• 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?

Lafayette

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 13, 2015
Messages
9,594
Reaction score
2,072
Location
France
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
ECONOMIC FAIRNESS

The single most common thread throughout the history of mankind is its evolution in terms of societal “fairness”. But neither are you or I a Roman slave, nor a medieval serf, nor an indentured servant in the 16th/17th century, nor a black slave in the 18th/19th century America.

We are (supposedly) “free”. But are we? Perhaps in name only?

What has happened recently in the US (called the Great Recession) is a repeat of the Roaring Twenties and the subsequent stock-market crash. Why’s that?

Because there was/is too much money in the hands of too few people. The 1Percenters as a class have a net worth of close to 2 trillion dollars. Which indicates that something is dangerously wrong with our system of taxation that so much should be concentrated and owned by so few.

There's an “horrendous” amount of money, that trickles upwards to become Wealth; and then back down dynastically to inheritors who did not earn a penny of it. The result is the perpetuation of Income Disparity.

A HISTORY OF INCOME-TAX UNFAIRNESS IN AMERICA

Taxation history is the obvious culprit:

*Historical info-graphic of US tax-rates:
800px-Historical_Marginal_Tax_Rate_for_Highest_and_Lowest_Income_Earners.jpg



Moreover:
*Note how taxation was uniformly very high except in two periods, one that coincides with the Stock Market crash in 1929 and the other more recently in the 1980s. Who was PotUS in the 1980s? (Reckless Ronnie)

*LBJ (of all people) in the early 1960s brought upper-income tax rates down for the level of income at which excessive revenues accumulate to select groups. Reckless Ronnie (in the 1980s) and Replicant Donald Dork have completed the hatchet-job bringing them down to the ridiculous level of 20/25%.

*This reduction in upper-level taxation is the single most factor producing the Trickle-Up Economy in which Americans now live. It leads directly to the fact that there has been a massive redistribution of income upwards; but also, since income becomes wealth, also a great redistribution of riches.

*The Paris School of Economics at their web-site (here: World Income Database) shows the evolution of Income Share by householder percentile. If you reduce the numbers, the decade-by-decade evolution of the US “10Percenter Class” looks like this:
1960 – 33.8%
1970 – 31.5%
1980 – 32.9%
1990 – 38.8%
2000 – 43.1%
2010 – 46.3%
2015 – 50.5%

(Note how the percentage changes from 1980 onwards. Who was PotUS during the 1980s? Reckless Ronnie!)

MY POINT?

*Our seemingly consummate desire for get-rich-quick Wealth is a corrosive sociological factor eating away at the moral fabric of the country. It leads to the sort of economic catastrophe such as the Toxic Waste Mess and the subsequent Great Recession – created by a mindless frenzy to earn a lot of money quickly by fraudulent means.

*Which has done great harm to ordinary people - and from which we have yet to see the light at the end of the tunnel. Because the unfortunate consequence is to incarcerate 15% of the American households below the Poverty Threshold. That’s nearly 50 million American men, women and children …

Q E D.?
 
"What Is Economic Fairness?"

Economic Fairness is giving everyone the chance to earn money. Its up to the individual what to do with that chance.
 
What is economic fairness?


A fairy tale.
 
Because there was/is too much money in the hands of too few people. The 1Percenters as a class have a net worth of close to 2 trillion dollars.

Um, the 1% do not have $2 TRILLION in cash.

If you don't understand how net worth is determined, you probably shouldn't be posting.
 
Um, the 1% do not have $2 TRILLION in cash.

If you don't understand how net worth is determined, you probably shouldn't be posting.

The quote shows she said net worth not cash. Lafayette has shown in posts a strong understanding of economic principles.
 
GROWN-UP FAIRYTALES

What is economic fairness? A fairy tale.

Nope, economist spend a lot of time investigating the matter because it is central to any economy.

Fairness is NOT HAVING THE KIND OF INCOME DISPARITY THAT EXISTS IN THE US TODAY.

What is Income Disparity? It is:
*After-tax Income that migrates up to Wealth and minus Debt become the value of Net Worth, and
*Glaring disparity in the value between classes as shown in this already once posted:
20141108_FNC156.png

*Or here:
2DfGB.png


Do you understand (from the second infographic) what is meant? That 100% of all Net Worth in the US is split 50/50 between the population of the Upper-10Percenters and the Bottom 90Percenters.

Do you think that second infographic displays fair and equitable sharing of the economy's Total Income to which we ALL contribute our hard work? And because Upper-income Taxation is so low, we get ultimately zip in terms of Financial Savings (aka Net Worth?

Here's a demonstration of what is unfair and unjust - the income disposition existing today in America:
US-Average-Income-2015-1-768x424.png


Social Democracies demand that the Income Distribution from the total economic pie (GDP) is shared in a manner that is fair and just. And no not an economy in which everybody obtains the same amount and to be sure of that outcome the government owns all the means of production. Been there, done that - doesn't work![/COLOR][/I]

WHAT IS "FAIR" INCOME TAXATION?

So, what is fair (in terms of income distribution)? BIG QUESTION. Go here: What's fair? New theory on income inequality

Excerpt: The 2016 Wall Street bonus pool was large enough to have lifted all 3.2 million U.S. fast food workers, or all home care aides, or all restaurant servers and bartenders up to $15 per hour. Increasing the incomes of low-wage workers produces stronger beneficial economic ripple effects than boosting bonuses for the rich, since the poor tend to have to spend nearly every dollar they make while the wealthy can afford to squirrel away more of their earnings.

And that is just for starters. Income Taxation must put a cap on Upper Incomes beyond which taxation is confiscatory. For instance, a cap set at $5M per year. That is certainly a comfortable enough Total Income. Then with exemplary Death Taxes that put a cap on Net Worth that can be inherited at $3M. (Which is necessary to disincentivize the accumulation of capital beyond the atmospheric amounts seen today.)
 
The quote shows she said net worth not cash. Lafayette has shown in posts a strong understanding of economic principles.

Look at what I said.

I never said it was in "cash". I was referring to Net Worth. For your edification: How to Calculate Your Tangible Net Worth

Um, she said:

Because there was/is too much money in the hands of too few people. The 1Percenters as a class have a net worth of close to 2 trillion dollars.

[emphasis mine]

Money is cash.

Stocks, bonds, promissory notes, other investment vehicles and real estate are neither money nor cash.

And this...

*LBJ (of all people) in the early 1960s brought upper-income tax rates down for the level of income at which excessive revenues accumulate to select groups. Reckless Ronnie (in the 1980s) and Replicant Donald Dork have completed the hatchet-job bringing them down to the ridiculous level of 20/25%.

...is inaccurate. It was Kennedy who proposed the tax cuts in his 1963 State of the Union Address:

John F. Kennedy: Annual Message to the Congress on the State of the Union.

You are also oblivious to the fact that the actual amount of taxes paid prior to the 1964 Act averaged only 48%, not 91%.

That's probably because you don't understand the IRS Tax Code in place prior to that.

You also ignore the fact that the tax cuts led to the longest economic expansion in US history: 106 months.

That was eclipsed by the 120 month economic expansion 1991-2001.
 
The 1Percenters as a class have a net worth of close to 2 trillion dollars..

Emphasis mine.

Net Worth is expressed in dollars. Which is "money".

Duhhhhhhhhhhhhh ...
 
You are also oblivious to the fact that the actual amount of taxes paid prior to the 1964 Act averaged only 48%, not 91%.

FYI, the history of both upper and lower income taxation since 1913:
800px-Historical_Marginal_Tax_Rate_for_Highest_and_Lowest_Income_Earners.jpg


Until JFK/LBJ jerked them downwards, the upper rate was just above 90% - which is where it should be. Reckless Ronnie finished the "hatchet-job" when he whacked them down to the 30% level in the 1980s

Which is how today's American Plutocrats have made most of their fortunes with which they are quite prepared to pay dearly (influencing voting outcomes) in order to maintain the favorable rates. (Donald Dork was a godsend for them.)

Moreover, the "average" is irrelevant because the subject of most importance is Income Disparity, for which upper-tax rates are the primary cause due to their weakness.

Again, duhhhhhhh ...
 
Last edited:
Um, she said:



[emphasis mine]

Money is cash.

The property that people purchase to add to their net worth is purchased by money, usually. A person's net worth is not equivalent to their liquid assets or cash on hand, but it's an indication of the money they have relative to others.
 
"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.
 
