Cons/repubs: you really should be concerned about the disparity of wealth

[editec]

Cons/repubs: you really should be concerned about the disparity of wealth

Why be concerned?

Why do we think the current economy is on the skids?

Government redistribution of wealth is not as good a system as a system of fair capitalism.

That's why wealth maldistribution is a bad thing.

Because if the capitalist system is designed (by laws) to advantage one class over all others (which is what we have now, folks, let's face it) then that system cannot efficiently get cash to the productive parts of society that actually could make the best use of it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It has been an issue since the 1970's that productivity in the lower and middle class jobs have risen, but wages have remained flat. In other words, the "rich" are not earning all of the money that they make.

If those at the top of the income distribution receive far more than the value of what they create, and those at lower income levels receive less, then one way to correct this is to increase taxes at the upper end of the income distribution and use the proceeds to protect important social programs that benefit working-class households, programs that are currently threatened by budget deficits.

This would help to rectify the maldistribution of income that is preventing workers from realizing their share of the gains from economic growth.

Cons/repubs: why does this not bother you? This philosophy that people should keep every cent they make is flawed in the financial system we live in. If you are a blue collar worker, you are being robbed. It's that simple.

And, no, I have nothing agains the wealthy. They deseve to be well paid for what they do, but not nearly to this extent.

This is why libertarian ideas are dangerous.

"...wages have remained flat."

No they haven't.

1. The statistics that claim the above fail to include the value of benefits such as health insurance and retirement benefits, etc., which have represented a growing share of compensation over the years. See Cox and Alm, “The Myths of Rich and Poor,” p.21

a. Nor do these sophists separated full time workers from part time (part time work has been growing, another indicator of rising prosperity). Of course, including the weekly wages of part timers pulls down the statistical average.

2. In actuality, the income of full time wage and salary workers increased between 1980 and 2004, and so did real income- either by 13% or 17%, depending on which price index is used in the calculation. Reynolds, “Income and Wealth,” p. 63.

a. If health and retirement benefits are included, as they should be, worker compensation rose by almost a third. And, even this is illusory, as it doesn’t include the “statistically invisible (not on taxes) returns inside IRA and 401(k) plans.” Reynolds, op. cit., p.64.


"...increase taxes at the upper end of the income distribution and use the proceeds to protect important social programs that benefit working-class households, programs that are currently threatened by budget deficits."

3. . “The top 5% pay about 58% of all Federal income taxes paid.

So if you raise their incomes, at the same tax rate, the Federal government will realize more revenue.

The bottom 50% of earners paid 2.7 % of Federal tax revenues.

The top 5% pay 33% of their income towards Fed income tax, while the bottom 50%, pay 13%” Milo40: The top 5% pay about 58% of all Federal income

4. "...protect important social programs..."
Can you name some of the federal social programs that have been cut?
None? Not even one?


"...maldistribution of income that is preventing workers from realizing their share of the gains from economic growth."

5. Totally false and ignorant. The more you work, the more you make.

a. As productivity and skills increase, workers earn more. Productivity of workers in competitive markets is what determines the earnings of most workers; and it is not an accident that labor earns about 70% of the total output of the American economy, and capital earns about 30%.

In Alan Reynold’s “Income and Wealth,” he studied the data, and found the following. Certainly the top fifth of households has a far greater proportion of same, but it also has six times as many full-time workers as the bottom fifth, heavily composed of two-earner couples with older children or other relatives who work. The bottom fifth is heavily composed of aged or younger couples, the retired or the still in school. Also, some in the bottom fifth because they are part of the underground economy, or in crime, so income is not reported. Or suffer addictions which preclude work.

b. In 2004, 56.4% of households in the bottom fifth featured no work by anyone for the entire year.
HINC-05--Part 1

c.The total number of full time, year round workers in the bottom fifth for 2004 was less than 3 million…which compares to 16.4 million in the top fifth of households. Ibid.
The difference in income does not reflect inequality, but rather, productivity. The fact that the lowest fifth are neither starving, nor living in the streets reflects the intrinsic generosity of our society, and the transfer of incomes via government programs. 80% of income in the bottom fifth is from such transfers; it is only 2% for the top fifth.

