Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The problem I have with both the Nobel Prize and the Fields Medal is that they favor theoretical science over applied science. Neither Thomas Edison nor Willis Carrier (the inventor of Air Conditioning) ever won a Nobel Prize. As an example, the discovery of the Higgs Boson (if there is such a particle, and if they actually discovered it) has made no difference in my life. As an allergy sufferer though, the spread of air conditioning has done much to improve the quality of my life. Not only should Dr. Willis Carrier have received a Nobel prize, he should have been nominated for sainthood, in my humble opinion.
I get your point - the flip side is that much applied science builds on basic research from the past. Consider inventing your air conditioner without the laws of thermodynamics.
Anyway, the poster I quoted said that "the majority of meaningful contributions to mankind come from a tiny, tiny fraction of extraordinary people". I think your post suggests the opposite: the small fraction of people whose extraordinary innate abilities allow them to excel at the highest levels of science or art aren't necessarily the only ones who make valuable contributions to society.
They provide incentives for extraordinary performance and hence contribution to society. In reality, across all of the disciplines - physics, chemistry, medicine, various engineering disciplines, mathematics, economic sciences, other social sciences, literature, fine arts, philosophy, politics, business & commerce, etc - the majority of meaningful contributions to mankind come from a tiny, tiny fraction of extraordinary people. Most of the rest of us are just along for the ride. We need to find a way to encourage those truly extraordinary people via income & wealth inequality - compensate them for extraordinary contributions.
I think economic inequality is good....to a point.
Those who contribute the most to us should be rewarded for doing so.
I dispute that increasing economic inequality is a good thing. I know family in Davis County, Utah that earns $130,000 a year in income. Yet, because of a housing market that has been ruined by speculation they are having trouble finding a house to buy. There is little available outside of what most would consider ghettoes for under $500,000. The point really isn't about this family though. Most families here do not earn $130,000. The average is far less than this. God knows what they do for housing here.
I don't think stable societies are made up of a group of 5% of the population that has 60% of the income and 80% of the wealth. I think those are societies that are full of tensions and undercurrents that eventually lead to violence and social unrest. I don't think we are to this point....yet...in America. I don't want to get there and it is why I reject the idea that any level of income inequality is acceptable.
I think economic inequality is good....to a point.
Those who contribute the most to us should be rewarded for doing so.
I dispute that increasing economic inequality is a good thing. I know family in Davis County, Utah that earns $130,000 a year in income. Yet, because of a housing market that has been ruined by speculation they are having trouble finding a house to buy. There is little available outside of what most would consider ghettoes for under $500,000. The point really isn't about this family though. Most families here do not earn $130,000. The average is far less than this. God knows what they do for housing here.
I don't think stable societies are made up of a group of 5% of the population that has 60% of the income and 80% of the wealth. I think those are societies that are full of tensions and undercurrents that eventually lead to violence and social unrest. I don't think we are to this point....yet...in America. I don't want to get there and it is why I reject the idea that any level of income inequality is acceptable.
In spite of your continued insistence that income inequality is so evil, you've failed to provide a shred of evidence to support that claim. Here is a list of the countries in the world that have MORE income equality than the US. Therefore, each of these countries should be a better place to live and work than the US (according to your unsubstantiated theory).
Personally, you couldn't pay me enough money to live in most of these countries, but perhaps you think all of them are better than the US. Whatever.
Facts matter! And opinions are... well, they're just opinions.
I think economic inequality is good....to a point.
Those who contribute the most to us should be rewarded for doing so.
I dispute that increasing economic inequality is a good thing. I know family in Davis County, Utah that earns $130,000 a year in income. Yet, because of a housing market that has been ruined by speculation they are having trouble finding a house to buy. There is little available outside of what most would consider ghettoes for under $500,000. The point really isn't about this family though. Most families here do not earn $130,000. The average is far less than this. God knows what they do for housing here.
I don't think stable societies are made up of a group of 5% of the population that has 60% of the income and 80% of the wealth. I think those are societies that are full of tensions and undercurrents that eventually lead to violence and social unrest. I don't think we are to this point....yet...in America. I don't want to get there and it is why I reject the idea that any level of income inequality is acceptable.
