• 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
Gimmesometruth said:
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
Click to expand...

Even when those programs keep growing, and people trying to make it with an entry level job have less than people who depend on the government?
 
tuhaybey said:
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.
Click to expand...

All of that has absolutely nothing to do with getting out of the morass that liberals have consigned the poor into ... but, hey, if you're looking for an excuse, THAT is as good a one as I've heard lately.

You are taking a single comment, and trying to spread it like mayonnaise over everything. I'm curious ... what was the welfare package like 20 years ago? The unemployment package? The government healthcare package? The government food package? Government education packages?

If I accept - and, believe me, I don't - that wages have stagnated, none of that changes how difficult it is to move forward.

However, let's talk about your statement .... if I go to https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/threshld/thresh93.html, I see that the inflation adjusted poverty level for a family of three in 1993 was $11,631, and that in 2013 it was $18,751. While I recognize that ain't a heck of a lot of money, it DOES put the lie to your statement. In addition, you fail to consider the significant increase in hand-outs, which, most assuredly, also have a value.

Now, since you brought it up, let's look at those in the 80-90% range. File:United States Income Distribution 1967-2003.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia shows us that the average income in the 80-90% increased from $75,000 (80% in 1993) to $125,000 (90% in 2005)

So, while your rhetoric sounds nice, and makes everyone feel good, it simply doesn't pass the truth test.
 
TurtleDude said:
so how do you use MORE of that than some guy paying less taxes
Click to expand...
This is our old argument, the question is how you think you use less of those services than middle income earners

leftwing income redistributionists try so hard to pretend that the rich use more using phony analogies
Click to expand...
RW cons try to deny the level of services they utilize while also denying the level of the income pie they consume

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
Click to expand...
Tell me, are those insurance costs the same....and is all your wealth tied up in that property?
 
Gimmesometruth said:
No, your experience is not true for everyone.....OBVIOUSLY.

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.
Click to expand...

See? I knew if you hung around with smart people long enough, you'd figure it out!!!

Congratulations ... and welcome to the real world.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
This is our old argument, the question is how you think you use less of those services than middle income earners

RW cons try to deny the level of services they utilize while also denying the level of the income pie they consume

Tell me, are those insurance costs the same....and is all your wealth tied up in that property?
Click to expand...

You're absolutely wrong .. we "RW cons" don't argue about the level of services utilized, we merely point out that we paid more for what we used.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Even when those programs keep growing, and people trying to make it with an entry level job have less than people who depend on the government?
Click to expand...
I don't know what you mean, a household with employment still can receive aid.
 
GBFAN said:
See? I knew if you hung around with smart people long enough, you'd figure it out!!!

Congratulations ... and welcome to the real world.
Click to expand...
If you think I made your point, think again.

Living with the absolute that anyone can do the same thing as you is false at face value.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
This is our old argument, the question is how you think you use less of those services than middle income earners

RW cons try to deny the level of services they utilize while also denying the level of the income pie they consume

Tell me, are those insurance costs the same....and is all your wealth tied up in that property?
Click to expand...

I do use less

and for your argument to have merit

YOU WOULD HAVE TO PROVE that the TOP 5% (who pay more than HALF THE INCOME TAXES) use more government services than the other 95%


You just missed the point entirely

THE MILITARY DOES NOT REBUILD homes so the insurance issue is not applicable

ask any policeman in a big city


WHERE ARE MORE POLICE RESOURCES allocated

POOR neighborhoods or rich ones

how about fire departments

and guess who the government spends more money on INCARCERATING
 
GBFAN said:
You're absolutely wrong .. we "RW cons" don't argue about the level of services utilized, we merely point out that we paid more for what we used.
Click to expand...
You don't, and he has consistently argued that.
 
Dittohead not! said:
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.
Click to expand...

I was borrowing the socialist argument and stretching to it's logical limits to demonstrate its absurdity. The idea we should pay for things because it benefits all of us logically leads to the conclusion that we should almost pay for everything. I suppose you are right about cars as we could just as easily provide them bus fare, but the point appears to stand none the less. Really, if you think about it, Orwell was right to stretch this argument to everything except entertainment.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
You don't, and he has consistently argued that.
Click to expand...

for your argument to hold water you'd have to claim that government expenditures on the top 5% are greater than on the rest of the other 95%

guess what, you cannot
 
GBFAN said:
All of that has absolutely nothing to do with getting out of the morass that liberals have consigned the poor into ... but, hey, if you're looking for an excuse, THAT is as good a one as I've heard lately.
Click to expand...

Vague allusions to am talk radio-ish attitudes about poverty isn't going to get you anywhere. Obviously that stuff is just nonsense they feed to the ignorant in the south.

GBFAN said:
You are taking a single comment, and trying to spread it like mayonnaise over everything. I'm curious ... what was the welfare package like 20 years ago? The unemployment package? The government healthcare package? The government food package? Government education packages?
Click to expand...

Far more generous than it is today. Roughly 4 times as many people received welfare in the early 1990s as do today for example.

