Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated
Don't say it's not a problem in the United States, because it is.
|
It's not a problem in the US. It's only a problem in your mind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated
Let's discuss some policy approaches to alleviating the gross income and wealth inequality.
|
You must first define Income Inequality objectively, in no uncertain terms, so that it can be accurately identified and measured.
Then you must define Wealth Inequality objectively, in no uncertain terms, for the same reason, so that it can be accurately identified and measured.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated
For starters, income inequality and wealth inequality are different.
|
And how many posts did I have to make to beat that into your head?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated
Also, inequality is natural.
|
Well, gosh, you're on a roll.......you've finally accept that reality, too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated
The goal is to create a system where it isn't a drag on the economy and poverty can be minimized. Excessive inequality is a drag on the economy, which is a fact.
|
It is not a fact.
A drag is created when Capital is used inefficiently.
You must define Poverty objectively, in no uncertain terms, so that it can be accurately identified and measured.
Since the use of the federal poverty level is impractical -- it is a weighted average -- do you intend to use the 48 States (less outliers Alaska and Hawaii)?
Or do you intend to use the 356 MSAs?
Or are you planning on using the 1,539 separate economies in the US?
You'll need to justify your reasoning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated
Income Inequality - Self explanatory. Refers to new income generated. Most of it is going right to the top 1%.
|
And why are you limiting it to "new income generated" only?
Is that part of your "skew the data game" to mislead and deceive people?
Define the "top 1%" objectively in no uncertain terms.
Accordingly, provide demographic data on the "top 1%" that you have defined.
Basic data must include age group and occupation. You can use the NAICs drill downs:
Mining
Utilities
Construction
Manufacturing
Wholesale Trade
Retail Trade
Transportation and Warehousing
Information
Finance and Insurance
Real Estate Rental and Leasing
Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services
Management of Companies and Enterprises
Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services
Educational Services
Health Care and Social Assistance
Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation
Accommodation and Food Services
Other Services (except Public Administration)
Public Administration
Optional demographic data would be educational level.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated
Here are some proposals to reduce income inequality:
1) Raising wages - This can be done through increasing the minimum wage or mandating union membership for certain low-wage industries. I personally favor just increasing the wage floor. If wages were to keep up with productivity, minimum wage would be somewhere over $20 /hour.
|
That's a fallacy:
Invalid Reasoning
An invalid inference. An argument can be assessed by deductive standards to see if the conclusion would have to be true if the premises were to be true. If the argument cannot meet this standard, it is invalid.
State the Economic Law, Theory, Theorem or Corollary showing that there is a relationship between wages and productivity.
Also, note that the only correct measure of productivity is:
Unit Volume / Labor Hours = Productivity
Explain how increasing wages makes the US more globally competitive.
Unions violate the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution:
Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Just as people have the right to peaceably assemble, people also have the right to not be coerced or forced into assembly.
Show your math.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated
2) Tax Reform - Raise marginal tax rates on high income earners. The current income tax rates are fine, but an ultra high marginal tax rate of 50%+ should be used on ultra-high incomes.
|
And so Warren Buffet who has $0 in Earned Income pays $0 in taxes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated
Wealth Inequality - This one is trickier. Nothing will truly beat excessive wealth inequality.
|
Then all the more reasons to objectively define "Wealth Inequality" in no uncertain terms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated
1) Campaign Finance Reform - When billionaires can buy elections, they control the political climate and all policies that come with it.
|
That has nothing to do with wealth.
To the extent that campaign finance reform must be undertaken, Congress will never enact any meaningful campaign finance reform.
It's unlikely any State legislators will enact meaningful campaign finance reform, either.
At the State level, you do have the option of a Writ of Mandamus.
Meaningful campaign finance reform can only take place at the township, city and county level.
It will require a grass-roots effort to amend township, city or county charters or by-laws or constitutions to limit campaign contributions to those who are eligible to vote for the office or ballot issue in question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated
2) Bank Reform - When banks are profit driven entities, it incentivizes them to make predatory loans
|
Banks have nothing to do with Wealth Inequality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated
3) Higher Education Reform - Privatized schools and tuition fees create a situation where access to a college degree is dependent on the wealth of the parents. Currently, the Federal government spends more money making college more "affordable" than the actual cost of tuition at state universities.
|
That has nothing to do with Wealth Inequality, either.
The government is the primary cause of tuition increases through Interest Inflation.
Better would be to adopt the Nordic Model, or the German or French or Romanian or Polish or Italian model.
In that case, your kid would have to take a test and pass it in the upper 5% to be able to get into the school that lets your kid take the test that lets your kid go to the school where your kid can take the test allowing your kid to attend the school where your kid will take the test to see if your kid is one of the anointed ones and gets to go to college.....and for free/cheap.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated
4) Health Care Reform - Too many Americans are still uninsured or simply can't afford basic health care.
|
More non-Wealth nonsense.
It is the cost of medical care, that determines the cost of "health insurance."
Lower the cost of medical care, and you will simultaneously lower the cost of "health insurance" making both medical care and health plan coverage affordable.
Since both the Constitution and the US Supreme Court have shown that medical care is intra-State commerce and not within the purview of Congress, and that health plan coverage is intra-State commerce and not with the purview of Congress, reforms can only take place at the State level.
Free Market reforms in the medical care system will destroy the hospital monopoly that currently charges $55,000 for an appendectomy that really only costs $2,800 and that $2,800 includes profit margin.
It would also end $117,000 assistant surgeon fees for a 4-hour operation that really only costs $2,600 and that includes profit, too.
$16,834 for family coverage (according to KFF).
Americans should be paying about $860 annually.
Just as soon as you stop letting hospital monopolies illegally collude to illegally fix prices, engage in price-gouging and over-billing, your family can pay $860 annually....instead of $16,800
So how stupid are you people?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated
Medical costs are the leading causes of bankruptcies.
|
That propaganda has been debunked.
Read the Congressional testimony, if you have the guts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated
The options are plentiful.
|
You mean plenty stupid?
Yeah, you got that right....
Mircea
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.
