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.
I think income inequality is a misleading, general, boogy-man term to substantiate efforts like 'wage affirmative action' i.e. minimum wage to 'living' wage, or CEO salary caps (to multiples of floor workers), or redistribution of 'wealth', or heavily taxing the top xx%.
It seems to feed the 'evil eye' toward those at the top, or justifies saying 'they' are not paying their 'fair share', whoever 'they' are. It's just a broader term for the male/female pay inequity (that I don't believe really exists either - but that's another thread - oops!).
BINGO !!!
And how come we never hear about job inequality? My job is not the same as yours. They are not equal. It only makes sense we make unequal pay since we have unequal occupations.
And there is no male/female inequity. When you account for education, years on the job, industry etc...women make the same as men. If women made less we have to believe 2 things: 1. women are stupid (that another thread lols). 2. Employers willingly pay men more when they could hire a women to do the same thing for less.
Neither make sense. There is no pay gap. It does not exist.
The problem with the Left is they spend too much time, money and failed ideas on equality. Capitalism is the only economic system that uplifts the poor and the Left just can't agree with that economic system.
Government interference is a problem, and it seems to be getting worse.
The government needs an ever-increasing amount of tax revenue. The top 1% pays the highest effective federal income tax rate because of our progressive federal income tax system. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that the consequence of those first two sentences is a government-promotedwidening income gap. Just sayin'...
Income inequality is a problem to the extent that it leads to social instability or economic instability. You could also object on theoretical grounds, but in practical terms, inequality and instability are often linked, and we'd want to avoid that.
The thing to remember is that "inequality" usually refers to severe inequality, rather than just purely mathematical inequality. Inequalities will naturally arise in any economic system other than hunter-gatherer or small-plot farming village, but "income inequality" usually refers to inequalities beyond a certain point, sometimes phrased in terms of the portion of wealth held by the bottom 50%, or the top 10%, or so on.
The best way to avoid income inequality in life is to be born into wealth, or to get a big inheritance. That'll set you up nicely, like the Wal-Mart kids. You really want to implant yourself into the right womb, and then you're set.
Not that many people born into wealth, and some that are, do not benefit from it once they leave home, as some parents wisely choose to "allow" (read "force" if you wish) their children to make their own way in life. However, when their parents die, they will still likely inherit some wealth, after the government takes it's unfair cut (I don't think the government has any business taking the wealth from the heirs, and the estate tax is a tax on money which has already been taxed once (when it was earned).
But you raise the issue that I have been trying to get at, that of the wealth of the top 10% vs. the rest. Why is that an issue, if they earned their wealth legally? Some people work harder than others, and some are smarter in their finances than others, etc., etc.
Besides the complaint we hear is that it is somehow unfair that "the wealth of the nation" (indicating that it is some finite sum) is "concentrated" in the hands of the "top 1%." But, there is no "big pie" that is unequally divided. Wealth is a created thing. A nation's wealth is determined by the output of it's people, and people create their own wealth. Ones wealth belongs to no one else. It is not the property of "the nation." So the claim that "40% of 'the nation's' wealth" is held by the top 1% is based on a false premise. To that complaint, I say, "So what?"
There will always be those who are richer, and even Jesus Christ said that the poor will always be with us. There will always be those who are more successful in life, and it isn't simply a matter of "luck" as some argue; i.e., the term "winning life's lottery." There is no lottery in life. People succeed or fail on their own.
The problem with the Left is they spend too much time, money and failed ideas on equality. Capitalism is the only economic system that uplifts the poor and the Left just can't agree with that economic system.
And yet, there are poor people and there have always been poor people. Capitalism doesn't uplift, it provides opportunity; that is, if the market is not stale, broken, or corrupt. It is up to the individual to lift himself up.
The problem with the Left is they spend too much time, money and failed ideas on equality. Capitalism is the only economic system that uplifts the poor and the Left just can't agree with that economic system.
The government needs an ever-increasing amount of tax revenue. The top 1% pays the highest effective federal income tax rate because of our progressive federal income tax system. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that the consequence of those first two sentences is a government-promotedwidening income gap. Just sayin'...
How, exactly, do people with income taxed at 15% FIT pay a higher effective federal income tax rate than upper middle class professionals and small business owners whose income is taxed at 28% or more federal income tax?
Are you playing linguistic sleight of hand with 'capital gains tax' as opposed to 'capital gains income subject to federal income tax'?
Not that many people born into wealth, and some that are, do not benefit from it once they leave home, as some parents wisely choose to "allow" (read "force" if you wish) their children to make their own way in life. However, when their parents die, they will still likely inherit some wealth, after the government takes it's unfair cut (I don't think the government has any business taking the wealth from the heirs, and the estate tax is a tax on money which has already been taxed once (when it was earned).
But you raise the issue that I have been trying to get at, that of the wealth of the top 10% vs. the rest. Why is that an issue, if they earned their wealth legally? Some people work harder than others, and some are smarter in their finances than others, etc., etc.
Besides the complaint we hear is that it is somehow unfair that "the wealth of the nation" (indicating that it is some finite sum) is "concentrated" in the hands of the "top 1%." But, there is no "big pie" that is unequally divided. Wealth is a created thing. A nation's wealth is determined by the output of it's people, and people create their own wealth. Ones wealth belongs to no one else. It is not the property of "the nation." So the claim that "40% of 'the nation's' wealth" is held by the top 1% is based on a false premise. To that complaint, I say, "So what?"
There will always be those who are richer, and even Jesus Christ said that the poor will always be with us. There will always be those who are more successful in life, and it isn't simply a matter of "luck" as some argue; i.e., the term "winning life's lottery." There is no lottery in life. People succeed or fail on their own.
Government interference is a problem, and it seems to be getting worse. I think it needs to stop, but it isn't likely to happen, as we seem to have allowed government to dictate far too many standards, all of which interfere with the free market. I like your anology (sic), and government setting standards for emmissions (sic) is another, and it is driving up energy costs, which hurts everyone. Recognize that these things are all supported by Leftists who claim they do these things for the "common good." But they hurt people who cannot afford the increase in their energy bills. That is of no concern to the Leftists, however, who insist that government mandate these standards. But Leftists wish to control people's behavior. That's what it is about.
Regarding home ownership, it is only one way to create wealth, however, and it isn't really even the best way. One assumes that the value of a home appreciates, but as we saw in 2008 when many home values plummeted, it isn't a 100% guarantee. As with any investment, there are risks. And a home has to be properly maintained as well. It is a hedge against inflation, however, as it stabilizes your housing costs, even though property taxes will still rise, and insurance costs will rise.
Investing your money (what my father used to call "putting your money to work") is another form of wealth creation. But, you need to envest wisely, and to do this, one should have the help of a professional. Buying stock in a company makes one part owner in that company. If the company does well, the value of your stock increases, creating wealth for you.
Everything you wrote above ignores history and historical examples.
In the beginning of the 20th Century, there was very little government interference on business. The result was workers were exploited -- who earned subsistence wages; factory owners took all the wealth of the business and lives as royalty; worker home ownership was nearly non-existent, since workers had no savings; investing their money just wasn't a reality either; the business polluted the environment at will, etc.
The result was an increase in income inequality.
So what happened? The progressive movement started that instituted laws that were friendly to labor, unionization and started to regulate business. We instituted an income tax that taxed higher income for use on the common good. Later, New Deal policies created Social Security -- that took millions of seniors out of poverty; a minimum wage that elevated the low end and stopped wage deflation. During that period working Americans saw unprecedented gains.
You wrote that emissions standards drives up energy costs. Government has been regulating emissions for about 50 years but also has been regulating mileage standards. Since 1970, emissions are down 98% and the average fuel economy has doubled due to government regulation. What happened when government tried to regulate incandescent light bulbs, to reduce energy waste? There was an outcry from conservatives calling it tyranny.
Not that many people born into wealth, and some that are, do not benefit from it once they leave home, as some parents wisely choose to "allow" (read "force" if you wish) their children to make their own way in life. However, when their parents die, they will still likely inherit some wealth, after the government takes it's unfair cut (I don't think the government has any business taking the wealth from the heirs, and the estate tax is a tax on money which has already been taxed once (when it was earned).
But you raise the issue that I have been trying to get at, that of the wealth of the top 10% vs. the rest. Why is that an issue, if they earned their wealth legally? Some people work harder than others, and some are smarter in their finances than others, etc., etc.
Besides the complaint we hear is that it is somehow unfair that "the wealth of the nation" (indicating that it is some finite sum) is "concentrated" in the hands of the "top 1%." But, there is no "big pie" that is unequally divided. Wealth is a created thing. A nation's wealth is determined by the output of it's people, and people create their own wealth. Ones wealth belongs to no one else. It is not the property of "the nation." So the claim that "40% of 'the nation's' wealth" is held by the top 1% is based on a false premise. To that complaint, I say, "So what?"
There will always be those who are richer, and even Jesus Christ said that the poor will always be with us. There will always be those who are more successful in life, and it isn't simply a matter of "luck" as some argue; i.e., the term "winning life's lottery." There is no lottery in life. People succeed or fail on their own.
You don't think government creates winners and losers?
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.
