• 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!

So How Much Income Inequality is TOO Much Income Inequality?

How much income inequality is TOO much income inequality?

  • I am left-leaning, and there is too much income inequality right now.

    Votes: 17 44.7%

  • I am left-leaning, and the current level is acceptable, but should not be higher

    Votes: 1 2.6%

  • I am left-leaning, and I don't think there should be a limit on the level of income inequality.

    Votes: 2 5.3%

  • I am a centrist, and there is too much income inequality right now.

    Votes: 9 23.7%

  • I am a centrist, and the current level is acceptable, but should not be higher

    Votes: 1 2.6%

  • I am a centrist, and I don't think there should be a limit on the level of income inequality.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • I am right-leaning, and there is too much income inequality right now.

    Votes: 2 5.3%

  • I am right-leaning, and the current level is acceptable, but should not be higher

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • I am right-leaning, and I don't think there should be a limit on the level of income inequality.

    Votes: 6 15.8%
  • Total voters
    38
Glen Contrarian said:
The news came out today that OXFAM found that by 2016, the richest 1% will control half of all the world's wealth.

That begs the question, then - what level of income inequality do you believe should be the upper limit, if there should be any limit at all? And if there should be a limit, how would that be achieved, since this is obviously something that can't be mandated by governments?
Click to expand...

You are misunderstanding the issue: it;s not about how much Joey makes over Johnny. It's about the earning power of more and more of America's income having been shifted toward the 1% who make nearly 60% of all of the income this country produces and the remaining 40% being divided between the upper middle class all the way down to those who are in poverty. The rest of of have no power to earn as we once did.
 
brothern said:
LOL. The last thread I was debating the conservative posters, and like them, both of you failed to actually comment on what I said.
Click to expand...

That's because most of it was yet another libertarian polemic against taxes. With a clear implication that free markets should not be regulated by governments in any way.

I'm a consequentialist libertarian. Meaning that I'm up and all for a free market economy where prices are set by the forces of supply and demand, with diverse highly competitive markets in which the means of production are primarily privately owned and operated as for-profit; BUT at the same time I don't believe that people/organizations are completely rational actors, or that market failures are made up.
Click to expand...
No free market economy of the type you described is sustainable if the second part is true.

Which all of that doesn't have much to do with the topic at hand.
Click to expand...
Yes. Exactly.

And @DifferentDrummr - Pareto's principle is an observation. It's not guidance on what is efficient or optimal.
Click to expand...
Then perhaps you might furnish some useful information for a change, instead of avoiding the issue by calling it "debatable." Why don't you tell us what percentages most economists today consider efficient and optimal?
 
DifferentDrummr said:
That's because most of it was yet another libertarian polemic against taxes. With a clear implication that free markets should not be regulated by governments in any way.
Click to expand...
You must have a hell of lot of trouble with basic reading comprehension, because I clearly stated that our tax brackets unfairly favor the wealthy, and that it's bad that the estate tax is so low.

Now are you actually going to read what I've posted, or should we just end this conversation now?

DifferentDrummr said:
No free market economy of the type you described is sustainable if the second part is true. Yes. Exactly.
Click to expand...
Sustainability is not the same thing as efficiency, now is it?

DifferentDrummr said:
Then perhaps you might furnish some useful information for a change, instead of avoiding the issue by calling it "debatable." Why don't you tell us what percentages most economists today consider efficient and optimal?
Click to expand...
... because it is debatable, which is why economists disagree as to what the most efficient/optimal level is. Economists don't even agree on what the most efficient/optimal level of GDP growth is and that's probably the most fundamental measurement of an economy.
 
Paschendale said:
It's that kind of thinking that gives everyone else thoughts of endorsing the Guillotine Party.
Click to expand...

I truly want the far lefties to rise up as they keep threatening to do. I really do.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Why wait till that "one day"? All you have to do is to move to almost any poor third-world nation and you can have that RIGHT NOW!
Click to expand...

You should revolt against the rich. especially rich gun owners. stomp out two groups you hate.
 
TurtleDude said:
I truly want the far lefties to rise up as they keep threatening to do. I really do.
Click to expand...

You have a very sick mind. Sometimes it's genuinely frightening that you are entrusted with any kind of power or influence. There's a recurring theme of abject sadism in what you have to say. It's really disturbing.
 
Meh. To me, income inequality is not so much the issue as is wealth centralization. My problem isn't with Billy Bob down the street making a few bucks more than me, it's with 1-2% of the population holding 50% of this country's wealth.

Income inequality, to an extent, will exist in any system barring pure communism. But wealth centralization is the result of a complacent populace and a spineless government body. It can be fixed. It should be fixed. It must be fixed.
 
so more bashing of the rich

question:

how much should have person have? is there a number? what is okay, and above that considered greed?

now think about that....and then put one of our new multi billionaires into that equation.....

you can go with the google guy, amazon guy, facebook guy.....they are all multi billionaires.....

they all built something from scratch...had an idea, and made it work

not only are they billionaires, but a number of other people surrounding them are very rich also

now lets talk employees....how many people do these 3 guys employ here?

what is their total payroll paid in say 2013?

is that good or bad for the economy?

do you think any of them would have made it to this point without venture capital?

some of you are so worried that person x is worth 35 billion......so what?

they are all examples of what people can do here with an idea, luck, and a lot of hard work
 
TurtleDude said:
You should revolt against the rich. especially rich gun owners. stomp out two groups you hate.
Click to expand...

You have no idea how vulnerable you are or you would not talk that way. Do you keep all your wealth in your mattress?
 
