Wealth Inequality vs. Income Inequality

[LeftofLeft]

Can anyone from the Left answer why addressing Income Inequality is a higher priority vs. Wealth Inequality? If a worker or small business entrepreneur is rising up, why would you punish him/her vs. the already established wealthy that do not have to rely on their income? As passionate as you people are about the 1%, the 1% does not correlate vs. the higher income earners in a given year vs. the established wealthy (already there) that comprise the 1%.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Can anyone from the Left answer why addressing Income Inequality is a higher priority vs. Wealth Inequality?.

simple, income is how you get wealth, they are related but stealing income is more accepted than stealing property since the country is based on private property.

Do you understand?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

If a worker or small business entrepreneur is rising up, why would you punish him/her vs. the already established wealthy that do not have to rely on their income? .

how are they punished?? You clean forgot to say??

 

[LeftofLeft]

Can anyone from the Left answer why addressing Income Inequality is a higher priority vs. Wealth Inequality?.

simple, income is how you get wealth, they are related but stealing income is more accepted than stealing property since the country is based on private property.

Do you understand?

So the Left is good with 1% owning most of the private property???

 

[LeftofLeft]

If a worker or small business entrepreneur is rising up, why would you punish him/her vs. the already established wealthy that do not have to rely on their income? .

how are they punished?? You clean forgot to say??

They are punished for moving up whereas if you are already wealthy, the Left stays away. It is a punishment because the focus is on the up an coming, class mobile vs. the inherent established wealthy. I am just curious as to why a small business owner who has a good year is going to be included in the analysis on inequality whereas if you are already wealthy, you are left alone. Why?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

They are punished for moving up

how???

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. I am just curious as to why a small business owner who has a good year is going to be included in the analysis on inequality whereas if you are already wealthy, you are left alone. Why?

I told you wealth is private property. American is based on private property. People save their entire life or even over generations to accumulate wealth. Stealing it would be very anti American and discouraging to the idea of saving and investing and family and love.

Still over your head?

 

[Roadrunner]

Can anyone from the Left answer why addressing Income Inequality is a higher priority vs. Wealth Inequality? If a worker or small business entrepreneur is rising up, why would you punish him/her vs. the already established wealthy that do not have to rely on their income? As passionate as you people are about the 1%, the 1% does not correlate vs. the higher income earners in a given year vs. the established wealthy (already there) that comprise the 1%.

If all the whiney bastards complaining about "income inequality" and a "liveable wage" concentrated more on "output equality" and learned how to do something besides repetitive unskilled tasks, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

We have free education up to college, grants, loans and scholarships to cover college.

Those with ambition do ok, those that went to school to play, or dropped out, don't.

Nobody owes anybody a "living wage".

People need to develop "living skills sets", and STFU with the whining.

As for minimum wage, the vast majority of minimum wage earners are teens living at home, in middle class America.

Got a problem with your wages; up your skills and effort.

 

[sameech]

Poor workers deserve a cut of the profits, but when the business is in the red, they do not want to have to cough up funds from their own pockets, work for free/less to break even. It is greed plain and simple.

 

[priceless]

When I read about inequality, I wonder how debt is factored in. People and businesses that borrow a lot in an effort to make income only to default at some later point are not really wealthy, nor is their income based on real productivity, per se'. Yet if they are compared with someone who doesn't borrow and lives on a modest or meager income, they may appear to have more wealth and income even though this income is not ultimately theirs but, rather, is borrowed temporarily.

You could go to a completely impoverished area of the world and lend out loads of money, which borrowers would spend and create businesses that would patronize each other and thus generate income. Yet the economy created could easily fizzle out after some period of inefficiently squandering the wealth and resources invested.

I wonder how people assume that Americans or Europeans are any more 'wealthy' than other poor people in the world when the only real difference is that they can get access to credit. Doesn't real prosperity entail sustaining an economy that doesn't rely on debt and stimulus? Of course it does, but in consumerism people simply won't live conservatively enough to prosper without burning through whatever income and savings (or borrowings) they can muster during a period of cheap credit.

Consumerism eliminates wealth yet the media keeps going on about inequalities as if economic prosperity would somehow grow by reducing everyone to a borrow/spend consumer.

 

[sealybobo]

Can anyone from the Left answer why addressing Income Inequality is a higher priority vs. Wealth Inequality? If a worker or small business entrepreneur is rising up, why would you punish him/her vs. the already established wealthy that do not have to rely on their income? As passionate as you people are about the 1%, the 1% does not correlate vs. the higher income earners in a given year vs. the established wealthy (already there) that comprise the 1%.

If all the whiney bastards complaining about "income inequality" and a "liveable wage" concentrated more on "output equality" and learned how to do something besides repetitive unskilled tasks, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

We have free education up to college, grants, loans and scholarships to cover college.

Those with ambition do ok, those that went to school to play, or dropped out, don't.

Nobody owes anybody a "living wage".

People need to develop "living skills sets", and STFU with the whining.

As for minimum wage, the vast majority of minimum wage earners are teens living at home, in middle class America.

Got a problem with your wages; up your skills and effort.

Yea but the entire system is rigged. Take a look at Trumps new tax bill.

The average tax cut by 2025 will amount to $160, or just a 0.2 percent income bump.

This would mean a tiny tax bump for many lower- and middle-class households — the average $50,000 to $75,000 — earning household would have a tax bill that is $30 higher than today. The average household earning more than $1 million would get a cut of more than $23,000.

CHARTS: See How Much Of GOP Tax Cuts Will Go To The Middle Class

It's stuff like this that's making the rich richer and poor poorer.