well paying jobs and train people for them?
Sure, I'll take part B....but again, there is a built in assumption of everything goes right for everyone, a perfect market, no hindrance to employment...yadda yadda.

If only humans were perfect, then so the market would be.
 
do you know what real selfishness is

demanding others pay for the government goodies you want

demanding others pay higher taxes so you can get what you want without paying for it
You mean govt goodies, like a safe banking system, a legal system that protects my vast wealth, a military that makes sure no one invades and seizes my property, that keeps the shipping lanes open that allows my vast investments to grow....?

Oh...wait....you mean this:

092014krugman1-blog480.png


I mean...gee....obviously we have UE numbers like 2005 NOW
 
Of course, because market perfection is a pipe dream.

Sure, I'll take part B....but again, there is a built in assumption of everything goes right for everyone, a perfect market, no hindrance to employment...yadda yadda.

If only humans were perfect, then so the market would be.

The market will never be perfect, but there are some things that could be done to make it better. Earlier in this thread, I made the following suggestions:

Raise the cap on Social Security,
Encourage unionization of workers.
Get rid of minimum wage and welfare benefits. Substitute the government as the employer of last resort.
Quit just playing lip service to ending illegal immigration,
Get the cost of health insurance off of the backs of the employers.
Treat all income as equal for tax purposes. No special rates for capital gains.
Don't bail out entities "too big to fail" then let them pay their chiefs multi billion dollar "bonuses."

To which Peter Grimm added:
Invest in worker re-education
-Invest in technologies that could make us more price-competitive on the manufacturing front.... like robotics
-Regulate consumer lending policies more carefully
-Close tax loopholes for companies moving overseas
-Work with international banking establishments to put pressure on China to end it's currency manipulation

all of which would help, IMO.
 
You mean govt goodies, like a safe banking system, a legal system that protects my vast wealth, a military that makes sure no one invades and seizes my property, that keeps the shipping lanes open that allows my vast investments to grow....?

Oh...wait....you mean this:

092014krugman1-blog480.png

so how do you use MORE of that than some guy paying less taxes

leftwing income redistributionists try so hard to pretend that the rich use more using phony analogies

for example, the cost of replacing a 6 million dollar homes costs more than replacing a 59K home. But it doesn't cost the military any more to defend a millionaire's home than yours
 
The market will never be perfect, but there are some things that could be done to make it better. Earlier in this thread, I made the following suggestions:

Raise the cap on Social Security,
Encourage unionization of workers.
Get rid of minimum wage and welfare benefits. Substitute the government as the employer of last resort.
Quit just playing lip service to ending illegal immigration,
Get the cost of health insurance off of the backs of the employers.
Treat all income as equal for tax purposes. No special rates for capital gains.
Don't bail out entities "too big to fail" then let them pay their chiefs multi billion dollar "bonuses."

To which Peter Grimm added:
Invest in worker re-education
-Invest in technologies that could make us more price-competitive on the manufacturing front.... like robotics
-Regulate consumer lending policies more carefully
-Close tax loopholes for companies moving overseas
-Work with international banking establishments to put pressure on China to end it's currency manipulation

all of which would help, IMO.
That's all great fine and dandy, I just don't want to read you complaining about SNAP or TANF while we are still far from having at risk households meeting their basic needs
 
Back
Top Bottom