Glen Contrarian said:
The news came out today that OXFAM found that by 2016, the richest 1% will control half of all the world's wealth.

That begs the question, then - what level of income inequality do you believe should be the upper limit, if there should be any limit at all? And if there should be a limit, how would that be achieved,
since this is obviously something that can't be mandated by governments?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...



Wrong.

This can be mandated by governments.

All that it takes is enough support.

Whether it will ever actually happen is another story.
 
iguanaman said:
You have no idea how vulnerable you are or you would not talk that way. Do you keep all your wealth in your mattress?
Click to expand...

I want you to revolt. I love seeing envy driven lefties talk about revolution. Go for it
 
Paschendale said:
You have a very sick mind. Sometimes it's genuinely frightening that you are entrusted with any kind of power or influence. There's a recurring theme of abject sadism in what you have to say. It's really disturbing.
Click to expand...

its funny you are ok with the person who suggested violent revolt. It appears what you see as 'sick mind' is not advocating violence but resisting marxist violence
 
Glen Contrarian said:
The news came out today that OXFAM found that by 2016, the richest 1% will control half of all the world's wealth.

That begs the question, then - what level of income inequality do you believe should be the upper limit, if there should be any limit at all? And if there should be a limit, how would that be achieved, since this is obviously something that can't be mandated by governments?
Click to expand...

As of this writing, 3 people out of 300 see no problem with the current income disparity. Um, 1%.

That said, I don't think I have ever seen such a lopsided poll on DP.

Also, wealth disparity is a much bigger problem than income disparity.
 
TeleKat said:
Meh. To me, income inequality is not so much the issue as is wealth centralization. My problem isn't with Billy Bob down the street making a few bucks more than me, it's with 1-2% of the population holding 50% of this country's wealth.

Income inequality, to an extent, will exist in any system barring pure communism. But wealth centralization is the result of a complacent populace and a spineless government body. It can be fixed. It should be fixed. It must be fixed.
Click to expand...
Why must it be fixed and how do you fix it? This issue reminds me of the liberal positions on energy and the environment. Liberals elevate an issue to a dire threat to humanity, then offer zero with regard to solutions. Global warming is bad, but they offer no solution to actually stop it: fossil fuels are bad, but they offer nothing as an alternative. Here they say income inequality is bad, but offer nothing that will even remotely address the supposed 'problem.' Raising the minimum wage by a buck or two and raising taxes by a few billion as Obama is proposing will do absolutely NOTHING to alter the current income or wealth gap--the very problem these 'solutions' are supposed to be addressing. These are feel good measures, power grabs and envy salves for liberals, nothing else.
 
upsideguy said:
As of this writing, 3 people out of 300 see no problem with the current income disparity. Um, 1%.

That said, I don't think I have ever seen such a lopsided poll on DP.

Also, wealth disparity is a much bigger problem than income disparity.
Click to expand...
Make that 4 people out of 301. Your post reminded me I hadn't voted yet. :)
 
Glen Contrarian said:
The news came out today that OXFAM found that by 2016, the richest 1% will control half of all the world's wealth.

That begs the question, then - what level of income inequality do you believe should be the upper limit, if there should be any limit at all? And if there should be a limit, how would that be achieved, since this is obviously something that can't be mandated by governments?
Click to expand...

Not "mandated", but much can be done to affect outcomes long-term via tax policy. Income and wealth disparity have been increasing since the highest marginal rates in taxes have been decreasing...

Wealth Disparity - Top 1% vs. marginal tax rates.jpg

How tax can reduce inequality - OECD Observer
 
Fletch said:
Make that 4 people out of 301. Your post reminded me I hadn't voted yet. :)
Click to expand...

Thanks for your contribution. The acceptability of wealth disparity is making a comeback.
 
TurtleDude said:
I want you to revolt. I love seeing envy driven lefties talk about revolution. Go for it
Click to expand...

You brought up revolution. So you won't mind having all your assets frozen? I think you would. Be careful what you wish for.
 
Last edited:
iguanaman said:
So you won't mind having all your assets frozen? I think you would. Be careful what you wish for.
Click to expand...

you think the people who want to revolt are going to be able to do that? Who do you think owns the banks? not people who are bellyaching about the rich
 
TurtleDude said:
you think the people who want to revolt are going to be able to do that? Who do you think owns the banks? not people who are bellyaching about the rich
Click to expand...

You are the one that wants a revolt. It would be the Govt. who you would be fighting. So yes you would lose all your assets first.
 
iguanaman said:
You are the one that wants a revolt. It would be the Govt. who you would be fighting. So yes you would lose all your assets first.
Click to expand...

LOL, the rich run the government. true, some of the rich are rich due to the government and thus pander to the envy of people like you and others are rich despite the government
 
upsideguy said:
As of this writing, 3 people out of 300 see no problem with the current income disparity. Um, 1%.

That said, I don't think I have ever seen such a lopsided poll on DP.

Also, wealth disparity is a much bigger problem than income disparity.
Click to expand...

The poll has been spammed, unfortunately.
 
Code:
upsideguy said:
As of this writing, 3 people out of 300 see no problem with the current income disparity. Um, 1%.

That said, I don't think I have ever seen such a lopsided poll on DP.
Click to expand...

Check out the scores when you only measure "members". Someone has been manipulating DP polls, as of late, with large numbers of non-member votes in order to skew results in a preferred direction.
 
As for the poll - why should I care what the highest-income earners make? I am doing alright, and it's not as if a dollar in their paycheck means a dollar less in mine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom