Lets talk about income inequality

[TakeAStepBack]

nope. the WEALTH distribution is THE SAME as 40 years ago.

Wealth Distribution? Ok, what happened to income inequality? I'm confused..

income inequality does not matter at the very end.what matters is the whole WEALTH inequality.

and the latter did not change much for the last 40 years.

as a country we did accumulate wealth - and the distribution of it's accumulation is the same as 40 years ago.
which just proves that income per se is not the main driver of wealth accommodation.

OK, you should stop now. You're starting to sound rather ignorant on the subject.....

How can income not matter in the end, when wealth is a measure of the abiltiy to procure resources and valuables?

Should they pay in peanut shells?

 

[zeke]

So now the republican story concerning the wealthy getting richer and the rest of us getting by, is that it's no different now than the past 40 years.

And you all seem to believe that. Of course, you all believed Mittens would win the White House. So what's that tell ya?

But if the wealthy control the same amount and the middle class was more prosperous and holding more of the nations wealth, I guess the poor people must of been even poorer. Is that correct?
It must be. There is only so much wealth to hold.

But you all don't have a problem with any of that.

If the ultra wealthy controlled 50% of the nations wealth, would that be good? How about 75% What is the magic number where the wealthy control our wealth and income where you think it might cause a problem? And what might that problem be?

stop screeching. the wealth distribution has never been 50-50. neither has it been 75% of the wealth in the hands of the hated 1%. It was up to 80% once in the hands of 99% - and it was during REPUBLICAN administration

1% accumulates more wealth during dimocrap administration - the gap was much bigger during Clinton, than during Bush and increased during obama again.

The ONLY reason the wealthy have not been able to control even more of the nations wealth in the past is because of government.

Now that populism has died and plutocrats rule, the percentage of the nations wealth will continue to be held in fewer and fewer hands. Just the way our world is.

But if you are to stupid to see that, oh well. You don't even have enough sense to look at what could happen in the future as fewer people hold more wealth.

You all act like the ultra wealthy have YOUR interests at heart. Funny shit. It's all about power and control. More wealth is more power and control. And the ultra wealthy of the world have a long history of doing things to bring them more wealth and power. The ultra wealthy will work to take as much of everything as we the people will allow.

Why you support that I have no idea.

 

[KissMy]

Income should not be identical. Nor should the government forcibly distribute someone elses income to me nor mine to them. There is nothing charitable about robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Instead, let us of our own volition use the resources we have been blessed with to bless others in need. Let us be liberal and prayerful in our personal charity and handle public coffers with strict integrity.

That is how things should be. Let's do good instead of expecting the government to do to good while we play the miser.

Why do you want the billionaires lobbying government to forcibly steal your wealth & destroy your business just because they can buy more influence than you?

Why do you enjoy government forcibly taxing your earnings to subsidize them, so they can afford lawyers to thread tax loopholes keeps them from paying taxes?

Do you enjoy their market & currency manipulations that wipe out your wealth & investments?

Do you want them to be the only ones who can afford to invest to make money or retire?

 

[Vox]

Wealth Distribution? Ok, what happened to income inequality? I'm confused..

income inequality does not matter at the very end.
what matters is the whole WEALTH inequality.

and the latter did not change much for the last 40 years.

as a country we did accumulate wealth - and the distribution of it's accumulation is the same as 40 years ago.
which just proves that income per se is not the main driver of wealth accommodation.

Hey ain't that confusing. I thought you said that the growing inequality of wealth and income doesn't matter. Now you write that income inequality is not what matters. "What matters is the whole WEALTH inequality."

SO explain if you can, what does it matter?

if it's confusing - educate yourself on the subject. I am not your free teacher.

 

[zeke]

Wealth Distribution? Ok, what happened to income inequality? I'm confused..

income inequality does not matter at the very end.what matters is the whole WEALTH inequality.

and the latter did not change much for the last 40 years.

as a country we did accumulate wealth - and the distribution of it's accumulation is the same as 40 years ago.
which just proves that income per se is not the main driver of wealth accommodation.

OK, you should stop now. You're starting to sound rather ignorant on the subject.....

How can income not matter in the end, when wealth is a measure of the abiltiy to procure resources and valuables?

Should they pay in peanut shells?

Two opposite sides of the spectrum having trouble with this statement BY vOX. That's funny.

That vox dude does say some weird things.

 

[zeke]

income inequality does not matter at the very end.
what matters is the whole WEALTH inequality.

and the latter did not change much for the last 40 years.

as a country we did accumulate wealth - and the distribution of it's accumulation is the same as 40 years ago.
which just proves that income per se is not the main driver of wealth accommodation.