"What Is Economic Fairness?"

Economic Fairness is giving everyone the chance to earn money. Its up to the individual what to do with that chance.

Is that equal chance or just chance?

Technically a black kid in the hood has a chance of becoming very rich (legally) but it is hardly realistic because it is not an equal chance.
 
Is that equal chance or just chance?

Technically a black kid in the hood has a chance of becoming very rich (legally) but it is hardly realistic because it is not an equal chance.

Pohtato Pahtato. A chance is a chance. Doesn't matter if you put "equal" before it or not. In the end, its all about choices. Lots of black kids from poor neighborhoods have become rich because they made the right choices. Plenty of black lawyers, doctors, athletes, actors, politicians etc etc came from poor upbringings.
 
The single most common thread throughout the history of mankind is its evolution in terms of societal “fairness”. But neither are you or I a Roman slave, nor a medieval serf, nor an indentured servant in the 16th/17th century, nor a black slave in the 18th/19th century America.
We are (supposedly) “free”. But are we? Perhaps in name only?
You need to define your terms. The thread title is "What is economic fairness?" but you never actually answer that question. And your first sentence is about societal fairness which may or may not be the same as economic fairness. And I have no idea what you mean by "free" and you don't really address whether we are or not.


I'm ignoring your middle part which is simply a summary or tax rates and a complaint that they are somehow unfair, without actually addressing the issue of fairness or how you think they are unfair.

MY POINT? Our seemingly consummate desire for get-rich-quick Wealth is a corrosive sociological factor eating away at the moral fabric of the country.It leads to the sort of economic catastrophe such as the Toxic Waste Mess and the subsequent Great Recession – created by a mindless frenzy to earn a lot of money quickly by fraudulent means.
What does that have to do with economic fairness, even if it were true, which you have not supported.

In economics, a fair exchange is one in which neither party is worse off.

If you and I engage in a deal and my net return is $10, then I have profited and I am better off than I was before. Therefore it was a good deal. How much you net, even if it is $1,000,000, is entirely irrelevant and does not make the deal unfair.

If, on the other hand, you have $1,000,000 and I have $10, and I take $100 from you without any return, then I am better off and you are worse off, and the deal is unfair, even though you still have much more money than I do.
 
Last edited:
You need to define your terms. The thread title is "What is economic fairness?" but you never actually answer that question. And your first sentence is about societal fairness which may or may not be the same as economic fairness. And I have no idea what you mean by "free" and you don't really address whether we are or not.

OK, since you don't seem to understand plain English. I will repeat what I have already written.

Economic fairness is easy to understand - it means that in any given society the fruits of a market-economy are distributed not equally but fairly. That is NOT THE CASE in the US. Not when the data I posted show the overwhelmingly HUGE amount of net-after-tax-income that is enjoyed by a tiny, tiny part of Americans. Whether they are the top 0.1% or the upper 10%, they are disproportionately richer than the rest of us. And "that's the way the cookie crumbles" is NOT the proper response to the problem!

Their Net After-tax Income Take (aka "Wealth") is wholly unfair AND the sole culprit is Reckless Ronnie who significantly reduced Upper-income Taxation in the 1980s. (Yes the take-down in upper-income taxation started with JFK who should have known better. It was completed by Reckless Ronnie, and again now by Donald Dork. See here.)

Economic Fairness translates into Societal Fairness because "society" is constituted of various income classes. (This is a no-brainer for anyone who speaks proper-English.) Society being defined by economic class - such as poor, middle-income and Blazingly Rich. Or more finely if you want to get into the real nitty-gritty.

Regardless, the differences in sharing must not be equal but neither must it be disproportionately unequal.

I'm ignoring your middle part which is simply a summary or tax rates and a complaint that they are somehow unfair, without actually addressing the issue of fairness or how you think they are unfair.

It is in the numbers that (unfortunately for you) the unfairness is blatantly evident. I can understand why you prefer to "ignore them".

It is perfectly understandable in this infographic:
20141108_FNC156.png


If you cannot understand the Blatant Inequality between the 0.1Percenters and we 90Percenters in terms of comparative amounts of Income Share then you are blind.

