Cons/repubs: you really should be concerned about the disparity of wealth

[Billy000]

It has been an issue since the 1970's that productivity in the lower and middle class jobs have risen, but wages have remained flat. In other words, the "rich" are not earning all of the money that they make.

If those at the top of the income distribution receive far more than the value of what they create, and those at lower income levels receive less, then one way to correct this is to increase taxes at the upper end of the income distribution and use the proceeds to protect important social programs that benefit working-class households, programs that are currently threatened by budget deficits.

This would help to rectify the maldistribution of income that is preventing workers from realizing their share of the gains from economic growth.

Cons/repubs: why does this not bother you? This philosophy that people should keep every cent they make is flawed in the financial system we live in. If you are a blue collar worker, you are being robbed. It's that simple.

And, no, I have nothing agains the wealthy. They deseve to be well paid for what they do, but not nearly to this extent.

This is why libertarian ideas are dangerous.

 

[Truthmatters]

concentration of wealth into fewer and fewer hands kills caplitalism.

I am a capitalist.

I am a democrat.

They ONLY way caplitalism can be kept alive is for there to be regulations to keep the wealth from always concentrating into fewer and fewer hands.

If you truely love caplitalism then you have to want it to survive.

Unfettered capitalism turns quickly into the making of kings and queens.

That my friends is what our founders decided to leave on the trash heap of history.

 

[Billy000]

Well said.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It has been an issue since the 1970's that productivity in the lower and middle class jobs have risen, but wages have remained flat. In other words, the "rich" are not earning all of the money that they make.

If those at the top of the income distribution receive far more than the value of what they create, and those at lower income levels receive less, then one way to correct this is to increase taxes at the upper end of the income distribution and use the proceeds to protect important social programs that benefit working-class households, programs that are currently threatened by budget deficits.

This would help to rectify the maldistribution of income that is preventing workers from realizing their share of the gains from economic growth.

Cons/repubs: why does this not bother you? This philosophy that people should keep every cent they make is flawed in the financial system we live in. If you are a blue collar worker, you are being robbed. It's that simple.

And, no, I have nothing agains the wealthy. They deseve to be well paid for what they do, but not nearly to this extent.

This is why libertarian ideas are dangerous.

"...wages have remained flat."

No they haven't.

1. The statistics that claim the above fail to include the value of benefits such as health insurance and retirement benefits, etc., which have represented a growing share of compensation over the years. See Cox and Alm, “The Myths of Rich and Poor,” p.21

a. Nor do these sophists separated full time workers from part time (part time work has been growing, another indicator of rising prosperity). Of course, including the weekly wages of part timers pulls down the statistical average.

2. In actuality, the income of full time wage and salary workers increased between 1980 and 2004, and so did real income- either by 13% or 17%, depending on which price index is used in the calculation. Reynolds, “Income and Wealth,” p. 63.

a. If health and retirement benefits are included, as they should be, worker compensation rose by almost a third. And, even this is illusory, as it doesn’t include the “statistically invisible (not on taxes) returns inside IRA and 401(k) plans.” Reynolds, op. cit., p.64.


"...increase taxes at the upper end of the income distribution and use the proceeds to protect important social programs that benefit working-class households, programs that are currently threatened by budget deficits."

3. . “The top 5% pay about 58% of all Federal income taxes paid.

So if you raise their incomes, at the same tax rate, the Federal government will realize more revenue.

The bottom 50% of earners paid 2.7 % of Federal tax revenues.

The top 5% pay 33% of their income towards Fed income tax, while the bottom 50%, pay 13%” Milo40: The top 5% pay about 58% of all Federal income

4. "...protect important social programs..."
Can you name some of the federal social programs that have been cut?
None? Not even one?


"...maldistribution of income that is preventing workers from realizing their share of the gains from economic growth."

5. Totally false and ignorant. The more you work, the more you make.

a. As productivity and skills increase, workers earn more. Productivity of workers in competitive markets is what determines the earnings of most workers; and it is not an accident that labor earns about 70% of the total output of the American economy, and capital earns about 30%.

