The United States now has the highest income inequality in the developed world

[Kimura]

Indeed.

We should be more like Spain......

Spain’s Economy Is Now as Bad as Greece’s

We're talking income inequality.

Here's the OECD study:

Inequality and Poverty

So is it better to be average in Spain or in the US?

Non sequitur.

What the data tell us is that the top 1% of US earners doubled its share of income from 20 percent to 10 percent. This is the largest gap in the industrialized world. We can correlate the income increases between the top 1% in multiple countries and tax breaks they're received over decades.

 

[Kimura]

If you have all that money, you're one of the rich assholes you're complaining about.

Progressives are such flaming hypocrites.

I was intentionally trolling. My posts have have too serious as of late.

I've noticed that most people that don't have a pot to piss in are the ones that pathologically defend the very wealthy. They actually believe some of the more nonsensical narratives about how hard work alone will make them wealthy. Yeah, I've done exceptionally well, but it's was through luck and being in the right place at the right time.

To me, one of the great things about America is that there is less resentment and envy of success than elsewhere. I get conservative criticism of liberals resenting the wealthy, but I'm Canadian, have lived in the UK, and traveled extensively in Europe, and it is my opinion that America is far less resentful of those who are successful than anywhere else. And that's a good thing.

I tend to agree. I've never lived in the UK, only traveled there a few times. I went to college in Italy, my family is from Italy, and they're not really a resentful of wealth. The just don't obsess over if that makes sense.

 

[asterism]

We're talking income inequality.

Here's the OECD study:

Inequality and Poverty

So is it better to be average in Spain or in the US?

Non sequitur.

What the data tell us is that the top 1% of US earners doubled its share of income from 20 percent to 10 percent. This is the largest gap in the industrialized world. We can correlate the income increases between the top 1% in multiple countries and tax breaks they're received over decades.

It also says that lower income inequality usually means lower incomes for the average people. What's the point of shared misery?

 

[daveman]

If you have all that money, you're one of the rich assholes you're complaining about.

Progressives are such flaming hypocrites.

I was intentionally trolling. My posts have have too serious as of late.

I've noticed that most people that don't have a pot to piss in are the ones that pathologically defend the very wealthy. They actually believe some of the more nonsensical narratives about how hard work alone will make them wealthy. Yeah, I've done exceptionally well, but it's was through luck and being in the right place at the right time.

And yet, oddly enough, some people DO get wealthy through hard work. Undeniably.

 

[jasonnfree]

Wouldn't that just shift control to the government bureaucrats who get to choose who gets better treatment?

I don't see how it would. Right now the control of politicians is in the hands of big money who pay lobbyists. The supreme court decided that corporations are people. People meaning influence via money. Get money out of politics first and then focus on the bureaucrats next. They're not invincible. Imo anyway.

How do you buy TV and print advertising without money? Who pays?

The proposals usually involve taxpayer funded elections with short election periods. It would be cheaper for us in the long run. There are approximately 12000 lobbyists in D.C. About 23 for each member of congress. The favors they exact from our politicians I'm sure far exceed what the cost of a public funded campaign would cost. And the campaigns are starting earlier and earlier. More and more cost, which Is why I said short election periods. Maybe start campaigning three or four months before the actual election. Each individual given an alloted time to speak. These are not gods or geniuses we elect and they're just going to say the platitude stuff like "restore america to her greatness" or some such thing. They'll just have to repeat this crap fewer times and the public will get a good enough look at them to vote for the most charismatic or attractive one anyway.
Another thing we could all agree on I hope is once a politician serves their term, they can't work for anyone they had business dealings with while serving in congress, senate, etc. Like my Jim deMint example although demorats do the same thing. They wouldn't be allowed to work for prior contacts on threat of imprisonment. If we can jail Martha Stewart we can jail our crooked politicians. They'd have to retire or look for a job without using their connections.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I don't see how it would. Right now the control of politicians is in the hands of big money who pay lobbyists. The supreme court decided that corporations are people. People meaning influence via money. Get money out of politics first and then focus on the bureaucrats next. They're not invincible. Imo anyway.

How do you buy TV and print advertising without money? Who pays?

The proposals usually involve taxpayer funded elections with short election periods. It would be cheaper for us in the long run. There are approximately 12000 lobbyists in D.C. 25 for each member of congress. About 23 for each member of congress. The favors they exact from our politicians I'm sure far exceed what the cost of a public funded campaign would cost. And the campaigns are starting earlier and earlier. More and more cost, which Is why I said short election periods. Maybe start campaigning three or four months before the actual election. Each individual given an alloted time to speak. These are not gods or geniuses we elect and they're just going to say the platitude stuff like "restore america to her greatness" or some such thing. They'll just have to repeat this crap fewer times and the public will get a good enough look at them to vote for the most charismatic or attractive one anyway.
Another thing we could all agree on I hope is once a politician serves their term, they can't work for anyone they had business dealings with while serving in congress, senate, etc. Like my Jim deMint example although demorats do the same thing. They wouldn't be allowed to work for prior contacts on threat of imprisonment. If we can jail Martha Stewart we can jail our crooked politicians. They'd have to retire or look for a job without using their connections.

