• 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!

Are Widening Income Gaps a Problem in this Country?

Are Widening Income Gaps a Problem in this Country?

  • Yes, it's a major problem.

    Votes: 56 70.9%

  • Yes, but it's not a major problem.

    Votes: 13 16.5%

  • No, not a problem at all.

    Votes: 7 8.9%

  • Other - Please Explain

    Votes: 3 3.8%
  • Total voters
    79
Kushinator said:
We've been down this road before, and even after being corrected, you still have a problem comprehending fractions, sets, and subsets.



The poor pay far less in actual dollars for what they get in government transfers. But so what? Without these transfers, they would be that much worse off. Furthermore, given the level growth of income and wealth for America's top 1%, it's impossible to argue they are getting a raw deal.
Click to expand...

yes we know about your envy driven drivel and your attempts to pretend that the rich actually benefit far more from government than those who are on the pubic dole.
 
What if...? said:
Remember though that all the profits leave the community with Walmart.

So even if the widget costs ten dollars the difference tends to be cancelled out by the multipliers.

The profits tend to be spent locally.
Click to expand...

Federal taxation is not spent locally or it would (should) be replaced with local taxation.
 
code1211 said:
In 1800, people were abandoning their lives and homes to emigrate to the USA. The choice alone was evidence of the horrors in their homelands.

During the 1800's, plagues were claiming millions. Starvation was rampant. There were fewer than 5 Democracies active on the planet. Education was nearly non-existent for the masses. Children were left on the street to die or work 20 hours per day.

Women were treated like cattle. Cities were hell holes of filth and disease. Country sides were lawless areas of winner take all misery and terror.

These conditions have now been improved in the greatest number of examples and limited to far fewer places despite the enormous growth of the population world wide.

That's "better off".

Plague in the 19th Century: (1) 1800-45
Click to expand...

Yet it took unions to end worker abuses here.

And much of the better you mention is the result of technology.

Fire made the biggest reduction in suffering ever. Had nothing to do with wealth.

And the very behaviors that reduced suffering in one area resulted in an increase elsewhere.

The general trend is "upwards". A good argument can be made that this is despite wealth accumulation.

And must take into account the historic pattern of wealth and power concentrating until life becomes untenable for the majority. Which results in that majority forcing that minority to stop.
 
code1211 said:
Are you saying that there is a causal connection between the two things you cite?
Click to expand...

We don't live in a vacuum, there's a connection.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Federal taxation is not spent locally or it would (should) be replaced with local taxation.
Click to expand...

The idea is the tax is never collected because the additional income would just be taxed away so the fruit is left on the vine for someone else to harvest.

Remember, at a certain point increasing wealth is just scorekeeping and addiction feeding.

And when wealth concentrates enough the vast pools of capital are just used to acquire resources with the sole intent of denying others access to extract rents. Most speculation these days is purely extractive activity, adding little or no value.
 
TurtleDude said:
you're lying and you are being dishonest by trying to use non-progressive taxes to claim that the income tax is not progressive enough.
Click to expand...

Eh? All I said was that the 1% should at a minimum pay the same in % as the rest of us.. and they dont. Their income is mostly in stock gains and other financial assets, which is taxed WAY lower than real income from work.

the top one percent make 22% of the income or so and pay close to 40% of the income tax. No other group pays near that amount of a discrepancy between their take and their share of the burden.
Click to expand...

The usual BS from the American right wing (and some what the European). The 1% dont earn income like the rest of us. The huge majority of their income is capital gains, which is taxed way lower. Add to that, the ability of the 1% to pay their way to avoid paying taxes in the first place.

and the rich pay far more actual dollars for what they get in government services compared to you.
Click to expand...

And so ****ing what. If they want to live in the country, then they have to pay for that privilege... thats the whole point of a modern society. We are not living in the dark ages anymore.
 
What if...? said:
The idea is the tax is never collected because the additional income would just be taxed away so the fruit is left on the vine for someone else to harvest.

Remember, at a certain point increasing wealth is just scorekeeping and addiction feeding.

And when wealth concentrates enough the vast pools of capital are just used to acquire resources with the sole intent of denying others access to extract rents. Most speculation these days is purely extractive activity, adding little or no value.
Click to expand...

We seem to have drifted from selling widgets to playing games with securities - when was that ever a local endeavor?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
You point to many examples of the US government (corruption?) causing problems and yet you seem to think that same (corrupt?) government (the DC elite and their rich business partners) will somehow come around to correcting (solving?) them.

