Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[georgephillip]

That is absolute BS. The government protects all our citizens not just the rich. Correct! Government is a net taker to provide our federal services and to redistribute money from the rich to the less wealthy. The facts are, most burnt timber is what gives us new growth and is natures way of regenerating our forests. We have done huge damage by trying to keep forests from that regeneration. That our fire fighters try to control fires to protect homes tends to be because people stupidly built too close to common forest fire areas. With that I totally agree. TVA helped Appalachia to move out of the dark ages and has furnished electricity of many outside of the poverty areas.

Obviously we require the government to build infrastructure for the benefit of all, but it should never be used to enhance life for a privileged few. Remember too that the infrastructure build for the benefit of all is take from the economy and paid principally by the 51% who pay the income tax to fund those projects. It may be another way to redistribute wealth, but it is a necessary expense.

Every penny spent by the government comes mostly from the top 50% of our tax payers. It is the price of function.

What should it tell us about how government "protects all our citizens not just the rich" when only half of US workers earn enough every year to pay income taxes? Specifically, what does it say about the 25 highest paid hedge fund managers earning twice as much all kindergarten teachers in America combined, AND paying a tax rate about half what the teachers paid?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/09/opinion/krugman-now-thats-rich.html?_r=0

It tells us the rich rule this government just as they have every government since the first surpluses thousands of years ago.

Government isn't the problem.

The rich are.

 

[dnsmith35]

Strange you would bring up how " the rich are paid handsomely by tax breaks" in recent history tax cuts were given to the rich and corporations by the JFK administration, how Corp. get tax breaks to prevent them from moving, buying US products to protect our labor force, government development of APARNET for its own use by paid contractors, bailout of essential businesses in all administrations at some point or another. Yes, you are amiss. You tend to blame every one but left wing extremists for the ills of the economy and it is bullshit.

Do I believe there are still the remnants of racism? Of course I do, but we have come a long way and will continue to advance in racial equality. I also recognize that crime among the poor is not normally a poverty driven issue. Actually the traits of criminal behavior tends to lead to the poverty syndrome. Part of the Study for my EdS in psychology was a discussion of just this subject along with, the issue of education, or the lack thereof, being another common cause of poverty. Yet criminal behavior is not a trait driven as much by economic status as it is a personality trait.

Gnarley -

Am I a JFK supporter?

Your post suggest you are for his agenda.

Gnarley - I didn't know. Defining essential business comes down to who is bedfellows with the government and who isn't.

You are assuming that that is fact instead of left wing fiction. I don't believe it.

Gnarley - That's not the most sound political, social or economic way to decide who is essential and who is not.

Who is essential? I don't recall discussing that. Please link me to such an assertion.

Gnarley -

Why do you pigeon hole my criticism?

When did I pigeon hole anything about you? That is a strange assertion.

Gnarley - It serves the purpose of you dismissing my point. That's a sophist tactic, nothing more.

When you show me that I did such a thing, link me too it and I will asses your criticisms.

Gnarley - It doesn't address the factual criticism. So the fact is the poor by and large ignored compared to the overall tax breaks, subsidies etc. So going back to your point about how re-distribution works (that it takes care of the poor) is fairly one sided analysis, of the kind you are accusing me.

I could care less what your left wing concept about who gets the most tax breaks when as far as federal income tax it is obvious to anyone with a brain that the bottom 49% of our wage earners get the biggest federal income tax break as they pay little to no income tax.

It's clear the rich are heavily favored in government funds aka public taxation. GE had a negative effective tax rate meaning they earned money. How cool would it be to receive literal billions as a large corporation during tax day?

Are you suggesting that appropriate deductions of the cost of doing business should be eliminated? How absolutely economics/socially challenged your are.

Gnarley -

However, I am very open to being wrong and say it regularly. But saying I don't criticize left wing extremists is not relevant, they are extremists. Why would I criticize extremists when you and I are talking, not me and some extremist? Don't divert attention, let's just calmly stick to our discussion. I am not a left wing extremist and don't really know what it means--The context of extremism implies idiots so I don't have much to say about idiots.

The context of left wing extremism is easily observed in what you say relative to our society. That is what it means. IE 90% of the people are to the right of you, down to moderates or conservatives or RW extremists, you are a left wing extremist.

Gnarley - Regarding your analysis of personal failure/economic realities. Just ask yourself, was it easy for you to get out of poverty? No

.Easy? No! Reasonable? ABSOLUTELY! Why should anyone have the right or the ability to do it quick time unless they have an extreme ability, intelligence, motivation, or ambition.

Gnarley - It took decades according to you and the apparent luxury of attending college. You probably consider yourself exceptional and should. You were one of the lucky few born into poverty who relied on others to teach you the skills you needed to do eventually make enough money. But just because you did doesn't mean an equally talented people will. We don't live in an equal opportunity society.

Absolute bull shit! Any one with the desire to succeed on a high level can if they make the right choices and efforts.

Gnarley - Other low income people are born in different cities with different fortuitous events and misfortune than you.

True, I was born into poverty and made it my business to do what I had to do to succeed, which included moving to a location with better opportunities. That is one of the choices I mentioned.

Gnarley - You were not solely responsible for your success but relied on teachers, parents, friends, wife, etc. to make it possible.

Oh yeah, a small town southern community with the best and brightest teachers! Friends? I left them all when I moved. Wife? A personal choice!

Gnarley - Equally talented folks have different circumstances and thus may not have a wife, the right teachers, dead parents etc.

All choices except the death of parents, who in fact did nothing for me but to teach me right and wrong. Again, choices!

Gnarley -
So to blame a person for their inability to be self-sufficient is uncritical.

Blame a person? Generally it is responsibility, not blame.
within the choices they make.

Gnarley - Numerous variables contribute to the success and well being of a person outside their control.

Positively, like motivation, ambition, wherewithal, work et al.

Gnarley - So why are you blaming them solely? Are you praising yourself in solitude for your success? I hope not because we both know that isn't how success works.

Blame? Not really blame, just observation of facts. Praising myself? No, I simply posted the example I followed. I am sure if I had more motivation and ambition I could have achieved more, but I settled. Some people settle for less and some for more.

Gnarley -

So de facto we do not live in a meritocratic society as you've been taught. A person born with a low income obviously lacks the opportunities afforded wealthy children. So to demand the disadvantaged to achieve equal success or be damned in a world of scarcity is dubious social theorizing.

Equality with whom? Warren Buffet? Don't be silly. Equality with me? Only in accordance with their motivation and ambition would a normally intelligent person not succeed to my marginal level.

Gnarley - Ignoring the conditions under which people exist and develop is to ignore the most significant factor in shaping the characteristics of a person and determining their aims in life.

People must make their own conditions, as I an many others have. I moved away from poverty and chose to proceed in a given direction. The old adage, "if at first you don't succeed, try and try again" is very appropriate. Except for those born into wealth, which is becoming an oddity today, the only draw back to reasonable success falls to choices, ambition, motivation and willingness to work. In fact, those ARE the variables of relevance. As I have pointed out in other posts, disabilities are the exception, mental or physical disabilities, and that is the point of our safety nets. Does that mean that every one will succeed under those conditions? No, but it is a significant minority who failed based primarily on arbitrary negative variables. As I progressed in my career, most of my counterparts did as well (including non-whites) with only a minority failing, and generally attitude was the cause of failure. Not intelligence or ambition, but attitude. Poo poo this all you wish, but it is infact the formula and most people CAN follow it no matter where they come from or whose influence under which they were raised.

So to recap, most, the high minority of those with opportunities of equality in the US can succeed, and those few who don't can blame their failures mostly on their choices, not on arbitrary conditions of their primary existence. To suggest other wise is the epitome of ignorance.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What should it tell us about how government "protects all our citizens not just the rich" when only half of US workers earn enough every year to pay income taxes? Specifically, what does it say about the 25 highest paid hedge fund managers earning twice as much all kindergarten teachers in America combined, AND paying a tax rate about half what the teachers paid?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/09/opinion/krugman-now-thats-rich.html?_r=0

It tells us the rich rule this government just as they have every government since the first surpluses thousands of years ago.

Government isn't the problem.

The rich are.

What should it tell us about how government "protects all our citizens not just the rich" when only half of US workers earn enough every year to pay income taxes?

It tells me that the government protects the bottom half from income taxes, even though that protection doesn't protect or help the rich.

Specifically, what does it say about the 25 highest paid hedge fund managers earning twice as much all kindergarten teachers in America combined, AND paying a tax rate about half what the teachers paid?


That says that you're really bad at math.
Please tell me how much those saintly kindergarten teachers earn and what tax rate you feel they pay.
I'll be happy to show you your error.

 

[dblack]

Hodor

 

[georgephillip]

Functions like the police and military protect value while not creating value do destroy value. It's like if you buy an insurance policy. It costs money, it makes you poorer. However, you spend it to protect what you have. I support those functions.

Or does electricity violate your free market fundamentalism?

So if I want electricity, I need to agree to Marxism. LOL, sure I do...

It's the endless game you leftists play. Oh, well you want roads, you get a welfare State. You want police, you get confiscatory taxes.

You're FOS, there is no reason wanting my wanting a limited government justifies you getting an unlimited one.

"TVA's service area covers most of Tennessee, portions of Alabama, Mississippi, and Kentucky, and small slices of Georgia, North Carolina, and Virginia."

How many Marxists have you known?
Did any originate in Tennessee, Alabama, or North Carolina?
Did they have to forsake religion to get electricity?
Righties like you need to learn the difference between big business and big government.

 

[dnsmith35]

What should it tell us about how government "protects all our citizens not just the rich" when only half of US workers earn enough every year to pay income taxes?

It tells me that the government protects the bottom half from income taxes, even though that protection doesn't protect or help the rich.

Specifically, what does it say about the 25 highest paid hedge fund managers earning twice as much all kindergarten teachers in America combined, AND paying a tax rate about half what the teachers paid?

That says that you're really bad at math.
Please tell me how much those saintly kindergarten teachers earn and what tax rate you feel they pay.
I'll be happy to show you your error.

DNsmithThere are different kinds of income, and generally the government's intent is to treat the taxation of each to the benefit of revenue, not as a privilege to the rich or the poor. Many people complain that the rich pay lower tax rates because their income is from capital gains. Increase capital gains tax and their is a negative influence on government revenue and the retention or increase in jobs. It is absolute ignorance to try to compare capital gains with typical wage income, which significantly is advantageous to the lowest 49% of the people. One of the common mistakes left wing extremists make, is to cherry pick a significant minority situation and used it as a general example. Sure, there are some people, based on position, ambition, motivation, luck, et al, who make extreme incomes. That does not mean much in the way of comparison with the extreme minority who are on the other extreme of the income range.

 

[georgephillip]

"When you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing - When you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors - When you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you - When you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice - You may know that your society is doomed.”-Atlas Shrugged

"She (Ayn Rand) headed for Hollywood, where she set out to write stories that expressed her philosophy—a body of thought she said was the polar opposite of communism.

"She announced that the world was divided between a small minority of Supermen who are productive and 'the naked, twisted, mindless figure of the human Incompetent' who, like the Leninists, try to feed off them.

"He is 'mud to be ground underfoot, fuel to be burned.'

"It is evil to show kindness to these 'lice': The 'only virtue' is 'selfishness.'"

Two biographies of Ayn Rand.

 

[dnsmith35]

Or does electricity violate your free market fundamentalism?

So if I want electricity, I need to agree to Marxism. LOL, sure I do...

It's the endless game you leftists play. Oh, well you want roads, you get a welfare State. You want police, you get confiscatory taxes.

You're FOS, there is no reason wanting my wanting a limited government justifies you getting an unlimited one.

"TVA's service area covers most of Tennessee, portions of Alabama, Mississippi, and Kentucky, and small slices of Georgia, North Carolina, and Virginia."

How many Marxists have you known?
Did any originate in Tennessee, Alabama, or North Carolina?
Did they have to forsake religion to get electricity?
Righties like you need to learn the difference between big business and big government.

I think your suggestion that it is the "righty" who has problems with the difference between big business and big government. We moderates object to the definitions of big business and big government by both extremes.

You people seem to believe that if we are not at your particular extreme we must be on the other end of the spectrum. NOT TRUE! We moderates dislike the intent of both extremes.

Now as to your question, "how many Marxists have you known?" Many! And many in the South. An example is a Marxist commune in Louisiana near Leesville, and one near Elizabeth. I have also known Marxist in India, South and Central America, and some in Great Britain. Marxism is the evil of the 19th to 21St century and has never succeeded in any of its experiments.

 

[dnsmith35]

"When you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing - When you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors - When you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you - When you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice - You may know that your society is doomed.”-Atlas Shrugged

"She (Ayn Rand) headed for Hollywood, where she set out to write stories that expressed her philosophy—a body of thought she said was the polar opposite of communism.

"She announced that the world was divided between a small minority of Supermen who are productive and 'the naked, twisted, mindless figure of the human Incompetent' who, like the Leninists, try to feed off them.

"He is 'mud to be ground underfoot, fuel to be burned.'

"It is evil to show kindness to these 'lice': The 'only virtue' is 'selfishness.'"

Two biographies of Ayn Rand.

Though Ayn Rand was extremist in her writing, muting some of her extremes reflect a great deal of knowledge about human kind if we consider the status of all the citizens of the world. I disagree with here derogative comments about the poor but recognize beyond her insulting comments there is a lot of truth when considered from a pure economic situation.

 

[georgephillip]

That is absolute BS. The government protects all our citizens not just the rich. Correct! Government is a net taker to provide our federal services and to redistribute money from the rich to the less wealthy.

This sounds true. But is it? Let's investigate, shall we?

Do the rich receive any sort of government aide? Well, we know the police rarely target white collar crime though we know white collar crime has exploded since the 80s. So it's at least nice to not go to jail, right? If you don't believe me, read this bit explaining a man with a joint-in-pocket spends 47 days in Riker Prison while HSBC, the banking conglomerate, admitted to 800 million in drug laundering and spent no time in jail, let alone prison, because they "were not the right type of person for jail." And if you know anything about pre-crime you know it hones in on poverty, not white collar crime. We can expect a greater targeting of minorities and low income from the police in the coming years as this technology develops.

But further, is there positive aide? I don't think we need too look far to understand how the rich are paid handsomely by the government. Tax breaks to the rich, tax breaks to corporations who just spend it on lobbying and high salaries, subsidies for corporations to do business or stay in a particular city and not move, consumer subsidies on gasoline, government promises to buy planes like Boeing, developing the internet and the fastest super computer through Cray Research and handing it over to private corporations like Microsoft, not to mention the bailouts that have happened every decade since the Reagan years (Savings and Loan bailout, Tech bailout, Banking bailout)...the list goes on. These are undoubtedly numerous kinds of public funds spent to ultimately reward the rich. Maybe, I'm amiss, or maybe you need specific examples...

Ten Examples of Welfare for the Rich and Corporations*|*Bill Quigley

Welfare for the Rich : The Freeman : Foundation for Economic Education

"Big business learned long ago that the easiest way to handle taxes and regulations is to divert 'public' money into its own hands and to influence the regulators to enforce measures that disproportionately burden upstart competitors."

Welfare for the Rich : The Freeman : Foundation for Economic Education

 

[dblack]

"Big business learned long ago that the easiest way to handle taxes and regulations is to divert 'public' money into its own hands and to influence the regulators to enforce measures that disproportionately burden upstart competitors."

Welfare for the Rich : The Freeman : Foundation for Economic Education

Heh.. yep. Dragons at the gate. And we just keep falling for it.

 

[bripat9643]

"When you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing - When you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors - When you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you - When you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice - You may know that your society is doomed.”-Atlas Shrugged

"She (Ayn Rand) headed for Hollywood, where she set out to write stories that expressed her philosophy—a body of thought she said was the polar opposite of communism.

"She announced that the world was divided between a small minority of Supermen who are productive and 'the naked, twisted, mindless figure of the human Incompetent' who, like the Leninists, try to feed off them.

