• 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!

Inequality Troubles Americans Across Party Lines, Times/CBS Poll Finds

The ceo isn't asking for, or taking anything that he/she hasn't earned...


So it was OK that the CEO of GM was making millions of dollars a year, and getting raises year after year, while GM was loosing billions? The guy was paid $100 million dollars in 12 years, had 9 years of losses out of those 12 and ran the company into bankruptcy.

You obviously don't understand this, but wages aren't set by how hard one works, or how productive they are, but by negotiating power. CEOs use every drop of negotiating power that they can gather, I don't see why minimum wage workers shouldn't also utilize every drop of negotiating power that they have, even if that includes protesting for higher wages or unionizing.
 
What someone else makes doesn't effect you. I got it.

Doesn't matter if the CEO of your company pays himself a zillion dollars.

Doesn't matter how high we make minimum wage either, after all minimum wage workers are paid out of the same income pool that CEO's are.

Geeeeezus again with the simple rhetoric. A short order cook at McDonalds is doing a minimum wage job. Daves Burger shop has to pay his employees too. When you use simple rhetoric and build wage policy, guess what you just did to Daves Burgers.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1064690348 said:
So you vote on lies, knowing they're lies? Does it make you "feel better?"

i don't vote for dems either. It's a matter of degree of foolishness. Unless you're as rich as mitt romney, you've no plausible reason to vote for him
 
The ceo isn't asking for, or taking anything that he/she hasn't earned

There is that word.....earned

LOL yeah right, the CEO earned 6000 times what the minions in his work force earned, all while driving his company down the toilet. You have a funny definition of earned.

The example i gave above is fitting here. The dominoes pizza stock dropped 25% while dave brandon was CEO, since he left going up tenfold. Now i suppose after alienating everyone at his next gig, sending 3 am emails telling customers "quit drinking and go to bed" "find a new wife" "find another place to shop" you believe he EARNED his new $15 million a year as toys r us exec?

Or how about those wall street execs who destroyed the entire financial system and came begging uncle sam for a bailout? Yeah, they sure earned those huge bonuses. Cat's out of the bag. Our economy is a sham
 
So it was OK that the CEO of GM was making millions of dollars a year, and getting raises year after year, while GM was loosing billions? The guy was paid $100 million dollars in 12 years, had 9 years of losses out of those 12 and ran the company into bankruptcy.

You obviously don't understand this, but wages aren't set by how hard one works, or how productive they are, but by negotiating power. CEOs use every drop of negotiating power that they can gather, I don't see why minimum wage workers shouldn't also utilize every drop of negotiating power that they have, even if that includes protesting for higher wages or unionizing.

My question is how they get any negotiating power to begin with. A guy who hasn't been in business school in 30 years and is universally reviled by everyone he ever came across, and has a penchant for driving his company to extinction STILL has negotiating power to land a $15 million/year salary?! WTF is that

But it's like how ****ty NFL coaches keep landing football gigs. It's the old boys' club i figure. Once you're in, you can do no wrong (or never too much wrong)
 
So it was OK that the CEO of GM was making millions of dollars a year, and getting raises year after year, while GM was loosing billions? The guy was paid $100 million dollars in 12 years, had 9 years of losses out of those 12 and ran the company into bankruptcy.

You obviously don't understand this, but wages aren't set by how hard one works, or how productive they are, but by negotiating power. CEOs use every drop of negotiating power that they can gather, I don't see why minimum wage workers shouldn't also utilize every drop of negotiating power that they have, even if that includes protesting for higher wages or unionizing.

you know, If I were a shareholder of GM, I'd be pissed. but since I am not, its not my business to worry about. and its certainly not something other non-shareholders should worry about
 
I don't think that's true. We already have a production (manufacturing) credit and Obama proposed to expand it and double it for certain industries, and I really don't think democrats as a group would be against tax breaks to move into the inner cities, where they have HUGE voter support.
I have not heard any suggestions from 2016 candidates on this. To be fair, neither side has put any real proposals on the table
It's true NAFTA was Clinton and Obama strongly supports TPP, but that's true of probably anyone who can get elected POTUS. The Democratic base isn't happy about it, and the democratic wing of the democratic party is against the trade deals.



