• 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!

Is Fixing Income Inequality Actually Un-American?

AlbqOwl said:
Now who is being selfish? The person who earned the money and the right to use it as he/she chooses? Or the person who wants some of what he/she has not earned or who wants to deny others opportunity to earn?
Click to expand...
That is not the comparison I made, I made the comparison between two earners, one who is selfishly motivated, and one who is more charitable. Those who are less charitable, more selfish....are less motivated by higher taxes....and again, I am fine with that outcome.
 
Thrilla said:
due the machinations of modern finance, i'm utterly unconcerned of the cost ( as long as the program is enacted at the federal level)...therefore, I don't seek to quantify anything....I just know that it's a simple program, easily financed, every single citizen benefits from it directly( rich or poor, black or white,we all get the same rate), and it does not pit one demographic against another.... it's literally equal across the board.

our system is currently highly complex, so even trying to quantify costs versus savings would be tough, to any degree of accuracy.... I can't list every program that currently used to dole out payments to citizens, let alone account for how many dollars are at stake for each program....

about the only concern i have is how many federal employees would be out of a job once enacted... and to be honest, i'm more concerned about the game of thrones finale than I am bureaucrats being employed by the government.

as for the exact amount to assign, i think it gets a lil tricky there, due to regional cost of living differences... but its a solvable equation. ..we might, for example, peg it to current poverty levels for enactment, and subsequently peg it to inflation for future calculations... i dunno.

unfortunately, i think it's a pipe dream right now... neither the establishments of the left nor the right are supportive of such a thing, for differing reasons.... but i think with time it will become much more appealing.( i'll be long dead and gone by then)
one fo hte bugger impediments against such a notion right now is that it doesn't bring with it power .... politicians , more than anything, are interested in power... division and strife among the populace brings power, not sensible and equal policy approaches.
Click to expand...
All good points, of which I agree.

There has been recent limited implementation of guaranteed income in one or two Scandinavian countries, but I was disappointed to see it fail the Swiss referendum - it would've been a great test laboratory for this.

There also was quite a while ago in the 70's under Pierre Trudeau a Canadian city that seemingly had success with it as an experiment (Mincome), and it did seem to be meeting its goals until a few years later the incoming conservative government shut it down not allowing the final report to come out.
 
Chomsky said:
All good points, of which I agree.

There has been recent limited implementation of guaranteed income in one or two Scandinavian countries, but I was disappointed to see it fail the Swiss referendum - it would've been a great test laboratory for this.

There also was quite a while ago in the 70's under Pierre Trudeau a Canadian city that seemingly had success with it as an experiment (Mincome), and it did seem to be meeting its goals until a few years later the incoming conservative government shut it down not allowing the final report to come out.
Click to expand...

aye, the politics of this will be difficult to overcome ( again, politicians are interested in power, and this doesn't give an avenue for them to gain power)... the economics are quite simple in contrast though.

unfortunately, such a program would require a lengthy time to educate the public... and such an education would necessarily be based in factual information( instead of the usual political spin we see nowadays)

time and facts are not something Americans do very well...especailly in incredibly politically polarized times.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
That is not the comparison I made, I made the comparison between two earners, one who is selfishly motivated, and one who is more charitable. Those who are less charitable, more selfish....are less motivated by higher taxes....and again, I am fine with that outcome.
Click to expand...

yes, the government should punish earners with higher taxes if their motivations are not to your personal liking... brilliant **** plan.:roll:
 
Gimmesometruth said:
We could start with an easy one.......how about "no discrimination based on race, sex, orientation..."?

Did we get to a more perfect environment without govt intervention from this aspect?
Click to expand...

Ok, so how is the state telling a business they must ignore their objections to a transaction fair?
 
I find the entire 'income inequality' discussion foolish and patently-partisan-political.
In fact, it's one of the most nonsensical notions I have ever studied.

There is no right or guarantee in any society that one person is supposed to make as much money as everyone else.