"He is 'mud to be ground underfoot, fuel to be burned.'

"It is evil to show kindness to these 'lice': The 'only virtue' is 'selfishness.'"

Two biographies of Ayn Rand.

Ayn Rand never said those words, moron. Those are her critics paraphrasing what she said. In other words, it's total bullshit, just like every other thing you have ever posted.

 

[bripat9643]

"When you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing - When you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors - When you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you - When you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice - You may know that your society is doomed.”-Atlas Shrugged

"She (Ayn Rand) headed for Hollywood, where she set out to write stories that expressed her philosophy—a body of thought she said was the polar opposite of communism.

"She announced that the world was divided between a small minority of Supermen who are productive and 'the naked, twisted, mindless figure of the human Incompetent' who, like the Leninists, try to feed off them.

"He is 'mud to be ground underfoot, fuel to be burned.'

"It is evil to show kindness to these 'lice': The 'only virtue' is 'selfishness.'"

Two biographies of Ayn Rand.

Though Ayn Rand was extremist in her writing, muting some of her extremes reflect a great deal of knowledge about human kind if we consider the status of all the citizens of the world. I disagree with here derogative comments about the poor but recognize beyond her insulting comments there is a lot of truth when considered from a pure economic situation.

Those comments are not by Ayn Rand. Georgie posted a smear.

 

[bripat9643]

That is absolute BS. The government protects all our citizens not just the rich. Correct! Government is a net taker to provide our federal services and to redistribute money from the rich to the less wealthy.

This sounds true. But is it? Let's investigate, shall we?

Do the rich receive any sort of government aide? Well, we know the police rarely target white collar crime though we know white collar crime has exploded since the 80s. So it's at least nice to not go to jail, right? If you don't believe me, read this bit explaining a man with a joint-in-pocket spends 47 days in Riker Prison while HSBC, the banking conglomerate, admitted to 800 million in drug laundering and spent no time in jail, let alone prison, because they "were not the right type of person for jail." And if you know anything about pre-crime you know it hones in on poverty, not white collar crime. We can expect a greater targeting of minorities and low income from the police in the coming years as this technology develops.

But further, is there positive aide? I don't think we need too look far to understand how the rich are paid handsomely by the government. Tax breaks to the rich, tax breaks to corporations who just spend it on lobbying and high salaries, subsidies for corporations to do business or stay in a particular city and not move, consumer subsidies on gasoline, government promises to buy planes like Boeing, developing the internet and the fastest super computer through Cray Research and handing it over to private corporations like Microsoft, not to mention the bailouts that have happened every decade since the Reagan years (Savings and Loan bailout, Tech bailout, Banking bailout)...the list goes on. These are undoubtedly numerous kinds of public funds spent to ultimately reward the rich. Maybe, I'm amiss, or maybe you need specific examples...

Ten Examples of Welfare for the Rich and Corporations*|*Bill Quigley

Welfare for the Rich : The Freeman : Foundation for Economic Education

"Big business learned long ago that the easiest way to handle taxes and regulations is to divert 'public' money into its own hands and to influence the regulators to enforce measures that disproportionately burden upstart competitors."

Welfare for the Rich : The Freeman : Foundation for Economic Education

Yep, and Democrats are the ones who vote for this drek.

 

[georgephillip]

Today real markets produce a few players that accumulate winnings millions of times larger than billions of other players. That fact tells me we are dealing with a zero sum economy where wins are balanced by losses, producing a pie that doesn't grow and a tide
that doesn't lift all boats.

How does it tell you that? Can you connect the dots? How does someone having lots of money make someone else poorer? Are you rejecting the idea that wealth is created?

Based on real studies, only the top .01% have much income over the other 99.09% . It is a left wing mantra used to keep the left wing in power. According to A BLS Graph the inequality ranges from 6 million to 31 million, major inequality. From .1% to the next lower group of 1% the difference is approximately $5 million. The next group down or the bottom 99% is from 0 to $350K. When we look at the quintile graph it reflects the same thing.

When comparing the bottom 4 quintiles, which range between $11,200 to $178K, one can readily see the top 80% reflect nothing more or less than the relative achievement of our labor force and the major inequality of income occurs broadly between $178K and up.

