Inequality: Should the government be concerned about it?

[Creech]

Income inequality isn't much of a problem, as long as the working classes receive fair treatment and are not treated as simple tools by corporate power. I believe the bourgeois classes are the ones initiating tensions among the classes, but the solution certainly is not any form of equality, but an end to corporatism, especially in government.

 

[Ken-1122]

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.

That makes no sense at all. In reality, the more money the middle income makes; the more the super rich can make because they will have more people buying the products they are invested in. Can you give an example of a billionaire preventing someone from making more money?

Ken

 

[doubtingmerle]

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

Social Security--worked very well.
Progressive Income Tax--worked very well.
Minimum wage laws--worked very well.
Support for unions--worked very well.
Food Stamps--worked very well.
Unemployment insurance--worked very well.
Medicare--worked very well.
Medicaid--worked very well.

Do you want me to continue?

 

[Ken-1122]

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.

Responsible or not, the more money the Government gets from taxes, the more money they can spend on the needy.

Ken

 

[Albion]

Income inequality isn't much of a problem, as long as the working classes receive fair treatment and are not treated as simple tools by corporate power. I believe the bourgeois classes are the ones initiating tensions among the classes, but the solution certainly is not any form of equality, but an end to corporatism, especially in government.

You got all the approved jargon in there somewhere or other, I see.

 

[Ken-1122]

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

Just because you say it doesn't make it true; you need to explain how billionaires prevent people from making more money.

Ken

 

[doubtingmerle]

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.

Nobody here subscribes to the naïve idea that we ought to make government as big and controlling as possible. Nobody. Nobody! So why bring it up?

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.

Actually its not a fact that the overall tax burden has gone up. Last year we paid 16.7% of the GNP as federal taxes, which is quite low by historical standards. And in 2009 and 2010 we were at record lows since WWII. See Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP . So say what you will about the economy, you cannot blame it on a tax increase.

And no, I was not merely pointing out "some changes in the tax brackets". I was pointing out that through most of the twentieth century there was a much higher tax burden on the richest Americans then there is now. That is just one instance where we are not doing "the same and more" to address inequality as we did in the past. There are many other examples we could use of how government did more to address inequality in the past then it does now.

 

[Albion]

Actually its not a fact that the overall tax burden has gone up. Actually its not a fact that the overall tax burden has gone up. Last year we paid 16.7% of the GNP as federal taxes, which is quite low by historical standards. And in 2009 and 2010 we were at record lows since WWII. See Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP . So say what you will about the economy, you cannot blame it on a tax increase.

Once again, we have a response that depends upon altering what the other person wrote in order to be able to rebut it. I didn't say "federal" tax burden, but as they say...nice try. You really did work it in almost unnoticed.

The tax burden from all units of government has indeed increased in recent years, whether you will admit it or not.

 

[Ken-1122]

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.

We live in a different world now where companies are global. It is easy for companies to relocate overseas where labor is cheap than it was years ago; thus the American worker now has to compete against cheap labor in China, Malaysia, and other places. Plus you have so many regulations in place today that were not during the 60’s and 70’s (remember how bad pollution was during that time?) and that makes it more attractive for companies to move overseas where regulations are scarce; so you have less jobs for the american worker.
Then you have the companies who are selling to countries like China, India, and other places where there was not a market during the 60’s and 70’s, so the Corporations are making record profits because of increased sales via business practices that benefit the bottom line instead of the line worker; and the people invested in those companies will share in the profits of those companies, while the American worker has to compete against cheap overseas labor, thus his wages remain low.

Union support was a lot stronger back then but I think that is mostly the fault of the Union. Many union members resent seeing their union dues going to support a political candidate they disagree with.

Schools are different; I believe students of today don’t need to try as hard as they did before. Many schools today won’t even expel a student no matter how destructive he is because studies have shown when he returns he is worse than when he left. Many of the schools in some of the poor neighborhoods allow students to complete school and they can barely speak english.

Social Security is almost bankrupt because we have many of the baby boomers retiring now and the smaller families of today are unable to support them.

All I am trying to say is; I think the problems we have today is a little more complicated than income inequality.

Ken

 

[Ken-1122]

Social Security--worked very well.
Progressive Income Tax--worked very well.
Minimum wage laws--worked very well.
Support for unions--worked very well.
Food Stamps--worked very well.
Unemployment insurance--worked very well.
Medicare--worked very well.
Medicaid--worked very well.

