Getting specific on income/wealth inequality

[Mac1958]

.

Interesting stuff here.

What about some kind of government mandate on maximum income?

(ducks down to avoid fireworks)

.

 

[dblack]

.

Two part question:

1. Is income/wealth inequality a problem in America?

2. If it is, instead of just screaming bumper sticker slogans, precisely what would you do about it? And when I say "precisely", for example, if you'd increase tax rates, to precisely what figures?

I'm hoping for less partisan sloganeering and more actual specifics.

.

As long as it's a result of people trading freely with one another, I don't see anything wrong with a few people controlling a large percentage of the nation's wealth. But I think there's reason to believe that much of the concentration of wealth that we're seeing isn't a result of free trade, and is instead acquired through graft and corruption. If liberal reformers focused on that aspect, rather than using the problem as an excuse to justify more government control of the economy, they'd find many supporters among conservatives and libertarians. If ...

 

[Billy000]

.

Interesting stuff here.

What about some kind of government mandate on maximum income?

(ducks down to avoid fireworks)

.

What we need is regulatory policies on wages in this country. The major downside of capitalism is that rising inequality is inevitable.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

.

Two part question:

1. Is income/wealth inequality a problem in America?

2. If it is, instead of just screaming bumper sticker slogans, precisely what would you do about it? And when I say "precisely", for example, if you'd increase tax rates, to precisely what figures?

I'm hoping for less partisan sloganeering and more actual specifics.

.

1. No its not a problem, its the starting point of every Progressive dictatorship. They say they will do something and all they do is make slaves of the poor and stupid, murder the rich and those who'd stand against them

 

[Freewill]

Wealth used to be something people worked for. Apparently in today's world wealth is to be taken from people.

Is wealth inequality a major concern, not to me. Not when I go buy bread and see the price. Not when I am told I have to buy overpriced health care because I was told it was good for the company to drop my health care so I could buy Obamacare. No matter how much money Gates makes it isn't going to lower the cost of bread to me.

Besides just the way the gap works nothing we do will stop the ever increasing gap, unless everyone is brought down to the same level. Say a person makes 10000 and another 100000 dollars per year. If both rates of pay increase the same amount, say 10 percent, then the first would be making 11000 and the second 110000. In the first case the wage inequality equals 90,000 in the second case it equals 99000. Both increased the same percentage but naturally the gap increased. So the solutions to this non-problem is increase taking of wealth? Really? Who gets to decide what is fair? Who gets to decide how much of your money you are allowed to keep? Why is that fair at all?

What we need is more people working.

Less jobs being sent overseas as we have been seeing since Clinton and his free trade agreements.

Less spending.

You know, do things in the government you would do in your own house.

 

[LeftofLeft]

I have no desire to confiscate wealth but I question why we should continue policies that ensure that more wealth is concentrated and maintained at the top. In the last 30 years we have instituted supply side policies with the promise of a rising economic tide and more jobs. That never materialized

Why continue policies that did not work?

Policies that are more Socialist only serves to cement in place a true 1 percent and elite. Policies rooted in Communism, more so. I always go back to the founding of this Country and why immigrants clamor to come to the US more than any other country: Opportunity. A strong middle class is key. The wealthy never lose. Higher/egregious taxes only serve to hurt the Middle Class and Small Business. Pursue policies centered on the Middle Class.

 

[rightwinger]

Liberals/Progressives make it a problem for purposes of advancing their class warfare agenda.

People complaining that the promised benefits of Supply Side Economics never materialized.....the rich just kept the money,is not class warfare

There never were any promises. That is a lie perpetrated by you and no one else. There was an analysis that outlined what would or could happen if specific policies were enacted.

The left coined the stupid phrase, "supply side".

No one knows if those policies would or could have worked to better the entire country. The Democrats have obstructed all efforts to help people kick their dependency on government and to get involved in their own wealth creation.

Now, don't let you head explode because someone refuted your position. Take a deep breath and repeat the mantra...."They just disagree, the world is not ending."

"They just disagree, the world is not ending."
"They just disagree, the world is not ending."
"They just disagree, the world is not ending."

Trickle Down economics was a Trojan Horse

In the 1980’s Ronald Reagan ushered in a new era in American economics as he cut the top tax bracket from 70% down to 50% and then down again to 28%. In order to get support for doing this from the people, and also from politicians, a very crafty set of lies were produced. As David Stockman, then Reagan’s budget director, put it: giving small tax cuts across the board to all brackets was simply a “Trojan Horse” that was used to get approval for the huge top tax bracket cuts. “Trickle-Down” was a term used by Republicans that meant giving tax cuts to the rich. Stockman explains that:

"It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down,' so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory."

