this will happen to America

#177
#177
Ed12111 said:
Will it achieve equality? No. Raising the taxes on income over 250,000 will not achieve equality, but it will ever so slightly decrease inequality. The fact that it is such a small little dent in the wealth of the top 1% shows how absurd it is to cry about how unfair it is.
Click to expand...

Promoting additional fees for more success is not gonna be deemed as fair.

That would upset the happy meter.
 
#178
#178
Ed12111 said:
Will it achieve equality? No. Raising the taxes on income over 250,000 will not achieve equality, but it will ever so slightly decrease inequality. The fact that it is such a small little dent in the wealth of the top 1% shows how absurd it is to cry about how unfair it is.
Click to expand...

It won't decrease inequality. You will NOT benefit middle and lower class people by increasing the costs of those who pay them. These tax increases will be paid by the middle class in one form or another- higher prices, lower wages, fewer jobs, etc.

The best way I can imagine to remedy this is to restore certain import barriers at least temporarily then re-write the monopoly, investment, and trust laws to increase competition. We don't need poorer rich people... we need MORE rich people. The big gov't/big labor solutions you seem to like do not promote that.
 
#179
#179
Tax consumption directly. Taxes will NEVER be a good tool for resolving income inequity. It just needs to be done as efficiently as possible and be done with.
 
#180
#180
sjt18 said:
What is your solution that does not involve a simple transfer of power from one corrupt group to another? I trust powerful politicians that had nothing to do with the creation of the wealth they control far less than this 1% who actually DID have something to do with growing the national economy.

Notably during the time period you cite... big gov't came into full flower. The programs of the 60's and 70's that were supposed to eliminate poverty were firmly entrenched. Debt and deficits which were the DIRECT PRODUCT OF LIBERAL/PROGRESSIVE IDEAS ballooned.

I think you do cite a legitimate problem... but your solution has utterly failed. Gov't needs to be the referee... not a participant in the wrestling match for power.
Click to expand...

Oh boy, that is difficult. Transferring wealth without the help of the government is pretty much impossible. The one great equalizer is education, but that is a very long term plan and even that involves the government. I'm not sure why you think the rise in government has led to increased income inequality. During the 1920's (Coolidge small government) income inequality rose considerably before the economy collapsed. Then during the 1940's and 1950's(big government) income inequality decreased and that is often seen as a great time for the country economy-wise. During the 1970's income inequality decreased. Then since the 1980's-now(small government even Clinton and Obama compared to say Kennedy) income inequality has skyrocketed to levels not seen since the "robber barons".
 
#182
#182
Ed12111 said:
Just the opposite actually. Is the top 1% gaining over 80% of the nations increase in wealth "fair".
Click to expand...

Why is it not?

If you and I started separate business in the same field, and you grew your business more successfully than me.

Why should I begrudge you and call foul?
 
#183
#183
BeecherVol said:
Why is it not?

If you and I started separate business in the same field, and you grew your business more successfully than me.

Why should I begrudge you and call foul?
Click to expand...

Why is paying taxes to support the nation that allowed you to be so successful considered begrudging?
 
#184
#184
If I'm pulling in 1,000,000 a year why would I be bitter that I have to contribute to all the things that allowed me to be so successful. The military and police that keep me safe, the education system that probably educated me and certainly educated my employees, the government regulations that allow a business environment i can thrive in etc.... None of those things are free.
 
#185
#185
Ed12111 said:
Why is paying taxes to support the nation that allowed you to be so successful considered begrudging?
Click to expand...

We both had the chance to make what wanted out of our opportunity. If you chose to put more into than me, why should you be penalized for it? No matter how trivial the amount.
 
#186
#186
Ed12111 said:
Oh boy, that is difficult. Transferring wealth without the help of the government is pretty much impossible.
Click to expand...
No. Not really. You have directly indicated that the distribution of wealth was better when gov't was nowhere near as involved as it is today. Along that line... many of America's richest men and largest corporations make a significant amount of money on gov't contracts... One hand washing the other.

Like I said, gov't must become the referree. It must make the field fair without becoming a player. IOW's, the distribution problem has to be addressed in a way where gov't never creates a program or touches the money.