A little off topic, but I've changed my views on "charter schools." I had thought the charter schools would be like the non-profit high school I went to. Instead, what we seem to be getting are corporate, for profit schools that from what I can see exist mainly to capture and privatize what has been many $billions in public spending. And I haven't seen any evidence that they do a better job, and they appear to at least frequently be dogged with lack of transparency and obvious conflicts of interests, with tons of the spending getting siphoned off into related companies for various services, management and the like and the public unable to see exactly where there money is going. I know this varies by school district so generalities are difficult, but the trends I've seen aren't good.

So as is I don't support expanding charter schools or funding them with taxpayer money. Bottom line is if corporations could make money with private schools, not funded with deals they can buy with captured legislators, they'd have been funding them all over the country long ago. It's only happening now that they can get public money, so I'm very worried this is just another example of public costs, privatized profits, with little if any benefit for students.
I agree that it would be great to have these schools non-profit. I think many are. Also agree that there should be transparency. That being said, I was able to send my son to a private high school. Very expensive, but a great education and certainly helped to get into a great University. I would like more students to have that opportunity even if their parents can't pick that type of tab.


I agree with the general ideas, but the specifics are very hard to implement. The deductions for plants overseas is part of income in those countries, not here, and I guess we could tax that income more heavily than we do now, but already the firms keep the profits offshore to avoid the U.S. tax. My preference is strongly to subsidize/incentivize domestic production. I'm generally not a big "tax cuts for the plutocrats will save us" crowd, but I'd be OK with far lower marginal tax rates on corporations in the U.S. accompanied with higher taxes on distributions to shareholders. Or not. Other countries heavily subsidize their domestic firms - I'm fine if we do the same however we can do it. Yes, perhaps it's going to mostly accrue to shareholders, but it's worth a try IMO. So little is actually collected from the corporate income tax that we could halve it and not do all that much damage to collections, especially with just a small increase in taxes on corporate distributions to shareholders.

Hard to work out how to do this. First we would have to start with a more reasonable corporate tax rate. So lets say that the rate is 20% while the rest of the world is 15%. Taxes paid to another nation are tax credits to the corporation here. So the net tax is 5%, something companies would probably pay to get their money back home to use for dividends and buybacks or buy or other accretive investments here rather than overseas. If we had something like that and then added back any depreciation deduction taken on overseas plant and equipment it might entice some to build more here. Just an example.
 
Wonderful. Read the article. Now...how does Bill Gates making 10 Billion a year prevent you from becoming successful? How does the fact that the top 1% are REALLY REALLY REALLY wealthy prevent you from becoming successful? How do you reconcile the fact that there have MILLIONS of NEW MILLIONAIRESaround the globe over the last several years (an average of 1000 per day)with your constant bemoaning the success and largess of the 1%? '
Then you didn't read it very carefully, because it was spelled out.

Some people look at income inequality and shrug their shoulders. So what if this person gains and that person loses? What matters, they argue, is not how the pie is divided but the size of the pie. That argument is fundamentally wrong. An economy in which most citizens are doing worse year after year—an economy like America’s—is not likely to do well over the long haul. There are several reasons for this.

First, growing inequality is the flip side of something else: shrinking opportunity. Whenever we diminish equality of opportunity, it means that we are not using some of our most valuable assets—our people—in the most productive way possible. Second, many of the distortions that lead to inequality—such as those associated with monopoly power and preferential tax treatment for special interests—undermine the efficiency of the economy. This new inequality goes on to create new distortions, undermining efficiency even further. To give just one example, far too many of our most talented young people, seeing the astronomical rewards, have gone into finance rather than into fields that would lead to a more productive and healthy economy.

