“Income Inequality”: A Crisis of Stupidity

[SAYIT]

"Income Inequality" is the first lie told by every Progressive dictator like Hilter, Mao, Stalin and Fidel. It's always the Kulaks (1%, Jews) who are making our Low Information Progressive unhappy and poor. Only by surrendering power to the Progressive Dictator will things be alright. Not for the morons in the Progressive Base, they get stale bread once a week, but for the leaders it's all good.

For the most current example of their "thinking" see: Greece.

 

[SAYIT]

Simply enough, limo-liberal Democrat Party adherents could do so much to alleviate inequality by giving all their assets to those who have the least.

But they won't.

Of course not. No one should give 100% of their income to anyone else; it's the set of 1% who want more. Why?

"It's not a question of enough, pal. It's a zero sum game, somebody wins, somebody loses." (G. Gekko). There is no evidence that the rich are rich because the poor are poor. Generally it's just a matter of poor personal choices.

 

[imawhosure]

Neat theory and all - but this has been studied and compensation for specific jobs -- and it has not risen at thenrate of 400% like the executive salaries have since te late 70s but has remained relatively flat

And productivity is UP, so theyre not working any less hard.

If you dont feel this is an issue, then ----- no hope for the closed mind says the man with the key ring and doesnt know the key.

There is no evidence that the poor are poor because the rich are rich.
In fact, it is the capital risk-taking of the rich that has powered America's economic engine.

The reason the poor are poor in America is two fold.

1. They are young and think they should be rich but forgot they actually have to earn it. Or......

2. They vote for libs because they promise to give them a nickel instead of making conditions better for jobs to grow and employ them

True story. I retired from a large manufacturing company and had a friend who hired within a week of myself. He was a big left winger, oh boy, he hated EVERYTHING republican. He was the salt of the earth though, a real nice guy with a wonderful family.

18 or 19 years ago, he won the Illinois lotto to the tune of around 380,000 bucks because of multiple winners. He came to me and asked about a financial advisor, so I set him up with someone I knew was not a crook.

Within 10 months, his story changed tremendously. He was no longer a left winger, and was now a staunch conservative, lol. He was trying to hide money from the tax code, investing in none taxation bonds, setting up trusts, etc, etc; all the time bitching that the government was trying to steal his money.

We are now both retired, I still talk to him about once a month, and he lives in Florida right off the Gulf. He is now worth over 3 million, is still a conservative, and hates Obysmal.

Oh yeah, did I mention he is African American?

So you see, it really does boil down to those who don't have it, wanting to take it from those who do to finance their grand ideas. But most of the time, when someone suddenly makes it, the light of reality clicks in. Legal robbery through excessive taxation by using cute buzzwords like "income inequality" is just that, legalized theft.

As long as someone made their money legally, who the hell is anyone to tell them they have to give some of it to someone else because of so called "compassion?" Of course, the ones trying to take it from you are always the ones defining the meaning of "compassion," now aren't they, lolol!

Those people are honestly a sandwich short of a full picnic basket.

 

[SAYIT]

Income inequality comes into play when we hear conservatives whine that we don't have enough money to feed the poor, build schools or provide healthcare.

All they see wrong wit our tax code is that the 40% of Americans that have only TWO TENTHS OF A PERCENT of our wealth do not pay enough to taxes

Our progressive federal tax code allows 50% of all American earners to pay no federal income tax. They get a free ride. Meanwhile the top 10% of all earners pay 70% of all federal income taxes.

 

[SAYIT]

Neat theory and all - but this has been studied and compensation for specific jobs -- and it has not risen at thenrate of 400% like the executive salaries have since te late 70s but has remained relatively flat

And productivity is UP, so theyre not working any less hard.

If you dont feel this is an issue, then ----- no hope for the closed mind says the man with the key ring and doesnt know the key.

There is no evidence that the poor are poor because the rich are rich.
In fact, it is the capital risk-taking of the rich that has powered America's economic engine.

The reason the poor are poor in America is two fold.

1. They are young and think they should be rich but forgot they actually have to earn it. Or......

2. They vote for libs because they promise to give them a nickel instead of making conditions better for jobs to grow and employ them

True story. I retired from a large manufacturing company and had a friend who hired within a week of myself. He was a big left winger, oh boy, he hated EVERYTHING republican. He was the salt of the earth though, a real nice guy with a wonderful family.

18 or 19 years ago, he won the Illinois lotto to the tune of around 380,000 bucks because of multiple winners. He came to me and asked about a financial advisor, so I set him up with someone I knew was not a crook.

Within 10 months, his story changed tremendously. He was no longer a left winger, and was now a staunch conservative, lol. He was trying to hide money from the tax code, investing in none taxation bonds, setting up trusts, etc, etc; all the time bitching that the government was trying to steal his money.

We are now both retired, I still talk to him about once a month, and he lives in Florida right off the Gulf. He is now worth over 3 million, is still a conservative, and hates Obysmal.

Oh yeah, did I mention he is African American?

So you see, it really does boil down to those who don't have it, wanting to take it from those who do to finance their grand ideas. But most of the time, when someone suddenly makes it, the light of reality clicks in. Legal robbery through excessive taxation by using cute buzzwords like "income inequality" is just that, legalized theft.

I invest for my mother ... a hard-core FDR unionist who rails against American business practices. From time to time one of her companies merges and while she whines about the lost jobs she eagerly signs the proxies approving the mergers. Today she lives comfortably in a luxurious assisted-living campus with all the amenities and enjoys her most satisfying activity ... sending generous checks to her grandkids annually.
I think it's the blatant hypocrisy and lame rationale of loony-leftists that I find most annoying.

 

[imawhosure]

Neat theory and all - but this has been studied and compensation for specific jobs -- and it has not risen at thenrate of 400% like the executive salaries have since te late 70s but has remained relatively flat

And productivity is UP, so theyre not working any less hard.

If you dont feel this is an issue, then ----- no hope for the closed mind says the man with the key ring and doesnt know the key.

There is no evidence that the poor are poor because the rich are rich.
In fact, it is the capital risk-taking of the rich that has powered America's economic engine.

The reason the poor are poor in America is two fold.

1. They are young and think they should be rich but forgot they actually have to earn it. Or......

2. They vote for libs because they promise to give them a nickel instead of making conditions better for jobs to grow and employ them

True story. I retired from a large manufacturing company and had a friend who hired within a week of myself. He was a big left winger, oh boy, he hated EVERYTHING republican. He was the salt of the earth though, a real nice guy with a wonderful family.

18 or 19 years ago, he won the Illinois lotto to the tune of around 380,000 bucks because of multiple winners. He came to me and asked about a financial advisor, so I set him up with someone I knew was not a crook.

Within 10 months, his story changed tremendously. He was no longer a left winger, and was now a staunch conservative, lol. He was trying to hide money from the tax code, investing in none taxation bonds, setting up trusts, etc, etc; all the time bitching that the government was trying to steal his money.

We are now both retired, I still talk to him about once a month, and he lives in Florida right off the Gulf. He is now worth over 3 million, is still a conservative, and hates Obysmal.

Oh yeah, did I mention he is African American?

So you see, it really does boil down to those who don't have it, wanting to take it from those who do to finance their grand ideas. But most of the time, when someone suddenly makes it, the light of reality clicks in. Legal robbery through excessive taxation by using cute buzzwords like "income inequality" is just that, legalized theft.

I invest for my mother ... a hard-core FDR unionist who rails against American business practices. From time to time one of her companies would merge and while she whined about the lost jobs she eagerly signed the proxies approving the mergers. Today she lives comfortably in a luxurious assisted-living campus with all the amenities and enjoys her most satisfying activity ... sending generous checks to her grandkids annually.
I think it's the blatant hypocrisy and lame rationale of loony-leftists that I find most annoying.

But you see, your mother gets to choose who to send money to, how much to send, and when to send it. That is called, freedom. These loony leftists want to be socialists. They resemble Castro more than JFK.

I do not understand how JFK, or even Clinton democrats can support these people, they are so far of the reservation as far as America, they reside somewhere between Puerto Rico and Cuba.

 

[danielpalos]

Simply enough, limo-liberal Democrat Party adherents could do so much to alleviate inequality by giving all their assets to those who have the least.

But they won't.

Of course not. No one should give 100% of their income to anyone else; it's the set of 1% who want more. Why?

"It's not a question of enough, pal. It's a zero sum game, somebody wins, somebody loses." (G. Gekko). There is no evidence that the rich are rich because the poor are poor. Generally it's just a matter of poor personal choices.

Generally, or simply and merely because the rich can afford better privileges and immunities under our form of Capitalism.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Unless you have been living in a cave with no internet access for a couple years, you have undoubtedly heard scores of Democrat politicians and pundits whining about “income inequality.” Many have deemed Income Inequality to be the defining crisis of this Age.

But the expression itself is insidious and stupid.

The actual problem in the U.S. – from a public policy standpoint – is the phenomenon of persistent, generational poverty (“PGP”). Occasional poverty, temporary poverty, and the poverty that people experience at the beginning of their working lives, are problems that are already addressed in one way or another, and they are arguably more a “personal” issue than one that requires a Government solution.

But PGP is growing and, from a societal economic standpoint, is a cancer that can eventually consume so many resources that it will bring Government to its knees (along with public pensions and CSO).

But the Left is unable to even address PGP.

It’s causes are broadly and unquestionably known, as are its solutions. The cause is illegitimacy, and the solution is three-fold: (1) finish school, (2) get a job – any job, and (3) don’t have kids until/unless you are married. Living according to those simple, easy guidelines reduces one’s chances of living in poverty by 80%. But a Leftist government is powerless to broadly publish that message, because to do so would be tantamount to being judgmental about the lifestyle of millions of people now living in poverty. And the Cardinal Sin of the Left is being judgmental – even when the data are incontrovertible proving that the judgment is correct. They simply cannot be judgmental about anything (except smoking).

So they made up the expression, “Income Inequality.” Income Inequality takes the focus OFF of poverty and the obvious causes thereof, and places it on people who are SUCCESSFUL, as though the reasons for PGP were the success of others – which is economic nonsense. So the Left abandons the possibility of a united campaign to fight PGP – one which both ends of the political spectrum could support, each in their own way, and in its place they construct a shining monument to Envy of The Rich! That monument being the expression, "Income Inequality."

The next time you hear a politician bemoaning the “crisis” of Income Inequality, ask yourself why they have chosen NOT to address it as “fighting poverty.” There is only one reason: they want to use the expression as a means of blame Rich Republicans for the real problem of persistent generational poverty. (Parenthetically, it is quite perverse that the Left and the MSM have been able to sell the B.S. narrative that it is the Right where all the rich people are; this is provably false).

Imagine a teacher who is confronted by a small group of students who decide at the beginning of the school year that they will refuse to do anything the teacher says, and will do their best to fail utterly, just to see what the school will do to them. What would you think of the teacher who presented this issue to her Principal as a problem of “an unacceptable gap between the grades of the best students and the worst”? Delusional? Stupid?

yes, the stupid liberal will have 100 ways to discourage work and get votes. In this case, convince the poor that society causes inequality and the liberal govt, not hard work and education, will correct it!!.

 

[danielpalos]

Unless you have been living in a cave with no internet access for a couple years, you have undoubtedly heard scores of Democrat politicians and pundits whining about “income inequality.” Many have deemed Income Inequality to be the defining crisis of this Age.

But the expression itself is insidious and stupid.

The actual problem in the U.S. – from a public policy standpoint – is the phenomenon of persistent, generational poverty (“PGP”). Occasional poverty, temporary poverty, and the poverty that people experience at the beginning of their working lives, are problems that are already addressed in one way or another, and they are arguably more a “personal” issue than one that requires a Government solution.

But PGP is growing and, from a societal economic standpoint, is a cancer that can eventually consume so many resources that it will bring Government to its knees (along with public pensions and CSO).

But the Left is unable to even address PGP.

It’s causes are broadly and unquestionably known, as are its solutions. The cause is illegitimacy, and the solution is three-fold: (1) finish school, (2) get a job – any job, and (3) don’t have kids until/unless you are married. Living according to those simple, easy guidelines reduces one’s chances of living in poverty by 80%. But a Leftist government is powerless to broadly publish that message, because to do so would be tantamount to being judgmental about the lifestyle of millions of people now living in poverty. And the Cardinal Sin of the Left is being judgmental – even when the data are incontrovertible proving that the judgment is correct. They simply cannot be judgmental about anything (except smoking).

So they made up the expression, “Income Inequality.” Income Inequality takes the focus OFF of poverty and the obvious causes thereof, and places it on people who are SUCCESSFUL, as though the reasons for PGP were the success of others – which is economic nonsense. So the Left abandons the possibility of a united campaign to fight PGP – one which both ends of the political spectrum could support, each in their own way, and in its place they construct a shining monument to Envy of The Rich! That monument being the expression, "Income Inequality."

The next time you hear a politician bemoaning the “crisis” of Income Inequality, ask yourself why they have chosen NOT to address it as “fighting poverty.” There is only one reason: they want to use the expression as a means of blame Rich Republicans for the real problem of persistent generational poverty. (Parenthetically, it is quite perverse that the Left and the MSM have been able to sell the B.S. narrative that it is the Right where all the rich people are; this is provably false).

Imagine a teacher who is confronted by a small group of students who decide at the beginning of the school year that they will refuse to do anything the teacher says, and will do their best to fail utterly, just to see what the school will do to them. What would you think of the teacher who presented this issue to her Principal as a problem of “an unacceptable gap between the grades of the best students and the worst”? Delusional? Stupid?

yes, the stupid liberal will have 100 ways to discourage work and get votes. In this case, convince the poor that society causes inequality and the liberal govt, not hard work and education, will correct it!!.

Yes, Only false capitalists who don't believe it Only and Merely takes Money to make more money under Any form of Capitalism, say that.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Income inequality comes into play when we hear conservatives whine that we don't have enough money to feed the poor, build schools or provide healthcare.

All they see wrong wit our tax code is that the 40% of Americans that have only TWO TENTHS OF A PERCENT of our wealth do not pay enough to taxes

Our progressive federal tax code allows 50% of all American earners to pay no federal income tax. They get a free ride. Meanwhile the top 10% of all earners pay 70% of all federal income taxes.

Gee, you're full of talking points. Let me ask, would you choose to earn $30.000 per year and pay zero taxes, or earn $1 Million dollars per year and keep $300,000?

And let's be clear, no one pays 70% on their entire income, that's not how the progressive income tax works.

 

[SAYIT]

Our progressive federal tax code allows 50% of all American earners to pay no federal income tax. They get a free ride. Meanwhile the top 10% of all earners pay 70% of all federal income taxes.

And let's be clear, no one pays 70% on their entire income, that's not how the progressive income tax works.

Wow. I have thought long and hard about this and I can't think of any other poster who is dim enough to have read that into my post. No one. Congrats!
Now just so you get another chance to make a fool of yourself, I will repeat my "talking point," and just so you know, I don't find the following to be unreasonable (but I absolutely find whiny, sniveling loony leftists to be unreasonable):
The bottom 50% of American earners pay no federal income tax. None.
They get a free ride.
Meanwhile the top 10% of all earners pay 70% of all federal income taxes.
So how much of the load should the top 10% carry? 80%? 90%? 100%?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Our progressive federal tax code allows 50% of all American earners to pay no federal income tax. They get a free ride. Meanwhile the top 10% of all earners pay 70% of all federal income taxes.

And let's be clear, no one pays 70% on their entire income, that's not how the progressive income tax works.

Wow. I have thought long and hard about this and I can't think of any other poster who is dim enough to have read that into my post. No one. Congrats!
Now just so you get another chance to make a fool of yourself, I will repeat my "talking point," and just so you know, I don't find the following to be unreasonable (but I absolutely find whiny, sniveling loony leftists to be unreasonable):
The bottom 50% of American earners pay no federal income tax. None.
They get a free ride.
Meanwhile the top 10% of all earners pay 70% of all federal income taxes.
So how much of the load should the top 10% carry? 80%? 90%? 100%?

Wow, if I'm dim, you are lights out.

50% of all workers pay no federal income tax. This 50% is a very large number of individual earners and are the working poor.

The top 10% pay 70% of all federal income tax. The 10% of highest earners include a lesser number of individuals, and as an aggregate pay 70% of their earnings in income tax.

At the end of the tax day the bottom 50% struggle, and the top 109% make sure the bottom 50% remain down and out.

Thus, you compare apples and antelopes.

As for the rest of your post, you've proved to be one more right wing callous conservative, lacking the ability to write a rebuttal without being offensive and arrogant.

 

[SAYIT]

Our progressive federal tax code allows 50% of all American earners to pay no federal income tax. They get a free ride. Meanwhile the top 10% of all earners pay 70% of all federal income taxes.

And let's be clear, no one pays 70% on their entire income, that's not how the progressive income tax works.

Wow. I have thought long and hard about this and I can't think of any other poster who is dim enough to have read that into my post. No one. Congrats!
Now just so you get another chance to make a fool of yourself, I will repeat my "talking point," and just so you know, I don't find the following to be unreasonable (but I absolutely find whiny, sniveling loony leftists to be unreasonable):
The bottom 50% of American earners pay no federal income tax. None.
They get a free ride.
Meanwhile the top 10% of all earners pay 70% of all federal income taxes.
So how much of the load should the top 10% carry? 80%? 90%? 100%?

Wow, if I'm dim, you are lights out.
The top 10% pay 70% of all federal income tax. The 10% of highest earners include a lesser number of individuals, and as an aggregate pay 70% of their earnings in income tax...

That is the kind of idiot reasoning that gives all loony libs a bad rep and the joke is you just don't get the joke.
Did you really just say "The 10% of highest earners include a lesser number of individuals, and as an aggregate pay 70% of their earnings in income tax."
Really? They pay 70% of their earnings in income tax?

 

[danielpalos]

Unless you have been living in a cave with no internet access for a couple years, you have undoubtedly heard scores of Democrat politicians and pundits whining about “income inequality.” Many have deemed Income Inequality to be the defining crisis of this Age.

But the expression itself is insidious and stupid.

The actual problem in the U.S. – from a public policy standpoint – is the phenomenon of persistent, generational poverty (“PGP”). Occasional poverty, temporary poverty, and the poverty that people experience at the beginning of their working lives, are problems that are already addressed in one way or another, and they are arguably more a “personal” issue than one that requires a Government solution.

But PGP is growing and, from a societal economic standpoint, is a cancer that can eventually consume so many resources that it will bring Government to its knees (along with public pensions and CSO).

But the Left is unable to even address PGP.

It’s causes are broadly and unquestionably known, as are its solutions. The cause is illegitimacy, and the solution is three-fold: (1) finish school, (2) get a job – any job, and (3) don’t have kids until/unless you are married. Living according to those simple, easy guidelines reduces one’s chances of living in poverty by 80%. But a Leftist government is powerless to broadly publish that message, because to do so would be tantamount to being judgmental about the lifestyle of millions of people now living in poverty. And the Cardinal Sin of the Left is being judgmental – even when the data are incontrovertible proving that the judgment is correct. They simply cannot be judgmental about anything (except smoking).

So they made up the expression, “Income Inequality.” Income Inequality takes the focus OFF of poverty and the obvious causes thereof, and places it on people who are SUCCESSFUL, as though the reasons for PGP were the success of others – which is economic nonsense. So the Left abandons the possibility of a united campaign to fight PGP – one which both ends of the political spectrum could support, each in their own way, and in its place they construct a shining monument to Envy of The Rich! That monument being the expression, "Income Inequality."

The next time you hear a politician bemoaning the “crisis” of Income Inequality, ask yourself why they have chosen NOT to address it as “fighting poverty.” There is only one reason: they want to use the expression as a means of blame Rich Republicans for the real problem of persistent generational poverty. (Parenthetically, it is quite perverse that the Left and the MSM have been able to sell the B.S. narrative that it is the Right where all the rich people are; this is provably false).

Imagine a teacher who is confronted by a small group of students who decide at the beginning of the school year that they will refuse to do anything the teacher says, and will do their best to fail utterly, just to see what the school will do to them. What would you think of the teacher who presented this issue to her Principal as a problem of “an unacceptable gap between the grades of the best students and the worst”? Delusional? Stupid?

yes, the stupid liberal will have 100 ways to discourage work and get votes. In this case, convince the poor that society causes inequality and the liberal govt, not hard work and education, will correct it!!.

Socialism would always be better than Capitalism, if our elected representaives were not so averse to the "hard work" it may require to come up with Pareto Optimum solutions in public policies.

When are our elected representatives going to stop being so lazy and stop making such poor lifestyle choices for the People.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Socialism would always be better than Capitalism,

yes, China proved it when they switched to capitalism and instantly eliminated 40% of the entire world's poverty!!

dear, if you lack the IQ to be here why are you here???

 

[danielpalos]

Socialism would always be better than Capitalism,

yes, China proved it when they switched to capitalism and instantly eliminated 40% of the entire world's poverty!!

dear, if you lack the IQ to be here why are you here???

dear, please cite your assertions. thank you.

In any Case, even the Right admits Socialism solved real poverty since our poor are not poor enough by third world (capital) Standards.

 

[Abishai100]

Action Angst

People like to over-estimate their grip on risk to a fault.

It's because of this natural frailty that we're so quick to criticize investments and envy the wealthy.

The Third World is viewed as economically foolish in some ways, and this subconscious attitude affects America's attitude towards minimum wage guarantees arguably.

Probability analysis in economics helps us create models for stock market assessments, and even the most prudent economist is drawn to making 'investment compensation models.'

When we don't know how much we can earn, we are tempted to talk emphatically about what we deserve, and maybe that's because we like to create buffer estimations when the job market creates uncertainty.

"I might not earn as much as I'd like to at this job opening, but I still think there's lots of room for upward mobility."

This is why the profiteer-baron character Gordon Gekko from Oliver Stone's iconic film "Wall Street" (1987) looks more smart than clever. We romanticize cutthroat people in capitalism society.

It's in modern art. The fictional super-soldier Serpentor from the paramilitary fantasy-adventure comic book franchise "G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero" (Hasbro) is a genetically-engineered emperor who represents a social preference for creating prosperity see-saw folklore.




Serpentor (Wikipedia)

 

[sjay]

Action Angst

People like to over-estimate their grip on risk to a fault.

It's because of this natural frailty that we're so quick to criticize investments and envy the wealthy.

The Third World is viewed as economically foolish in some ways, and this subconscious attitude affects America's attitude towards minimum wage guarantees arguably.

Probability analysis in economics helps us create models for stock market assessments, and even the most prudent economist is drawn to making 'investment compensation models.'

When we don't know how much we can earn, we are tempted to talk emphatically about what we deserve, and maybe that's because we like to create buffer estimations when the job market creates uncertainty.

"I might not earn as much as I'd like to at this job opening, but I still think there's lots of room for upward mobility."

This is why the profiteer-baron character Gordon Gekko from Oliver Stone's iconic film "Wall Street" (1987) looks more smart than clever. We romanticize cutthroat people in capitalism society.

It's in modern art. The fictional super-soldier Serpentor from the paramilitary fantasy-adventure comic book franchise "G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero" (Hasbro) is a genetically-engineered emperor who represents a social preference for creating prosperity see-saw folklore.




Serpentor (Wikipedia)

View attachment 44818

take any acid trips lately?

 

[danielpalos]

The Third World is viewed as economically foolish in some ways, and this subconscious attitude affects America's attitude towards minimum wage guarantees arguably.

Yes, some on the left believe it is foolish for the Third World to be so Capitalist when socialism could be paying them to be couch potatoes instead of working so hard for so little capital profit.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

the Right admits Socialism solved real poverty

the right admits that when when Red China switched to capitalism it instantly eliminated 40% of world poverty and that the left is criminal for not being able to admit they are stupid and wrong.