• 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
GBFAN said:
I bow in disgraced defeat to the nonsense in your head that masquerades as intelligent thought.
Click to expand...
You didn't need Google to win the argument, you could have just said that those in poverty can collect $1M/month....and declare the argument won.

Whata champ.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
You didn't need Google to win the argument, you could have just said that those in poverty can collect $1M/month....and declare the argument won.

Whata champ.
Click to expand...

See what I mean? Your inability to understand the essence of the discussion has handicapped your ability for intelligent input. The totality of your misdirected thought process simply leaves me in awe.
 
GBFAN said:
See what I mean? Your inability to understand the essence of the discussion has handicapped your ability for intelligent input. The totality of your misdirected thought process simply leaves me in awe.
Click to expand...
And as per usual, you cannot describe the error, you just say it exists.

Lets see your victory dance.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
And as per usual, you cannot describe the error, you just say it exists.

Lets see your victory dance.
Click to expand...

Unlike the left, I do not revel in the incompetency of my opponent. I only shake my head in awe at the magnitude of it.
 
b_dubz said:
How would I value government programs?
Click to expand...
GBFAN said:
Actually, it's pretty simple ... Google to the rescue.
Click to expand...
Where upon, you quote from a discredited, debunked CATO "paper".

But relying on debunked, false data....is not winning the "the data is available" argument, anymore than pulling the numbers from your azz is.

But as I said, this, to you, is a win.

As the papers debunking the CATO "paper" point out, there are MANY variables involved, from the state a family resides in to, the the information they get on what is available to them. The only accurate way is to survey a population......not "theoretically" take a "median" and start maximizing the benefit level.

But then, some need "simple" answers.
 
You are so full of it.

1). Last graph Atlantic rag as a source so you did lie.
2). Second to last graph unsourced so I'll assume you made it up and it's worthless.
3). Third to last graph speaks of income not wealth, and simply because it fits your DNC talking point.

And what a completely moronic statement to say the poor of today are some how mysteriously worse off then 90 years ago. You a joke and making crap up might stink but it won't stick.


Gimmesometruth said:
Like "idea"?!?

Actually, the first graph is Piketty/Saez and the last one is just income data collected by the NYT
I have not posted any lies, nor have you shown they are. False, in real terms the lowest quintile has lost wealth and has lower wages. Um, again, the data shows the average incomes for individuals in the top 1%, 0.1% and the 0.01%.You are not relying on facts, you are relying on falsehoods and rhetoric.

EDIT: Upon further review, the data for the last graph is from the Paris School of Economics, ie Piketty et al.
Click to expand...
 
CalGun said:
You are so full of it.

1). Last graph Atlantic rag as a source so you did lie.
Click to expand...
Um, the Atlantic got the data and graph from the NYT article, I linked to the NYT article....and it is from the PSE, Piketty. You are not following along.
2). Second to last graph unsourced so I'll assume you made it up and it's worthless.
Click to expand...
I wished I created it, but it is from Saez's data:
Economic Freedom For All | Economics One
3). Third to last graph speaks of income not wealth
Click to expand...
Where do you think wealth comes from but income?
, and simply because it fits your DNC talking point.
Click to expand...
Again, it fits Piketty/Saez data points....you know, the academic data you squealed for.

And what a completely moronic statement to say the poor of today are some how mysteriously worse off then 90 years ago.
Click to expand...
I did not say that, I have said over and over, even in this thread, that the lowest quintile has lost wealth and has seen lowered real wages since 1980.
You a joke and making crap up might stink but it won't stick.
Click to expand...
Me Tarzan, you Jane.
 
lizzie said:
Nothing should be done, that isn't already being done. Income equality is a reality, because people aren't all equal in intelligence, drive, ingenuity, and just plain old luck. I strongly support reward for efforts, education, and industriousness, and I strongly dislike paying people for doing nothing.
Click to expand...
I agree. I dont see anything wrong with income inequality, in fact I support it. Its what separates the lazy and the ones who work hard and have proper business sense.
 
PoS said:
I agree. I dont see anything wrong with income inequality, in fact I support it. Its what separates the lazy and the ones who work hard and have proper business sense.
Click to expand...
It is not about "income equality", it is about income gains.


Gimmesometruth said:
Bump..


YzNhZjU5ZTNkNiMvSEJLeWRuM1dqUGQ2VTlxYmh5T0JtZFV6Mlc4PS81eDA6ODQ1eDYzMC84NDB4NjMwL2ZpbHRlcnM6cXVhbGl0eSg3MCkvaHR0cDovL3MzLmFtYXpvbmF3cy5jb20vcG9saWN5bWljLWltYWdlcy8xdGMyMWJ4N2o2cDB4bnh3cDQ2Nmxkamp3NmM2ZzNjMTc4MTloeDJ4N3RzMndoYnV1d3E2Z3Vtc3FwbnV1ZG0wLmpwZw==.jpg
Click to expand...
 
PoS said:
I agree. I dont see anything wrong with income inequality, in fact I support it. Its what separates the lazy and the ones who work hard and have proper business sense.
Click to expand...

What about generational inequality? It's one thing for the rich to be clever and work hard to make more, it's another for generational wealth to be passed down and idiots living off the interest.
 
PoS said:
Well in that case it isnt a problem then because upward mobility is the same as it was twenty years ago. The only difference is that people nowadays whine about it more.

Study: Upward Mobility No Tougher In U.S. Than Two Decades Ago : NPR
Click to expand...
Um, wage gains have been flat for the 90% since the early 70's, so you would only really gain if you jumped into the top 10%....and you are not likely to do so unless you are lucky and already in the top 20%.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Um, wage gains have been flat for the 90% since the early 70's, so you would only really gain if you jumped into the top 10%....and you are not likely to do so unless you are lucky and already in the top 20%.
Click to expand...

Youre missing the point- you dont have get to super rich, the opportunity to become financially secure is the same as it was before. Sure the gaps are bigger but the opportunity hasnt changed. Its not about luck, its about working hard or getting a good idea and marketing it so it will take off.
 
PoS said:
Youre missing the point- you dont have get to super rich, the opportunity to become financially secure is the same as it was before. Sure the gaps are bigger but the opportunity hasnt changed. Its not about luck, its about working hard or getting a good idea and marketing it so it will take off.
Click to expand...
you are simply dismissing and excusing the capture of wealth by the top quintile and telling me that even though I know more than my father, i work longer hours, I have greater skills and am more productive, I should be satisfied that I make the same as he did. I should not expect greater levels of income for my higher levels of work.

This is a common argument from libertarians, do not see that that the top have captured a larger share. I have never understood this protection of the wealthy, it is as if they need your defense.

Even the source you linked to has a link the original data on mobility where so much of chances of mobility depend upon where you grow up....basically, the parents you choose. It is in fact, a lot about luck. But then the further one goes to right ideology, the more the emphasis is placed on morality, less on circumstance.

We did build this, we should share in the gains.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
you are simply dismissing and excusing the capture of wealth by the top quintile and telling me that even though I know more than my father, i work longer hours, I have greater skills and am more productive, I should be satisfied that I make the same as he did. I should not expect greater levels of income for my higher levels of work.
Click to expand...
If youre working harder than your father did and youre making the same as he was then youre working the wrong kind of job is all I can say about that.

This is a common argument from libertarians, do not see that that the top have captured a larger share. I have never understood this protection of the wealthy, it is as if they need your defense.
Click to expand...
I may not be making as much as the top 1% but I do not see why people who dont have their work ethic or vision be jealous of them because in the end thats all it is- you are jealous somebody has more money than you. Its not like the rich is stealing from you because they make money no matter how you are doing.

Even the source you linked to has a link the original data on mobility where so much of chances of mobility depend upon where you grow up....basically, the parents you choose. It is in fact, a lot about luck. But then the further one goes to right ideology, the more the emphasis is placed on morality, less on circumstance.
Click to expand...
Its where you grew up, not who your parents are. If you live in a poor area you can always pack your bags and move. There are plenty of poor people who became rich, growing up poor didnt stop them. My gramps was abandoned by his father and he was forced to help his mother and sisters growing up but he became a millionaire after WW2.

We did build this, we should share in the gains.
Click to expand...
Business owners and the market built it therefore they deserve the rewards, not you.
 
TurtleDude said:
what a stupid definition of "income redistribution"

you act as if the Clinton tax rates are natural and proper
Click to expand...

Its not a stupid definition at all, it is in fact reality. People such as yourself love to cry "income redistribution" when changes in tax rates benefit the middle and working class and yet when changes to tax rates help the wealthy you call it "allowing them to keep more of their money". Its a fallacy based in rhetoric. Sorry....that is just the simple truth whether you like it or not.
 
First there is a mis-measure of income inequality. The poorest among us overwhelmingly are single moms who are often on multiple government welfare programs. When equating their income the value of these benefits are often overlooked. But truth be known when the value of these benefits are included in with income, they often surpass median income levels. That's the first part of the big lie about income inequality.

The second part of this lie is the very people proclaiming “a dangerous and growing inequality and lack of upward mobility” are the same bunch that supported Obamacare which in itself has caused fulltime employment to shift to part time by 2% in the first year it was implemented even with Obama's delays on businesses. Once those delays expire more and more workers will be finding themselves employed on a part-time basis. The same bunch proclaiming "a dangerous and growing inequality and lack of upward mobility" are the same folks that support the dramatic surge in federal regulations that harm economic growth.
 
