• 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!

Income Inequality

What should be done to battle income inequality in the USA?

  • Do not intervene

    Votes: 39 53.4%
  • Yes, do intervene

    Votes: 34 46.6%

  • Total voters
    73
You are uninformed. The recent (last 25 years) gains in both China and India were from dumping marxist fail and utilizing free market principles. Indeed China is doing well because its done just that.


Well, that and they are manipulating the value of their currency to give their products an unfair advantage on the open market, as well as bringing jobs to their shores by short sighted business owners.
 
They still have their money taken and used for left wing causes, and in the case of county and city govt (notably city workers and school district employees) it is indeed true.

Big govt supports big govt. Power looks out for itself.

Except that unions are not government.

But yes, big government supports big government, which is why neither party has ever cut back the size and power of the federal government. The main difference between the two parties is the lip service that they pay to "limited government", but lip service is all it is.

It would be much better if neither big business nor big unions were supporting candidates and lobbying Congress, but if the boss has influence in Washington, then the workers need to have influence in Washington as well.
 
Limited liability, for starters. Tax them all equally, that's another good step. Repeal citizens united...corporations aren't people. And if they are, then put a few to death for heinous crimes committed.

That would just be the opening salvo towards leveling the playing field for business in this country.

we can repeal citizens united at the exact same time, all money goes out of politics

repeat....all money

candidates would be given a budget by local/state/feds depending on what they are running for

no money from pacs, lobbyists, companies, or persons allowed in any election

you stand on your own....no party backing you with millions and millions

if citizens wish to donate to the process, they donate to the fund that all monies are paid out of....with zero political affiliation

no entity can campaign for a candidate (no lobbyists, no unions, no robocalls, no pac ads, nothing)

i have zero issue getting rid of citizens united....lets change the entire freaking think though
 
we can repeal citizens united at the exact same time, all money goes out of politics

repeat....all money

candidates would be given a budget by local/state/feds depending on what they are running for

no money from pacs, lobbyists, companies, or persons allowed in any election

you stand on your own....no party backing you with millions and millions

if citizens wish to donate to the process, they donate to the fund that all monies are paid out of....with zero political affiliation

no entity can campaign for a candidate (no lobbyists, no unions, no robocalls, no pac ads, nothing)

i have zero issue getting rid of citizens united....lets change the entire freaking think though

100%. Hell yes.



Naturally, it won't happen. Politics is a billion dollar a year industry.
 
It isn't Walmart. Go find me some AMerican made products to buy ANYWHERE. It's not easy to do. The finest clothing stores are selling Chinese crap.

New Balance makes sneakers in America. Only one I know of.
 
End the Fed (or curtail it's power) - especially since '07 it has bailed out banks all over the world and pumped up (indirectly) the stock market. Their near-zero interest rates hurt seniors whose return on their savings are now near zip and forces them to put their money in much higher risk ventures. Plus, these 'artificially' low interest rates encourage people to take out more debt and take more chances with credit...something that the rich can afford but the middle/poor classes cannot.
It's policies have pumped - directly and indirectly - trillions of dollars into the economy...but most of it is directed at the wealthy.

Shrink the size of government - massive social programs do little but give incentive to the poor to not bother looking for work. Sure, make sure people have shelter, food and at least basic healthcare (full health care for children)...but stop it there.

Stop government meddling in the real estate market. The government/Fed/Fannie/Freddie deliberately stimulating the low income housing sector eventually helped lead to disaster. Owning a house is NOT a right, it is a privilege. Defang the Fed and kill Freddie and Fannie (stop funding them).

Stop bailing out failed corporations. This just encourages poor business decisions from these companies - since they know they will be taken care of if they mess up badly enough. Plus, it makes it MUCH harder for smaller companies to compete since they do not have the safety net their bigger competitors do.

Stop charging capital gains at a lower rate then income taxes. So many of the masses demand higher income tax rates for the rich when the fact remains that the VAST majority of the income of the mega rich is in capital gains, not income. Yet these same masses (probably because they know little of capital gains) just ignore this fact. Force these mega rich to pay the same rates for capital gains as for income.
 
Last edited:
I think its reprehensible to allow people to starve. I also think they deserve the same opportunities as these ppl had. And furthermore the majority of amazingly wealthy people (see Paris Hilton or her father) did NOTHING to earn their wealth. They were just lucky.

Basically I think they deserve the opportunity to work, at a fair and equal pay, and that it has never been afforded to them in our country's history.

Why? Why is it reprehensible? They've had the same opportunities, largely they've squandered them. They had a chance for an education, they screwed it up. They had a chance to live responsibly, they didn't do it. They got involved in things that harmed or ruined their lives, they didn't learn their lessons when they had a chance, they didn't get the experiences they were supposed to get or develop the skills they should have developed and now you want to give them extra privileges when they haven't earned them?

Are you out of your mind?
 
Globalization and international trade is not a contributing factor, IMO. What is lost in manufacturing wages is made up by the low prices, so it evens out in terms of cost of living. Comparative advantage allows for a diversification of what is produced, thus more wealth overall is produced.

Low prices don't completely offset wage losses. Rents/mortgages don't go down. Energy as well. There's an offset, but it doesn't equal out.

And too many of those cheap products are just that. Cheap. False economy. The can opener that costs half what a "good" one does doesn't last as long, and often requires so many replacements to equal the lifespan of the better one that its a net loss.
 
Low prices don't completely offset wage losses. Rents/mortgages don't go down. Energy as well. There's an offset, but it doesn't equal out.

And too many of those cheap products are just that. Cheap. False economy. The can opener that costs half what a "good" one does doesn't last as long, and often requires so many replacements to equal the lifespan of the better one that its a net loss.

But people don't care about that or even think in those terms. They care about what it costs now. If they have to buy another one in a month, that's a couple of paychecks under their belt, they'll happily buy another one.
 
Why? Why is it reprehensible? They've had the same opportunities, largely they've squandered them. They had a chance for an education, they screwed it up. They had a chance to live responsibly, they didn't do it. They got involved in things that harmed or ruined their lives, they didn't learn their lessons when they had a chance, they didn't get the experiences they were supposed to get or develop the skills they should have developed and now you want to give them extra privileges when they haven't earned them?

Are you out of your mind?


what happened to people like that 50, 100, 150 years ago

people who just didnt want to get with the program?

did ranchers keep them on their drives? or force them out into the wilderness?

we have always had those who wanted to do as little as possible.....

but unlike now, those people werent treated as kindly as they are now

they were thrown out on their ass.....

they were put into debtor's prisons

they rummaged around garbage dumps for scraps to eat

and they died.....lots and lots of them died

and i ask myself.....

are we making the right decisions enabling them today?

i really wonder at times
 
what happened to people like that 50, 100, 150 years ago

people who just didnt want to get with the program?

did ranchers keep them on their drives? or force them out into the wilderness?

we have always had those who wanted to do as little as possible.....

but unlike now, those people werent treated as kindly as they are now

they were thrown out on their ass.....

they were put into debtor's prisons

they rummaged around garbage dumps for scraps to eat

and they died.....lots and lots of them died

and i ask myself.....

are we making the right decisions enabling them today?

i really wonder at times

I don't think we are. I'm fine with a very basic social safety net that catches people when they fall and puts them back on their feet. That's not what we have in this country. We don't allow them to get off the public dole, we don't allow them to better themselves, we actively discourage it and then we wonder why half the country is getting a government welfare paycheck.

We become strong by making our citizens strong, not by coddling them.
 
But people don't care about that or even think in those terms. They care about what it costs now. If they have to buy another one in a month, that's a couple of paychecks under their belt, they'll happily buy another one.

False economy. An illusion that one is saving money while their can opening costs actually go up.
 
You are uninformed. The recent (last 25 years) gains in both China and India were from dumping marxist fail and utilizing free market principles. Indeed China is doing well because its done just that.


well by whose standards? Their doing better than they were for the most part true, but their rural people are doing worse as they have had their lands taken against their will to make room for economic expansion. This is killing means for food production and will come around to bite them in the butt

Their socioeconomic gaps have grown

[QUOTE/]The wealth data, although a less rigorous measure of inequality, is also reflected in more conventional measures of inequality.
construction project in Beijing China's cities are growing rapidly

In 2010, China's Gini-coefficient - a measure of how wealth is distributed in a society - stood at 0.47 (a value of 0 suggests total equality, a value of 1 extreme inequality).

In other words, inequality in China has now surpassed that in the United States, and surged through the 0.4 level in the mid-2000s.[/QUOTE]

and wile I do think mixed market economy's are the best system, that does mean you need socialist leanings as well as capitalist ones. They need to be in balance.

China is also curtailing what could have been a huge crash in their housing market through strong regulations. A very not free market thing to do...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapo...-as-china-housing-bubble-continues-deflating/
 
Not sure what you are getting at. I'm saying international trade is not causing income inequality. In fact, it is dramatically raising the living standards of less wealthy nations as we speak. It is bridging the gap.

A recent study says its slowing, and we can expect another 50-100 years for them to catch up enough for American wages to start to climb again.
 
Well, that and they are manipulating the value of their currency to give their products an unfair advantage on the open market, as well as bringing jobs to their shores by short sighted business owners.

This is true, but India isn't known for that and they also have seen a massive exodus from poverty, after decades of failed marxist policies.
 
Except that unions are not government.

But yes, big government supports big government, which is why neither party has ever cut back the size and power of the federal government. The main difference between the two parties is the lip service that they pay to "limited government", but lip service is all it is.

It would be much better if neither big business nor big unions were supporting candidates and lobbying Congress, but if the boss has influence in Washington, then the workers need to have influence in Washington as well.

It may not be govt, but its involuntary, leads to more big govt, and isn't known for efficiency or quality-so one could argue there's no difference.
 
It's indisputable fact that income inequality in the United States has grown substantially in the past few decades.

Median nominal incomes, adjusted for inflation, have not gone up in the USA since the 50's. (Median is the halfway point, so we are talking about the middle-earner). In contrast, the per capita GDP has risen quite dramatically, due to the increased purchasing power of the upper echelon.


I pose three questions to you:

1.) What has caused this phenomenon
2.) What are the long term implications if the trend is allowed to continue
3.) What, if anything, should be done to adjust our course


Thanks

The irony is that they've already intervened, and done so for 50 years.
 
we can repeal citizens united at the exact same time, all money goes out of politics

repeat....all money

candidates would be given a budget by local/state/feds depending on what they are running for

no money from pacs, lobbyists, companies, or persons allowed in any election

you stand on your own....no party backing you with millions and millions

if citizens wish to donate to the process, they donate to the fund that all monies are paid out of....with zero political affiliation

no entity can campaign for a candidate (no lobbyists, no unions, no robocalls, no pac ads, nothing)

i have zero issue getting rid of citizens united....lets change the entire freaking think though

Never going to happen. Amongst the problems are someones going to have to be the first to take this no-money hit. Find a politician willing to do that by championing this.
 
False economy. An illusion that one is saving money while their can opening costs actually go up.

You say that like people care. No matter how true it might be in reality, people just aren't interested in that. They look at the amount of money they have on hand, the cost of the various items they have to choose from and make a decision based on that. Long-term use is the farthest thing from their mind.
 
This is true, but India isn't known for that and they also have seen a massive exodus from poverty, after decades of failed marxist policies.

Not true. The wealth gap in india continues to grow steadily, and again while the birth of a middle class their has pulled some out of poverty, it has delved others deeper into it.
 
Not true. The wealth gap in india continues to grow steadily, and again while the birth of a middle class their has pulled some out of poverty, it has delved others deeper into it.

No it hasn't the number in poverty is greatly diminished. Even with a "gap" (what lefties love to cite as "evidence" of a problem :roll:) everyone has benefited.
 
Since govt employees are REQUIRED to join these public sector unions, and since the money they forcibly take are spent supporting dems, even against the wishes of the employee-thats not good enough.

If the Republican candidates offered union support, I'm sure the money would follow. Conservatives unfortunately don't appreciate a fair and balanced debate between organized business matched with organized labor.
 
It's nothing the government has any business interfering in.

Moreover, it's no cause for concern whatsoever.

You're doing that forgetting the lessons of history thing again.

MANY revolutionary periods were precipitated by extreme income/wealth inequality.

We're not at that point yet, but heading that way.

So it simply isn't accurate to claim there's "no concern".
 
If the Republican candidates offered union support, I'm sure the money would follow. Conservatives unfortunately don't appreciate a fair and balanced debate between organized business matched with organized labor.


i have zero issues with unions under the following restrictions

1. it has to be an open shop.....we live in a democracy.....not fair to make people join something they dont necessarily believe in

2. Dues have to be optional.....if the union does good work, then the dues will be paid.....if not, the union leaders can starve

I dont really think unions are necessary myself anymore.....but if people want them, fine

But they have to be open....not dictorial
 
Back
Top Bottom