US income inequality at record high

[NWB]

History suggests that as a possible outcome. However, there are notable exceptions such as the progressivism of Teddy Roosevelt at the beginning of the 20th Century. At that time, much the country's wealth was accumulated at the top in a few hand until the monopoly trusts were broken up among other things.

Another interesting example may be that of the civil rights movement of the 1960s where african-americans were living under extremely inequal conditions. That was a relatively peaceful change to more equitable conditions.

 

[avvie]

Refreshing.

Right. And let's go a step further: imagine what an ENTIRELY different world it would be if Bill Gates had followed the crony capitalist example and removed his entire operation from our shores when Janet Reno went after him simply because he could. He didn't have the same kind of options then that he would have now. There would be another entire job class gone.

And when FOX news covers this sort of class warfare, they interview cronyist fops on the stock exchange floor to make their points...NOT business leaders who build and succeed without government crony help. It's all guys who make their fortune gambling on someone else's fortune being made overseas. Then they call YOU stupid and lazy for not having the capital to do the same. That is not American capitalism and it's not prosperity creation.

Romney exposed the entire problem wih one statement: he really, truly believes-as does his peers- that anyone not born into wealth or access to it is a lazy thief. He called nearly HALF OF OUR ENTIRE POPULATION lazy theives. Where do you suppose he got that sort of bias?

 

[BawanaRik]

AS AN ECONOMIC CONSERVATIVE, lemme tell you something: the Right's assertion that wealth creates more wealth and helps everyone or that low taxes creates jobs is absolutely untrue.
If you were wealthy why would you EVER subject yourself to dealing with employees, manufacturing costs, government regulations, etc etc when you can simply invest in overseas companies and not have to worry about ANY repercussions?

The jury is in: we gave the wealthy everything we could possibly give them and they simply took the money and ran and got to live in a free country for free. All the DATA and FACTS prove this.

Yet most of my net worth is invested in American equities. This is also true of most of the people I know who have positive net worth. We are providing funding for Americans to have jobs.

It's my opinion that you statement disagrees with what I know.

As far as living here for free? The Facts are the vast majority of taxes are paid by people who are making money or who have positive net worth.

 

[avvie]

As long as I am employed anywhere for any amount of money I have a "positive net worth" and pay the same percentage or more than the wealthy do but I don't use NEARLY as many resources as they do. Inequality defined. They guy working at McDonald's for minimum wage pays taxes but doesn't have a fleet of trucks tearing up the roads nor does he have to recruit the US armed forces to protect his income.
Crony capitalism causes income disparity and wealth inequality. It is NOT a free market. It is specifically designed to prevent business from being generated or becoming mpre prosperous. If your invetsments are paying off I would wager it's because there's a lobbyist paving your way through the barriers. I don't have that option.

 

[Marial]

Then there is what percentage of income is used for neccessities.

 

[bolophonic]

AS AN ECONOMIC CONSERVATIVE, lemme tell you something: the Right's assertion that wealth creates more wealth and helps everyone or that low taxes creates jobs is absolutely untrue.
If you were wealthy why would you EVER subject yourself to dealing with employees, manufacturing costs, government regulations, etc etc when you can simply invest in overseas companies and not have to worry about ANY repercussions?

The jury is in: we gave the wealthy everything we could possibly give them and they simply took the money and ran and got to live in a free country for free. All the DATA and FACTS prove this.

Absolute truth here. Unfortunately, it has been easy to convince huge segments of our society to venerate the greedy.

 

[BawanaRik]

As long as I am employed anywhere for any amount of money I have a "positive net worth" and pay the same percentage or more than the wealthy do but I don't use NEARLY as many resources as they do. Inequality defined.

Interesting. But with every possible respect I disagree.

The fact is if you are working but in debt it is quite possible that you do not have Positive Net Worth. If you have an SUV with a loan it's very possible to be beyond broke.

I find it interesting that you state you use less "resources" than the wealthy. Warren Buffet lives in a modest home in Omaha. As I recall he drives a Caddy. I believe it was a 41 K car. Hardly a massive consumer of resources. I'll bet he paid cash and isn't paying interest.

I live on less than a public assistance person. My biggest expense is my property taxes. I don't go to MickeyDee's. I cook and eat my own food. Usually bought on sale. I don't get a grand a month in Food Stamps. I drive compact cars. I paid cash so I don't have to pay interest.

Not paying interest saves me money.

 

[Unrepresented]

Interesting. But with every possible respect I disagree.

The fact is if you are working but in debt it is quite possible that you do not have Positive Net Worth. If you have an SUV with a loan it's very possible to be beyond broke.

I find it interesting that you state you use less "resources" than the wealthy. Warren Buffet lives in a modest home in Omaha. As I recall he drives a Caddy. I believe it was a 41 K car. Hardly a massive consumer of resources. I'll bet he paid cash and isn't paying interest.

I live on less than a public assistance person. My biggest expense is my property taxes. I don't go to MickeyDee's. I cook and eat my own food. Usually bought on sale. I don't get a grand a month in Food Stamps. I drive compact cars. I paid cash so I don't have to pay interest.

Not paying interest saves me money.

Clearly the poor should just be paying cash for things. It's clearly the more financially sound path.

 

[Truktek2]

"at the expense of the rest of the population"

Can you prove this boldfaced part? QUOTE]

In my opinion it's at the expense of the rest of the population for this reason:

I get paid by check, which means I earn a dollar, I pay tax on a dollar. Businesses get tax breaks and have accountants that use loopholes to hide their money. Do I get to write off my car? No. Dinners? uh, nope. Various other "business expenses"? Hardly.

For example, there are many restaurants around here that are cash only. Do you think they pay the taxes they are supposed to? There is a local deli around here that makes a killing making sandwiches. Let's just say the owner has a few of these cash establishments, and he is doing VERY well for himself. He pays his employees 7.00 an hour with no health insurance.

Now what happens when this employee gets sick? Yep, I'm picking up the tab. Don't you think that his employer should pick it up? Shouldn't it be the cost of doing business just like his electricity or mustard? If an employer doesn't want to offer insurance to their employee, that should be negotiated between them, but once it starts costing me money, I take issue with it.

By the way, I make ALL my purchases via credit card and pay my balance in full every month. If I'm to pay taxes on all my income I'm going to be damn sure I do my best to make sure you do too.

Redistribution of wealth? Call it whatever you want, I just call it paying your fair share.

 

[aborgman]

History suggests that as a possible outcome. However, there are notable exceptions such as the progressivism of Teddy Roosevelt at the beginning of the 20th Century. At that time, much the country's wealth was accumulated at the top in a few hand until the monopoly trusts were broken up among other things.

Right - unrest was tamped down by actions that reversed the growing inequality.

Another interesting example may be that of the civil rights movement of the 1960s where african-americans were living under extremely inequal conditions. That was a relatively peaceful change to more equitable conditions.

We have a distinct difference in viewpoint if you consider the civli rights struggle to be "relatively peaceful".

 

[NKUSigEp]

Too many variables to do much about it. Rich get richer because they're good business men. They may or may not have worked hard for their money but they at least try hard to keep what they got. The poor on the other hand, may or may not work hard for what that have. Some bust their butts all day, some sweep floors and hand out cheeseburgers, and some collect a govt paycheck.

The problem no one has figured out yet is where to start. Is it fair to take money from someone just because he has it? That's called stealing.

 

[aborgman]

I find it interesting that you state you use less "resources" than the wealthy. Warren Buffet lives in a modest home in Omaha. As I recall he drives a Caddy. I believe it was a 41 K car. Hardly a massive consumer of resources. I'll bet he paid cash and isn't paying interest.

Warren Buffet owns a piece of all his investments. Own a share of FedEx? You are using road and air resources (FAA/Eisenhower Highway System) through that ownership that isn't being used by folks who don't own that share.

"The man of great wealth owes a peculiar obligation to the State, because he derives special advantages from the mere existence of government."

Theodore Roosevelt

I live on less than a public assistance person.

Impressive. Less than ~$800/month.

Not paying interest saves me money.

The truly wealthy don't mind paying interest - as long as they can get a rate of return higher than the interest rate on their investments with the money.

 

[BawanaRik]

Clearly the poor should just be paying cash for things. It's clearly the more financially sound path.

Good point

 

[fdeck]

I guess there's many different opinions on this subject. Mine is if someone is not interested enough in eating to go out and earn their daily bread we should respect that choice and allow them to starve.

False dichotomy. A society could impose that choice on people, but then it's an artificial social construct and not an individual choice. Also, a person could engage in activity that falls outside the mainstream definition of "work," yet still find ways to eat.

It's also utopian -- it will never happen. Societies have wrestled with the labor theory of value for millennia. As societies become more complex, the definition of what does and doesn't count as "work" expands, i.e., the labor theory was defended by continually moving the goalposts.

Under Medieval economics, taking a windfall from inflation was considered to be immoral, as it was believed to involve no work. Lenin claimed that bourgeois activity was not real labor, and that the bourgeois and intelligentsia would be purged. "If a man shall not work then neither shall he eat" was written into the Soviet Constitution.

 

[BawanaRik]

"at the expense of the rest of the population"

Can you prove this boldfaced part? QUOTE]

In my opinion it's at the expense of the rest of the population for this reason:

I get paid by check, which means I earn a dollar, I pay tax on a dollar. Businesses get tax breaks and have accountants that use loopholes to hide their money. Do I get to write off my car? No. Dinners? uh, nope. Various other "business expenses"? Hardly.

