I have no desire to be rich. I also have no complaints.
I work hard to provide for myself, and sometimes have enough left to help out others.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Income inequality "solutions"
- Thread starter two fingers
- Start date
- Status
I have no desire to be rich. I also have no complaints.
I work hard to provide for myself, and sometimes have enough left to help out others.
Unrepresented
Something Borderline Offensive
History has also shown that one aspect of human behavior is that there will always be plenty of selfish, self-absorbed, greedy people who are hell-bent on using rationalizations to justify their "me-first-and-the-heck-with-you" behavior. The "I am not my brother's keeper" BS is also beginning to smell.
I think income inequality is the symptom people mistake as the problem. A decreasing amount of economic mobility (in the US anyway) is the problem. I largely agree with you that it's fine if someone's making little money because they chose to do less or easier work despite having the opportunity to do something else. If push comes to shove, if they need more money, they can pursue better paying employment. All of that statement is contingent on the idea that such opportunity exists for all.
On the other hand, it's certainly not good for a democratic society if people don't have those opportunities for other employment to begin with. If someone who wants to pursue happiness (the Declaration's fill-in word for property) they should be allowed to do so without any kind of de-facto class system curtailing their efforts. You seem to be asserting that such a class system does not exist in the US, it's my opinion that it does and that many of those with affluence use their capital (social, political, and financial) to pass laws and sway public opinion in such a way as to stifle economic mobility.
If you want to fight poverty, you create social values and political policy that stress economic mobility. If that's done properly, the majority of poor will be able to help themselves.
Capitalism requires an underclass, so there will always be income inequality. The question is to what degree.
Frankly, I think human nature requires there be an underclass. Just read some of the responses in this thread. This is not to discount the simple fact that there are indeed lazy people and the simple fact that there are indeed avaricious, greedy, people too.
Frankly, I think human nature requires there be an underclass. Just read some of the responses in this thread. This is not to discount the simple fact that there are indeed lazy people and the simple fact that there are indeed avaricious, greedy, people too.
Can anyone else tell who is able to put food on the table and who can't by reading these posts?
Just wondering.
Just wondering.
Oh, here we go again... No one is suggesting income inequality should be eradicated!! People are merely arguing that the gap needs to be closed!
Happens every single time this topic is discussed. Talk about smelly horses...
I'd think that everyone is "putting food on the table" since they have access to a computer, presumably own at least one bass, and have bothered to setup a TalkBass account.
Or is adding "just wondering" a way to indicate a rhetorical question?
Unrepresented
Something Borderline Offensive
I doubt most users of this forum -- who by definition have the technology skills, the luxury of free time, and the luxury of specialized interest in online discussions of a relatively obscure instrument are going to be representative of the bottom quintile portion of the economy who is most abused.
You should perhaps consider the possibility that there are people out there who have no problems putting food on the table, but still see that there are others who do have problems feeding themselves and feel that is an issue that needs to be adressed.
By 'anyone else', do you mean who else AS WELL AS YOU, can make such a deduction?
I'm curious as to how you've managed to develop such insight from posts by random internet strangers on a bass forum?
Okay, it's a long post, but definitely worth flagging up here. One of the most insightful reads I've seen on TalkBass in a long time.I'll take a crack at a possible solution. Overall, I think the problem of social inequality is primarily caused by a lack of opportunity. Our economy does not encourage or reward innovation or entrepreneurship at the lower level, nor is there a lot of opportunity to move up a corporate ladder anymore. To start your own business requires a period of immense risk now. For example, a person with a good idea for a business, removing a person's education out of the equation (a good idea is a good idea), needs to come up with a gigantic amount of capital to get their idea off the ground. That capital can come in the form of working full time at a low entry job just to pay your bills, Perhaps you scrounge a little savings together. Or it can come in the form of hustling for investors, and jumping through the required hoops of reasonable loans hoping you qualify. Or it can be a combo of all three at the same time. This used to be a much more achievable task, like climbing a proverbial mountain. It's the American dream. Obviously, only those who persevere will make it to the top. It's the same if a person pursues a career or a trade. A person trudges through entry level positions always looking for the next rung up the ladder within their given career. This too used to be a much more achievable task, and the investment in an education and degree would open more opportunities, so it was the advantage families sought to insure their child's success. Even if a person didn't pursue a degree and instead pursued a trade or craft, they still had the opportunity to work their ass off and make a life for themselves. This used to be the harder road to hoe (jobs with hard labor and long hours and dangerous working conditions), but not so much anymore, IMO. <-- a thought for another thread, perhaps...
However, the income inequality in our country has made this mountain much steeper with some parts being a virtual cliff with mines for footholds. An entry level job doesn't pay the bills for even the most frugal worker. To make ends meet they need either another job (or a working spouse) or they fall into debt. Debt can come in the form of the checks-for-cash store, credit cards in the mail, or through a poor investment in their own health (we're still in the middle of working this part out). Everyone has a different measure for what they feel is that step where they've made it past that risk, a profitable business, a condo, or property (which has become another source of debt for many), or perhaps a home or several homes owned in the clear. Whatever that point is, IMO to get there involves much more risk than it used to, whether it be time, money, health or all three. Not saying that there should be no risk, but there's a fine line between what's reasonable and what's detrimental to the overall economy.
