Unequal distribution of wealth

[The T]

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 of wealth is not a bad thing, as the enlisted military example will show. The E-1 pay grade is somewhat less than the E-2 and the E-2 is substantially less than the E-8, and so on up through the officer ranks. This example represents a practical, well-planned, equitably reasoned scale of expediently unequal distribution.

Another acceptable example of unequal distribution was the typical ratio of salary disparity between the corporate CEO and the lowest paid employee during the most productive and economically stable period in our history. At that time the typical ratio was the CEO earned around forty times more than the lowest paid employee. But that level of acceptably unequal distribution began to change when Ronald Reagan became President.

Today the typical ratio is a corporate CEO earns at least four hundred times more than the lowest paid employee. And at a time when wages have remained stagnant since 1980, at a time when more and more corporate employees are losing their retirement benefits, at a time when American jobs are being "outsourced" and American workers are being forced to compete with virtual slaves in foreign countries, at a time when some corporate CEOs are going home with $300,000,000 bonuses, at a time when bankers and Wall Street speculators are driving hard-working people from the homes they were scammed into putting their savings into, it is time to acknowledge that we are not talking about unequal distribution but wholly unacceptable and excessively unequal distribution of our Nation's resources (wealth).

Unequal is acceptable. Excessively unequal is not. America needs to get back to the time when the economy was operating smoothly and everyone was making a living. And if it takes going back to the progressive tax rate with a 91% cap, so be it. It is us against them and while they won't like it they will still be rich.

Ok...suppose you get your way( thank God this will never happen) and the government decides it is entitled to confiscate all but 9% of the highest earners wealth, then what?
Are you assuming that money will be passed along to you?
Yours is typical class envy. Getting even. yiu view taxation as punishment to those who you view as "having more than their fair share"...
Look dummy, there is no "share". There is no pie from which we all eat.
The notion that if one makes more therefore another MUST make less is FALSE....
Wealth is created. it does not exist in imaginary pot off in some faraway land..
Stop bitching about what others have and what you don't have. Go earn it yourself.

Correct. The PIE can always be made larger. Problem is? The Government eats it up before it is put into the oven.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Does the middle class have a better shot at making a comeback if Obama creates another $2T in debt?

The middle class, oh you mean the new poor. You know the ones whose wealth was so nicely distributed to the poor that are not you.

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!

 

[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.

Unequal distribution of wealth is not a bad thing, as the enlisted military example will show. The E-1 pay grade is somewhat less than the E-2 and the E-2 is substantially less than the E-8, and so on up through the officer ranks. This example represents a practical, well-planned, equitably reasoned scale of expediently unequal distribution.

Another acceptable example of unequal distribution was the typical ratio of salary disparity between the corporate CEO and the lowest paid employee during the most productive and economically stable period in our history. At that time the typical ratio was the CEO earned around forty times more than the lowest paid employee. But that level of acceptably unequal distribution began to change when Ronald Reagan became President.

Today the typical ratio is a corporate CEO earns at least four hundred times more than the lowest paid employee. And at a time when wages have remained stagnant since 1980, at a time when more and more corporate employees are losing their retirement benefits, at a time when American jobs are being "outsourced" and American workers are being forced to compete with virtual slaves in foreign countries, at a time when some corporate CEOs are going home with $300,000,000 bonuses, at a time when bankers and Wall Street speculators are driving hard-working people from the homes they were scammed into putting their savings into, it is time to acknowledge that we are not talking about unequal distribution but wholly unacceptable and excessively unequal distribution of our Nation's resources (wealth).

Unequal is acceptable. Excessively unequal is not. America needs to get back to the time when the economy was operating smoothly and everyone was making a living. And if it takes going back to the progressive tax rate with a 91% cap, so be it. It is us against them and while they won't like it they will still be rich.

Actually, when we're talking about CEO salaries versus low-level workers wages, we're not talking about "our nation's" wealth. We're talking about that particular corporation's wealth, and unless you're a shareholder, it's none of your frigging business how they choose to apportion salaries.

As for "excessively unequal", exactly who gets to determine what "excessive" is defined as? Based on what standard? By what authority? And who is "us"? Who is "them"?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Wealth does not create jobs. Spending does. When companies spend they create jobs. When rich people accumulate wealth, jobs are not created.


Under the Bush tax cuts to the wealthiest (unpaid for cuts) America did not get more job creation.

Tax Returns: A Comprehensive Assessment of the Bush Administration's Record on Cutting Taxes — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

You can spin all you like. It doesn't matter.
When the creative class has more with which to create, that is precisely what they do...Create by spending.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Oh, so deluded.

Wealth does create jobs. Most wealth is invested. Investment creates jobs.

Smart investment is in areas where people spend money.

Wealth, Wall Street, was doing well while America was drowning in job loss. Wealth does not always create jobs. It's yet another Right Wing World Myth that wealth creates jobs.


The accumulation of wealth is the opposite of spending to create jobs. Investments do not create jobs. Investments in job creation creates jobs.

Wealthy people can and have invested in companies that cut jobs and ship the left over jobs overseas.

please stop being deluded?

Ok...we give all wealth to the government...then what?
Just answer the question. Any other response will be ignored as garbage..
Now, you get to e the king of all wealth ...Go for it.
I want to see just what a liberal would do if he had all the money in the USA for a day..
What miracles would you perform. What your "make it all better" magic wand is capable of......Off you go..
A word of caution...You'd better think this through thoroughly. Because stupid answers about building a utopian society will be bashed into orbit.

 

[Revere]

What happened to the job situation in New York city when the financial industry had the life sucked out of it?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Explosive dependency on government redistribution is not a middle class.

the unemployed should be given 6 months to find employment

(and should receive NO government handouts!)

after which, if not employed, they should be either
a. kicked out of the country (to swim until they drown in the ocean?)
b. sold into slavery
c. hunted down in the wilderness by rich people in helicopters
d. executed in public as a warning to other lazy, good for nothing bums

denying the top 1% of the population the right and the ability to own ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING is typical liberal socialistic balderdash!

Ok can you be a bit more ridiculous with your next post..
You have a marvelous wit and understanding the ills of out unjust and unfair society...

 

[Revere]

Anyone who needs 99 months to find any job is not serious about working.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Wealth does not create jobs. Spending does. When companies spend they create jobs. When rich people accumulate wealth, jobs are not created.


Under the Bush tax cuts to the wealthiest (unpaid for cuts) America did not get more job creation.

Tax Returns: A Comprehensive Assessment of the Bush Administration's Record on Cutting Taxes — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Why is it the "wealthys" problem to create jobs? And you don't think the wealthy spend money?

I get the feeling the leftist liver-eaters on this board think that rich people hoard all their money in their mattresses.

 

[thereisnospoon]

People are saying????

Wow....that's a reliable source.

being part of Right Wing World I can see how you mistake a rational person premising something with 'people are saying' as a source. It is for most peopel a turn of phrase...not meant as a source.

On Right Wing World media "people are saying" is often used as extra proof. As is "more people watch FOX than CNN" is proof that FOX must be more correct.


try refuting the content of a post or an argument. You might just learn something -- about yourself.

 

[Cecilie1200]

People are saying under George W. Bush, America had the worst economic record since Herbert Hoover. Wages were stagnant, George W. Bush had the worst job creation record of any President in history, concluding in the worst economic catastrophe since the great depression

It would seem to me as if many had very good years during that time making money. Why should it be taxed away from them to support those who didn't do as well?

How come the rich should get a bigger share of the pie than those who are poorer?

Because they're doing something to actually make that slice of the pie theirs? Just a thought.

Why is it so hard for you to grasp that there's not some outside agency somewhere, dishing up slices of pie to people at random? In a capitalist society, which we still nominally are, that pie is self-serve.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yep. Living on the sweat equity of someone else.

yeah, the sweat equity of trust funds, corporate profits, accumulation of wealth through financial instruments like the ones that brought the world economies to their knees?

Not ALL wealthy get their wealth like that.

Even if they DO get their wealth from trust funds and inheritance, who's to say it wasn't hard work being nice to their rich, blowhard parents to get mentioned in the will? And who's to say that money from investments is somehow not as good as money from digging ditches? When did the one become morally superior to the other? I say mustering the courage to risk your money in investments is hard work of its own sort.

 

[syrenn]

Wealth does not create jobs. Spending does. When companies spend they create jobs. When rich people accumulate wealth, jobs are not created.


Under the Bush tax cuts to the wealthiest (unpaid for cuts) America did not get more job creation.

Tax Returns: A Comprehensive Assessment of the Bush Administration's Record on Cutting Taxes — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Why is it the "wealthys" problem to create jobs? And you don't think the wealthy spend money?

I get the feeling the leftist liver-eaters on this board think that rich people hoard all their money in their mattresses.

Actually i think they are pisses as hell that they do spend their money. What they spend money on is the focus of the envy.

OMG LOOK they have cars!
OMG LOOK they have homes!
OMG LOOK they took vacations!
OMG LOOK they are so spoiled!

 

[thereisnospoon]

I'm all for non-distribution of wealth. You keep what you earn.

Let children, the elderly, injured veterans, and the inform starve! No more socialism!

now you are reduced to a low IQ troll...
Super fuck off....

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why should the "poor" have their eyes on someones else's piece of pie? Why should the anyone share their pie if it rightfully theirs?

Sharing is something you do voluntary. If your pie taken away from you and given to others against your will...that is stealing.

Why do the rich have their eye on someone's piece of the pie? Why should the rich be able to steal worker's wages and benefits?

Sharing is something you do voluntarily. When the rich take wages and benefits of the poor workers that is stealing from their pie.

How are they stealing wages and benefits?

Didn't you know? All rich people are inherently evil and one can only become rich by fucking over poor people and stealing from them. Of course, what poor people have worth stealing is always the question that throws ME.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Anyone who needs 99 months to find any job is not serious about working.

Very true. When my dad became ill and started his long downward slide toward dying, my mom and I did every job we could lay our hands on to keep ourselves fed and a roof over our heads. My mom cleaned houses and motel rooms and did maintenance on the piece-of-shit apartment complex we lived in. I remember her up on the roof, tarring it in the hot sun to patch leaks before the rainy season started. I cleaned kennels at a veterinary clinic and detailed the landlord's car after coming home from school. Desperately poor? You betcha, but we by God were employed and not homeless. And gradually, eventually, we got ourselves to a place where my mom has a nice, comfortable house and car for her retirement and I have a happy, successful family with a paid-off home and a new business of my own.

Do not tell me you can't find a job. What you can't find is a job you WANT. Boo-freaking-hoo. My heart bleeds for you.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Spoony, I'm richer than you are.

Wanna bet?

oooh ooh ooh I love this one.

Do you deserve your wealth? Liberalism says no.

A pointless and childish retort from libnut...
...I love it when these people have to give their resumes in an attempt to impress others...

 

[Revere]

Spoony, I'm richer than you are.

Wanna bet?

oooh ooh ooh I love this one.

Do you deserve your wealth? Liberalism says no.

A pointless and childish retort from libnut...
...I love it when these people have to give their resumes in an attempt to impress others...

Nutso is a pensioned unionist teacher. He thinks this qualifies him as a self-made man.

In case you did not know.

 

[Father Time]

Do not tell me you can't find a job. What you can't find is a job you WANT. Boo-freaking-hoo. My heart bleeds for you.

You honestly think there's no one out there that can't find a job or are you referring to someone who somehow can't find anything after 99 months?

 

[thereisnospoon]

People are saying under George W. Bush, America had the worst economic record since Herbert Hoover. Wages were stagnant, George W. Bush had the worst job creation record of any President in history, concluding in the worst economic catastrophe since the great depression

It would seem to me as if many had very good years during that time making money. Why should it be taxed away from them to support those who didn't do as well?

How come the rich should get a bigger share of the pie than those who are poorer?

why should you be paid the wage you earn while another earns less? it just isn't fair...
For the last time...there is NO PIE.....There is no secret pile of cash from which we draw.
wealth is created. Government does not exist to make you happy by confiscating wealth.