I ask that those right of center not reply to this thread

[hipeter924]

So, thats the solution? Eliminate income inequality?

No, provide better access to education, so that people can move out of poverty and reduce the strain on the welfare state.

What else?

There is either voluntary taxation, Single Payer/UHC, or general across the board tax cuts. Take your pick.

 

[Darkwind]

Simple, go back to what the US Founders wanted and what the US used to help create the worlds largest middle class, until right wing 'think tanks' created policies the US has followed the past 40+ years


When the United States became independent from Britain it also rebelled against the British System of economics, characterized by Adam Smith, in favor of the American School based on protectionism and infrastructure and prospered under this system for almost 200 years to become the wealthiest nation in the world. Unrestrained free trade resurfaced in the early 1900s culminating in the Great Depression and again in the 1970s culminating in the current Economic Meltdown.

Closely related to mercantilism, it can be seen as contrary to classical economics. It consisted of these three core policies:

protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and through subsidies (especially 1932–70)

government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)

a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation

Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders

American School of Economics

(Re-)Introducing: The American School of Economics


American School (economics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


GO BACK TO TAX RATES WHERE, AS OUR FOUNDERS WANTED, IT STOPPED THE INEQUALITY


Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory

The conclusion?

Lowering the tax rates on the wealthy and top earners in America do not appear to have any impact on the nation’s economic growth.

This paragraph from the report says it all—

“The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.”

These three sentences do nothing less than blow apart the central tenet of modern conservative economic theory, confirming that lowering tax rates on the wealthy does nothing to grow the economy while doing a great deal to concentrate more wealth in the pockets of those at the very top of the income chain.


Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory-GOP Suppresses Study - Forbes



George Washington, nine months before his inauguration as the first president, predicted that America "will be the most favorable country of any kind in the world for persons of industry and frugality, possessed of moderate capital, to inhabit." And, he continued, "it will not be less advantageous to the happiness of the lowest class of people, because of the equal distribution of property."


The second president, John Adams, feared "monopolies of land" would destroy the nation and that a business aristocracy born of inequality would manipulate voters, creating "a system of subordination to all... The capricious will of one or a very few" dominating the rest. Unless constrained, Adams wrote, "the rich and the proud" would wield economic and political power that "will destroy all the equality and liberty, with the consent and acclamations of the people themselves."

James Madison, the Constitution's main author, described inequality as an evil, saying government should prevent "an immoderate, and especially unmerited, accumulation of riches." He favored "the silent operation of laws which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigents towards a state of comfort."


http://www.newsweek.com/2014/02/07/why-thomas-jefferson-favored-profit-sharing-245454.html

To much to unpack and analyize right now, but while I wait for others to weigh in, I'll make a single comment on how I see your position (even though it isn't yours, its the person who wrote the article).

You believe that taxing the rich to the point that their income is no greater than the middle class is essentially the answer to helping the middle class regain the benefit of upward mobility?

No greater than? You mean from 1945-1980 the US didn't have any rich? When the top 1% ONLY had 6%-9% of ALL US income versus 23% by 2007 and Reaganomics/Bushanomics?



Sorry, tax policy has AND can help rebuild the US middle class that was CREATED using PROGRESSIVE policies!


Of course it's MUCH more important for 10 hedge funders to make more than 250,000 teachers AND to pay a smaller SHARE of their income in taxes right?

Ten Hedge Fund Managers Made More Combined Than 250,000 Teachers | Too Big Has Failed

As I said, there is a lot there that needs to be unpacked and analyzed. At this point in the thread, I want more people to weigh in on specific policy that will meet the criteria I laid out.

Since I have a 60+ hour week ahead of Me, I deliberately set the thread up so that everyone can have a chance to come up with everything they can think of that will create policy to aid the middle class. Over the course of the week, I'll make comments to stimulate more thought to help expand the growing body of ideas.

 

[Dad2three]

Detail what it is that you think will benefit the Middle Class.

Now, by benefit, I mean provide a means for them to retain their middle class status and to begin advancing themselves upward.

More people joining the middle class, as the larger the middle class, the more is being spent and saved in the economy.

A lot of the problems exist with income-equality because the middle class is no longer growing at a fast pace, and there are attempts in government and in the corporate world to keep salaries and wages stagnant or even drag them down.

'Provide jobs and better wages/salaries' is an easy answer, though that can't be achieved without much less of student loan burden on students (which stops Americans getting a higher education).

So, thats the solution? Eliminate income inequality?

CREDIBLE economists have stated that for decades and decades, since the first GOP great depression, income inequality is one of the largest drivers of lack of good/higher quality education.


Income inequality, the US currently ranked 14th in upward mobility, can be reduced by PROGRESSIVE taxation, better and stronger safety nets, better funding of education and a desire to actually govern (GOOD GOV'T POLICIES) , something the GOP hasn't been keen on for 20+ years now!

 

[Darkwind]

Unfortunately guys, as I mentioned in the post above, I DO have a very long week ahead and I have a few hours of coding I have to get done tonight.

I'll check in each day as often as I can.

 

[SAYIT]

For those of you on the left.

The question is very simple, but with a very complex answer.

Detail what it is that you think will benefit the Middle Class.

Now, by benefit, I mean provide a means for them to retain their middle class status and to begin advancing themselves upward.

Take your time. Be specific and as detailed as you can.

Simple, go back to what the US Founders wanted and what the US used to help create the worlds largest middle class, until right wing 'think tanks' created policies the US has followed the past 40+ years


When the United States became independent from Britain it also rebelled against the British System of economics, characterized by Adam Smith, in favor of the American School based on protectionism and infrastructure and prospered under this system for almost 200 years to become the wealthiest nation in the world. Unrestrained free trade resurfaced in the early 1900s culminating in the Great Depression and again in the 1970s culminating in the current Economic Meltdown.

Closely related to mercantilism, it can be seen as contrary to classical economics. It consisted of these three core policies:

protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and through subsidies (especially 1932–70)

government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)

a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation

Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders

American School of Economics

(Re-)Introducing: The American School of Economics


American School (economics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


GO BACK TO TAX RATES WHERE, AS OUR FOUNDERS WANTED, IT STOPPED THE INEQUALITY


Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory

The conclusion?

Lowering the tax rates on the wealthy and top earners in America do not appear to have any impact on the nation’s economic growth.

This paragraph from the report says it all—

“The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.”

These three sentences do nothing less than blow apart the central tenet of modern conservative economic theory, confirming that lowering tax rates on the wealthy does nothing to grow the economy while doing a great deal to concentrate more wealth in the pockets of those at the very top of the income chain.


Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory-GOP Suppresses Study - Forbes



George Washington, nine months before his inauguration as the first president, predicted that America "will be the most favorable country of any kind in the world for persons of industry and frugality, possessed of moderate capital, to inhabit." And, he continued, "it will not be less advantageous to the happiness of the lowest class of people, because of the equal distribution of property."


The second president, John Adams, feared "monopolies of land" would destroy the nation and that a business aristocracy born of inequality would manipulate voters, creating "a system of subordination to all... The capricious will of one or a very few" dominating the rest. Unless constrained, Adams wrote, "the rich and the proud" would wield economic and political power that "will destroy all the equality and liberty, with the consent and acclamations of the people themselves."

James Madison, the Constitution's main author, described inequality as an evil, saying government should prevent "an immoderate, and especially unmerited, accumulation of riches." He favored "the silent operation of laws which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigents towards a state of comfort."


http://www.newsweek.com/2014/02/07/why-thomas-jefferson-favored-profit-sharing-245454.html

I'm curious about Madison's statement. How does one use "the silent operation of laws" to "reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity" without "violating the rights of personal property?"

 

[Dad2three]

For those of you on the left.

The question is very simple, but with a very complex answer.

Detail what it is that you think will benefit the Middle Class.

Now, by benefit, I mean provide a means for them to retain their middle class status and to begin advancing themselves upward.

Take your time. Be specific and as detailed as you can.

Simple, go back to what the US Founders wanted and what the US used to help create the worlds largest middle class, until right wing 'think tanks' created policies the US has followed the past 40+ years


When the United States became independent from Britain it also rebelled against the British System of economics, characterized by Adam Smith, in favor of the American School based on protectionism and infrastructure and prospered under this system for almost 200 years to become the wealthiest nation in the world. Unrestrained free trade resurfaced in the early 1900s culminating in the Great Depression and again in the 1970s culminating in the current Economic Meltdown.

Closely related to mercantilism, it can be seen as contrary to classical economics. It consisted of these three core policies:

protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and through subsidies (especially 1932–70)

government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)

a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation

Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders

American School of Economics

(Re-)Introducing: The American School of Economics


American School (economics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


GO BACK TO TAX RATES WHERE, AS OUR FOUNDERS WANTED, IT STOPPED THE INEQUALITY


Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory

The conclusion?

Lowering the tax rates on the wealthy and top earners in America do not appear to have any impact on the nation’s economic growth.

This paragraph from the report says it all—

“The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.”

These three sentences do nothing less than blow apart the central tenet of modern conservative economic theory, confirming that lowering tax rates on the wealthy does nothing to grow the economy while doing a great deal to concentrate more wealth in the pockets of those at the very top of the income chain.


Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory-GOP Suppresses Study - Forbes



George Washington, nine months before his inauguration as the first president, predicted that America "will be the most favorable country of any kind in the world for persons of industry and frugality, possessed of moderate capital, to inhabit." And, he continued, "it will not be less advantageous to the happiness of the lowest class of people, because of the equal distribution of property."


The second president, John Adams, feared "monopolies of land" would destroy the nation and that a business aristocracy born of inequality would manipulate voters, creating "a system of subordination to all... The capricious will of one or a very few" dominating the rest. Unless constrained, Adams wrote, "the rich and the proud" would wield economic and political power that "will destroy all the equality and liberty, with the consent and acclamations of the people themselves."

James Madison, the Constitution's main author, described inequality as an evil, saying government should prevent "an immoderate, and especially unmerited, accumulation of riches." He favored "the silent operation of laws which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigents towards a state of comfort."


http://www.newsweek.com/2014/02/07/why-thomas-jefferson-favored-profit-sharing-245454.html

I'm curious about Madison's statement. How does one use "the silent operation of laws" to "reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity" without "violating the rights of personal property?"

Personal property? lol


Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father, American diplomat, statesman, and scientist; letter to Robert Morris, December 25, 1783:

"All the property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it."


Founding Fathers wanted to "Spread the Wealth"

 

[KNB]

The oligarchy has kept this out of our schools' history textbooks for over 70 years for a reason. The "liberal" media have not shown this to the American public in over 70 years for a reason- because it will benefit the working class at the expense of the global super-rich.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ngc0_mQ5tjE]Hemp For Victory (1942) U.S. Department of Agriculture - YouTube[/ame]

"You don't need a vote to raise Hell." - Mary Harris Jones

 

[I.P.Freely]

I didn't bother to read the post! But, if I want to respond - place it where the sunshine cannot be viewed!

whats the address of your rock?

 

[Politico]

Now, by benefit, I mean provide a means for them to retain their middle class status and to begin advancing themselves upward.

No one should be 'provided' anything.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Ladies and gentlemen,

You have just witnessed a troll thread. I called the OP out for what this is early on.....and he has performed on cue.

When you ask a question that you really do not wish to receive an answer for, you are trolling. This is especially true if you ask for specifics...and then claim that you don't have the time to discuss specifics.

I hope we have all learned our lesson. The OP might just as well have started a thread asking everyone to suck his balls.

 

[Disir]

Affordable housing for the middle class and working class through both rent control and loans less than 50K. There are those that can afford the mortgage payments but cannot afford the down payment because the rent keeps getting jacked up. The ability to purchase homes instead of dealing with a landlord will allow people to invest in their own property which slum lords don't like to do, reduce crime by anchoring people rather than have a high turnover or transient population and pay property taxes.

 

[Darkwind]

Simple, go back to what the US Founders wanted and what the US used to help create the worlds largest middle class, until right wing 'think tanks' created policies the US has followed the past 40+ years


When the United States became independent from Britain it also rebelled against the British System of economics, characterized by Adam Smith, in favor of the American School based on protectionism and infrastructure and prospered under this system for almost 200 years to become the wealthiest nation in the world. Unrestrained free trade resurfaced in the early 1900s culminating in the Great Depression and again in the 1970s culminating in the current Economic Meltdown.

Closely related to mercantilism, it can be seen as contrary to classical economics. It consisted of these three core policies:

protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and through subsidies (especially 1932–70)

government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)

a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation

Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders

American School of Economics

(Re-)Introducing: The American School of Economics


American School (economics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


GO BACK TO TAX RATES WHERE, AS OUR FOUNDERS WANTED, IT STOPPED THE INEQUALITY


Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory

The conclusion?

Lowering the tax rates on the wealthy and top earners in America do not appear to have any impact on the nation’s economic growth.

This paragraph from the report says it all—

“The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.”

These three sentences do nothing less than blow apart the central tenet of modern conservative economic theory, confirming that lowering tax rates on the wealthy does nothing to grow the economy while doing a great deal to concentrate more wealth in the pockets of those at the very top of the income chain.


Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory-GOP Suppresses Study - Forbes



George Washington, nine months before his inauguration as the first president, predicted that America "will be the most favorable country of any kind in the world for persons of industry and frugality, possessed of moderate capital, to inhabit." And, he continued, "it will not be less advantageous to the happiness of the lowest class of people, because of the equal distribution of property."


The second president, John Adams, feared "monopolies of land" would destroy the nation and that a business aristocracy born of inequality would manipulate voters, creating "a system of subordination to all... The capricious will of one or a very few" dominating the rest. Unless constrained, Adams wrote, "the rich and the proud" would wield economic and political power that "will destroy all the equality and liberty, with the consent and acclamations of the people themselves."

James Madison, the Constitution's main author, described inequality as an evil, saying government should prevent "an immoderate, and especially unmerited, accumulation of riches." He favored "the silent operation of laws which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigents towards a state of comfort."


http://www.newsweek.com/2014/02/07/why-thomas-jefferson-favored-profit-sharing-245454.html

I'm curious about Madison's statement. How does one use "the silent operation of laws" to "reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity" without "violating the rights of personal property?"

Personal property? lol


Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father, American diplomat, statesman, and scientist; letter to Robert Morris, December 25, 1783:

"All the property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it."


Founding Fathers wanted to "Spread the Wealth"

So, confiscation of property is in the better interest of the middle class...I'll add it.

 

[Darkwind]

Affordable housing for the middle class and working class through both rent control and loans less than 50K. There are those that can afford the mortgage payments but cannot afford the down payment because the rent keeps getting jacked up. The ability to purchase homes instead of dealing with a landlord will allow people to invest in their own property which slum lords don't like to do, reduce crime by anchoring people rather than have a high turnover or transient population and pay property taxes.

Rent caps? I'm dubious, but I'll add it.

 

[Darkwind]

More people joining the middle class, as the larger the middle class, the more is being spent and saved in the economy.

A lot of the problems exist with income-equality because the middle class is no longer growing at a fast pace, and there are attempts in government and in the corporate world to keep salaries and wages stagnant or even drag them down.

'Provide jobs and better wages/salaries' is an easy answer, though that can't be achieved without much less of student loan burden on students (which stops Americans getting a higher education).

So, thats the solution? Eliminate income inequality?

CREDIBLE economists have stated that for decades and decades, since the first GOP great depression, income inequality is one of the largest drivers of lack of good/higher quality education.


Income inequality, the US currently ranked 14th in upward mobility, can be reduced by PROGRESSIVE taxation, better and stronger safety nets, better funding of education and a desire to actually govern (GOOD GOV'T POLICIES) , something the GOP hasn't been keen on for 20+ years now!

[MENTION=49669]Dad2three[/MENTION]
Oh, and here is your chance. You claim CREDIBLE sources.

Please list them, and and add a link to their studies and calculations that lead them to the conclusion you support.

 

[Disir]

Affordable housing for the middle class and working class through both rent control and loans less than 50K. There are those that can afford the mortgage payments but cannot afford the down payment because the rent keeps getting jacked up. The ability to purchase homes instead of dealing with a landlord will allow people to invest in their own property which slum lords don't like to do, reduce crime by anchoring people rather than have a high turnover or transient population and pay property taxes.

Rent caps? I'm dubious, but I'll add it.

Disappearing Act: Affordable Housing in DC is Vanishing Amid Sharply Rising Housing Costs | DC Fiscal Policy Institute

Apartment Market Tightens as Housing Costs Jump - WSJ

Rent Prices LA 2012: Rental Prices Expected To Increase Nearly 10%, Says Report (PHOTOS)

Wages have been stagnant for 40 years? Rental properties have continued to increase.

 

[SAYIT]

I'm curious about Madison's statement. How does one use "the silent operation of laws" to "reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity" without "violating the rights of personal property?"

Personal property? lol

Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father, American diplomat, statesman, and scientist; letter to Robert Morris, December 25, 1783:

"All the property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it."

Founding Fathers wanted to "Spread the Wealth"

So, confiscation of property is in the better interest of the middle class...I'll add it.

I believe Dad was referring to confiscating the wealth of the others, not his wealth. In the next post Disir repeats that theme by suggesting "rent controls" which, of course, are the confiscation of the wealth of property owners.

 

[Disir]

Personal property? lol

Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father, American diplomat, statesman, and scientist; letter to Robert Morris, December 25, 1783:

"All the property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it."

Founding Fathers wanted to "Spread the Wealth"

So, confiscation of property is in the better interest of the middle class...I'll add it.

I believe Dad was referring to confiscating the wealth of the others, not his wealth. In the next post Disir repeats that theme by suggesting "rent controls" which, of course, are the confiscation of the wealth of property owners.

Let me help you out. You cannot continuously drive down wages and increase the rent. You cannot continuously outsource jobs to drive down wages and increase rent.

Further, when you start to look at homes that are worth less than 50K but make it impossible to acquire a loan for less than 50K then you are creating another bubble.

And then there are the bank owned properties. Heaven forbid we stand in the way of bank slumlords and their right to conveniently exploit the hell out of everyone else.
Deutsche Bank: Deutsche Bank sued by L.A. over slum conditions - Los Angeles Times

 

[Dad2three]

I'm curious about Madison's statement. How does one use "the silent operation of laws" to "reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity" without "violating the rights of personal property?"

Personal property? lol


Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father, American diplomat, statesman, and scientist; letter to Robert Morris, December 25, 1783:

"All the property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it."


Founding Fathers wanted to "Spread the Wealth"

So, confiscation of property is in the better interest of the middle class...I'll add it.

The Founders sure thought it was a good idea



Founding Fathers wanted to "Spread the Wealth"

They ALSO didn't like that INHERITED wealth thing, too much like a aristocracy to them

Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers
If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on — and those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most definitely do not — it was the incompatibility of democracy and inherited wealth.

With Thomas Jefferson taking the lead in the Virginia legislature in 1777, every Revolutionary state government abolished the laws of primogeniture and entail that had served to perpetuate the concentration of inherited property. Jefferson cited Adam Smith, the hero of free market capitalists everywhere, as the source of his conviction that (as Smith wrote, and Jefferson closely echoed in his own words), "A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural." Smith said: "There is no point more difficult to account for than the right we conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after death."

The states left no doubt that in taking this step they were giving expression to a basic and widely shared philosophical belief that equality of citizenship was impossible in a nation where inequality of wealth remained the rule.

Stephen Budiansky's Liberal Curmudgeon Blog: Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers

 

[Disir]

Personal property? lol

Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father, American diplomat, statesman, and scientist; letter to Robert Morris, December 25, 1783:

"All the property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it."

Founding Fathers wanted to "Spread the Wealth"

So, confiscation of property is in the better interest of the middle class...I'll add it.

I believe Dad was referring to confiscating the wealth of the others, not his wealth. In the next post Disir repeats that theme by suggesting "rent controls" which, of course, are the confiscation of the wealth of property owners.

Oh, here, have some more:
In a 2011 report, Morgan Stanley analysts proclaimed that America was experiencing a transition from an ownership society to a “rentership society.” “The combination of falling home prices, limited mortgage credit, continued liquidations and better rental options is fundamentally changing the way Americans live,” says the report, concluding, “We believe this change is only beginning.” For Wall Street firms, the Morgan Stanley report appears to have become a self-fulfilling prophecy: Seeing a profitable opening in the wake of the foreclosure crisis, investment groups have worked diligently to bring a “rentership society” into being. During the past two years, investors have bought approximately 200,000 single-family homes, mostly foreclosures, in urban areas nationwide, with plans to convert them into rental properties. In Atlanta, one such investment group purchased 1,400 homes on a single day in April of last year.

This investor-led feeding frenzy has sent home sales and prices rising again, leading some commentators to hail a “robust housing recovery.” But it’s one that’s happening largely without homeowners. In the final months of 2013, the rate of homeownership dipped to an 18-year low of 65.2 percent, down from a 69.4 percent peak prior to the 2007 financial crisis, according to U.S. Census data.
Game of Homes - In These Times

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I personally like the idea of no CEO or business owner make say 20 times the amount of his lowest worker. It is not a salary cap you can pay them much as the shareholders want.

Uhm, this is exactly how it works right now.