Inequality: Should the government be concerned about it?

[doubtingmerle]

Should the federal government do anything about the growing income inequality? I hear a lot of people saying, "no". They do not want progressive taxation policies, where the rich pay tax at higher rates. They do not want laws favoring labor unions. They do not want minimum wage laws. Many don't even want unemployment payments, funding of schools and hospitals, Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid. But without such things where would we be?

Consider what happened after the Roman Empire fell. With the collapse of central government, all of the means of production was scooped up by powerful people. The rest of the people had no real choice but to sell themselves as serfs in service to these powerful lords. Is this what anyone wants? Is this not the natural progression of things if the rich are allowed to get richer and dominate all means of production?

Everybody loves what we had in the later half of the twentieth century. But to achieve that there was a groundswell of support for progressive government programs. The highest tax rates on the rich were often 70% to 90%. Government supported unions. Programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Welfare were started. Government helped make higher education affordable. The government was there as the tool to help needy people.

And think of how things were in the pioneer days. Various homestead acts allowed the poor to claim 160 acres or more for almost nothing. The government could have sold all that land to the highest bidder, allowing rich conglomerates to control it all, but they didn't. They gave opportunities to the poor. They gave away land for practically nothing. Image the outcry if the government were to announce a giveaway program like that today!

Do we need the government again to support the poor as it once did? Or should they adopt a Laissez Faire policy, letting businesses scoop up control of whatever they can, with the poor hoping that they too can somehow gain a part of the American Dream, even though they start with no capital, no higher education, and few opportunities for good jobs? It seems to me that if we want the opportunities we had in the twentieth century, we need to return to the progressive policies we had back then.

What do you think?

 

[Vylo]

Considering its effects on the economy and welfare of the country, yes they should be very concerned about this.

 

[KarateCowboy]

Made up history is made up.

 

[DaisyDay]

Yes because too much inequality leads to social & governmental instability.

 

[kermit]

By any action or inaction the government will affect inequality. By no action, which many on the right support, they will promote and help to expand inequality. My taking action they can work to reduce it.

Then it follows, that the question is not whether you support government involvement with wealth distribution as they are involved regardless of what is done. The question is, do you support greater wealth inequality or less?

 

[Albion]

Should the federal government do anything about the growing income inequality? I hear a lot of people saying, "no". They do not want progressive taxation policies, where the rich pay tax at higher rates. They do not want laws favoring labor unions. They do not want minimum wage laws. Many don't even want unemployment payments, funding of schools and hospitals, Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid. But without such things where would we be?

We'd probably have less "income inequality." But people get used to the government running everything and assume, after awhile, that it is not the cause of most of the problems we have.

Consider what happened when the Roman Empire fell. With the collapse of central government, all of the means of production was scooped up by powerful people.

Barbarian tribesmen overrunning most of the Empire didn't have anything to do with it, huh? Or corrupt Emperors inflating the currency and wasting money on amusements?

The highest tax rates on the rich were often 70% to 90%. Government supported unions. Programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Welfare were started. Government helped make higher education affordable. The government was there as the tool to help needy people.

It's doing all of that now...and more. For every federal and state program that has been limited slightly, a dozen new welfare programs have begun.And yet you think things are getting worse. If so, what's keeping you from putting two and two together?

And think of how things were in the pioneer days. Various homestead acts allowed the poor to claim 160 acres or more for almost nothing.

And today, the federal government continues to set aside more and more land--for itself! Half of the land in the West belongs to the Federal government. and is not available even for private leasing, let along homesteading.

Do we need the government again to support the poor as it once did?

Fact is, the government has not ever supported the poor as much as it does now.

You want to idealize pioneer days because of something like homesteading, but those were also days when poor houses existed, there were no pension programs, minimum wages, or college loans. Rightly or wrongly, the "good old days" were not as you imagine.

 

[doubtingmerle]

We'd probably have less "income inequality." But people get used to the government running everything and assume, after awhile, that it is not the cause of most of the problems we have.

Are you saying that government causes inequality? Without government intervention, I think inequality would be much worse. Why would one think otherwise? How would you prevent the rich from gaining a continuously higher percentage of the total wealth, and the poor from being increasingly marginalized?

Barbarian tribesmen overrunning most of the Empire didn't have anything to do with it, huh? Or corrupt Emperors inflating the currency and wasting money on amusements?

Of course barbarian tribesmen and corrupt emperors helped to cause the fall of Rome. Absolutely!

I was not dealing with the cause of the fall of Rome. I was dealing with the state of society after Rome fell. And the result was that powerful people gained all of the means of production, and this left the serfs with little choice. Would not the same thing happen today if we no longer employed the government as a tool to help the weak?

The highest tax rates on the rich were often 70% to 90%. Government supported unions. Programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Welfare were started. Government helped make higher education affordable. The government was there as the tool to help needy people.

It's doing all of that now...and more. For every federal and state program that has been limited slightly, a dozen new welfare programs have begun.And yet you think things are getting worse. If so, what's keeping you from putting two and two together?

No, sorry, we are not doing the same and more. For instance, the government no longer has an upper tax bracket of 90% as it had in the 50s. Now it is at 39%. So no we are not doing the same thing now and more.

And welfare programs have been largely gutted by the workfare programs that are not nearly as generous as they were in the past.

When I went to college one could have paid for a year at my college with about 1000 hours at minimum wage. Now the same college takes over 4000 hours. And student can now get less than $5500 per year in federal loans to help pay for that college. This doesn't begin to pay for college, and the interest rates to pay it off are high. It is not nearly as easy for a poor person to get a college education as it was in the 70s. Minimum wage has fallen in terms of real dollars, and government support of education has fallen.

And today, the federal government continues to set aside more and more land--for itself! Half of the land in the West belongs to the Federal government. and is not available even for private leasing, let along homesteading.

Please give me a source for your claim that "half of the land in the West belongs to the Federal government."

You want to idealize pioneer days because of something like homesteading, but those were also days when poor houses existed, there were no pension programs, minimum wages, or college loans. Rightly or wrongly, the "good old days" were not as you imagine.

Excuse me, but I said nothing about idealizing pioneer days. Of course those times were rough.

My point was that the pioneer era grew into a time of great opportunity, but that did not happen on its own. Rather, people used the government to enforce laws like the homestead acts that gave opportunity to the needy. Without that, the land would have been gobbled up by the rich, and America would have seen much greater inequality.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Made up history is made up.

Yes, and tautologies are tautologies. I agree.

Do you dispute any of the claims in the OP? If so, where do you differ?

 

[fireof god98]

is finical equality a right? I think if you work harder than you should have more to show for it then someone who did not. When you are in a competition those who work the hardest get the medals.However we should all be equal when it comes to health care meaning the quality of your treatment should not be determined by your money. I would go down the road of libertarian socialism that rejects the view of socialism as state ownership and instead looks at workers management of their own work place. it also asserts that a society based on equality can be achieved through destroying authoritarian institutions that control certain means of production and subordinate the majority to an owning class or political and economic elite. Any way we go, i doubt we will have a utopia anytime soon.

 

[Albion]

Are you saying that government causes inequality?

Much of what government does results in aggravating income inequality. Yes, that's so.

Without government intervention, I think inequality would be much worse.

How about valuing government when it helps and not giving it a pass when it makes things worse? That seems to me to be the most responsible approach.

I was not dealing with the cause of the fall of Rome. I was dealing with the state of society after Rome fell. And the result was that powerful people gained all of the means of production, and this left the serfs with little choice.

Many hundreds of years later, doubtingmerle. Your history is on the generalized side, which is never a good thing.

Would not the same thing happen today if we no longer employed the government as a tool to help the weak?

As I said above, there is a role for government. I'd never deny that. But neither do I subscribe to the naïve idea that if a little government is good, we ought to make it as big and controlling as possible.

No, sorry, we are not doing the same and more.

Oh yes, we are. While you may point to some changes in the tax brackets, the overall tax burden on most people has gone up, not down, and income inequality has gotten worse. That's a fact.

 

[KarateCowboy]

Yes, and tautologies are tautologies. I agree.

Do you dispute any of the claims in the OP? If so, where do you differ?

Mainly the simplistic and contrived bit about the Roman Empire. Historians can't really even agree on the cause of the fall, much less exactly what happened during the fallout and why.

Nevertheless, outside of the narrow scope of the law, equality is not important. As soon as you gather people together in communities they will immediately begin to make efforts to distinguish themselves from each other. This is done through inequality.

At the end of the day, diversity and equality are enemies. One must take priority. Pick one and only one as the more important.

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

Mainly the simplistic and contrived bit about the Roman Empire. Historians can't really even agree on the cause of the fall, much less exactly what happened during the fallout and why.

Nevertheless, outside of the narrow scope of the law, equality is not important. As soon as you gather people together in communities they will immediately begin to make efforts to distinguish themselves from each other. This is done through inequality.

At the end of the day, diversity and equality are enemies. One must take priority. Pick one and only one as the more important.

Financial diversity? That is a new concept please explain fruther.

 

[KarateCowboy]

Financial diversity? That is a new concept please explain fruther.

It's what keeps the economy alive, my friend. Imagine a world where everybody has equal assets all the time. It's a dead economy. Gee, sounds kind of like the USSR, you know? "Equal" is like "equilibrium". A system at equilibrium is dead. Homeostasis is the new hotness. It's really not so new, if you think about. Just a different way of describing a really old idea. To and fro, stop and go, that's what makes the world go round!

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

It's what keeps the economy alive, my friend. Imagine a world where everybody has equal assets all the time. It's a dead economy. Gee, sounds kind of like the USSR, you know? "Equal" is like "equilibrium". A system at equilibrium is dead. Homeostasis is the new hotness. It's really not so new, if you think about. Just a different way of describing a really old idea. To and fro, stop and go, that's what makes the world go round!

