CDZ The Income Inequality Charade

[Leo123]

So you're OK with Trump's base's wages stagnating?

Because that's what's been happening the past decade.

I believe the OP's question was how one would define "income inequality." You did not address that adequately.

 

[Mac1958]

Soak the rich? Americans say go for it

Surveys are showing overwhelming support for raising taxes on top earners, including a new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll released Monday that found 76 percent of registered voters believe the wealthiest Americans should pay more in taxes. A recent Fox News survey showed that 70 percent of Americans favor raising taxes on those earning over $10 million — including 54 percent of Republicans.
.

 

[MarathonMike]

of course it's a problem when Jeff Bezos is making millions of dollars a day , paying very little in taxes and has employees who are on welfare.

How do you know what Bezos pays in taxes?

 

[MarathonMike]

Income Inequality is an emotional trigger that appeals to those on the lower end of the wage/wealth spectrum. Life is inherently unfair. Incomes are not supposed to be equal, people's talents are not equal, women are not as physically strong as men, and on and on and on....

 

[danielpalos]

It is about merely using capitalism for all of its capital worth in modern times.

Solving for the deleterious effects of Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States can improve the efficiency of our economy and nurture capitalism within fixed Standards enacted by Government.

At-will employment has nothing to do with the natural rate of unemployment. It is because people are always quitting or getting fired and business going under.

Structural unemployment is an input to a natural rate of unemployment.

Structural unemployment is not a problem peculiar to at-will states.

a natural rate of unemployment?

 

[DandyDonovan]

of course it's a problem when Jeff Bezos is making millions of dollars a day , paying very little in taxes and has employees who are on welfare.

How do you know what Bezos pays in taxes?

Good point, Maxine Waters should begin hearings immediately to get a hold of Jeff Bezos's tax returns. Inpeach Bezos..............

 

[Dekster]

It is about merely using capitalism for all of its capital worth in modern times.

Solving for the deleterious effects of Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States can improve the efficiency of our economy and nurture capitalism within fixed Standards enacted by Government.

At-will employment has nothing to do with the natural rate of unemployment. It is because people are always quitting or getting fired and business going under.

Structural unemployment is an input to a natural rate of unemployment.

Structural unemployment is not a problem peculiar to at-will states.

a natural rate of unemployment?

Structural unemployment is far more complex and often has to do with a change in market or economic conditions. "At-will" employment has no effect on whether a soybean farm goes under due to trade wars or a typewriter repairman loses his business to the personal computer craze. Most states are at will states and the ones that aren't still suffer the same ills when economic shifts occur.

 

[danielpalos]

Income Inequality is an emotional trigger that appeals to those on the lower end of the wage/wealth spectrum. Life is inherently unfair. Incomes are not supposed to be equal, people's talents are not equal, women are not as physically strong as men, and on and on and on....

Why bother with the Expense of Government if we really just need true capitalism.

 

[danielpalos]

It is about merely using capitalism for all of its capital worth in modern times.

Solving for the deleterious effects of Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States can improve the efficiency of our economy and nurture capitalism within fixed Standards enacted by Government.

At-will employment has nothing to do with the natural rate of unemployment. It is because people are always quitting or getting fired and business going under.

Structural unemployment is an input to a natural rate of unemployment.

Structural unemployment is not a problem peculiar to at-will states.

a natural rate of unemployment?

Structural unemployment is far more complex and often has to do with a change in market or economic conditions. "At-will" employment has no effect on whether a soybean farm goes under due to trade wars or a typewriter repairman loses his business to the personal computer craze. Most states are at will states and the ones that aren't still suffer the same ills when economic shifts occur.

You miss the point completely.

What if Labor could quit and collect unemployment if their Firm is going to be bought by "corporate raiders, dismembered and sold, along with their corporate pensions".

Being able to be pro-active is a benefit under capitalism.

 

[DandyDonovan]

Income Inequality is an emotional trigger that appeals to those on the lower end of the wage/wealth spectrum. Life is inherently unfair. Incomes are not supposed to be equal, people's talents are not equal, women are not as physically strong as men, and on and on and on....

Why bother with the Expense of Government if we really just need true capitalism.

SMH

 

[danielpalos]

Income Inequality is an emotional trigger that appeals to those on the lower end of the wage/wealth spectrum. Life is inherently unfair. Incomes are not supposed to be equal, people's talents are not equal, women are not as physically strong as men, and on and on and on....

Why bother with the Expense of Government if we really just need true capitalism.

SMH

Capitalism "died in 1929" and socialism has been bailing out capitalism ever since.

 

[DandyDonovan]

Income Inequality is an emotional trigger that appeals to those on the lower end of the wage/wealth spectrum. Life is inherently unfair. Incomes are not supposed to be equal, people's talents are not equal, women are not as physically strong as men, and on and on and on....

Why bother with the Expense of Government if we really just need true capitalism.

SMH

Capitalism "died in 1929" and socialism has been bailing out capitalism ever since.

Actually it's the exact opposite, Capitalism always has to bail out socialism in the end. Proven over thousands of years in multiple countries.

 

[sartre play]

Income will never be equal, the point is to strive to make the opportunity's to be as level as possible.

 

[danielpalos]

Income Inequality is an emotional trigger that appeals to those on the lower end of the wage/wealth spectrum. Life is inherently unfair. Incomes are not supposed to be equal, people's talents are not equal, women are not as physically strong as men, and on and on and on....

Why bother with the Expense of Government if we really just need true capitalism.

SMH

Capitalism "died in 1929" and socialism has been bailing out capitalism ever since.

Actually it's the exact opposite, Capitalism always has to bail out socialism in the end. Proven over thousands of years in multiple countries.

not after 1929.

 

[danielpalos]

Income will never be equal, the point is to strive to make the opportunity's to be as level as possible.

we could have solved simple poverty Yesterday; the Only problem the Right Wing has with it, is that the Poor may benefit.

 

[DandyDonovan]

Income will never be equal, the point is to strive to make the opportunity's to be as level as possible.

we could have solved simple poverty Yesterday; the Only problem the Right Wing has with it, is that the Poor may benefit.

Daniel, here is a fact.

If you took 50% of the wealth of the top 1% of people in this country and distributed it evenly among the lowest 10% of people and you came back in 5 years to check on everyone, what you would see was that the majority of the top 1% would have all rebuilt their wealth while the majority of the bottom 10% would have all squandered what money they were given and be in just the same condition if not worse than they were when you first gave them the money.

 

[MarathonMike]

Income will never be equal, the point is to strive to make the opportunity's to be as level as possible.

we could have solved simple poverty Yesterday; the Only problem the Right Wing has with it, is that the Poor may benefit.

Really? What party desperately relies on the government welfare voter block? What party makes a concerted effort to keep their poor voter block hooked on government assistance? What party uses fear mongering and racism accusations to keep their low income minority voters pulling the D lever? That would be the original Racist party, the Democrats. Class dismissed.

 

[DandyDonovan]

Income will never be equal, the point is to strive to make the opportunity's to be as level as possible.

we could have solved simple poverty Yesterday; the Only problem the Right Wing has with it, is that the Poor may benefit.

Really? What party desperately relies on the government welfare voter block? What party makes a concerted effort to keep their poor voter block hooked on government assistance? What party uses fear mongering and racism accusations to keep their low income minority voters pulling the D lever? That would be the original Racist party, the Democrats. Class dismissed.

Hard to argue those points in light of the fact that I sure can't remember the last Republican Governor who was busted for wearing blackface in the 90s LOL

 

[danielpalos]

Income will never be equal, the point is to strive to make the opportunity's to be as level as possible.

we could have solved simple poverty Yesterday; the Only problem the Right Wing has with it, is that the Poor may benefit.

Daniel, here is a fact.

If you took 50% of the wealth of the top 1% of people in this country and distributed it evenly among the lowest 10% of people and you came back in 5 years to check on everyone, what you would see was that the majority of the top 1% would have all rebuilt their wealth while the majority of the bottom 10% would have all squandered what money they were given and be in just the same condition if not worse than they were when you first gave them the money.

You miss the point. We are to provide for the general welfare not the general malfare.

We should be solving for actual socioeconomic phenomena, not right wing political fantasy.

 

[danielpalos]

Income will never be equal, the point is to strive to make the opportunity's to be as level as possible.

we could have solved simple poverty Yesterday; the Only problem the Right Wing has with it, is that the Poor may benefit.

Really? What party desperately relies on the government welfare voter block? What party makes a concerted effort to keep their poor voter block hooked on government assistance? What party uses fear mongering and racism accusations to keep their low income minority voters pulling the D lever? That would be the original Racist party, the Democrats. Class dismissed.

the right wing complains about the cost of social services.

why not come up with better solutions at lower cost, like Good capitalists.