"Income Inequality": So What?

[OohPooPahDoo]

By designating "income inequality" as a problem to be "solved" by government, you are presupposing that government has the right or the power to direct the activities of the economy. It has no such right under the United States Constitution. The right to tax, and more poignantly the right to tax incomes, is merely a means of raising funds to pay for the legitimate functions of the Federal Goverment, which functions are listed - at least theoretically - in Article I Section 8. (for example, to administer immigration and naturalization, run the post offices, fund the military services, and so on). The power to tax incomes was never intended to be a device for income re-distribution from the top to the bottom, or to "level the playing field," so to speak.

The power to tax may be used to provide for the general welfare. Says so in Article I Section 8.

Again, the Government has no right to do this.

Other than whine like a bitch, what do you intend to do about it?

 

[Katzndogz]

The general welfare clause pertains to the nation, not sending a check every month to someone who wants to play video games and smoke dope all day.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The general welfare clause pertains to the nation, not sending a check every month to someone who wants to play video games and smoke dope all day.

OK.

Thanks for your utterly useless input.

 

[Katzndogz]

The general welfare clause pertains to the nation, not sending a check every month to someone who wants to play video games and smoke dope all day.

OK.

Thanks for your utterly useless input.

Do you think that the general welfare clause means the government sends a check to the useless every month? Defend yourself.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The general welfare clause pertains to the nation, not sending a check every month to someone who wants to play video games and smoke dope all day.

OK.

Thanks for your utterly useless input.

Do you think that the general welfare clause means the government sends a check to the useless every month? Defend yourself.

No.

I think it means the Congress can spend the People's money providing for the general welfare. That is what the Constitution says, isn't it? Let's check.

The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Yep!

 

[gallantwarrior]

My daughter dropped out of school in her junior year, despite the fact that I was regularly monitoring her classes, because she was bored out of her mind. She dropped with my approval, with my admonishment that she would have a harder "row to hoe". I also told her that she would be required to have a job within the month and her GED within six months. Both requirements were fulfilled. She also finished her first semester in the university before deciding to be a stay-at-home mom who dedicated herself to bringing her children up herself. She's now studying to become a veterinarian.

 

[rightwinger]

My daughter dropped out of school in her junior year, despite the fact that I was regularly monitoring her classes, because she was bored out of her mind. She dropped with my approval, with my admonishment that she would have a harder "row to hoe". I also told her that she would be required to have a job within the month and her GED within six months. Both requirements were fulfilled. She also finished her first semester in the university before deciding to be a stay-at-home mom who dedicated herself to bringing her children up herself. She's now studying to become a veterinarian.

Just curious but you didn't mention a husband. Is she married?

 

[gallantwarrior]

My daughter dropped out of school in her junior year, despite the fact that I was regularly monitoring her classes, because she was bored out of her mind. She dropped with my approval, with my admonishment that she would have a harder "row to hoe". I also told her that she would be required to have a job within the month and her GED within six months. Both requirements were fulfilled. She also finished her first semester in the university before deciding to be a stay-at-home mom who dedicated herself to bringing her children up herself. She's now studying to become a veterinarian.

Just curious but you didn't mention a husband. Is she married?

Yes, she's married. Her husband just returned from his THIRD deployment to the ME in eight years.

 

[rightwinger]

My daughter dropped out of school in her junior year, despite the fact that I was regularly monitoring her classes, because she was bored out of her mind. She dropped with my approval, with my admonishment that she would have a harder "row to hoe". I also told her that she would be required to have a job within the month and her GED within six months. Both requirements were fulfilled. She also finished her first semester in the university before deciding to be a stay-at-home mom who dedicated herself to bringing her children up herself. She's now studying to become a veterinarian.

Just curious but you didn't mention a husband. Is she married?

Yes, she's married. Her husband just returned from his THIRD deployment to the ME in eight years.

Good for them. Sounds like a great couple

 

[gallantwarrior]

My daughter dropped out of school in her junior year, despite the fact that I was regularly monitoring her classes, because she was bored out of her mind. She dropped with my approval, with my admonishment that she would have a harder "row to hoe". I also told her that she would be required to have a job within the month and her GED within six months. Both requirements were fulfilled. She also finished her first semester in the university before deciding to be a stay-at-home mom who dedicated herself to bringing her children up herself. She's now studying to become a veterinarian.

Just curious but you didn't mention a husband. Is she married?

Yes, she is married. They have managed to avoid becoming enslaved by the common pitfall of easy money. They do not have credit cards and avoid having them. They have paid off their car (a rather modest model). They represent a nuclear family with a mother whose primary function is to raise children and support the husband's career. I will not tell you that it is easy for her, but she accepts her role and deals with it. I would be hard pressed to do the same....

 

[Againsheila]

The rising tide no longer raises all boats. Instead of ambition, our poor has envy. Instead of initiative they have jealously. Whether it's a big boat or a dinghy the boat has to be rowed. In our system, we have a few people doing the rowing, with many of them entitled to be along for the ride and demanding the lifejackets.

You are accusing the poor of lack of ambition and envy..completely avoiding the primary reason for the income gap, GREED. How many $billions did our government give the bankers and what do you think would have happened if they'd given that money to those who would spend it instead?

As you know, I volunteer at a local church and give out lunches every monday. Most of the people we see are having hard times, some through choice, other because of things done to them...we lost one of our regulars today due to pneumonia. He was not even 30. His whole life ahead of him and no job no matter how much he tried looking. Of course, it's hard to get hired when you have no address.

I'll bet a lot of you are now thinking how good it is that this young man is gone...no more hand outs for him....I pity you.

 

[rightwinger]

My daughter dropped out of school in her junior year, despite the fact that I was regularly monitoring her classes, because she was bored out of her mind. She dropped with my approval, with my admonishment that she would have a harder "row to hoe". I also told her that she would be required to have a job within the month and her GED within six months. Both requirements were fulfilled. She also finished her first semester in the university before deciding to be a stay-at-home mom who dedicated herself to bringing her children up herself. She's now studying to become a veterinarian.

Just curious but you didn't mention a husband. Is she married?

Yes, she is married. They have managed to avoid becoming enslaved by the common pitfall of easy money. They do not have credit cards and avoid having them. They have paid off their car (a rather modest model). They represent a nuclear family with a mother whose primary function is to raise children and support the husband's career. I will not tell you that it is easy for her, but she accepts her role and deals with it. I would be hard pressed to do the same....

Sad to say it is rare in these times. Neither of my kids are married yet but many of their friends from high school have multiple children from multiple mates with no job prospects. It is sad to see kids you thought were pretty stable screw up their lives
Your daughter and son in law seem like they have their lives together. Rare in this generation

 

[Desperado]

I guess in the world according to rabbi, folks like romney, who were born with a silver spoon in their mouth and live a life of privilege, work hard and are automatically smarter. Is that correct?

Sometimes you can't beat dumb luck.
What do you want to do about it?
Massive inheritance tax so the kids of the rich cannot benefit from their family?

 

[rightwinger]

I guess in the world according to rabbi, folks like romney, who were born with a silver spoon in their mouth and live a life of privilege, work hard and are automatically smarter. Is that correct?

Sometimes you can't beat dumb luck.
What do you want to do about it?
Massive inheritance tax so the kids of the rich cannot benefit from their family?

We can start by assuming that those born standing on third base did not hit a triple

 

[Liability]

There is a difference. The size of the difference has grown over the past x number of years. And? I mean, seriously, "So what?"

Why is this necessarily a "bad" thing?

Even if it "is" a supposedly "bad" thing, what is the "solution" to this alleged "problem?"

Is income inequality a bad thing? That's a toughie.

Moderate income inequality is definitely a GOOD thing. I don’t think doctors with 12 years of schooling beyond high school should make the same wage as a guy who mans a register at Jewel. Communism doesn't work with humans.

However...

Too much inequality is a BAD thing. Why? As I’ve stated before, I think wealth concentration can diminish group potential. If a country has the resources to educate 100% of its population, but distributes wealth in a way where only 50-60% can access that education effectively, than the country will be “missing out” on the gains that could have come from the minds – if properly cultivated – from that bottom 40%. A statewide pool of 1,000,000 students will likely yield a much smarter "top person" than a countywide pool of 1,000 students.

Also, excessive wealth inequality will lead to instability, revolution, and sometimes violence.

.

YOUR notions of what is "good" or "bad" are purely matters of belief.

I did not ask for some ungrounded vague opinions or impressions.

As noted in the paper I linked to earlier, there is reason to conclude that income inequality is in FACT a good thing.

All of this, by the way, is a pretty ephemeral conversation since the use of terms which fail to even define what we mean when we talk of the "top earners" makes the conversation more a matter of impression and feelings than of facts.

And your effort to steer the conversation to "education" is interesting, but actually pretty much off topic.

,

 

[Liability]

income inequality is a measure of the difference between the top real incomes and the bottom real incomes. Its been increasing in our nation. For a while now.

Anything else you need?

Well, that IS one definition.

Others claim it is a measure of the rate of change in the "gap" between the "top" real income earners (however those folks may be defined) and the bottom level of real income earners.

But let's pretend that your definition is "the" correct one.

There is a difference. The size of the difference has grown over the past x number of years. And? I mean, seriously, "So what?"

Why is this necessarily a "bad" thing?

Even if it "is" a supposedly "bad" thing, what is the "solution" to this alleged "problem?"

An ever widening gap means eventually a tiny number of people will own everything and everyone else will own nothing.

No. It doesn't.

That claim you just made is purely stupid.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The general welfare clause pertains to the nation, not sending a check every month to someone who wants to play video games and smoke dope all day.

OK.

Thanks for your utterly useless input.

Yes and you treat the facts like a cold bucket of water in your face at 5:30 AM.
It sucks for you, but the facts are just that. Facts.

 

[thereisnospoon]

By designating "income inequality" as a problem to be "solved" by government, you are presupposing that government has the right or the power to direct the activities of the economy. It has no such right under the United States Constitution. The right to tax, and more poignantly the right to tax incomes, is merely a means of raising funds to pay for the legitimate functions of the Federal Goverment, which functions are listed - at least theoretically - in Article I Section 8. (for example, to administer immigration and naturalization, run the post offices, fund the military services, and so on). The power to tax incomes was never intended to be a device for income re-distribution from the top to the bottom, or to "level the playing field," so to speak.

The power to tax may be used to provide for the general welfare. Says so in Article I Section 8.

Again, the Government has no right to do this.

Other than whine like a bitch, what do you intend to do about it?

You people on the left have for your own reasons omitted a word from the general welfare clause. The word is "for"...You people believe it reads "provide general welfare"..
It does not say that and there is no intent for the clause to mean that either.
General welfare means one thing., To make sure the freedom and liberty of the people is preserved.

 

[rightwinger]

By designating "income inequality" as a problem to be "solved" by government, you are presupposing that government has the right or the power to direct the activities of the economy. It has no such right under the United States Constitution. The right to tax, and more poignantly the right to tax incomes, is merely a means of raising funds to pay for the legitimate functions of the Federal Goverment, which functions are listed - at least theoretically - in Article I Section 8. (for example, to administer immigration and naturalization, run the post offices, fund the military services, and so on). The power to tax incomes was never intended to be a device for income re-distribution from the top to the bottom, or to "level the playing field," so to speak.

The power to tax may be used to provide for the general welfare. Says so in Article I Section 8.

Again, the Government has no right to do this.

Other than whine like a bitch, what do you intend to do about it?

You people on the left have for your own reasons omitted a word from the general welfare clause. The word is "for"...You people believe it reads "provide general welfare"..
It does not say that and there is no intent for the clause to mean that either.
General welfare means one thing., To make sure the freedom and liberty of the people is preserved.

Provide "for" the general welfare

Do what is best for the country

 

[regent]

As soon as the ink was dry on the Constitution the Washington administration passed laws helping America's infant industries. Was this a form of government helping create income equality for industry? In any case since those laws were passed the government has always been involved in our economy. America has never had a free unregulated capitalistic economy and I wonder if anyone can name the nations that do have free unregulated capitalistic economy? The kind of economy Republicans pretend they'll bring back.