For example, there are many restaurants around here that are cash only. Do you think they pay the taxes they are supposed to? There is a local deli around here that makes a killing making sandwiches. Let's just say the owner has a few of these cash establishments, and he is doing VERY well for himself. He pays his employees 7.00 an hour with no health insurance.

Now what happens when this employee gets sick? Yep, I'm picking up the tab. Don't you think that his employer should pick it up? Shouldn't it be the cost of doing business just like his electricity or mustard? If an employer doesn't want to offer insurance to their employee, that should be negotiated between them, but once it starts costing me money, I take issue with it.

By the way, I make ALL my purchases via credit card and pay my balance in full every month. If I'm to pay taxes on all my income I'm going to be damn sure I do my best to make sure you do too.

Redistribution of wealth? Call it whatever you want, I just call it paying your fair share.

Fair share. That would be everyone paying the same dollar amount. The definition of fair. That's what I call a fair share

And I pay Cash so these brave small business owners can contiue to operate and provide jobs for the people working for them.

 

[avvie]

I'd been pushing "rich people help America" mantra for decades, quoting Rand, Von Mises, Cato Institute and even Rush freakin Limbaugh. I am a businessman and job creator myself. And 98% of those quoted philosophies are BS simply because that is NOT the system we have.
Remember that housing crash?...remember how everyone blamed Barney Frank (utterly ridiculous and baseless) and FM/FM? At no time did anyone blame the real culprits: the artificial overinflation of home values (Cronyism 101) or the developers who were borrowing against unbroken grounds to pay the mortgages on unsold "inventory". Banks got stuck with deeds to houses that didn't even exist when that ploy collapsed. They needed a scapegoat and invented one for those who needed one and you know the rest: we bailed them out. People still think one gay senator caused all of that and have no idea that the exact same thing happened less than 25 years before.

NOT capitalism. NOT wealth begetting wealth. IS oligarchy. IS creating income disparity.

If one is consciously trying to invest solely in businesses who's entire operations are within our borders then good on you! But there's a LOOOOOONG way to go for there to EVER be enough American business to get us out of this cronyist hole.

 

[fdeck]

Fair share. That would be everyone paying the same dollar amount. The definition of fair. That's waht I call a fair share

Cool. We can add it to your list of utopian definitions.

In practical terms "the same dollar amount" collected from everybody isn't enough money to run a government. A tax that's graded according to something that could be wealth, income, or work, is necessary to run a modern government.

Another idea is for the government to operate on a dollar amount generated by printing money.

Re "redistribution," it's just a scare word that makes normal taxation and government activity seem pernicious.

 

[spade2you]

Clearly the poor should just be paying cash for things. It's clearly the more financially sound path.

Why? There are more check cashing stores than Walgreen's.

My parents live in an area where there is basically no middle class whatsoever. What makes it a trip is that you go from very wealthy areas to very poor neighborhoods every couple of blocks. High end shops and plastic surgery clinics turn to tattoo parlors, liquor stores with bars on the windows, and check cashing businesses.

Whilest BawanaRik often argues with people who agree with him, (I keed, I keed) he's not wrong in the assessment that perhaps people don't know how to wisely utilize their money. I even know some fellow pharmacists that seem to be broke simply because they spend it as fast as it comes in. Hell, plenty of professional athletes spend more than we'd ever make in a lifetime in the span of a year or two.

A decent chunk of the auto industry was based on families getting a new car as soon as they paid the last one off. I don't think I know anyone who doesn't have a ~50" TV regardless of income.

The housing market illustrates how DUMB we are. Many banks made stupid loans to people who should have known that they couldn't afford something. When I bought my house, the bank pointed out that they could easily get me into a much bigger house. Guess what? I said, "no thanks!" Clearly if I can figure something out, it can't possibly be that difficult.

It's one thing to start out with disadvantaged, continuing to make poor choices and simply blaming others will keep it an annoying, vicious cycle.

 

[BawanaRik]

False dichotomy. A society could impose that choice on people, but then it's an artificial social construct and not an individual choice. Also, a person could engage in activity that falls outside the mainstream definition of "work," yet still find ways to eat.

It's also utopian -- it will never happen. Societies have wrestled with the labor theory of value for millennia. As societies become more complex, the definition of what does and doesn't count as "work" expands, i.e., the labor theory was defended by continually moving the goalposts.

Under Medieval economics, taking a windfall from inflation was considered to be immoral, as it was believed to involve no work. Lenin claimed that bourgeois activity was not real labor, and that the bourgeois and intelligentsia would be purged. "If a man shall not work then neither shall he eat" was written into the Soviet Constitution.

I don't recall using the word work. Thanks for your insight

 

[Truktek2]

"at the expense of the rest of the population"



Fair share. That would be everyone paying the same dollar amount. The definition of fair. That's what I call a fair share

And I pay Cash so these brave small business owners can contiue to operate and provide jobs for the people working for them.

Well since I agree that there will never be a "fair" let the wealthy get screwed over a little more than me.