You're welcome for that lesson in economics....dolt.

You're well-informed - I'll give you that. You came up with an argument supported by facts. However, I am still not convinced.

I'll concede that I may be wrong about wages of blue collar remaining flat, but what you have failed to discuss is how the wages of the wealthy have changed.

Those of the wealthy have increased 250% over the last few decades. For instance, in the 1930's, the average CEO made 30X more than an average worker. Now, it's 300X. Obviously, the more work, the more you make, but that doesn't mean there isn't a maldistribution of wealth. Productivity has skyrocketed. Just because the lower and middle class are making more nowadays, it doesn't mean they are pulling in their fair share.

Your info about worker benefits do not account for the poor. 50 million people in this country do not have health insurance at all.

1. Billy-0...

Why is it any of your business what somebody else earns?

Envy?
Covetousness?

You have the mistaken idea that anothers' wealth deprives you of yours....this is false and plays into the hands of the Leftists who use your mistake to increase their power.

Sociologist Helmut Schoeck’s observation: “Since the end of the Second World War, however, a new ‘ethic’ has come into being, according to which the envious man is perfectly acceptable. Progressively fewer individuals and groups are ashamed of their envy, but instead make out that its existence in their temperaments axiomatically proves the existence of ‘social injustice,’ which must be eliminated for their benefit.” Helmut Schoeck, “Envy: A Theory of Social Behavior,” p. 179

He's writing about you.

2. "...how the wages of the wealthy have changed."
Since you insist on sticking your nose in other folks' business....I'll tell
you: in the same way as anyone else.
Except for the recession: the rich got hit hardest.

It's math Billy....here goesne must understand that any average, or mean, of incomes in the top 20% will always be much higher than the median income in this group, for the simple reason that the top group has no ceiling…i.e., it is everyone with incomes above the 80% percentile. Of course, this description can be applied to any “top” group…1%, 5%, etc.

a. The median will consequently always provide a much more accurate reflection of the typical income earner in any top income group than any average or mean. So, changes in the “average” incomes of a top group are always misleading, and greatly exaggerates the level of typical income of top income groups.

b. “Mean income for the top 10% is about two-thirds larger than median income…” Reynolds, “Income and Wealth,” p. 21.

c. According to Federal Reserve data regarding incomes of different subgroups, the average or mean income of the top 10% households seems to increase much more from 1989 to 2004 than the average or mean of the next highest 10%, or of any lower income group. This would lead one to believe, mistakenly, that income inequality is growing, with the rich getting rich faster than any other group.

But when the more accurate median income is considered, the income of the top 10% grew virtually at the same rate from 1989 to 2004 as the bottom 20%, and as the second lowest 20%. Reynolds, “Income and Wealth,” p. 20-21.

Get that? "...the income of the top 10% grew virtually at the same rate..."
If you really want to be informed, pick up Peter Ferrara's "America's Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb," and read chapter nine.

3. "50 million people in this country do not have health insurance at all."

100% of the people in this country have healthcare.

"Poverty" is a hypothetical construct, Billy....the term is made up.
Do you know how it is constructed?
Do you know what poverty is?

For me, it means no home, no heat, no food.
That isn't what the Left calls 'poor'....
after all, 46% of all 'poor' own their own homes.
Nor have I seen anyone starving in the streets...have you?

"46 percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
80 percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
Only six percent of poor households are overcrowded; two thirds have more than two rooms per person.
The typical poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
Nearly three quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.
97 percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
78 percent have a VCR or DVD player.
62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
89 percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a more than a third have an automatic dishwasher."
Poor Politics - Robert Rector - National Review Online

(BTW...check the statistics: 6% of the 'poor' have a jacuzzi....do you?)

How about Food Stamps...feed poor folks?
Did you read about the scam:

"PROVIDENCE, R.I. (AP) -- A criminal swindle of the nation's $64.7 billion food stamp program is playing out at small neighborhood stores around the country, where thousands of retailers are suspected of trading deals with customers, exchanging lesser amounts of cash for their stamps.
Authorities say the stamps are then redeemed as usual by the unscrupulous merchants at face value, netting them huge profits and diverting as much as $330 million in taxpayer funds annually. But the transactions are electronically recorded and federal investigators, wise to the practice, are closely monitoring thousands of convenience stories and mom-and-pop groceries in a push to halt the fraud.
Known as food stamp trafficking, the illegal buying or selling of food stamps..."
USDA Cracks Down On Food Stamp Trafficking


Wise up, Billy-0...you're being played.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I doesn't concern me because there is nothing wrong with it.



I suppose it will be useless to ask for links or any kind of proof of this. In the absence of that, I'll just throw this out there: You are measuring "worth" by productivity. That is a mistake. The "rich" would include doctors, engineers, scientists, investors and the like. Their "worth" isn't derived by how many widgets they put out, but they have worth just as well.



Why is socialism, an economic system that always fails, always the answer with you people?



The workers ALWAYS get their share of the gains of econimc grouth, unless they are volunteers.



Because there isn't anything wrong with it.



No, it isn't. That is just left wing propaganda that has no basis in fact.



That's garbage.



So, someone gets to decide how much money someone can make?

Pred, it seems that Billy...who was kind enough to provide his IQ score as part of his name, has chosen to run from our posts....

...I wonder why.

Your hostility is quite unnecessary. Are you just below having a mature conversation about politics? It's kind of pathetic.

"Your hostility is quite unnecessary"
Perhaps....but earned.

Do you really expect some sort of pat on the head when you allow yourself to be led around by that ring in your nose??

This isn't government school...where feeling passes for knowing.
Inform yourself if you expect respect.
Learn to question rather than accept.

See if you can figure out why millions scheme and fight to get here in America.

 

[Billy000]

Pred, it seems that Billy...who was kind enough to provide his IQ score as part of his name, has chosen to run from our posts....

...I wonder why.

Your hostility is quite unnecessary. Are you just below having a mature conversation about politics? It's kind of pathetic.

"Your hostility is quite unnecessary"
Perhaps....but earned.

Do you really expect some sort of pat on the head when you allow yourself to be led around by that ring in your nose??

This isn't government school...where feeling passes for knowing.
Inform yourself if you expect respect.
Learn to question rather than accept.

See if you can figure out why millions scheme and fight to get here in America.

Yeah, okay, whatever I'm an ignorant liberal and you are an educated patriot. You say I am ignorant yet you have no trouble using these mental shortcuts.

 

[Billy000]

"...wages have remained flat."

No they haven't.

1. The statistics that claim the above fail to include the value of benefits such as health insurance and retirement benefits, etc., which have represented a growing share of compensation over the years. See Cox and Alm, “The Myths of Rich and Poor,” p.21

a. Nor do these sophists separated full time workers from part time (part time work has been growing, another indicator of rising prosperity). Of course, including the weekly wages of part timers pulls down the statistical average.

2. In actuality, the income of full time wage and salary workers increased between 1980 and 2004, and so did real income- either by 13% or 17%, depending on which price index is used in the calculation. Reynolds, “Income and Wealth,” p. 63.

a. If health and retirement benefits are included, as they should be, worker compensation rose by almost a third. And, even this is illusory, as it doesn’t include the “statistically invisible (not on taxes) returns inside IRA and 401(k) plans.” Reynolds, op. cit., p.64.


"...increase taxes at the upper end of the income distribution and use the proceeds to protect important social programs that benefit working-class households, programs that are currently threatened by budget deficits."

3. . “The top 5% pay about 58% of all Federal income taxes paid.

So if you raise their incomes, at the same tax rate, the Federal government will realize more revenue.

The bottom 50% of earners paid 2.7 % of Federal tax revenues.

The top 5% pay 33% of their income towards Fed income tax, while the bottom 50%, pay 13%” Milo40: The top 5% pay about 58% of all Federal income

4. "...protect important social programs..."
Can you name some of the federal social programs that have been cut?
None? Not even one?