Third, and perhaps most important, a modern economy requires “collective action”—it needs government to invest in infrastructure, education, and technology. The United States and the world have benefited greatly from government-sponsored research that led to the Internet, to advances in public health, and so on. But America has long suffered from an under-investment in infrastructure (look at the condition of our highways and bridges, our railroads and airports), in basic research, and in education at all levels. Further cutbacks in these areas lie ahead.
As for new millionaires, mobility in the U.S. Is low. What you call a new millionaire, is someone who last year made $975,000 crossing the million line. I'll look for the data on this.
 
Well, Thomas Paine in Common Sense certainly complained about the evils of inherited wealth and power but I don't recall any founders who were concerned about income inequality.

"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785. ME 19:18, Papers 8:682

The Framers, like most people, understood the connection between income inequality and wealth inequality. After all, once doesn't become wealthier than everyone else by having the same income as everyone else.
 
Last edited:
They just disagree on how to fix it. In European social democracies, the GDP per capita is less than the US GDP per capita....that's a very easy example of welfare effectiveness.

oecd-gdp-per-capita-2012.png
 

Exactly. :shrug:

The few countries (in the world) that have higher gdp per capita than the US have drastically lower populations and large quantities of marketable resources. The main factor that skews the argument in favor of the redistributionists (superficially) Is that in addition to having one of the highest gdp per capitas in the world, we also have one of the highest number of very rich people in the world.
 
Last edited:
Pretty much confirms that republicans vote against their own interests. Dem candidates at least pay lip service to fixing inequality. They do little about it, but the repub candidates and voters seem to be in complete fantasy land. I mean if government won't do anything about it, who else will, the corporate overlords? Maybe the fairy godmother?

When the welfare of a people is placed squarely in the hands of government they cease to become "the people" and assume the identity of their government.
 
Exactly. :shrug:

The few countries (in the world) that have higher gdp per capita than the US have drastically lower populations and large quantities of marketable resources.

IOW,per capita GDP is not the result of "welfare effectiveness"; it's the result of population size and natural resources
 
IOW,per capita GDP is not the result of "welfare effectiveness"; it's the result of population size and natural resources

If true (and the only cause), then with our population being one of the largest in the world, greatly larger than any above us, we should have a lower gdp PER CAPITA than we do. Further, I did not claim it was a result of welfare effectiveness. I claimed is was an example of the lack of welfare effectiveness.

You seem to have missed my statement:

Exactly. :shrug:

The few countries (in the world) that have higher gdp per capita than the US have drastically lower populations and large quantities of marketable resources. The main factor that skews the argument in favor of the redistributionists (superficially) Is that in addition to having one of the highest gdp per capitas in the world, we also have one of the highest number of very rich people in the world.
 
Last edited:
Pretty much confirms that republicans vote against their own interests. Dem candidates at least pay lip service to fixing inequality. They do little about it, but the repub candidates and voters seem to be in complete fantasy land. I mean if government won't do anything about it, who else will, the corporate overlords? Maybe the fairy godmother?

yea we don't believe in illegally stealing from people.
it doesn't actually solve the problem.

the government has been transferring wealth from years and years and it hasn't solved the problem.
while people that are now rich saved and invested other people didn't. their investments have paid off.

other than stealing money from someone how do you propose to close the gap?
 
Politically, anything other than that sounds like foolishness as a solution to income disparity.

Other than forced wealth redistribution, the only thing that the government can do is more deficit spending to increase demand and improve our overall economy, but most people are more concerned about the federal debt than income disparity, so that option is off the table, until we stop focusing on the deficit and debt - which won't happen until we get another republican POTUS.

100% wrong.

The government can reform the tax code making it more beneficial to companies to pay people.
we desperately need tax code reform not only for individuals but for corporations.

I suggest lowering the corporate tax to 10%. eliminating the majority of deductions except for these.
healthcare, pay (non-executive) and expansion.

so the more pay and benefits and job expansion that companies do the bigger tax deduction they get.
it only makes sense.

the government spends nothing and gains a whole ton of new business investment as more companies would come here and hire people.
and get rid of obamacare that has destroyed the middle class and lower classes.
 
The government has been transferring wealth for decades. From the poor to the rich.
 
If true (and the only cause), then with our population being one of the largest in the world, greatly larger than any above us, we should have a lower gdp PER CAPITA than we do.