I have one simple question - why would congress critters who now enjoy a re-election rate of over 90% largely due to massive campaign cash and free (corporate) media attention change anything? The sheeple are ultimately to blame in a democracy - they got exactly what their elected representatives gave them and vote as if they seem to like, or at least accept, it.
Click to expand...

Never said they would. To solve this problem, you need to change your political system. Look at the Tea Party.. the revolutionary group that was going to do something about it. It turned out that they were not better and in some cases, much worse than the crop of people they replaced.

My suggestion is reducing money in politics massively. That will reduce influence of the 1% and put it back in the hands of the people. But dont get me wrong.. it is probably impossible.
 
What if...? said:
Remember though that all the profits leave the community with Walmart.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. What about the additional discretionary income that is created by lower prices? Higher priced (and margin) local businesses are actually a drain on productivity.

The profits tend to be spent locally.
Click to expand...

But people have less disposable income in the higher price environment.
 
Nap said:
Would you support a flat tax that tax everyone equally with no deductions or tax credits?
Click to expand...

Nope not at all. I am all for progressive tax system. I want to get rid of capital gains tax and tax it as normal income. I want to get rid of all loopholes and deductions. Only deduction allowed would be the basic deduction that everyone can get... say the first 5000 dollars are tax free or whatever. The tax system should also be clear as hell to where the taxes go to.. so 10% to healthcare, 20% to military and so on.

On corporate taxes, there is a need for a massive overhaul that removes deductions and loopholes. Lower the rate yes, but not without getting rid of massive tax breaks for industries. There is zero reason that the oil and energy industry should get a dime of taxpayer money for their business.
 
TurtleDude said:
yes we know about your envy driven drivel
Click to expand...

Don't try to deflect from your weak argument by attacking me.

and your attempts to pretend that the rich actually benefit far more from government than those who are on the pubic dole.
Click to expand...

When the Treasury injected a lump sum of $350+ billion into the financial system in late 2008, please do tell whom that benefited the most? :lol:
 
PeteEU said:
Never said they would. To solve this problem, you need to change your political system. Look at the Tea Party.. the revolutionary group that was going to do something about it. It turned out that they were not better and in some cases, much worse than the crop of people they replaced.

My suggestion is reducing money in politics massively. That will reduce influence of the 1% and put it back in the hands of the people. But dont get me wrong.. it is probably impossible.
Click to expand...

Some campaign finance reform bills might appear to reduce the influence of "big" money but it would also serve to increase the power and thus influence of incumbents and the MSM. Trump and other incumbents are already campaigning for 2018 and 2020 and the MSM is already presenting us with their favorites.
 
Last edited:
PeteEU said:
Eh? All I said was that the 1% should at a minimum pay the same in % as the rest of us.. and they dont. Their income is mostly in stock gains and other financial assets, which is taxed WAY lower than real income from work.



The usual BS from the American right wing (and some what the European). The 1% dont earn income like the rest of us. The huge majority of their income is capital gains, which is taxed way lower. Add to that, the ability of the 1% to pay their way to avoid paying taxes in the first place.



And so ****ing what. If they want to live in the country, then they have to pay for that privilege... thats the whole point of a modern society. We are not living in the dark ages anymore.
Click to expand...

the rich pay far more actual dollars for what they get than you do. the rich pay as much or more a percentage on earned income as you do. You are pretending that since one type of income is taxed at a different schedule than others, and since the rich have more income in one category, than the other, that is unfair

so what you are essentially arguing is that capital gains ought to be taxed the same as earned income which is idiotic.

I completely oppose INCOME tax in any way shape or form unless its a flat tax. I oppose any tax system that can be used by the political class to buy the votes of the many by promising them more handouts that only the rich will have to pay for in terms of tax hikes
 
Kushinator said:
Don't try to deflect from your weak argument by attacking me.



When the Treasury injected a lump sum of $350+ billion into the financial system in late 2008, please do tell whom that benefited the most? :lol:
Click to expand...

don't try to pretend your class based envy is actually justified by the specious claims that it benefits the rich to tax them more and more
 
TurtleDude said:
the rich pay far more actual dollars for what they get than you do.
Click to expand...

So WHAT? They earn and control by far the most of the economy also.

the rich pay as much or more a percentage on earned income as you do.
Click to expand...

No they dont. Not even close

You are pretending that since one type of income is taxed at a different schedule than others, and since the rich have more income in one category, than the other, that is unfair
Click to expand...