"...maldistribution of income that is preventing workers from realizing their share of the gains from economic growth."

5. Totally false and ignorant. The more you work, the more you make.

a. As productivity and skills increase, workers earn more. Productivity of workers in competitive markets is what determines the earnings of most workers; and it is not an accident that labor earns about 70% of the total output of the American economy, and capital earns about 30%.

In Alan Reynold’s “Income and Wealth,” he studied the data, and found the following. Certainly the top fifth of households has a far greater proportion of same, but it also has six times as many full-time workers as the bottom fifth, heavily composed of two-earner couples with older children or other relatives who work. The bottom fifth is heavily composed of aged or younger couples, the retired or the still in school. Also, some in the bottom fifth because they are part of the underground economy, or in crime, so income is not reported. Or suffer addictions which preclude work.

b. In 2004, 56.4% of households in the bottom fifth featured no work by anyone for the entire year.
HINC-05--Part 1

c.The total number of full time, year round workers in the bottom fifth for 2004 was less than 3 million…which compares to 16.4 million in the top fifth of households. Ibid.
The difference in income does not reflect inequality, but rather, productivity. The fact that the lowest fifth are neither starving, nor living in the streets reflects the intrinsic generosity of our society, and the transfer of incomes via government programs. 80% of income in the bottom fifth is from such transfers; it is only 2% for the top fifth.

You're welcome for that lesson in economics....dolt.

You're well-informed - I'll give you that. You came up with an argument supported by facts. However, I am still not convinced.

I'll concede that I may be wrong about wages of blue collar remaining flat, but what you have failed to discuss is how the wages of the wealthy have changed.

Those of the wealthy have increased 250% over the last few decades. For instance, in the 1930's, the average CEO made 30X more than an average worker. Now, it's 300X. Obviously, the more work, the more you make, but that doesn't mean there isn't a maldistribution of wealth. Productivity has skyrocketed. Just because the lower and middle class are making more nowadays, it doesn't mean they are pulling in their fair share.

Your info about worker benefits do not account for the poor. 50 million people in this country do not have health insurance at all.

1. Billy-0...

Why is it any of your business what somebody else earns?

Envy?
Covetousness?

You have the mistaken idea that anothers' wealth deprives you of yours....this is false and plays into the hands of the Leftists who use your mistake to increase their power.

Sociologist Helmut Schoeck’s observation: “Since the end of the Second World War, however, a new ‘ethic’ has come into being, according to which the envious man is perfectly acceptable. Progressively fewer individuals and groups are ashamed of their envy, but instead make out that its existence in their temperaments axiomatically proves the existence of ‘social injustice,’ which must be eliminated for their benefit.” Helmut Schoeck, “Envy: A Theory of Social Behavior,” p. 179

He's writing about you.

2. "...how the wages of the wealthy have changed."
Since you insist on sticking your nose in other folks' business....I'll tell
you: in the same way as anyone else.
Except for the recession: the rich got hit hardest.

It's math Billy....here goesne must understand that any average, or mean, of incomes in the top 20% will always be much higher than the median income in this group, for the simple reason that the top group has no ceiling…i.e., it is everyone with incomes above the 80% percentile. Of course, this description can be applied to any “top” group…1%, 5%, etc.

a. The median will consequently always provide a much more accurate reflection of the typical income earner in any top income group than any average or mean. So, changes in the “average” incomes of a top group are always misleading, and greatly exaggerates the level of typical income of top income groups.

b. “Mean income for the top 10% is about two-thirds larger than median income…” Reynolds, “Income and Wealth,” p. 21.

c. According to Federal Reserve data regarding incomes of different subgroups, the average or mean income of the top 10% households seems to increase much more from 1989 to 2004 than the average or mean of the next highest 10%, or of any lower income group. This would lead one to believe, mistakenly, that income inequality is growing, with the rich getting rich faster than any other group.