GBFAN said:
However, let's talk about your statement .... if I go to https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/threshld/thresh93.html, I see that the inflation adjusted poverty level for a family of three in 1993 was $11,631, and that in 2013 it was $18,751. While I recognize that ain't a heck of a lot of money, it DOES put the lie to your statement. In addition, you fail to consider the significant increase in hand-outs, which, most assuredly, also have a value.

Now, since you brought it up, let's look at those in the 80-90% range. File:United States Income Distribution 1967-2003.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia shows us that the average income in the 80-90% increased from $75,000 (80% in 1993) to $125,000 (90% in 2005)

So, while your rhetoric sounds nice, and makes everyone feel good, it simply doesn't pass the truth test.
Click to expand...

You apparently forgot to adjust for inflation- CPI Inflation Calculator

$11,631 in 1993 is $19,145 today, so they have in fact lost income.
 
My real fear is that we end up with a humongous poverty class, that eventually cannot be supported with the life basics, housing, water, food and medical. It's how protests, mobs and riots evolve into revolution. The amount of permanently unemployed is continuing to grow, and I don't see how forcing corporate executives to take a pay cut really helps the situation, unless they use the extra money to hire people. But since that's not really a sound business practice, it's not likely to happen or solve anything.

What we really need is new tech or housing type 'bubble', but with extended slow growth, rather than an explosion of wealth for the rich. The quandary is how to start this cycle, besides a political issue like 'green' energy. Call it new sources of energy, make it profitable enough for production jobs to be created, and not a one sided situation where only a small portion of those involved benefit.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
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.
Click to expand...

I would think such a conclusion would be easy to discover by just reading through the last few threads I started, but yes, I only have those obligations I agreed upon. The idea I have an obligation to provide people the basics in life is not one I'm all that willing to accept.
 
TurtleDude said:
I do use less

and for your argument to have merit

YOU WOULD HAVE TO PROVE that the TOP 5% (who pay more than HALF THE INCOME TAXES) use more government services than the other 95%


You just missed the point entirely

THE MILITARY DOES NOT REBUILD homes so the insurance issue is not applicable

ask any policeman in a big city
Click to expand...
Um, they are protecting your property, you have much more value to protect, ergo, you should pay a greater level and rate.


WHERE ARE MORE POLICE RESOURCES allocated

POOR neighborhoods or rich ones
Click to expand...
You mean to protect your property from hoodlums?

how about fire departments
Click to expand...
I have seen lots of much better equipped FD in rich areas.

and guess who the government spends more money on INCARCERATING
Click to expand...
Again, to protect your wealth.

I hope it doesn't have to be pointed out once again that state local taxes are regressive.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Um, they are protecting your property, you have much more value to protect, ergo, you should pay a greater level and rate.
Click to expand...

A bit erroneous really. Police to the most part don't protect much of anything and are a terrible security force. They are far better at dealing with criminals after the fact than they are at protection.
 
Henrin said:
I would think such a conclusion would be easy to discover by just reading through the last few threads I started, but yes, I only have those obligations I agreed upon. The idea I have an obligation to provide people the basics in life is not one I'm all that willing to accept.
Click to expand...
You skipped over your selfish comment, that you have benefited from many others in society but feel no obligation to society.

This is the freeloading libertarian dictum.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Um, they are protecting your property, you have much more value to protect, ergo, you should pay a greater level and rate.


You mean to protect your property from hoodlums?

I have seen lots of much better equipped FD in rich areas.

Again, to protect your wealth.

I hope it doesn't have to be pointed out once again that state local taxes are regressive.
Click to expand...

you are being dishonest or you are being ignorant

yes my property is more valuable but it COSTS THE MILITARY NO MORE to protect it than the houses of the poor

so your argument is beyond stupid

we don't have many police calls in our area. we have alarms, and most of the neighbors are well armed and live in well protected homes.

80% of all murder victims are criminals. most people robbed are poor or lower middle class

try again

LIFE IS REGRESSIVE

BFD
 
Gimmesometruth said:
I'm not "wrong" you silly. He said "cons don't argue about the levels of services used", and then you prove HIM wrong.
Click to expand...

you are wrong. the rich use less government services than the poor, and far more direct expenses are utilized by the poor than the rich

Look we get it, liberals want to justify their income redistribution as something other than envy. but we see through it
 
Henrin said:
A bit erroneous really. Police to the most part don't protect much of anything and are a terrible security force. They are far better at dealing with criminals after the fact than they are at protection.
Click to expand...
So going after criminals is not an effort to deter crime?

Good to know.
 
TurtleDude said:
you are wrong. the rich use less government services than the poor, and far more direct expenses are utilized by the poor than the rich

Look we get it, liberals want to justify their income redistribution as something other than envy. but we see through it
Click to expand...
It is something else other than envy, it is called "stability of a nation".

You have never accepted the fact that the greater the level of inequality, the greater the chance for instability.

Further, the higher the level of inequality, the slower a nation grows.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom