Can there ever be too much income inequality?

[Wiseacre]

Can there ever be too much income inequality? Sure, but the point when it happens is probably up for debate, as is what to do about it. Too many people want to raise taxes on the rich guys and redistribute the money to the lower income people. Instead, we should be trying to increase competition and create more opportunities for the not-rich to improve their lot in life. That requires a change in current policies, and a severe reduction in crony capitalism. Both political parties are responsible for this mess, let's not kid ourselves that it's all somebody else's fault.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Why should Wayne Gretzky have been allowed to score 92 goals? Why? Those goals should have been better be redistributed to players who sucked!

 

[Oldstyle]

Bill Mayer asked Grover Norquist that question. It took Grover a full 30 seconds of hemming and hawing to kind of answer it. Grover said yes, but he wasn't sure how much that could be.

Then Grover proceeded to lie again and again, but Bill pulled out a cheat sheet that his staff put together to counter the lies. He left Grover sputtering.

Later, Ron Christie was lying. The guys on the panel were all over him until Christie brought up some bill to work on America's infrastructure that Ron said Republicans support, but Democrats opposed. Bill said he hadn't heard of the bill so he couldn't argue. Then he said too often Republicans bring something up Bill can't argue about because he never heard of it,, then Bill has his staff investigate it and almost always finds out the Republican was full of shit and lying. I'm surprised when they aren't.

Grover Norquist and Ron Christie. What a couple of fools. Seriously.

People are protesting because they want jobs, not money, JOBS!

Christie said Obama should be in Washington working with Republicans, not turning America against the Republicans. As if they would work with Obama? Seriously?

It's Bill Maher, you idiot. And if you'd watched the show you'd know that Maher once again proved himself to be clueless when it comes to the issues. After Maher did his usual "blame the Republicans" thing...this time about infrastructure spending. Nordquist brought up the point that when the Democrats controlled the House, Senate and the White House that it was Ray Lahood, Obama's Secretary of Transportation that stated that a plan to fix infrastructure that had been proposed by Republicans wasn't something the Obama Administration was ready to move forward on and the bill the Republicans had put forward was killed by the Democrats. Maher, of course didn't know anything about that (as usual!) but came back with the snide comment that he'd have his staff research the topic because whenever conservatives claimed something on his show it always turned out to be a lie and he assumed this was as well...something that got applause from Maher's equally clueless audience, who obviously knew as much about the topic as Maher did.

Generally speaking ANY Bill Maher HBO show consists of him preaching to the choir...a whiny limo-liberal spouting the progressive party line to an audience of brain washed liberal lemmings that would applaud wildly if Maher stood up there and read the Manhattan phone directory.

 

[Harry Dresden]

So..... if people are protesting that they want jobs, why are they mad at Republicans? Repubs haven't been in charge since 2006.


Can there ever be too many bad economic policies? Apparently for Dems, no.

Horseshit.

Wall Street ran a $516 trillion dollar derivatives Ponzi scheme during the Bush administration that destroyed the world economy.

Ah but you miss one critically important part of that problem, Chris.

It was under the reign of Willian Jefferson Clinton, that the decision was made NOT TO REGULATE dereivatives.


So blaming Bush II for that particualr aspect of this failing economy isn't exactly fair, is it?

We would not have a dereivatives problem if WJC et al hadn't prevented the Commodities regulators from doing their job.

to dweebs like Chris and Dean you can blame Republicans for anything you want......i have been here 3 years and i dont believe i have ever seen them two ever say anything negative about Democrats......but then i guess its hard to criticize a group of people who can walk on water....

 

[code1211]

Under the Ancien Régime, taxation probably never amounted to more the about 5% of GDP.

In a pre-industrial economy, there's not as much of a tax base to begin with and the country can't afford as much in the way of social services. 5% under those conditions can be a lot, especially when it's taken mainly from poor people, the nobility being exempt.

Besides, who said taxes were the only or even the main engine of income equality? There was also hereditary land ownership in those days, hereditary titles, the privileges of the Church, and the whole machinery of the monarchy supporting those things.

It's not an exact parallel here, but the main points exist. We have a country being bled dry to enrich a privileged minority, and the country is fed up with it. We have a government that serves the interests of that privileged minority, and the country is fed up with it. We are ripe for revolution if nothing is done to fix these problems.

And of course, the usual array of idiots arrives on cue to try to turn this into a stupid partisan slap-fest . . .

In our society if you can do something better than anybody else, and this includes virtually all pursuits, you will become rich unless you're an idiot.

The reason there are a multitude of rich people in our society is that there are a bunch of peope IN our society who are very good at what they do.

You are proposing punishing this group to the point that they take their greatness with them to a foreign destination that does not punish them for excelling.

What you propose is punishing the top performers out of the society and reducing the level of talent to the mid point of the continuum. There would be greater income equality because the top 3% would have left.

 

[Dragon]

What you propose is punishing the top performers out of the society and reducing the level of talent to the mid point of the continuum. There would be greater income equality because the top 3% would have left.

Is that what happened in the 1950s-70s? This is not unexplored territory, you know. We've been there before.

 

[bripat9643]

What you propose is punishing the top performers out of the society and reducing the level of talent to the mid point of the continuum. There would be greater income equality because the top 3% would have left.

Is that what happened in the 1950s-70s? This is not unexplored territory, you know. We've been there before.

What happened in the 1950s-70s is that the rest of the industrialized world got bombed in to the stone age during WW II, so we didn't have any competitors for cars, industrial machinery, and countless other products that only the U.S could manufacture.

The claim that high tax rates promote economic growth is idiotic. The only "economists" who support it are all Marxist toadies. In other words, they aren't economists. They are propagandists.

 

[The T]

What you propose is punishing the top performers out of the society and reducing the level of talent to the mid point of the continuum. There would be greater income equality because the top 3% would have left.

Is that what happened in the 1950s-70s? This is not unexplored territory, you know. We've been there before.

What happened in the 1950s-70s is that the rest of the industrialized world got bombed in to the stone age during WW II, so we didn't have any competitors for cars, industrial machinery, and countless other products that only the U.S could manufacture.

The claim that high tax rates promote economic growth is idiotic. The only "economists" who support it are all Marxist toadies. In other words, they aren't economists. They are propagandists.

And Willing Accomplices...All for Power over others.

 

[Listening]

What you propose is punishing the top performers out of the society and reducing the level of talent to the mid point of the continuum. There would be greater income equality because the top 3% would have left.

Is that what happened in the 1950s-70s? This is not unexplored territory, you know. We've been there before.

Not in a global economy. So yes it is unexplored territory.

It is hysterical that you people will reach for any kind of assoication you can to soak the rich.

 

[Listening]

Both those statements are untrue. The employees of the rich actually produce those things; the rich simply enjoy the fruits of other people's labor, and the reason why ordinary people are suffering is because real wages have declined while the cost of living has increased. It's entirely attributable to increasing shares of the national wealth going to a tiny minority at the top.

And that statement is garbage.

Ordinary people are suffering because they don't have the links or the interest in starting up businesses to compete for that wealth. Seems many are simply not interested.

Additionally, our lovely government has made it more difficult to start businesses. I just purchases a mattress and had to sign all kind of form on fire retardants in the mattress....more regulation.

If you want to get the wealth spread out, stop using government to protect the rich.

 

[Listening]

Ah but you miss one critically important part of that problem, Chris.

It was under the reign of Willian Jefferson Clinton, that the decision was made NOT TO REGULATE dereivatives.


So blaming Bush II for that particualr aspect of this failing economy isn't exactly fair, is it?

We would not have a dereivatives problem if WJC et al hadn't prevented the Commodities regulators from doing their job.

actually, there were some measures of regulation in the bill that were not implemented under the last administration....the bill passed under clinton was NOT completely regulation free.

so very true Care and so few know the whole facts of it.


Its why they could sell shitburgers as AAA.


Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

People buy #$#burgers ?

They really must be stupid.

 

[Chris]

What you propose is punishing the top performers out of the society and reducing the level of talent to the mid point of the continuum. There would be greater income equality because the top 3% would have left.

Is that what happened in the 1950s-70s? This is not unexplored territory, you know. We've been there before.

Not in a global economy. So yes it is unexplored territory.

It is hysterical that you people will reach for any kind of assoication you can to soak the rich.

Making the super rich pay taxes at the same rate as the rest of us is not "soaking the rich."