Didn't watch much news this summer? They rioted and looted in many cities.
Bookkeeper, tax preparer here. We hear it every year, "why dont I have more money ? You must have prepared the accounting, taxes wrong......! I don't have enough to live on !"
Its the same thing, whether business or personal tax. You reduce expenses or find a way to boost revenue. Same mantra for the last billion centuries. People keep looking for some magic formula.
The people who are unrealistically looking for a magic formula, are the ones benefitting from decades of gutting the federal budget to fund the tax giveaways they're getting. They seem to think the country can hobble along just fine without fixing a failing infrastructure (hel-LO, Texas!), strengthening the infrastructure to withstand the stronger storms coming down the pike as climate change gears up, preparing for sea level rise already in progress and beefing up emergency funds, and taking steps to mitigate in advance the effects of future weather events, while at the same time funding all the normal functions of government I mentioned in the earlier post (medical R & D, the CDC, (both crucial in an era of increasing disease outbreaks).Forest Service, education support to states, and so on.
You can't maintain government functions while slashing the government's budget and revenue sources. At least you and I agree on that. Thank you, Ms. Bookkeeper Taxpreparer! Even returning to pre-Bush-era tax levels would be a significant improvement.
This is a question that people never really want to answer. We are all just supposed to think it is a given that income equality is bad.
Nobody has ever shown me why income equality is bad.
I just explained why income inequality is bad in my earlier post (#26. Chas even bolded it in his response to me.). Y'all are skipping the parts you don't want to hear, apparently.
The people who are unrealistically looking for a magic formula, are the ones benefitting from decades of gutting the federal budget to fund the tax giveaways they're getting. They seem to think the country can hobble along just fine without fixing a failing infrastructure (hel-LO, Texas!), strengthening the infrastructure to withstand the stronger storms coming down the pike as climate change gears up, preparing for sea level rise already in progress and beefing up emergency funds, and taking steps to mitigate in advance the effects of future weather events, while at the same time funding all the normal functions of government I mentioned in the earlier post (medical R & D, the CDC, (both crucial in an era of increasing disease outbreaks).Forest Service, education support to states, and so on.
You can't maintain government functions while slashing the government's budget and revenue sources. At least you and I agree on that. Thank you, Ms. Bookkeeper Taxpreparer! Even returning to pre-Bush-era tax levels would be a significant improvement.
Tax cuts are not giveaways.
Allowing people to keep the money they earn is not a giveaway.
What IS a giveaway is people who get money back at the end and pay zero taxes. People actually take out money. THOSE are giveaways.
And the debt is big because of spending not allowing people to keep their own money.
Allowing people to keep the money they earn is not a giveaway.
What IS a giveaway is people who get money back at the end and pay zero taxes. People actually take out money. THOSE are giveaways.
And the debt is big because of spending not allowing people to keep their own money.
Framing tax cuts and spending as some sort of moral desert never leads to anything productive, IMO.
Is taxing income fair? Is the pre-tax distribution of income fair? Who knows.
At least the supply siders had the good sense to sell tax cuts as a way to increase tax revenue. Taxation should be judged according to how it affects incentives and does or does not distort the allocation of capital and labor.
Allowing people to keep the money they earn is not a giveaway.
What IS a giveaway is people who get money back at the end and pay zero taxes. People actually take out money. THOSE are giveaways.
And the debt is big because of spending not allowing people to keep their own money.
Sadly, it doesn't ever help to explain things to some people who cannot spell economics, let alone understand any of its principles. I used to think such people were Exhibit 1 of a fundamental failure of the public education system, but such posters typically lack if-then-else logical reasoning capabilities. Education is lost on them; they cannot distinguish between faith and facts. I'm not sure which is worse: that such people vote, or that such people are prone reproduce.
And the debt is big because of spending not allowing people to keep their own money.
Example of someone who should not be posting on an Economics forum.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Thank you, Ms. Bookkeeper Taxpreparer! Even returning to pre-Bush-era tax levels would be a significant improvement.