Do you want me to continue?

But all of those things goes on today! He was talking about steps the Government was taking before, that limits income inequality; that they don't do anymore.

Also how does Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, Medicare and Medicaid make income more equal? This stuff is taken from the workers paychecks, making them smaller.

Ken

 

[doubtingmerle]

Once again, we have a response that depends upon altering what the other person wrote in order to be able to rebut it. I didn't say "federal" tax burden, but as they say...nice try. You really did work it in almost unnoticed.

The tax burden from all units of government has indeed increased in recent years, whether you will admit it or not.

What is your source for that claim?

The federal tax is the highest tax people pay, and it is now relatively low compared with previous years. So there would need to be a significant increase in state and local taxes to make today's total tax be significantly higher than past tax rates. Please give me your source.

And also, please give me your source that half the land in the west belongs to the Federal government. I dispute that claim also.

 

[doubtingmerle]

But all of those things goes on today! He was talking about steps the Government was taking before, that limits income inequality; that they don't do anymore.

Also how does Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, Medicare and Medicaid make income more equal? This stuff is taken from the workers paychecks, making them smaller.

Ken

I was addressing a specific question: "When has the Government ever taken positive steps to limit income inequality". I answered that question.

Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, Medicare and Medicaid involve more than deductions from paychecks. They involve real help to real people in need.

 

[doubtingmerle]

All I am trying to say is; I think the problems we have today is a little more complicated than income inequality.

I agree. We have a lot of problems today. Income inequality is just one of them.

But I still think we should address that problem.

 

[KarateCowboy]

Social Security--worked very well.
Progressive Income Tax--worked very well.
Minimum wage laws--worked very well.
Support for unions--worked very well.
Food Stamps--worked very well.
Unemployment insurance--worked very well.
Medicare--worked very well.
Medicaid--worked very well.

Do you want me to continue?

Social security, medicare, medicaid, unfair income tax, and food stamps do not work well at all. Food stamps are rife with fraud. Unfair income taxes are, well, unfair. Social security is a waste of money for those putting in to it. Medicare and Medicaid are huge messes.

 

[MachZer0]

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.

I said nothing about you whatsoever

 

[MachZer0]

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?

It makes them dependent on government forcing others to meet their wants and needs.

 

[MachZer0]

Responsible or not, the more money the Government gets from taxes, the more money they can spend on the needy.

Ken

In other words, it's all about income redistribution. Forcibly taking money from the person who earned it and giving it to the person who didn't earn it

 

[Albion]

What is your source for that claim?

If you aren't aware of that, you shouldn't be involved in this discussion. Almost every state has upped its income tax rate (not progressive) in r34recent years. Various excise taxes have been imposed and old ones, some dating to "temporary" taxes imposed during WWII not repealed. Cities across the country that never had a local income tax now have one. And on it goes. As the federal rate has been reduced in recent years, a number of tax breaks, deductions and exemptions have also been eliminated as a part of "tax simplification" while state and local taxes, and federal excise taxes have been raised, along with various fees placed upon businesses. California, Illinois, and New York are notorious for such taxing that hundreds of thousands of residents have left for this reason. No, the balance has NOT been to reduce the tax burden.

The federal tax is the highest tax people pay, and it is now relatively low compared with previous years. So there would need to be a significant increase in state and local taxes to make today's total tax be significantly higher than past tax rates.

You are guessing, I see.

And also, please give me your source that half the land in the west belongs to the Federal government. I dispute that claim also.

Oh brother. You're disputing it although it's news to you? Hmmm. This is NOT obscure information! This was reported widely as recently as that incident involving the Nevada rancher who got into trouble for pasturing his cattle on federal land but was resisting paying the fee. I'm sure you recall that.

 

[Ken-1122]

I was addressing a specific question: "When has the Government ever taken positive steps to limit income inequality". I answered that question.

Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, Medicare and Medicaid involve more than deductions from paychecks. They involve real help to real people in need.

But they take a larger percentage from the middle class than the super rich! So how does this lessen income inequality? Seems to me of anything it adds to it.

Ken

 

[Ken-1122]

I agree. We have a lot of problems today. Income inequality is just one of them.

But I still think we should address that problem.

Again; I don't see how income inequality is a problem. Seems to me, low, or lack of wages is the problem.

Ken