Most of us work really hard for what we have, and many of us struggled thru college and/or technical schools in order to earn a good wage.

I have no use for the notion that a man or woman who isn't willing to work hard (and who isn't motivated enough to get a college education, or at least bust their ass in a decent trade school) should be handed the same annual income and standard of living as the truly motivated among us.

:neutral:
 
Thrilla said:
yes, the government should punish earners with higher taxes if their motivations are not to your personal liking... brilliant **** plan.:roll:
Click to expand...
We have all sorts of laws to cause more pro-societal actions and to curb anti-social behavior.

yoos gotta problem wit dat?
 
Sparky2 said:
I find the entire 'income inequality' discussion foolish and patently-partisan-political.
In fact, it's one of the most nonsensical notions I have ever studied.

There is no right or guarantee in any society that one person is supposed to make as much money as everyone else.
Click to expand...
Probably because you never understood the term, the concept.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Probably because you never understood the term, the concept.
Click to expand...

There isn't much behind the concept. :shrug: Unless you desire absolute equality in wealth there is no sound foundation to base anything on.
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
From where we are now, do you believe that we would/could ever get to a place of real fairness without strong government intervention? If so, what mechanism do you think would bring about or enforce this fairness?
Click to expand...

Government intervention got us to where we are with current inequality. Take away government issued marriage rights and estate and inheritance rights and you would have more equality. Marriage rights allow transfers of money to a spouse outside of the tax code, as well as causing c. 25% of inequality since high earners tend to marry other high earners. Inheritance, trust, estate laws allow the, mainly, tax free, transfer of money to others, typically children. If people stood on their own merit, without family connections, there would be more fairness. You are not your parent or children and money from them or to them should be treated like any other form of income.

Take John Kerry. A successful guy starts a business, Heinz, and earns millions. He dies and his wife gets millions without the normal 38% tax rate due to government laws on insurance, trusts, estates, etc. And then the widow marries John Kerry who basically gets those millions tax free and his/her children will get it soon. Heinz earned that money and since he is dead, he doesn't need it.

Everyone should stand on their own. You can't have liberty, equality, and fraternity when millions of unborn are set for life.
The American way, as set by native Americans, is that there is no familial wealth and power passed down and success is based on merit. Paine's Common Sense rants about familial power of Europe.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
That is not the comparison I made, I made the comparison between two earners, one who is selfishly motivated, and one who is more charitable. Those who are less charitable, more selfish....are less motivated by higher taxes....and again, I am fine with that outcome.
Click to expand...

But who is selfishly motivated? How do you determine that? Few people work for wages or profit for anybody's benefit but their own and those they support. As Adam Smith put it: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest." Is looking to our own interest being selfish? It is millions of people all working for their own self interest that creates the jobs and boosts the economy that provides options and opportunity for everybody else.

Higher taxes diminishes incentive by making risk taking - in one's own interest - less attractive. So why have higher taxes? Is it not that people want access to money they did not themselves earn for whatever purpose they intend? And they claim a noble purpose in that others DESERVE less than what they have earned.

And to me THAT is selfish.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
We could start with an easy one.......how about "no discrimination based on race, sex, orientation..."?

Did we get to a more perfect environment without govt intervention from this aspect?
Click to expand...


Those are rights. Is there actually a right not be poor? Don't the rich have a right to be rich?
 
We can easily afford to provide the necessities of life to everyone. A base standard of living. If people want more, they can work hard to get it. Sweden is approaching this by providing cash to all citizens every month.

But whenever it comes to helping people of the United States, it is shot down. A living wage is always shot down, stating prices will go up and jobs will be lost. When during the history of minimum wage increases, the majority created job growth. There were two recorded as decreasing jobs, however it was during a recession or close to one. So arguably it is probably the business cycle rather than the minimum wage increase.

Why don't we want to help other people?
 
