Income inequality "solutions"

[Rocker949]

While you don't have to toe a consistent single party line on every issue, you'll ultimately be subscribing to pieces of either party's ideology. There are only so many "maybe" boxes you can check before you're voting "yes" or "no."

You can have an opinion that's progressive, conservative, environmentalist, corporativist, socialist, Martian, etc. without being a card carrying member of said party.

My opinion would have to be whatever is the closest to "nonpartisan." It may be why liberals think I'm a conservative, conservatives think I'm a liberal, and libertarians don't quite know what to think. I will say, however, that it's unlikely I could ever believe in any political ideology (and also not in anarchism which is in itself an ideology.)

 

[BawanaRik]

Irrelevant.


The claim was: people are getting less out than they put in.

Now you're trying to move the goal post to: the return is less than market rate.

Those are two completely different things



Social Security is not, and never was intended to be, an investment program.

You'd think folks would notice it's called Social Security Insurance... and like all insurance, it exists to protect in case of catastrophe, not to generate profits for its constituents.

I never moved the goal post. The fact is I always deserved that return. I am owed it.

 

[spade2you]

Shouldn't they have to pull up their own bootstraps?

But really, straight nepotism doesn't help anyone. (except the child monetarily in the short run)

I went to college with med students, law students, and dental students. Care to guess what many of their parents did for a living?

 

[Unrepresented]

I nearly linked to that but figured everyone that matters already knew the reference.

As to "why not nepotism?" It's anti-competitive. It's anti-meritocratic. It's against the "work hard and you'll succeed" motto we have. And ultimately it cheats everyone out of the best and brightest being able to produce the society of tomorrow, instead it's the rich kids of rich kids of rich kids running things.

 

[Jared Lash]

Shouldn't they have to pull up their own bootstraps?

But really, straight nepotism doesn't help anyone. (except the child monetarily in the short run)

Yes, it's an interesting disconnect for me that we decry what is perceived as an increasing sense of entitlement and praise hard work and earning your own way and yet accept massive, untaxed inheritance as okay.

I would think as parents our job is to raise our children to provide for themselves.

But then again, I doubt anyone in this thread has the type of nest egg that would warrant the sort of taxing that is being discussed. As I find with a lot of discussions on income inequality people tend to envision the proposed changes to themselves when it doesn't apply to their circumstances.

Closing corporate tax loopholes, basing corporate profits on where the sales are made, introducing a new top tax bracket, making SS/FICA a flat tax or rolling back SS/Medicare benefits to the wealthy doesn't result in anyone in the middle class (even the top end of upper middle class) paying more in taxes. But that's an easy boogeyman to trot out.

 

[Jared Lash]

And you are all misusing the word nepotism. I assume in an attempt to paint an inheritance in a derogatory way.

Nepotism should really only be used in terms of granting jobs (or job advancement) or other undeserved favors.

But that doesn't change my opinion that generations upon generations being granted wealth simply due to inheritance is not inherently a good thing.

 

[Unrepresented]

Yet it happens all over.

It's natural to try and favor your own brood, that's not to say it's moral.

More accurately, it is a state sanctioned Ponzi scheme.

It's only a Ponzi scheme if we allow it to fail. There's no reason that we can't reform it into a permanent opportunity for those past working age to live independently. It certainly is more viable than any of the current alternatives.

My opinion would have to be whatever is the closest to "nonpartisan." It may be why liberals think I'm a conservative, conservatives think I'm a liberal, and libertarians don't quite know what to think. I will say, however, that it's unlikely I could ever believe in any political ideology (and also not in anarchism which is in itself an ideology.)

Have you studied any political science to see how your viewpoints are consistent on issue to issue?

I went to college with med students, law students, and dental students. Care to guess what many of their parents did for a living?

I will speculate similar industries?

 

[Gaolee]

Debate the usual talking points about taxes, deserving rich people, deserving poor people, dissipated rich coupon clippers, welfare cheats, etc. It misses the point.

It is a cycle of social emphasis. We are in an individualistic era with no higher purpose. We aren't thinking about going to the moon. We aren't thinking about defeating Fascism. We aren't doing anything like that. We are making sure we individually don't have to pay for things. It's unimaginitive and petty, and people whose entire reason for getting up in the morning is to get more money have carte blanch. There's no other reason, and we don't have a unifying sense of national purpose. The whole discussion about this group or that being deserving or undeserving is just a symptom.

 

[aborgman]

More accurately, it is a state sanctioned Ponzi scheme.

No, it isn't.

A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation based on paying out returns to early investors from later investors input.

SS isn't fraudulent. They TELL everyone exactly how they operate.

SS isn't an investment - it has, from the beginning, been pushed as a form of insurance not investment..

If we're going to call anything where incoming money is used to pay outgoing claims a "Ponzi scheme", then every insurance policy in existence is a "Ponzi scheme".

 

[Unrepresented]

And you are all misusing the word nepotism. I assume in an attempt to paint an inheritance in a derogatory way.

Nepotism should really only be used in terms of granting jobs (or job advancement) or other undeserved favors.

But that doesn't change my opinion that generations upon generations being granted wealth simply due to inheritance is not inherently a good thing.

I very much view inheritance as an undeserved favor.

 

[UncleFluffy]

I very much view inheritance as an undeserved favor.

Just to play Devil's Advocate for a moment, you could also argue that giving money to someone you didn't bring into the world is doing them an undeserved favor.

 

[spade2you]

I will speculate similar industries?

A little more than similar. My dentist has 2 sons that are dentists. She would have been happy to give her clinic to her sons, although they are periodontal surgeons.

A classmate of my dad's ended up starting an eye clinic and became a heck of a surgeon. His son followed suit and his daughter is an optician at the same clinic.

Heck of a snowball effect going on. Some might call it anti-competition. I call them WINNING.

 

[aborgman]

Closing corporate tax loopholes, basing corporate profits on where the sales are made, introducing a new top tax bracket, making SS/FICA a flat tax or rolling back SS/Medicare benefits to the wealthy doesn't result in anyone in the middle class (even the top end of upper middle class) paying more in taxes. But that's an easy boogeyman to trot out.

Folks in the upper middle class ROUTINELY hit the SS earnings cap. That is one that definitely raises middle class taxes.

60% of the people in the middle class report capital gains. Depending on income level and choices regarding how long to hold investments, it could increase or decrease taxes on middle class earners.

 

[mapadofu]

I never moved the goal post. The fact is I always deserved that return. I am owed it.

Seems to imply a sense of entitlement; just trying to point out the interersection with the "entitlement" swath of this thread.

In order to have a safe, insurance type, of investment you need to accept a lower overall rate of return. The fact that we in the U.S. have what is, in a sense, a government mandated insurance program means that we can be more aggressive with our discresionary investments. If we did not have such a program, prudent people who
work hard and save would need to allocate their investments significantly more conservatively than they do now. Thus, even in the absence of social security, prudent investors would not see the market level of returns that you deserve.

 

[willop]

It wont' matter. It's very darwinian - survival of the fittest so to speak.

Some people (and animals) lead and other follow. Some will do whatever it takes to succeed and others do as little as they can to survive.

Can everyone be jimi hendrix or victor wooten? Or even close? Why not? If you WANT to be good at guitar / bass (or anything) you CAN be - be 90-95% at least.

You need to WANT it - internal self desire to have it. It's an ATTITUDE. And how do you 'teach' attitude?

It's been tried with welfare (section 8 housing) 50 years ago the idea was to get the poor out of tar paper shacks so 'housing projects' were built. That led to just as much poverty as before. So the more recent idea is to level the 'projects' and put folks into normal neighborhood where they see people go to work and take care of the area. AFAIK it's not working.

Some jobs take more education and training to do, some are worth more (danger, education, lack of people willing to do the work, etc) and some take less. it's not 'rocket science' to work at mcds or stock shelves or pick fruit. As long as enough people show up for min wage jobs there's no reason to raise the wage.

Now I've seen stats that show unions created the middle class (or were the cause of the huge growth of it) and today unions are fading - and so is the middle class.

But are not unions a sort of 'supply and demand'? Organized labor can stop working - removing the supply - so there fore demand higher wages.

But being a global economy now if you demand $30/hour for many jobs they'll just move those jobs to countries where pay is $10 a month or whatever.

If you redistribute wealth (take from the rich, give to the poor) you only make things worse - why should I work hard and create a company, etc if I can only make $X dollars, the rest effectively being confiscated? It's like putting a scoring limit on a football game - 30 points max, any more you get you have to give to the other team....sounds dumb, huh?

 

[aborgman]

It is a Ponzi scheme if it is incapable of sustaining itself, in a way where everyone who contributes receives at a minimum what they invest. Which it isn't.

No, it is a Ponzi scheme only if you re-define "Ponzi scheme".

I've invested 10's of thousands of dollars in car insurance over my driving career. I'll almost certainly never receive what I invested.

Is auto insurance a Ponzi scheme because not "everyone who contributes receives at a minimum what they invest"?

Plus, at this point (and for a while into the future) - the average person is getting way MORE than they invested.

 

[Unrepresented]

Just to play Devil's Advocate for a moment, you could also argue that giving money to someone you didn't bring into the world is doing them an undeserved favor.

I'll take "All men created equal" over the risk of offending that small minority who are currently excessively benefiting from this system.

A little more than similar. My dentist has 2 sons that are dentists. She would have been happy to give her clinic to her sons, although they are periodontal surgeons.

A classmate of my dad's ended up starting an eye clinic and became a heck of a surgeon. His son followed suit and his daughter is an optician at the same clinic.

Heck of a snowball effect going on. Some might call it anti-competition. I call them WINNING.

I like to think that if all children had the opportunity to those resources, our medical professionals could be even better.

When your folks go can I have their stuff?

Sure, but you'll have to fight the bank over it.

 

[spade2you]

I like to think that if all children had the opportunity to those resources, our medical professionals could be even better.

They had a significantly better starting point for sure. Seems that a lot of med, dental, and law students were in a similar boat. Not as prominent in pharmacy school. Perhaps their parents complained so much that their kids decided to do other things.

 

[Jared Lash]

I very much view inheritance as an undeserved favor.

Look, the only things I inherited are a strong chin and a penchant for alcoholism.

Folks in the upper middle class ROUTINELY hit the SS earnings cap. That is one that definitely raises middle class taxes.

Good point, I missed that.

60% of the people in the middle class report capital gains. Depending on income level and choices regarding how long to hold investments, it could increase or decrease taxes on middle class earners.

True, but I would imagine in most cases for the middle class their capital gains taxes would be unchanged or minimally changed other than in a few specific instances.

 

[aborgman]

Yeah, you can dress a pig up like a goat and it's still a pig.

Please answer the following questions with only a yes or no answer:

1) Do some folks pay more into their auto insurance than they will ever receive?

2) With auto insurance, does "everyone who contributes receives at a minimum what they invest"?

3) Given your answers to question #1 and #2 - Is auto insurance a Ponzi scheme?