• 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!

How unequal is your state?

Lafayette said:
From the Economic Policy Institute: The New Gilded Age - excerpt:



If Income Disparity does not disturb you, then you are living on the wrong planet.

The US is back to where it was before the Revolution, when the King of England and his henchmen were profiting from the notable riches of the "colonies". How do you think Pennsylvania got it's name? It means "Penn's Woods", which was a gift to William Penn from King Charles II of England for "services rendered". (See here.)

And from that glorious revolution against the British monarchy that we had in 1776, here we are 242 years later with the same disposition of income going unfairly to a highly select and very small percentage of the population.

Which economists at the UofCal researched and depicted as such:
20141108_FNC156.png



Just how long as a nation will we continue to deny the truth of Gross Income Disparity as shown above? Just how long will it take for us to do-something-about-it? How long before it all explodes in our face - just like it did in 1776!

And more recently in the Watts Riots of 1965. Can't happen again? Oh, yes it can.

"I have a dream" has turned into a nightmare and not just for the blacks ...
Click to expand...

Seems like a lot of people envy "the rich" for their possessions and seem to not want to put in the work to become one of "the rich".

I'm certainly not one of "the rich". I could have been more rich than I am, but didn't like the path that lay before me to get there. My choice.

The simple truth is that we all make our own choices and are all saddled with the resulting outcomes.

Deal with it.

if you want to be rich then work harder and smarter get rich. You're living in the USA for God's sake. Stop bitchin' and start working!
 
Lafayette said:
Never said pay should be equal. Communism proved that fallacy.

I was referring to fair-and-equitable income, the definition of which is (from here):


What is the principal reasoning behind the above. Again, from the same source:


I have coloured the last phrase above because though lowering-incentives is possible, there is an alternative that "incentive" will be compromised. Yes, that will happen in some sectors. But, the fact that (for instance) with a guaranteed income one is not constantly looking for work means also that people can turn to obtaining the tertiary-education that most job-sectors are exacting.

It gives workers throughout their working-career the ability to change work-sectors; that is, find jobs where jobs exist if they have the right credentials. (Which they could obtain with free vocational training.)

Which is why, also, tertiary-education must be free, gratis and for nothing (as it is in Europe) ...
Click to expand...

Wealth inequality is an interesting idea, but is essentially meaningless in todays USA. Take a country like Haiti where families don't eat for days at a time that are lucky to live in mud huts with dirt floors and you see what poverty is.

The USA holds over 40% of the world's personal wealth. The population of the USA is well below 40% of the world's total population. Actually, less than 5%.

By contrast, the new number two country in personal wealth held, is China. China's citizens hold a little over 10% of the world's personal wealth and their population is about 20% of the world's total.

USA: 330 million hold 40% of the World's wealth. China: 1,415 million hold 10% of the world's wealth. Do the math.

This shows the utter ridiculousness of your premise on its face.

Beyond that, The top end of the spectrum is always rising due to the opportunities presented in the USA and the floor is also rising. Even those that have checked out choosing to crap on the street in San Fran are not starving in the street.

Income inequality represents the growing gap, but that gap exists between the astronomically-higher-than-ever richest and the rest of us that are just getting richer at a moderated pace.

Your prescription is a demand that we destroy the system that has created the wealthiest, most pampered population in the history of this planet.

RU Nuckin futs?


America Is the Richest, and Most Unequal, Nation | Fortune
<snip>
The richest countries

Not surprisingly, the U.S., Canada and European countries dominate the top 10 list of wealthiest countries. But this year, for the first time, China moved past Japan in the number #2 spot, largely because of the appreciation last year of equity markets there. The U.S. remains in the top spot, with 41.6% of the world’s wealth, according to the report by Allianz, a financial services giant.

Here are the top 10 countries, with their percentages of total global personal wealth.

United States — 41.6%
China — 10.5%
Japan — 8.9%
U.K. — 5.6%
Germany — 3.9%
France — 3.5%
Canada — 3.0%
Italy — 2.9%
Australia — 2.0%
South Korea — 1.6%
<snip>
 
Last edited:
Lafayette said:
"Barry" was screwed by the Replicants when they won control of the HofR in the mid-terms of 2009.

As of 2010, the Replicants refused all-further-stimulus spending, which caused the economy to stop-creating-jobs.

Don't believe that do you? Then let's look at what the Bureau of Labor Statistics displays about the Employment-to-population Ratio from 2010 onward. From here:
latest_numbers_LNS12300000_2008_2018_all_period_M06_data.gif


Yup! No net job creation due to the idiocy of the Replicant-controlled HofR from 2010 to 2014 that refused all stimulus-spending by Obama! (In 2014, all by itself, the economy kick-started itself out of the Great Recession. Long before Donald Dork arrived on the scene!)

