If you can have it all...

[AVG-JOE]

I absolutely agree that tax law is unfair and illogical. I favor no income tax or if we must have one, a flat tax with no deductions for anyone.

I also agree budgets should always balance.

Would any of that result in less income disparity? Don't know, don't care.

Unless you live and work outside the US or you have plenty of assets outside of our economy, why the fuck would you not care?

Income disparity is something that will be with us as long as we have people involved. The point is to make as fair a market place to risk our efforts as possible.

Is fairness in the market not almost as important as freedom?

Free markets and individual freedom go hand in hand. We agree here 100%. What I don't care about is to make incomes more 'even'. If that occurs as a result of free markets, wonderful, but I really don't care that there are a few extremely wealthy people, which always changes year after year, as well as some relatively poor people, which can also change. Income disparity is nothing to be worried about as long as it remains flexible. Stated differently, government forces that hamper some from increasing their wealth while helping others is something to be very worried about.

I never said ANYTHING about making all incomes 'even'... that kind of thinking is just plain wrong.

I'm saying that if we lived in a land of free markets, fair and simple taxes and public budgets balanced by law, the distribution of wealth graph would assume a smooth bell curve, with most of the wealth in the hands of most of the people, on its own.

Nowhere will you see me advocate for government manipulation of wages or any other prices.

The income distribution graph is not a goal, it's a gauge, and ours is showing a red-hot skew that will inevitably lead to collapse or a king.

 

[MikeK]

Only in Utopia, Joe. There are people driven to excel, people satisfied to live as well as their parents and people who want to sit on their ass and let the producers pay their way.

If you took all the wealth from the richest 100 people in the US and distributed it to the welfare class, in ten years, 90% of the formerly wealth would be wealthy again and 90% of the former welfare class would be back on the dole.

That notion is a worn-out right-wing cliche which conspicuously ignores the simple reality that the so-called "welfare class" represents the inevitable and ever-present "Ten Percent," the social cripples who for one reason or other are incapable of leading productive lives. Aside from providing these unfortunates with the bare necessities of life (welfare), the available options society has where this category is concerned is to ignore them, which will result in the emergence of mini-Calcutta's all across the Nation; corpses in the streets every morning, epidemics, a dramatic rise in street crime and the costly burden of prison and mental hospital confinement.

The final option, which of course will appeal to the de facto Nazis, the truly stupid and pathologiically selfish among us, is to exterminate them.

The fact is the vast majority of Americans are productive and will work hard to provide for themselves and their families. But when there simply is no available work what are they to do except rely on their government to sustain them through hard times? This category is not to be confused with the Ten Percent. Instead they are unfortunates who temporarily need a hand -- not contempt and derision from their fellow citizens.

The idea that temporarily providing normally productive people with sufficient funds to support living in a hovel on a Ramen Noodles diet will spoil them is nonsense which appeals only to the meanest and lowest mentalities. All one needs to do to dispel that notion is research the history of the WPA and CCC during the Great Depression, which provided useful and productive work for millions of acutely depressed Americans. The energizing effect was truly impressive and it helped to raise America (and its people) out of the depths of despair.

 

[eflatminor]

Unless you live and work outside the US or you have plenty of assets outside of our economy, why the fuck would you not care?

Income disparity is something that will be with us as long as we have people involved. The point is to make as fair a market place to risk our efforts as possible.

Is fairness in the market not almost as important as freedom?

Free markets and individual freedom go hand in hand. We agree here 100%. What I don't care about is to make incomes more 'even'. If that occurs as a result of free markets, wonderful, but I really don't care that there are a few extremely wealthy people, which always changes year after year, as well as some relatively poor people, which can also change. Income disparity is nothing to be worried about as long as it remains flexible. Stated differently, government forces that hamper some from increasing their wealth while helping others is something to be very worried about.

I never said ANYTHING about making all incomes 'even'... that kind of thinking is just plain wrong.

I'm saying that if we lived in a land of free markets, fair and simple taxes and public budgets balanced by law, the distribution of wealth graph would assume a smooth bell curve, with most of the wealth in the hands of most of the people, on its own.

Nowhere will you see me advocate for government manipulation of wages or any other prices.

Fine, we agree.

The income distribution graph is not a goal, it's a gauge, and ours is showing a red-hot skew that will inevitably lead to collapse or a king.

Couldn't disagree more. Price controls on money and the inevitable hyperinflation that follows is what would leads to collapse, but truth be told, if after we returned to free markets, simple taxes, and balanced budget, your ideal graph of income distribution occurred, I would have no problem with that. I just don't care about income distribution.

 

[AVG-JOE]

The income distribution graph is not a goal, it's a gauge, and ours is showing a red-hot skew that will inevitably lead to collapse or a king.

Couldn't disagree more. Price controls on money and the inevitable hyperinflation that follows is what would leads to collapse, but truth be told, if after we returned to free markets, simple taxes, and balanced budget, your ideal graph of income distribution occurred, I would have no problem with that. I just don't care about income distribution.

Who is asking for price controls?

All I'm saying is that if we look at the distribution of wealth graph as a gauge, we currently see the wealth of this nation being funneled in to the hands of fewer and fewer individuals. If the trend continues, the conclusion will be economic collapse or a king who owns it all - how can such a trend conclude otherwise?

I don't want price controls.
I don't want welfare, corporate or civilian.
I don't want fat government contracts deciding the campaign contributions that win elections.


* sigh *

Fair and simple taxes, public budgets that are balanced by law, transparency in all things politics and then build an economy your kids can drive to the stars.

It ain't rocket science, y'all.

 

[eflatminor]

The income distribution graph is not a goal, it's a gauge, and ours is showing a red-hot skew that will inevitably lead to collapse or a king.

Couldn't disagree more. Price controls on money and the inevitable hyperinflation that follows is what would leads to collapse, but truth be told, if after we returned to free markets, simple taxes, and balanced budget, your ideal graph of income distribution occurred, I would have no problem with that. I just don't care about income distribution.

Who is asking for price controls?

All I'm saying is that if we look at the distribution of wealth graph as a gauge, we currently see the wealth of this nation being funneled in to the hands of fewer and fewer individuals. If the trend continues, the conclusion will be economic collapse or a king who owns it all - how can such a trend conclude otherwise?

I don't want price controls.
I don't want welfare, corporate or civilian.
I don't want fat government contracts deciding the campaign contributions that win elections.


* sigh *

Fair and simple taxes, public budgets that are balanced by law, transparency in all things politics and then build an economy your kids can drive to the stars.

It ain't rocket science, y'all.

I don't know how much more plainly I can say that we agree. I don't want any of those things you mentioned either. We're on the same page. All is well!

The only thing I disagree with is your prediction of what will happen with the trend of wealth distribution. The reason I disagree with your conclusion is that in America, the rich don't always stay rich and fortunately, same goes for the poor. If you look at the lists of richest Americans over the years, you'll see it is in flux. Such mobility of wealth is hardly a characteristic of a king.

All Americans have increased their wealth over time, rich and poor alike. That's great. That the upper income brackets have increased their wealth at a more rapid rate than lower income brackets is not a bad thing, especially when you consider the actual families in those brackets changes over time.

 

[Immanuel]

If I had all the money in the world, what good would it do me? People would start using marshmellows as a means of exchange and my cash would be worthless.

Immie

 

[AVG-JOE]

Couldn't disagree more. Price controls on money and the inevitable hyperinflation that follows is what would leads to collapse, but truth be told, if after we returned to free markets, simple taxes, and balanced budget, your ideal graph of income distribution occurred, I would have no problem with that. I just don't care about income distribution.

Who is asking for price controls?

All I'm saying is that if we look at the distribution of wealth graph as a gauge, we currently see the wealth of this nation being funneled in to the hands of fewer and fewer individuals. If the trend continues, the conclusion will be economic collapse or a king who owns it all - how can such a trend conclude otherwise?

I don't want price controls.
I don't want welfare, corporate or civilian.
I don't want fat government contracts deciding the campaign contributions that win elections.


* sigh *

Fair and simple taxes, public budgets that are balanced by law, transparency in all things politics and then build an economy your kids can drive to the stars.

It ain't rocket science, y'all.

I don't know how much more plainly I can say that we agree. I don't want any of those things you mentioned either. We're on the same page. All is well!

The only thing I disagree with is your prediction of what will happen with the trend of wealth distribution. The reason I disagree with your conclusion is that in America, the rich don't always stay rich and fortunately, same goes for the poor. If you look at the lists of richest Americans over the years, you'll see it is in flux. Such mobility of wealth is hardly a characteristic of a king.

All Americans have increased their wealth over time, rich and poor alike. That's great. That the upper income brackets have increased their wealth at a more rapid rate than lower income brackets is not a bad thing, especially when you consider the actual families in those brackets changes over time.

In practical terms, yes. The American system produced a very dynamic market place where moving from rags to riches and back again became almost boring.

That's not the point. The great place to raise a family known as America has been replaced by a complicated system of greed and favoritism, paid for with and perpetuated by campaign money. The point is the current trend toward consolidation of wealth. If it doesn't alarm you, do you expect that it will just reverse itself somewhere along the way? If the trend toward consolidation doesn't or isn't changed soon, the inevitable result will be a small group of families controlling much of the resources of the planet AGAIN, and every time the pendulum of history shows a distribution of wealth graph trending toward wealth concentration into the hands of a few, the peasants have torn down infrastructure to voice their displeasure over the unfairness.

The definition of insanity is repeating a process over and over expecting a different result. I'm hoping that the internet is the difference between a living planet and a Sentient World.

 

[Avatar4321]

If I had all the money in the world, what good would it do me? People would start using marshmellows as a means of exchange and my cash would be worthless.

Immie

Another reason why this exercise is useless.

 

[AVG-JOE]

If I had all the money in the world, what good would it do me? People would start using marshmellows as a means of exchange and my cash would be worthless.

