US Income Inequality

[Dot Com]

Anyone see a "trend"? Nothing to see here.

 

[Big Fitz]

Anyone see a "trend"? Nothing to see here.

Till you prove causation instead of correlation, it's coincidence.

Too bad the text is to small to read.

 

[expat_panama]

...We must not seek out and punish a creative genius caught with something of value that he's created...

...The system we have now puts the smackdown on creative people...

Before we wimp/flake off topic into whether the "system we have now puts the smackdown on creative people", let's finish up and agree that smacking down creative people by limiting their output is stupid, it's OK for someone to have as many valuable ideas as he wants to create, and that we now no longer want to discourage--

...accumulation of vast private fortunes....

--even if the ratio of valuable-idea-creators to valuable-idea-users more than 100 to 1.

So now we've settled that income inequality is fine, we can start a new thread titled "Does the system we have now put the smackdown on creative people by allowing undeserving people to be better off?"

 

[expat_panama]

Anyone see a "trend"? Nothing to see here.

Thank you so much for proving that the falling income diversity of the 1927 caused the Great Depression and world war, and the 1942 return of income diversity started us back to peace and prosperity.

 

[Listening]

yeah... I just can't be bothered to read your stuff anymore. Nothing's sinking in and you keep recycling the same envy based philosophy. I've no need or no obligation to be bored with your clap trap.

So, I'm done trying to get through to you, and you're attempts to convert others have. Find someone else to entertain this foolishness. Crow victory all you want. You lost the argument a long time ago and extra laps ain't changing that.

I must say I was enjoying the entire discussion you two were having.

However, it is alwasy helpful to have a few numbers in place to demonstrate what it is you are claiming to prove.

Sorry to see it come to an end though.

I was learning a few things.

 

[Listening]

Which, obviously, you do not understand. For example, you don't seem to understand that when there is no supply of labor at half the prevailing wages, it is impossible to replace the existing workforce with workers at half the prevailing wages, however much an employer might desire to do so.

An employer is going to pay as little a wage as possible to maximize profits. However, that does not mean that the employer will try to screw the employee. The full life cycle cost of replacing good employees is a lot more than paying them more and that is where employers strike a balance.

When an employer must pay twice the wage, you would expect that cost to be reflected (depending on labor cost relative to total cost) in the cost of a product.

When employers can get away with dirt cheap labor, things are cheaper. I wonder how many people who belong to unions shop at the worlds largest Chinese outlet store (Wal-Mart or Wal-De-Mart as we call it in my house) ?

 

[Big Fitz]

yeah... I just can't be bothered to read your stuff anymore. Nothing's sinking in and you keep recycling the same envy based philosophy. I've no need or no obligation to be bored with your clap trap.

So, I'm done trying to get through to you, and you're attempts to convert others have. Find someone else to entertain this foolishness. Crow victory all you want. You lost the argument a long time ago and extra laps ain't changing that.

I must say I was enjoying the entire discussion you two were having.

However, it is alwasy helpful to have a few numbers in place to demonstrate what it is you are claiming to prove.

Sorry to see it come to an end though.

I was learning a few things.

When all I was getting was regurgitation of the same incorrect theories in spite of spelling it all out, the teacher gets bored, flunks the student and leave them back a grade for another teacher to try. You have questions? Ask. If I can't answer them, you might find someone else to do so, and get a bunch of incorrect ones.

 

[Listening]

yeah... I just can't be bothered to read your stuff anymore. Nothing's sinking in and you keep recycling the same envy based philosophy. I've no need or no obligation to be bored with your clap trap.

So, I'm done trying to get through to you, and you're attempts to convert others have. Find someone else to entertain this foolishness. Crow victory all you want. You lost the argument a long time ago and extra laps ain't changing that.

I must say I was enjoying the entire discussion you two were having.

However, it is alwasy helpful to have a few numbers in place to demonstrate what it is you are claiming to prove.

Sorry to see it come to an end though.

I was learning a few things.

When all I was getting was regurgitation of the same incorrect theories in spite of spelling it all out, the teacher gets bored, flunks the student and leave them back a grade for another teacher to try. You have questions? Ask. If I can't answer them, you might find someone else to do so, and get a bunch of incorrect ones.

So what is the basic premise of this argument regarding income inequality ?

I have not really been able to identify it...in total.

 

[expat_panama]

...So what is the basic premise of this argument regarding income inequality ? I have not really been able to identify it...in total.

There's more than one side to it. Obama's Marxist "spread the wealth around" is poison from failed systems. At the same time we can't have a gap between the extremes or wealth and poverty because a growing economy needs economic mobility. The US and most developed countries do a good job with both, and poor counties like China don't

 

[Listening]

There's more than one side to it. Obama's Marxist "spread the wealth around" is poison from failed systems. At the same time we can't have a gap between the extremes or wealth and poverty because a growing economy needs economic mobility. The US and most developed countries do a good job with both, and poor counties like China don't

But, does this not become a case of envy at some point.

Our system has created some of the most wealthy people in history.

At the same time, technology and other things seem more available to "the masses".

So what is it ?

Do we reall have more people in poverty because they really can't feed themselves or are they in poverty because our standard of living is so high (and some would claim that many in poverty have more material wealth than the average middle class family of the 1950's...making it a very relative argument).

 

[Big Fitz]

I must say I was enjoying the entire discussion you two were having.

However, it is alwasy helpful to have a few numbers in place to demonstrate what it is you are claiming to prove.

Sorry to see it come to an end though.

I was learning a few things.

When all I was getting was regurgitation of the same incorrect theories in spite of spelling it all out, the teacher gets bored, flunks the student and leave them back a grade for another teacher to try. You have questions? Ask. If I can't answer them, you might find someone else to do so, and get a bunch of incorrect ones.

So what is the basic premise of this argument regarding income inequality ?

I have not really been able to identify it...in total.

My point is that income equality is not a positive benefit, nor a beneficial factor in the operation of an economic market.

Those who preach it almost always desire an equality of results by twisting the rules against the accomplishments of those with the daring do to go out and make something of themselves, who then become the captains of industry, by protecting the obsolete and incompetent, or penalizing the efficient, hard working and visionary.

It's only an issue to social engineers desiring a return to a feudal or caste based social structure. The basic tenants of individual freedom are incompatible with this philosophy.

 

[Listening]

My point is that income equality is not a positive benefit, nor a beneficial factor in the operation of an economic market.

Those who preach it almost always desire an equality of results by twisting the rules against the accomplishments of those with the daring do to go out and make something of themselves, who then become the captains of industry, by protecting the obsolete and incompetent, or penalizing the efficient, hard working and visionary.

It's only an issue to social engineers desiring a return to a feudal or caste based social structure. The basic tenants of individual freedom are incompatible with this philosophy.

I would agree with your first statement. However, I was asking what the argument is on bahalf of income equality.

Why do people believe it is so important ?

Someone once said that if you took all the money in the world and redistributed equally to everyone, that most of those who are rich now (who got rich on their own) would be rich again within ten to twenty years (after the redistribution).

I happen to agree with this because I believe that most people are not interested in getting rich. They just want the basics and beyond that a little spending money. I could make more if I wanted to give up my liesure time and family time....but those are to important to me.

Regardless, I am just interested to know why people think this is so important.

 

[editec]

Income inequity in an economy like ours is necessary.

That said, if the inequity gets too large, it becomes a burden on the macro-economy.

THAT is why we are in trouble right now, folks.

But we cannot solve that problem now by increasing taxes.

What we must do is devise policies that get money into the hands of the cosnsuming class.

And while we do that we must also insure that the policies that cuased this imbalance between the haves and have nots is diminished SOMEWHAT.

People are REASONABLY fearful right now.

And it is that reasonable fear of theirs which is preventing the economy from getting back on line.

 

[Listening]

That said, if the inequity gets too large, it becomes a burden on the macro-economy.

Why is this the case ? I am not arguing the opposite. I really don't have a POV because I don't feel all that schooled in this area.

My next question is do you measure or analyze it. Is it a ratio or an absolute number ?

And what is O.K. and what is "too large" ?

 

[Rozman]

" Nevertheless, a 5-10% increase on the top rate would be quite reasonable, and needed to pay down the deficit. "


If we were really paying down the debt I'd go along with this. But we all know that isn't the case, lib/dems raise taxes for one reason and one reason only - to spend more money. When the gov't wastes as much money as they are on bullshit like Solyndra and high speed rail, and refuse to take money out of that area to pay for FEMA, that's when I know beyond doubt that debt/deficits are not their focus. When we have a 1.5 trillion deficit and you get maybe 70 billion in new revenue from raising taxes and you squawk like a plucked chicken, that's when I know you have no interest in paying down the debt.

One of the talking heads on MSNBC had Debbie Wasserman Schultz on his show and thay were talking about raising taxes on those rich pieces of shit Republicans...

Well they were talking about raising taxes....
when asked what Debbie would do with the extra revenue from that increase I thought her head was about to explode...

She could not get the words out of her mouth fast enough.
Her answer was spend,spend,spend...
Spend on Education,teachers,infrastructure....SPEND.SPEND SPEND...

Not one fucking dime to pay down the debt...

That conversation told me all I ever may need to know about our friends on the left.

 

[Listening]

One of the talking heads on MSNBC had Debbie Wasserman Schultz on his show and thay were talking about raising taxes on those rich pieces of shit Republicans...

Well they were talking about raising taxes....
when asked what Debbie would do with the extra revenue from that increase I thought her head was about to explode...

She could not get the words out of her mouth fast enough.
Her answer was spend,spend,spend...
Spend on Education,teachers,infrastructure....SPEND.SPEND SPEND...

Not one fucking dime to pay down the debt...

That conversation told me all I ever may need to know about our friends on the left.

Here is a good little piece on what a liar she has turned out to be.

She's not even smooth in B.S.

I can't stand watching her. It's like watching some poor (low quality) high school debater.

PolitiFact Florida | Debbie Wasserman Schultz says Wolf Blitzer was wrong to say the wealthiest pay the most in taxes