Unequal distribution of wealth

[kiwiman127]

Notice that only lowering the super wealthy's taxes (Capital Gains/Dividends) is OK but lowering the taxes for the working class is wealth redistribution and class warfare?
Those crazy wingnuts just keep shooting themselves in the foot, all for a few crumbs that MAY fall of the wealthy's table that MIGHT fall their way.

 

[Revere]

Notice that only lowering the super wealthy's taxes (Capital Gains/Dividends) is OK but lowering the taxes for the working class is wealth redistribution and class warfare?
Those crazy wingnuts just keep shooting themselves in the foot, all for a few crumbs that MAY fall of the wealthy's table that MIGHT fall their way.

No, actually Obama will keep all tax brackets from rising.

But, how can you cut Federal income taxes for the lower 48% of wage earners who pay no Federal income taxes?

 

[rikules]

I'd like to know why the unequal distribution of wealth is a bad thing. This seems to be a major premise from those on the left, but it's like you just assume it's a bad thing without every really providing evidence or justifying the premise.

unequal distribution isn't a bad thing if, no matter how the pie is divided, EVERYONE has enough to eat, to spend on their families, to live decent and healthy lives

however
if the pie is divided to the point that SOME people get WAY TOO MUCH while others live in poverty and their children go hungry then "unequal distribution" has gone too far


I have no problem with CEO's and basketball players and doctors being rewarded heavily for their contributions

I do have a problem with a person being forced to work 2 jobs just to feed his/her family

 

[JFK_USA]

In other words, confiscation of wealth government deems excessive to do with as government dictates.

And here we have a case study in wingnuttery. Notice how the wingnut does not take issue with anything that was actually said. Notice how he attempts to fit what was said into his spoon fed dogma. Now, one could take his strawman at face value, that I am advocating economy by governemnt dictate or one could actually think a little.

How about some examples of this eeeeevil spending done by "dictate of government. A road. I mean, what could possibly be more evil than a road? I've got it! Clearly sewer systems are more evil than roads. Even more evil still? How about schools. OOOOooo, eeeevil.

But, the wingnut would just retreat in to secondary dogma regarding the relative eeeevilness of national as opposed to local government. Again, one could take the dogma at face value or one could actually think a little.

What monstrous eeeeevil does the federal government do by dictate? Hmmm, they form a military. They make things like rural electrification and the interstate highway system. They provide wildly popular social programs like Social Security and Medicare.

EEEeeeeevil.

So, not only does the wingnuts strawman not address the real world problems with the mal distribution of wealth, the rhetoric isn't even remotely reminiscent of the real world
I guess that's why we call them wingnuts.

Spin chuck duck dive...anything to obfuscate and evade the issue.
BTW, SS is NOT popular..In fact it's broke.
Wealth is not for distribution. Wealth is created and earned by those willing to work for it.
Creativity, achievement, success = wealth...Wealth does not mean "rich"...
Wealth in family, in home, in appreciating assets....A person could have $1,000 in his savings account...That is wealth.
Only takers, non-producers and freeloaders think in terms of redistribution.

And I don't work hard? Because my bachelors degree begs the differ and the fact that I can't get a full time permanent job right now sucks. To generalize is ridiculous. I am not a taker, I want to be paid properly for my education, not having to take internship after internship because i can't get a job because the degree isn't enough. I have to provide for a kid I did not plan on and I work hard. Just because I am not rich doesn't mean I don't work hard jackass.

 

[boedicca]

I'd like to know why the unequal distribution of wealth is a bad thing. This seems to be a major premise from those on the left, but it's like you just assume it's a bad thing without every really providing evidence or justifying the premise.

unequal distribution isn't a bad thing if, no matter how the pie is divided, EVERYONE has enough to eat, to spend on their families, to live decent and healthy lives

however
if the pie is divided to the point that SOME people get WAY TOO MUCH while others live in poverty and their children go hungry then "unequal distribution" has gone too far


I have no problem with CEO's and basketball players and doctors being rewarded heavily for their contributions

I do have a problem with a person being forced to work 2 jobs just to feed his/her family

My Dad worked two jobs. He did it because he felt a sense of responsibility to his numerous family. I never once heard him bemoan how evil rich people were because he had to work hard for a living.