Immie

Another reason why this exercise is useless.

Yeah... that's why it's pointless to discuss wealth inequality as a gauge of economic health and an indication of unfairness built in to a marketplace.

​

 

[editec]

If wealth distribution was equal we could not have a capitalism.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Should you?



Wealth Quiz: How Does the U.S. Slice the Pie? | PBS NewsHour

Paul Simon -- Diamonds on the Soles of Her Shoes - YouTube

aww man

rise above this phony ass class warfare crybaby bull shit.

aside from that


You can't have it all unless you are the last person on earth and are insane enough to think bears, lions, sharks won't kill you for claiming their spots, should you wander in.

 

[AVG-JOE]

If wealth distribution was equal we could not have a capitalism.

Wealth distribution is simply a measurable something that happens, not something to be forcibly "equalized" or not.

The point is to recognize that the current policies of complicated favoritism for every special interest group that can afford to garner the attention of a successful politician is NOT working, as evidenced by the gauge of wealth distribution, and begin to pursue simpler, more blanket policies that eliminate favoritism and the perfectly legal corruption that drives our politics in the form of campaign financing.

Making the rules to the game of 'Life in America' as compli-fucking-cated as we have makes us look stupid from space and it's annoying. Navigating the rules to life should not require an attorney and expensive, professional tax preparation services for basic middle class success.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Should you?



Wealth Quiz: How Does the U.S. Slice the Pie? | PBS NewsHour

Paul Simon -- Diamonds on the Soles of Her Shoes - YouTube

aww man

rise above this phony ass class warfare crybaby bull shit.

aside from that


You can't have it all unless you are the last person on earth and are insane enough to think bears, lions, sharks won't kill you for claiming their spots, should you wander in.

There's a classic answer... slap a label on it.

Aww... c'mon man... you're a pretty smart guy - you got NOTHING better than label slapping?

 

[Two Thumbs]

Should you?



Wealth Quiz: How Does the U.S. Slice the Pie? | PBS NewsHour

Paul Simon -- Diamonds on the Soles of Her Shoes - YouTube

aww man

rise above this phony ass class warfare crybaby bull shit.

aside from that


You can't have it all unless you are the last person on earth and are insane enough to think bears, lions, sharks won't kill you for claiming their spots, should you wander in.

There's a classic answer... slap a label on it.

Aww... c'mon man... you're a pretty smart guy - you got NOTHING better than label slapping?

It's class warfare nonsense.

It's a made up line of crap by the obama admin to divide Americans by who has more than me.



When we were kids the saying was: I want to work hard enough and make enough money so that my kids don't have too.

now; I want what they have w/o doing the work.

rise above it.

 

[AVG-JOE]

aww man

rise above this phony ass class warfare crybaby bull shit.

aside from that


You can't have it all unless you are the last person on earth and are insane enough to think bears, lions, sharks won't kill you for claiming their spots, should you wander in.

There's a classic answer... slap a label on it.

Aww... c'mon man... you're a pretty smart guy - you got NOTHING better than label slapping?

It's class warfare nonsense.

It's a made up line of crap by the obama admin to divide Americans by who has more than me.



When we were kids the saying was: I want to work hard enough and make enough money so that my kids don't have too.

now; I want what they have w/o doing the work.

rise above it.

Tell me two things...

1) When the fuck did I mention Obama?

2) Do you give the current trend toward consolidation of wealth in to the hands of fewer and fewer individuals two thumbs up or two thumbs down?

The thesis of this thread is use of the distribution of wealth statistics as a gauge, not a political fantasy of robbing from Peter to enrich Paul, justifying the means with the ends. I promote no redistribution of wealth here other than the natural flow of wealth towards balance, ass-u-me-ing fair and simple taxes, public budgets that are balanced by law and transparency in all things politics.

If you don't see the trend toward consolidation of wealth as alarming, we are forced to agree only on our disagreement.

 

[Two Thumbs]

There's a classic answer... slap a label on it.

Aww... c'mon man... you're a pretty smart guy - you got NOTHING better than label slapping?

It's class warfare nonsense.

It's a made up line of crap by the obama admin to divide Americans by who has more than me.



When we were kids the saying was: I want to work hard enough and make enough money so that my kids don't have too.

now; I want what they have w/o doing the work.

rise above it.

Tell me two things...

1) When the fuck did I mention Obama?

2) Do you give the current trend toward consolidation of wealth in to the hands of fewer and fewer individuals two thumbs up or two thumbs down?

The thesis of this thread is use of the distribution of wealth statistics as a gauge, not a political fantasy of robbing from Peter to enrich Paul, justifying the means with the ends. I promote no redistribution of wealth here other than the natural flow of wealth towards balance, ass-u-me-ing fair and simple taxes, public budgets that are balanced by law and transparency in all things politics.

If you don't see the trend toward consolidation of wealth as alarming, we are forced to agree only on our disagreement.

1) By posting a class warfare link, you brought in the father of class warfare; obama

2) The rich getting richer does not make you poorer.

What's alarming about it?