The one great equalizer is education, but that is a very long term plan and even that involves the government.
Click to expand...
As of about 5 years ago, more than half of America's millionaires were not college grads.
I'm not sure why you think the rise in government has led to increased income inequality.
Click to expand...
Because the two trends parallel each other.
During the 1920's (Coolidge small government) income inequality rose considerably before the economy collapsed. Then during the 1940's and 1950's(big government) income inequality decreased and that is often seen as a great time for the country economy-wise.
Click to expand...
You have a) been somewhat deceptive about Coolidge and b) stripped these trends from their historical contexts. The 1920's saw a flood of uneducated immigrants entering the country along with an exodus of poor whites and blacks to northern industrial cities. People once invisible as farmers or sharecroppers were suddenly unskilled laborers.

In the 40's and 50's the US had the advantage of being the only 1st world nation not utterly devastated by World War II. THAT induced a labor shortage which drove up wages and allowed unions to push.

I would LOVE to see the US become so free market oriented that we developed a labor shortage again. That would go a long way toward resolving the problem... but requires policies that are effectively the opposite of what you want.

During the 1970's income inequality decreased.
Click to expand...
The whole decade of the 70's was plagued by economic problems. Less wealth increase definitely held "the man" down... but you are out of your gourd if you think it was better for the middle class in the 70's than now.
Then since the 1980's-now(small government even Clinton and Obama compared to say Kennedy) income inequality has skyrocketed to levels not seen since the "robber barons".
Click to expand...

Kennedy was the first President to employee supply side economics. His few liberal initiatives were nothing compared to Obama's.

That said, the middle class is MUCH better off and has gained significantly over that same period.

I think that concentrated wealth and the unholy union between gov't, academia, media, big business, and big labor is a direct threat to all of us common folk... There is simply no way that giving gov't more direct power/possession over the nation's economy and wealth will fix the problem.
 
#187
#187
Ed12111 said:
If I'm pulling in 1,000,000 a year why would I be bitter that I have to contribute to all the things that allowed me to be so successful..
Click to expand...

Why do you think bitterness or a lack of it matter?

Are you really operating on some emotional, vindictive impulse?

The reason it is a bad idea to tax that guy more is that it takes money that could be put to work growing the economy and gives it to someone who will consume it once then need another fix.
 
#188
#188
Ed12111 said:
When the top 1% controls more than the bottom 24% of the country it's a problem. As to BigPapaVol's laughable assertion that income inequality is irrelevant. The guy should study the history of his country a little better. Maybe even run a correlation between a happiness index and income inequality throughout the world. Hint: it matters a lot.
Click to expand...

again, you've yet to delineate the actual problem. How is it a problem? Happiness indices are awesome and relevant. Good one.
 
#189
#189
Ed, if we evenly distributed all the money in this country to every citizen so they would have a 'fair' chance to increase their net wealth, how long would it take to see a similar divide?
 
#190
#190
The simplicity of some of the ridiculous responses in here makes me believe that we don't live under and egregiously progressive tax structure today. Who knew?
 
#191
#191
BeecherVol said:
We both had the chance to make what wanted out of our opportunity. If you chose to put more into than me, why should you be penalized for it? No matter how trivial the amount.
Click to expand...

You keep saying penalized. I don't feel that contributing to this country is a penalty. Since you're very big on fairness, I haven't even brought up the issue that the marketplace isn't as fair as you deem it. Wealth begets wealth, and it's not that the wealthy are so superior genetically.
 
#192
#192
BigPapaVol said:
again, you've yet to delineate the actual problem. How is it a problem? Happiness indices are awesome and relevant. Good one.
Click to expand...

You've just taken a shot at happiness good one. How in the Hell is a happiness index not relevant it's a damn questionnaire of whether people are happy. Simple enough for even you to appreciate. Honestly, when you start taking pot-shots at happiness you need to re-evaluate things.
 
#193
#193
lumberjack4 said:
Ed, if we evenly distributed all the money in this country to every citizen so they would have a 'fair' chance to increase their net wealth, how long would it take to see a similar divide?
Click to expand...

In a perfectly fair system that stayed forever fair? You would never see the divide you do. Human talents are not distributed that way.
 