"Yes, Stockman conceded, when one stripped away the new rhetoric emphasizing across-the-board cuts, the supply-side theory was really new clothes for the unpopular doctrine of the old Republican orthodoxy."

 

[Lonestar_logic]

.

Two part question:

1. Is income/wealth inequality a problem in America?

2. If it is, instead of just screaming bumper sticker slogans, precisely what would you do about it? And when I say "precisely", for example, if you'd increase tax rates, to precisely what figures?

I'm hoping for less partisan sloganeering and more actual specifics.

.

1. Only for the poor.

2. Not a damn thing.

Um no it is a huge problem for the shrinking middle class. It is even a problem for the upper middle class.

It may be shrinking where you live but here in Texas the middle class is growing.

 

[Billy000]

1. Only for the poor.

2. Not a damn thing.

Um no it is a huge problem for the shrinking middle class. It is even a problem for the upper middle class.

It may be shrinking where you live but here in Texas the middle class is growing.

Nationally it is shrinking. It has been for decades. See links in my signature.

 

[Freewill]

.

Interesting stuff here.

What about some kind of government mandate on maximum income?

(ducks down to avoid fireworks)

.

So a doctor would be limited to say 250000 a gardener to 25000? If you read through the posts taxes are the vehicle that most would use to accomplish what you are saying.

 

[Mac1958]

.

Interesting stuff here.

What about some kind of government mandate on maximum income?

(ducks down to avoid fireworks)

.

So a doctor would be limited to say 250000 a gardener to 25000? If you read through the posts taxes are the vehicle that most would use to accomplish what you are saying.

I've seen suggestions that a CEO can only make a certain multiple of the average employee, stuff like that. This would open up a massive can of worms on multiple levels, it would create a race to find loopholes that would make it virtually unenforceable, but I'm curious to see if anyone would support it.

.

 

[dblack]

.

Interesting stuff here.

What about some kind of government mandate on maximum income?

(ducks down to avoid fireworks)

.

So a doctor would be limited to say 250000 a gardener to 25000? If you read through the posts taxes are the vehicle that most would use to accomplish what you are saying.

I've seen suggestions that a CEO can only make a certain multiple of the average employee, stuff like that. This would open up a massive can of worms on multiple levels, it would create a race to find loopholes that would make it virtually unenforceable, but I'm curious to see if anyone would support it.

.

It would turn a free flowing, accurate system of representing our values into a political morass, and a ripe target for unscrupulous people.

 

[rightwinger]

.

Two part question:

1. Is income/wealth inequality a problem in America?

2. If it is, instead of just screaming bumper sticker slogans, precisely what would you do about it? And when I say "precisely", for example, if you'd increase tax rates, to precisely what figures?

I'm hoping for less partisan sloganeering and more actual specifics.

.

What I can't figure out is, what is the goal with the top 1%?

Is the goal to make it the top 10% or the top 0.00001%?

Help me out here liberals.

The goal is this

When you look at a source of additional revenue why would you go after the 40 percent that have two tenths of the wealth rather than the 1 percent that have 34.6% of the wealth?

And yet, we have Republicans attacking the 40% of Americans who only have 2 tenths of a percent of the wealth. It cost Romney an election

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Um no it is a huge problem for the shrinking middle class. It is even a problem for the upper middle class.

It may be shrinking where you live but here in Texas the middle class is growing.

Nationally it is shrinking. It has been for decades. See links in my signature.

Then they need to model their states after Texas and stop electing idiot democrats.

 

[Darkwind]

People complaining that the promised benefits of Supply Side Economics never materialized.....the rich just kept the money,is not class warfare

There never were any promises. That is a lie perpetrated by you and no one else. There was an analysis that outlined what would or could happen if specific policies were enacted.

The left coined the stupid phrase, "supply side".

No one knows if those policies would or could have worked to better the entire country. The Democrats have obstructed all efforts to help people kick their dependency on government and to get involved in their own wealth creation.

Now, don't let you head explode because someone refuted your position. Take a deep breath and repeat the mantra...."They just disagree, the world is not ending."

"They just disagree, the world is not ending."
"They just disagree, the world is not ending."
"They just disagree, the world is not ending."

Trickle Down economics was a Trojan Horse

In the 1980’s Ronald Reagan ushered in a new era in American economics as he cut the top tax bracket from 70% down to 50% and then down again to 28%. In order to get support for doing this from the people, and also from politicians, a very crafty set of lies were produced. As David Stockman, then Reagan’s budget director, put it: giving small tax cuts across the board to all brackets was simply a “Trojan Horse” that was used to get approval for the huge top tax bracket cuts. “Trickle-Down” was a term used by Republicans that meant giving tax cuts to the rich. Stockman explains that:

"It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down,' so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory."

"Yes, Stockman conceded, when one stripped away the new rhetoric emphasizing across-the-board cuts, the supply-side theory was really new clothes for the unpopular doctrine of the old Republican orthodoxy."

A blog? Too funny....

Maybe I'll go look up some blogs that refute your blog...we'll call it the blogars (short for blog wars)...

 

[Billy000]

It may be shrinking where you live but here in Texas the middle class is growing.

Nationally it is shrinking. It has been for decades. See links in my signature.

Then they need to model their states after Texas and stop electing idiot democrats.

LOL oh really? So republicans are the ones that are going to fix the wealth gap problem? Lol you people kill me!

 

[rightwinger]

There never were any promises. That is a lie perpetrated by you and no one else. There was an analysis that outlined what would or could happen if specific policies were enacted.

The left coined the stupid phrase, "supply side".

No one knows if those policies would or could have worked to better the entire country. The Democrats have obstructed all efforts to help people kick their dependency on government and to get involved in their own wealth creation.

Now, don't let you head explode because someone refuted your position. Take a deep breath and repeat the mantra...."They just disagree, the world is not ending."

"They just disagree, the world is not ending."
"They just disagree, the world is not ending."
"They just disagree, the world is not ending."

Trickle Down economics was a Trojan Horse

In the 1980’s Ronald Reagan ushered in a new era in American economics as he cut the top tax bracket from 70% down to 50% and then down again to 28%. In order to get support for doing this from the people, and also from politicians, a very crafty set of lies were produced. As David Stockman, then Reagan’s budget director, put it: giving small tax cuts across the board to all brackets was simply a “Trojan Horse” that was used to get approval for the huge top tax bracket cuts. “Trickle-Down” was a term used by Republicans that meant giving tax cuts to the rich. Stockman explains that:

"It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down,' so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory."

"Yes, Stockman conceded, when one stripped away the new rhetoric emphasizing across-the-board cuts, the supply-side theory was really new clothes for the unpopular doctrine of the old Republican orthodoxy."

A blog? Too funny....

Maybe I'll go look up some blogs that refute your blog...we'll call it the blogars (short for blog wars)...

A blog quoting David Stockman

The "father" of Reagonomics

 

[CrusaderFrank]

We need to stop paying people to stay stupid and voting Democrat

 

[boedicca]

.

Interesting stuff here.

What about some kind of government mandate on maximum income?

(ducks down to avoid fireworks)

.

So a doctor would be limited to say 250000 a gardener to 25000? If you read through the posts taxes are the vehicle that most would use to accomplish what you are saying.

I've seen suggestions that a CEO can only make a certain multiple of the average employee, stuff like that. This would open up a massive can of worms on multiple levels, it would create a race to find loopholes that would make it virtually unenforceable, but I'm curious to see if anyone would support it.

.

So easy to see the implications here:

1. Robotics for anything that can be automated.
2. Temps and outsourcing for the low wage jobs that can't be automated.
3. Full time employment for the highly compensated knowledge workers.

 

[Derideo_Te]

.

Interesting stuff here.

What about some kind of government mandate on maximum income?

(ducks down to avoid fireworks)

.

The fundamental basis to capitalism is that everyone has "disposable income". However when a significant percentage (40%) has none at all because they have barely enough to survive you have effectively handicapped capitalism.

Imagine how much better capitalism would be working in this nation if that 40% did have disposable income. The economy would be booming. The evidence for that was in the 1990's when good jobs with benefits were available and unemployment was low.

Just an FYI that booming economy was a result of cutting military spending after the Cold War and investors looking for alternatives. They weren't put off by the 2 largest tax increases in history (under Bush sr and Clinton) and they created 20 million new jobs.

Capitalism works when you have the right mix of incentives.