Hey ain't that confusing. I thought you said that the growing inequality of wealth and income doesn't matter. Now you write that income inequality is not what matters. "What matters is the whole WEALTH inequality."

SO explain if you can, what does it matter?

if it's confusing - educate yourself on the subject. I am not your free teacher.

Here let me educate YOU then. Just write this; I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FUCK I AM TALKING ABOUT BUT I SURE DO LIKE WHAT I SAID.

Write that and you will at LEAST sound truthful if not intelligent.

 

[Edgetho]

Income should not be identical. Nor should the government forcibly distribute someone elses income to me nor mine to them. There is nothing charitable about robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Instead, let us of our own volition use the resources we have been blessed with to bless others in need. Let us be liberal and prayerful in our personal charity and handle public coffers with strict integrity.

That is how things should be. Let's do good instead of expecting the government to do to good while we play the miser.

Why do you want the billionaires lobbying government to forcibly steal your wealth & destroy your business just because they can buy more influence than you?

Why do you enjoy government forcibly taxing your earnings to subsidize them, so they can afford lawyers to thread tax loopholes keeps them from paying taxes?

Do you enjoy their market & currency manipulations that wipe out your wealth & investments?

Do you want them to be the only ones who can afford to invest to make money or retire?

Have you ever considered that most people are poor because they're stupid and/or lazy?

You should think about that

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Actually heres an article about it...

Christian Economics: Dangers of Income Inequality

What happened since that article was written?

Sun rose and set, seasons change, people were born and people died

Executive salaries have dropped.

 

[Vox]

Wealth Distribution? Ok, what happened to income inequality? I'm confused..

income inequality does not matter at the very end.what matters is the whole WEALTH inequality.

and the latter did not change much for the last 40 years.

as a country we did accumulate wealth - and the distribution of it's accumulation is the same as 40 years ago.
which just proves that income per se is not the main driver of wealth accommodation.

OK, you should stop now. You're starting to sound rather ignorant on the subject.....

How can income not matter in the end, when wealth is a measure of the abiltiy to procure resources and valuables?

Should they pay in peanut shells?

because your income changes from the year to the year and what matters when, let's say, you retire and want to enjoy life - what you have as a net worth.

It is the wealth ( which are your accumulated assets minus your personal debts) which is the base for that life being enjoyable or not.

That does not mean that income growth should not be better and faster - but for its stalling one can be thankful for the exponential expansion of the government overreach and it's strangling power on income growth.

Nevertheless, despite increased screaming from the left about growing inequalityt between top 1% and other 99% - IT IS NOT TRUE - as the figures reflecting accumulated wealth distribution do not support.
In other words - the amount of poor is not getting bigger and the top 1% does not get to have all the wealth for themselves - distribution of wealth did not change for the last 40 years.

so we are not even near any potential revolutionary situation, despite fearmongering from the left.

p.s. when I first encountered this proportion I was surprised myself, because I expected to see a growing gap as well. Given the propaganda one hears daily.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Its not a problem because there are always rich and poor. But when the gap is too large those societies crumble. By crumble I don't mean like a delicious cookie either

In other words, it is a self correcting problem.

You ever seen a self correcting cookie?

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/self-destructing-cookies/

 

[Redfish]

societies crumble when they lose their moral and ethical compass, not because of the number of rich vs poor. When morals and ethics are lost, the elites take control of the money and the means of making money--------i.e. obama and marx.

 

[Vox]

The ONLY reason the wealthy have not been able to control even more of the nations wealth in the past is because of government.

Now that populism has died and plutocrats rule, the percentage of the nations wealth will continue to be held in fewer and fewer hands. Just the way our world is.

But if you are to stupid to see that, oh well. You don't even have enough sense to look at what could happen in the future as fewer people hold more wealth.

You all act like the ultra wealthy have YOUR interests at heart. Funny shit. It's all about power and control. More wealth is more power and control. And the ultra wealthy of the world have a long history of doing things to bring them more wealth and power. The ultra wealthy will work to take as much of everything as we the people will allow.

Why you support that I have no idea.

BULLSHIT.

It is because of the government that the income growth is STALLED - because of it's overreach and strangling grip on the private initiative.
and increased taxation.

but you are too stupid to realize that. as all the leftards are.
you are even too stupid to see that your mantra "the percentage of the nations wealth will continue to be held in fewer and fewer hands" - which is a TOTAL LIE - the figures of wealth distribution prove exactly the opposite - it did not change much for the last 40 years.

what that distribution figures show, though is waht we know all along - but you, stupid leftards are too dumb to comprehend - it is the DEMOCRATIC PARTY which INCREASES the gap between wealth distribution when it is in power - it was wider during Clinton years than Bush's and it has increased during obama again.

but you keep spewing the lies about "bleeding hearts leftists". yeah, bleeding. from GREED

 

[ClosedCaption]

Income should not be identical. Nor should the government forcibly distribute someone elses income to me nor mine to them. There is nothing charitable about robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Instead, let us of our own volition use the resources we have been blessed with to bless others in need. Let us be liberal and prayerful in our personal charity and handle public coffers with strict integrity.

That is how things should be. Let's do good instead of expecting the government to do to good while we play the miser.

Why do you want the billionaires lobbying government to forcibly steal your wealth & destroy your business just because they can buy more influence than you?

Why do you enjoy government forcibly taxing your earnings to subsidize them, so they can afford lawyers to thread tax loopholes keeps them from paying taxes?

Do you enjoy their market & currency manipulations that wipe out your wealth & investments?

Do you want them to be the only ones who can afford to invest to make money or retire?

Have you ever considered that most people are poor because they're stupid and/or lazy?

You should think about that

See the "simple thinking" thread posted in politics. Don't do that

 

[Againsheila]

I have been told it causes crime, gun violence, and is unfair. I say that it isn't a problem and that life ain't fair.

Anyone want to tell me why I am wrong?

Well, there's income inequality and then there's wealth disparity. When the top 10% of the nation owns more wealth than the bottom 90% combined, there is something wrong. No country can long stand with such a disparity of wealth.

 

[KissMy]

Income should not be identical. Nor should the government forcibly distribute someone elses income to me nor mine to them. There is nothing charitable about robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Instead, let us of our own volition use the resources we have been blessed with to bless others in need. Let us be liberal and prayerful in our personal charity and handle public coffers with strict integrity.

That is how things should be. Let's do good instead of expecting the government to do to good while we play the miser.

Why do you want the billionaires lobbying government to forcibly steal your wealth & destroy your business just because they can buy more influence than you?

Why do you enjoy government forcibly taxing your earnings to subsidize them, so they can afford lawyers to thread tax loopholes keeps them from paying taxes?

Do you enjoy their market & currency manipulations that wipe out your wealth & investments?

Do you want them to be the only ones who can afford to invest to make money or retire?

Have you ever considered that most people are poor because they're stupid and/or lazy?

You should think about that

You ever think people are poor because they have morals. They refuse to place all their good wealth producing assets in their "good corporation" & cram all the toxic shit into a "good corporation" owned by others & make government pay for the cleanup while pointing at the stupid poor.

 

[Againsheila]

societies crumble when they lose their moral and ethical compass, not because of the number of rich vs poor. When morals and ethics are lost, the elites take control of the money and the means of making money--------i.e. obama and marx.

Yeah, but it's the moral and ethical loss that had lent to the wealth disparity. GREED is a destroyer and it's rampant in our society today.

 

[ClosedCaption]

societies crumble when they lose their moral and ethical compass, not because of the number of rich vs poor. When morals and ethics are lost, the elites take control of the money and the means of making money--------i.e. obama and marx.

All intangibles...Why not high levels of fear and loathing?

 

[Vox]

Hey ain't that confusing. I thought you said that the growing inequality of wealth and income doesn't matter. Now you write that income inequality is not what matters. "What matters is the whole WEALTH inequality."

SO explain if you can, what does it matter?

if it's confusing - educate yourself on the subject. I am not your free teacher.

Here let me educate YOU then. Just write this; I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FUCK I AM TALKING ABOUT BUT I SURE DO LIKE WHAT I SAID.

Write that and you will at LEAST sound truthful if not intelligent.

idiot, I posted the FIGURES from the study which exposed this revelation.
and the link to the whole study.

learn to read and compare numbers.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Inequality corrupts. It corrupts society at all levels. At the top, otherwise normal people will do morally despicable things if the payoff is high enough. A million dollars a year compensates for a lot of cognitive dissonance. At the bottom, inequality also forces people to make choices they would never otherwise make. When people have stable, well-paying jobs with full health insurance, sick pay, and vacation time they are very unlikely to steal from other people. They are very unlikely to deal drugs, mug people at gunpoint, or steal cars. Even when inequality is low, there are corrupt politicians and depraved criminals. But when inequality is high the incentives at both ends of the spectrum become much stronger. Inequality doesn’t make people behave badly, but it encourages people to behave badly. - See more at: How Inequality Corrupts Society | Inequality.org

now I will say that this makes more sense than blaming "feelings" for crumbling societies 10 times out of 10

 

[Seawytch]

I have been told it causes crime, gun violence, and is unfair. I say that it isn't a problem and that life ain't fair.

Anyone want to tell me why I am wrong?

The French aristocracy didn't think it was a problem either...