The risk of income inequality

[alan1]

So poor people talk about wanting smaller government?

1. Subsidies.
2. Bailouts
3. Tax advantages
4. Grants
5. Government contracts

I certainly think Walmart is a great example of corporate welfare. We all know how rich the Waltons are. And there are lots of execs at that company making tons of money. But some of their employees are on welfare? So the Waltons get rich while the government takes care of their employees. That's a great formula if you like big government.

Wal-Mart's low wages cost taxpayers - Jun. 4, 2013

1. very few corporations get subsidies, do you know what a subsidy is?
2. bailouts are a form of welfare, democrats always favor bailouts. corporations should be allowed to fail, the GM bailout was to save the UAW, not GM
3. the tax code was written by congress, congress has been controlled by democrats for most of the last 75 years
4. Grants are given for a specific study, like the ones to the fools that claim that man is destroying the planet by driving SUVs. Again, dems vote for them.
5. govt contracts are not welfare, is it welfare when the govt contracts with a company to build a destroyer or a tank? Is it welfare when the govt contracts with a company to build a bridge?

last time I checked, no one was forced to work for walmart. Do you know that walmart gives shares of stock to employees and makes them owners of the company?

I really don't care about Republicans or Democrats. I'm talking about balancing the budget and decreasing the size of government. How are we going to do that when corporations are paying so little that the employees have to collect welfare?

From the link:
At the end of 2012, there were 3,216 Wal-Mart employees who were enrolled in Wisconsin public health care programs, more than any other employer. Add in the dependents of Wal-Mart workers and the total jumps up to 9,207.

Factoring in what taxpayers contribute for public programs, the report estimated that one Wal-Mart supercenter employing 300 workers could cost taxpayers at least $904,000 annually.

Cut off the freebie welfare and your $904,00 is turned into zero.
Sometimes the simplest answers are the best solution.

 

[Againsheila]

I would like to.....our infrastructure has been ignored for decades, we have not had a major public works job in a generation, our power grid is a disaster, so is our communications infrastructure.

Most of the bridges in our state are functionally obsolete, if they are not replaced soon, there will be another disaster.

So why has your state been sitting with their thumbs up their collective asses?

We live in a democratic dominated state.

 

[Againsheila]

So, are you in favor of a wealth tax? As in, taxing people based upon their net worth or assets?

I'm in favor of changing our economy back to a 70% high tax bracket and having a strong middle class with minimum wage once again having the highest spending power in history. That's not gonna happen, we've already shipped too many factories overseas. In fact, if there is a WWIII, we are up a creek. No factories left to be refitted to make war machines. Nothing is made here so everything will be rationed worse than during WWII. Face it, shipping our jobs overseas and lowering taxes on the wealth and the corporations have led to the complete destruction of our country. We've been set up for WWIII and we've been set up to fail, only no one will be coming to our aid like we went to aid Europe.

And confiscatory tax rates will solve all of those "problems", correct?
Are YOU willing to surrender 70% of YOUR income to feed the government's insatiable desire to spend?
No? Thought so..
You fucking libs are so adept at spending other people's money.

We had a very strong economy at the time and the middle class were not paying the highest tax rate as they are now. If I was making $billions, I would have no problem paying a 70% income tax. Same if I were making $millions. It's a little difficult when you are just making $thousands.

 

[Brain357]

1. very few corporations get subsidies, do you know what a subsidy is?
2. bailouts are a form of welfare, democrats always favor bailouts. corporations should be allowed to fail, the GM bailout was to save the UAW, not GM
3. the tax code was written by congress, congress has been controlled by democrats for most of the last 75 years
4. Grants are given for a specific study, like the ones to the fools that claim that man is destroying the planet by driving SUVs. Again, dems vote for them.
5. govt contracts are not welfare, is it welfare when the govt contracts with a company to build a destroyer or a tank? Is it welfare when the govt contracts with a company to build a bridge?

last time I checked, no one was forced to work for walmart. Do you know that walmart gives shares of stock to employees and makes them owners of the company?

