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?
You people keep making this argument.
Let's see how great the 50's were for the middle class..
Most households were rentals. Today most homes are owned.
Most households did not have a television.
Today the average home has 3 or more.
Most households had a wash machine and dried their laundry on a clothes line outside or in the basement. Today, a washer and dryer are standard equipment.
Most households that owned a vehicle had just one. Today, most are multiple vehicle households.
Most lived in tightly packed urban areas. Today, the middle class for the most part lives in the suburbs or exurbs.
Lastly, the amount one earns has ZERO effect on another.
Your argument is simply perpetuating the Keynesian theory of the zero sum game.
So the whine regarding what top executives are paid, is just that, whining.
Living expenses have risen? So has income and disposable income.
Taxation has never resulted in prosperity. That 90% argument is a talking point. There may have been a couple hundred people in the entire country that paid that rate. If they did so, it was on a very small portion of their income.
The idea that confiscatory taxation would result in the enrichment of some is a lot of nonsense.
Income inequality is a myth because the very concept presupposes the idea that income should be equal. It isn't.