But when the more accurate median income is considered, the income of the top 10% grew virtually at the same rate from 1989 to 2004 as the bottom 20%, and as the second lowest 20%. Reynolds, “Income and Wealth,” p. 20-21.

Get that? "...the income of the top 10% grew virtually at the same rate..."
If you really want to be informed, pick up Peter Ferrara's "America's Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb," and read chapter nine.

3. "50 million people in this country do not have health insurance at all."

100% of the people in this country have healthcare.

"Poverty" is a hypothetical construct, Billy....the term is made up.
Do you know how it is constructed?
Do you know what poverty is?

For me, it means no home, no heat, no food.
That isn't what the Left calls 'poor'....
after all, 46% of all 'poor' own their own homes.
Nor have I seen anyone starving in the streets...have you?

"46 percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
80 percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
Only six percent of poor households are overcrowded; two thirds have more than two rooms per person.
The typical poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
Nearly three quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.
97 percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
78 percent have a VCR or DVD player.
62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
89 percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a more than a third have an automatic dishwasher."
Poor Politics - Robert Rector - National Review Online

(BTW...check the statistics: 6% of the 'poor' have a jacuzzi....do you?)

How about Food Stamps...feed poor folks?
Did you read about the scam:

"PROVIDENCE, R.I. (AP) -- A criminal swindle of the nation's $64.7 billion food stamp program is playing out at small neighborhood stores around the country, where thousands of retailers are suspected of trading deals with customers, exchanging lesser amounts of cash for their stamps.
Authorities say the stamps are then redeemed as usual by the unscrupulous merchants at face value, netting them huge profits and diverting as much as $330 million in taxpayer funds annually. But the transactions are electronically recorded and federal investigators, wise to the practice, are closely monitoring thousands of convenience stories and mom-and-pop groceries in a push to halt the fraud.
Known as food stamp trafficking, the illegal buying or selling of food stamps..."
USDA Cracks Down On Food Stamp Trafficking


Wise up, Billy-0...you're being played.

You seem convinced that I have some beef against the rich. I don't. I made that clear in my opening post.

Explain this to me: if we can't tax the top 1% more because they are "job creators", then why haven't they created any jobs to bring us out of this recession? Profits have only skyrocketed in the past few decades, yet the unemployment rate is at 8.6% and layoffs are only continuing.

Think about it: what is stopping these big corporations from laying people off for the sake of increasing profit? People, by nature, are greedy. If they are faced with the temptation of maximizing their profits, they will. That is what happens with little government interference.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You're well-informed - I'll give you that. You came up with an argument supported by facts. However, I am still not convinced.

I'll concede that I may be wrong about wages of blue collar remaining flat, but what you have failed to discuss is how the wages of the wealthy have changed.

Those of the wealthy have increased 250% over the last few decades. For instance, in the 1930's, the average CEO made 30X more than an average worker. Now, it's 300X. Obviously, the more work, the more you make, but that doesn't mean there isn't a maldistribution of wealth. Productivity has skyrocketed. Just because the lower and middle class are making more nowadays, it doesn't mean they are pulling in their fair share.

Your info about worker benefits do not account for the poor. 50 million people in this country do not have health insurance at all.

1. Billy-0...

Why is it any of your business what somebody else earns?

Envy?
Covetousness?

You have the mistaken idea that anothers' wealth deprives you of yours....this is false and plays into the hands of the Leftists who use your mistake to increase their power.

Sociologist Helmut Schoeck’s observation: “Since the end of the Second World War, however, a new ‘ethic’ has come into being, according to which the envious man is perfectly acceptable. Progressively fewer individuals and groups are ashamed of their envy, but instead make out that its existence in their temperaments axiomatically proves the existence of ‘social injustice,’ which must be eliminated for their benefit.” Helmut Schoeck, “Envy: A Theory of Social Behavior,” p. 179

He's writing about you.

2. "...how the wages of the wealthy have changed."
Since you insist on sticking your nose in other folks' business....I'll tell
you: in the same way as anyone else.
Except for the recession: the rich got hit hardest.