And NO! Just because the breakdown in Wealth happens in such a manner does NOT MEAN it is also acceptable. It means that one small group is profiting unfairly from the work of a larger group. (And I'll bet you don't even understand why finally the world rose up to bring down monarchies and make of them show-puppets.) Because the portioning of income between them and those who actually produced the Income was Blatantly Unfair!

If you and I engage in a deal and my net return is $10, then I have profited and I am better off than I was before. Therefore it was a good deal. How much you net, even if it is $1,000,000, is entirely irrelevant and does not make the deal unfair.

It is only irrelevant if you decide to purposefully disregard the blatant imbalance between the two.

Why unfair. Because that money that comes to your pocket is "value" that has been generated by others. Unless of course, you are Robinson Crusoe on a deserted island. In which case there's not a chance in hell that you are making megabucks.

Only a large market-economy can generate such Wealth. And I am saying, Fine! Let the Wealth be generated, but only taxation can make the portions "fair and equitable".

If, on the other hand, you have $1,000,000 and I have $10, and I take $100 from you without any return, then I am better off and you are worse off, and the deal is unfair, even though you still have much more money than I do.

Stop thinking in terms of "deals". This is not a poker-game regardless of the fact that you think it resembles one.

Even in poker you have to declare you income and it is taxable.

We live in a market-economy consisting of Supply and Demand in which we humans sit on both sides of that duplexity. We work to Supply the goods/services that consumers Demand - for which we are paid and spend the money as Demand customers.
 
OK, since you don't seem to understand plain English. I will repeat what I have already written.
If you didn't define fairness the first time, how is repetition going to correct that?

Economic fairness is easy to understand - it means that in any given society the fruits of a market-economy are distributed not equally but fairly.

And you have not defined what "fair" means. The closest you've come to defining "fair" is to say that it would be other than our current tax structure. And while you say "economic fairness" and "market-economy" you only talk about the tax structure.

That is NOT THE CASE in the US. Not when the data I posted show the overwhelmingly HUGE amount of net-after-tax-income that is enjoyed by a tiny, tiny part of Americans. Whether they are the top 0.1% or the upper 10%, they are disproportionately richer than the rest of us. And "that's the way the cookie crumbles" is NOT the proper response to the problem!
And how is that unfair, as opposed to unequal? "Because it's not fair!" is not really an answer and certainly not analysis.

Their Net After-tax Income Take (aka "Wealth") is wholly unfair
What EXACTLY is unfair?



It is in the numbers that (unfortunately for you) the unfairness is blatantly evident.
Not until you actually define what "fairness" means.



If you cannot understand the Blatant Inequality between the 0.1Percenters and we 90Percenters in terms of comparative amounts of Income Share then you are blind.
Of course there is inequality. But as you acknowledged, fairness and equality are not the same thing.

And NO! Just because the breakdown in Wealth happens in such a manner does NOT MEAN it is also acceptable. It means that one small group is profiting unfairly from the work of a larger group. (And I'll bet you don't even understand why finally the world rose up to bring down monarchies and make of them show-puppets.) Because the portioning of income between them and those who actually produced the Income was Blatantly Unfair!
Do you not understand the difference between an argument and an assertion? I'm asking for the former and you're only giving the latter.


Why unfair. Because that money that comes to your pocket is "value" that has been generated by others.
Are you saying they were not compensated for their efforts? Was this wealth generation involuntary? Or was it an exchange of labor for pay?


Fine! Let the Wealth be generated, but only taxation can make the portions "fair and equitable".
Why?



Stop thinking in terms of "deals". This is not a poker-game regardless of the fact that you think it resembles one.
Huh? I never brought up poker nor do I think it resembles one. I'm talking about economics, which is an exchange of goods and services. An exchange is fair if neither party is worse off. If I voluntarily choose to work at Business X, then I have agreed to sell my labor for certain wages and benefits. I would not choose to work for X unless I am better off than not working and no worse off than working someplace else. My labor generates more revenue than my wages, and my employer benefits from that. Both of us are better off in the arrangement therefore the conditions are fair.

Yes, that's the simplistic Econ 101 version, but you didn't seem to understand even that simple version. Yes, there are coercive employment conditions, and yes there can be conditions the employee was unaware of or she would not have accepted the job. But we're right now trying to determine what is fair. And you're not defining terms or making an actual argument (as opposed to assertions.)