If you choose to debate those assertions you should first read Don't blame the 1% for America's pay gap - The Term Sheet: Fortune's deals blogTerm Sheet which discusses what the reason there is a disparity between the bottom quintile and the 3rd or 4th quintile.

As I said earlier, it is only the left wing power rant that these relative inequality of income is not at the lower pay levels, but rather between the top level and the 3d or 4th quintile.

From your link:

"Scholars are also taking note of social issues underlying America's income divide. In his new book, Coming Apart, conservative social scientist Charles Murray documents far higher divorce rates and more children living with one parent in working-class communities.

"That's a trend that has also caught the attention of liberals like Harvard's Robert Putnam, who describes 'gaps that didn't exist decades ago but are widening at an alarming rate today' and are reinforced as wealthy parents spend far more time with their children."

Those working class communities have been decimated over the past two generations by jails not jobs policies that currently result in more black males under thirty-five without a HS diploma existing in prison instead of the labor force.

When comparing the economic stratification among the bottom 80%, we need to factor in the socio-economic consequences of creating the world's largest prison population in the Land of the Free.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How does it tell you that? Can you connect the dots? How does someone having lots of money make someone else poorer? Are you rejecting the idea that wealth is created?

Based on real studies, only the top .01% have much income over the other 99.09% . It is a left wing mantra used to keep the left wing in power. According to A BLS Graph the inequality ranges from 6 million to 31 million, major inequality. From .1% to the next lower group of 1% the difference is approximately $5 million. The next group down or the bottom 99% is from 0 to $350K. When we look at the quintile graph it reflects the same thing.

When comparing the bottom 4 quintiles, which range between $11,200 to $178K, one can readily see the top 80% reflect nothing more or less than the relative achievement of our labor force and the major inequality of income occurs broadly between $178K and up.

If you choose to debate those assertions you should first read Don't blame the 1% for America's pay gap - The Term Sheet: Fortune's deals blogTerm Sheet which discusses what the reason there is a disparity between the bottom quintile and the 3rd or 4th quintile.

As I said earlier, it is only the left wing power rant that these relative inequality of income is not at the lower pay levels, but rather between the top level and the 3d or 4th quintile.

From your link:

"Scholars are also taking note of social issues underlying America's income divide. In his new book, Coming Apart, conservative social scientist Charles Murray documents far higher divorce rates and more children living with one parent in working-class communities.

"That's a trend that has also caught the attention of liberals like Harvard's Robert Putnam, who describes 'gaps that didn't exist decades ago but are widening at an alarming rate today' and are reinforced as wealthy parents spend far more time with their children."

Those working class communities have been decimated over the past two generations by jails not jobs policies that currently result in more black males under thirty-five without a HS diploma existing in prison instead of the labor force.

When comparing the economic stratification among the bottom 80%, we need to factor in the socio-economic consequences of creating the world's largest prison population in the Land of the Free.

Those working class communities have been decimated over the past two generations by jails not jobs policies that currently result in more black males under thirty-five without a HS diploma existing in prison instead of the labor force.

When your peers in the black community accuse good students of "acting white", how is the failure of the black community to educate their children my fault?

 

[gnarlylove]

"your left wing concept about who gets the most tax breaks when as far as federal income tax it is obvious to anyone with a brain that the bottom 49% of our wage earners get the biggest federal income tax break as they pay little to no income tax."

You are right, it is left wing because the sources you go to for info do not offer these facts. Conveniently so. So you cal them left wing concepts but because you don't hear them doesn't make them any less a fact. I dare you to actually read the links I provided demonstrating how significant it really is. Calling them "left-wing" facts sounds like an attempt to eschew honest inquiry.

Regarding your joke rebuttal of federal income tax which is paid according to progressive measures... The federal income tax is not the only tax in America. Why would we only look at one type of tax to determine who gets taxed the most? Sounds like yet another shady tactic.

City taxes (like property tax), sales taxes for the goods we all need to live are equally levied on the low income. Turns out stocks and bonds and all sorts of intangible wealth is not taxed at all. Where is a lot of wealth held? In intangible wealth not taxed by the government. 75% of the shares are owned by 1% of the shareholders...not being taxed a dime.

