Wealth and Income Inequality in the United States

[Wiseacre]

JFK once said......."A rising tide lifts all boats"

Since Reagan, the rising tide is only lifting the yachts

I know it's just a saying, but yachts and corporate jets, aren't there jobs for building and maintaining them, sales taxes and licensing fees, employees that work on those boats/planes, marinas/airports? More jobs are created, what's wong with that?

I don't think it's just the rich guys getting richer, it's middle class guys moving up he income ladder, followed by more of those at the lower end. The standard of living has gone up since Reagan for everybody, perhaps not as much for the rich guys as you think. I've seen studies that say the rise in consumption and happiness does not match the rise in income inequality.

A yacht is a metaphor for the richest amongst us

The gap between the wealthiest Americans and the working masses has widened since Reagan. If it were pure market forces, it would be justified. But the corporate engines of this country are not as dominating as they were before Reagan. The US has lost ground to the rest of the world and the richest among us who drive that engine have made more money

I think you got a point, the richest corps and people among us have lobbyists influencing the pols (both sides) to pass legislation that favors them one way or another. As do the unions BTW. I thought Citizens v United was the correct decision for the SCOTUS to make, but we do need effective campaign finance laws that have no exceptions or exclusions like the dems tried to put into their bill that failed.

I also think some of that widening gap in income inequality IS due to market forces though. You know how much money has been lost by the rich guys in the last few weks due to the falling market? Estimates are between 1 and 3 trillion, and I see no tears for them now. Nor do I shed any myself, but when the worm turns and the market goes back up, and it eventually will, rich guys are going to get it all back if they invest it. You gotta have money to make money, and you gotta take risks with it to make it grow. It's the way of the world.

 

[Wiseacre]

Actually we should be making it easier for everyone to get richer, no?

Yes, we should! The problem is that when we liberals and progressives try to do that, with minimum wage increases or pay raises for public workers or cheaper health care for all, you guys foam at the mouth and start screaming about "socialism".

How do you create wealth for the working class?

It's not by giving them a $800 handout like Bush and Obama did

You create wealth by making higher education and trade schools more affordable. You create wealth by making home ownership more achievable. You create wealth by removing the threat of bankruptcy due to health issues

You show me gov't programs to do these things that work, effectively and efficiently, and I'll support them. But it's going to have to very different from what we've been trying so far.

 

[dblack]

Yes, we should! The problem is that when we liberals and progressives try to do that, with minimum wage increases or pay raises for public workers or cheaper health care for all, you guys foam at the mouth and start screaming about "socialism".

How do you create wealth for the working class?

It's not by giving them a $800 handout like Bush and Obama did

You create wealth by making higher education and trade schools more affordable. You create wealth by making home ownership more achievable. You create wealth by removing the threat of bankruptcy due to health issues

You show me gov't programs to do these things that work, effectively and efficiently, and I'll support them. But it's going to have to very different from what we've been trying so far.

See, I wouldn't support these kinds of programs even if they worked. It's not the job of government to 'create wealth', especially not wealth for specific groups of people.

 

[rightwinger]

Yes, we should! The problem is that when we liberals and progressives try to do that, with minimum wage increases or pay raises for public workers or cheaper health care for all, you guys foam at the mouth and start screaming about "socialism".

How do you create wealth for the working class?

It's not by giving them a $800 handout like Bush and Obama did

You create wealth by making higher education and trade schools more affordable. You create wealth by making home ownership more achievable. You create wealth by removing the threat of bankruptcy due to health issues

You show me gov't programs to do these things that work, effectively and efficiently, and I'll support them. But it's going to have to very different from what we've been trying so far.

A key to wealth is to have generational assets that can be passed on. Education is key to moving to the next level. i am not just talking college but trade schools and apprenticeships. Right now, education is being priced out of the reach of much of the working class
Home ownership is another asset that can be passed on to the next generation. Not looking for government to buy you a house, but to provide sufficient tax incentive to allow home ownership.
Healthcare is the 800 lb gorilla in the room. A major illness can wipe out everything you have saved during your lifetime...even if you have insurance

The government currently provides incentives for the richest to become richer. They can do more to allow the working class to accumulate some wealth also

 

[rightwinger]

How do you create wealth for the working class?

It's not by giving them a $800 handout like Bush and Obama did

You create wealth by making higher education and trade schools more affordable. You create wealth by making home ownership more achievable. You create wealth by removing the threat of bankruptcy due to health issues

You show me gov't programs to do these things that work, effectively and efficiently, and I'll support them. But it's going to have to very different from what we've been trying so far.

See, I wouldn't support these kinds of programs even if they worked. It's not the job of government to 'create wealth', especially not wealth for specific groups of people.

Then why the hell do we have programs to create wealth for the richest Americans? They have the government in their pocket to protect their interests at home and abroad

 

[dblack]

Then why the hell do we have programs to create wealth for the richest Americans? They have the government in their pocket to protect their interests at home and abroad

Because when we give government the power to 'create wealth', or otherwise manipulate the economy, greedy and ambitious people will strive to be on the receiving end of that power.

 

[Wiseacre]

How do you create wealth for the working class?

It's not by giving them a $800 handout like Bush and Obama did

You create wealth by making higher education and trade schools more affordable. You create wealth by making home ownership more achievable. You create wealth by removing the threat of bankruptcy due to health issues

You show me gov't programs to do these things that work, effectively and efficiently, and I'll support them. But it's going to have to very different from what we've been trying so far.

See, I wouldn't support these kinds of programs even if they worked. It's not the job of government to 'create wealth', especially not wealth for specific groups of people.

Those programs do not create wealth, as I think you know. However, given the current situation with so many people out of work for lengthy periods, and also a very high UE rate among young people, a good program that gives these people a chance to improve their opportunities for a good job. I'd give 'em a loan and make 'em pay it back, and if they didn't graduate or pay back the loan then they'd be ineligible for gov't UE benefits and any other gov't program that cuts them a check.

The housing issue is different, we can't be putting people into houses they can't pay for. Been there, done that, didn't work too well. I think ARMs should be outlawed, if you can't afford a fixed rate 30 year mortgage then you aren't ready for home ownership. Now if you want a program to offer say a 50 year fixed rate mortgage by Fannie or Freddie, where the person has to put up a down payment, I'd be okay with that.

The last issue was bankruptcy due to health issues. This is a tough one, some health issues are extremely expensive and are long term. I'm reminded of the little boy in Canada awhile back with an expensive health problem, mighta been terminal, and the canadian health system basically said no more treatment. The hard truth is that as rich as we are, we can't afford to take care of everybody's health problems.

Only answer I can see is places like St Jude's hospital in Memphis, founded by Danny Thomas before he died. It's funded with private donations, maybe that's he way to go here. And I believe there's already a castastrophic fund for these kinds of health issues that the gov't funds.

 

[Wiseacre]

You show me gov't programs to do these things that work, effectively and efficiently, and I'll support them. But it's going to have to very different from what we've been trying so far.

See, I wouldn't support these kinds of programs even if they worked. It's not the job of government to 'create wealth', especially not wealth for specific groups of people.

Then why the hell do we have programs to create wealth for the richest Americans? They have the government in their pocket to protect their interests at home and abroad

We do not have programs that are intended to create more wealth for the richest Americans, that is a bullshit claim. We legislate subsidies and tax breaks and loopholes that are usually designed to protect US jobs from foreign competition. Usually the money ends up in the richest corps and people, if you can find a way to kep the jobs without the subsidies and loopholes then I suggest you get with your congresspersons.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Republicans: When we fuck up, we want a blank check. However, fuck single mothers and starving children.

I don't know how you can be a Christian and support Republicans.

We spend hundreds of billions a year on social programs.
We have starving childern?

Yes, we have starving children. The Republican solution:
Rush Limbaugh thinks hungry children should "dumpster dive" for their dinner | Crooks and Liars

We spend hundreds of billions and still have starving children?
I guess the Democrat solution isn't working.

 

[Big Fitz]

We spend hundreds of billions a year on social programs.
We have starving childern?

Yes, we have starving children. The Republican solution:
Rush Limbaugh thinks hungry children should "dumpster dive" for their dinner | Crooks and Liars

We spend hundreds of billions and still have starving children?
I guess the Democrat solution isn't working.

Food stamps man! 87% profit margin! Who's dumpster diving. They're able to dine at L'Idiot!

 

[editec]

The INCOME inequity in this nation is the direct result of the WEALTH inequity.

Money BEGATS more money in a capitalistic system.

There's really nobody to blame for that since it is the job of the wealthy to increase their wealth.

The problem right now is that we have systematically made it unwise for the wealthy to invest in this nation.

This problem is easily solvable, if we can find the political will to change the way things work.

 

[Foxfyre]

The INCOME inequity in this nation is the direct result of the WEALTH inequity.

Money BEGATS more money in a capitalistic system.

There's really nobody to blame for that since it is the job of the wealthy to increase their wealth.

The problem right now is that we have systematically made it unwise for the wealthy to invest in this nation.

This problem is easily solvable, if we can find the political will to change the way things work.

There will always be some income inequity because you will always have people willing to do what they need to do to prepare themselves to succeed financially and there will be people who are not willing to do that. And an even smaller number who for whatever reason are incapable of doing that.

But in my opinion, the huge lion's share of wealth inequity in this country is a direct result of government policy.

The Founders gave us a Constitution that, when followed by letter AND intent, would ensure a classless society. Nobody would be consigned to permanent circumstances by virtue of the circumstances of their birth and it was intended that every citizen have the same unalienable right to go after the brass ring. Our history is full of amazing rags to riches stories in the experience of American born, immigrants, people of every race, people of every circumstance.

But when you have a government that attempts to create classes through government 'benevolence' of any kind, the system becomes skewed and the free market becomes unable to work. Minimum wage, mandatory union shop contracts, and attempts to equalize the wealth of low income people may seem compassionate and noble, but in fact they cause as much hardship for people as they help people.

The government cannot create wealth. It can only take it from one person and transfer it to another which is not only counterproductive in effect but is immoral. The government, however, can make policy that encourages the free market to work efficiently and effectively and that creates real wealth that benefits all.

 

[rightwinger]

The INCOME inequity in this nation is the direct result of the WEALTH inequity.

Money BEGATS more money in a capitalistic system.

There's really nobody to blame for that since it is the job of the wealthy to increase their wealth.

The problem right now is that we have systematically made it unwise for the wealthy to invest in this nation.

This problem is easily solvable, if we can find the political will to change the way things work.

There will always be some income inequity because you will always have people willing to do what they need to do to prepare themselves to succeed financially and there will be people who are not willing to do that. And an even smaller number who for whatever reason are incapable of doing that.

But in my opinion, the huge lion's share of wealth inequity in this country is a direct result of government policy.

The Founders gave us a Constitution that, when followed by letter AND intent, would ensure a classless society. Nobody would be consigned to permanent circumstances by virtue of the circumstances of their birth and it was intended that every citizen have the same unalienable right to go after the brass ring. Our history is full of amazing rags to riches stories in the experience of American born, immigrants, people of every race, people of every circumstance.

But when you have a government that attempts to create classes through government 'benevolence' of any kind, the system becomes skewed and the free market becomes unable to work. Minimum wage, mandatory union shop contracts, and attempts to equalize the wealth of low income people may seem compassionate and noble, but in fact they cause as much hardship for people as they help people.

The government cannot create wealth. It can only take it from one person and transfer it to another which is not only counterproductive in effect but is immoral. The government, however, can make policy that encourages the free market to work efficiently and effectively and that creates real wealth that benefits all.

Sounds good on paper.

We back off, let the free market run wild and watch as the rising economic windfall helps everyone. Do you have any examples where it has worked in the real world? There are hundreds of countries, it must have worked in one.

What I have seen is the economic haves use the unrestrained economic power to squash the have nots. Economic Darwinism does not work

 

[Wiseacre]

The INCOME inequity in this nation is the direct result of the WEALTH inequity.

Money BEGATS more money in a capitalistic system.

There's really nobody to blame for that since it is the job of the wealthy to increase their wealth.

The problem right now is that we have systematically made it unwise for the wealthy to invest in this nation.

This problem is easily solvable, if we can find the political will to change the way things work.

There will always be some income inequity because you will always have people willing to do what they need to do to prepare themselves to succeed financially and there will be people who are not willing to do that. And an even smaller number who for whatever reason are incapable of doing that.

But in my opinion, the huge lion's share of wealth inequity in this country is a direct result of government policy.

The Founders gave us a Constitution that, when followed by letter AND intent, would ensure a classless society. Nobody would be consigned to permanent circumstances by virtue of the circumstances of their birth and it was intended that every citizen have the same unalienable right to go after the brass ring. Our history is full of amazing rags to riches stories in the experience of American born, immigrants, people of every race, people of every circumstance.

But when you have a government that attempts to create classes through government 'benevolence' of any kind, the system becomes skewed and the free market becomes unable to work. Minimum wage, mandatory union shop contracts, and attempts to equalize the wealth of low income people may seem compassionate and noble, but in fact they cause as much hardship for people as they help people.

The government cannot create wealth. It can only take it from one person and transfer it to another which is not only counterproductive in effect but is immoral. The government, however, can make policy that encourages the free market to work efficiently and effectively and that creates real wealth that benefits all.

Sounds good on paper.

We back off, let the free market run wild and watch as the rising economic windfall helps everyone. Do you have any examples where it has worked in the real world? There are hundreds of countries, it must have worked in one.

What I have seen is the economic haves use the unrestrained economic power to squash the have nots. Economic Darwinism does not work

That's not what she said, nothing there about allowing the market to run wild. She actually said the inequity of wealth in this country is a result of poor governance, which is pretty much what you're saying I think. How else can the rich have unrestrained power to squash anybody?

Nobody is denying the need for effective and efficient regulations, but we've gone way overboard. When it costs small business about ten grand to comply with gov't regulations for each employee, that's ridiculous. Surely we can find a more cost effective way to ensure the rights of employees and customers and other businesses. We're choking the golden goose here, how stupid is that?

 

[Sundial]

How do you create wealth for the working class?

It's not by giving them a $800 handout like Bush and Obama did

You create wealth by making higher education and trade schools more affordable. You create wealth by making home ownership more achievable. You create wealth by removing the threat of bankruptcy due to health issues

You show me gov't programs to do these things that work, effectively and efficiently, and I'll support them. But it's going to have to very different from what we've been trying so far.

See, I wouldn't support these kinds of programs even if they worked. It's not the job of government to 'create wealth', especially not wealth for specific groups of people.

The thing about that is that the marketplace doesn't work without rules, and rules have to be created by people. All rules are interventions of one sort or another in the marketplace. The idea that government can step out is a myth.

Take copyrights, for example. A few years ago Disney got an extension of copyright because their control over old Mickey Mouse cartoons was about to run out. It was already something like the life of the creator/author + some number of years. Now it's something like 100 years plus.

What is the proper term of years of copyright? 5 years? 50 years? Forever?

Any rule you make is going to favor one group over another.

I favor a shorter rule, but that's because I favor the public over the owners (of copyright). A longer rule favors owners.

But again, there's no one "right" rule - no rule that exists without somebody in control making a decision.

 

[dblack]

The thing about that is that the marketplace doesn't work without rules, and rules have to be created by people. All rules are interventions of one sort or another in the marketplace. The idea that government can step out is a myth.

That old strawman? Your assumption here is the myth: the nonsense that a libertarian government enforces no rules on business. Or further, that there's no distinction between those rules and manipulating the economy. In point of fact, that distinction is fairly easy to make and something we desperately need to do.

The separation of church and state is the best analogy I've found for this. Such separation doesn't mean churches aren't bound by the law, or that they are free to abuse people in the name of religion. What it means is the state can't make laws intended to encourage, or discourage, particular religious beliefs. They can't create a state religion. They can't use the tax code, or any other legal structure to 'incent' people to join certain religions or penalize them for joining others.

The separation of church and state serves two related functions. First, it keeps the government out of our spiritual lives. But it also prevents those with ambitions of theocracy from getting very far. Even if religious groups do gain power, our Constitution limits the damage the can do.

We need this exact same kind of protection when it comes to economic matters. The more obvious reason for this is the matter of privacy and freedom. But the more subtle effect, and the more important one in my view, is that it would prevent powerful interests from using the government to enrich themselves through government policy.

 

[edjax1952]

Some people are just smarter than others and can make that kind of money.

You mean people like Charlie Sheen, Paris Hilton and Justin Bieber?

Those three had good business managers who recognized that the American people would give their hard earned money up for a feel good moment and took action on it. It is the American people who made them rich. Is this buyers remorse now that they have the money and all the American people have is a 1/2 hour TV Show, a photograph and a CD?