We live in a market-economy consisting of Supply and Demand in which we humans sit on both sides of that duplexity. We work to Supply the goods/services that consumers Demand - for which we are paid and spend the money as Demand customers
and what is unfair about that?
 
You need to define your terms. The thread title is "What is economic fairness?" but you never actually answer that question. And your first sentence is about societal fairness which may or may not be the same as economic fairness. And I have no idea what you mean by "free" and you don't really address whether we are or not.


I'm ignoring your middle part which is simply a summary or tax rates and a complaint that they are somehow unfair, without actually addressing the issue of fairness or how you think they are unfair.

What does that have to do with economic fairness, even if it were true, which you have not supported.

In economics, a fair exchange is one in which neither party is worse off.

If you and I engage in a deal and my net return is $10, then I have profited and I am better off than I was before. Therefore it was a good deal. How much you net, even if it is $1,000,000, is entirely irrelevant and does not make the deal unfair.

If, on the other hand, you have $1,000,000 and I have $10, and I take $100 from you without any return, then I am better off and you are worse off, and the deal is unfair, even though you still have much more money than I do.

So rent is unfair.

Since I can't choose to NOT pay to sleep, landlords charge me as much as they want. Paying their whole mortgage, generally.

I worked in construction. Housing costs have little to do with the actual cost and effort to build a house. Many owners here in San Diego have owned their rentals for years and still charge what a current mortgage payment would be.

I could build a comfortable yurt with solar power and a composting toilet for about a months pay.

So 25%+ of my gross output for my entire working life is obscene.
 
So rent is unfair.

Since I can't choose to NOT pay to sleep, landlords charge me as much as they want. Paying their whole mortgage, generally.
Well, you could choose to be homeless, or a squatter, or couch surf at friends or family. But besides that, no, landlords can only charge as much as people will pay. You are not coerced to pay any particular amount of rent or live in any particular place. You chose to pay the rent you pay based on many different considerations and cost, not all of which were monetary.

I worked in construction. Housing costs have little to do with the actual cost and effort to build a house. Many owners here in San Diego have owned their rentals for years and still charge what a current mortgage payment would be.
Because they can find people willing to pay those rents. If they could not, they could either live in the rentals themselves or sell them.

I could build a comfortable yurt with solar power and a composting toilet for about a months pay.
Then why don't you?
 
Well, you could choose to be homeless, or a squatter, or couch surf at friends or family. But besides that, no, landlords can only charge as much as people will pay. You are not coerced to pay any particular amount of rent or live in any particular place. You chose to pay the rent you pay based on many different considerations and cost, not all of which were monetary.

Because they can find people willing to pay those rents. If they could not, they could either live in the rentals themselves or sell them.

Then why don't you?

They can charge what they want because the law requires that you pay to sleep, legally.

It is illegal to sleep without paying everywhere. Even the wilderness areas require a pass, and foraging is technically forbidden.

The whole landlord thing is an ugly thing we drug with us from Europe.

I don't own dirt. All the dirt is owned and great wealth is acquired by denying others access to it. So a yurt is out of the question. And even if I owned dirt, a yurt isn't a tradeable commodity so it will not be permitted.
 
And you have not defined what "fair" means. The closest you've come to defining "fair" is to say that it would be other than our current tax structure.

Stop harping about "what is fair?" (I should tell you how to research a doctorate thesis in economics? No-way, José! Do it yourself!)

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.

For your edification (the history of Federal taxation - look at years following Reckless Ronnie's election from 1980 on):
b08ea4a2-362a-45ad-b8b8-fe3165f01599.PNG


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

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:
With inequality at its highest levels in nearly a century and public debate rising over whether the government should respond to it through higher taxes on the wealthy, the very richest Americans have financed a sophisticated and astonishingly effective apparatus for shielding their fortunes. Some call it the “income defense industry,” consisting of a high-priced phalanx of lawyers, estate planners, lobbyists and anti-tax activists who exploit and defend a dizzying array of tax maneuvers, virtually none of them available to taxpayers of more modest means.
 
Stop harping about "what is fair?"
Many many times I and others have complained about people not sticking to the thread topic: this is the first time I’ve seen a thread originator complain about someone trying to discuss the thread topic.