The top 4% have gotten 80% of the after tax income increase in the last 30 years.

 

[Chris]

Both those statements are untrue. The employees of the rich actually produce those things; the rich simply enjoy the fruits of other people's labor, and the reason why ordinary people are suffering is because real wages have declined while the cost of living has increased. It's entirely attributable to increasing shares of the national wealth going to a tiny minority at the top.

And that statement is garbage.

Ordinary people are suffering because they don't have the links or the interest in starting up businesses to compete for that wealth. Seems many are simply not interested.

Additionally, our lovely government has made it more difficult to start businesses. I just purchases a mattress and had to sign all kind of form on fire retardants in the mattress....more regulation.

If you want to get the wealth spread out, stop using government to protect the rich.

Bullshit.

Ordinary people are suffering because Wall Street ran a $516 trillion dollar derivatives Ponzi scheme that destroyed the world economy.

 

[The T]

Both those statements are untrue. The employees of the rich actually produce those things; the rich simply enjoy the fruits of other people's labor, and the reason why ordinary people are suffering is because real wages have declined while the cost of living has increased. It's entirely attributable to increasing shares of the national wealth going to a tiny minority at the top.

And that statement is garbage.

Ordinary people are suffering because they don't have the links or the interest in starting up businesses to compete for that wealth. Seems many are simply not interested.

Additionally, our lovely government has made it more difficult to start businesses. I just purchases a mattress and had to sign all kind of form on fire retardants in the mattress....more regulation.

If you want to get the wealth spread out, stop using government to protect the rich.

Bullshit.

Ordinary people are suffering because Wall Street ran a $516 trillion dollar derivatives Ponzi scheme that destroyed the world economy.

BULLSHIT...Ordinary people are suffering because the POLITICIANS have fucked around with the economy and not let Liberty and the FREE MARKET Reign as it should be allowed...too many have fucked thier OWN LIVES and want to blame the rich like YOU Chrissy...

 

[thereisnospoon]

Bill Mayer asked Grover Norquist that question. It took Grover a full 30 seconds of hemming and hawing to kind of answer it. Grover said yes, but he wasn't sure how much that could be.

Then Grover proceeded to lie again and again, but Bill pulled out a cheat sheet that his staff put together to counter the lies. He left Grover sputtering.

Later, Ron Christie was lying. The guys on the panel were all over him until Christie brought up some bill to work on America's infrastructure that Ron said Republicans support, but Democrats opposed. Bill said he hadn't heard of the bill so he couldn't argue. Then he said too often Republicans bring something up Bill can't argue about because he never heard of it,, then Bill has his staff investigate it and almost always finds out the Republican was full of shit and lying. I'm surprised when they aren't.

Grover Norquist and Ron Christie. What a couple of fools. Seriously.

People are protesting because they want jobs, not money, JOBS!

Christie said Obama should be in Washington working with Republicans, not turning America against the Republicans. As if they would work with Obama? Seriously?

Well, it's Bill Maher, not Bill Mayer. I think he's alledgely a comedian, but he has yet to actually be funny.

To the point, though, the question you ask is wrong. It's not what is an unacceptable level of income inequality, it's a question of is the government the best agency to decide what is "fair"?

And the answer to that is a resounding, no. They suck at that pretty much like they suck at just about everything else.

The problem is that we don't have enough jobs in this country because big corporations just find it easier to set up shop in another country.

Republicans have made this too easy by setting up ridiculous free trade rules.

Democrats have made this an easy choice by too many regulations, and protecting a public education system that produces idiots just dim enough to vote for Democrats, but too dumb to hold down a real job.

Businesses are in the business of making money,not producing jobs. The ideal business is one that would make millions without employing anyone.

And when times are tough, they find ways of doing more with less. It's truly Darwinian in its approach.

Bill Mahre is a ******* flaming liberal. He has a deep seated base hatred of conservatives.
I watch his show once in a while to see how the other side acts and what they do.
Before the 2006 elections, Mahre once said "I don't want to work with republicans, I want to destroy them".
What disgusts me is when he does get a person with a conservative point of view on hi show ,he and two other libs attack the person in a free for all.
Mahre is one of these Hollywood Elitists that run around crowing the class warfare card. HUH? I bet HBO is paying this guy 7 figures. So, whatever the ****.
All these Hollywood dipshits are a hypocrites.

