Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.
When has the Government ever taken positive steps to limit income inequality, and how did they do it?
Responsible or not, the more money the Government gets from taxes, the more money they can spend on the needy.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.
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.
Just because you say it doesn't make it true; you need to explain how billionaires prevent people from making more money.They already have done it. Just look around. It explains itself.
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?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.
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. 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.
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 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.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?
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.
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
All I am trying to say is; I think the problems we have today is a little more complicated than income inequality.
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?
I said nothing about you whatsoeverWhy 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.
It makes them dependent on government forcing others to meet their wants and needs.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?
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 itResponsible or not, the more money the Government gets from taxes, the more money they can spend on the needy.
Ken
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.What is your source for that claim?
You are guessing, I see.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.
Oh brother.And also, please give me your source that half the land in the west belongs to the Federal government. I dispute that claim also.
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.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.
Again; I don't see how income inequality is a problem. Seems to me, low, or lack of wages is the problem.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?