• 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 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 the current level is acceptable, but should not be higher

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    38
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...

View attachment 67179184

How tax can reduce inequality - OECD Observer

:) Given that the U.S. has the most progressive income tax structure IN the OECD, and given that income inequality is highest within the United States in states that are high-progressive income tax states, you may want to reconsider that argument ;).
 
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.

What does it mean when the highest earners are taking a larger and larger piece of the pie then? You are deluding yourself.
 
:) Given that the U.S. has the most progressive income tax structure IN the OECD, and given that income inequality is highest within the United States in states that are high-progressive income tax states, you may want to reconsider that argument ;).

The problem is everywhere. We are just the richest so the numbers are higher. Even you can admit that the trend is unsustainable. The less progressive taxes have gotten the worse the inequality gets, that is abundantly clear.
 
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 shouldn't care that much about what the highest-income EARNERS are making. You SHOULD care about the passive income that people make from their investments. Too often it simply gets socked away again rather than being pumped back into the economy.
 
good. and one day, I hope the one percent unite rather than halving half supporting big government in a desire to get more power. and once united we can crush the idiotic socialist nonsense that wealth should be limited

The richest in the country openly "uniting" against the majority of the working class hasn't ever led to good news for the richest...
 
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.

Come to think of it, I haven't seen one this lopsided, either.
 
The richest in the country openly "uniting" against the majority of the working class hasn't ever led to good news for the richest...

its funny watching some lefties thinking that all the rich are pro freedom-less government. Many rich liberals require a big government to stay rich
 
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.

There are many proposals for addressing global warning, the problem is that the people who benefit from the status quo and those who love them don't like them and often wrongly complain that they won't work and/or sabotage them. They include banning the use of coal, alternative fuel autos, increased use of solar and wind power, reduced use of resources, more recycling, reduced manufacturing of disposible items, and more sharing of items and less materialism. They do require change and some sacrifice.

Proposals for addressing income disparity include tax reform to eliminate loopholes and deductions that aren't beneficial to society, higher inheritance taxes, regulations to prevent dodging taxes by offshoring money, taxes on stock trades etc., infrastructure building jobs programs, incentives to encourage domestic investment and more.
 
its funny watching some lefties thinking that all the rich are pro freedom-less government. Many rich liberals require a big government to stay rich

That has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. I stated that the rich rarely ever win against the working class. Specially if they openly wage war on them.
 
There are many proposals for addressing global warning, the problem is that the people who benefit from the status quo and those who love them don't like them and often wrongly complain that they won't work and/or sabotage them. They include banning the use of coal, alternative fuel autos, increased use of solar and wind power, reduced use of resources, more recycling, reduced manufacturing of disposible items, and more sharing of items and less materialism. They do require change and some sacrifice.
Those steps may reduce emissions, but will not reverse global warming. To actually do something about AGW requires massive and draconian measures that no one proposes or will ever accept. So it is a lot of hot air about, well, hot air.

Proposals for addressing income disparity include tax reform to eliminate loopholes and deductions that aren't beneficial to society, higher inheritance taxes, regulations to prevent dodging taxes by offshoring money, taxes on stock trades etc., infrastructure building jobs programs, incentives to encourage domestic investment and more.
Again, I doubt these will have any significant impact on anything. Massive taxation only empowers and enriches the state. The super rich will always be super rich, thus skewing the wealth balance well in their favor. Unless you just plan to confiscate a large portion of the wealth of people like Gates and Buffett the Waltons and Zuckerberg et al. You will have zero impact on wealth disparity.
 
Those steps may reduce emissions, but will not reverse global warming. To actually do something about AGW requires massive and draconian measures that no one proposes or will ever accept. So it is a lot of hot air about, well, hot air.
False dichotomy. The only thing anyone's seriously suggesting now is minimizing AGW, not reversing it. Much can be done before we get to "draconion" steps.

Again, I doubt these will have any significant impact on anything. Massive taxation only empowers and enriches the state.
Nonsense: there was a 90% top tax rate in the Eisenhower years, when the state was far from all-powerful.
 
False dichotomy. The only thing anyone's seriously suggesting now is minimizing AGW, not reversing it. Much can be done before we get to "draconion" steps.
Without China and India and the rest of the non-industrialized world, nothing can be done to even slow it let alone reverse it.


Nonsense: there was a 90% top tax rate in the Eisenhower years, when the state was far from all-powerful.
LOL Things have changed since Eisenhower. A lot. There is virtually no comparison between the size, scope and power of the Federal government between then and now.
 
Without China and India and the rest of the non-industrialized world, nothing can be done to even slow it let alone reverse it.


LOL Things have changed since Eisenhower. A lot. There is virtually no comparison between the size, scope and power of the Federal government between then and now.