It's math Billy....here goesne must understand that any average, or mean, of incomes in the top 20% will always be much higher than the median income in this group, for the simple reason that the top group has no ceiling…i.e., it is everyone with incomes above the 80% percentile. Of course, this description can be applied to any “top” group…1%, 5%, etc.

a. The median will consequently always provide a much more accurate reflection of the typical income earner in any top income group than any average or mean. So, changes in the “average” incomes of a top group are always misleading, and greatly exaggerates the level of typical income of top income groups.

b. “Mean income for the top 10% is about two-thirds larger than median income…” Reynolds, “Income and Wealth,” p. 21.

c. According to Federal Reserve data regarding incomes of different subgroups, the average or mean income of the top 10% households seems to increase much more from 1989 to 2004 than the average or mean of the next highest 10%, or of any lower income group. This would lead one to believe, mistakenly, that income inequality is growing, with the rich getting rich faster than any other group.

But when the more accurate median income is considered, the income of the top 10% grew virtually at the same rate from 1989 to 2004 as the bottom 20%, and as the second lowest 20%. Reynolds, “Income and Wealth,” p. 20-21.

Get that? "...the income of the top 10% grew virtually at the same rate..."
If you really want to be informed, pick up Peter Ferrara's "America's Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb," and read chapter nine.

3. "50 million people in this country do not have health insurance at all."

100% of the people in this country have healthcare.

"Poverty" is a hypothetical construct, Billy....the term is made up.
Do you know how it is constructed?
Do you know what poverty is?

For me, it means no home, no heat, no food.
That isn't what the Left calls 'poor'....
after all, 46% of all 'poor' own their own homes.
Nor have I seen anyone starving in the streets...have you?

"46 percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
80 percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
Only six percent of poor households are overcrowded; two thirds have more than two rooms per person.
The typical poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
Nearly three quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.
97 percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
78 percent have a VCR or DVD player.
62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
89 percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a more than a third have an automatic dishwasher."
Poor Politics - Robert Rector - National Review Online

(BTW...check the statistics: 6% of the 'poor' have a jacuzzi....do you?)

How about Food Stamps...feed poor folks?
Did you read about the scam:

"PROVIDENCE, R.I. (AP) -- A criminal swindle of the nation's $64.7 billion food stamp program is playing out at small neighborhood stores around the country, where thousands of retailers are suspected of trading deals with customers, exchanging lesser amounts of cash for their stamps.
Authorities say the stamps are then redeemed as usual by the unscrupulous merchants at face value, netting them huge profits and diverting as much as $330 million in taxpayer funds annually. But the transactions are electronically recorded and federal investigators, wise to the practice, are closely monitoring thousands of convenience stories and mom-and-pop groceries in a push to halt the fraud.
Known as food stamp trafficking, the illegal buying or selling of food stamps..."
USDA Cracks Down On Food Stamp Trafficking


Wise up, Billy-0...you're being played.

You seem convinced that I have some beef against the rich. I don't. I made that clear in my opening post.

Explain this to me: if we can't tax the top 1% more because they are "job creators", then why haven't they created any jobs to bring us out of this recession? Profits have only skyrocketed in the past few decades, yet the unemployment rate is at 8.6% and layoffs are only continuing.

Think about it: what is stopping these big corporations from laying people off for the sake of increasing profit? People, by nature, are greedy. If they are faced with the temptation of maximizing their profits, they will. That is what happens with little government interference.

1. Since you are endeavoring to change the subject, that must mean that you're throwing in the towel on the other topics you've raised.

Wise move.

