Income equality bull shit.

[ClosedCaption]

Let's as 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?

Is Spacely doing anything illegal? if so, they should be prosecuted, if not, tough shit, they are just smarter than their competition.

with your new degree I would expect that you would want to work for the successful sprocket maker. Hell, if you do good he might make you a VP and give you stock options. Yee haa, you become rich by working for it---how awful.

Exactly. Corporate activity has nothing to do with whether there is equality of opportunity or not.

No one but you said this

 

[TooTall]

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 problem I have with raising capital gains tax rates is the fact that many companies have scrapped their retirement plans and switched to 401K plans. Raising the capital gains tax would result in the profits in the 401K plans going to the government instead of the wage earners that are relying on the plan for retirement.

 

[KevinWestern]

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.

But that isn't their only opportunity. So they can't start an insurance company? Use that pooled money to start something else. When one door closes, another opens. Plus, they are doctors already. They have already achieved wealth.

I don't mean this in a rude way, but do you understand the concept:

More opportunities > Less opportunities.

Will you be perpetually satisfied so long as there's the slightest, tiniest possibility one can succeed, or would you rather fight for a society where success is more or less a REAL possibility for all?

I'm not asking for weath redistribution, I'm just calling for an end to crony capitalism. What's so horrible about that? Surely you don't support the bribing of lawmakers do you?

 

[PredFan]

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.

..

No it isn't. That laid off worker isn't done. His life isn't over. The opportunity still exists, there is not only one profession making only one product. Will it be tough on that person? Probably, but the opportunity is still there.

I fully agree Predfan. I never said "his opportunity was fully eliminated".

I'm just making the point that as a society we SHOULD NOT be satisfied with the idea of diminishing opportunities for the middle class (which is what has happened over the past 30 years); we should instead strive to maximize those opportunities - right? What scenario would you prefer: a somewhat equal playing field where the middle class entrepreneur has a 10% at succeeding with a new business, or a rigged system where he only had a 0.001% chance of succeeding?

Crony capitalism works against middle/lower class opportunity; am I some sort of a nutjob for saying that's ultimately a bad thing and we should work to curb it? What's your point?

The opportunities for the middle class are not decreasing. Corporate activity, legal or illegal, aren't affecting opportunity.

 

[KevinWestern]

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.

But that isn't their only opportunity. So they can't start an insurance company? Use that pooled money to start something else. When one door closes, another opens. Plus, they are doctors already. They have already achieved wealth.

I don't mean this in a rude way, but do you understand the concept:

More opportunities > Less opportunities.

Will you be perpetually satisfied so long as there's the slightest, tiniest possibility one can succeed, or would you rather fight for a society where success is more or less a REAL possibility for all?

I'm not asking for wealth redistribution, I'm just calling for an end to crony capitalism. What's so horrible about that? Surely you don't support the bribing of lawmakers do you?

 

[TooTall]

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

Why would people put their capital at such risk for very little gain?

Easier than working for a living

They also run the risk of losing all of their money. And there are no government bailouts for investors.

 

[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.

Funny that you cannot see how you are being manipulated.

The system has not sequestered the majority of money into the hands of a minority of people. The things that did that are complicated and involve both corporations and politicians, including Obama. Nothing in capitalism causes a gap in earnings like we are seeing. The opposite should be true.

And yes, income redistribution is exactly what they are talking about.

It is Capitalism and only Capitalism that promotes this type of inequality. Want some examples? Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan. In the 19th century these guys were called "Robber Barons". They exploited workers, crushed their competition by manipulating the market and ran rough shod over anyone opposing them. Once enough damage was done, once the wealth was sequestered American took steps to prevent it in the future. But once the monied interests got their man in the Oval Office back in the 1980s, we heard of what his successor called "Voodoo Economics" and the race was on.

It has happened before and so long as there is greed and a willfully ignorant group of political zealots whose information is spoon fed to them by those monied interests, it can happen again.

 

[Nosmo King]

Why would people put their capital at such risk for very little gain?

Easier than working for a living

They also run the risk of losing all of their money. And there are no government bailouts for investors.

I'm praying you said this with your tongue firmly planted in your cheek!

 

[KevinWestern]

No it isn't. That laid off worker isn't done. His life isn't over. The opportunity still exists, there is not only one profession making only one product. Will it be tough on that person? Probably, but the opportunity is still there.

I fully agree Predfan. I never said "his opportunity was fully eliminated".

I'm just making the point that as a society we SHOULD NOT be satisfied with the idea of diminishing opportunities for the middle class (which is what has happened over the past 30 years); we should instead strive to maximize those opportunities - right? What scenario would you prefer: a somewhat equal playing field where the middle class entrepreneur has a 10% at succeeding with a new business, or a rigged system where he only had a 0.001% chance of succeeding?

Crony capitalism works against middle/lower class opportunity; am I some sort of a nutjob for saying that's ultimately a bad thing and we should work to curb it? What's your point?

The opportunities for the middle class are not decreasing. Corporate activity, legal or illegal, aren't affecting opportunity.

Lol, really?

What about when a giant company lobbies to make it mandatory for sellers (within their industry) to purchase expensive licenses every year to do business? You don't believe that sort of thing goes on? You don't think that might make it more difficult for the new guy to get started? Come on, DUDE.

 

[PredFan]

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.

But that isn't their only opportunity. So they can't start an insurance company? Use that pooled money to start something else. When one door closes, another opens. Plus, they are doctors already. They have already achieved wealth.

I don't mean this in a rude way, but do you understand the concept:

More opportunities > Less opportunities.

Will you be perpetually satisfied so long as there's the slightest, tiniest possibility one can succeed, or would you rather fight for a society where success is more or less a REAL possibility for all?

I'm not asking for weath redistribution, I'm just calling for an end to crony capitalism. What's so horrible about that? Surely you don't support the bribing of lawmakers do you?

I understand but you haven't shown your argument. I'm telling you that there are plenty of opportunities. Many will not get them but the fault lies with them and not the system. If I get a worthless degree in something like say one of the liberal arts, and I can't find a job that isn't the fault of the system. It doesn't mean that there are no opportunities.

Nothing is wrong with ending crony capitalism but it isn't the subject of this thread unless you can show how it reduces opportunity.

 

[protectionist]

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.

Funny that you cannot see how you are being manipulated.

The system has not sequestered the majority of money into the hands of a minority of people. The things that did that are complicated and involve both corporations and politicians, including Obama. Nothing in capitalism causes a gap in earnings like we are seeing. The opposite should be true.

And yes, income redistribution is exactly what they are talking about.

It matters little whether major income inequality is planned of just the result of chance and luck. It's simply good sense to put money where it can best be used. When the amount of money someone grosses, becomes so great that it's beyond even the level of need for luxuries, then that surplus is better used as a govt fund (if/whenever it's used properly for real societal needs), and often is much more beneficial, that way, to that business owner too.

One example could be the Wolf Creek Dam in southern Kentucky. This massive structure has been in a state of dangerous deterioration for quite some time, needing lots of repair. If breached, the entire state capital of Tennessee (Nashville) could find itself under 20 feet of water, with thousands of people killed and Billions$$$ in flooding damages. All the luxuries he could buy won't help the Nashville billionaire, when that broken dam surge comes gushing through.

 

[PredFan]

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.

Funny that you cannot see how you are being manipulated.

The system has not sequestered the majority of money into the hands of a minority of people. The things that did that are complicated and involve both corporations and politicians, including Obama. Nothing in capitalism causes a gap in earnings like we are seeing. The opposite should be true.

And yes, income redistribution is exactly what they are talking about.

It is Capitalism and only Capitalism that promotes this type of inequality. Want some examples? Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan. In the 19th century these guys were called "Robber Barons". They exploited workers, crushed their competition by manipulating the market and ran rough shod over anyone opposing them. Once enough damage was done, once the wealth was sequestered American took steps to prevent it in the future. But once the monied interests got their man in the Oval Office back in the 1980s, we heard of what his successor called "Voodoo Economics" and the race was on.

It has happened before and so long as there is greed and a willfully ignorant group of political zealots whose information is spoon fed to them by those monied interests, it can happen again.

That wasn't "the system" it was men manipulating and corrupting the system.

 

[rightwinger]

Why would people put their capital at such risk for very little gain?

Easier than working for a living

They also run the risk of losing all of their money. And there are no government bailouts for investors.

Well, thats always a possibility

But with 1% of the population controlling 38% of the available wealth, it doesn't appear that happens very often

 

[PredFan]

I fully agree Predfan. I never said "his opportunity was fully eliminated".

I'm just making the point that as a society we SHOULD NOT be satisfied with the idea of diminishing opportunities for the middle class (which is what has happened over the past 30 years); we should instead strive to maximize those opportunities - right? What scenario would you prefer: a somewhat equal playing field where the middle class entrepreneur has a 10% at succeeding with a new business, or a rigged system where he only had a 0.001% chance of succeeding?

Crony capitalism works against middle/lower class opportunity; am I some sort of a nutjob for saying that's ultimately a bad thing and we should work to curb it? What's your point?

The opportunities for the middle class are not decreasing. Corporate activity, legal or illegal, aren't affecting opportunity.

Lol, really?

What about when a giant company lobbies to make it mandatory for sellers (within their industry) to purchase expensive licenses every year to do business? You don't believe that sort of thing goes on? You don't think that might make it more difficult for the new guy to get started? Come on, DUDE.

Again, that isn't the only opportunity a available. That one door may be closed but it isn't the only door. Do I need to give you examples of success stories to counter your examples of opportunities that weren't obtainable? We could go on forever back and forth.

Opportunity is always there, it is no guarantee that you will always find it and always be successful. As I said, no one has the right to equality of outcome.

 

[PredFan]

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 wishest 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.

Funny that you cannot see how you are being manipulated.

The system has not sequestered the majority of money into the hands of a minority of people. The things that did that are complicated and involve both corporations and politicians, including Obama. Nothing in capitalism causes a gap in earnings like we are seeing. The opposite should be true.

And yes, income redistribution is exactly what they are talking about.

It matters little whether major income inequality is planned of just the result of chance and luck. It's simply good sense to put money where it can best be used. When the amount of money someone grosses, becomes so great that it's beyond even the level of need for luxuries, then that surplus is better used as a govt fund (if/whenever it's used properly for real societal needs), and often is much more beneficial, that way, to that business owner too.

One example could be the Wolf Creek Dam in southern Kentucky. This massive structure has been in a state of dangerous deterioration for quite some time, needing lots of repair. If breached, the entire state capital of Tennessee (Nashville) could find itself under 20 feet of water, with thousands of people killed and Billions$$$ in flooding damages. All the luxuries he could buy won't help the Nashville billionaire, when that broken dam surge comes gushing through.

That money belongs to him, no one else, and this isn't really revant to the thread topic.

 

[KevinWestern]

The opportunities for the middle class are not decreasing. Corporate activity, legal or illegal, aren't affecting opportunity.

Lol, really?

What about when a giant company lobbies to make it mandatory for sellers (within their industry) to purchase expensive licenses every year to do business? You don't believe that sort of thing goes on? You don't think that might make it more difficult for the new guy to get started? Come on, DUDE.

Again, that isn't the only opportunity a available. That one door may be closed but it isn't the only door. Do I need to give you examples of success stories to counter your examples of opportunities that weren't obtainable? We could go on forever back and forth.

Opportunity is always there, it is no guarantee that you will always find it and always be successful. As I said, no one has the right to equality of outcome.

LOL - Pred I get that, and understand there are other opportunities available.

I'm simply saying that the closing of the door was completely unnecessary so lets get it open again! If there's no societal or practical need for the license that limits opportunity how about we do away with it? Why are you settling for less? It makes no sense.

All I did with that example was show one way that crony capitalism would impede opportunity. I never claimed it would fully eliminate it..

 

[Erand7899]

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.

Those Air Traffic Controllers violated the law. They were warned, and given an opportunity to return to work. Those that didn't were fired.

The rule of law should always trump partisan emotion.

Jobs began moving out of this country when economic conditions made moving jobs profitable. Taxes, regulations, and environmental restrictions figured into the math, right along with wage rates and transportation costs. Unions should have modified their demands with all this in mind.

 

[Nosmo King]

Funny that you cannot see how you are being manipulated.

The system has not sequestered the majority of money into the hands of a minority of people. The things that did that are complicated and involve both corporations and politicians, including Obama. Nothing in capitalism causes a gap in earnings like we are seeing. The opposite should be true.

And yes, income redistribution is exactly what they are talking about.

It is Capitalism and only Capitalism that promotes this type of inequality. Want some examples? Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan. In the 19th century these guys were called "Robber Barons". They exploited workers, crushed their competition by manipulating the market and ran rough shod over anyone opposing them. Once enough damage was done, once the wealth was sequestered American took steps to prevent it in the future. But once the monied interests got their man in the Oval Office back in the 1980s, we heard of what his successor called "Voodoo Economics" and the race was on.

It has happened before and so long as there is greed and a willfully ignorant group of political zealots whose information is spoon fed to them by those monied interests, it can happen again.

That wasn't "the system" it was men manipulating and corrupting the system.

There is nothing innate about Capitalism that protects the interest of those actually doing the producing. It protects the ownership class. Today, Conservatives dismiss labor unions. Because the labor union protects the workers. Today Conservatives champion the wealthy because the wealthy tell them that it is the wealthy who create jobs.

But today, the wealthy aren't wealthy because they themselves have created anything. They are wealthy not from earning, but from manipulating money to their advantage. Wasn't it at least noble that Carnegie and Rockefeller actually produced something? Today's wealthy only produce more wealth for themselves.

 

[Antares]

Supreme Court denies RNC bid to end voter fraud consent decree - Los Angeles Times



your cheating is court documented all the way to the SCOTUS

Are you retarded?

 

[ClosedCaption]