Those that started with money definitely have the edge over those that started with no money. I think there's a happy medium regarding estate tax. I think a person should be allowed to leave a certain percentage to their heirs to insure their success. However, as it stands, that doesn't kick in until we hit 5 million. Others can argue the percentage (start at 50 percent to family, 50 percent to taxes and let the chips fall where they may with that argument). However, I think 5 million, when combined with a person's ability to invest tax-free overseas rigs the game so a smart person of wealth would always keep their 'domestic' estate below that 5 million line. When you combine this with money that has been passed on for many generations, combined with the notion that corporations are a type of person, you create this small elite collection of immense wealth. You could probably count on your hands how many of those that exist at this level got there by sheer determination and hard work. They are very much the exception that the norm at this level.
This type of inequality is dangerous, IMO. It creates an environment that makes the very government a mere marketplace for legislation afforded to those who can afford it. This is the government that we elect to insure that the playing field is fair and everyone is afforded an opportunity for success if navigated properly. This requires fair, balanced regulation with interests of the nation at heart, not the interests of the few. So if you belonged to this incredibly wealthy group, and you could afford to buy legislation, what would you buy? You'd probably buy legislation that worked out to your financial favor. So you influence things like how much teeth regulation committees have, who gets appointed, and what powers fall in their jurisdiction. You influence things like elections in favor of folks you personally know will provide financial security for you, whether that means waging wars, infringing on personal rights and freedoms, or creating financial systems that insure you stay at the top of the mountain. You influence things like international trade with countries you've invested in to reduce labor or avoid taxes. This has been going on for decades. Each instance of this, separates them from those still climbing that mountain. At best, domestically, it eliminates rungs in the corporate ladder, and it makes the grade up that mountain practically a vertical cliff in which each helping hand they throw at you means financial benefit to them (even if these 'helping hands' are government subsidies). All expenditures flow up to them. This is the reason why jobs are shipped overseas and that the majority of 'jobs' we've seen added to the economy are exactly that. They're not careers. They're mostly retail and service jobs in which the employee is expendable. At worse it devalues life itself, to the point that we see an increases in things like human trafficking, and markets for organ harvesting in which the wealthy carve up the poor for their kidneys, livers, gall bladders, etc.
You can argue all you want that these people are the evil devil incarnate, but it doesn't change the fact that at all instances up that ladder or mountain, a person is encouraged to act just like them. All is fair in the name of profit. The idea of actually removing wealth from someone and redistributing it evenly to the people below them in the name of balance and equality can be achieved either literally (it will never happen), or through over a period of time with a different type of tax structure, set of budget priorities, laws, fines and punishments, and massive cultural shift in the way we think.
As far as taxes go, I love what aborgman has proposed. Keep it real clear and eliminate all the tax loopholes that have been bought over time. All money over a certain amount is considered a corporation. Operations and profits (no matter what country it generated from) will be taxed as such. Tax relief will come in the form of reinvestment, bonus and profit sharing programs for employees (the more employees that benefit the greater the relief) and perhaps investment in domestic infrastructure could work as well (fund a bridge or a railway to offset your tax burden). The financial individual and all their inalienable and legal rights afforded to them stops at that certain amount. Above that they are owners of corporations and their corporation will be legally treated and taxed as such. I also think this would decentralize a lot of the money away from the banks. I believe there needs to be a clear distinction. Corporations are not financial 'people'.
Eliminate lobbies and Super PACS. I like Warren Buffet's idea for Congress regarding accountability. Their pay, jobs, and benefits should be determined on whether or not they pass a budget. Their retirement and their healthcare is to be the same the rest of the government employees. If they don't like it, they can work on fixing it. If they want to run for public office their finances are transparent and public record to pass scrutiny.
I would also only put Congress in charge of 50 percent of the budget. This would eliminate unnecessary wars that only benefit the wealthy few (or 'cost-plus' contracts for your cronies' companies, pet projects, discretionary spending, and corporate welfare. The other 50 percent is determined when a person pays taxes. Let the taxpayer determine where their money goes. A person could decide (perhaps by department) where their taxes go. You could establish that a minimum amount has to be distributed to each department, or you could let a person decide what percentage gets distributed to what department (the particulars of this could all be worked out in the wash). For example, and I don't presume to speak on anyone's behalf, but I might invest more into the department of education than others. This money is predetermined and has to be spent as such. The remaining 50 percent is left to the discretion of congress.
I also believe that people should be allowed to vote on regulation and oversight appointees. For example, I'd like a say in who runs the FDA, the EPA, or Dept of Oil and Minerals.
Politics need to change too. I won't go into details anymore than I believe that the electoral college needs to be eliminated, and the system needs to be opened up to more than just two political parties. The reason I mention politics is because I believe the way our government has changed into a marketplace is a big contributor to the problem of income inequality.
Sorry for the long post.
I agree that it would be really naive to assume one can conclude much about things like people's financial security from their opinions in threads like this. But that's not the same as thinking that there's nothing that can be inferred from people's attitudes to a variety of issues that regularly get discussed here, such as education and other societal factors, individual versus collective responsibility and so on.
No, let's NOT go there, AT ALL. That would definitely get the thread closed.
I think my moderator and admin colleagues have been pretty relaxed lately about threads that shouldn't really fly in OT of a political and religious nature. I have seen times when such discussions would rapidly go downhill until they resembled something you might see posted underneath a YouTube video. As the community on TB has grown and there's enough people on here who know how things work, these discussions have generally been much more civil than they used to be, whilst still being, at times, pretty robust. As a result, we seem to have threads going in OT that would have been closed within minutes a while back. There are a few currently active examples. These seem to be allowed in so far as the discussion has remained generally civil. Let's keep it that way, otherwise we won't be able to discuss such things at all. Thanks.
My apologies Bill - certainly not my intent to drag down an interesting discussion. I was more amused by the notion set forward than looking to pick a fight.
Hey, if you're going to have a race, you have to have a finish line.
Death or zombification?
- Status