2. "if we can't tax the top 1% more because they are "job creators",
I didn't raise the argument of job creation...you did.
I pointed out previously that they already pay the greatest part of your taxes...how much should they pay?

a. The unspoken assumption is that there is something morally wrong with inequalities. Where is the explanation of what would be a ‘fair share’ for the wealthy to give up? Irving Kristol, as editor of ‘Public Interest,’ wrote to professors who had written about the unfairness of income distribution, asking them to write an article as to what a ‘fair distribution’ would be; he has never gotten that article. Irving Kristol, “Neoconservative: the Autobiography of an Idea,” p. 166

b. Since you mention that you are a liberal, here, from a book by an arch-liberal, Glenn Greenwald, “With Liberty and Justice for Some; How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful”...probably agees with most of what you believe. This, from his book:

"None of the founders believed in equality as a general proposition. The opposite is true: they considered inequality on every level, other than law, to be the natural, inevitable, and just state of affairs. Even Jefferson, one of the most egalitarian of the founders, held that there was “a natural aristocracy” among men, based on “virtue and talents.” This was not only natural, but desirable: “The natural aristocracy I consider as the most precious gift of nature for the instruction, the trusts, and the government of society.”(p.10)

John Adams the same. “It already appears, that there must be in every society of men superiors an inferiors, because God has laid in the constitution and course of nature the foundations of the distinction.”

3. And that leads to the question of why we have a progressive tax system at all?
Can you tell me why you believe same is just?

Is the progressive income tax to reduce inequalities?

a. Professors at the University of Chicago law school, Blum and Kalven examined and found very little support for progressive taxation as “the possible rationale for desiring to lessen economic inequalities within the confines of a private enterprise and market system,” and found, on the contrary, that since there have been enormous increases in wealth, even among the poorest, and yet the issue of inequality has become more outspoken, “It initially appears that what is involved is envy, the dissatisfaction produced in men not by what they lack but by what others have.” Blum and Klaven, jr., “The Uneasy Case for Progressive Taxation.”

b. Where in this discussion is the question of personal responsibility in achieving success or of the free market’s hand in distributing rewards? Or is the assumption that these factors don’t exist? Why not presume that the richer person merited his wealth?

4. No, my liberal, uneducated friend,...this entire argument is not about equality, or poverty...it is about growing government.

a. As government taxes more and subsidizes more, a greater portion of society’s wealth passes through its hands. Individuals and families have less income to dispose of as they see fit. “…redistribution is in effect far less a redistribution of free income from the richer to the poorer, as we imagined, than a redistribution of power from the individual to the State.” Bertrand de Jouvenel, “The Ethics of Redistribution,” p. 73


5. Earlier you stated that I was being too tough on you...insulting you.
Here is the test to see if you deserve such treatment: I've explained a number of ideas to you...and in the process named some half dozen books.

Have you written down and determined to read any?

See what I mean?
You are, and seem destined to remain, in exactly the condition that big government likes you to be....
...you fill in the word.

 

[Billy000]

I am failing to see what subject I am avoiding. Either way, you are no different. Your last post is lacking subsance. All you seem to be doing now is spewing general political rhetoric about big government.

What else is there? What am I missing? I'm all ears.

 

[Billy000]

Also, the wealthy pay the most in federal taxes alone. That doesn't account for their small contribution overall.

http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml

 

[Billy000]

And Christ, stop with the "I'm a no-nonsense *****" act. It's so transparent.

 

[Avatar4321]

I think we should be more focused on loving our brethren and not being angry at them because they make more or less money than we do.

 

[PoliticalChic]

And Christ, stop with the "I'm a no-nonsense *****" act. It's so transparent.

You've had more remediation than you deserve.

 

[Billy000]

And Christ, stop with the "I'm a no-nonsense *****" act. It's so transparent.

You've had more remediation than you deserve.

Is that it? Are you done?

 

[Avatar4321]

The disparity of virtue is a much bigger problem in this nation.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Is that it? Are you done?

You should be truly grateful for advances in bun reattachment surgery;

Seeing how she just handed you your ass.....

 

[Billy000]

Is that it? Are you done?

You should be truly grateful for advances in bun reattachment surgery;

Seeing how she just handed you your ass.....

I've never understood that expression "she handed me my ass"? Come on. Hardly.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I've never understood that expression "she handed me my ass"? Come on. Hardly.

Regardless.

The harsh reality of life is that there is a scarcity of goods. Not every person can have everything they want. No matter what "it" may be, there will be competition for scarce resources.