#194
#194
Ed12111 said:
You keep saying penalized. I don't feel that contributing to this country is a penalty. Since you're very big on fairness, I haven't even brought up the issue that the marketplace isn't as fair as you deem it. Wealth begets wealth, and it's not that the wealthy are so superior genetically.
Click to expand...

Come on Ed, that has nothing to do with what I said.

If we are both in business and running, we are both contributing. The % on success is what we are talking about.
 
#195
#195
sjt18 said:
Why do you think bitterness or a lack of it matter?

Are you really operating on some emotional, vindictive impulse?

The reason it is a bad idea to tax that guy more is that it takes money that could be put to work growing the economy and gives it to someone who will consume it once then need another fix.
Click to expand...

Except those economics aren't grounded in reality. We've tried that experiment it failed.
 
#196
#196
Ed12111 said:
You've just taken a shot at happiness good one. How in the Hell is a happiness index not relevant it's a damn questionnaire of whether people are happy. Simple enough for even you to appreciate. Honestly, when you start taking pot-shots at happiness you need to re-evaluate things.
Click to expand...

because a happiness index is utter garbage and would change for every person on a daily basis. It's also easily influenced by the tenor of the questions and the brainlessness of those agreeing to sit for said answers.

Make up silliness all you'd like and pretend that a happiness index is relevant to a discussion about income inequality, but it's not changing that you're calling something a problem and measuring it with nothing. I'm asking what we're addressing when you give everyone the same amount. This emotional gibberish you're using to make your argument isn't going to change when pocketbooks are equalized.

I'm asking you why it's a problem, not why you think people might feel better about themselves and you've yet to address it in the least. If you're allowing a happiness gauge, built on relative wealth / income to drive economic decision making, you're an idiot.
 
#197
#197
BigPapaVol said:
The simplicity of some of the ridiculous responses in here makes me believe that we don't live under and egregiously progressive tax structure today. Who knew?
Click to expand...

You know who loved a progressive tax? Adam Smith. The rest of your post is nonsense. Egregious in the mind of you not on a historical or world-wide level.
 
#198
#198
BigPapaVol said:
because a happiness index is utter garbage and would change for every person on a daily basis. It's also easily influenced by the tenor of the questions and the brainlessness of those agreeing to sit for said answers.

Make up silliness all you'd like and pretend that a happiness index is relevant to a discussion about income inequality, but it's not changing that you're calling something a problem and measuring it with nothing. I'm asking what we're addressing when you give everyone the same amount. This emotional gibberish you're using to make your argument isn't going to change when pocketbooks are equalized.

I'm asking you why it's a problem, not why you think people might feel better about themselves and you've yet to address it in the least. If you're allowing a happiness gauge, built on relative wealth / income to drive economic decision making, you're an idiot.
Click to expand...

Are you happy?
 
#199
#199
BigPapaVol said:
because a happiness index is utter garbage and would change for every person on a daily basis. It's also easily influenced by the tenor of the questions and the brainlessness of those agreeing to sit for said answers.

Make up silliness all you'd like and pretend that a happiness index is relevant to a discussion about income inequality, but it's not changing that you're calling something a problem and measuring it with nothing. I'm asking what we're addressing when you give everyone the same amount. This emotional gibberish you're using to make your argument isn't going to change when pocketbooks are equalized.

I'm asking you why it's a problem, not why you think people might feel better about themselves and you've yet to address it in the least. If you're allowing a happiness gauge, built on relative wealth / income to drive economic decision making, you're an idiot.
Click to expand...

When pretty simple and effective tools don't go your way you dismiss them, and make up outright falsehoods to discredit them. Who's the idiot?
 
#200
#200
Ed12111 said:
When the top 1% controls more than the bottom 24% of the country it's a problem. .
Click to expand...

No. That would not be a problem. That would mean that the middle 75% held enough wealth to maintain the society in some semblance of balance.

FWIW, this is not the type of problem that is either dangerous or EVER solvable. If you took those people, combined their wealth, gave each an equal part... the distribution would return to its former state in a very short period... and with generally the same people included in the two groups.

The left tends to think that wealth is a product of "luck". It isn't. It is a product of work, wisdom, drive, etc. The cream will rise to the top every time.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top