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.
That makes no sense as most people (including most kids of supposedly gifted people) are not "truly gifted", but mediocre, whether overachievers like it or not. And those mediocre people deserve a decent life as well as long as they work and give their best.
People have to earn their rewards here in Europe as well, no difference. But many people on this planet get much bigger rewards than they deserve.
Mediocre people do have a decent life in the USA, just as the lazy do. The "poor" in American are rich by world standards.
There is nothing stopping anyone in America from becoming a multi-millionare but themselves.
It cannot be stopped, unless you find a way to standardize human nature sch that every human has the exact same personality.
LOL. It absolutely can be. The question you have to worry is if the cost of doing so outweighs the benefit.
and there are tons of ways. For example....a basic income that uses inflationary printing of money. High taxes that encourage more investment. Relative income laws, etc etc. Just most have costs associated that outweigh the benefits. But to just throw up your hands is not a solution either. Oh noes, the problem is hard, I will put my head in the sand is not a wise plan at all.
"Another problem to consider is that when massive proportions of a nation's income and wealth are concentrated in the hands of a few, overall economic growth appears to suffer. A 2015 study by the International Monetary Fund found that “if the income share of the top 20% (the rich) increases, then GDP growth actually declines over the medium term, suggesting that the benefits do not trickle down†while “an increase in the income share of the bottom 20% (the poor) is associated with higher GDP growth.â€
LOL. It absolutely can be. The question you have to worry is if the cost of doing so outweighs the benefit.
and there are tons of ways. For example....a basic income that uses inflationary printing of money. High taxes that encourage more investment. Relative income laws, etc etc. Just most have costs associated that outweigh the benefits. But to just throw up your hands is not a solution either. Oh noes, the problem is hard, I will put my head in the sand is not a wise plan at all.
Nice condescending tone towards me, but you mistake me for someone who wants to help others get ahead. I don't care about things that are perfectly natural, and a gap between rich and poor is perfectly natural given the vast gap in intellect, ambition, perseverance, etc among individuals.
Apply whatever equalizing forces you think are necessary, and I am telling you, within a short time that gap will reappear and will get right back to growing. For all that punishing/limiting success, you'll end up accomplishing nothing on net.
All you have is harming the successful in the name of the unsuccessful. You cannot legislate people being ambitious, capable and successful, but you can legislate harming those who are. Won't change them from being ambitious and capable, and will only delay/dampen their success. Eventually, immutable laws will remind you of their immutability, and the gap is back.
Meanwhile in 2019 the data says you are wrong. More and more its about the wealth of your family then your individual ability. The cost of learning has exploded, making it out of reach to many, and for those who do reach for it, the cost of it becomes a drag on them. The vast majority of the gains in productivity are not going to those doing the work, but to those who have money. And here is the thing. The data says it is getting worse.
Firstly, gains in productivity are not coming from the guy flipping the burger. It's coming from management, so obviously they will be compensated appropriately. As if low level workers have all just up and decided to work more productively .
Secondly, you don't need an education to go from rags to riches. See my examples above.
I believe the rewards should go to those who earn it. Not those that just sit around and complain they deserve more (while doing nothing to earn it).
Only in socialist theory would such a question be proposed.
Consider all the lottery winners and pro athletes who sat on millions of dollars and now are broke.
That is a micro look at wealth re-distribution to close the 'gap'.
The gap is permanent.
Forbes.
" if you're stuck in the bottom 5% of the US income distribution your standard of living is about equal to that of the top 5% of Indians. Even if you're in the bottom 10% your standard of living is about the same as that of the bottom 10% in other rich countries (which, so we are told, care so much more and do so much more) like Sweden and Finland..."
Mediocre people do have a decent life in the USA, just as the lazy do. The "poor" in American are rich by world standards.
There is nothing stopping anyone in America from becoming a multi-millionare but themselves.
Only in terms of absolute income, but relative to the cost of living your poor man's income in the US won't help you because you don't have to pay Afghan prices
I would rather be poor in Germany than in the US.
During the shutdown they said that 60% of those employees do not have a single month's income to fall back on, despite having worked for years.
What would happen if all the handouts such as food stamps were stopped?
There is no need to confiscate anything, would be enough to make everyone pay their taxes in full (i.e. ruthlessly wipe out all tax loopholes, tax havens etc.), to tax inheritance, to tax capital gains etc. -- everything that does not result from the hard work of the individual. Rich people would still be well off despite those steps. Wealth should only result from merited income, not from accumulated assets.
I think it is also a cultural problem. That entire idea that one should try to become wealthy and that leading a humble life is for losers. Greed is not good, unlike what Gekko said.
Paying taxes IS confiscation.
There is no such thing as a tax loophole. It's either in the tax code or it isn't.
Absolute no to taxing inheritances. The money was taxed when it was earned and it was taxed when it was used to buy something. How many more times do you want to tax it? Absolutely unfair.
So you want to tax markets gains (ie income) in retiree accounts like it's earned income. That won't fly. You want people to work until they drop over dead to make "merited" income? For the vast majority of us, money made from investments started with risking money that was earned. Joe Gimme didn't risk squat.
Greed is good. Greed is the reason why we have teeth after we're 30 years old. Companies innovate and improve products to capture a larger market share. Everybody benefits from that.
Why don't you just come out and tell everybody you are anti-capitalist? You a DSA member?
Why do leftists insist on using government force as a proxy to stick their hands in someone elses pocket?
I think of taxes as payment for services provided by the state, for instance safety and security, infrastructure, etc.
I don't care about retirees as they don't work anymore. Either way, here they do pay taxes on their pensions.
I think there should basically be a reset instead of the inheritance of fortunes.
Greed is certainly not my motivation for working. None of the nicest people I have met so far were greedy.
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.
.