 

[kiwiman127]

Notice that only lowering the super wealthy's taxes (Capital Gains/Dividends) is OK but lowering the taxes for the working class is wealth redistribution and class warfare?
Those crazy wingnuts just keep shooting themselves in the foot, all for a few crumbs that MAY fall of the wealthy's table that MIGHT fall their way.

No, actually Obama will keep all tax brackets from rising.

But, how can you cut Federal income taxes for the lower 48% of wage earners who pay no Federal income taxes?

===================
Good point, you can't cut taxes for those who don't pay Federal taxes.
And yep, Obama caved on the Bush tax cuts
Still, why is giving a tax cut to on targeted group class warfare/redistribution of wealth and when giving a tax cut to different targeted group not class warfare/redistribution of wealth? Call me crazy, but there seems to be some contradiction in that type of thinking.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Irksome Bowles wants government to grow at twice the rate of inflation.

Is that an "unequal distribution of wealth?"

Liberals do not think that way.
Liberals view government as the central ingredient of their lives.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I'd like to know why the unequal distribution of wealth is a bad thing. This seems to be a major premise from those on the left, but it's like you just assume it's a bad thing without every really providing evidence or justifying the premise.

unequal distribution isn't a bad thing if, no matter how the pie is divided, EVERYONE has enough to eat, to spend on their families, to live decent and healthy lives

however
if the pie is divided to the point that SOME people get WAY TOO MUCH while others live in poverty and their children go hungry then "unequal distribution" has gone too far


I have no problem with CEO's and basketball players and doctors being rewarded heavily for their contributions

I do have a problem with a person being forced to work 2 jobs just to feed his/her family

The contribution of said basketball player is dubious at best. What benefit to humanity does throwing a ball through a hoop produce?

And so what if a guy has to work 2 jobs? maybe he should have not had kids if he couldn't support them or maybe he should work on improving himself so as to be more valuable to the marketplace rather than expecting to receive the fruits of another's labor via confiscatory taxes and wealth redistribution.

 

[thereisnospoon]

When libs angrily expound on "tax cuts for the rich", what they are really saying is "if the rich do not get a tax cut, I will"....
Example...When the Bush admin sent $300 checks to individuals and $600 chdcks to two income families, low income libs who did not get a check creamed "where's my check!!!!!"...Case and point...I got into it with my sister in law over this. She said is wasn't fair for some people to get checks while people like her did not..
My reply was "you didn't pay any taxes last year. How do you figure that you should get a rebate when you had no taxes?"...
She stormed out of the room..

 

[boedicca]

When libs angrily expound on "tax cuts for the rich", what they are really saying is "if the rich do not get a tax cut, I will"....
Example...When the Bush admin sent $300 checks to individuals and $600 chdcks to two income families, low income libs who did not get a check creamed "where's my check!!!!!"...Case and point...I got into it with my sister in law over this. She said is wasn't fair for some people to get checks while people like her did not..
My reply was "you didn't pay any taxes last year. How do you figure that you should get a rebate when you had no taxes?"...
She stormed out of the room..

The Moonbats don't get it, but many of us do:

Suppose that everyday 10 men go to PJ's for lunch. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If it were paid the way we pay our taxes, the first four men would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1; the sixth would pay $3; the seventh $7; the eighth $12; the ninth $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59. The 10 men ate lunch in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until the owner threw them a curve.

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." Now lunch for the 10 would costs only $80. The first four are unaffected. They still eat for free. Can you figure out how to divvy up the $20 savings between the remaining six so that everyone gets his fair share?

The men realize that $20 divided by 6 is $3.33, but if they subtract that from everybody's share, then the fifth and the sixth man would end up being paid to eat their meal. The restaurant owner suggested that it would be only fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount that each paid and he started to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of $59. Outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man pointing to the tenth, "and he got $7!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!"

"That's true," shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks."

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor."

The nine men surrounded the tenth man and beat him up. The next day he didn't show up for lunch, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important: They were $52 short!

