Income Equality is Undesirable And Unattainable

Poletical ^ | February 1st, 2014 | R. Rados

[PingPongChampion]

Nothing is more unrealistic, unfeasible, and completely preposterous than the idea of income equality. There is no way that all individuals with varying talents and abilities could ever be equal. Furthermore, there's no reason they should be. If you believe this, it doesn't make you cold-hearted, callous, or evil. What it makes you is rational and highly reasonable. Unfortunately, the world of politics is rarely rational or reasonable.

Income inequality is an unsolvable issue. Rather than accepting it as inevitable or natural, politicians describe it as a problem. This problem of income inequality is vague and wide reaching. It becomes the driving force behind agendas that either have no intention of addressing the problem, or agendas that only make the problem worse. Income inequality becomes the fuel for ideological crusades. All of this happens in the name of some fantastical utopian dream that some are convinced can and should be realized.

[bigheadfred]

if my in could equal my out i would be equanimous with that

[Vendome]

Incoming....

Buh bye

[shibumi]

Mr. Robinson’s words.

Again.

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3109294/posts?page=64#64

Did you bother to read them last time?

Or just post and run.

Again.

[Chode]

Seth Bregman: Will, did you really make two and a half million last year?

Will Emerson: Yeah, sure.

Seth Bregman: How did you spend it all?

Will Emerson: It goes quite quickly. You know, you learn to spend what's in your pocket.

Peter Sullivan: Two and a half million goes quickly?

Will Emerson: All right, let's see. So the taxman takes half up front, so you're left with one and a quarter. My mortgage takes another 300 grand. I send 150 home for my parents, you know, keep 'em going. So what's that?

Peter Sullivan: 800?

Peter Sullivan: All right, 800. Spent 150 on a car. About 75 on restaurants. Probably 50 on clothes. I put 400 away for a rainy day.

Seth Bregman: That's smart.

Will Emerson: Yeah, as it turns out, 'cause it looks like the storm's coming.

Peter Sullivan: You still got 125.

Will Emerson: Yeah, well I did spend 76,520 dollars on hookers, booze and dancers. But mainly hookers.

Peter Sullivan: 76,5?

Will Emerson: I was a little shocked initially, but then I realized I could claim most of the back as entertainment. It's true!

[allendale]

“Income equality” ultimately results in the stifling and suppression in a variety of ways the most intelligent, creative, ambitious and productive in a society. Wherever such “egalitarianism” has been attempted, miserable poverty as well as a coercive suppression of liberty has been the result. The very fact that this absurd concept is being seriously discussed in America today, underscore how much American culture has declined and how decadence has replaced the once noble values that was the basis of the American republic.

[Amendment10]

The thing that patriots need to understand concerning so-called income inequality is the following. The states have never delegated to Congress, via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate income inequality. So Constitution-ignoring federal politicians who are pushing income equality are doing so to win voters from low-information voters who are likely clueless about the federal government’s constitutionally limited powers.

Next, the Founding States had made the 10th Amendment to clarify the following. The Constitution’s silence about things like income inequality means that such issues are automatically uniquely state power issues. In fact, New York is properly exercising its 10th Amendment protected power to experiment with income equality. I predict NY’s vote-winning experiment will fail, but that’s NY’s problem.

[VerySadAmerican]

I knew a guy who worked in a peanut butter plant back in the 70s. They tried “socialism” where there were four member teams. They’d vote on each other’s pay scale and stuff. The guy I knew was all excited and on board. But there was always at least one guy on the team who wouldn’t carry his weight. The experiment lasted about a year.

[youngidiot]

The "income gap" is a truly idiotic thing to focus on. Consider the following example:

Bob has $1,000. Mark has $100. There's a "gap" of $900. The next year Bob doubles his money and has $2,000. Mark increases his money ten fold and now has $1,000. Everyone is happy. However, the "income gap" has now increased from $900 to $1,000 (gasp).

Take it the other direction. Bob has $1,000. Mark has $100. There's a "gap" of $900. The next year Bob loses 80% of his money and is left with $200. Mark loses $50% of his money and is now left with $100. Both men are upset. However, the "income gap" has now decreased from $900 to $100. (applause).

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

[sickoflibs]

To be a devils U-know-what:

Huge ratios of inequality where those at the top are grossly outnumbered by those at the bottom who can vote can lead to POTUSes that are progressively more and more socialistic.

[Peet]

I knew a guy who worked in a peanut butter plant back in the 70s. They tried “socialism” where there were four member teams. They’d vote on each other’s pay scale and stuff. The guy I knew was all excited and on board. But there was always at least one guy on the team who wouldn’t carry his weight. The experiment lasted about a year.

Sounds like "20^th Century Motors"