"Wife? A personal choice!"

Not true at all. All of life is constrained optimization. You did not choose her from all the women in the world. In fact, you got to know a narrow group of females in your life and selected one among the few you knew. Your personal choice is thus a result of several constraints outside your control. To think of it as purely your choice is mistaken. The possibilities exist but were narrowed sharply by events outside your control and demonstrates my point about how economic facts shape human lives. I say more below.

"Numerous variables contribute to the success and well being of a person outside their control."
"Positively, like motivation, ambition, wherewithal, work et al."

Those are the exact opposite of outside a person's control. But I have a feeling you don't care to reconcile your belief of "the person is solely responsible" with the facts of reality: you and all humans are largely shaped through processes outside our control like the school we went to, the neighborhood(s) we lived in, the things your parents value, what the media tells you, what the major cultural events take place...these are not determined by any one individual but have monumental effects on how one thinks about themselves, what life is, their aims and motivation etc.

Many college students overwhelmed by debt have killed themselves due to the insurmountable bills. These are not dumb people. Some are a lot smarter than you or me but their talent is terminated because they needed to forsake talent and pursue marketable.

Your irresponsible belaboring of personal shortcoming is precisely why these students end their lives. They think they are worthless because they can't afford to live. So they kill themselves. That's a natural way to go if the person believes they are solely responsible for their actions. It is irresponsible to defend such a radically untrue and murderous vision of human responsiblity.

 

[georgephillip]

Based on real studies, only the top .01% have much income over the other 99.09% . It is a left wing mantra used to keep the left wing in power. According to A BLS Graph the inequality ranges from 6 million to 31 million, major inequality. From .1% to the next lower group of 1% the difference is approximately $5 million. The next group down or the bottom 99% is from 0 to $350K. When we look at the quintile graph it reflects the same thing.

When comparing the bottom 4 quintiles, which range between $11,200 to $178K, one can readily see the top 80% reflect nothing more or less than the relative achievement of our labor force and the major inequality of income occurs broadly between $178K and up.

If you choose to debate those assertions you should first read Don't blame the 1% for America's pay gap - The Term Sheet: Fortune's deals blogTerm Sheet which discusses what the reason there is a disparity between the bottom quintile and the 3rd or 4th quintile.

As I said earlier, it is only the left wing power rant that these relative inequality of income is not at the lower pay levels, but rather between the top level and the 3d or 4th quintile.

From your link:

"Scholars are also taking note of social issues underlying America's income divide. In his new book, Coming Apart, conservative social scientist Charles Murray documents far higher divorce rates and more children living with one parent in working-class communities.

"That's a trend that has also caught the attention of liberals like Harvard's Robert Putnam, who describes 'gaps that didn't exist decades ago but are widening at an alarming rate today' and are reinforced as wealthy parents spend far more time with their children."

Those working class communities have been decimated over the past two generations by jails not jobs policies that currently result in more black males under thirty-five without a HS diploma existing in prison instead of the labor force.

When comparing the economic stratification among the bottom 80%, we need to factor in the socio-economic consequences of creating the world's largest prison population in the Land of the Free.

Those working class communities have been decimated over the past two generations by jails not jobs policies that currently result in more black males under thirty-five without a HS diploma existing in prison instead of the labor force.

When your peers in the black community accuse good students of "acting white", how is the failure of the black community to educate their children my fault?

Who said it was?

"As a result of these trends, black men younger than 35 without a high school degree are now more likely in America to be imprisoned than employed in the labor market.

"These disproportionate impacts extend to their children: As of 2009, 62 percent of black children under 17, whose parents had not completed high school, have had a parent in prison.

"The same was true for 17 percent of Hispanic children and 15 percent of white children (with similarly educated parents)."

The meteoric, costly and unprecedented rise of incarceration in America

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"your left wing concept about who gets the most tax breaks when as far as federal income tax it is obvious to anyone with a brain that the bottom 49% of our wage earners get the biggest federal income tax break as they pay little to no income tax."

