Inequality: Should the government be concerned about it?

[doubtingmerle]

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"?

Obviously distributing all money equally would be wrong. There needs to be financial incentives for hard work. Nobody here denies that.The question before us is whether we need both--individual incentives for gain through hard work plus government programs such as minimum wage, Social Security, and progressive income tax to limit inequality.

 

[doubtingmerle]

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.

I see that my second paragraph in the OP was misunderstood. I was describing Feudalism. To clarify my intention, I went back and changed "when the Roman government fell" to "after the Roman government fell".

In the stone age tribes of hunter-gatherers could survive in Europe. In the Middle Ages, the population was too big in many areas to survive without agriculture. Since there was no strong central government, powerful people took control of large portions of farmland. The common people could not survive well as hunter-gatherers, and could not get land of their own to farm. So they had little choice but to sell themselves as serfs in exchange for food and protection.

It is my understanding that this is the natural path that society takes in the absence of central intervention. Powerful forces grab the means of production, and the rest of the people can do little more than sell themselves to the powerful. This is why government in the past was used to force the powerful to share their wealth, and why it still needs to do that today.

 

[MachZer0]

A New Year's resolution from Pope Francis:

“Be careful of envy, lust, hatred and negative feelings that devour our interior peace and transform us into destroyed and destructive people.”

 

[Ken-1122]

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.

If that were the case; income inequality would not exist because nobody does that.

K

 

[Albion]

A New Year's resolution from Pope Francis:

“Be careful of envy, lust, hatred and negative feelings that devour our interior peace and transform us into destroyed and destructive people.”

With emphasis upon "us" and "people." Let us never make the mistake of converting that into "the government."

 

[MachZer0]

With emphasis upon "us" and "people." Let us never make the mistake of converting that into "the government."

Exactly

 

[Bedford]

With emphasis upon "us" and "people." Let us never make the mistake of converting that into "the government."

Said by a man who is the monarch of his country and government.

 

[Kalevalatar]

If that were the case; income inequality would not exist because nobody does that.

K

Government policies, devised by people elected by the people to serve the people, can and do create economic inequality. Government policies also can and do mitigate economic inequality. This thread is about why the government should care. The government elected by the people to serve the people should care because if the bottom 40% had more money to spend, businesses had more customers, more business, more profit, more investors and investments, and the 99% would be better off and who cares about the billionaire 1%, they are living between Moscow, Monaco, Bahrain, and the Caymans anyway.

 

[MachZer0]

The concept of income inequality being an evil is really just a ploy to appeal to people's emotions. If I make $50,000 per year, and Joe Hedge Fund manger makes $1Billion per year, what difference does that make to me? If I make $50,000 per year and now Joe only makes $1Million, I'm no better off. Possibly I'll be worse off.

If I make $10,000 per year, and Joe's income drops from $1Billion to $1Million, my situation doesn't improve

 

[Albion]

Said by a man who is the monarch of his country and government.

I appreciate the acclaim, but I'm actually not the ruler of anything.

 

[Bedford]

I appreciate the acclaim, but I'm actually not the ruler of anything.

I never said you were.

 

[Ken-1122]

Government policies, devised by people elected by the people to serve the people, can and do create economic inequality.

Which Government policies would that be?

This thread is about why the government should care.

You claimed Income Inequality is a deliberate attempt to prevent people from reaching their full potential and contributing to the growth of the country. That is what I was responding to.

The government elected by the people to serve the people should care because if the bottom 40% had more money to spend, businesses had more customers, more business, more profit, more investors and investments, and the 99% would be better off and who cares about the billionaire 1%, they are living between Moscow, Monaco, Bahrain, and the Caymans anyway.

I’ve made that point already. As I said before, income inequality is not the problem; the problem is the poor are not making enough money. That is what the Government should be focusing on.


Ken

 

[Albion]

I never said you were.

Well, you attached your comment ("Said by....") to a line that I wrote, so you can see the reason for my surprise.

 

[Ken-1122]

If I make $10,000 per year, and Joe's income drops from $1Billion to $1Million, my situation doesn't improve

Actually your situation gets worse! Because now Joe pays less taxes and that would equal less money going to social programs that could help you out, and could also result in you having to pay more taxes to make up for the taxes Joe is no longer paying.

Ken

 

[Vylo]

Which Government policies would that be?

Policies that benefit the wealthy that funded those government official's elections.

See, usually the government steps in to help limit income inequality. Wealthy people have realized this, and now have taken hold in the government so now the government can actually help create more inequality. This is generally referred to as corporate cronyism, or corporate welfare.

For example, a multibillion dollar company, so large that it once bought another company with over 20 billion in cast upfront, just recently got a large piece of land in kansas for free.

Not only that, but they will pay no taxes on the land for 10 years.

And also get over $6,000 for each person they hire....

All paid for by the local taxpayers. They are literally buying their own jobs.

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

The concept of income inequality being an evil is really just a ploy to appeal to people's emotions. If I make $50,000 per year, and Joe Hedge Fund manger makes $1Billion per year, what difference does that make to me? If I make $50,000 per year and now Joe only makes $1Million, I'm no better off. Possibly I'll be worse off.

If I make $10,000 per year, and Joe's income drops from $1Billion to $1Million, my situation doesn't improve

I believe the argument the OP is making is that the guy who makes 1 billion is making sure the guy who makes 50k doesn't make anymore than 50k so the 1 billion guy can keep making his 1 billion, and if anything, th 1 billion guy is trying to make the 50k make less than 50k so he can make even more than 1 billion.

 

[Bedford]

Well, you attached your comment ("Said by....") to a line that I wrote, so you can see the reason for my surprise.

Sorry if you failed to understand what I wrote. If you think you are a monarch, I suggest you see somebody about a possible problem.

 

[Albion]

Actually your situation gets worse! Because now Joe pays less taxes and that would equal less money going to social programs that could help you out, and could also result in you having to pay more taxes to make up for the taxes Joe is no longer paying.

Ken

Only if the government is not a responsible steward of public monies. Most often that is indeed the case, but that's not inherent in the tax structure.

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

I believe when the last time the government tried to equal out the money with the monopoly busting polices.. it sort of made things worse. The big monopolies broke up, but then the fallout of the smaller businesses all merged to be separate companies but a single pool of money to circumvent the monopoly laws. Thus creating even more wealth to the already super rich.

We can sort of see evidence of this today with the cable companies internet providers. I remember having multiple choices for internet providers in the late 90s, but now It is either time warner, or no internet. They can charge anything they want and there is nothing I can do about it, other than not having internet.

Edit: Any hopes of government equalizing the wealth will probably end in disaster.. with the congress's corporate sponsors being totally unfazed by the "wealth equality laws" while smaller businesses get utterly crushed so the big guys can just expand into their area and have more control and more money.

 

[MachZer0]

I believe the argument the OP is making is that the guy who makes 1 billion is making sure the guy who makes 50k doesn't make anymore than 50k so the 1 billion guy can keep making his 1 billion, and if anything, th 1 billion guy is trying to make the 50k make less than 50k so he can make even more than 1 billion.

How would the billionaire do that?