Eat your heart out ...
Click to expand...

Always an excuse...
 
haymarket said:
Yes, there will always be disparity. But there is acceptable disparity and then there is disparity which serves to derail the train of social order.
Click to expand...

That phrase is well-put and I agree wholeheartedly.

Unfortunately, we have an electorate that is viscerally against any change. Why? Go figure.

Change for what? (They might ask.) Bernie was the only one who told them "what". And, he got only so far.

Just because they are afraid of it - the "what". Trump got elected not by telling us he would change things, but because he insisted that the US was getting screwed on Trade. Which it isn't. (Just another lie out of his pack-of-lies upon which he's built his life.)

And, it would help if Americans would understand the "principle of fairness" that was inborn when this country started. We fought a revolution to free ourselves from a British monarch that owned everything, only to find ourselves more than two centuries later in the very same pickle. (A tiny, minor percentage of the population own most of the nation's wealth.)

Economic-Fairness, for the present, which economic-research has shown, is nothing but a pipe-dream ...
 
And nothing will be done about until we, the sheeple, decide it has to be done ...
 
code1211 said:
Wealth inequality is an interesting idea, but is essentially meaningless in todays USA.
Click to expand...

Bollocks.

You've missed the point messing around with the figures.

It is not the Total Amount of Wealth that matters, but the manner in which it is distributed!

And this shows how badly Income Disparity really is in the US - which is our ONLY CONCERN:
us-wealth-inequality-chart.jpg
 
code1211 said:
The simple truth is that we all make our own choices and are all saddled with the resulting outcomes.

Deal with it.
Click to expand...

I'm talking policy, your talking nonsense.

Europe has dealt with it! Higher taxation that pays for both a low-cost (to the patient) National Health Care and nearly free Tertiary Education.

And all you've got in response is drivel ...
 
sangha said:
Why does he need any other argument?
Click to expand...

The Replicants on this forum will NEVER understand.

They'be bought the hogwash that the US is one helluva market-economy and if you "play it right" you come on top.

If you don't, that's just bad luck.

Any notion of equitability is lost in that jungle of nonsensical "life is all about me, me, me".

When it's actually all about "us, us, us" ....
 
Kal'Stang said:
So what planet am I supposed to be living on? Income disparity will always exist to varying degrees as long as we have a system based on money. Hollering about it is about as worthless as hollering at the moon.
Click to expand...

And yet every revolution ever was in response to unchecked greed and hunger for power.

Getting money and making people obey you is rewarded with addictive neurochemicals.

Y'all lionize addicts.
 
What if...? said:
And yet every revolution ever was in response to unchecked greed and hunger for power.

Getting money and making people obey you is rewarded with addictive neurochemicals.

Y'all lionize addicts.
Click to expand...

Bold: ...unchecked greed and hunger for power by those in government. I finished that sentence for you. ;) One of the biggest reasons for the American Revolution was because of high taxation. It's one of the biggest reasons that socialism is doomed to fail until you get rid of the currency system. And even then it will probably fail due to power hungry individuals that end up getting into power.
 
Lafayette said:
Never said pay should be equal. Communism proved that fallacy.

I was referring to fair-and-equitable income, the definition of which is (from here):


What is the principal reasoning behind the above. Again, from the same source:


I have coloured the last phrase above because though lowering-incentives is possible, there is an alternative that "incentive" will be compromised. Yes, that will happen in some sectors. But, the fact that (for instance) with a guaranteed income one is not constantly looking for work means also that people can turn to obtaining the tertiary-education that most job-sectors are exacting.

It gives workers throughout their working-career the ability to change work-sectors; that is, find jobs where jobs exist if they have the right credentials. (Which they could obtain with free vocational training.)

Which is why, also, tertiary-education must be free, gratis and for nothing (as it is in Europe) ...
Click to expand...

I asked you to show me any economic system on the planet where there is no disparity in wages.


I see that you can't produce any?
 
sangha said:
Why does he need any other argument?
Click to expand...

What, exactly, in our constituion makes it OK for the federal government to take income from citizen A and give it to citzen B simply to help make their incomes (outcomes?) more equal? Does the 16A imply any such thing?
 
Lafayette said:
Any notion of equitability is lost in that jungle of nonsensical "life is all about me, me, me".

When it's actually all about "us, us, us" ....
Click to expand...

I'm going to be cold here :Trigger Warning: What I am going to say may trigger some. Please be sure to have your safe space in an easily accessible location and full of the necessary stuffed animals, play-doe, and crayons.

Why should I care about someone that I don't know enough to give up our Rights?
 
VanceMack said:
Income disparity would concern me...if the rich were stealing the poor widdle peoples pennies. They arent, and nothing that the rich earn detracts from the earning potential of the poor. This is all just pathetic communist trolling. The poor are not poor because of the rich. The poor will not be elevated BY the rich.