Now I love my wife and wouldn't trade her for anyone, but when I was younger, I would have loved to have had Christina Applegate, Natale Portman or other great beauties of the sort. They were out of my reach. Even though the game wasn't based on money, I didn't have what was needed to win women like that. (Fame, influence, etc.) Because they are few and far between, and competition for them is fierce.

Everything in life is a matter of competition. This is the principle of economics that most people don't grasp, it isn't about money and markets, it's about the distribution of resources. Markets have emerged as the most equitable means of distribution, but the market is a tool, not the object of contention.

We in the West have applied our intellect to the production of food, the result of which is that food is plentiful. What once was scarce, no longer is. Why is that? Because the goal of markets is to provide value to the customer in order to win the business of the customer, because customers are yet another resource to be competed for. In the quest to provide value and gain more customers, agriculture became so efficient and so imbued with technology, that the age old problem of lack of food has vanished from capitalist society.

NOW, does this mean their is no disparity in food distribution? Not at all, there is great disparity, some can afford Lobster, Ahi and Fillet Mignon every night, others have a chicken and rice budget. Still, virtually everyone has plenty of food.

This is what markets bring, what capitalism brings. Because the need for ever greater value drives the cost of goods ever lower, more and more is approachable by every strata of society. The moment that you end the disparity, then the impetus to achieve greater efficiency is destroyed and we return to the days where the elite eat and the rest starve.

You see, what the OWS Shitters and the resurgent communists decry is not that there have been no economic advancements for the poor. No, the poor live lives the rich would have envied a hundred years ago, what the communists and Shitters decry is that despite the incredible improvements in their own lives, there are others who have enjoyed even greater advances. It all boils down to envy, no matter how much some people have, the fact that others have more is too much to bear. Many communists would gladly see their own lifestyle drop by ten-fold, just for the joy of seeing those they envy drop even further.

You see Billy, ultimately it is purely greed and jealousy that drives the left. They would destroy the greatest achievement of human history, just to feed their own, petty envy.

 

[FA_Q2]

Is that it? Are you done?

You should be truly grateful for advances in bun reattachment surgery;

Seeing how she just handed you your ass.....

I've never understood that expression "she handed me my ass"? Come on. Hardly.

Since you don't understand the expression let me help you along....
She has provided you with a plethora of facts that directly refute your original point and you have not addressed even one single point. Not one. The only thing you have done is claim that, while she is well informed, you are not convinced. There is not even a reason why you are not convinced. Fact is, at this point, you look like you are not here to debate at all. It seems you would rather state your opinion as fact and have us swallow it. Why not try again? Bring a little more than repetition of talking points to the table and you might not get 'your ass handed to you" again.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Is that it? Are you done?

You should be truly grateful for advances in bun reattachment surgery;

Seeing how she just handed you your ass.....

I've never understood that expression "she handed me my ass"? Come on. Hardly.

Perhaps if you actually answered my challenge to show me what you are basing your opinion that there is a problem on so I can show you why the people you are relying on are wrong you might understand why you had your ass handed to you.

 

[Billy000]

You should be truly grateful for advances in bun reattachment surgery;

Seeing how she just handed you your ass.....

I've never understood that expression "she handed me my ass"? Come on. Hardly.

Since you don't understand the expression let me help you along....
She has provided you with a plethora of facts that directly refute your original point and you have not addressed even one single point. Not one. The only thing you have done is claim that, while she is well informed, you are not convinced. There is not even a reason why you are not convinced. Fact is, at this point, you look like you are not here to debate at all. It seems you would rather state your opinion as fact and have us swallow it. Why not try again? Bring a little more than repetition of talking points to the table and you might not get 'your ass handed to you" again.

ou obviously haven't been paying attention. You are just as biased as you are claiming me to be. Yeah, I'll concede she mostly won the argument, but I wouldn't say "my ass was handed to me."

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Worrying bout the money other folks have is unhealthy and immoral. You don't covet what other folks have.. You work to improve yourself, not to destroy what others have.