Isn't that the system they have in Iran?

 

[Kimura]

If you have all that money, you're one of the rich assholes you're complaining about.

Progressives are such flaming hypocrites.

I was intentionally trolling. My posts have have too serious as of late.

I've noticed that most people that don't have a pot to piss in are the ones that pathologically defend the very wealthy. They actually believe some of the more nonsensical narratives about how hard work alone will make them wealthy. Yeah, I've done exceptionally well, but it's was through luck and being in the right place at the right time.

And yet, oddly enough, some people DO get wealthy through hard work. Undeniably.

I'll bite. I agree and disagree. Sure, someone can start on eBay and build a huge business. Or plumbers or any other providers of services can accrue wealth. I made my money finance, specifically, the bond business. It's an exclusive club that I lucked into, since I work for a Europen conglomerate. There is a ruling class in the the US. This is fine, Machiavelli wrote a whole book about it, but to deny it borders on delusional.

 

[asterism]

I don't see how it would. Right now the control of politicians is in the hands of big money who pay lobbyists. The supreme court decided that corporations are people. People meaning influence via money. Get money out of politics first and then focus on the bureaucrats next. They're not invincible. Imo anyway.

How do you buy TV and print advertising without money? Who pays?

The proposals usually involve taxpayer funded elections with short election periods. It would be cheaper for us in the long run. There are approximately 12000 lobbyists in D.C. About 23 for each member of congress. The favors they exact from our politicians I'm sure far exceed what the cost of a public funded campaign would cost. And the campaigns are starting earlier and earlier. More and more cost, which Is why I said short election periods. Maybe start campaigning three or four months before the actual election. Each individual given an alloted time to speak. These are not gods or geniuses we elect and they're just going to say the platitude stuff like "restore america to her greatness" or some such thing. They'll just have to repeat this crap fewer times and the public will get a good enough look at them to vote for the most charismatic or attractive one anyway.
Another thing we could all agree on I hope is once a politician serves their term, they can't work for anyone they had business dealings with while serving in congress, senate, etc. Like my Jim deMint example although demorats do the same thing. They wouldn't be allowed to work for prior contacts on threat of imprisonment. If we can jail Martha Stewart we can jail our crooked politicians. They'd have to retire or look for a job without using their connections.

So how does that not shift control to government bureaucrats?

 

[asterism]

I was intentionally trolling. My posts have have too serious as of late.

I've noticed that most people that don't have a pot to piss in are the ones that pathologically defend the very wealthy. They actually believe some of the more nonsensical narratives about how hard work alone will make them wealthy. Yeah, I've done exceptionally well, but it's was through luck and being in the right place at the right time.

And yet, oddly enough, some people DO get wealthy through hard work. Undeniably.

I'll bite. I agree and disagree. Sure, someone can start on eBay and build a huge business. Or plumbers or any other providers of services can accrue wealth. I made my money finance, specifically, the bond business. It's an exclusive club that I lucked into, since I work for a Europen conglomerate. There is a ruling class in the the US. This is fine, Machiavelli wrote a whole book about it, but to deny it borders on delusional.

How much do you voluntarily give to the government each year?

 

[Rozman]

I have total confidence that the Democrat party will find a way
to take from those that have to give to those who have not.

 

[Kimura]

And yet, oddly enough, some people DO get wealthy through hard work. Undeniably.

I'll bite. I agree and disagree. Sure, someone can start on eBay and build a huge business. Or plumbers or any other providers of services can accrue wealth. I made my money finance, specifically, the bond business. It's an exclusive club that I lucked into, since I work for a Europen conglomerate. There is a ruling class in the the US. This is fine, Machiavelli wrote a whole book about it, but to deny it borders on delusional.

How much do you voluntarily give to the government each year?

I'll bite. My base salary is $240k per year. I make like anywhere between $800-900k in bonuses.I'm paying, off the top of my head, around 45 cents in taxes for every dollar I earn. And I gladly do it. I pay to play and I understand why.

 

[JoeNormal]

Explain to me how life is better in Spain than here. Their income inequality is lower, but so is their GDP per-capita (source). So how is the life of an average person better with less, but only as long as his neighbors aren't much richer or poorer than him.

This idea of shared misery is just stupid.

Ever been to Spain? It rocks! People might not have suburban McMansions but when they step out on the street, there's a vibrant city to enjoy. The architecture is some of the coolest anywhere and they eat real food prepared by a chef. They work to live rather than living to work and they're friendly to each other.

Do you honestly think the average person having less money causes that?

A lot of things are socialized over there which boosts the quality of life for the average person. Combine that with a much less powerful corporatocracy. The result is a high quality of life.

 

[Papageorgio]

I'll bite. I agree and disagree. Sure, someone can start on eBay and build a huge business. Or plumbers or any other providers of services can accrue wealth. I made my money finance, specifically, the bond business. It's an exclusive club that I lucked into, since I work for a Europen conglomerate. There is a ruling class in the the US. This is fine, Machiavelli wrote a whole book about it, but to deny it borders on delusional.

How much do you voluntarily give to the government each year?

I'll bite. My base salary is $240k per year. I make like anywhere between $800-900k in bonuses.I'm paying, off the top of my head, around 45 cents in taxes for every dollar I earn. And I gladly do it. I pay to play and I understand why.

So you don't take any deductions?

 

[asterism]

I'll bite. I agree and disagree. Sure, someone can start on eBay and build a huge business. Or plumbers or any other providers of services can accrue wealth. I made my money finance, specifically, the bond business. It's an exclusive club that I lucked into, since I work for a Europen conglomerate. There is a ruling class in the the US. This is fine, Machiavelli wrote a whole book about it, but to deny it borders on delusional.

How much do you voluntarily give to the government each year?

I'll bite. My base salary is $240k per year. I make like anywhere between $800-900k in bonuses.I'm paying, off the top of my head, around 45 cents in taxes for every dollar I earn. And I gladly do it. I pay to play and I understand why.

That's not voluntary, that's the law. How much do you voluntarily give?

 

[asterism]

Ever been to Spain? It rocks! People might not have suburban McMansions but when they step out on the street, there's a vibrant city to enjoy. The architecture is some of the coolest anywhere and they eat real food prepared by a chef. They work to live rather than living to work and they're friendly to each other.

Do you honestly think the average person having less money causes that?

A lot of things are socialized over there which boosts the quality of life for the average person. Combine that with a much less powerful corporatocracy. The result is a high quality of life.

Not according to this index:

Quality of Life Index by Country 2013


I'm still trying to figure out how life is better with less just because people are more equally miserable.

 

[Kimura]

How much do you voluntarily give to the government each year?

I'll bite. My base salary is $240k per year. I make like anywhere between $800-900k in bonuses.I'm paying, off the top of my head, around 45 cents in taxes for every dollar I earn. And I gladly do it. I pay to play and I understand why.

So you don't take any deductions?

Somewhat. I'm on salary, my bonuses are considered commissions. I can write off my cable bill(Internet), my ferry bill to NYC, losses from investments, lunches , bar tabs, etc. It would be much easier if I was 1099. Truthfully, I have an accountant. I also have an Itailian passport in addition to being an American. I have business I interests in Italy which I'm taxed on by the Italian government. I'm invoked with Grappa manufacturing. I want to leave the bond business and grow grapes in Veneto, Italy. I have **** you money, but I made commitment until 2018.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Explain to me how life is better in Spain than here. Their income inequality is lower, but so is their GDP per-capita (source). So how is the life of an average person better with less, but only as long as his neighbors aren't much richer or poorer than him.

This idea of shared misery is just stupid.

Ever been to Spain? It rocks! People might not have suburban McMansions but when they step out on the street, there's a vibrant city to enjoy. The architecture is some of the coolest anywhere and they eat real food prepared by a chef. They work to live rather than living to work and they're friendly to each other.

Except the Spaniards can't find a job.

Jobless Spaniards flood in for slave wages in 'Exodus' - FRANCE 24

Kind of throws a monkeywrench into your theory, huh?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I was intentionally trolling. My posts have have too serious as of late.

I've noticed that most people that don't have a pot to piss in are the ones that pathologically defend the very wealthy. They actually believe some of the more nonsensical narratives about how hard work alone will make them wealthy. Yeah, I've done exceptionally well, but it's was through luck and being in the right place at the right time.

And yet, oddly enough, some people DO get wealthy through hard work. Undeniably.

Actually, the vast majority do. Few people who are wealthy inherited it. The OP is an ignoramus.

 

[daveman]

I was intentionally trolling. My posts have have too serious as of late.

I've noticed that most people that don't have a pot to piss in are the ones that pathologically defend the very wealthy. They actually believe some of the more nonsensical narratives about how hard work alone will make them wealthy. Yeah, I've done exceptionally well, but it's was through luck and being in the right place at the right time.

And yet, oddly enough, some people DO get wealthy through hard work. Undeniably.

I'll bite. I agree and disagree. Sure, someone can start on eBay and build a huge business. Or plumbers or any other providers of services can accrue wealth. I made my money finance, specifically, the bond business. It's an exclusive club that I lucked into, since I work for a Europen conglomerate. There is a ruling class in the the US. This is fine, Machiavelli wrote a whole book about it, but to deny it borders on delusional.

I never denied it, did I?

My claim remains correct. Some people DO get wealthy through hard work, your class warfare nonsense notwithstanding.

 

[AmazonTania]

Ever been to Spain? It rocks! People might not have suburban McMansions but when they step out on the street, there's a vibrant city to enjoy. The architecture is some of the coolest anywhere and they eat real food prepared by a chef. They work to live rather than living to work and they're friendly to each other.

Do you honestly think the average person having less money causes that?

A lot of things are socialized over there which boosts the quality of life for the average person. Combine that with a much less powerful corporatocracy. The result is a high quality of life.

You are really using Spain as an example of why anything is good?