A burger flipper at McDonalds makes a few dollars more minimum wage per hour. That what the job is worth. The CEO of McDonalds makes 1000 times more than that...literally...because thats what THAT job is worth. The burger flipper is, hopefully, an unskilled kid in an entry level job or a highschool student earning part time money or a person working a 2nd job to make ends meet. The burger flipper should not be planning on that existence being a career and providing a 'liveable wage'. And if they are...their failing at providing for their family is on them, not the corporate CEO.
Click to expand...

You will note that the CEO decides he's worth that much.

And votes to approve what the ceos on the boards that HE sits on want.

Wages have been stagnant for decades because the wealthy simply decided they didn't want to "share" in increases in productivity.

I know, I know, investments in technology.

But that's ALWAYS been the case. They were investing in technology between ww2 and the mid seventies too.
 
What if...? said:
You will note that the CEO decides he's worth that much.

And votes to approve what the ceos on the boards that HE sits on want.

Wages have been stagnant for decades because the wealthy simply decided they didn't want to "share" in increases in productivity.

I know, I know, investments in technology.

But that's ALWAYS been the case. They were investing in technology between ww2 and the mid seventies too.
Click to expand...
The CEO doesnt decide he or she is worth that much. The board does. The stockholders/shareholders do. None of this has any relevance when it comes to the worth of a job that should be held by a 16 year old high school kid and not some 34 year old adult thinking they should be able to provide for a family as a burger flipper. And since you bring technology into the mix, we find that technology is the answer to the people that demand a $15 an hour wage for a $7 an hour job....they get replaced.

Whining about the top does nothing to help the poor. Trying to artificially drive up wages for unskilled burger flippers doesnt 'help' anyone. It causes them to face reduced hours or to just get outright replaced,and when the wages ALL go up, so does the pricetag on all goods and services.
 
RetiredUSN said:
I asked you to show me any economic system on the planet where there is no disparity in wages.


I see that you can't produce any?
Click to expand...

I answered your question. You don't know how to read English ...
 
ttwtt78640 said:
What, exactly, in our constituion makes it OK for the federal government to take income from citizen A and give it to citzen B simply to help make their incomes (outcomes?) more equal?
Click to expand...

The 16th Amendment

Does the 16A imply any such thing?
Click to expand...

Yes, the 16th allows that. Can you quote the part of the Constitution which forbids that?
 
Lafayette said:
TOO MUCH IS TOO MUCH



Yes, your right. Income Differences will always exist, and they should. Some people will earn more than others because of a variety of causes. Most of which boil-down to one central element. Level of education. (Or maybe two - luck enters into the equation as well.)

But Income DISPARITY is something else. In means "great difference", not just a progressive curve for higher incomes as a consequence of a higher job-status. (Or winning the lottery. Whatever.)

Moreso, however, is the fact that upper-income tax-policy has created this unfairness. (Key word, that one.)

When does fair income differences become unfair income disparity? My knowledge of economic literature shows no real definition of a "finite amount". It's up to each nation to define "fairness".

The purpose of the infographic in my post above is to show how much the unfairness is concentrated in a very, very tiny portion of the national population.

That concentration, dear friends, is GROSSLY UNFAIR!

So, what is a fair and generous income beyond which taxation should recuperate 100%? That's a difficult question that nobody seems to have the courage to touch.

THE CONSEQUENCE

The billions of dollars that Donald Dork's offspring are going to inherit is undue. They never earned it, they just had the good fortune to be born with the right parent(s). They are in the same gallery as big-stake winners in Las Vegas.

Which puts the finger on the key-problem with the rationale of Income Fairness. Just what amount gained in what fashion is unfair???

And, as much as I like to play poker, any tremendous gain at the tables or slot-machines of Las Vegas should be taxed at 100%.

Which is a notion that grates present American thinking, "Well, I earned it because I played the game!"

Yes, indeed. But, like any game, it has rules. And the amount won is one of those rules.

Besides, one can live-like-a-king with minions kissing-their-arses at about $500K nowadays. So, 500 megabucks obtained in whatever the legal-manner is clearly confiscatable under the new guidelines for abolishing Income Disparity.

But, that does not mean we cannot have the rich or even the super-rich. It simple means that getting to be super-duper rich is no longer possible because high gains (at 100% taxation) are applied above a certain level. Let's say, 2 megabucks of earnings a year, however those earnings are made (even if gifted by parents).

You can't live like royalty, with mansions (and a Ferrari in the garage) all around the world and a private jet to get them on $2M a year?

Oh yes you can! (It just takes a bit longer to do so.)