Henrin said:
Ok, so how is the state telling a business they must ignore their objections to a transaction fair?
Click to expand...
You have the cart in front of horse, as per usual, a public business is licensed to serve the general public by the state. Just as you cannot ignore the laws of the road when given a drivers license, you cannot disregard the laws surrounding your license in operating your business. If you want a private club, where you can discriminate......you can do that, but open to the public businesses are not private clubs.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
You have the cart in front of horse, as per usual, a public business is licensed to serve the general public by the state. Just as you cannot ignore the laws of the road when given a drivers license, you cannot disregard the laws surrounding your license in operating your business. If you want a private club, where you can discriminate......you can do that, but open to the public businesses are not private clubs.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as a public business. Well, unless the state opened a store or something, but I don't know of any of those.

Btw, using licensing as your excuse is just opening up another can of worms. Why should a man or woman have to ask permission from the state to use their property as a business no matter how they wishes to run it? Why should the people accept having their rights sold back to them with governmental terms attached to those rights?
 
Gimmesometruth said:
We have all sorts of laws to cause more pro-societal actions and to curb anti-social behavior.

yoos gotta problem wit dat?
Click to expand...

yes, I have a big problem with your approach...huge, in fact....you should be wholly ashamed that you belive the government should punish people ( not actions) based solely on their motivations.
 
Moderate Right said:
Those are rights.
Click to expand...
Very Good! Gold Star!!! Now do you need to be reminded that a right can make a situation "more fair"? Did you forget what yer question was?
Is there actually a right not be poor?
Click to expand...
Who said there was (not)? Weird.
Don't the rich have a right to be rich?
Click to expand...
Um....no, don't see that one in the Constitution.

I get the feeling you forgot what yer original rhetorical question was that I answered......and now yer gonna play the "what if? " game.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Very Good! Gold Star!!! Now do you need to be reminded that a right can make a situation "more fair"? Did you forget what yer question was? Who said there was (not)? Weird.Um....no, don't see that one in the Constitution.

I get the feeling you forgot what yer original rhetorical question was that I answered......and now yer gonna play the "what if? " game.
Click to expand...

You other than all the times it is made clear that people have a right property?
 
Thrilla said:
yes, I have a big problem with your approach...huge, in fact....you should be wholly ashamed that you belive the government should punish people ( not actions) based solely on their motivations.
Click to expand...
No, I never said a person should be "punished", spanking /imprisonment, etc....

I suggest a re-reading of my response....and trying again.

Up next........"taxation is theft!!!"
 
AlbqOwl said:
I think if there was a cap on income and a threshold below which nobody could go, most would put out just enough effort to reach that cap and would do no more. And some would be satisfied with that lowest threshold. Our productivity would plummet, there would be no incentive to risk capital to produce new products or services or inventions and we would just become another mediocre country of complacent, unambitious people marking time in their own self interest.
Click to expand...

That (bolded above) is logical but would not reduce, and likely increase, the incentive for others to do the same (or better). If the biggest widget maker could not supply all of the widgets in demand (while under the income cap) then other widget makers would most likely emerge to fill the unmet demand for widgets. Whether that (forced?) widget competition would produce better widgets is the question.
 
Henrin said:
There is no such thing as a public business.
Click to expand...
Open to the public, as opposed to a private club....hurr durr.
Btw, using licensing as your excuse is just opening up another can of worms. Why should a man or woman have to ask permission from the state to use their property as a business no matter how they wishes to run it? Why should the people accept having their rights sold back to them with governmental terms attached to those rights?
Click to expand...
Yes, the anarchist argument. Lemme know how Somalia's biz environment is doing.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
No, I never said a person should be "punished", spanking /imprisonment, etc....

I suggest a re-reading of my response....and trying again.

Up next........"taxation is theft!!!"
Click to expand...

Prove that it's not theft. Oh, and before you begin don't try the "it's not illegal" defense since theft is not just a legal term. :cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom