Zone1 What is Wrong with Inequality?

[Lisa558]

Food stamps (SNAP) is a cleverly crafted system devised to ruin the health of the poor and put the nation further in debt.

Remember the uproar when it was proposed that welfare leeches couldn’t use our money to buy soda and candy? They went bonkers.

 

[Crepitus]

What’s your definition of a living wage?

It should be enough that, combined with a roommate’s living wage, one can live in a modest 2-bedroom apartment or perhaps rent out a single room in a house.

A roof, food, bus fare, and the occasional luxury.

It will vary from place to place in the country.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

We fought a war to get rid of a monarch and his nobles, do you really want to live through another?

The Founding Fodder Established an American House of Lords

Showing how misleading the hereditary ruling class's Constitution is, they banned titles but not inheritance, which is the only thing a title stands for.

No primogeniture is also meaningless. Through trust funds and other exclusionary rights, the heiristocracy can set up all its sons to start at the top. It doesn't split up Death Wealth, it multiplies it.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Wanting to keep everything you earn — regardless of how it affects others — is the definition of selfishness. Just like a lion killing its own cub to protect a scrap of food is "natural"

Noted that you twist my statement of keeping the maximum of your earnings to keeping all of your earnings.

 

[alang1216]

How much of that do you think people should be given as a "living wage"?

Invested conservatively or used to purchase an annuity, it should provide $500K/year forever. They should never be poor.

 

[alang1216]

The Founding Fodder Established an American House of Lords

Showing how misleading the hereditary ruling class's Constitution is, they banned titles but not inheritance, which is the only thing a title stands for.

No primogeniture is also meaningless. Through trust funds and other exclusionary rights, the heiristocracy can set up all its sons to start at the top. It doesn't split up Death Wealth, it multiplies it.

They certainly bought into the English class system.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

True, but it starts the engine.

Where Whatever Oligarchic Clique Controls a Market Is Free to Do Whatever It Wants


But in a true free market, the key is judged to be worth $5 and the engine hundreds of times that. In a plutocratic market, those values are reversed.

 

[forkup]

Noted that you twist my statement of keeping the maximum of your earnings to keeping all of your earnings.

All of it is the maximum isn't it? Or are you proposing a limit on how much is enough? Something you said five seconds ago is arbitrary.

 

[AZrailwhale]

That radio your grandparents bought cost more of their income than a flat screen TV today

• The average annual income in the U.S. in the 1920s was around $1,500.
• So even a $50 radio represented a significant purchase — like spending over $800–$1,000 in today’s money (adjusted for inflation).

And the average American didn't pay a dime in income tax, in fact I believe the total tax burden was under one percent of income. Things were much cheaper then, an apartment in NY was sixty bucks a month, a dozen eggs were .47 cents, a pound of round steak was .40 cents, three pounds of macaroni was a quarter. A movie ticket was .15 cents and a restaurant meal for two was .70 cents. A family of four could live quite well on those $1,500 dollars a year.

 

[OODA_Loop]

All of it is the maximum isn't it? Or are you proposing a limit on how much is enough? Something you said five seconds ago is arbitrary.

No taxation with representation.

Of course we argue for limits. There are proponents in this thread of taking more than 50% of ones earnings because they feel they have too much. They are proponents who say no to the transfer of wealth to your descendants because they feel the descendants are undeserving.

 

[alang1216]

We point out that the left's policies hurt the very people that they are supposed to be helping and whenever we do so...your response is to label us as "Nazis" or some other ridiculous name! Then you whine about being "demonized"!

It's your AGENDA that is the "crime", Alang! People like the idiot now running for Mayor in New York will destroy that city. Not because they are bad people but because they are CLUELESS people! Bad policies. Really stupid policies. Policies that will bring even a great city like New York to it's knees!

Sorry but conservatism is not the 10 commandments, it does not come from God so you have no basis for label any else a 'crime'. You don't know if NYC will be destroyed or made more livable for more people, I know I don't.

 

[Lisa558]

A roof, food, bus fare, and the occasional luxury.

It will vary from place to place in the country.

OK, then $15 an hour should do it - with a roommate.

 

[alang1216]

But you didn’t and so you want to prevent others from doing so. It none of your business and it’s wrong.

If what you do is detrimental to society that is wrong and everyone's business.

 

[OODA_Loop]

If what you do is detrimental to society that is wrong and everyone's business.

Preservation of wealth is only detrimental to your redistributive society.

 

[rightwinger]

Groceries are getting expensive” does not equal an actual struggle to buy enough food to survive such as the poor a few generations ago experienced

Compared to the Great Depression….yes
Compared to 50 years ago, the standard of living has declined.

50 years ago, a single salary could support a family of six. That included a house, child’s education, healthcare, vacations

Rumor is you could afford to take your family to McDonalds for $5

 

[Captain Caveman]

The working class and the poor might want to spend less of their pay on shiny things and entertainment. That's how the rich get rich. They do get rich at the 'expense' (spending) of the poor. Big corportions provide most of the consumer goods that we buy. Just don't buy as much and watch the rich squirm. Of course, you may lose your job but that's a small price to pay for getting revenge on the rich.

So you think when someone gets rich, someone gets poor? Explain that to me please.

 

[rightwinger]

No taxation with representation.

Of course we argue for limits. There are proponents in this thread of taking more than 50% of ones earnings because they feel they have too much. They are proponents who say no to the transfer of wealth to your descendants because they feel the descendants are undeserving.

50 percent of earnings above $1 million

Before Reagan, it used to be at that level.
No Millionaires were reported to be starving

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Why should you have the right to take the money that I worked hard to amass, Alang? If I choose to leave that to my family that should be MY right! I paid taxes on that money as it was made. I'll pay a tax on it when I die and it goes to my family. What right does anyone have to take MORE of that money in the name of "inequality"?

Quit Being Baited by the Right's Puppet Left

The dead don't pay any taxes, so you're misleading the commoners right off the bat, Batman. Also, it's no longer the dead's money. That is as superstitious as believing in ghosts, Casper.

Third, the rich have no right to pick the winners and losers of the next generation; that privilege is solely owned by that generation, not its ghosts. Fourth, even if it were the decedent's money, he wouldn't have the right to do "anything" he wanted with it by tilting the competitive playing field. Inheritance is as criminal as bribery.

A pro athlete works hard to make the majors. But that doesn't give him the right to pass on his position to his son. It's also like a son starting a race ahead of others whose fathers finished behind his father.

 

[alang1216]

Preservation of wealth is only detrimental to your redistributive society.

So what are the benefits of passing great wealth from one generation to the next?

 

[OODA_Loop]

50 percent of earnings above $1 million

Before Reagan, it used to be at that level.
No Millionaires were reported to be starving

Hell, why not just take 95% no millionaires would starve.

Why not take 50% from those making $100k. No one making $50k a year will starve.