Is there financial diversity? I don't see much for middle class where I live. Maybe it is different where you live.

Edit: I believe that is one of the things the OP complains about.. the total lack of diversity.

 

[jacks]

A strong middle class and the belief one an get ahead through hard work, are the greatest deterrents to revolution. So yes the government should be concerned if they want to hold onto their current power structure.

 

[MachZer0]

It's what keeps the economy alive, my friend. Imagine a world where everybody has equal assets all the time. It's a dead economy. Gee, sounds kind of like the USSR, you know? "Equal" is like "equilibrium". A system at equilibrium is dead. Homeostasis is the new hotness. It's really not so new, if you think about. Just a different way of describing a really old idea. To and fro, stop and go, that's what makes the world go round!

Cries of income inequality are based on envy. The solution, as always when we deal in social justice, is to take money away from the people who earned it and give that money to people who didn't earn it. Power and control is what it is all about

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

A strong middle class and the belief one an get ahead through hard work, are the greatest deterrents to revolution. So yes the government should be concerned if they want to hold onto their current power structure.

Our middle class was practically erased by 2007 here.

 

[Ken-1122]

Should the federal government do anything about the growing income inequality? I hear a lot of people saying, "no". They do not want progressive taxation policies, where the rich pay tax at higher rates. They do not want laws favoring labor unions. They do not want minimum wage laws. Many don't even want unemployment payments, funding of schools and hospitals, Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid. But without such things where would we be?

Consider what happened when the Roman Empire fell. With the collapse of central government, all of the means of production was scooped up by powerful people. The rest of the people had no real choice but to sell themselves as serfs in service to these powerful lords. Is this what anyone wants? Is this not the natural progression of things if the rich are allowed to get richer and dominate all means of production?

Everybody loves what we had in the later half of the twentieth century. But to achieve that there was a groundswell of support for progressive government programs. The highest tax rates on the rich were often 70% to 90%. Government supported unions. Programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Welfare were started. Government helped make higher education affordable. The government was there as the tool to help needy people.

And think of how things were in the pioneer days. Various homestead acts allowed the poor to claim 160 acres or more for almost nothing. The government could have sold all that land to the highest bidder, allowing rich conglomerates to control it all, but they didn't. They gave opportunities to the poor. They gave away land for practically nothing. Image the outcry if the government were to announce a giveaway program like that today!

Do we need the government again to support the poor as it once did? Or should they adopt a Laissez Faire policy, letting businesses scoop up control of whatever they can, with the poor hoping that they too can somehow gain a part of the American Dream, even though they start with no capital, no higher education, and few opportunities for good jobs? It seems to me that if we want the opportunities we had in the twentieth century, we need to return to the progressive policies we had back then.

What do you think?

I don't think income inequality is the problem, I think the poor not making enough money is the problem. The government should be focusing on that instead of income inequality.

As far as the growth of the twentieth century, I think much of that was a result of WW-2. After WW-2 we had record growth during that time because Asia and Europe were destroyed and the USA was the only major country open for business. It took approx 25 years for Europe and Asia to completely recover so now we no longer have the advantage we had in the 1950's and 60's, the playing field is more level now. Also during WW-2 Europe purchased lots of military equipment from the USA because their factories were destroyed and they spent much of the that time paying us back plus interest.
I don't think it was the social programs that caused our record growth back then; I think it had more to do with the war



Ken

 

[Inkfingers]

How much equality is enough?

By which I mean that people cannot ever be absolutely and utterly equal (it is literally impossible); and the closer to equal they are, the more invasive government has to be in order to deal with the increasingly finer differences between them.

So at what point do we stop. At what point can we say "okay, we are close enough to equality now"?

 

[Kalevalatar]

Considering its effects on the economy and welfare of the country, yes they should be very concerned about this.

Exactly! A government that cares about economy and economic growth should be concerned about economic inequality, which hampers economic growth.

The problem concerns not just "the wealthiest 1%" vs. "the poorest 10%". The single biggest impact on growth is the widening gap between the bottom 40% -- the lower middle class and poor households -- compared to the rest of the 60%. Equal affordable education especially is the key, including not just basic education but higher education. Limited post-basic education opportunities for the socio-economically disadvantaged translate to lowering social mobility, lowering national skill reserve, and lowering purchasing and investment power.

Economic inequality is about intentionally halting half of the country's most important resource, the human resource, from realizing their full potential and contributing to the growth of the country as professionals who earn their own keep and consumers with good salary to spend on products and services and invest on innovation and business growth. Economic inequality besomes an economic burden when poverty becomes hereditary creating a two-tier class society. This happens when the bottom 40% cannot afford higher education to have access to higher paying jobs and are forced to stick with entry-level low-salary jobs regardless of their own potential and rely on tax-paid subsidies to support themselves. Effectively, they don't have spare money to buy stuff and contribute to the GDP and in fact, are a GDP drain. As in, give a man a fish vs. invest in teaching him to fish.