Or maybe, population isn't the cause.

Further, I did not claim it was a result of welfare effectiveness. I claimed is was an example of the lack of welfare effectiveness.

Or maybe, welfare effectiveness is not the cause.

You seem to have missed my statement:

No, I caught your statements. First, you claimed that the social democracies of Europe have lower per capita GDP than the US (even though that's not true) which demonstrated the ineffectiveness of social welfare polices. Once the higher per capita GDP of some European nations was pointed out to you, you pivoted to arguing that per capita GDP is affected by population and natural resources.

The truth is, per capita GDP is the result of many factors. Unless you're going to present a case that includes an accounting for all of those factors, your argument is nothing more than baseless claims motivated by partisan hackery
 
Or maybe, population isn't the cause.

It's not, solely.



Or maybe, welfare effectiveness is not the cause.

It's not, the opposite is true.

No, I caught your statements. First, you claimed that the social democracies of Europe have lower per capita GDP than the US (even though that's not true) which demonstrated the ineffectiveness of social welfare polices. Once the higher per capita GDP of some European nations was pointed out to you, you pivoted to arguing that per capita GDP is affected by population and natural resources.

I didn't say European nations, I said European social Democracies. The only country that is an exception to that is Norway....sorta. Norway has low population and high resources.

The truth is, per capita GDP is the result of many factors. Unless you're going to present a case that includes an accounting for all of those factors, your argument is nothing more than baseless claims motivated by partisan hackery

It is a result of many factors, it is also an example of the lack of welfare effectiveness. The US has higher GDP per capita, Higher PPP, and Higher average wage (including Norway, Switzerland, and Luxembourg) than most countries, and nearly every European social democracy despite having a much higher population and lower welfare levels.
 
Then you didn't read it very carefully, because it was spelled out.


As for new millionaires, mobility in the U.S. Is low. What you call a new millionaire, is someone who last year made $975,000 crossing the million line. I'll look for the data on this.
You cited what the article was full of...horse**** and platitudes. Bill Gates did not diminish your capacity for becoming successful. You did. As for the 'tax' argument...again...that is such a ridiculous played out false narrative. The rich pay the taxes in this country. Average citizens dont pay enough in taxes to pay for even ONE of their kids teachers in school. Look at a breakdown...an actual breakdown of who pays for what.

Ridiculous. No rich person out there got rich by stealing your pennies and no rich person out there blocked your opportunities for success.
 
What someone else makes doesn't effect you. I got it.

Doesn't matter if the CEO of your company pays himself a zillion dollars.

Doesn't matter how high we make minimum wage either, after all minimum wage workers are paid out of the same income pool that CEO's are.

Think there might be a gap in education, skills, risk, motivation, problem solving abilities, and experience between a CEO and minimum wage worker?
 
It's not, solely.





It's not, the opposite is true.



I didn't say European nations, I said European social Democracies. The only country that is an exception to that is Norway....sorta. Norway has low population and high resources.



It is a result of many factors, it is also an example of the lack of welfare effectiveness. The US has higher GDP per capita, Higher PPP, and Higher average wage (including Norway, Switzerland, and Luxembourg) than most countries, and nearly every European social democracy despite having a much higher population and lower welfare levels.

IOW, when GDP is lower, it's shows the ineffectiveness of welfare. When it's higher, it shows nothing about the effectiveness of welfare

Cherry-Picker-Bouguereau-L.jpg
 
A " Strong majority " are for wealth redistribution ?

In Greece maybe, or Venezuela, or Argentina.

Not in this Country by any means.

And the economy has " improved by most measures " ?? How can you post this crap ?

Oh thats right, you put ideology before the needs and concerns of Millions of Americans who continue to struggle under this President

Pretend they're not there so you can push this drivel.

63% of Americans think the rich are not paying enough in taxes. Only 24% think they are paying their fair share. Only 9% believe they are paying too much. Most flat tax and Republican tax cuts schemes assumes the rich are paying too much.
Many Americans OK With Increasing Taxes on Rich
 
Back
Top Bottom