 

[Chris]

And that statement is garbage.

Ordinary people are suffering because they don't have the links or the interest in starting up businesses to compete for that wealth. Seems many are simply not interested.

Additionally, our lovely government has made it more difficult to start businesses. I just purchases a mattress and had to sign all kind of form on fire retardants in the mattress....more regulation.

If you want to get the wealth spread out, stop using government to protect the rich.

Bullshit.

Ordinary people are suffering because Wall Street ran a $516 trillion dollar derivatives Ponzi scheme that destroyed the world economy.

BULLSHIT...Ordinary people are suffering because the POLITICIANS have fucked around with the economy and not let Liberty and the FREE MARKET Reign as it should be allowed...too many have fucked thier OWN LIVES and want to blame the rich like YOU Chrissy...

Capitalism without regulation is the Mafia.

The unregulated free market ran a Ponzi scheme....

A £516 trillion derivatives 'time-bomb' - Business News, Business - The Independent

Oh, and my life is fine. I made 100K this year.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Bullshit.

Ordinary people are suffering because Wall Street ran a $516 trillion dollar derivatives Ponzi scheme that destroyed the world economy.

BULLSHIT...Ordinary people are suffering because the POLITICIANS have fucked around with the economy and not let Liberty and the FREE MARKET Reign as it should be allowed...too many have fucked thier OWN LIVES and want to blame the rich like YOU Chrissy...

Capitalism without regulation is the Mafia.

The unregulated free market ran a Ponzi scheme....

A £516 trillion derivatives 'time-bomb' - Business News, Business - The Independent

Oh, and my life is fine. I made 100K this year.

If that's what you think it is then Chris you don't know what in the **** you are talking about. Capitalism is free enterprise. the mafia is in the white house

 

[The T]

BULLSHIT...Ordinary people are suffering because the POLITICIANS have fucked around with the economy and not let Liberty and the FREE MARKET Reign as it should be allowed...too many have fucked thier OWN LIVES and want to blame the rich like YOU Chrissy...

Capitalism without regulation is the Mafia.

The unregulated free market ran a Ponzi scheme....

A £516 trillion derivatives 'time-bomb' - Business News, Business - The Independent

Oh, and my life is fine. I made 100K this year.

If that's what you think it is then Chris you don't know what in the **** you are talking about. Capitalism is free enterprise. the mafia is in the white house

Big REB to the rescue.

 

[The T]

Bullshit.

Ordinary people are suffering because Wall Street ran a $516 trillion dollar derivatives Ponzi scheme that destroyed the world economy.

BULLSHIT...Ordinary people are suffering because the POLITICIANS have fucked around with the economy and not let Liberty and the FREE MARKET Reign as it should be allowed...too many have fucked thier OWN LIVES and want to blame the rich like YOU Chrissy...

Capitalism without regulation is the Mafia.

The unregulated free market ran a Ponzi scheme....

A £516 trillion derivatives 'time-bomb' - Business News, Business - The Independent

Oh, and my life is fine. I made 100K this year.

PONZI =Socialist Security rube...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Bill Mayer asked Grover Norquist that question. It took Grover a full 30 seconds of hemming and hawing to kind of answer it. Grover said yes, but he wasn't sure how much that could be.

Then Grover proceeded to lie again and again, but Bill pulled out a cheat sheet that his staff put together to counter the lies. He left Grover sputtering.

Later, Ron Christie was lying. The guys on the panel were all over him until Christie brought up some bill to work on America's infrastructure that Ron said Republicans support, but Democrats opposed. Bill said he hadn't heard of the bill so he couldn't argue. Then he said too often Republicans bring something up Bill can't argue about because he never heard of it,, then Bill has his staff investigate it and almost always finds out the Republican was full of shit and lying. I'm surprised when they aren't.

Grover Norquist and Ron Christie. What a couple of fools. Seriously.

People are protesting because they want jobs, not money, JOBS!

Christie said Obama should be in Washington working with Republicans, not turning America against the Republicans. As if they would work with Obama? Seriously?

If they want jobs why are they demanding that the government forgive all debt? If they want jobs why are they asking the government to raise taxes?