In Alan Reynold’s “Income and Wealth,” he studied the data, and found the following. Certainly the top fifth of households has a far greater proportion of same, but it also has six times as many full-time workers as the bottom fifth, heavily composed of two-earner couples with older children or other relatives who work. The bottom fifth is heavily composed of aged or younger couples, the retired or the still in school. Also, some in the bottom fifth because they are part of the underground economy, or in crime, so income is not reported. Or suffer addictions which preclude work.

b. In 2004, 56.4% of households in the bottom fifth featured no work by anyone for the entire year.
HINC-05--Part 1

c.The total number of full time, year round workers in the bottom fifth for 2004 was less than 3 million…which compares to 16.4 million in the top fifth of households. Ibid.
The difference in income does not reflect inequality, but rather, productivity. The fact that the lowest fifth are neither starving, nor living in the streets reflects the intrinsic generosity of our society, and the transfer of incomes via government programs. 80% of income in the bottom fifth is from such transfers; it is only 2% for the top fifth.

You're welcome for that lesson in economics....dolt.

 

[PredFan]

I doesn't concern me because there is nothing wrong with it.

It has been an issue since the 1970's that productivity in the lower and middle class jobs have risen, but wages have remained flat. In other words, the "rich" are not earning all of the money that they make.

I suppose it will be useless to ask for links or any kind of proof of this. In the absence of that, I'll just throw this out there: You are measuring "worth" by productivity. That is a mistake. The "rich" would include doctors, engineers, scientists, investors and the like. Their "worth" isn't derived by how many widgets they put out, but they have worth just as well.

If those at the top of the income distribution receive far more than the value of what they create, and those at lower income levels receive less, then one way to correct this is to increase taxes at the upper end of the income distribution and use the proceeds to protect important social programs that benefit working-class households, programs that are currently threatened by budget deficits.

Why is socialism, an economic system that always fails, always the answer with you people?

This would help to rectify the maldistribution of income that is preventing workers from realizing their share of the gains from economic growth.

The workers ALWAYS get their share of the gains of econimc grouth, unless they are volunteers.

Cons/repubs: why does this not bother you?

Because there isn't anything wrong with it.

This philosophy that people should keep every cent they make is flawed in the financial system we live in.

No, it isn't. That is just left wing propaganda that has no basis in fact.

If you are a blue collar worker, you are being robbed. It's that simple.

That's garbage.

And, no, I have nothing agains the wealthy. They deseve to be well paid for what they do, but not nearly to this extent.

So, someone gets to decide how much money someone can make?

 

[PoliticalChic]

I doesn't concern me because there is nothing wrong with it.

It has been an issue since the 1970's that productivity in the lower and middle class jobs have risen, but wages have remained flat. In other words, the "rich" are not earning all of the money that they make.

I suppose it will be useless to ask for links or any kind of proof of this. In the absence of that, I'll just throw this out there: You are measuring "worth" by productivity. That is a mistake. The "rich" would include doctors, engineers, scientists, investors and the like. Their "worth" isn't derived by how many widgets they put out, but they have worth just as well.

If those at the top of the income distribution receive far more than the value of what they create, and those at lower income levels receive less, then one way to correct this is to increase taxes at the upper end of the income distribution and use the proceeds to protect important social programs that benefit working-class households, programs that are currently threatened by budget deficits.

Why is socialism, an economic system that always fails, always the answer with you people?



The workers ALWAYS get their share of the gains of econimc grouth, unless they are volunteers.



Because there isn't anything wrong with it.



No, it isn't. That is just left wing propaganda that has no basis in fact.

If you are a blue collar worker, you are being robbed. It's that simple.

That's garbage.

And, no, I have nothing agains the wealthy. They deseve to be well paid for what they do, but not nearly to this extent.

So, someone gets to decide how much money someone can make?

Pred, it seems that Billy...who was kind enough to provide his IQ score as part of his name, has chosen to run from our posts....

...I wonder why.

 

[imbalance]

A simple understanding of the laws of supply and demand go a long way in explaining the root of wage inequality. Over the past few decades the high-tech sector of the US economy has expanded as the manufacturing sector has contracted. Partly due to illegal immigration, the supply of unskilled workers has inflated over these decades while the demand for unskilled workers has fallen. Any time supply rises as demand falls the equilibrium price (wage) drops.

Meanwhile, demand for skilled workers has risen while the supply has not kept pace, hence the equilibrium price (wage) has increased. And by skilled workers I don't mean someone who spent six years getting a liberal arts degree in ethnic studies; we have to import engineers from Asia and other parts of the world to try meet the demand for these skilled workers yet we still have a shortage.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It has been an issue since the 1970's that productivity in the lower and middle class jobs have risen, but wages have remained flat. In other words, the "rich" are not earning all of the money that they make.

If those at the top of the income distribution receive far more than the value of what they create, and those at lower income levels receive less, then one way to correct this is to increase taxes at the upper end of the income distribution and use the proceeds to protect important social programs that benefit working-class households, programs that are currently threatened by budget deficits.

This would help to rectify the maldistribution of income that is preventing workers from realizing their share of the gains from economic growth.

Cons/repubs: why does this not bother you? This philosophy that people should keep every cent they make is flawed in the financial system we live in. If you are a blue collar worker, you are being robbed. It's that simple.

And, no, I have nothing agains the wealthy. They deseve to be well paid for what they do, but not nearly to this extent.

This is why libertarian ideas are dangerous.

Progressives will keep redistributing wealth until there's none left

 

[PredFan]

I doesn't concern me because there is nothing wrong with it.

It has been an issue since the 1970's that productivity in the lower and middle class jobs have risen, but wages have remained flat. In other words, the "rich" are not earning all of the money that they make.

I suppose it will be useless to ask for links or any kind of proof of this. In the absence of that, I'll just throw this out there: You are measuring "worth" by productivity. That is a mistake. The "rich" would include doctors, engineers, scientists, investors and the like. Their "worth" isn't derived by how many widgets they put out, but they have worth just as well.



Why is socialism, an economic system that always fails, always the answer with you people?



The workers ALWAYS get their share of the gains of econimc grouth, unless they are volunteers.



Because there isn't anything wrong with it.



No, it isn't. That is just left wing propaganda that has no basis in fact.



That's garbage.

And, no, I have nothing agains the wealthy. They deseve to be well paid for what they do, but not nearly to this extent.

So, someone gets to decide how much money someone can make?

Pred, it seems that Billy...who was kind enough to provide his IQ score as part of his name, has chosen to run from our posts....

...I wonder why.

IQ score, ROTFLMAO

 

[whitehall]

Has there ever been a time in human civilization where their hasn't been a "disparity of wealth"? The Stalinist regime the left secretly admires made war on it's own people. Russian police arrested or killed every suspected capitalist in villages and then watched them starve to death. The "equality" of communism made sure that there would be only two classes, the ruling class and the poor. There were stories of Stalin's trains loaded with food bound for vacation dachas passing trains loaded with the bodies of starved people. The ignorant spoiled left and the insane anarchists want Americans to believe that robbing the rich so that everyone can be poor is the way to go. Say it up front lefties and quit using catch phrases like "disparity of wealth". Tell us that you want to defeat capitalism and replace it with a bland hopeless socialist system. It's your last chance now that you have a socialist in the white house.

 

[PoliticalChic]

concentration of wealth into fewer and fewer hands kills caplitalism.

I am a capitalist.

I am a democrat.

They ONLY way caplitalism can be kept alive is for there to be regulations to keep the wealth from always concentrating into fewer and fewer hands.

If you truely love caplitalism then you have to want it to survive.

Unfettered capitalism turns quickly into the making of kings and queens.

That my friends is what our founders decided to leave on the trash heap of history.

Pretty clear that you understand neither capitalism nor the founders' view of equality.

1. The central principle of America’s founding was that the rule of law would be the prime equalizing force; the founders considered vast inequality in every other realm to be inevitable and even desirable…. A small number would of individuals would be naturally endowed with unique and extraordinary talents while most people, by definition, would be ordinary. So the American concept of liberty would be premised on the inevitability of outcome inequality- success of some, failure of others.

a. Law was the one exception; no inequality was tolerable. It was the sine qua non ensuring fairness.

2. None of the founders believed in equality as a general proposition. The opposite is true: they considered inequality on every level, other than law, to be the natural, inevitable, and just state of affairs. Even Jefferson, one of the most egalitarian of the founders, held that there was “a natural aristocracy” among men, based on “virtue and talents.” This was not only natural, but desirable: “The natural aristocracy I consider as the most precious gift of nature for the instruction, the trusts, and the government of society.”(p. 10)

a. Adams the same. “It already appears, that there must be in every society of men superiors and inferiors, because God has laid in the constitution and course of nature the foundations of the distinction.”

b. Thomas Paine loathed inherited titles and assigned status as a legally enforced inequality: “Nature is often giving to the world some extraordinary men who arrive at fame by merit and universal consent, such as Aristotle, Socrates, Plato, etc. They were truly great or noble. But when government sets up a manufactory of nobles, it is as absurd as if she undertook to manufacture wise men. Her nobles are all counterfeits.” Thomas Paine / Dissertations on First Principles of Government


So you can see, the idea of equality refers to the law alone...not to any aspect of wealth nor outcome.


BTW, much of the above is based on Glenn Greenwald's “With Liberty and Justice for Some; How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful”
You might pick up a copy....it is way-liberal, and supports much of what you believe.

 

[PredFan]

concentration of wealth into fewer and fewer hands kills caplitalism.

I am a capitalist.

I am a democrat.

They ONLY way caplitalism can be kept alive is for there to be regulations to keep the wealth from always concentrating into fewer and fewer hands.

If you truely love caplitalism then you have to want it to survive.

Unfettered capitalism turns quickly into the making of kings and queens.

That my friends is what our founders decided to leave on the trash heap of history.

Pretty clear that you understand neither capitalism nor the founders' view of equality.

1. The central principle of America’s founding was that the rule of law would be the prime equalizing force; the founders considered vast inequality in every other realm to be inevitable and even desirable…. A small number would of individuals would be naturally endowed with unique and extraordinary talents while most people, by definition, would be ordinary. So the American concept of liberty would be premised on the inevitability of outcome inequality- success of some, failure of others.

a. Law was the one exception; no inequality was tolerable. It was the sine qua non ensuring fairness.

2. None of the founders believed in equality as a general proposition. The opposite is true: they considered inequality on every level, other than law, to be the natural, inevitable, and just state of affairs. Even Jefferson, one of the most egalitarian of the founders, held that there was “a natural aristocracy” among men, based on “virtue and talents.” This was not only natural, but desirable: “The natural aristocracy I consider as the most precious gift of nature for the instruction, the trusts, and the government of society.”(p. 10)

a. Adams the same. “It already appears, that there must be in every society of men superiors and inferiors, because God has laid in the constitution and course of nature the foundations of the distinction.”

b. Thomas Paine loathed inherited titles and assigned status as a legally enforced inequality: “Nature is often giving to the world some extraordinary men who arrive at fame by merit and universal consent, such as Aristotle, Socrates, Plato, etc. They were truly great or noble. But when government sets up a manufactory of nobles, it is as absurd as if she undertook to manufacture wise men. Her nobles are all counterfeits.” Thomas Paine / Dissertations on First Principles of Government


So you can see, the idea of equality refers to the law alone...not to any aspect of wealth nor outcome.


BTW, much of the above is based on Glenn Greenwald's “With Liberty and Justice for Some; How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful”
You might pick up a copy....it is way-liberal, and supports much of what you believe.

Another problem that liberals have is demonstrated in TM's post. He operates on the false theory that there is limited wealth and the only way someone can get rich is if someone else gets poor. Believing that helps them to not have to face the fact that anyone can become rich if they work at it, and that no one has to be poor. It is their belief that people are poor solely because others are rich.

Their ignorance the result of a government education and liberal colleges.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Unfettered No altering quotes capitalism turns quickly into the making of kings and queens.

Fixed.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It has been an issue since the 1970's that productivity in the lower and middle class jobs have risen, but wages have remained flat. In other words, the "rich" are not earning all of the money that they make.

If those at the top of the income distribution receive far more than the value of what they create, and those at lower income levels receive less, then one way to correct this is to increase taxes at the upper end of the income distribution and use the proceeds to protect important social programs that benefit working-class households, programs that are currently threatened by budget deficits.

This would help to rectify the maldistribution of income that is preventing workers from realizing their share of the gains from economic growth.

Cons/repubs: why does this not bother you? This philosophy that people should keep every cent they make is flawed in the financial system we live in. If you are a blue collar worker, you are being robbed. It's that simple.

And, no, I have nothing agains the wealthy. They deseve to be well paid for what they do, but not nearly to this extent.

This is why libertarian ideas are dangerous.

What disparity of wealth? Show me some numbers so I can use them to prove you have no idea what you are talking about. I am actually willing to use whatever numbers you thyink prove your point rather than go back and repost the numbers I have posted before that already prove it.

 

[dblack]

It has been an issue since the 1970's that productivity in the lower and middle class jobs have risen, but wages have remained flat. In other words, the "rich" are not earning all of the money that they make.

If those at the top of the income distribution receive far more than the value of what they create, and those at lower income levels receive less, then one way to correct this is to increase taxes at the upper end of the income distribution and use the proceeds to protect important social programs that benefit working-class households, programs that are currently threatened by budget deficits.

This would help to rectify the maldistribution of income that is preventing workers from realizing their share of the gains from economic growth.

Cons/repubs: why does this not bother you? This philosophy that people should keep every cent they make is flawed in the financial system we live in. If you are a blue collar worker, you are being robbed. It's that simple.

And, no, I have nothing agains the wealthy. They deseve to be well paid for what they do, but not nearly to this extent

This is why libertarian ideas are dangerous.

As a libertarian I, for one, am concerned with the disparity of wealth. I think it's indicative of some fundamental imbalances in the current situation. But the solution you've offered here - government redistribution of wealth - is a band-aid at best. At worst, it's making the problem worse by indulging the cause rather than rectifying it.

I think we can find some agreement in recognizing that a large part of the problem is that economic power readily translates to political power. The rich and powerful routinely use their wealth to influence laws and policy that reinforce their dominance and suppress competition. The question is, how can we keep those with economic power from using government to increase their wealth? (at everyone else's expense). The thing is, the answer is the opposite of what liberals usually advocate.

What we need to do is radically restrict the power of government to intervene in economic matters. It's this very power that the rich employ to maintain their dominance. I propose exactly the opposite of what you seem to be advocating. Instead of increasing the government's ability to intervene in the economy, we need a 'wall of separation' between economy and state. If that sounds like the 'separation of church and state', it's because it's a strongly analogous situation.

One of the best innovations of the US experiment was secularizing government. Separating political and religious power ensures that neither gains too much power. it prevents the state from using religion as a tool for controlling people as well as preventing religions from using the coercive power of the state to swell their ranks.

We need to create the same kind of separation between economic power and political power. We need to radically reduce the ability of wealthy interests to secure their own fortunes via government mandate. But to achieve that, we must likewise limit the power of government to decide winners and losers in economic matters - because that's the very power the rich use to ensure their dominance.

I realize this is deeply counter-intuitive for most liberals. They've been 'raised' on the idea that the answer to corporate collusion with government is strengthening government's power over the economy (presumably to allow it to 'contain' corporate power). But it never works that way. Money talks, and whatever power we give government to manipulate the economy, will inevitably be used by those with the most money.

 

[Billy000]

It has been an issue since the 1970's that productivity in the lower and middle class jobs have risen, but wages have remained flat. In other words, the "rich" are not earning all of the money that they make.

If those at the top of the income distribution receive far more than the value of what they create, and those at lower income levels receive less, then one way to correct this is to increase taxes at the upper end of the income distribution and use the proceeds to protect important social programs that benefit working-class households, programs that are currently threatened by budget deficits.

This would help to rectify the maldistribution of income that is preventing workers from realizing their share of the gains from economic growth.

Cons/repubs: why does this not bother you? This philosophy that people should keep every cent they make is flawed in the financial system we live in. If you are a blue collar worker, you are being robbed. It's that simple.

And, no, I have nothing agains the wealthy. They deseve to be well paid for what they do, but not nearly to this extent.

This is why libertarian ideas are dangerous.

"...wages have remained flat."

No they haven't.

1. The statistics that claim the above fail to include the value of benefits such as health insurance and retirement benefits, etc., which have represented a growing share of compensation over the years. See Cox and Alm, “The Myths of Rich and Poor,” p.21

a. Nor do these sophists separated full time workers from part time (part time work has been growing, another indicator of rising prosperity). Of course, including the weekly wages of part timers pulls down the statistical average.

2. In actuality, the income of full time wage and salary workers increased between 1980 and 2004, and so did real income- either by 13% or 17%, depending on which price index is used in the calculation. Reynolds, “Income and Wealth,” p. 63.

a. If health and retirement benefits are included, as they should be, worker compensation rose by almost a third. And, even this is illusory, as it doesn’t include the “statistically invisible (not on taxes) returns inside IRA and 401(k) plans.” Reynolds, op. cit., p.64.


"...increase taxes at the upper end of the income distribution and use the proceeds to protect important social programs that benefit working-class households, programs that are currently threatened by budget deficits."

3. . “The top 5% pay about 58% of all Federal income taxes paid.

So if you raise their incomes, at the same tax rate, the Federal government will realize more revenue.

The bottom 50% of earners paid 2.7 % of Federal tax revenues.

The top 5% pay 33% of their income towards Fed income tax, while the bottom 50%, pay 13%” Milo40: The top 5% pay about 58% of all Federal income

4. "...protect important social programs..."
Can you name some of the federal social programs that have been cut?
None? Not even one?


"...maldistribution of income that is preventing workers from realizing their share of the gains from economic growth."

5. Totally false and ignorant. The more you work, the more you make.

a. As productivity and skills increase, workers earn more. Productivity of workers in competitive markets is what determines the earnings of most workers; and it is not an accident that labor earns about 70% of the total output of the American economy, and capital earns about 30%.

In Alan Reynold’s “Income and Wealth,” he studied the data, and found the following. Certainly the top fifth of households has a far greater proportion of same, but it also has six times as many full-time workers as the bottom fifth, heavily composed of two-earner couples with older children or other relatives who work. The bottom fifth is heavily composed of aged or younger couples, the retired or the still in school. Also, some in the bottom fifth because they are part of the underground economy, or in crime, so income is not reported. Or suffer addictions which preclude work.

b. In 2004, 56.4% of households in the bottom fifth featured no work by anyone for the entire year.
HINC-05--Part 1

c.The total number of full time, year round workers in the bottom fifth for 2004 was less than 3 million…which compares to 16.4 million in the top fifth of households. Ibid.
The difference in income does not reflect inequality, but rather, productivity. The fact that the lowest fifth are neither starving, nor living in the streets reflects the intrinsic generosity of our society, and the transfer of incomes via government programs. 80% of income in the bottom fifth is from such transfers; it is only 2% for the top fifth.

You're welcome for that lesson in economics....dolt.

You're well-informed - I'll give you that. You came up with an argument supported by facts. However, I am still not convinced.

I'll concede that I may be wrong about wages of blue collar remaining flat, but what you have failed to discuss is how the wages of the wealthy have changed.

Those of the wealthy have increased 250% over the last few decades. For instance, in the 1930's, the average CEO made 30X more than an average worker. Now, it's 300X. Obviously, the more work, the more you make, but that doesn't mean there isn't a maldistribution of wealth. Productivity has skyrocketed. Just because the lower and middle class are making more nowadays, it doesn't mean they are pulling in their fair share.

Your info about worker benefits do not account for the poor. 50 million people in this country do not have health insurance at all.

 

[Billy000]

I doesn't concern me because there is nothing wrong with it.

It has been an issue since the 1970's that productivity in the lower and middle class jobs have risen, but wages have remained flat. In other words, the "rich" are not earning all of the money that they make.

I suppose it will be useless to ask for links or any kind of proof of this. In the absence of that, I'll just throw this out there: You are measuring "worth" by productivity. That is a mistake. The "rich" would include doctors, engineers, scientists, investors and the like. Their "worth" isn't derived by how many widgets they put out, but they have worth just as well.



Why is socialism, an economic system that always fails, always the answer with you people?



The workers ALWAYS get their share of the gains of econimc grouth, unless they are volunteers.



Because there isn't anything wrong with it.



No, it isn't. That is just left wing propaganda that has no basis in fact.



That's garbage.

And, no, I have nothing agains the wealthy. They deseve to be well paid for what they do, but not nearly to this extent.

So, someone gets to decide how much money someone can make?

Pred, it seems that Billy...who was kind enough to provide his IQ score as part of his name, has chosen to run from our posts....

...I wonder why.

Your hostility is quite unnecessary. Are you just below having a mature conversation about politics? It's kind of pathetic.

 

[BOBO]

...fair share of the status!!! If your that hungry for status learn to play the game & go CEO Big Shot. As long as there remains Constitutional law filthy rich people like George Soros can't affect you. Vote for Libertarian representatives of & for the people, NOT social program politicians.
What your saying is... how come all the good looking body builders that are hung like a horse get their pick of the women & I get the leftovers??? That's because women like good looking muscular males that are well endowed. Are you going to penalize your competition because he's 6'-4" tall, built like no tomorrow, hung like a horse & good looking to boot??? Of course not. If ya want the women you'll get off your fat out of shape azz, start working out, get professionally groomed, acquire a wardrobe & get penis enhancement surgery.
Your suggesting that your 'competition' must not workout, can't wear designer clothing, must not groom himself & has to get penis size reduction surgery. One does NOT EXPECT others to come down to YOUR LEVEL, you are EXPECTED TO RISE TO THEIR LEVEL. You are suffering from CLASS ENVY! I suggest that you start doing something positive with your life instead of begging around & whining about your pipsqueak status.

 

[Billy000]

...fair share of the status!!! If your that hungry for status learn to play the game & go CEO Big Shot. As long as there remains Constitutional law filthy rich people like George Soros can't affect you. Vote for Libertarian representatives of & for the people, NOT social program politicians.
What your saying is... how come all the good looking body builders that are hung like a horse get their pick of the women & I get the leftovers??? That's because women like good looking muscular males that are well endowed. Are you going to penalize your competition because he's 6'-4" tall, built like no tomorrow, hung like a horse & good looking to boot??? Of course not. If ya want the women you'll get off your fat out of shape azz, start working out, get professionally groomed, acquire a wardrobe & get penis enhancement surgery.
Your suggesting that your 'competition' must not workout, can't wear designer clothing, must not groom himself & has to get penis size reduction surgery. One does NOT EXPECT others to come down to YOUR LEVEL, you are EXPECTED TO RISE TO THEIR LEVEL. You are suffering from CLASS ENVY! I suggest that you start doing something positive with your life instead of begging around & whining about your pipsqueak status.

Typical political oversimplification. Your metaphor is quite off base.

 

[FA_Q2]

It has been an issue since the 1970's that productivity in the lower and middle class jobs have risen, but wages have remained flat. In other words, the "rich" are not earning all of the money that they make.

If those at the top of the income distribution receive far more than the value of what they create, and those at lower income levels receive less, then one way to correct this is to increase taxes at the upper end of the income distribution and use the proceeds to protect important social programs that benefit working-class households, programs that are currently threatened by budget deficits.

This would help to rectify the maldistribution of income that is preventing workers from realizing their share of the gains from economic growth.

Cons/repubs: why does this not bother you? This philosophy that people should keep every cent they make is flawed in the financial system we live in. If you are a blue collar worker, you are being robbed. It's that simple.

And, no, I have nothing agains the wealthy. They deseve to be well paid for what they do, but not nearly to this extent

This is why libertarian ideas are dangerous.

As a libertarian I, for one, am concerned with the disparity of wealth. I think it's indicative of some fundamental imbalances in the current situation. But the solution you've offered here - government redistribution of wealth - is a band-aid at best. At worst, it's making the problem worse by indulging the cause rather than rectifying it.

I think we can find some agreement in recognizing that a large part of the problem is that economic power readily translates to political power. The rich and powerful routinely use their wealth to influence laws and policy that reinforce their dominance and suppress competition. The question is, how can we keep those with economic power from using government to increase their wealth? (at everyone else's expense). The thing is, the answer is the opposite of what liberals usually advocate.

What we need to do is radically restrict the power of government to intervene in economic matters. It's this very power that the rich employ to maintain their dominance. I propose exactly the opposite of what you seem to be advocating. Instead of increasing the government's ability to intervene in the economy, we need a 'wall of separation' between economy and state. If that sounds like the 'separation of church and state', it's because it's a strongly analogous situation.

One of the best innovations of the US experiment was secularizing government. Separating political and religious power ensures that neither gains too much power. it prevents the state from using religion as a tool for controlling people as well as preventing religions from using the coercive power of the state to swell their ranks.

We need to create the same kind of separation between economic power and political power. We need to radically reduce the ability of wealthy interests to secure their own fortunes via government mandate. But to achieve that, we must likewise limit the power of government to decide winners and losers in economic matters - because that's the very power the rich use to ensure their dominance.

I realize this is deeply counter-intuitive for most liberals. They've been 'raised' on the idea that the answer to corporate collusion with government is strengthening government's power over the economy (presumably to allow it to 'contain' corporate power). But it never works that way. Money talks, and whatever power we give government to manipulate the economy, will inevitably be used by those with the most money.

Darn rep system, I'm out ATM for you....
Well said. It is the crux of the problem. More government cannot fix a problem that is created by the fact that government itself is to powerful. The only way to limit the corruption is to limit the power.

FWIW - a simplified tiered flat tax would solve 90 percent of the problems. Big money is there for the tax incentives that can figure into the BILLIONS. Take that away and most of the money goes with it. Unfortunately, congress will never do it because of the massive loss in power they would take.