I really don't care about Republicans or Democrats. I'm talking about balancing the budget and decreasing the size of government. How are we going to do that when corporations are paying so little that the employees have to collect welfare?

From the link:
At the end of 2012, there were 3,216 Wal-Mart employees who were enrolled in Wisconsin public health care programs, more than any other employer. Add in the dependents of Wal-Mart workers and the total jumps up to 9,207.

Factoring in what taxpayers contribute for public programs, the report estimated that one Wal-Mart supercenter employing 300 workers could cost taxpayers at least $904,000 annually.

Cut off the freebie welfare and your $904,00 is turned into zero.
Sometimes the simplest answers are the best solution.

Sounds like a great plan to bring out the liberal vote. Then here come the higher taxes.

 

[alan1]

Got to love how the liberals voted in the president that has increased the wealth gap between the rich and poor more than any other president want more of the same.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. ~ Albert Einstein

 

[Geaux4it]

Got to love how the liberals voted in the president that has increased the wealth gap between the rich and poor more than any other president want more of the same.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. ~ Albert Einstein

Yep..

-Geaux

 

[alan1]

Who ever asked for equality?

But when the highest earners make 200 times what the average earner makes it is time to ask...why do we continue policies that help the highest earners?

Because it's none of your business how much they make is why. Worry about your own position and sack up accept your reality.

Believe it or not- you control it

-Geaux

Yes, it is my business when my government continues policies that help only the wealthy and do not deliver the jobs and prosperity to working Americans that was promised

If you think it is the government's responsibility to provide jobs for people, then the battle has already been lost.
Last I looked there was nothing in the Constitution about the government providing jobs to anybody.

 

[alan1]

Another delusional soul that thinks wealth is a finite pile of cash from which we all must draw.

You want to talk about actual impediments to upward economic mobility that may prevent a person from "self-insuring themselves against these risks"? Fine, but to blame people that have succeeded in life and self insured themselves against the unforeseen is just asinine. It's akin to suggesting that if a man is hungry, it's because his food was necessarily eaten by a fat man. It's ridiculous.

There may be reasons that we could agree upon that poor people are not achieving that which you suggest is important to obtain, but "wealth inequality" hasn't a damn thing to do with it. To suggest so is only exposing your own jealousy of those that achieved in life that which has alluded you.

If you want to focus on impediments to the poor becoming middle class and the middle class becoming rich, we can talk...but they have to be REAL impediments, not just a thinly veiled and poorly constructed case for even more wealth redistribution.

But that seems to be the salient point here. This "Robin Hood" mentality that exists among those on the left who would rather "take" from someone who has busted his rear end most of his life (although they will tell you that said individual stole it on the backs of the "workers") rather than do something about their own miserable situation lends itself to Marx and Stalin.

To hell with realizing the fruits of your own labor. I WANT IT HANDED TO ME!!! Sounds like spoiled children to me.

The 'Robin Hood' analogy does't even work when speaking of liberals. Robin Hood stole from the government to give back to the people. If one were to actually look at the story of Robin Hood, the 'rich' were the people in power....The Prince, the Sheriff, the Aristocracy.

The progressives want to steal from the every day American and give it to the Aristocracy. Talk about a group of people having it backwards.

Something I wrote years ago, but I think it applies for this thread.

Robin Hood vs the Pied Piper

Can we compare and contrast the 2 legends?

Let’s start with Robin Hood.
Is stealing from the rich honorable? It is in the legend of Robin Hood. According to the legend, Robin Hood stole from the rich and then gave to the poor. In today’s modern society, I seriously doubt that many of you would feel ok if somebody broke into your house and stole your personal property just so that they could give it to a poor person.
How many of you would feel it was justifiable if somebody pointed a gun at you on the street and demanded that you give them the cash out of your purse or wallet, then gave that cash to somebody else. Robin Hood didn’t offer people the choice of which charity they wanted to donate to.
I’m not sure why Robin Hood is praised in legend.

Let’s talk about the Pied Piper.
Is performing a service to the population an honorable act? In the legend of the Pied Piper it isn’t. According to the legend, the Pied Piper drove the rats out of the town, then the citizens didn’t pay him his contract. In today’s modern society I seriously doubt that many of you would feel ok if you weren’t paid for your labor.
How many of you would feel it was justifiable if somebody hired you to do a service for them, then after you did it, they refused to pay you the agreed salary? The Pied Piper offered people the choice to use his services or not.
I am not sure why the Pied Piper is vilified in legend.

At this point, I am sure that some of you are asking, “alan1, what do the legends of Robin Hood and the Pied Piper have to do with politics?”
It’s actually a good comparison in my mind. The politicians are more like Robin Hood than the Pied Piper. They have good press. They rob and steal, but since their intentions are well meaning, we tend to give them a pass. They vilify the Pied Pipers of the world that actually perform a service that the people want and need because it is motivated and based upon profit.

The Pied Pipers of the world are the ones that put groceries at your fingertips and the Robin Hoods of the world are the ones that want you eat the scraps from their table.

 

[alan1]

So CEOs are only looking for the benefits of stockholders and themselves

As usual....the workers are fucked

The reason trickle down never works

Become a CEO and change that practice.
Yer smart, what's holding you back?

I don't need to become a CEO to do that. All I need to do is elect representatives that end corporate handouts and increase employee protections

Becoming a CEO is probably easier.

 

[alan1]

The top 10% own more wealth than the bottom 90% combined, is that fair? They own, 90% of the wealth, seems to me, they should be paying 90% of the taxes.

So, are you in favor of a wealth tax? As in, taxing people based upon their net worth or assets?

I'm in favor of changing our economy back to a 70% high tax bracket and having a strong middle class with minimum wage once again having the highest spending power in history. That's not gonna happen, we've already shipped too many factories overseas. In fact, if there is a WWIII, we are up a creek. No factories left to be refitted to make war machines. Nothing is made here so everything will be rationed worse than during WWII. Face it, shipping our jobs overseas and lowering taxes on the wealth and the corporations have led to the complete destruction of our country. We've been set up for WWIII and we've been set up to fail, only no one will be coming to our aid like we went to aid Europe.

Are you seriously trying to make the argument that the US doesn't have manufacturing?
That's kind of foolish.
The USA has the second largest manufacturing base of all the worlds nations. We are exceeded in manufacturing only by China (barely), which has 3 times our population. Technically, China should have 3 times our manufacturing, but they barely exceed us.

Additionally, I love your humorous statement, "we've already shipped too many factories overseas." Really? "Shipped factories overseas"? When was the last time you were at a shipping port and saw a container labeled "Factory", as said container was being shipped overseas?

I despise how ignorant liberals make foolish claims about America based upon talking points that are completely false.

 

[alan1]

I really don't care about Republicans or Democrats. I'm talking about balancing the budget and decreasing the size of government. How are we going to do that when corporations are paying so little that the employees have to collect welfare?

From the link:
At the end of 2012, there were 3,216 Wal-Mart employees who were enrolled in Wisconsin public health care programs, more than any other employer. Add in the dependents of Wal-Mart workers and the total jumps up to 9,207.

Factoring in what taxpayers contribute for public programs, the report estimated that one Wal-Mart supercenter employing 300 workers could cost taxpayers at least $904,000 annually.

Cut off the freebie welfare and your $904,00 is turned into zero.
Sometimes the simplest answers are the best solution.

Sounds like a great plan to bring out the liberal vote. Then here come the higher taxes.

Sad that the majority can vote a tax increase for the minority.
I think our founding fathers were against majority rule.

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." Benjamin Franklin

"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." ~ Benjamin Franklin

 

[GWV5903]

I'm in favor of changing our economy back to a 70% high tax bracket and having a strong middle class with minimum wage once again having the highest spending power in history. That's not gonna happen, we've already shipped too many factories overseas. In fact, if there is a WWIII, we are up a creek. No factories left to be refitted to make war machines. Nothing is made here so everything will be rationed worse than during WWII. Face it, shipping our jobs overseas and lowering taxes on the wealth and the corporations have led to the complete destruction of our country. We've been set up for WWIII and we've been set up to fail, only no one will be coming to our aid like we went to aid Europe.

And confiscatory tax rates will solve all of those "problems", correct?
Are YOU willing to surrender 70% of YOUR income to feed the government's insatiable desire to spend?
No? Thought so..
You fucking libs are so adept at spending other people's money.

We had a very strong economy at the time and the middle class were not paying the highest tax rate as they are now. If I was making $billions, I would have no problem paying a 70% income tax. Same if I were making $millions. It's a little difficult when you are just making $thousands.

The solution is not raising the taxes of wealthiest 1%, 2% or even 10%...

It starts with controlling spending by our federal government, getting rid of career politicians and limiting the federal control of our healthcare system...

I watched Inequality for All by Robert Reich recently and he has some very compelling statistics...

His theme is based on who creates jobs, he believes it is the consumer only! This is what's wrong with the left's so called experts, they have never risked their own capital to create jobs, they do not have a clue...

There is no country on the God's green earth that creates more opportunity for freedom and success than the USA and it is based on a capitalist formula, however imperfect it is, history proves it is the best the world has ever had...

Quit putting your hands in everyone's pocket and get a job...

 

[The T]

"INCOME Inequality"=Progressive Wealth Redistribution...at the expense of the PRODUCERS. ALL anyone needs to know. The OP is a Progressive hack...

 

[IlarMeilyr]

I OPPOSE income equality. All rational people do -- or should.

Who ever asked for equality?

But when the highest earners make 200 times what the average earner makes it is time to ask...why do we continue policies that help the highest earners?

You are exactly the kind of member here who exemplifies the point. The LACK of clarity in your rhetorical demand to abolish income INequality is perfectly revealed in your immediate denial of the antithesis.

Apparently, what you lolberals are ATTEMPTING to grunt out (or perhaps you prefer to be deliberately ambiguous) is the notion that there exists SOME degree of income inequality which is objectionable. Evidently, you would have us believe that it is any of your business.

By implication, it seems to be the case that you guys imagine you have some claim to make in how much others may (permissibly) make and how much wealth they are entitled to posses.

God forbid, though, that you ever step right up and tell us what gives YOU folks any say in the income level of anybody else or in the amount of accrued wealth of anybody else.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

I favor rising tides.

It used to be a rising tide lifts all boats

Now, a rising tide only lifts the yachts

^ absolutely false and utterly baseless.

What "used to be" still is.

"Now" is no different than before.

It is impossible, in fact, for a rising tide to be selective in which vessels it lifts.

 

[Doubletap]

"If physical force is to be barred from social relationships, men need an institution charged with the task of protecting their rights under an objective code of rules.
This is the task of a government—of a proper government—its basic task, its only moral justification and the reason why men do need a government.

A government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control—i.e., under objectively defined laws.
The source of the government’s authority is “the consent of the governed.” This means that the government is not the ruler, but the servant or agent of the citizens; it means that the government as such has no rights except the rights delegated to it by the citizens for a specific purpose.

The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man’s rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence. A proper government is only a policeman, acting as an agent of man’s self-defense, and, as such, may resort to force only against those who start the use of force. The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law. But a government that initiates the employment of force against men who had forced no one, the employment of armed compulsion against disarmed victims, is a nightmare infernal machine designed to annihilate morality: such a government reverses its only moral purpose and switches from the role of protector to the role of man’s deadliest enemy, from the role of policeman to the role of a criminal vested with the right to the wielding of violence against victims deprived of the right of self-defense. Such a government substitutes for morality the following rule of social conduct: you may do whatever you please to your neighbor, provided your gang is bigger than his"--Ayn Rand

 

[The T]

I OPPOSE income equality. All rational people do -- or should.

Who ever asked for equality?

But when the highest earners make 200 times what the average earner makes it is time to ask...why do we continue policies that help the highest earners?

You are exactly the kind of member here who exemplifies the point. The LACK of clarity in your rhetorical demand to abolish income INequality is perfectly revealed in your immediate denial of the antithesis.

Apparently, what you lolberals are ATTEMPTING to grunt out (or perhaps you prefer to be deliberately ambiguous) is the notion that there exists SOME degree of income inequality which is objectionable. Evidently, you would have us believe that it is any of your business.

By implication, it seems to be the case that you guys imagine you have some claim to make in how much others may (permissibly) make and how much wealth they are entitled to posses.

God forbid, though, that you ever step right up and tell us what gives YOU folks any say in the income level of anybody else or in the amount of accrued wealth of anybody else.

Not to mention that they won't open their own wallets...and if they do never question where it goes, and WHY.

 

[The T]

"If physical force is to be barred from social relationships, men need an institution charged with the task of protecting their rights under an objective code of rules.
This is the task of a government—of a proper government—its basic task, its only moral justification and the reason why men do need a government.

A government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control—i.e., under objectively defined laws.
The source of the government’s authority is “the consent of the governed.” This means that the government is not the ruler, but the servant or agent of the citizens; it means that the government as such has no rights except the rights delegated to it by the citizens for a specific purpose.

The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man’s rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence. A proper government is only a policeman, acting as an agent of man’s self-defense, and, as such, may resort to force only against those who start the use of force. The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law. But a government that initiates the employment of force against men who had forced no one, the employment of armed compulsion against disarmed victims, is a nightmare infernal machine designed to annihilate morality: such a government reverses its only moral purpose and switches from the role of protector to the role of man’s deadliest enemy, from the role of policeman to the role of a criminal vested with the right to the wielding of violence against victims deprived of the right of self-defense. Such a government substitutes for morality the following rule of social conduct: you may do whatever you please to your neighbor, provided your gang is bigger than his"--Ayn Rand

Government's ONLY function as stated BY the Founder's, was to protect the LIBERTY of the individual...NOT run their lives. IF anyone has a problem with exercising their liberty? That's their problem, and NOT for Government to meddle, coddle.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Who ever asked for equality?

But when the highest earners make 200 times what the average earner makes it is time to ask...why do we continue policies that help the highest earners?

Because it's none of your business how much they make is why. Worry about your own position and sack up accept your reality.

Believe it or not- you control it

-Geaux

Yes, it is my fucking business what they're paying dollar per dollar much less taxes then I. You don't grow economy limiting the wealthy to a few greedy fucks.

^ horseshit.

They are paying dollar for dollar many times more than you. YOU are paying FAR FAR less then they do. THAT is an absolute fact;

and your claim is nothing but dishonest bullshit rhetoric.

And if you are so worried about equity in the payment of taxes, then abandon the absurd illogicality of a "progressive" income tax "system" and let's get us a flat tax or a "fair" tax.

Fuck the "progressive" taxation bullshit.

 

[The T]

Because it's none of your business how much they make is why. Worry about your own position and sack up accept your reality.

Believe it or not- you control it

-Geaux

Yes, it is my fucking business what they're paying dollar per dollar much less taxes then I. You don't grow economy limiting the wealthy to a few greedy fucks.

^ horseshit.

They are paying dollar for dollar many times more than you. YOU are paying FAR FAR less then they do. THAT is an absolute fact;

and your claim is nothing but dishonest bullshit rhetoric.

And if you are so worried about equity in the payment of taxes, then abandon the absurd illogicality of a "progressive" income tax "system" and let's get us a flat tax or a "fair" tax.

Fuck the "progressive" taxation bullshit.

MATT likes to be controlled, and loves to see others controlled in some sick sense of vindictiveness because MATT is a failure at exercising his own liberty, and living up to whatever twisted goals he has set for himself and thinks OTHERS should pay for.