Mizuho said:
What about generational inequality? It's one thing for the rich to be clever and work hard to make more, it's another for generational wealth to be passed down and idiots living off the interest.
Click to expand...

A fool and his money are soon parted, probably faster than anything government would do. Do you happen to have an example of some heir or heiress idiot living off the interest, or are you making an assumption?
 
Mizuho said:
What about generational inequality? It's one thing for the rich to be clever and work hard to make more, it's another for generational wealth to be passed down and idiots living off the interest.
Click to expand...

but see...thats great too

how long do you think Paris Hilton will hold onto her riches?

some people are equipped to deal with stuff....some arent

just as the poor can become wealthy in a generation or two, the wealthy can become poor

we hear about it all the time....people taking way too many risks

i have zero issue with family inheritance.....i want to leave my children better off than i was

and i see nothing wrong with the government getting a small slice of the pie (about 25%)

those that use their wealth to better themselves and the world around them.....bravo

those that piss it away on drugs, parties, and alcohol....oh well
 
Keithknight13 said:
As government has grown as a larger part of the economy, the income gap increases. Here's an article I wrote for Anonymous on why. Please read and let me know of any criticisms you have.

Why We Should Trust Each other to Solve Inequality - And Not The Government - AnonHQ AnonHQ
Click to expand...

It appears that government growth is actually starting back down now. If that's accurate, then it's a good thing.

I can't see how that is going to solve income inequality, though, unless it means that less tax money is going to go into subsidies for the large corporations.

usgs_line.php
 
Gimmesometruth said:
you are simply dismissing and excusing the capture of wealth by the top quintile and telling me that even though I know more than my father, i work longer hours, I have greater skills and am more productive, I should be satisfied that I make the same as he did. I should not expect greater levels of income for my higher levels of work.

This is a common argument from libertarians, do not see that that the top have captured a larger share. I have never understood this protection of the wealthy, it is as if they need your defense.

Even the source you linked to has a link the original data on mobility where so much of chances of mobility depend upon where you grow up....basically, the parents you choose. It is in fact, a lot about luck. But then the further one goes to right ideology, the more the emphasis is placed on morality, less on circumstance.

We did build this, we should share in the gains.
Click to expand...


you are simply dismissing and excusing the capture of wealth by the top quintile and telling me that even though I know more than my father, i work longer hours, I have greater skills and am more productive, I should be satisfied that I make the same as he did. I should not expect greater levels of income for my higher levels of work.

no....you need to talk to your boss

if you are as you say, better, faster, smarter, and more productive, and earning what he did...you have a problem

i dont know what that problem is....maybe it is the career.....maybe the place of employment....or maybe its you

but what you say doesnt make sense without more information

i make 5x what my father did in his best year....

different skills, different career.....and my dad retired as a gs9 with just under 50 years of federal service
 
GBFAN said:
Hey! Pay attention!

I made no comment about the study ... evidently, trying to find information was too difficult for the left wing ... so, I simply googled to show that it COULD be done. You didn't see me agree/disagree with the example. Frankly, I didn't even bother to read it ... it was an EXAMPLE of how to collect data.

Get over it ... you can't make your argument stand up, so you want to attack an example of a google search that seems to be so much more difficult for the left to perform? Could that be because you can't find data to support your position?

Get a life ....
Click to expand...

Look, you banked on a ****ty study that turned out to be lies. Own up to it, man. You were wrong. Get over it.
 
GBFAN said:
Hey! Pay attention!

I made no comment about the study ... evidently, trying to find information was too difficult for the left wing ... so, I simply googled to show that it COULD be done. You didn't see me agree/disagree with the example. Frankly, I didn't even bother to read it ... it was an EXAMPLE of how to collect data.

Get over it ... you can't make your argument stand up, so you want to attack an example of a google search that seems to be so much more difficult for the left to perform? Could that be because you can't find data to support your position?

Get a life ....
Click to expand...

Well, that's a new excuse for passing off easily debunkable garbage as fact and getting caught doing it.
 
disneydude said:
Its not a stupid definition at all, it is in fact reality. People such as yourself love to cry "income redistribution" when changes in tax rates benefit the middle and working class and yet when changes to tax rates help the wealthy you call it "allowing them to keep more of their money". Its a fallacy based in rhetoric. Sorry....that is just the simple truth whether you like it or not.
Click to expand...

the top 5% pay more than half the income tax burden and all the death tax burden so your definition is moronic and based on your faith based belief that the rich should pay many dollars for one dollar of government service while everyone else should pay less than a dime
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom