"Income Inequality": So What?

[Fordsflylow]

Retired? Wow, must be nice. Neither of my in-law's can afford to retire. Must have been lucrative. I work.

 

[Ernie S.]

Retired? Wow, must be nice. Neither of my in-law's can afford to retire. Must have been lucrative. I work.

Sub 6 figures, but yes, I did OK. So your in=laws can't afford to retire, huh? How exactly is that anyone's fault but theirs?
I retired at 62 as did my father.

You "work"? How many other people do what you do? Are you competing with illegal aliens? Are you saddled by onerous regulations and restrictions?
You can't be in your own business very long and still be such a hopeless Liberal.

 

[hortysir]

Which is exactly why I no longer work for pos like you and never will again. I have my own biz now and don't subscribe to any of the nonsense spewed here by you and your ilk bamy boy.

And I wish you all the success in the world.
I hope you're able to hire more people and open more locations.

THEN, would you be fine with the idea of taking most of what you accumulated and forbid you from leaving it for your children??

 

[hortysir]

How about those koch punks. Did they work harder and smarter OR did they have everything handed to them on a silver platter?

Someone had to buy the silver platter. Are you one of those who think when you die, the government should get all of your assets?

Not all but much of. They didn't scam...er...earn it! Name me all those rich kids who grew to be adults and did well for others with the money they've been handed? You know, to use as a healthy example of how it is good they get to keep the riches dada or mama made. Please do!

You won't hear those stories because REAL charitable people do it for the sake of giving/helping. Not for the recognition.

And, whether you believe it or not, they ARE out there and in far greater numbers than you realize.

 

[Ernie S.]

How about those koch punks. Did they work harder and smarter OR did they have everything handed to them on a silver platter?

Someone had to buy the silver platter. Are you one of those who think when you die, the government should get all of your assets?

Not all but much of. They didn't scam...er...earn it! Name me all those rich kids who grew to be adults and did well for others with the money they've been handed? You know, to use as a healthy example of how it is good they get to keep the riches dada or mama made. Please do!

I supported a guy and his family for 6 months. This guy is 31 and has 4 kids by 4 different women and thinks he knows more about everything than anyone. I felt sorry for his wife and her 2 kids and their new baby. Even lent him a couple grand to hire a lawyer to represent him in yet another paternity suit. The deal was he would pay me $50/week as soon as he got a job. I got exactly 1 payment before he quit his job and he's sat on his ass and let his wife support him in the 9 months since.
He also thinks obama is the greatest thing since sliced bread. The SOB has cost me 25 grand in the last year but is pissed that I ask for a payment from time to time. He will never see another dime from me, but I'm not quite done helping people.

 

[tererun]

It's a non issue. Totally. Completely. The gov't might as well try to make everyone equally good at playing the piano. Inequality comes about because some people are smarter and work harder than other people. Period.
This is unlike some countries where inequality stems from crony capitalism and family ties.
North Korea probably has the most income equality out there--everyone is miserable and dirt poor.

Actually, it seems more like whoever can pander and network the best. Like most businesses, the people at the top are really only there through processes that have nothing to do with ability, hard work, or intelligence. If you think the US provides success for the most intelligent or hard working you are either 12 or completely ignorant of reality.

 

[tererun]

Someone had to buy the silver platter. Are you one of those who think when you die, the government should get all of your assets?

Not all but much of. They didn't scam...er...earn it! Name me all those rich kids who grew to be adults and did well for others with the money they've been handed? You know, to use as a healthy example of how it is good they get to keep the riches dada or mama made. Please do!

I supported a guy and his family for 6 months. This guy is 31 and has 4 kids by 4 different women and thinks he knows more about everything than anyone. I felt sorry for his wife and her 2 kids and their new baby. Even lent him a couple grand to hire a lawyer to represent him in yet another paternity suit. The deal was he would pay me $50/week as soon as he got a job. I got exactly 1 payment before he quit his job and he's sat on his ass and let his wife support him in the 9 months since.
He also thinks obama is the greatest thing since sliced bread. The SOB has cost me 25 grand in the last year but is pissed that I ask for a payment from time to time. He will never see another dime from me, but I'm not quite done helping people.

I think i am missing something here. how is it obama's fault that you don't have a backbone and continue to support a person who isn't going to do anything? Obama did not make a 31 year old lazy. He did not force him to impregnate a number of women, or restrict him from putting on a condom and be responsible. Obama was not an influence in this guy being raised as he wasn't even a senator when this guy was learning how to mooch off of people like you. Obama did not force you to give this guy 25 grand. he did not force you to take him in. So really what does obama have to do with any of this?