END-GAMES

The important bit is at the end. That is Inheritance Taxation. The "lifetime earnings" of an individual must allow them to give-it-all-back in the form of grants to specific institutions (like education, or social assistance, etc.) A small portion should go to direct descendants. A tiny, tiny portion - because they will have obtained already by direct donation from living parents most of what they really need.

And if they didn't, then that's too bad.

...
Click to expand...

I am all for progressive taxation, but 100% taxation is ridiculous. What incentive would there be to continue working or “playing the game” if you are taxed at 100%?

After decades of working for other people and serving in the military I have been fortunate enough to have created a company that earns me a very good living. I also have subcontractors all around the planet who make good money off the business I bring them.

But if at $500K or $1M or whatever mark I start getting taxed at 100% do you know what I am going to do? I am going to stop working until the next fiscal year. I am not going to spend hours at the office, days traveling away from my family, and the occasional hazardous duty assignment for free.if I am going to get paid zero dollars then I might as well hang out with my family or binge watch Netflix.

But here is the thing, I produce hundreds of thousands of dollars per month in income for my subcontractors. If I stop working then they lose that income as well, as do the people they sometimes have to pay.

Again, I am a staunch advocate of progressive taxation, but a 100% tax rate will only make things worse because it won’t just impact the incomes of the wealthy. It will impact the incomes of the poor and middle class as well and they can’t afford to just take a sabbatical from work when the pay isn’t good enough.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Bold: ...unchecked greed and hunger for power by those in government. I finished that sentence for you. ;) One of the biggest reasons for the American Revolution was because of high taxation. It's one of the biggest reasons that socialism is doomed to fail until you get rid of the currency system. And even then it will probably fail due to power hungry individuals that end up getting into power.
Click to expand...

Oh ffs.

Socialism is new.

Greed and hunger for power (money IS power for all intents and purposes) have been a problem since we adopted the sedentary lifestyle. Rigid heirarchies.

And OUR government is doing the bidding of money FAR more than the will of the voters. The statistics are clear. If money wants it they get it even when the vast majority of the voters don't, and vice versa.

But you go ahead and attribute a 12,000 year old phenomenon to a hundred year old ideology.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I'm going to be cold here :Trigger Warning: What I am going to say may trigger some. Please be sure to have your safe space in an easily accessible location and full of the necessary stuffed animals, play-doe, and crayons.

Why should I care about someone that I don't know enough to give up our Rights?
Click to expand...

You seem to be only looking at income inequality as an emotional argument. You don't have to care about the oil in your car to know that it's an important part of how your car functions. If wages remain stagnant, and other costs continue to rise, the consumer base becomes weaker which is a bad thing in a capitalist economy. Income inequality shows us that there is no reason for wages to be stagnant because businesses are making more than ever.
 
What if...? said:
Oh ffs.

Socialism is new.

Greed and hunger for power (money IS power for all intents and purposes) have been a problem since we adopted the sedentary lifestyle. Rigid heirarchies.

And OUR government is doing the bidding of money FAR more than the will of the voters. The statistics are clear. If money wants it they get it even when the vast majority of the voters don't, and vice versa.

But you go ahead and attribute a 12,000 year old phenomenon to a hundred year old ideology.
Click to expand...

Socialism isn't new. It's literally been around for a couple hundred years. It's just a few years younger than the US in fact.
 
MrPeanut said:
You seem to be only looking at income inequality as an emotional argument. You don't have to care about the oil in your car to know that it's an important part of how your car functions. If wages remain stagnant, and other costs continue to rise, the consumer base becomes weaker which is a bad thing in a capitalist economy. Income inequality shows us that there is no reason for wages to be stagnant because businesses are making more than ever.
Click to expand...

Bold: Those that complain about income inequality are making emotional arguments. It's all that they have.

Rest: And if businesses keep the wages stagnant to long while raising the prices of things then they will have no one except other business owners that can buy their products. Really think that they will let that happen? They like their money too much.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Bold: Those that complain about income inequality are making emotional arguments. It's all that they have.

Rest: And if businesses keep the wages stagnant to long while raising the prices of things then they will have no one except other business owners that can buy their products. Really think that they will let that happen? They like their money too much.
Click to expand...

They are making a functional argument. If most people don't have enough money to consume things it is bad for the economy. It may be couched in words like "greed", but it is still attacking the same point. Businesses haven't had to worry too much yet about people not having ways to consume things. As wages began to stagnate a second person could enter the job market, and when that wasn't enough people could consume on credit, and as that began to backfire welfare stepped in to hold people up. As tax payers we subsidize tons of businesses which allows them to continue to increase profits without increasing pay. Income inequality is important because at the root of it is a decision to not pay workers above a certain level. It puts more of a burden on the middle class and continually puts downward pressure on those already struggling. It isn't sustainable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom