Income equality bull shit.

[Redfish]

which policies are those and which party put them in place?

Glad you asked....

Lets start with why Capital Gains are taxed at a lower rate than labor is

If one man works all year digging ditches for $25,000 and another makes $25,000 by clicking a mouse on a computer.....why does the Ditch Digger pay more in taxes?

The capital gains tax rate on $25,000 is 15% and the rate on a single taxpayer with an income of $25,000 is 15%. What do you propose changing?

I expect him to say that cap gains should be taxed at 50% from the first dollar and the the income tax rate on an income of 25K should be zero.

 

[TooTall]

What a load of horse dung.
When jobs began moving to Mexico under Reagan you're gonna tell me Reagan couldn't humble the unions instead?
Bull crap.
We saw what he did to the Air Traffic Controllers...he destroyed their lives.
It's all about displacing the American worker.

Read this and then tell me that the Air Traffic Controllers were not at fault.

On August 3, 1981, the union declared a strike, seeking better working conditions, better pay and a 32-hour workweek. In addition, PATCO no longer wanted to be included within the civil service clauses that had haunted it for decades. In doing so, the union violated a law — 5 U.S.C. (Supp. III 1956) 118p. — that banned strikes by government unions. Ronald Reagan declared the PATCO strike a "peril to national safety" and ordered them back to work under the terms of the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947. Only 1,300 of the nearly 13,000 controllers returned to work. Subsequently, Reagan demanded those remaining on strike return to work within 48 hours, otherwise their jobs would be forfeited. At the same time, Transportation Secretary Drew Lewis organized for replacements and started contingency plans. By prioritizing and cutting flights severely, and even adopting methods of air traffic management that PATCO had previously lobbied for, the government was initially able to have 50% of flights available.
On August 5, following the PATCO workers' refusal to return to work, Reagan fired the 11,345 striking air traffic controllers who had ignored the order, and banned them from federal service for life.

In addition to illegally going out on strike, the ATC was counting on the Canadian controllers to follow them on strike and they didn't want to lose their jobs and stayed at work. There are penalties for violating Federal law and Reagan took an oath to uphold the laws of the United States, and he did just that.

How convenient to ignore 80% of my posting.
Reagan showed BALLS with the ATCs!
He could have humbled the other unions also into accepting less overbearing salaries and benefits and kept the jobs in the US.
Reagan was as big a shill for Wall Street as one could get.

How could Reagan have humbled the other unions? The President is in no way involved with wage negotiations between the UAW and GM or the IAM and Boeing.

I thought it was the passage of NAFTA and GATT that Clinton signed into law that started, or at least accelerated the outsourcing of jobs to Mexico and elsewhere.

 

[rightwinger]

Glad you asked....

Lets start with why Capital Gains are taxed at a lower rate than labor is

If one man works all year digging ditches for $25,000 and another makes $25,000 by clicking a mouse on a computer.....why does the Ditch Digger pay more in taxes?

The capital gains tax rate on $25,000 is 15% and the rate on a single taxpayer with an income of $25,000 is 15%. What do you propose changing?

I expect him to say that cap gains should be taxed at 50% from the first dollar and the the income tax rate on an income of 25K should be zero.

I am saying capital gains should be taxed at the same rate as earned income

 

[The Professor]

What a load of horse dung.
When jobs began moving to Mexico under Reagan you're gonna tell me Reagan couldn't humble the unions instead?
Bull crap.
We saw what he did to the Air Traffic Controllers...he destroyed their lives.
It's all about displacing the American worker.

Read this and then tell me that the Air Traffic Controllers were not at fault.

On August 3, 1981, the union declared a strike, seeking better working conditions, better pay and a 32-hour workweek. In addition, PATCO no longer wanted to be included within the civil service clauses that had haunted it for decades. In doing so, the union violated a law — 5 U.S.C. (Supp. III 1956) 118p. — that banned strikes by government unions. Ronald Reagan declared the PATCO strike a "peril to national safety" and ordered them back to work under the terms of the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947. Only 1,300 of the nearly 13,000 controllers returned to work. Subsequently, Reagan demanded those remaining on strike return to work within 48 hours, otherwise their jobs would be forfeited. At the same time, Transportation Secretary Drew Lewis organized for replacements and started contingency plans. By prioritizing and cutting flights severely, and even adopting methods of air traffic management that PATCO had previously lobbied for, the government was initially able to have 50% of flights available.
On August 5, following the PATCO workers' refusal to return to work, Reagan fired the 11,345 striking air traffic controllers who had ignored the order, and banned them from federal service for life.

In addition to illegally going out on strike, the ATC was counting on the Canadian controllers to follow them on strike and they didn't want to lose their jobs and stayed at work. There are penalties for violating Federal law and Reagan took an oath to uphold the laws of the United States, and he did just that.

Good points. I would only add the following:

After Reagan issued his pronouncement concerning PATCO on August 3, 1981, he gave a press conference. This is part of what he said::

“Let me make one thing plain. I respect the right of workers in the private sector to strike. Indeed, as president of my own union, I led the first strike ever called by that union. I guess I’m maybe the first one to ever hold this office who is a lifetime member of an AFL – CIO union. But we cannot compare labor-management relations in the private sector with government. Government cannot close down the assembly line. It has to provide without interruption the protective services which are government’s reason for being.

“It was in recognition of this that the Congress passed a law forbidding strikes by government employees against the public safety. Let me read the solemn oath taken by each of these employees, a sworn affidavit, when they accepted their jobs: 'I am not participating in any strike against the Government of the United States or any agency thereof, and I will not so participate while an employee of the Government of the United States or any agency thereof.' It is for this reason that I must tell those who fail to report for duty this morning they are in violation of the law, and if they do not report for work within 48 hours, they have forfeited their jobs and will be terminated.”

Reagan's entire short speech, which everyone who ever supported PATCO should listen to, is at the following link:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dc8brHWFZMY]Ronald Reagan-Remarks on the Air Traffic Controllers Strike (August 3, 1981) - YouTube[/ame]

Reagan was actually pro union, but the law is the law and as President he had to enforce the law. Government employees have no right to put the public at risk by striking. They cannot blame others for the consequences of their illegal activities.

 

[Redfish]

You know I am conservative.

But I don't agree that we have equality of opportunity. And I am not talking about the poor.

There is so much wealth concentration that I believe we have people who are literally buying political systems (and these systems are populated with people who want to be bought) to protect their wealth.

There is nothing new in that, it has been that way since the dawn of man. There is no new ground being plowed here.

The USA in 1776 was the best change to change that but now we have allowed ourselves to revert to a feudal system with the govt as the king.

An appeal to nature is an argument or rhetorical tactic in which it is proposed that "a thing is good because it is 'natural', or bad because it is 'unnatural'"

My point is that there have always been rich and always been poor. I don't know if that is "natural" or not, but it is factual.

It is also true that the poor have always envied the rich and wanted to bring them down----------human nature is what it is no matter how "civilized" we claim to be.

the USA was the best hope to break that cycle and allow everyone an equal opportunity to become rich, or better off than his/her parents.

But liberalism has destroyed that ideal.

 

[bripat9643]

It's an election year and we will be hearing a lot if bull shit. No bigger pile of crap than "income equality" or lack thereof.

While we should have equality of opportunity (and we do), no one has a right to equality of outcome. The outcome of your opportunity is entirely up to you.

This whole issue is nothing but "spreading the wealth around" rehashed. Obama and the democrats didn't do anything about income equality in the first 5 years, in fact the gap has gotten worse, so they think that if they call it something else they can repackage it and sell it to the sheeple again and they will buy it. They have no real plan to do anything about it but campaign on it.

Equality of opportunity - free capitalist society
Equality of outcome - oppressive socialist society

"Income inequality," like very other libturd propaganda meme, is a justification to loot your income. Libturds are always looking for ways to get their hands on more of what you have earned. Liberalism can't expand and grow without a growing share of the national product. They will never give up.

Tell that to the working middle class and most economists.
Income inequality is slowing the recovery because of less expendable income for the consumer class thanks to flat wages. Yet profits have been very, very good. Since 2009 a huge percentage of the income growth has been realized by only the few at the top.
Consider 70% of our economy is driven by consumer spending.
So I ask you, why do you hate America?

Libturd propaganda. Spending isn't what grows the economy. Savings is. Greater income inequality should cause the economy to grow faster because the wealthy save more of their income.

Economic growth has slowed down precisely because government is taxing away more of the income of the wealthy.

 

[Redfish]

The capital gains tax rate on $25,000 is 15% and the rate on a single taxpayer with an income of $25,000 is 15%. What do you propose changing?

I expect him to say that cap gains should be taxed at 50% from the first dollar and the the income tax rate on an income of 25K should be zero.

I am saying capital gains should be taxed at the same rate as earned income

Why? money that is invested has already been taxed when it was earned. Do you enjoy paying taxes on the interest on your savings account?

 

[ClosedCaption]

There is nothing new in that, it has been that way since the dawn of man. There is no new ground being plowed here.

The USA in 1776 was the best change to change that but now we have allowed ourselves to revert to a feudal system with the govt as the king.

An appeal to nature is an argument or rhetorical tactic in which it is proposed that "a thing is good because it is 'natural', or bad because it is 'unnatural'"

My point is that there have always been rich and always been poor. I don't know if that is "natural" or not, but it is factual.

It is also true that the poor have always envied the rich and wanted to bring them down----------human nature is what it is no matter how "civilized" we claim to be.

the USA was the best hope to break that cycle and allow everyone an equal opportunity to become rich, or better off than his/her parents.

But liberalism has destroyed that ideal.

You argued that because something is 'natural' it is therefore valid, justified, inevitable, good or ideal.

 

[PredFan]

Crony Capitalism and the growing wealth gap (key word - growing) are irrefutably linked. To say you are not worried about the growing wealth gap is to say indirectly that you don't care about the rampant and widespread Crony Capitalism that is taking place TODAY.

If the rich were getting richer because they remain the most talented, the most worthy, and the best providers & innovators of the things we need and want I would NOT be concerned. But instead I believe they are getting richer because they are the best connected, above the law, and have the ability to put competitors out of business by pushing through legislation that benefits their cause and not the cause of the general society. That IS concerning!!!

That still does not mean that there is no opportunity for people to obtain wealth. Not everyone is going to be able to join the super rich, but the premise put forth by the democrats that the super rich are keeping everyone poor and destroying the middle class is bull shit. Anyone can achieve a decent living for themselves, it's up to them and it is only themselves that are holding them back.

Dude, I get that. I'm not making an argument for excessive welfare or that everyone deserves to be "handed success", I'm making an argument that if we are to be successful as a country we must encourage a system where the best and brightest succeed for the most part vs THE BEST CONNECTED succeeding for the most part. I feel like the scales are quickly tipping to favor the latter.

When we have the shittier company A winning out simply because it can outbribe company B (who can provide a better service to society, ultimately) we're going to have some issues. No longer will our products and services truly be "the best", they'll simply be the companies which are "the richest" which benefits only a few. Eventually the system will implode because everything we do will be second rate.

This is the point I'm trying to make.



.

But I don't see how that prevents anyone from obtaining wealth for themselves.

 

[PredFan]

It's an election year and we will be hearing a lot if bull shit. No bigger pile of crap than "income equality" or lack thereof.

While we should have equality of opportunity (and we do), no one has a right to equality of outcome. The outcome of your opportunity is entirely up to you.

This whole issue is nothing but "spreading the wealth around" rehashed. Obama and the democrats didn't do anything about income equality in the first 5 years, in fact the gap has gotten worse, so they think that if they call it something else they can repackage it and sell it to the sheeple again and they will buy it. They have no real plan to do anything about it but campaign on it.

Equality of opportunity - free capitalist society
Equality of outcome - oppressive socialist society

You know I am conservative.

But I don't agree that we have equality of opportunity. And I am not talking about the poor.

There is so much wealth concentration that I believe we have people who are literally buying political systems (and these systems are populated with people who want to be bought) to protect their wealth.

I'm sure you are right but how does that prevent anyone from obtaining wealth?

 

[rightwinger]

I expect him to say that cap gains should be taxed at 50% from the first dollar and the the income tax rate on an income of 25K should be zero.

I am saying capital gains should be taxed at the same rate as earned income

Why? money that is invested has already been taxed when it was earned. Do you enjoy paying taxes on the interest on your savings account?

Only profit is taxed, not principal.........capital "gain"

 

[KevinWestern]

There is nothing new in that, it has been that way since the dawn of man. There is no new ground being plowed here.

The USA in 1776 was the best change to change that but now we have allowed ourselves to revert to a feudal system with the govt as the king.

An appeal to nature is an argument or rhetorical tactic in which it is proposed that "a thing is good because it is 'natural', or bad because it is 'unnatural'"

My point is that there have always been rich and always been poor. I don't know if that is "natural" or not, but it is factual.

It is also true that the poor have always envied the rich and wanted to bring them down----------human nature is what it is no matter how "civilized" we claim to be.

the USA was the best hope to break that cycle and allow everyone an equal opportunity to become rich, or better off than his/her parents.

But liberalism has destroyed that ideal.

While I understand that it's not very noble to envy someone for their money, I just want to note that the poor often despised the rich (especially in times past) due to the fact they were brutally, brutally oppressed by those folks and lived miserable existences without any hope of "moving up". Can you blame them for "wanting to bring them down"?

When you oppress a large portion of society to poverty, everyone ultimately suffers because the only pool of minds who have the resources to solve problems are the very few, very rich. If you could somehow get the WHOLE society motivated and educated to solve problems, great innovations and ideas will flourish. This is America.

However, we're once again seeing signs that the ruling elite are usurping democracy and making the rules to benefit only themselves and not the rest of society (I'm being very general of course), and I think there are people growing quite concerned about this.

 

[PredFan]

It's an election year and we will be hearing a lot if bull shit. No bigger pile of crap than "income equality" or lack thereof.

While we should have equality of opportunity (and we do), no one has a right to equality of outcome. The outcome of your opportunity is entirely up to you.

This whole issue is nothing but "spreading the wealth around" rehashed. Obama and the democrats didn't do anything about income equality in the first 5 years, in fact the gap has gotten worse, so they think that if they call it something else they can repackage it and sell it to the sheeple again and they will buy it. They have no real plan to do anything about it but campaign on it.

Equality of opportunity - free capitalist society
Equality of outcome - oppressive socialist society

You know I am conservative.

But I don't agree that we have equality of opportunity. And I am not talking about the poor.

There is so much wealth concentration that I believe we have people who are literally buying political systems (and these systems are populated with people who want to be bought) to protect their wealth.

There is nothing new in that, it has been that way since the dawn of man. There is no new ground being plowed here.

The USA in 1776 was the best change to change that but now we have allowed ourselves to revert to a feudal system with the govt as the king.

Let's say that Spacely Sprockets is engaging in some questionable behavior to give them an unfair advantage in the sprocket industry. How does that stop me from gaining wealth? Couldn't I get an engineering degree and earn six figures working for Spacely Sprockets in an industry where they were the giant?

 

[Nosmo King]

It's an election year and we will be hearing a lot if bull shit. No bigger pile of crap than "income equality" or lack thereof.

While we should have equality of opportunity (and we do), no one has a right to equality of outcome. The outcome of your opportunity is entirely up to you.

This whole issue is nothing but "spreading the wealth around" rehashed. Obama and the democrats didn't do anything about income equality in the first 5 years, in fact the gap has gotten worse, so they think that if they call it something else they can repackage it and sell it to the sheeple again and they will buy it. They have no real plan to do anything about it but campaign on it.

Equality of opportunity - free capitalist society
Equality of outcome - oppressive socialist society

Is it a healthy economic system that sequesters the majority of the wealth among the minority of the workers? Is a vibrant, upwardly mobile middle class something to be proud of, or something that should merely take care of itself? Are the ratios of pay between CEOs and workers an equitable one? Can the current ratios be sustainable?

No one is calling for redistribution of wealth. Folks are responsibly asking if the current system is fair and sustainable. Many issues seen by many Conservatives are much simpler than the Conservative pundits proclaim. Global Warming is a good example. People generally want what's best for the planet and our children's futures. Conservatives are told by pundits employed by mega corporations that Global Warming is a myth. That there is no such thing. Now why would mega corporations want you to think this way? Because it will cost money to remediate and mega corporations aren't about to spend that money.

Income inequality is another outgrowth of the laizzez faire Capitalist system championed by the mega corporations. They want to fill your mind with myths that giving the lion's share of the capital to those who own it and then slighting those who produced it by freezing wages and benefits is the wisest decision we as a society could make. This of course erodes the capital from the middle class. It's the middle class consumer spending that drives our economy. But the monied interests want you to think that a strong middle class won't possibly generate jobs like a strong minority or uber-wealthy can.

Many of our current economic problems stem from this skewed philosophy of cutting earnings of workers and enlarging the take available to the very very few.

 

[KevinWestern]

It's an election year and we will be hearing a lot if bull shit. No bigger pile of crap than "income equality" or lack thereof.

While we should have equality of opportunity (and we do), no one has a right to equality of outcome. The outcome of your opportunity is entirely up to you.

This whole issue is nothing but "spreading the wealth around" rehashed. Obama and the democrats didn't do anything about income equality in the first 5 years, in fact the gap has gotten worse, so they think that if they call it something else they can repackage it and sell it to the sheeple again and they will buy it. They have no real plan to do anything about it but campaign on it.

Equality of opportunity - free capitalist society
Equality of outcome - oppressive socialist society

You know I am conservative.

But I don't agree that we have equality of opportunity. And I am not talking about the poor.

There is so much wealth concentration that I believe we have people who are literally buying political systems (and these systems are populated with people who want to be bought) to protect their wealth.

I'm sure you are right but how does that prevent anyone from obtaining wealth?

Again, Predfan, when a working class person loses his job because a Wallstreeter thought it would be fun and lucrative to defraud investors out of billions of dollars, and was able to do so because he had enough money to buy a few key legislators, isn't that working class person being denied a shot at obtaining wealth?

What about when all of those 401ks went belly up when the government/wall street party came to an end?

Point is that I'm concerned that the number of feasible opportunities for working class folk to move up in the world is beginning to wane. The trend is not going in the right direction. We need to reverse this.

..

 

[PredFan]

It's an election year and we will be hearing a lot if bull shit. No bigger pile of crap than "income equality" or lack thereof.

While we should have equality of opportunity (and we do), no one has a right to equality of outcome. The outcome of your opportunity is entirely up to you.

This whole issue is nothing but "spreading the wealth around" rehashed. Obama and the democrats didn't do anything about income equality in the first 5 years, in fact the gap has gotten worse, so they think that if they call it something else they can repackage it and sell it to the sheeple again and they will buy it. They have no real plan to do anything about it but campaign on it.

Equality of opportunity - free capitalist society
Equality of outcome - oppressive socialist society

"Income inequality," like very other libturd propaganda meme, is a justification to loot your income. Libturds are always looking for ways to get their hands on more of what you have earned. Liberalism can't expand and grow without a growing share of the national product. They will never give up.

Tell that to the working middle class and most economists.
Income inequality is slowing the recovery because of less expendable income for the consumer class thanks to flat wages. Yet profits have been very, very good. Since 2009 a huge percentage of the income growth has been realized by only the few at the top.
Consider 70% of our economy is driven by consumer spending.
So I ask you, why do you hate America?

That is a ridiculous response.

1. I'm middle class and I agree with him and not you.

2. Rich people spend money and hire people.

3. Consumers are still spending.

4. The "why do you hate America" statement lands your whole post in the dustbin category.

 

[Redfish]

An appeal to nature is an argument or rhetorical tactic in which it is proposed that "a thing is good because it is 'natural', or bad because it is 'unnatural'"

My point is that there have always been rich and always been poor. I don't know if that is "natural" or not, but it is factual.

It is also true that the poor have always envied the rich and wanted to bring them down----------human nature is what it is no matter how "civilized" we claim to be.

the USA was the best hope to break that cycle and allow everyone an equal opportunity to become rich, or better off than his/her parents.

But liberalism has destroyed that ideal.

While I understand that it's not very noble to envy someone for their money, I just want to note that the poor often despised the rich (especially in times past) due to the fact they were brutally, brutally oppressed by those folks and lived miserable existences without any hope of "moving up".

When you oppress a large portion of society to poverty, everyone ultimately suffers because the only pool of minds who have the resources to solve problems are the very few, very rich. If you could somehow get the WHOLE society motivated and educated to solve problems, great innovations and ideas will flourish. This is America.

However, we're once again seeing signs that the ruling elite are usurping democracy and making the rules to benefit only themselves and not the rest of society (I'm being very general of course), and I think there are people growing quite concerned about this.

How are Bill Gates, Peyton Manning, and Oprah oppressing people into poverty? How are they usurping democracy? All very rich, explain exactly how their wealth is forcing others into poverty.

 

[Listening]

It's an election year and we will be hearing a lot if bull shit. No bigger pile of crap than "income equality" or lack thereof.

While we should have equality of opportunity (and we do), no one has a right to equality of outcome. The outcome of your opportunity is entirely up to you.

This whole issue is nothing but "spreading the wealth around" rehashed. Obama and the democrats didn't do anything about income equality in the first 5 years, in fact the gap has gotten worse, so they think that if they call it something else they can repackage it and sell it to the sheeple again and they will buy it. They have no real plan to do anything about it but campaign on it.

Equality of opportunity - free capitalist society
Equality of outcome - oppressive socialist society

You know I am conservative.

But I don't agree that we have equality of opportunity. And I am not talking about the poor.

There is so much wealth concentration that I believe we have people who are literally buying political systems (and these systems are populated with people who want to be bought) to protect their wealth.

I'm sure you are right but how does that prevent anyone from obtaining wealth?

I am more focused on the statement "equal" opportunity to obtain wealth.

If you think about the government and big business, you can't distinquish them.

Big business used to (and might still) write the regulations to create barriers to entry.

As an example; I had a doctor friend who got with some of his friends to look at starting a local insurance company for their services (they were fed up with insurance in general). They were told they would need hundreds of thousands, if not a million dollars just to get the legal paperwork in place. Additionally, the compliance overhead would kill them.

That isn't equal opportunity (and I know it is an extreme example).

But Obamacare is the same thing...it burdens businesses in a way that skews the playing field.

 

[Listening]

I am saying capital gains should be taxed at the same rate as earned income

Why? money that is invested has already been taxed when it was earned. Do you enjoy paying taxes on the interest on your savings account?

Only profit is taxed, not principal.........capital "gain"

The profit was taxed, dumbass...they you pay taxes on it as income when you get a distribution.

 

[Bombur]

There is nothing new in that, it has been that way since the dawn of man. There is no new ground being plowed here.

The USA in 1776 was the best change to change that but now we have allowed ourselves to revert to a feudal system with the govt as the king.

An appeal to nature is an argument or rhetorical tactic in which it is proposed that "a thing is good because it is 'natural', or bad because it is 'unnatural'"

My point is that there have always been rich and always been poor. I don't know if that is "natural" or not, but it is factual.

It is also true that the poor have always envied the rich and wanted to bring them down----------human nature is what it is no matter how "civilized" we claim to be.

the USA was the best hope to break that cycle and allow everyone an equal opportunity to become rich, or better off than his/her parents.

But liberalism has destroyed that ideal.

One of the best parts of America was that there was plenty of land. In Europe the vast majority of people had little to no chance of ever obtaining land and land was an incredibly important part of being able to earn a living and control your own destiny.

The industrial revolution and global trade also changed that equation significantly. This made access to demand a major consideration for nations and created the first major economic issue, mercantilism.

The argument over mercantilism is far more relevant to todays economies than the one over socialism.