(I should tell you how to research a doctorate thesis in economics? No-way, José! Do it yourself!)
While I do only hold a BA in Economics (and modern foreign languages) I have studied public policy economics and spent over a decade working with the governments of developing and transitional economies on their various issues. Defying your terms precisely for your context is vital for any economic discussion.

[wuote]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.[/quote] that’s an assertion, not an argument.

To add to the irony, I’ve spent a lot of time explaining to Conservatives why neither a flat tax or the so-called Fair-Tax are not actually fair in the sense that they impose a greater burden on the poor.

Now, feel free to rephrase the OP, but you have a minimum responsibility to define your terms and explain your reasoning. I can’t even start to discuss whether your claims are right or wrong without some kind of framework.
 
Pohtato Pahtato. A chance is a chance. Doesn't matter if you put "equal" before it or not. In the end, its all about choices. Lots of black kids from poor neighborhoods have become rich because they made the right choices. Plenty of black lawyers, doctors, athletes, actors, politicians etc etc came from poor upbringings.

"Plenty"? What a load of bull****. A black person can take all the right choices, and still not dig him/herself out of the projects... because when push comes to shove, he will be met with racism, something a white person wont be burdened with.

On top of that please... you have a white kid from a rich family vs a black kid or white from a poor family... who has the best chance of achieving something in life?
 
ECONOMIC FAIRNESS

The single most common thread throughout the history of mankind is its evolution in terms of societal “fairness”. But neither are you or I a Roman slave, nor a medieval serf, nor an indentured servant in the 16th/17th century, nor a black slave in the 18th/19th century America.

We are (supposedly) “free”. But are we? Perhaps in name only?

What has happened recently in the US (called the Great Recession) is a repeat of the Roaring Twenties and the subsequent stock-market crash. Why’s that?

Because there was/is too much money in the hands of too few people. The 1Percenters as a class have a net worth of close to 2 trillion dollars. Which indicates that something is dangerously wrong with our system of taxation that so much should be concentrated and owned by so few.

There's an “horrendous” amount of money, that trickles upwards to become Wealth; and then back down dynastically to inheritors who did not earn a penny of it. The result is the perpetuation of Income Disparity.

A HISTORY OF INCOME-TAX UNFAIRNESS IN AMERICA

Taxation history is the obvious culprit:

*Historical info-graphic of US tax-rates:
800px-Historical_Marginal_Tax_Rate_for_Highest_and_Lowest_Income_Earners.jpg



Moreover:
*Note how taxation was uniformly very high except in two periods, one that coincides with the Stock Market crash in 1929 and the other more recently in the 1980s. Who was PotUS in the 1980s? (Reckless Ronnie)

*LBJ (of all people) in the early 1960s brought upper-income tax rates down for the level of income at which excessive revenues accumulate to select groups. Reckless Ronnie (in the 1980s) and Replicant Donald Dork have completed the hatchet-job bringing them down to the ridiculous level of 20/25%.

*This reduction in upper-level taxation is the single most factor producing the Trickle-Up Economy in which Americans now live. It leads directly to the fact that there has been a massive redistribution of income upwards; but also, since income becomes wealth, also a great redistribution of riches.

*The Paris School of Economics at their web-site (here: World Income Database) shows the evolution of Income Share by householder percentile. If you reduce the numbers, the decade-by-decade evolution of the US

@ snip @

(Note how the percentage changes from 1980 onwards. Who was PotUS during the 1980s? Reckless Ronnie!)

MY POINT?

*Our seemingly consummate desire for get-rich-quick Wealth is a corrosive sociological factor eating away at the moral fabric of the country. It leads to the sort of economic catastrophe such as the Toxic Waste Mess and the subsequent Great Recession – created by a mindless frenzy to earn a lot of money quickly by fraudulent means.

*Which has done great harm to ordinary people - and from which we have yet to see the light at the end of the tunnel. Because the unfortunate consequence is to incarcerate 15% of the American households below the Poverty Threshold. That’s nearly 50 million American men, women and children …

Q E D.?


There are at least, at last count, 7 billion separate perspectives on that question.
 
"Plenty"? What a load of bull****. A black person can take all the right choices, and still not dig him/herself out of the projects... because when push comes to shove, he will be met with racism, something a white person wont be burdened with.

On top of that please... you have a white kid from a rich family vs a black kid or white from a poor family... who has the best chance of achieving something in life?

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.

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom