• 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
He already told you he doesn't have one, he's just pointing out that we DO, in fact, have a problem.



Something you seem wholly incapable of understanding or admitting.

if there is no solution, there is no reason to whine

and most of the alternatives are worse

I always am amused by those who apparently have failed personal economics 101, yet they are the ones most willing to claim other people "Don't understand"

here is a fact

investments make money-if they didn't, this country would fall apart

I make a lot more than I spend. even with confiscatory tax rates of near 50% I still have a few Hundred K left over every year. and I invest that carefully. Meaning each year, I am wealthier than I was the year before

people who spent more than they bring in don't get richer
 
U
Define what you mean by "natural economic activity."

I would submit to you that throughout human history, several economic models have been applied to various civilizations and, in fact, even our American brand of capitalism continues to evolve with each generation.

Rather than be passively prescribed to my fate, I choose to understand the system we live in and to seek ways to continually improve it.

The current system suits me just fine. It has evolved and will continue to do so. I'd like to see some tax breaks eliminated in exchange for generally lower rates (both corporate and individual), and I don't think US firms should pay US taxes on profits earned abroad, but otherwise I don't care. I'd favor a national income floor but only in exchange for thorough tax reform and complete social welfare overhaul.
 
Last edited:
if there is no solution, there is no reason to whine

and most of the alternatives are worse

I always am amused by those who apparently have failed personal economics 101, yet they are the ones most willing to claim other people "Don't understand"

here is a fact

investments make money-if they didn't, this country would fall apart

I make a lot more than I spend. even with confiscatory tax rates of near 50% I still have a few Hundred K left over every year. and I invest that carefully. Meaning each year, I am wealthier than I was the year before

people who spent more than they bring in don't get richer


But if everyone saved up, didn't borrow, and only spent within their means, the value of your investments would plummet.

I'm in the same boat as you, by the way.
 
The current system suits me just fine. It has evolved and will continue to do so. I'd like to see some tax breaks eliminated in exchange for generally lower rates (both corporate and individual), and I don't think US firms should pay US taxes on profits earned abroad, but otherwise I don't care.

Macroeconomics isn't your thing, huh?
 
The concept of unions are fine. It's the state meddling and backing of said union that's the problem.

All unions do is further the idea that the interests of the employer and the interests of the employee are different and that the two parties should be pitted against each other. What should actually happen is the promotion of the idea that employers and employees interests are interconnected and it is to the interest of both parties to ensure each others well being.

I do however agree that state meddling in union affairs is a problem. Empowering one party to weaken the other will only ensure tension and imbalance.
 
if there is no solution, there is no reason to whine

and most of the alternatives are worse

I always am amused by those who apparently have failed personal economics 101, yet they are the ones most willing to claim other people "Don't understand"

here is a fact

investments make money-if they didn't, this country would fall apart

I make a lot more than I spend. even with confiscatory tax rates of near 50% I still have a few Hundred K left over every year. and I invest that carefully. Meaning each year, I am wealthier than I was the year before

people who spent more than they bring in don't get richer

I don't even make 100K a year TO invest. So how am I going to get some of that delicious pie? Not that I want it. I am relatively happy. All I want is for my experience to continue to be an option for others, and for that to happen, we have to have a healthy economy. Ours is heading towards unhealthy, and at an extremely rapid pace. Exactly because of what you have cited. Wealth creates wealth. More is made in this country by speculation, than by actual production of goods, which is why the wealthy (those who have the capital to do the speculating) are getting richer at the exponential rate that they are. Well, that, and they control our government.
 
I don't even make 100K a year TO invest. So how am I going to get some of that delicious pie? Not that I want it. I am relatively happy. All I want is for my experience to continue to be an option for others, and for that to happen, we have to have a healthy economy. Ours is heading towards unhealthy, and at an extremely rapid pace. Exactly because of what you have cited. Wealth creates wealth. More is made in this country by speculation, than by actual production of goods, which is why the wealthy (those who have the capital to do the speculating) are getting richer at the exponential rate that they are. Well, that, and they control our government.

how do you stop wealth creating wealth?
 
uh its the logical conclusion of those who whine about where the USA is heading

No it isn't. Investment is vital. It's damn near a public service.


All I and that other dude are saying is that a solution to the current trajectory WILL have to be presented at some point, or we're going to be in serious trouble.
 
I don't know. Maybe invent a group of people who are tasked with making group decisions that are in the best interest of society and larger economy? So I can focus on my own self economic interest?

I'd call it "Toverment" after you.

Why is the government managing the situation the solution? It would seem to me the problem starts and ends with the people. The government can't fix a problem that is created from how people approach the economy and each other.
 
The concept of unions are fine. It's the state meddling and backing of said union that's the problem.

And which political party backs unions? The teachers' unions, the auto unions, the telecommunication unions, the trucker unions and the 13 unions associated with General Electric....etc. etc.? Let me help you here. It is the Democratic party. Their "special interest groups" almost always are associated with "unions". Need an Obamaphone, no worries between ATT, Verizon, Sprint and others on the government dole, one will be provided for you. Got some skin invested in global warming green stocks taking off? No worry, CEO Immelt of GE one of Obama's advisors who heads a company with over 13 different unions involved, along with Goldman Sachs with skin in the game whose former CEOs are currently advisors to Obama, these corporations seem to by-pass paying taxes due to loopholes while getting favors in contracts from the government if you know what I mean in the name of "green". ;) And GE is also at the forefront for "special" treatment over their involvement in medical equipment. Hello Obamacare! And the teacher unions, well they are useful idiots to further the expansion of the federal government over education. The once big three auto unions who are the reason the big three auto industries in the US have gone down the toilet because the workers were promised one too many benefits the industry can no longer meet. And look at what that has done to Detroit!
 
why do conservatives/libertarians give more money away then socialists. YOu continue to talk out of your six as to me. You are just making stuff up hoping you are right. what sort of felony did you get popped for

and tell me-where did the federal government get the power to start the war on drugs?

Well first off they don't. That was based on a false data set that only asked about social conservatism. (a thing I don't think you would fall into, but many libs do) cons "donations" are also usually false charity's that do very little to no good for the common man. places like churches, organizations like Cato and heritage, or crazy pro lifers. Libs are more likely to give to things that do more good like tsunami relief funds or secular organizations that actually pass on a majority of the money to the poor in the form of food, clothes, blankets, etc... Also cons tend to have more money, and therefore more to give... Don't believe me? Fine believe MIT http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2148033

Second wtf is a six? Your the one that is throwing ish against the wall and seeing if it sticks, like arguing against Merriam Webster definition of "starving" I am giving you facts I have read elsewhere that can easily be found again. I am also using critical thinking, something that confounds most lawyers (they don't expect it) and most of the pop seems to lack greatly. I have not made up a thing and have sources to back it, if i dont know i research so i do. Can you say the same? Where is your source for starving only means to death huh? Or why do you still have the dated notion that cons give more then libs when at face value its equal and when it comes to real good libs give wayyyyyyy more and less selfishly (ie not donating to a church or organization that is pretty sure to help you more than others)

From Nixon, and the supreme court... FDR passed a bill to try to govern commerce, and gave the federal gov more power in doing so. Nixon (and the supreme court) falsely interpreted the law to allow them to pass drug prohibition. A good analogy would be how Obama falsely used the patriot act to do all sorts of dirty ish (before he passed ndaa) that the writers of the patriot act never intended.... (in fact they said so) At worst fdr was negligent in his writing, not complicit as you would imply. Oh and Obamas a centrist/corporatist real liberalism is all but dead.

Manufacturing/delivery felony
2 misdamenor possession charges... I had a lil keif n weed for me n my friends to smoke in with the lb....

I could have fought it, they had no probable cause to pull me, (other than being white in a neighborhood where white ppl buy dope ie heroine NOT weed) but then if my motion to dismiss failed I would have had to spend allot more on defense (which would have came out of my savings to move/start a business) plus you can't grow for commercial purposes with a felony where I'm gonna move anyway, and I did not wanna take that risk... Treatment court ensures they expunge as long as I keep my nose clean for two years and I will... Can move after one... I don't even touch the **** no mo or have it in my presence... I still sell it tho ;)

Plus I think I have a new organic hydro method I invented I could write a book on, so I don't necessarily need allot of plants to make allot of money (you can grow 4 with a med card where I'm goin, n they don't care about F's for that)

Its cool I don't mind not smoking, the worst thing is I would have moved already n the whole ordeal cost me 4300 between the loss of pot n lawyer.... Kinda sucks going to groups with crackheads n dopefeinds too but what evs...

They enrolled me in drug court of their own accord because I am white... Gawd the system is racist but the racism sort of helped me in this case... Well and hurt me if I were black they wouldn't of pulled me in the first place..

Oh well live n learn...
 
There are some very basic ways to get ahead in life and reach Income Equality

1) Wake up
2) Get up out of bed
3) Dress for work
4) Show up for work on time and be ready to do a good days work
5)Don't screw up
6) And NEVER give up

People notice what you do at work...Good or Bad. You have choices in life to make.

Some are felons and others take responsibility for themselves and don't blame others for their own mistakes in life.
One of the dumbest things I have ever read.

So if you work really hard at wal Mart or McDonalds you will get ahead? No you certainly will not..

Go away with your lying butt!
 
Unions are wrongheaded because they pit employers and employees against each other, which causes the underlining problem to get worse, not better.
Wrong. The union (in all cases except construction and pigs) protects employees from predatory employers and unsafe working conditions. And back in the day unions did great things for cops and construction worker...
 
You're under your bosses thumb everywhere you work.

And the union gets you much more money for the work you do.

There are issues with many unions. But right to work isn't about working. Its about killing unions.

So adding a union on top of your boss helps? And while it gets YOU more money, its decreases competition and raises costs to the consumer. Consumers like me who dont appreciate it.

And its lots more than simply about a bill to "kill unions", its simply a dated model of failure.
 
Income inequality is a natural result of capitalism. It means its working. Having said that there is an issue with the fact that income inequality is growing. Thats not a good thing. Gains as a result of the recent economic "recovery" are all going to the upper wealth bands. Again problem. I suspect that may be because the gains are a result of the fed printing money which is going into financial assets and real estate - both are experiencing bubbles. Problem.

The key, as always, is jobs. Good paying jobs. Incentivizing job creators to move jobs offshore needs to be addressed. Bring a lot of those jobs back by removing the incentives for companies to move jobs offshore. Lower the corporate tax rate and STFU with all the anti-business class warfare rhetoric coming from our own government.
 
Nothing to post about. I think our system is fundamentally fair.
Well then go away (and you would be horribly mistaken.)

Would a system that's "fair" have been founded by men that were so hypocritical as to preach freedom but deny to all but a select few?

Would the police of this system target minority's at alarmingly high rates compared to everyone else?

Would it allow children to be taken in by foster parents only to have them be starved and Beaten so the foster parents could make a buck? (A direct result of defending social services)

would a majority of its population feel misrepresented?

Would it bomb ppl for no reason and start wars of aggression around the world?

I think not.
 
Back
Top Bottom