But the purpose of government has not changed since Eisenhower's time.
 
Wow, the right wingers, left wingers, and centrists all agree income inequality in this country is out of control. 2015, here we come!
 
:) Given that the U.S. has the most progressive income tax structure IN the OECD, and given that income inequality is highest within the United States in states that are high-progressive income tax states, you may want to reconsider that argument ;).


The reality is that we have a de facto flat tax, with most people paying 25-30%. Flat taxes are generally regressive, in terms of how they tax essential income.

Taxes -  paid by income group.gif




Calling the US tax system the most progressive in the OECD is a position that caught me by surprise in its uniqueness. It's almost quaint. I would love to see the argument better developed and supported.
 
its funny watching some lefties thinking that all the rich are pro freedom-less government. Many rich liberals require a big government to stay rich

....as do most government contractors, especially members of the M-I-C, which, I believe its safe to say, predominantly hang right.
 
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?

Well, I read Joseph Stiglitz's book The Price of Inequality and never saw where he answered that question. As Obama has stated, at some point you have enough money. And I am not buying the dismal proposition that we need many people keep buying stuff that they don't need simply to keep the economy going. We need capital for investments, R&D, development, etc. which comes from, frankly, people with excess money. We don't need more consumption, more energy consumed in the pursuit of more stuff and more adventure. We need capital.
We should be above monkeys who are perfectly happy with a slice of cucumber until they see someone else getting a grape for the same thing. And then, out of anger and frustration, they throw the cucumber slices away. I suppose if they start getting a grape, they will be happy until another monkey gets a pineapple or something. A the cycle repeats. I realize that homo sapiens are simply another species but I like to think that there is some rational cognitive ability there.
 
What does it mean when the highest earners are taking a larger and larger piece of the pie then?

Generally, that the pie has grown.

You are deluding yourself.

No, you are merely demonstrating either an unwillingness or inability to understand the difference between "relative" and "actual". If the economy consists of you and me and I make $10 and you make $90, and then I get a raise to $15 and you get a raise to $150, your relative "share of the pie" has gone up even as my actual pie has increased as well. A high income person earning a dollar is more likely to benefit me than it is to harm me - unless he literally stole it, the odds are he earned that dollar in mutually beneficial trade, possibly with myself.
 
Generally, that the pie has grown.



No, you are merely demonstrating either an unwillingness or inability to understand the difference between "relative" and "actual". If the economy consists of you and me and I make $10 and you make $90, and then I get a raise to $15 and you get a raise to $150, your relative "share of the pie" has gone up even as my actual pie has increased as well. A high income person earning a dollar is more likely to benefit me than it is to harm me - unless he literally stole it, the odds are he earned that dollar in mutually beneficial trade, possibly with myself.

You are deluded. What is happening goes like this. 5 people are sharing a business that makes $100, they each get $2. Then one of them says "It was my idea, I should get more so the other 4 give him a dollar so he gets five and they get one. The business grows and soon is making $1000, the problem is 4 are STILL getting $1 and the "ideaman" is getting $996! That's our economic problem in a nutshell.
 
The problem is everywhere. We are just the richest so the numbers are higher. Even you can admit that the trend is unsustainable.

1. I think that there are some interesting arguments as to why we are headed into a readjustment period where that relative mixture will get reshaken, but
2. If we aren't, then why is it "unsustainable"? Why shouldn't we continue to get richer?

The less progressive taxes have gotten the worse the inequality gets, that is abundantly clear.

Actually it isn't. Inequality is greatest within the US v the rest of the OECD, for example, yet the US has the MOST (not the least) progressive tax system in the OECD. Within the United States, inequality is actually highest in Progressive states such as New York, Massachusetts, and California, and lower in more Conservative states, such Wyoming, Alaska, New Hampshire, and Utah. It turns out that when you increase the portion of wealth that is distributed by government, you mostly enable continued wealth-accumulation to the kind of people who have the resources to purchase themselves some compliant government, and when you turn a safety net into a hammock, you mostly enable people to hang out in it.
 
You are deluded. What is happening goes like this. 5 people are sharing a business that makes $100, they each get $2. Then one of them says "It was my idea, I should get more so the other 4 give him a dollar so he gets five and they get one. The business grows and soon is making $1000, the problem is 4 are STILL getting $1 and the "ideaman" is getting $996! That's our economic problem in a nutshell.

:lol: your evidence that wages have been cut in half for median households?
 
If you kept up with the news, you would know that China and India are cooperating.

:lamo :lamo :lamo


Thanks :wipes tear: It's been a long day, and that was good. :lol: ohweee.... :)
 
Back
Top Bottom