Income inequality is fine by me.

[occupied]

Income inequality and fixing it.

Two years ago I was in an art show. Some people won awards and some didn't. Some of the paintings were sold with purchase prices going from $3,000 down to $50.00.

An unhappy person wrote to the show organizers and complained about the inequality. Her suggestions were: Everyone get the same "participation award" eliminatiang First, Second, Third and Best in Show. The total of the purchase prices of all paintings sold be divided according to all artists in the show and distributed among them to equalize the benefit whether or not they won anything or sold anything.

This is the meaning of income inequality and the essence of income redistribution.

Income redistribution is not the goal for those of us actually concerned about income inequality so much as accountability. In a free society power must carry with it responsibility and yet conservatives seem intent on ridding the financial elite of all burdens of taxation, legal liability and regulatory constraints and create a true aristocracy accountable to no one.

 

[rightwinger]

In grandpas school analogy we are all D students who through hard work and sacrifice can hope to become C students and pass in the school of life. A few may even become B students

But the A students know they will receive an A before they even take the first test. They are given the answers in advance and will succeed with or without effort

That is income inequality

I was an A student, not because I was smarter than everyone else, not because I was given an A in advance and not because I was given answers in advance. It was mainly because I tried harder than most. You and too many others have the victim mentality, hopefully one day people wake up and start to realize this. One thing is for certain, it won't happen as long as we have "leaders" like Obama..........

That is because schools are run equitably........life isn't

 

[rightwinger]

The student receiving the C is middle class. To get that C he has to go to school, work hard and make personal sacrifices. Those who don't wll get a D or an F.

The problem is that those who are working to maintain that C are finding it harder and harder to do while those who are getting A's just look at them and laugh

 

[occupied]

In grandpas school analogy we are all D students who through hard work and sacrifice can hope to become C students and pass in the school of life. A few may even become B students

But the A students know they will receive an A before they even take the first test. They are given the answers in advance and will succeed with or without effort

That is income inequality

I was an A student, not because I was smarter than everyone else, not because I was given an A in advance and not because I was given answers in advance. It was mainly because I tried harder than most. You and too many others have the victim mentality, hopefully one day people wake up and start to realize this. One thing is for certain, it won't happen as long as we have "leaders" like Obama..........

That is because schools are run equitably........life isn't

Not really, even there the more attractive and well dressed receive better scores in subjective grading situations such as essays and term papers.

 

[rightwinger]

Per grandpas analogy of grades in a school...

The wealthy in America have direct access and in many cases control of the legislators. In our thousands of pages of tax code, how much is set aside to help working Americans. The wealthy directly influence the laws that are written and how taxes are collected

Now let's go back to school and allow the A students to sit down with the teachers and help write the exams. When the other students complain, they are accused of "class envy"

 

[Erand7899]

I think you miss the point......income inequality is not a redistribution of wealth like the rightwing propaganda machine constantly spouts, but a redistribution of opportunity.
In your analogy it is not setting aside the higher grades for the privileged few

In a nutshell, giving a selected few of the students the answers in advance

Couldn't disagree more. As most of you know I am an ex con, yet I went to college and am pretty successful at this point in my life despite the hurdle of my past. A hurdle much larger than most have to overcome I might add.

Lack of opportunity my ass.

Lack of opportunity does not mean lack of any opportunity. You can rise to the point where you can support yourself and maybe afford a few luxuries. That is the most that many Americans can aspire to

But your analogy is that the students receiving the A gets them through merit and hard work. The playing field is not level, those receiving the bulk of the wealth do so because they make the rules in their own favor and against the average worker

In the test we call life, they receive the answers in advance and are unlikely to fail

In the test we call life, you just failed first grade. Looking for excuses for failure is the definition of a loser. Even with government attempting to shut down opportunity, it is still all around you. All you have to do is quit making excuses and take advantage of it.

Yes, the vast majority of the students getting the "A"s are getting them through merit and hard work, and the vast majority of the people who are getting ahead in life are getting there through merit and hard work.

Success is not a difficult subject and it can be explained through the following: There are five different ways to earn a living and/or get ahead in life. The first is pure manual labor. There is a whole lot of it available and consequently it pays very little. The second is a combination of manual labor and mental labor, referred to as skilled labor. There is less of this available, it pays better and it can support a decent life style. Third is talent. The ability to sing, dance, act, or throw a football. This is a gamble that can pay off well, or be a complete flop. The fourth is mental labor with a little manual labor thrown in. The professions, management, etc. It pays well and offers easy entrance into the fifth method.

The fifth method is putting your assets to work for you. Putting your money out to earn a return. This is just about the only way to extreme wealth.

Simplistic, but accurate. To succeed, one only has to create a plan to move themselves into the earning method that gives them a shot at even a better life. Flipping burgers and waiting tables can only be a means to that end.

 

[SwimExpert]

Couldn't disagree more. As most of you know I am an ex con, yet I went to college and am pretty successful at this point in my life despite the hurdle of my past. A hurdle much larger than most have to overcome I might add.

Lack of opportunity my ass.

I have to disagree. The way things are going, lack of opportunity is a major problem nowadays. Of course, the way Democrats want to fix it is all wrong. But that's another story.

As for income inequality.....it's impossible to have no inequality. Inequality is not a bad thing, in and of itself. But we do definitely seem to have a problem currently where the inequality has grown too far. Again, the way Democrats want to fix it is all wrong, but that's another story.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Diminished Income inequality is fine by me, particularly for contractors who signed contracts and did not pay the income he had agreed to pay.

 

[007]

I just heard this on Bulls n Bears and I think its a great analogy.

Income inequality complaints are akin to taking an A student and giving him a B instead so the D student can have a C and pass even though someone else earned his grade.

Discuss

I'm not for any kind of "income redistribution." I think that is flat out wrong, it's socialism at best, and communism at worst.

But, and there's a big BUT, I find this video VERY disturbing, and I think what it's telling us is basically that big money has the government it's back pocket, that big money and our government officials are so intertwined and in bed together, that it's hard to tell them apart anymore. Washington D.C. is now the RICHEST county in America... why? Because of our government fleecing Americans and making laws that benefit the RICH ONLY, and THEMSELVES, all while lining their greedy fucking pockets with LOBBYIST MONEY. Our government is broken, and it IS the reason there's so much money at the TOP, while 99% of all the rest of America is SUCKING HIND TIT... WASHINGTON - IS - ENTIRELY - CORRUPT...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTj9AcwkaKM]Wealth Inequality In America - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Billy000]

I just heard this on Bulls n Bears and I think its a great analogy.

Income inequality complaints are akin to taking an A student and giving him a B instead so the D student can have a C and pass even though someone else earned his grade.

Discuss

You're not getting the issue. Liberals aren't against income inequality in itself. I am totally okay with the idea of a CEO making much more money than a low level worker. What liberals don't like is the massive, ridiculous gap that actually exists between not just the poor, but the middle class as we'll. 1% of the population owns 40% of the nation's wealth. That is insane. Wages for the poor and and middle class have remained pitifully low since the 1930s despite the fact that productivity has grown exponentially in these classes. The wealthy on the other hand have had skyrocketing wages since the 1930s.

The proof is in the second link of my signature.

 

[Erand7899]

Income inequality and fixing it.

Two years ago I was in an art show. Some people won awards and some didn't. Some of the paintings were sold with purchase prices going from $3,000 down to $50.00.

An unhappy person wrote to the show organizers and complained about the inequality. Her suggestions were: Everyone get the same "participation award" eliminatiang First, Second, Third and Best in Show. The total of the purchase prices of all paintings sold be divided according to all artists in the show and distributed among them to equalize the benefit whether or not they won anything or sold anything.

This is the meaning of income inequality and the essence of income redistribution.

Income redistribution is not the goal for those of us actually concerned about income inequality so much as accountability. In a free society power must carry with it responsibility and yet conservatives seem intent on ridding the financial elite of all burdens of taxation, legal liability and regulatory constraints and create a true aristocracy accountable to no one.

Accountability to whom, and what do they have to be accountable for? The major problem with the losers who wish to punish the wealthy, is that their attempts to do so, always seem to fall on those who are attempting to get wealthy, and not on the wealthy themselves.

 

[rightwinger]

Couldn't disagree more. As most of you know I am an ex con, yet I went to college and am pretty successful at this point in my life despite the hurdle of my past. A hurdle much larger than most have to overcome I might add.

Lack of opportunity my ass.

Lack of opportunity does not mean lack of any opportunity. You can rise to the point where you can support yourself and maybe afford a few luxuries. That is the most that many Americans can aspire to

But your analogy is that the students receiving the A gets them through merit and hard work. The playing field is not level, those receiving the bulk of the wealth do so because they make the rules in their own favor and against the average worker

In the test we call life, they receive the answers in advance and are unlikely to fail

In the test we call life, you just failed first grade. Looking for excuses for failure is the definition of a loser. Even with government attempting to shut down opportunity, it is still all around you. All you have to do is quit making excuses and take advantage of it.

Yes, the vast majority of the students getting the "A"s are getting them through merit and hard work, and the vast majority of the people who are getting ahead in life are getting there through merit and hard work.

Success is not a difficult subject and it can be explained through the following: There are five different ways to earn a living and/or get ahead in life. The first is pure manual labor. There is a whole lot of it available and consequently it pays very little. The second is a combination of manual labor and mental labor, referred to as skilled labor. There is less of this available, it pays better and it can support a decent life style. Third is talent. The ability to sing, dance, act, or throw a football. This is a gamble that can pay off well, or be a complete flop. The fourth is mental labor with a little manual labor thrown in. The professions, management, etc. It pays well and offers easy entrance into the fifth method.

The fifth method is putting your assets to work for you. Putting your money out to earn a return. This is just about the only way to extreme wealth.

Simplistic, but accurate. To succeed, one only has to create a plan to move themselves into the earning method that gives them a shot at even a better life. Flipping burgers and waiting tables can only be a means to that end.

Very good descriptions of the opportunities in life. Not everyone can move from one level to he next. A key difference among the levels is that only the fifth level is empowered to make the rules that they operate by.

 

[Vox]

It is fine by me as well, however with one addition - every system is balanced until the balance is tipped to one or the other direction.

For the last 80 years wealth distribution was more or less in the same range.
At it should be kept there.

The manufactured term "income inequality" was specifically designed to LIE.
Because income inequality does not matter - it changes every year, what matters is WEALTH inequality.

And the last has stayed more or less the same almost a century.

 

[Erand7899]

Lack of opportunity does not mean lack of any opportunity. You can rise to the point where you can support yourself and maybe afford a few luxuries. That is the most that many Americans can aspire to

But your analogy is that the students receiving the A gets them through merit and hard work. The playing field is not level, those receiving the bulk of the wealth do so because they make the rules in their own favor and against the average worker

In the test we call life, they receive the answers in advance and are unlikely to fail

In the test we call life, you just failed first grade. Looking for excuses for failure is the definition of a loser. Even with government attempting to shut down opportunity, it is still all around you. All you have to do is quit making excuses and take advantage of it.

Yes, the vast majority of the students getting the "A"s are getting them through merit and hard work, and the vast majority of the people who are getting ahead in life are getting there through merit and hard work.

Success is not a difficult subject and it can be explained through the following: There are five different ways to earn a living and/or get ahead in life. The first is pure manual labor. There is a whole lot of it available and consequently it pays very little. The second is a combination of manual labor and mental labor, referred to as skilled labor. There is less of this available, it pays better and it can support a decent life style. Third is talent. The ability to sing, dance, act, or throw a football. This is a gamble that can pay off well, or be a complete flop. The fourth is mental labor with a little manual labor thrown in. The professions, management, etc. It pays well and offers easy entrance into the fifth method.

The fifth method is putting your assets to work for you. Putting your money out to earn a return. This is just about the only way to extreme wealth.

Simplistic, but accurate. To succeed, one only has to create a plan to move themselves into the earning method that gives them a shot at even a better life. Flipping burgers and waiting tables can only be a means to that end.

Very good descriptions of the opportunities in life. Not everyone can move from one level to he next. A key difference among the levels is that only the fifth level is empowered to make the rules that they operate by.

They don't make those rules, the marketplace does, and the rules have changed very little over the centuries. There is little doubt that money can buy power and favors, but do you blame the money, or the people willing to sell the power and/or the favors?

The only way to control the political power of money is to limit the ability of politicians to sell favors. And, that means to limit the influence they have on the ability to earn money.

 

[007]

I just heard this on Bulls n Bears and I think its a great analogy.

Income inequality complaints are akin to taking an A student and giving him a B instead so the D student can have a C and pass even though someone else earned his grade.

Discuss

You're not getting the issue. Liberals aren't against income inequality in itself. I am totally okay with the idea of a CEO making much more money than a low level worker. What liberals don't like is the massive, ridiculous gap that actually exists between not just the poor, but the middle class as we'll. 1% of the population owns 40% of the nation's wealth. That is insane. Wages for the poor and and middle class have remained pitifully low since the 1930s despite the fact that productivity has grown exponentially in these classes. The wealthy on the other hand have had skyrocketing wages since the 1930s.

The proof is in the second link of my signature.

You can thank our government, and that means democrats and republicans ALIKE. They're all crocked as a dogs hind leg and greedy as they come. They're getting their palms greased all while making laws that make it possible for the rich to get richer, and they don't give a fuck about the poor, because when you're poor, you can't do shit about a damn thing. You have no power, no influence, and NO MONEY.

We're getting hosed alright, but you can't blame ONE PARTY. Our ENTIRE GOVERNMENT is to blame... ALL of them.

 

[Billy000]

It is fine by me as well, however with one addition - every system is balanced until the balance is tipped to one or the other direction.

For the last 80 years wealth distribution was more or less in the same range.
At it should be kept there.

The manufactured term "income inequality" was specifically designed to LIE.
Because income inequality does not matter - it changes every year, what matters is WEALTH inequality.

And the last has stayed more or less the same almost a century.

Are you aware of what you said here is 100% false?

Denial or ignorance. Which is it?

 

[007]

It is fine by me as well, however with one addition - every system is balanced until the balance is tipped to one or the other direction.

For the last 80 years wealth distribution was more or less in the same range.
At it should be kept there.

The manufactured term "income inequality" was specifically designed to LIE.
Because income inequality does not matter - it changes every year, what matters is WEALTH inequality.

And the last has stayed more or less the same almost a century.

YOU must have missed THIS...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTj9AcwkaKM]Wealth Inequality In America - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Vox]

Lack of opportunity does not mean lack of any opportunity. You can rise to the point where you can support yourself and maybe afford a few luxuries. That is the most that many Americans can aspire to

But your analogy is that the students receiving the A gets them through merit and hard work. The playing field is not level, those receiving the bulk of the wealth do so because they make the rules in their own favor and against the average worker

In the test we call life, they receive the answers in advance and are unlikely to fail

In the test we call life, you just failed first grade. Looking for excuses for failure is the definition of a loser. Even with government attempting to shut down opportunity, it is still all around you. All you have to do is quit making excuses and take advantage of it.

Yes, the vast majority of the students getting the "A"s are getting them through merit and hard work, and the vast majority of the people who are getting ahead in life are getting there through merit and hard work.

Success is not a difficult subject and it can be explained through the following: There are five different ways to earn a living and/or get ahead in life. The first is pure manual labor. There is a whole lot of it available and consequently it pays very little. The second is a combination of manual labor and mental labor, referred to as skilled labor. There is less of this available, it pays better and it can support a decent life style. Third is talent. The ability to sing, dance, act, or throw a football. This is a gamble that can pay off well, or be a complete flop. The fourth is mental labor with a little manual labor thrown in. The professions, management, etc. It pays well and offers easy entrance into the fifth method.

The fifth method is putting your assets to work for you. Putting your money out to earn a return. This is just about the only way to extreme wealth.

Simplistic, but accurate. To succeed, one only has to create a plan to move themselves into the earning method that gives them a shot at even a better life. Flipping burgers and waiting tables can only be a means to that end.

Very good descriptions of the opportunities in life. Not everyone can move from one level to he next. A key difference among the levels is that only the fifth level is empowered to make the rules that they operate by.

and that is as it has always been and will always be.

The key here is to live and let live.

In our system that rule more or less is applicable.
More applicable when more conservative government and legislators are in power, much less when left comes to power.
If the left is in total power - the life for everybody except the highest level becomes unbearable - nobody can breathe freely - and that is why the left can not be in a total power as it is murderous to the society.
Any society.

 

[Billy000]

I just heard this on Bulls n Bears and I think its a great analogy.

Income inequality complaints are akin to taking an A student and giving him a B instead so the D student can have a C and pass even though someone else earned his grade.

Discuss

You're not getting the issue. Liberals aren't against income inequality in itself. I am totally okay with the idea of a CEO making much more money than a low level worker. What liberals don't like is the massive, ridiculous gap that actually exists between not just the poor, but the middle class as we'll. 1% of the population owns 40% of the nation's wealth. That is insane. Wages for the poor and and middle class have remained pitifully low since the 1930s despite the fact that productivity has grown exponentially in these classes. The wealthy on the other hand have had skyrocketing wages since the 1930s.

The proof is in the second link of my signature.

You can thank our government, and that means democrats and republicans ALIKE. They're all crocked as a dogs hind leg and greedy as they come. They're getting their palms greased all while making laws that make it possible for the rich to get richer, and they don't give a fuck about the poor, because when you're poor, you can't do shit about a damn thing. You have no power, no influence, and NO MONEY.

We're getting hosed alright, but you can't blame ONE PARTY. Our ENTIRE GOVERNMENT is to blame... ALL of them.

What I blame is the corporate pull on our government. I blame corporations just as much as I do government. However, I also blame republicans much more than I do democrats.

 

[Vox]

It is fine by me as well, however with one addition - every system is balanced until the balance is tipped to one or the other direction.

For the last 80 years wealth distribution was more or less in the same range.
At it should be kept there.

The manufactured term "income inequality" was specifically designed to LIE.
Because income inequality does not matter - it changes every year, what matters is WEALTH inequality.

And the last has stayed more or less the same almost a century.

YOU must have missed THIS...

no, I did not miss anything

Share of wealth held by the Bottom 99% and Top 1% in the United States, 1922-2010.

Year Bottom 99% Top 1%
1922 63.3% 36.7%
1929 55.8% 44.2%
1933 66.7% 33.3%
1939 63.6% 36.4%
1945 70.2% 29.8%
1949 72.9% 27.1%
1953 68.8% 31.2%
1962 68.2% 31.8%
1965 65.6% 34.4%
1969 68.9% 31.1%
1972 70.9% 29.1%
1976 80.1% 19.9%
1979 79.5% 20.5%
1981 75.2% 24.8%
1983 69.1% 30.9%
1986 68.1% 31.9%
1989 64.3% 35.7%
1992 62.8% 37.2%
1995 61.5% 38.5%
1998 61.9% 38.1%
2001 66.6% 33.4%
2004 65.7% 34.3%
2007 65.4% 34.6%
2010 64.6% 35.4%
Sources: 1922-1989 data from Wolff (1996), 1992-2010 data from Wolff (2012)[23]

the figures prove what I said ( and I said it based on this table) and they also prove that when we have the left in power - the 1% accumulates MORE than 99%.

as it is happening in the last 5 years