The risk of income inequality

[CrusaderFrank]

We never intended Social Security to be your total retirement system. It was expected that workers would own homes and have a financial nest egg to ensure they could retire comfortably
Then we allowed ourselves to destroy that nestegg. Leave a worker barely enough to live on and forget about saving for the future. Go into debt if you want your children to be educated. God forbid you get seriously ill and your life savings are gone. This is the society we have created and it is an embarrassment for a great nation

Really? Then why does the government take 15.2% of the first $115,000?

Think of how much better off we'd all be if you let people put that money into stock in Berkshire Hathaway, Disney or Hershey

 

[LeftofLeft]

The big myth about income inequality that just won't die - The Week

Modern life is fraught with very expensive risks lurking around every corner. A sudden illness or accident could render you disabled and unable to work. A recession or economic restructuring could render you unemployed and render the skills you've spent your life learning useless. Reaching old age with inadequate savings could mean living your golden years in poverty.

Many societies have created robust social insurance systems to protect their populations from these kinds of risks. The U.S. has done so as well, but to a much lesser extent. Because social insurance in the U.S. is so inadequate, it is incumbent upon people to self-insure against these risks. That means they need to have enough wealth to draw upon as a cushion if they end up facing hard times. But here's where the social contract fails: When the bottom half of the country owns basically none of the country's wealth, they can't self-insure themselves against these risks. Instead, they must lead a relatively perilous life in which one misstep or mistake could wreck them and their families.

Income Inequality is prevalent in the UK, Europe, Latin America, Asia, Africa, and extremes such as North Korea, Cuba, Afghanastan, and The Sudan. Capitalism is the only system that truly gives individual opportunity to change their economic situation. Why would the US ever want to move in the direction of failed socialism that only yields an elite wealthy 1 percent and locks everyone else out?

 

[WillowTree]

When income inequalities persist, violence ensues.

That's because there is inequality in intelligence and incentive. Duh!

 

[Redfish]

Fish, you've reached ludicrous speed. You are fixated and it's getting scary.

I happen to be the sole "breadwinner" of our family and I made over $75k last year. I don't need a man to "take care of me" you misogynist ****.

Grow up, wytch. I was joking with you. Did you miss the big smile at the end of my post?

Your sensitivity to the truth makes me wonder about you.

Well, then I apologize profusely. You do have a pattern, Fishy, of bringing up my sexual orientation regardless of the thread.

Seriously Fish, if you're that curious, PM me and I might just answer your questions, otherwise do try and stay on topic.

As much as you would like to talk about it in private messages, I am not the least bit interested in what you and your wife do in private. I try not to let my imagination run in that direction because it always causes my stomach to produce acid.

Maybe you can interest some of the other gay forum members in a "this is what we do" thread.

 

[Redfish]

No, what I assume will be the answer is that we must take control of more of the economy. We must force CEOs to work for some imagined number which would be decided upon by the government.

No, not less government more government which is in reality what has got us to this point in the first place. We just keep doing what hasn't worked in the past.

That is strange. More government has never worked....

Having no government has never worked either

No one has ever suggested having no government. NO ONE.

 

[Redfish]

Half was in tax cuts

Stimulus worked. It was not big enough but it did what it was intended to do

so if half was tax cuts and it worked; and it needed to be bigger; then we needed more tax cuts?

ok dimwit

I'm game for more stimulus bed wetter, are you?

are you crazy, borrow money from china and GIVE it to companies like Solyndra? are you a complete imbecile? you advocate raising our debt and getting nothing in return??? Really?

 

[eflatminor]

No, what I assume will be the answer is that we must take control of more of the economy. We must force CEOs to work for some imagined number which would be decided upon by the government.

No, not less government more government which is in reality what has got us to this point in the first place. We just keep doing what hasn't worked in the past.

That is strange. More government has never worked....

Having no government has never worked either

When someone advocates anarchy, you let us know. A Republic with specifically enumerated powers is not anarchy.

 

[Ame®icano]

Liberal voter...

 

[Ame®icano]

We never intended Social Security to be your total retirement system. It was expected that workers would own homes and have a financial nest egg to ensure they could retire comfortably
Then we allowed ourselves to destroy that nestegg. Leave a worker barely enough to live on and forget about saving for the future. Go into debt if you want your children to be educated. God forbid you get seriously ill and your life savings are gone. This is the society we have created and it is an embarrassment for a great nation

How exactly did "we" do that? There is lots of opportunity in America which will be only growing as the boomers retire. The way it might have happened is that government takes so much of a person's wealth. 20 percent to a one percenter is nothing, 20 percent to a low income person is a lot.

The way I see it, 20 percent to one percenter is still 20 percent.

Now, we have one percenters and ninetynine percenters. If we keep listening liberals and progressives we gonna have one hundred percenters only. Just like North Korea.

 

[ClosedCaption]

You notice no RW has a solution to anything. They are of the thought that everything is all good and any change would be all bad. Income inequality is a good thing just ask the Roman Empire.

See now that would be a point of discussion if they

1. Knew the history of the Roman Empire

or

2. Accepted any media that would inform them of the Roman Empire

or

3. Were curious about learning something new

 

[TakeAStepBack]

The irony is delicious, CC!

 

[bendog]

Yeah the thing is, RW, the kind of people who think massive income inequity is okay, also look forward with glee to poor people dying of poverty.

Oh they won't admit it but their primary joy in life is feeling that feeling of Schadenfreude when other people have misfortune.

Theirs is a kind of mentally sick social sadism. (We read examples of how these pathetic creatures think on this board pretty much every day)

So if you hoping to change their minds based on logic, or their love of their society? Forget it.

Their kind of mental illness has no honor, no integrity, very little understanding of how societies actually work, either.

They are BULLIES. They are walking undifferentialted ANGER looking for scapegoats to pin their angst upon and the POOR are good targets because the poor cannot fight back.

Their sickness is more than simple selfishness.

It is coupled with FEAR FEAR and MORE FEAR.

I suspect I'm telling YOU nothing you don't already know.

Yes, there are some, like the Kochs. But imo RW does pt out something useful ... for both parties. No doubt income inequality is rising, and it's a social problem. But, the great recession aside, workers who obtained educations aimed at being employable, haven't done terribly. What's happening is lower skilled workers are "worth" less and less, in economic (not moral) terms.

But all of us are losing income because of increasing medical costs, that will not just affect us in accessing care, but increasing come into play if we become disabled and when we retire.

The dems promised ... and failed with Obamacare. The gop has yet to seriously grapple with the issue.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Even The Ancient Roman Empire Wasn't As Unequal As America Today - Business Insider

De Chant comments on a telling line from the essay by Shiedel and Friesen:

[A]t the end, they make a point that’s difficult to parse, yet provocative. They point out that the majority of extant Roman ruins resulted from the economic activities of the top 10 percent. “Yet the disproportionate visibility of this ‘fortunate decile’ must not let us forget the vast but—to us—inconspicuous majority that failed even to begin to share in the moderate amount of economic growth associated with large-scale formation in the ancient Mediterranean and its hinterlands.”

In other words, what we see as the glory of Rome is really just the rubble of the rich, built on the backs of poor farmers and laborers, traces of whom have all but vanished. It’s as though Rome’s 99 percent never existed. Which makes me wonder, what will future civilizations think of us?

Read more: Even The Ancient Roman Empire Wasn't As Unequal As America Today - Business Insider

But you see in order to learn something you have to open minded to learning. If someone isnt open to new information and instead opt for the comfort of preconceived ideas then what are you trying to discuss and with whom? An idiot who relishes in the idea of being willfully ignorant

 

[bendog]

You notice no RW has a solution to anything. They are of the thought that everything is all good and any change would be all bad. Income inequality is a good thing just ask the Roman Empire.

See now that would be a point of discussion if they

1. Knew the history of the Roman Empire

or

2. Accepted any media that would inform them of the Roman Empire

or

3. Were curious about learning something new

The Romney campaign slogan of "I got mine Jack" worked so well.

I will disagree with you as to the RW doing nothing in that Paul Ryan does seem to be sincerely trying to listen and then further the discussion. And, Kasich, Snyder and even Walker are interested in growing economies rather than crying they are discriminated against by two homosexuals wanting to marry.

 

[ClosedCaption]

You notice no RW has a solution to anything. They are of the thought that everything is all good and any change would be all bad. Income inequality is a good thing just ask the Roman Empire.

See now that would be a point of discussion if they

1. Knew the history of the Roman Empire

or

2. Accepted any media that would inform them of the Roman Empire

or

3. Were curious about learning something new

The Romney campaign slogan of "I got mine Jack" worked so well.

I will disagree with you as to the RW doing nothing in that Paul Ryan does seem to be sincerely trying to listen and then further the discussion. And, Kasich, Snyder and even Walker are interested in growing economies rather than crying they are discriminated against by two homosexuals wanting to marry.

Yeah but their plan is the same plan with a new wrapping. Cut shit for the poor, allow the rich to keep more / take more / receive more and pretend the deficit is a big deal while offering solutions that kick the lowest amongst us. Its like taking candy from a baby or from an adult. Ryan doesnt want to even approach the adults for fear of getting an ass kicking but the poor? They cant do shit...Which makes them the perfect target

 

[Brain357]

That is strange. More government has never worked....

What we need is a tax system that gives business incentives to employ here, pay good wages, give good benefits, and give good retirement. Company does those things and they can pay zero taxes. If they do the opposite then they pay.

I'm good with that

Let's incentivize the job creators. But prove you actually created jobs first. This throw money at them and pray that jobs will result is nonsense

Yes just giving tax breaks has never seemed to work.

This should be a win for everybody. Workers get jobs with good pay and benefits. Corporations get 0 taxes. This should also lead to less gov spending and a balanced budget.

 

[nodoginnafight]

The big myth about income inequality that just won't die - The Week

Modern life is fraught with very expensive risks lurking around every corner. A sudden illness or accident could render you disabled and unable to work. A recession or economic restructuring could render you unemployed and render the skills you've spent your life learning useless. Reaching old age with inadequate savings could mean living your golden years in poverty.

Many societies have created robust social insurance systems to protect their populations from these kinds of risks. The U.S. has done so as well, but to a much lesser extent. Because social insurance in the U.S. is so inadequate, it is incumbent upon people to self-insure against these risks. That means they need to have enough wealth to draw upon as a cushion if they end up facing hard times. But here's where the social contract fails: When the bottom half of the country owns basically none of the country's wealth, they can't self-insure themselves against these risks. Instead, they must lead a relatively perilous life in which one misstep or mistake could wreck them and their families.

But there is also bankruptcy protection.

 

[ClosedCaption]

That is strange. More government has never worked....

What we need is a tax system that gives business incentives to employ here, pay good wages, give good benefits, and give good retirement. Company does those things and they can pay zero taxes. If they do the opposite then they pay.

I'm good with that

Let's incentivize the job creators. But prove you actually created jobs first. This throw money at them and pray that jobs will result is nonsense

I've suggested this in the past and the right disagreed with even this also. Saying something about leave business alone or something

 

[bendog]

You notice no RW has a solution to anything. They are of the thought that everything is all good and any change would be all bad. Income inequality is a good thing just ask the Roman Empire.

See now that would be a point of discussion if they

1. Knew the history of the Roman Empire

or

2. Accepted any media that would inform them of the Roman Empire

or

3. Were curious about learning something new

The Romney campaign slogan of "I got mine Jack" worked so well.

I will disagree with you as to the RW doing nothing in that Paul Ryan does seem to be sincerely trying to listen and then further the discussion. And, Kasich, Snyder and even Walker are interested in growing economies rather than crying they are discriminated against by two homosexuals wanting to marry.

Yeah but their plan is the same plan with a new wrapping. Cut shit for the poor, allow the rich to keep more / take more / receive more and pretend the deficit is a big deal while offering solutions that kick the lowest amongst us. Its like taking candy from a baby or from an adult. Ryan doesnt want to even approach the adults for fear of getting an ass kicking but the poor? They cant do shit...Which makes them the perfect target

I don't really agree. the RW idiot brigade of the fundy Christians for victimhood and Kochs aside, I think the gop is looking at education and jobs and reducing the cost of debt. They have not realistically addressed healthcare costs.

The dems aren't really bothered with having their lunatic fringes out in front. Obama presents problems for them though. He's an elitist who wields power effectively for power's sake, but he's unable to achieve any consensus, and consciously excludes differeing viewpoints.

But to the extent that Ryan would use entitlement money to further aid to people getting skills ... I'm for that.

 

[Brain357]

What we need is a tax system that gives business incentives to employ here, pay good wages, give good benefits, and give good retirement. Company does those things and they can pay zero taxes. If they do the opposite then they pay.

I'm good with that

Let's incentivize the job creators. But prove you actually created jobs first. This throw money at them and pray that jobs will result is nonsense

I've suggested this in the past and the right disagreed with even this also. Saying something about leave business alone or something

0 tax should be leaving business alone. Many of the right are just cheerleaders for the rich now. I don't think they care the growth in inequality is growing government as long as the rich get richer.