Oh, and you do have a solution which has absolutely nothing to do with any elected official. STOP! It is your money, your house, and your life. Don't blame others because you are just as out of control as this guy. Take some responsibility for your own piss poor decisions. I am not saying it is a piss poor decision to try and help a person who needs it, but to continue to help a person who takes advantage of your is your own stupidity, and if you did not learn after 1 grand you were pretty fucked up yourself. Don't worry about it, there are plenty of other suckers out there, and when you boot this guy out he will find another victim. Remember you did this to yourself, and it is your choice to stop being one of the suckers. if you want to blame Obama for something he has done that is fine, but don't blame him for something only you had control over, and he doesn't even now happens.

 

[hortysir]

Not all but much of. They didn't scam...er...earn it! Name me all those rich kids who grew to be adults and did well for others with the money they've been handed? You know, to use as a healthy example of how it is good they get to keep the riches dada or mama made. Please do!

I supported a guy and his family for 6 months. This guy is 31 and has 4 kids by 4 different women and thinks he knows more about everything than anyone. I felt sorry for his wife and her 2 kids and their new baby. Even lent him a couple grand to hire a lawyer to represent him in yet another paternity suit. The deal was he would pay me $50/week as soon as he got a job. I got exactly 1 payment before he quit his job and he's sat on his ass and let his wife support him in the 9 months since.
He also thinks obama is the greatest thing since sliced bread. The SOB has cost me 25 grand in the last year but is pissed that I ask for a payment from time to time. He will never see another dime from me, but I'm not quite done helping people.

I think i am missing something here. how is it obama's fault that you don't have a backbone and continue to support a person who isn't going to do anything? Obama did not make a 31 year old lazy. He did not force him to impregnate a number of women, or restrict him from putting on a condom and be responsible. Obama was not an influence in this guy being raised as he wasn't even a senator when this guy was learning how to mooch off of people like you. Obama did not force you to give this guy 25 grand. he did not force you to take him in. So really what does obama have to do with any of this?

Oh, and you do have a solution which has absolutely nothing to do with any elected official. STOP! It is your money, your house, and your life. Don't blame others because you are just as out of control as this guy. Take some responsibility for your own piss poor decisions. I am not saying it is a piss poor decision to try and help a person who needs it, but to continue to help a person who takes advantage of your is your own stupidity, and if you did not learn after 1 grand you were pretty fucked up yourself. Don't worry about it, there are plenty of other suckers out there, and when you boot this guy out he will find another victim. Remember you did this to yourself, and it is your choice to stop being one of the suckers. if you want to blame Obama for something he has done that is fine, but don't blame him for something only you had control over, and he doesn't even now happens.

Ironic post is ironic

 

[Artevelde]

"Income Inequality" has been the most often-heard catchphrase for today's Progressives, who constantly seek new reasons to badmouth the United States. We are told that (1) "income inequality" is a symptom of a fundamentally flawed and "unfair" society, and (2) Government must DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT! And of course, (3) the only way anything will be done about it is if we re-elect Barry.

In its simplest terms, the difference between those who have the greatest incomes and those who have the least tends to increase when (A) Masses of people make disastrous life choices like having illegitimate children, dropping out of school, and adopting generally unproductive life, and (B) new technology and other developments make it possible for individuals to achieve greater and greater financial success over time. Hence, the difference between the people at the bottom, who have nothing, and the people at the top, who have more and more over time, tends to increase.

The question of whether this is actually a "problem," or merely a fact of life is a valid one. Would it be a problem if the difference between the smartest and the dumbest kids in the class kept increasing? Why? The difference between the fastest and the slowest runners in the race? Why? It may be a problem for the poorest, the dumbest, and the slowest, but as long as they have the means to improve themselves, then what does that have to do with Government? If Government were standing in the way of people who were making all the right choices but could not succeed, then by all means Government should get out of the way. But this is manifestly not the case in the U.S. We have hundreds of give-aways and programs to help people achieve whatever their talents and perseverence allow.

Surely, we are not so stupid as to believe that the Economy is a "zero-sum proposition," in which if one person gets "more" that necessarily requires that someone else get "less." New wealth is being created constantly, both in fact and by fiat, so we NEVER have the situation where one person's success (other than a thief) prevents others from pursuing their own success. The "pie" is infinitely flexible.

I submit that "income inequality" is not a problem, and that even if it were, it is not a problem created or exacerbated by Government. Furthermore, it is not a problem for which the Constitution gives Government (Congress) the mandate or even the power to resolve, particularly when the resolution would involve taking money from innocent citizens and distributing it to the unworthy.

If an American citizen is outraged about the phenomenon of "income inequality," then that citizen should do everything in her power to communicate to those at the bottom to (1) stop the self-destructive life choices (having illegitimate children, alcohol and drug abuse, welfare dependency, dropping out of school), (2) take advantage of free public education and other means of improving oneself, and (3) follow the example of many generations of immigrants who started with nothing and achieved success by hard work.

It won't improve the statistics on "income inequality." As long as the economy is growing that will increase, but it might address an acute problem for some individuals.

To the Libs reading this I ask: First, why is "income inequality" a problem? Second, What would you suggest as a solution? Third, What gives Government the power or the right to effect this solution? (Please refer to the United States Constitution)

Interesting OP.

I tend to agree that income inequality should not be considered a problem. Very great differences in income have always existed and are a natural thing. Besides, in this discussion there is always a tendency by those who abhor income inequality to focus only on the supposedly exaggerated incomes of business leaders, executives, bankers, etc. and never on artists, sports people, etc. (many of whose incomes are simply ludicrous, but apparently supported by the market).

Where there is a problem is in certain remuneration and bonus practices that seem to be completely out of wack because they seem to encourage the wrong kind of behavior (also from an economic and business point of view). The banking sector is the best example of this, but there are other examples. I'm referring specifically to certain golden parachutes, bonusses that are artificially inflated, etc. This is an issue for business to address.

Finally I would argue that too great a concentration of wealth in the hands of a small group can be a societal problem. I think it is currently being overblown, but it is something that deserves attention. It's one of the reasons why I am personally less opposed to high inheritance taxes than to high income taxes.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

"Income Inequality" has been the most often-heard catchphrase for today's Progressives, who constantly seek new reasons to badmouth the United States. We are told that (1) "income inequality" is a symptom of a fundamentally flawed and "unfair" society, and (2) Government must DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT! And of course, (3) the only way anything will be done about it is if we re-elect Barry.

In its simplest terms, the difference between those who have the greatest incomes and those who have the least tends to increase when (A) Masses of people make disastrous life choices like having illegitimate children, dropping out of school, and adopting generally unproductive life, and (B) new technology and other developments make it possible for individuals to achieve greater and greater financial success over time. Hence, the difference between the people at the bottom, who have nothing, and the people at the top, who have more and more over time, tends to increase.

The question of whether this is actually a "problem," or merely a fact of life is a valid one. Would it be a problem if the difference between the smartest and the dumbest kids in the class kept increasing? Why? The difference between the fastest and the slowest runners in the race? Why? It may be a problem for the poorest, the dumbest, and the slowest, but as long as they have the means to improve themselves, then what does that have to do with Government? If Government were standing in the way of people who were making all the right choices but could not succeed, then by all means Government should get out of the way. But this is manifestly not the case in the U.S. We have hundreds of give-aways and programs to help people achieve whatever their talents and perseverence allow.

Surely, we are not so stupid as to believe that the Economy is a "zero-sum proposition," in which if one person gets "more" that necessarily requires that someone else get "less." New wealth is being created constantly, both in fact and by fiat, so we NEVER have the situation where one person's success (other than a thief) prevents others from pursuing their own success. The "pie" is infinitely flexible.

I submit that "income inequality" is not a problem, and that even if it were, it is not a problem created or exacerbated by Government. Furthermore, it is not a problem for which the Constitution gives Government (Congress) the mandate or even the power to resolve, particularly when the resolution would involve taking money from innocent citizens and distributing it to the unworthy.

If an American citizen is outraged about the phenomenon of "income inequality," then that citizen should do everything in her power to communicate to those at the bottom to (1) stop the self-destructive life choices (having illegitimate children, alcohol and drug abuse, welfare dependency, dropping out of school), (2) take advantage of free public education and other means of improving oneself, and (3) follow the example of many generations of immigrants who started with nothing and achieved success by hard work.

It won't improve the statistics on "income inequality." As long as the economy is growing that will increase, but it might address an acute problem for some individuals.

To the Libs reading this I ask: First, why is "income inequality" a problem? Second, What would you suggest as a solution? Third, What gives Government the power or the right to effect this solution? (Please refer to the United States Constitution)

That's a nice theory.



When the free market fails to provide a solution to income equality, the government solution, other than protecting the rights of employees, is pretty damn simple. Tax the filthy rich more and the middle class less. The power to tax income is found in the 16th amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

 

[editec]

"Income Inequality" has been the most often-heard catchphrase for today's Progressives, who constantly seek new reasons to badmouth the United States. We are told that (1) "income inequality" is a symptom of a fundamentally flawed and "unfair" society, and (2) Government must DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT! And of course, (3) the only way anything will be done about it is if we re-elect Barry.

You were right until you got to to Number 3.

In its simplest terms, the difference between those who have the greatest incomes and those who have the least tends to increase when (A) Masses of people make disastrous life choices like having illegitimate children, dropping out of school, and adopting generally unproductive life, and

or NOT

(B) new technology and other developments make it possible for individuals to achieve greater and greater financial success over time. Hence, the difference between the people at the bottom, who have nothing, and the people at the top, who have more and more over time, tends to increase.

Basically right. That IS IN PART why income and wealth inequity is happening.

The question of whether this is actually a "problem," or merely a fact of life is a valid one.

Agreed...That IS THE question.

Would it be a problem if the difference between the smartest and the dumbest kids in the class kept increasing? Why? The difference between the fastest and the slowest runners in the race? Why?

TOTALLY false analogies, there.

It may be a problem for the poorest, the dumbest, and the slowest, but as long as they have the means to improve themselves, then what does that have to do with Government?

What does that have to do with government?

If Government were standing in the way of people who were making all the right choices but could not succeed, then by all means Government should get out of the way.

Define right choices. Government is ALWAYS standing in the way of some people making the RIGHT CHOICEs for themselves.

For instance, the right choice for me this morning is to go down the bank and take all the money by force.

But that god-damned nanny state socialist collectivest government is preventing me from making that RIGHT CHOICE for me.

But this is manifestly not the case in the U.S. We have hundreds of give-aways and programs to help people achieve whatever their talents and perseverence allow.

We do? Well then, they don't seem to be very effective, do they?

Surely, we are not so stupid as to believe that the Economy is a "zero-sum proposition," in which if one person gets "more" that necessarily requires that someone else get "less."

Nobody thinks it's a ZERO SUM GAME, kid. That is a strawman argument.

However.... ALL CAPITAL competes against all CAPITAL for the real wealth that exists. Don't you KNOW how the stock market and market forces work?!

New wealth is being created constantly, both in fact and by fiat,

Aye...there's your confusion...you just informed some of us that you don't really understand what money and wealth REALLY are.

so we NEVER have the situation where one person's success (other than a thief) prevents others from pursuing their own success. The "pie" is infinitely flexible.

Wrong. Totally wrong, actually.

Think more deeply, kid. I am sure your are NOT dumb enough to think that all the world resources are INFINITE, are you?

I submit that "income inequality" is not a problem, and that even if it were, it is not a problem created or exacerbated by Government.

Oh? So then using your specious logic, NOTHING GOVERNMENT does can matter either way, right?

Furthermore, it is not a problem for which the Constitution gives Government (Congress) the mandate or even the power to resolve, particularly when the resolution would involve taking money from innocent citizens and distributing it to the unworthy.

Obviously the history of the nation shows us that that your legal opinions about this issue are entirely worthless. The power of the Federal government to levy income tax has passed constitutional muster.

If an American citizen is outraged about the phenomenon of "income inequality," then that citizen should do everything in her power to communicate to those at the bottom to (1) stop the self-destructive life choices (having illegitimate children, alcohol and drug abuse, welfare dependency, dropping out of school), (2) take advantage of free public education and other means of improving oneself, and (3) follow the example of many generations of immigrants who started with nothing and achieved success by hard work.

Yeah, that's good advice.

It won't improve the statistics on "income inequality." As long as the economy is growing that will increase, but it might address an acute problem for some individuals.

Agreed.

To the Libs reading this I ask: First, why is "income inequality" a problem?

Okay, let me take income and wealth inequity to an hypothetical extreme, and then perhaps you'll understand how it might be a problem.

JOHN GALT the smartest, hard workingest and luckiest man in the world now owns EVERYTHING.

Is that a problem for the rest of us?

Second, What would you suggest as a solution?

Depends on WHY the problem is manifesting, does it not?

Third, What gives Government the power or the right to effect this solution? (Please refer to the United States Constitution)

What gives ANY government ANY right to do ANYTHING?

And if you are stupid enough to think its the LAWS, then you truly are a dupe.

What gives every government the power to do anything is POWER to enforce its WILL.

Its will is theoretically codifed in the law, but the laws are not the POWER, the POWER TO ENFORCE THE LAW is the POWER

 

[Fordsflylow]

So, what does anyone of you who plans on voting for romney (richer than all previous 8 presidents COMBINED) think he is going to do for you the working man/woman?

Do you think he is going to reduce your tax rate to what he pays (15%)?

Do we all get to put our money in off-shore accounts, then keep it secret like he does?

 

[Mac1958]

.

I've never understood the reasoning behind waiting for or expecting someone else, especially a professional freakin' politician, to "do" something for me.

.

 

[Fordsflylow]

So, are you of the breed who thinks we should have no govt? How does the Constitution read to you?

 

[Mac1958]

So, are you of the breed who thinks we should have no govt? How does the Constitution read to you?

I'm not aware of anyone who thinks we should have no government. Perhaps you could provide a link. I realize hyperbole is a standard element of partisan rhetoric, but I prefer intellectual honesty, myself.

I'm of the breed who thinks that government plays - or that should be, CAN play - a critical role of foundational support for our country. From military to health care, from education to infrastructure, from financial regulation to consumer protection. The questions, however, are the scope and cost of government, and the efficiency of government. The Left knee-jerks towards the notion that government should be the first answer to any question. The Right knee-jerks in the opposite direction.

So the question is finding balance, equilibrium. And in today's narcissistic, absolutist political environment, I ain't seeing much of that. But one thing that concerns me greatly is watching so many people (not just politicians) becoming more and more dependent on "someone else". I think that destroys people, families. And it doesn't take a great deal of effort to identify evidence of this, but it does require open eyes.

But to answer your question in context, I strongly believe that a life spent waiting for someone else, especially a bunch of professional politicians, to "make" your life "better" is a sad and wasted life, indeed. It's already destroyed millions of lives, generations of lives, and that trend does not appear to be reversing itself.

.

 

[Fordsflylow]

I'm not aware of anyone who thinks we should have no government. Perhaps you could provide a link. I realize hyperbole is a standard element of partisan rhetoric, but I prefer intellectual honesty, myself.

I'm of the breed who thinks that government plays - or that should be, CAN play - a critical role of foundational support for our country. From military to health care, from education to infrastructure, from financial regulation to consumer protection. The questions, however, are the scope and cost of government, and the efficiency of government. The Left knee-jerks towards the notion that government should be the first answer to any question. The Right knee-jerks in the opposite direction.

So the question is finding balance, equilibrium. And in today's narcissistic, absolutist political environment, I ain't seeing much of that. But one thing that concerns me greatly is watching so many people (not just politicians) becoming more and more dependent on "someone else". I think that destroys people, families. And it doesn't take a great deal of effort to identify evidence of this, but it does require open eyes.

But to answer your question in context, I strongly believe that a life spent waiting for someone else, especially a bunch of professional politicians, to "make" your life "better" is a sad and wasted life, indeed. It's already destroyed millions of lives, generations of lives, and that trend does not appear to be reversing itself.

.

The left wants it all their way? How's that? I see/hear/read of no one on the right seeking compromise? Hell they refuse to vote or even debate on what they have authored or so-sponsored in the past.

The top 1% has more wealth than does the bottom 50+%. How many millions have been forced into poverty or are on the verge, while the upper crust continues to reap?

 

[The Rabbi]

]


That's a nice theory.



When the free market fails to provide a solution to income equality, the government solution, other than protecting the rights of employees, is pretty damn simple. Tax the filthy rich more and the middle class less. The power to tax income is found in the 16th amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

There is no "solution" to income equality required. Certainly not by gov't action. That is like providing a solution to inequality in piano performance by cutting off fingers from more talented practitioners.
There is no problem here that anyone can identify.

 

[Fordsflylow]

]


That's a nice theory.



When the free market fails to provide a solution to income equality, the government solution, other than protecting the rights of employees, is pretty damn simple. Tax the filthy rich more and the middle class less. The power to tax income is found in the 16th amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

There is no "solution" to income equality required. Certainly not by gov't action. That is like providing a solution to inequality in piano performance by cutting off fingers from more talented practitioners.
There is no problem here that anyone can identify.

To expect this corporate run govt to do anything for anyone in the bottom 99% is dreaming and/or asleep.

 

[rightwinger]

The issue is not so much that there is income inequality and we have to take money from the rich and give it to the poor as ....

Why do we continue public policies that have contributed to this inequality?

 

[Liability]

I not only do not object to income inequality, I endorse it.

I don't want to make the same amount of money as some derp who can barely fill the order at McDonalds.

I don't think a surgeon necessarily needs to make the same amount that I make or the kid in McDonalds makes.

I WANT there to be a financial INCENTIVE to work better, harder, faster and more productively. I WANT skill and effort and cleverness and productivity etc to be REWARDED.

The mindless rhetoric of the left about "income inequality" is absurd. It's like those mutants are marching around in a circle, carrying placards that demand an end to progress.

Such libs are derps.