Inequality: Should the government be concerned about it?

[MachZer0]

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.

He was pretty clear on that point

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

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

How would the billionaire do that?

They already have done it. Just look around. It explains itself.

 

[MachZer0]

They already have done it. Just look around. It explains itself.

Apparently it doesn't. I can attest that not one billionaire attempted to hold my income down

 

[whatbogsends]

They already have done it. Just look around. It explains itself.

What is self evident to some appears to be undetectable to others.

I agree that it is self-evident how the rich work to increase their share of wealth at the expense of the rest of the population (and, by and large, succeed in doing so). There are those who (at least in outward confession) remain unconvinced of this, and claim that those who are the beneficiaries of this system have de facto earned that wealth. More directly, it is clear to me that income is not tied directly to one's contribution via labor, etc, and we are seeing more and more of the productivity of the labor force being taken by those controlling the capital, while others claim that one is only entitled to the wage they can bargain for, regardless of the productivity of that labor, and refuse to acknowledge the disparity of bargaining power between the capitalists and laborers.

 

[Ken-1122]

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

See, usually the government steps in to help limit income inequality.

When has the Government ever taken positive steps to limit income inequality, and how did they do it?

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.

I don’t know that particular situation, but it sounds like the Government giving a company some land that isn’t producing anything; under the condition they use it to create jobs! Usually companies that get those type of benefits are the ones that pay the good paying upper middle-class jobs that result in increase taxes from the employees who work these high paying jobs.( You will never find the Government giving McDonalds or Walmart these type of benefits) This is usually seen as an investment by the Government and more often than not there is a positive return on their investment.
This type of Corporate welfare is the result of a company getting benefits from the government; not people. Income inequality is about people, not what companies make vs what people make.

Ken

 

[Albion]

What is self evident to some appears to be undetectable to others.

I agree that it is self-evident how the rich work to increase their share of wealth at the expense of the rest of the population (and, by and large, succeed in doing so). There are those who (at least in outward confession) remain unconvinced of this, and claim that those who are the beneficiaries of this system have de facto earned that wealth. More directly, it is clear to me that income is not tied directly to one's contribution via labor, etc, and we are seeing more and more of the productivity of the labor force being taken by those controlling the capital, while others claim that one is only entitled to the wage they can bargain for, regardless of the productivity of that labor, and refuse to acknowledge the disparity of bargaining power between the capitalists and laborers.

It may be true that some people are in a weaker bargaining position than others, but in no way does this mean that anyone is "taking" from them. Such talk is merely political propaganda. And, if we were dealing totally in the truth, NO system will or can or make everyone equal in all respects. So, it's just "talk."

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

Apparently it doesn't. I can attest that not one billionaire attempted to hold my income down

I have never met a a welfare queen. So I can attest that they do not exist. Personal experience does not negate the overall reality.

 

[MachZer0]

What is self evident to some appears to be undetectable to others.

I agree that it is self-evident how the rich work to increase their share of wealth at the expense of the rest of the population (and, by and large, succeed in doing so). There are those who (at least in outward confession) remain unconvinced of this, and claim that those who are the beneficiaries of this system have de facto earned that wealth. More directly, it is clear to me that income is not tied directly to one's contribution via labor, etc, and we are seeing more and more of the productivity of the labor force being taken by those controlling the capital, while others claim that one is only entitled to the wage they can bargain for, regardless of the productivity of that labor, and refuse to acknowledge the disparity of bargaining power between the capitalists and laborers.

It seems like it should be simple enough to demonstrate how the rich are working to suppress the incomes of others. It's telling that nobody is up to the task

 

[Albion]

I have never met a a welfare queen.

I'm surprised at that. Most of us have.

So I can attest that they do not exist.

No, what you can attest to is what you just wrote--that you haven't met one yourself. I have never met a president of the United States myself, but I am not about to "attest" that there isn't one.

 

[MachZer0]

I have never met a a welfare queen. So I can attest that they do not exist. Personal experience does not negate the overall reality.

Speculation doesn't determine reality

 

[MachZer0]

It may be true that some people are in a weaker bargaining position than others, but in no way does this mean that anyone is "taking" from them. Such talk is merely political propaganda. And, if we were dealing totally in the truth, NO system will or can or make everyone equal in all respects. So, it's just "talk."

It's all talk based on envy

 

[Bedford]

He was pretty clear on that point

I see you are also having a difficult time understanding.

I believe it may have something to do with envy.

 

[Albion]

I see you are also having a difficult time understanding.

I believe it may have something to do with envy.

Everyone's going to find it "difficult" to understand a gibe that has no connection to the rest of the thread.

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

I think we're talking about two different things here. Me and the op. I am talking about creating better opportunities for smaller businesses owners by limited the influence of the larger corporations. So people can create their own businesses and become independently wealthy as well as independent from government dependence. I am not preaching that rich folks should be forced to to give their money away. If the government is going to hand out money to folks, then it should be in the form of education grants for people to go to school and advance. Not everyone is going to take these grants obviously, but people still need to do the menial labor tasks none the less so if someone likes to mop floors than let them mop floors, but they should be paid at least a minimum to survive. The problem is what exactly is "enough to survive". It is a arbitrary definition and some folks differ on what that is.

The rich don't need to become poor, the rich that run everything need to be fair, and that is the problem. They expend a lot of time greasing the wheels to keep smaller business owners from advancing.

More businesses create more economic diversity, not 5 businesses that run everything.

 

[Albion]

IThe rich don't need to become poor, the rich that run everything need to be fair, and that is the problem. They expend a lot of time greasing the wheels to keep smaller business owners from advancing.

While I agree with much of what you wrote before the paragraph above, I'm not seeing any logic to the idea that the bigger business are keeping smaller businesses from advancing, unless you mean that they are engaged in ordinary competition to maintain market share which, for all that I can tell, is not strange or wrong. And, as for helping the smaller businesses, the best thing the government could do is get out of the way--which of course is the last thing some of the posters here want done.

 

[MachZer0]

I see you are also having a difficult time understanding.

What's to understand? He said

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

Pretty simple if you ask me

 

[doubtingmerle]

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

Why do you judge my motive? I do not judge yours.

My motive is not envy.

I am not asking for personal gain. (I am significantly above the median income.) I am motivated by a simple sense of goodness, that it is not good for us to setup the rules of society such that it allows the rich to dominate the means of production without helping poor children get out of poverty. Simple goodness means those kids should be given a chance, and one thing that contributes to that is government programs that address inequality.

 

[doubtingmerle]

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.

And what would you have the government do to help the poor make more money?

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

I think you are confusing two very different things: growth and inequality.

I quite agree with you that the post WW-2 growth in America was largely due to the fact that we had won, while other major countries had been devastated.

But not only did we have growth, but we had low income inequality. That is what this thread is about: income inequality. Should the government work to promote income inequality as it did in the 50's, 60's, and 70's? Back then we had a very progressive tax structure, strong support of unions, respectable minimum wage, strong government support of schools, and programs like Social Security. Many of these very things are now under attack by people who want to turn back the clock and eliminate these programs.

But if we want the opportunity for everybody like we had in the 60's and 70's, then we cannot dial back those programs.

 

[doubtingmerle]

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

Correct.

But this is a straw man. For nobody--nobody!--is suggesting that we reduce Joe's net take-home pay without using it for helpful programs.

Here is a better illustration: Suppose that we adopt a progressive tax policy so that Joe's take home pay drops from $1 Billion to $990 million. Suppose we use that $10 million in additional taxes to pay for food stamps and other support for 1000 poor people, so they now have their effective incomes raised from $10,000 to $20,000.

Question: Does this make the situation better for those 1000 poor people?

 

[doubtingmerle]

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!

Straw man.

Nobody here is saying that assets should be distributed equally.

And nobody here is saying that George Bush has spiders crawling out his nose.

So since nobody--nobody!--is complaining about spiders coming out of George Bush's nose and nobody--nobody!--is asking for everyone to have equal assets, why even bring that up?