You have no clue on how the rich avoid paying taxes and pay less and less. Your facination of maybe one day of being one of them, is clouding your judgement. They will NEVER let you into their club willingly and the chances of you joining the 1% is so low, that you have a larger chance of getting hit by a comet in the head.

I completely oppose INCOME tax in any way shape or form unless its a flat tax. I oppose any tax system that can be used by the political class to buy the votes of the many by promising them more handouts that only the rich will have to pay for in terms of tax hikes
Click to expand...

So you are one of the anarchist types... closet fan of ANTIFA I see.
 
Kushinator said:
Not necessarily. What about the additional discretionary income that is created by lower prices? Higher priced (and margin) local businesses are actually a drain on productivity.



But people have less disposable income in the higher price environment.
Click to expand...

Good points. I make more money (doing my self-employed handyman work) from consumers, retirees and employees than I do from local business owners (except for landlords). The more disposable income that does not get sucked up elsewhere then the more that I can hope to get a piece of. Those on fixed (retirement) incomes never benefit from higher prices or labor rates.
 
Last edited:
PeteEU said:
So WHAT? They earn and control by far the most of the economy also.



No they dont. Not even close



You have no clue on how the rich avoid paying taxes and pay less and less. Your facination of maybe one day of being one of them, is clouding your judgement. They will NEVER let you into their club willingly and the chances of you joining the 1% is so low, that you have a larger chance of getting hit by a comet in the head.



So you are one of the anarchist types... closet fan of ANTIFA I see.
Click to expand...

I love all the bleating about how the rich avoid taxes yet we still end up paying almost twice as much of the income tax burden as what we get in terms of the income. And we have to deal with the death tax too. I am against income redistribution for the most part. I would ban it at the federal level and leave it to the states. States that are too generous will lose net tax payers. It would be self regulating.

the fact is, your existence is not a just claim on the wealth of others.
 
TurtleDude said:
don't try to pretend your class based envy is actually justified by the specious claims that it benefits the rich to tax them more and more
Click to expand...

Again, you lack the ability to discuss the topic and instead prefer to parrot already debunked talking points.
 
truthatallcost said:
Widening income gaps coupled with a booming population spells real change, possibly revolt in this country. We'll reach 400,000,000 people by 2039, most of whom will not earn a sufficient living. We're heading down an unsustainable path and no one appears to be doing anything about it.
Click to expand...

What do you suggest 'we' do about it....income redistribution? Riot in the streets? Sit on the sofa and whine about how unfair life is?
 
TurtleDude said:
the rich pay far more actual dollars for what they get than you do. the rich pay as much or more a percentage on earned income as you do. You are pretending that since one type of income is taxed at a different schedule than others, and since the rich have more income in one category, than the other, that is unfair

so what you are essentially arguing is that capital gains ought to be taxed the same as earned income which is idiotic.

I completely oppose INCOME tax in any way shape or form unless its a flat tax. I oppose any tax system that can be used by the political class to buy the votes of the many by promising them more handouts that only the rich will have to pay for in terms of tax hikes
Click to expand...

The rich have far, far more wealth to lose than the average joe. The government is in place to insure they get to keep it.
 
Kushinator said:
Again, you lack the ability to discuss the topic and instead prefer to parrot already debunked talking points.
Click to expand...

your dishonest tactic of trying to justify your class envy with silly claims of the greater good are rejected. I don't accept communitarian idiocy as to the topic of individual rights
 
Winchester said:
The rich have far, far more wealth to lose than the average joe. The government is in place to insure they get to keep it.
Click to expand...

ah that nonsense-that the police allocate more effort in protecting the wealth. Not true, nothing the cops, firefighters or military does involves racking up additional costs due to the wealth
 
TurtleDude said:
ah that nonsense-that the police allocate more effort in protecting the wealth. Not true, nothing the cops, firefighters or military does involves racking up additional costs due to the wealth
Click to expand...

Didn't say more costs were incureed because of the wealthy, I said the wealthy have far more to lose (without that protection).
 
Winchester said:
Didn't say more costs were incureed because of the wealthy, I said the wealthy have far more to lose (without that protection).
Click to expand...

I don't know about that. in times of social upheaval, the rich generally are better able to protect themselves than the poor
 
TurtleDude said:
I don't know about that. in times of social upheaval, the rich generally are better able to protect themselves than the poor
Click to expand...

They do, but they still lose more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom