The risk of income inequality

[Nosmo King]

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

Bullshit.

No one's destroyed any nest egg. People don't bother to even save anymore and it's not because someone else is stealing from them it's because they choose not to.

Do you really believe that or have you considered that savings might be impossible once getting to the end of the month is so hard?

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

THIS stupid thing again?
One more time...There is no such thing as income inequality. The simple reason is income has never been equal. Nor has income ever intended to be equal.
Of course the solution is what? A gigantic social safety net system funded by confiscatory taxation?
Examples of this are in Western Europe. Where these socialist countries have run out of "other people's money" and have had to look to wealthier nations such as Germany to bail out their failed systems.
Have you no ability to look beyond the borders of the US to realize that these systems are not sustainable?

 

[ClosedCaption]

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.

I think so too but what could the end game be? I mean, if you follow it to its logical conclusion its bad for everyone.

Thats what I dont understand

 

[ClosedCaption]

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.

Well yeah, thats Democrats for you

 

[bendog]

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.

Well yeah, thats Democrats for you

teach a man to fish.....

 

[Nosmo King]

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.

THIS stupid thing again?
One more time...There is no such thing as income inequality. The simple reason is income has never been equal. Nor has income ever intended to be equal.
Of course the solution is what? A gigantic social safety net system funded by confiscatory taxation?
Examples of this are in Western Europe. Where these socialist countries have run out of "other people's money" and have had to look to wealthier nations such as Germany to bail out their failed systems.
Have you no ability to look beyond the borders of the US to realize that these systems are not sustainable?

No such thing as income inequality? When the American economy was enjoying its salad days in the 1950s, there was a vibrant middle class that could afford housing, cars and tuition with one income. The wealthiest paid a marginal tax rate in the 90% range. Companies were highly profitable and the ratio of income between the highest paid executives and the MEAN earnings of the workers was close to 40:1. Today, that ratio is closer to 450:1! And today living expenses have risen, savings is harder as a result and tuition costs are through the roof. There goes that vibrant middle class!

Consumer spending drives this economy. Take away the spending power of the middle class, keep wages flat for the majority of wage earners and the economy slows. Why aren't Conservatives concerned with the state of the economy when history screams into their faces?

 

[Brain357]

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.

THIS stupid thing again?
One more time...There is no such thing as income inequality. The simple reason is income has never been equal. Nor has income ever intended to be equal.
Of course the solution is what? A gigantic social safety net system funded by confiscatory taxation?
Examples of this are in Western Europe. Where these socialist countries have run out of "other people's money" and have had to look to wealthier nations such as Germany to bail out their failed systems.
Have you no ability to look beyond the borders of the US to realize that these systems are not sustainable?

No such thing as income inequality? When the American economy was enjoying its salad days in the 1950s, there was a vibrant middle class that could afford housing, cars and tuition with one income. The wealthiest paid a marginal tax rate in the 90% range. Companies were highly profitable and the ratio of income between the highest paid executives and the MEAN earnings of the workers was close to 40:1. Today, that ratio is closer to 450:1! And today living expenses have risen, savings is harder as a result and tuition costs are through the roof. There goes that vibrant middle class!

Consumer spending drives this economy. Take away the spending power of the middle class, keep wages flat for the majority of wage earners and the economy slows. Why aren't Conservatives concerned with the state of the economy when history screams into their faces?

We've had a pretty stagnant economy for a while now.....

 

[ClosedCaption]

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.

Well yeah, thats Democrats for you

teach a man to fish.....

I meant unable to come to an agreement. Dems always line up in a circle for a firing squad. I agree with that part of Ryan budget but cutting the net...I dont especially when there are so many other target rich programs, depts etc but he always finds a way to take from the poorest people

 

[bendog]

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.

THIS stupid thing again?
One more time...There is no such thing as income inequality. The simple reason is income has never been equal. Nor has income ever intended to be equal.
Of course the solution is what? A gigantic social safety net system funded by confiscatory taxation?
Examples of this are in Western Europe. Where these socialist countries have run out of "other people's money" and have had to look to wealthier nations such as Germany to bail out their failed systems.
Have you no ability to look beyond the borders of the US to realize that these systems are not sustainable?

No such thing as income inequality? When the American economy was enjoying its salad days in the 1950s, there was a vibrant middle class that could afford housing, cars and tuition with one income. The wealthiest paid a marginal tax rate in the 90% range. Companies were highly profitable and the ratio of income between the highest paid executives and the MEAN earnings of the workers was close to 40:1. Today, that ratio is closer to 450:1! And today living expenses have risen, savings is harder as a result and tuition costs are through the roof. There goes that vibrant middle class!

Consumer spending drives this economy. Take away the spending power of the middle class, keep wages flat for the majority of wage earners and the economy slows. Why aren't Conservatives concerned with the state of the economy when history screams into their faces?

I am. I just don't see going back to a 75 or 90% marginal tax rate as a way to address IE. I think the gop needs to put the religious zealots and Kochs in the back of the pick up, and just raise the damn revenue to provide for tax credits for workers without HC, and toss Obamacare into the shitecan of history.

And, higher education needs to be more affordable.

but I don't see the dems really offering anything helpful. Obamacare was perhaps well intentioned.

 

[Redfish]

dems and libs-------waa waa waa the evil rich are causing me to be poor and nanny govt must take money from them and give it to me.

pubs and cons------you are guaranteed equal opportunity, what you do with it is up to you. But if you are unable to care for yourself, we will help---but only until you are able to care for yourself.

 

[bendog]

Well yeah, thats Democrats for you

teach a man to fish.....

I meant unable to come to an agreement. Dems always line up in a circle for a firing squad. I agree with that part of Ryan budget but cutting the net...I dont especially when there are so many other target rich programs, depts etc but he always finds a way to take from the poorest people

yeah, I think that's a fair criticism. I don't think he yet grasps it that even if we taught everyone to fish, there'd still be an unemployed poor. I haven't given up, but I don't think his background, despite his father's death, really taught him that reality.

The poor are always with us. It sticks in the gop's craw that there are always malingerers who mooch off of programs designed to help those who can't help themselves. It drives me nuts, too. But, I do see a distinction between parties. There are some dems who view the safety net, or entitlments, as a way to address income inequality. I don't.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And in response to the OP we get the usual ignorant, naive dogmatic nonsense from the right.

 

[bedowin62]

And in response to the OP we get the usual ignorant, naive dogmatic nonsense from the right.

waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!1 the usual cybaby whines from obama-bots and other left-wing losers and lemmings that cant admit income inequality is worse under obama

so really leftard; what is your point again?

 

[Brain357]

And in response to the OP we get the usual ignorant, naive dogmatic nonsense from the right.

The rich are getting richer so everything is great. Never mind the stagnant economy.

 

[Spiderman]

And in response to the OP we get the usual ignorant, naive dogmatic nonsense from the right.

The rich are getting richer so everything is great. Never mind the stagnant economy.

So tell me how do you propose fixing the economy?

Let me guess take money from some people and give it to other people.

 

[Spiderman]

See if you people can ignore things like averages and think for yourself.

What is stopping you from increasing your income right now?

And if one person can increase their income then why can't you?

 

[Katzndogz]

In the 50s, we could afford a high tax rate. The rest of the world was recovering from a devastating war. There was no competition. If we had a 90% tax rate today, we would be absolutely crushed by China, Japan, India and yes Russia. You would see the United States depopulated from investment.

 

[Barb]

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.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to editec again.

Many say the love of money is the root of all evil, but I have long maintained that fear is the genesis of every unethical, stupid, and brutal act.

 

[Barb]

When income inequalities persist, violence ensues.

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.

John F. Kennedy

 

[Brain357]

And in response to the OP we get the usual ignorant, naive dogmatic nonsense from the right.

The rich are getting richer so everything is great. Never mind the stagnant economy.

So tell me how do you propose fixing the economy?

Let me guess take money from some people and give it to other people.

I already proposed it on about page 3.