US income inequality continues to grow

[Bengalzona]

(07-20-2018, 09:22 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Me, personally, I'd much rather have a tax structure closer to what we had in, say, the 50s. I know that the MAGA types talked about that era with high esteem, though I suspect they felt that way for other reasons. Me, I like the idea that we were bringing in revenues and taking care of our people. There was this idea that was the role of government, promoting the welfare of the people. Crazy idea, that one.

That is what I would like to see as well.

If the wealthy like their over-sized influence on our government and its policies, they should pay for that privilege rather than having it handed to them for nothing by folks who are not aware where their best interest lies.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-20-2018, 10:01 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: That is what I would like to see as well.

If the wealthy like their over-sized influence on our government and its policies, they should pay for that privilege rather than having it handed to them for nothing by folks who are not aware where their best interest lies.

If we are defining wealthy as top 1% I don’t think most wealthy people involve themselves overmuch with politics, and have very little influence.

People’s best interest lies where they decide it lies.

[Bengalzona]

(07-20-2018, 10:17 PM)michaelsean Wrote: If we are defining wealthy as top 1% I don’t think most wealthy people involve themselves overmuch with politics, and have very little influence.

People’s best interest lies where they decide it lies.

Pay the politicians directly rather than through taxes is the new policy.

Considering that there are people who distrust science and believe the world is flat, I believe it is reasonable to question their decision making.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-20-2018, 10:43 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Pay the politicians directly rather than through taxes is the new policy.

Considering that there are people who distrust science and believe the world is flat, I believe it is reasonable to question their decision making.

I mean it’s pretty round. More round than anything else I would say.

But I would say you don’t know enough about anyone else to know what is important to them. It’s rather arrogant for people to think they do.

And no outside of the normal campaign contributions I don’t think most people in the top 1% are paying politicians.

[Bengalzona]

(07-20-2018, 10:48 PM)michaelsean Wrote: But I would say you don’t know enough about anyone else to know what is important to them. It’s rather arrogant for people to think they do.

And no outside of the normal campaign contributions I don’t think most people in the top 1% are paying politicians.

What is important to people is not always the same as what is best for them. That is where decision-making comes into play.

And, yes, I do believe I can say that a two-class society is not good for the majority of people. We have history to show us that.

Also, I believe that rich people give incredible sums of money to influence politicians and political decisions. We have an entire industry built upon seeking their donations.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-20-2018, 11:01 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: What is important to people is not always the same as what is best for them. That is where decision-making comes into play.

And, yes, I do believe I can say that a two-class society is not good for the majority of people. We have history to show us that.

Also, I believe that rich people give incredible sums of money to influence politicians and political decisions. We have an entire industry built upon seeking their donations.

And there’s that arrogance we see all too often from people. . You’ve decided what things are included in the category of their best interest.

You think a guy making $500,000 or even $1million is giving incredible amounts? They can give enough to get invited to some dinner they’ll have to pay for.

[Bengalzona]

(07-20-2018, 11:22 PM)michaelsean Wrote: And there’s that arrogance we see all too often from people. . You’ve decided what things are included in the category of their best interest.

You think a guy making $500,000 or even $1million is giving incredible amounts?  They can give enough to get invited to some dinner they’ll have to pay for.

Making an judgment based upon observed data is not arrogance. When the police pull someone over to test them for DUI because they believe the person's judgment may be impaired, are they being arrogant?

But, yeah, I would claim that there are certain things that conventional wisdom tells us are in peoples' bests interests: having a say in their government, having a government that protects them and their welfare, etc. History has proved this over time. Why do we need to go back to relearn mistakes and lessons of the past? Are we that bored with our lives?

Fact: Wealthy people are lobbied to support political causes and politicians. Don't believe me? Ask the Koch Bros.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-20-2018, 11:34 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Making an judgment based upon observed data is not arrogance. When the police pull someone over to test them for DUI because they believe the person's judgment may be impaired, are they being arrogant?

But, yeah, I would claim that there are certain things that conventional wisdom tells us are in peoples' bests interests: having a say in their government, having a government that protects them and their welfare, etc. History has proved this over time. Why do we need to go back to relearn mistakes and lessons of the past? Are we that bored with our lives?

Fact: Wealthy people are lobbied to support political causes and politicians. Don't believe me? Ask the Koch Bros.

But you want to raise taxes on all wealthy people and 99.99% aren’t the Koch brothers. Or George Soros. You forgot about him.


If in your original statement you were talking about polical access then I misunderstood. It didn’t read that way to me.

Oh and I see you changed “round” to “flat” where I quoted you which makes my response look kind of stupid. I think I get what you are talking about when you say a few have all the power.

[Beaker]

Why should there not be income inequality?

[samhain]

I don't think there's really any way of stopping this trend that's painless.

It's more a matter of just how screwed up this country will be as a result of it as time wears on. We've already seen the rise of more extreme politics and candidates (Sanders/Trump). We've seen the return of identity politics on a scale I never thought I'd see with the normalization of Nazis on the alt-right. We've got massive tribalism and political discourse that's dangerously close to violence (and frankly is on many occasions). We've got soaring drug addiction rates in the rust belt due to the death of good-paying manufacturing jobs and a youth that sees no future for themselves. None of this is showing any sign of improving.

When it gets bad enough that people as a whole in the US finally stop feeling like they have a stake in the well-being of this country, then we are done. We will have a nation of nihilists and junkies. We're getting uncomfortably close now.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

There is no difference between $1 billion and $2 billion besides the obvious amount between the two.