You are right, it is left wing because the sources you go to for info do not offer these facts. Conveniently so. So you cal them left wing concepts but because you don't hear them doesn't make them any less a fact. I dare you to actually read the links I provided demonstrating how significant it really is. Calling them "left-wing" facts sounds like an attempt to eschew honest inquiry.

Regarding your joke rebuttal of federal income tax which is paid according to progressive measures... The federal income tax is not the only tax in America. Why would we only look at one type of tax to determine who gets taxed the most? Sounds like yet another shady tactic.

City taxes (like property tax), sales taxes for the goods we all need to live are equally levied on the low income. Turns out stocks and bonds and all sorts of intangible wealth is not taxed at all. Where is a lot of wealth held? In intangible wealth not taxed by the government. 75% of the shares are owned by 1% of the shareholders...not being taxed a dime.

"Wife? A personal choice!"

Not true at all. All of life is constrained optimization. You did not choose her from all the women in the world. In fact, you got to know a narrow group of females in your life and selected one among the few you knew. Your personal choice is thus a result of several constraints outside your control. To think of it as purely your choice is mistaken. The possibilities exist but were narrowed sharply by events outside your control and demonstrates my point about how economic facts shape human lives. I say more below.

"Numerous variables contribute to the success and well being of a person outside their control."
"Positively, like motivation, ambition, wherewithal, work et al."

Those are the exact opposite of outside a person's control. But I have a feeling you don't care to reconcile your belief of "the person is solely responsible" with the facts of reality: you and all humans are largely shaped through processes outside our control like the school we went to, the neighborhood(s) we lived in, the things your parents value, what the media tells you, what the major cultural events take place...these are not determined by any one individual but have monumental effects on how one thinks about themselves, what life is, their aims and motivation etc.

Many college students overwhelmed by debt have killed themselves due to the insurmountable bills. These are not dumb people. Some are a lot smarter than you or me but their talent is terminated because they needed to forsake talent and pursue marketable.

Your irresponsible belaboring of personal shortcoming is precisely why these students end their lives. They think they are worthless because they can't afford to live. So they kill themselves. That's a natural way to go if the person believes they are solely responsible for their actions. It is irresponsible to defend such a radically untrue and murderous vision of human responsiblity.

Turns out stocks and bonds and all sorts of intangible wealth is not taxed at all.

Untrue!

Corporations pay billions in corporate taxes.
Billions in sales taxes, property taxes, payroll taxes, use taxes, license fees.
They pay billions in salaries which are then taxed.
They pay dividends which are then taxed again when received by the shareholder.
They pay billions in interest on their bonds which is then taxed as income for the recipient.

It turns out you're wrong, as usual.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

From your link:

"Scholars are also taking note of social issues underlying America's income divide. In his new book, Coming Apart, conservative social scientist Charles Murray documents far higher divorce rates and more children living with one parent in working-class communities.

"That's a trend that has also caught the attention of liberals like Harvard's Robert Putnam, who describes 'gaps that didn't exist decades ago but are widening at an alarming rate today' and are reinforced as wealthy parents spend far more time with their children."

Those working class communities have been decimated over the past two generations by jails not jobs policies that currently result in more black males under thirty-five without a HS diploma existing in prison instead of the labor force.

When comparing the economic stratification among the bottom 80%, we need to factor in the socio-economic consequences of creating the world's largest prison population in the Land of the Free.

Those working class communities have been decimated over the past two generations by jails not jobs policies that currently result in more black males under thirty-five without a HS diploma existing in prison instead of the labor force.

When your peers in the black community accuse good students of "acting white", how is the failure of the black community to educate their children my fault?

Who said it was?

"As a result of these trends, black men younger than 35 without a high school degree are now more likely in America to be imprisoned than employed in the labor market.

"These disproportionate impacts extend to their children: As of 2009, 62 percent of black children under 17, whose parents had not completed high school, have had a parent in prison.

"The same was true for 17 percent of Hispanic children and 15 percent of white children (with similarly educated parents)."

The meteoric, costly and unprecedented rise of incarceration in America

The "jails not jobs policies" aren't the fault of the white man?

Well that's a relief.