And that, boys and girls and college instructors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore. There are lots of good restaurants in Switzerland and the Caribbean.

A Tax Fable

 

[Vanquish]

Let me preface what I'm about to say with some personal perspective. I realize that to 99% of people reading this post, you're about to turn your brain off, but listen for a fucking second.

I like the invisible hand of economy. I like that some people achieve great things and succeed. I don't want or expect anyone to sacrifice themselves to give me a handout. The poverty problem will never be fixed.

Ok...that having been said, the history of the world boils down to this:

People with money and power use their money and power to stop others from getting money and power.

That's pretty much it. We're all on the Earth scrapping for scarce resources at the expense of someone else. We've banded together into groups in a hope that the collective good will protect us all, but most of us don't expect or want that to be a total handout/protection.

So where does that leave us. Well it's actually not a bad position...unless we fuck it up.

We live in a country where there are haves and have nots. Some people want to act like ostriches with their heads in the sand and keep people at arm's length to protect themselves. Reality says that the poverty of others will eventually affect the wealth of the rest. Translation: When you help others you help yourself. As almost everyone thinks they are kind and benevolent already, the question/issue becomes - but should I be forced to help? The answer is well/yes and no. It depends on what kind of help.

Some would have you think that centrally planned economies are evul, devul-worshipping methods, inspired to rob people. THERES NO SUCH THING AS A FREE MARKET PEOPLE!!! Any citizen who participates in a modern government has a centrally-planned economy where limitations stop things like child labor, consumer protections, and environmental safety. (to name a few)

So relating to the OP's question....There's nothing inherently wrong with uneven distribution...but there is a problem when uneven distrubution results in lack of consumer protection and unfair (yes fairness is a fundamental value in America - it's in the Constitution as Equal Protection) use of large sums of money to fuck over the have nots.

The rich aren't evil...but with wealth comes the ability to fuck people over in ways that just aren't constitutional or even moral. (Yes, the poor can be just as evil...just in a different way)

 

[Bfgrn]

I have said this before and lets see if it sticks

Its not redistribution of wealth that we are upset about. Its the disparity of wealth.

Wages have been stagnants for 30 years. In that time, the dollar has weaken and our purchasing power as a nation has decreased. Why do we have a thriving stock market on wall street yet go across the river and people in Newark have to wonder if they will have a good paying jobs.

We see all of our blue coller jobs leaving the country and what are we left with to be solid middle class? Join the Army (rely on the government) or go to college. Well every year tuition goes up. So people aren't making more money but the rates to get an education are. Plus the Bachelors degree is turning into the high school diploma of 40 years ago and I see many of the kids I graduated with getting a masters just to be competitive in this job market. Is the Master's degree going to be the new high school diploma? Then is our educational system actually legitimate because we let it everyone because we have to?

There is no social mobility. Its extremely tough to even get upper middle class. We are asking for a living wage for all as the minimum. We ask for good paying jobs because if we have more money, we buy more things, meaning more survival of TRUE small businesses instead of being outpriced by Wal-mart. Corporations are a form of slavery too. We must emancipate ourselves from the grips of the rich and demand we get paid a fair wage. We deserve to all have economic prosperity and Big Business keeps shrinking our wages year after year while they get rich.

The American Dream was for Immigrants to come here with no education but able to provide and thrive with their families, where kids could have a high school education and be just fine. Nowadays its unattainable in its impossible to live comfortably without a bachelors degree or more. If you don't have an education, don't come here because you would be worse off. We need to build again. We need to invest in America not India or China because its the right thing to do.

The problem is exacerbated because it is a 'buyer's market' for employers. And it will remain that way for a decade. College grads won't even cover their school loans.

Americans face "the fate of Robert Frost's hired man, the fate of having "nothing to look backward to with pride, and nothing to look forward to with hope."'

Remarks at Amherst College
President John F. Kennedy
Amherst, Massachusetts
October 26, 1963

"Harry Truman once said, 'There are 14 or 15 million Americans who have the resources to have representatives in Washington to protect their interests, and that the interests of the great mass of the other people - the 150 or 160 million - is the responsibility of the president of the United States, and I propose to fulfill it.'"
President John F. Kennedy

 

[thereisnospoon]

In other words, confiscation of wealth government deems excessive to do with as government dictates.

And here we have a case study in wingnuttery. Notice how the wingnut does not take issue with anything that was actually said. Notice how he attempts to fit what was said into his spoon fed dogma. Now, one could take his strawman at face value, that I am advocating economy by governemnt dictate or one could actually think a little.

How about some examples of this eeeeevil spending done by "dictate of government. A road. I mean, what could possibly be more evil than a road? I've got it! Clearly sewer systems are more evil than roads. Even more evil still? How about schools. OOOOooo, eeeevil.

But, the wingnut would just retreat in to secondary dogma regarding the relative eeeevilness of national as opposed to local government. Again, one could take the dogma at face value or one could actually think a little.

What monstrous eeeeevil does the federal government do by dictate? Hmmm, they form a military. They make things like rural electrification and the interstate highway system. They provide wildly popular social programs like Social Security and Medicare.

EEEeeeeevil.

So, not only does the wingnuts strawman not address the real world problems with the mal distribution of wealth, the rhetoric isn't even remotely reminiscent of the real world
I guess that's why we call them wingnuts.

Spin chuck duck dive...anything to obfuscate and evade the issue.
BTW, SS is NOT popular..In fact it's broke.
Wealth is not for distribution. Wealth is created and earned by those willing to work for it.
Creativity, achievement, success = wealth...Wealth does not mean "rich"...
Wealth in family, in home, in appreciating assets....A person could have $1,000 in his savings account...That is wealth.
Only takers, non-producers and freeloaders think in terms of redistribution.

And I don't work hard? Because my bachelors degree begs the differ and the fact that I can't get a full time permanent job right now sucks. To generalize is ridiculous. I am not a taker, I want to be paid properly for my education, not having to take internship after internship because i can't get a job because the degree isn't enough. I have to provide for a kid I did not plan on and I work hard. Just because I am not rich doesn't mean I don't work hard jackass.

Typical entitlement mentality.
You want to be "paid properly for your degree"..
No. You get paid based on your marketability, your skills, your value to your employer and your ability to help your employer turn a profit ..A profit so he can continue to keep you as an employee.
You tried to evade the issue you brought up....Distribution of wealth. When people refer to redistribution, they really mean redistribution from someone to THEM...
Cry me a river.
No one owes you or anyone else a thing.
Instead of looking for a job, why don't you use the creativity that helped you get your degree and make your own mark.
"not having to take internship after internship because i can't get a job because the degree isn't enough. I have to provide for a kid I did not plan on and I work hard. Just because I am not rich doesn't mean I don't work hard jackass."
n unplanned child?..Are you married? Committed relationship? If not, you need to accept responsibility for your child and stop whining about the "unplanned" part of his/her existence.
Oh...About your degree. Good luck..
Every year roughly 300,000 people earn associates, bachelors, or masters degrees. That is a lot of people for which to compete for work. There are also many thousands of experienced people out of work. They are competing for the same work.
Companies look at the bottom line. Now put yourself in their shoes for a moment.
Would you...Hire a seasoned person who has paid their dues, needs little or no training for a position or a fresh faced college grad who needs extensive training and years of experience to become proficient?...
Perhaps the struggles you are going through are in your resume. You stated you have done multiple internships.
In the world of HR hiring managers, that shows a lack of stability.
Just saying...
Good luck in your search. It is my sincere hope you find success in whatever you choose to do. I hope you make tons of money and give your child a brilliant future

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'd like to know why the unequal distribution of wealth is a bad thing. This seems to be a major premise from those on the left, but it's like you just assume it's a bad thing without every really providing evidence or justifying the premise.

Because consumer spending drives the economy. When wealth is held by fewer consumers, there are fewer customers, therefore less spending.

When a CEO is paid 400, 500, 700 times what the average production employee is paid, it has to be due to exploitation. Are you defending exploitative economic practices? Where then should the exploitation stop? After wages? After health and safety? After environmental damage?

exploitation of what? Someone's inability to compete in the market place ?

Apparently, in Nosmo's mind, if the business I recently started eventually develops into a corporation with employees, and I as the CEO then make a much higher salary than my cleaning and maintenance people, it can only be due to exploitation, presumably of the cleaning and maintenance people, who wouldn't have had that job at all had I not put in the years of labor to create the business, or possibly of Nosmo because he/she sat on his/her fat ass, scarfing Doritos while I worked my ass off to make a small business into a corporation.

I think that's how that theory works, but I'm not a leftist, so it's hard to get my head up my ass far enough to see their point of view.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Because consumer spending drives the economy. When wealth is held by fewer consumers, there are fewer customers, therefore less spending.

When a CEO is paid 400, 500, 700 times what the average production employee is paid, it has to be due to exploitation. Are you defending exploitative economic practices? Where then should the exploitation stop? After wages? After health and safety? After environmental damage?

And again... someone's else's nest egg amount is your business why??

Do you not have the freedom to earn all the money you can and accumulate all the wealth you can??

You have the freedom to succeed that goes hand in hand with the freedom to fail... if you get 100X what you are worth, good for you.. if you get half of what you are worth, too bad too sad... either way it is up to you

You're defending the alleged "freedom" to exploit people for you own benefit. If such a freedom really existed, why not allow indentured servitude? You owe me a debt, like the company house my coal mine built. You must work the mine for the rent of that house. At the end of the day, if you haven't satisfied the rent, you must work it off until you do. If that means you get nothing in compensation for your work other than housing, tough. You have the "freedom" to crawl out of this village and starve until you find other work. A Conservative's wet dream.

Yes, because all business and employment in this country is equivalent to the practices of coal mining companies in the early 20th century. Spoken like a true couch potato on the dole.

 

[The Rabbi]

I'd like to know why the unequal distribution of wealth is a bad thing. This seems to be a major premise from those on the left, but it's like you just assume it's a bad thing without every really providing evidence or justifying the premise.

speaking of distribution of wealth....

as more and more jobs disappear because of automation, computers and robotics, I can see a time at which MOST people become unemployed.....

we even have the military working on robot-troops to replace people....

i imagine that at that point ONLY the very best, brightest, strongest, most useful will have "jobs"/"positions"

maybe...10% of the population? 15%?

my q; since we all know that it would be completely unfair for the 10% of the population who have ALL THE WEALTH to have to pay any money at all just to support lazy good for nothing freeloaders, what should be done with/to the unemployed?

cultivated for spare parts for the wealthy?
slavery?
extermination?
set loose in the wilds and hunted for sport?

In 1890 about 90% of the US population worked in agriculture. Since then mechanization has taken most of those jobs so now less than 10% work in agriculture.
What happened to the people with all those ag jobs? Were they set loose to be hunted? Cultivated for spare parts?
Liberals see people as liabilities. Conservatives see them as assets.

 

[The Rabbi]

Notice that only lowering the super wealthy's taxes (Capital Gains/Dividends) is OK but lowering the taxes for the working class is wealth redistribution and class warfare?
Those crazy wingnuts just keep shooting themselves in the foot, all for a few crumbs that MAY fall of the wealthy's table that MIGHT fall their way.

Stupid post of the day.

Most middle class people derive income from cap gains and dividends.
You cannot lower taxes for the working class (whoever they are) because they generally pay no taxes.

The leftwingnuts just don't get it. They cannot get class warfare and envy out of their minds. "He's got more! Take it!"

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I'd like to know why the unequal distribution of wealth is a bad thing. This seems to be a major premise from those on the left, but it's like you just assume it's a bad thing without every really providing evidence or justifying the premise.

unequal ? try history. what happens to societies without a middle class?

 

[Revere]

Explosive dependency on government redistribution is not a middle class.

 

[The Rabbi]

I'd like to know why the unequal distribution of wealth is a bad thing. This seems to be a major premise from those on the left, but it's like you just assume it's a bad thing without every really providing evidence or justifying the premise.

unequal ? try history. what happens to societies without a middle class?

Gee, I dunno. You tell us. What happens to societies without a middle class? Cite historic examples.