I don't see the need for someone to have that much money.

Dude who runs Amazon has $112 billion at his disposal.
Zuckerberg has $70 billion
Gates has $80 billion I think
Koch Brothers have $60 billion each

Obscene amounts of money tied up by I think just over 2000 people who are all billionaires around the world.

I'm getting by just fine off of $24,000.00 a year.

I don't understand the need for all that money but they made it and it is theirs, I'm not mad at them.

Now, I wouldn't mind if someone were to give me $1 million or $25 million. I could do a lot of good with that kind of money but I only need around $200,000.00 to pay off all my bills keep a little in the bank and buy myself a 1969 Camaro SS Project Car to build.

[Millhouse]

Here is an interesting take on what could be the main reason for income inequality, as it hasn't been mentioned yet in here. It centers around the Federal Reserve.

https://www.thestreet.com/story/13743381/1/what-s-really-causing-income-inequality-federal-reserve-policies.html#2

[Belsnickel]

(07-23-2018, 02:09 PM)Millhouse Wrote: Here is an interesting take on what could be the main reason for income inequality, as it hasn't been mentioned yet in here. It centers around the Federal Reserve.

https://www.thestreet.com/story/13743381/1/what-s-really-causing-income-inequality-federal-reserve-policies.html#2

There is no doubt to me that things like that play a role. The issue is that there are so many things that cause, exacerbate, and perpetuate the problem at play that there is no way to nail down one thing that will help. Inflation has been outpacing wages. Is that because of aggressive inflation raising policies or is it because of stagnant wages? Well, the answer is a bit of both. So how do we fix it and find the right balance?

[Belsnickel]

(07-21-2018, 12:26 AM)Beaker Wrote: Why should there not be income inequality?

I think the issue is that too much income inequality is a threat to a democratic society, especially one that does not have any mechanisms built in to account for it. Like the mechanisms that our constitution lacks.

[*PhilHos*]

(07-21-2018, 12:26 AM)Beaker Wrote: Why should there not be income inequality?

Because it's not FAAAAAAAAAAAAAIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!! 

[fredtoast]

(07-21-2018, 12:26 AM)Beaker Wrote: Why should there not be income inequality?

The founders of our country believed in freedom and equality and economic oppression is just as wrong as political oppression.  Right now people with money influence lawmakers to create laws that make them richer and make middle and lower class people poorer.

Right now large corporations make record profits for wealthy stockholders because they get by with paying their workers less than a living wage.  Then taxpayers make up the difference through government assistance.  So basically taxpayers are subsidizing low wages so that wealthy stock holders can get richer.

[*PhilHos*]

(07-23-2018, 02:30 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The founders of our country believed in freedom and equality and economic oppression is just as wrong as political oppression.  Right now people with money influence lawmakers to create laws that make them richer and make middle and lower class people poorer.

Right now large corporations make record profits for wealthy stockholders because they get by with paying their workers less than a living wage.  Then taxpayers make up the difference through government assistance.  So basically taxpayers are subsidizing low wages so that wealthy stock holders can get richer.

But, are the things they're doing legal?

[fredtoast]

(07-20-2018, 10:17 PM)michaelsean Wrote: If we are defining wealthy as top 1% I don’t think most wealthy people involve themselves overmuch with politics, and have very little influence.

I think it is fair to say that people in the top 1% are very interested in money and finance.  Someone is spending over $3 billion per year on lobbyist and I am pretty sure it is not poor people.  

[Belsnickel]

(07-23-2018, 04:44 PM)PhilHos Wrote: But, are the things they're doing legal?

Only because they used their money to make sure the will of the corporations and special interest lobbyists guide legislation rather than the will of the people, all so they could gain more money.

[Benton]

(07-20-2018, 10:17 PM)michaelsean Wrote: If we are defining wealthy as top 1% I don’t think most wealthy people involve themselves overmuch with politics, and have very little influence.

People’s best interest lies where they decide it lies.

Most of them individually probably don't. I've only know a handful over the years, but their political opinions are as diverse as anyone, and most of those didn't have a lot of political interest. But the people they pay do. Lobbyists and lobbying groups aren't led by a handful of rich elitists, they're paid for by companies and industries where people are doing the best thing for their own interests. 

So while they individually may not exert a lot of political influence, their money does.

(07-23-2018, 02:29 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Because it's not FAAAAAAAAAAAAAIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!! 

Because it's not REPRESENTATIVVVVVVVVVVVVE!!! 

Some income inequality is a good thing. You make your money, you keep the bulk of your money and throw a little to the public good. We all do that. 

But right now you've got the top 10% of the country making the bulk of the money and paying the bulk of the income taxes (it's murky how much the total tax liabilities differ when you include sales taxes, capital gains taxes, property taxes,etc.). And having almost all of the representation in state and federal government. That makes it difficult to legislate to the majority and even harder for those 90% to understand what's being legislated. 

Like Obamacare and the misnomers the GOP put out in trying to get it undone. When you talk to some of those 90%ers, they thought Obamacare was communism and needed abolished (even though they were on it); talk to them after the election when they found out they'd just lost coverage and they didn't understand. Whether you were in favor of it or against it, politicians rallied support by misinformation. Why? Because it was in their donors' best interest. Which is how politics works, but they can do it because they don't have to go home and explain why they did it to that large chunk of people not in their socio-economic class.