• 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!

What Is Economic Fairness?

Yes. Plenty. Or are you denying the fact that there are black doctors, laywers, athletes, actors, politicians etc etc? I know it might seem like that from across the pond there but the fact of the matter is the ones that you'll see about in the news over there are not your typical Black Americans.

No I am not denying it at all.. those are the lucky few relatively speaking. Sure it has gotten better since the 1960s, but get real here for god sake... it is much harder for an inner city black kid to get out than it is for an inner city white kid.. that is just a fact.

And yeah, rich people are going to have an advantage over poor people. That does not negate the chance that poor people have to rise up above poverty. Nor is it a sign of inequality. Inequity maybe. But not inequality. I know there are groups of people out there that like to confuse equality vs equity. But there is a difference.

yea they have a very small chance.... Rich people can send their kids to school.. regardless if they are dumb as snot. Look who is President, or Bush Jr.. both have degrees from expensive schools but we both know they do not deserve those degrees.. daddy bought them. Then you have the middle class or poor black boy or white girl, who both have to struggle to find money to go to school and many fail because it is simply too expensive or impossible. And dont give the the scholarship bull****, because that is exactly what it is.. bull****. By the time they graduate.. if they are so lucky, they will be in so much debt, that it will be near impossible to pay off... limiting them yet again.

If you want equality and fairness in a society, then you need to get rid of as man barriers as possible.. race, religion and financial.
 
No I am not denying it at all.. those are the lucky few relatively speaking. Sure it has gotten better since the 1960s, but get real here for god sake... it is much harder for an inner city black kid to get out than it is for an inner city white kid.. that is just a fact.

Lucky few? Poverty rate among Black American's is at 22%. Higher than whites for sure. But those blacks not in poverty are hardly a "lucky few".

yea they have a very small chance.... Rich people can send their kids to school.. regardless if they are dumb as snot. Look who is President, or Bush Jr.. both have degrees from expensive schools but we both know they do not deserve those degrees.. daddy bought them. Then you have the middle class or poor black boy or white girl, who both have to struggle to find money to go to school and many fail because it is simply too expensive or impossible. And dont give the the scholarship bull****, because that is exactly what it is.. bull****. By the time they graduate.. if they are so lucky, they will be in so much debt, that it will be near impossible to pay off... limiting them yet again.

If you want equality and fairness in a society, then you need to get rid of as man barriers as possible.. race, religion and financial.

You're not talking about equality. You're talking about equity. There is a difference. Equality is achievable. Equity is not.
 
"What Is Economic Fairness?".... a myth.

There is no known economic principle that really terminates with true economic fairness, even in the absolute sense (other than perhaps on a whiteboard with classroom thinking.) But perhaps more complex for this discussion, being "free" has nothing to do with economic fairness. It has to do with self determination of outcome from action or inaction.

Income quintiles, wealth pooling, taxation and complex tax code, how we deal with debt (all forms,) etc... there simply is no fairness involved. And more often than otherwise, our turn to legislation to address the matter tends to make things worse. Even with our mixed economic model, we still have nothing that suggests fairness. Nor should we ask for it.

actually there is it is called marxism. what was born out of that became communism but as we all know it was a utopia idea because marx left out one very important factor.
Human behavior.

in fact marx's idea's lead to one of the largest means of wealth inequality out there.
 
Stop harping about "what is fair?" (I should tell you how to research a doctorate thesis in economics? No-way, José! Do it yourself!)
If you are going to use fair as an argument then you need to define what fair is other than not what it looks like today.

That would require a very sophisticated analysis of current Net Income (who gets what) - but most certainly it means raising Upper-income Tax Rates to the levels that existed before Reckless Ronnie reduced them drastically.

*sigh* This has nothing to do with it. You don't understand what you are talking about no one paid the 75 or 80%. There were numerous tax write offs. everything from CC interest to lunches that you ate.
the effective tax rate was about 40% after all those write-offs. Please educate yourself in what was going on.

There, no you know from where a competent analysis of wholly Unfair Taxation starts ... !

Actually you have yet to define fair and unfair other than your subjective view. that is not a valid argument.

NB1: The irony of it all is that back in 2010, the Replicant Party in the HofR was against any further stimulus-spending because the National Debt was "dangerously high". It is even higher now, but Donald Dork just reduced overall levels of taxation for businesses as well as individuals. The upper-income tax rip-off just worsened!
NB2: And I have not mentioned the tax write-off boondoggle that happens at the IRS for a good many high-income earners. Learn about it here (NYT): For the Wealthiest, a Private Tax System That Saves Them Billions - excerpt: [/COLOR][/I]

The stimulus spending was bogus and did nothing to stimulate the economy.
Your last post is well why you lose this.

They are using the existing law that is available to everyone if you qualify for it.
it has always been this way. Warren buffet takes every single tax deduction he can.
he also qualifies for a large number of deductions that most people can't.

however even on that now under trump a lot of his deductions have been reduced to 10k max.
 
"What Is Economic Fairness?".... a myth.

There is no known economic principle that really terminates with true economic fairness, even in the absolute sense (other than perhaps on a whiteboard with classroom thinking.) But perhaps more complex for this discussion, being "free" has nothing to do with economic fairness. It has to do with self determination of outcome from action or inaction.

Income quintiles, wealth pooling, taxation and complex tax code, how we deal with debt (all forms,) etc... there simply is no fairness involved. And more often than otherwise, our turn to legislation to address the matter tends to make things worse. Even with our mixed economic model, we still have nothing that suggests fairness. Nor should we ask for it.

I agree that there is no particular "fairness" in economics, and the word "fair" shouldn't even be used in an economic discussion. However, I do believe that income distribution matters, and the more that goes to the top one percent, the less than everyone else can have relative to the one percent.

Also, we shouldn't be measuring income disparity from the bottom 1% to the top 1%, we should be comparing the median income to the top 1% because there will always be slackers who have virtually no earned income.
 
I agree that there is no particular "fairness" in economics, and the word "fair" shouldn't even be used in an economic discussion. However, I do believe that income distribution matters, and the more that goes to the top one percent, the less than everyone else can have relative to the one percent.

Also, we shouldn't be measuring income disparity from the bottom 1% to the top 1%, we should be comparing the median income to the top 1% because there will always be slackers who have virtually no earned income.

The main reason we look to all 5 income quintiles is when they are plotted out on a trend line we can then see economic concerns from that lack of income distribution based on the conditions at any one time. An economic gain period that shows flat trends for the lower 4th and 5th income quintiles suggests a large group being left behind and odds are underwater by inflation (example.)

Also, median to top 1% income ignores that we still have a significant percentage of our population below that median point... but they still participate in our economy. If you factor them out slackers you risk accidentally lumping in those on Social Security (another example.)

But for this thread, forget about fair and focus on how we all participate.
 
Back
Top Bottom