[exDemMom]

Income inequality cannot be solved by any government action, and it is stupid and short-sighted to even try. People are born with different talents and abilities—inequality is built into our nature.

Income equality could only be achieved by making everything the same across the board—thus removing any incentive to produce. A system of “equality” cannot exist.

[sphinx]

Bttt

[ronnie raygun]

Consistently moving us to communism

[Perchant]

Income inequality is caused by the devaluation of labor. You can do that by implementing slavery or by mass immigration, the Democrats’ two favorite things. Both parties want one class of people working for an equalized wage and one elite class above them. They just have different ideas about how to get there and who gets to be the elite class.

[ThunderSleeps]

So wait, you're saying the 'rats are advocating for laws that will be costly, transfer more power and control to the government, yet will be ineffective at their stated purpose? I'm shocked! :-/

Seriously, my first reaction to anything proposed by the 'rats or liberals is that it is probably:

• not going to work as stated
• not going to work as they intend (which is generally not the same as above)
• going to cost me money
• going to cost me freedoms
• going to give the government even more say in how I spend my time and/or money
• generally be bad for the USA

Or some combination of the above. Yes I have a cynical outlook on 'rats and libtards. They have earned it many, many times over.

[Iron Munro]

For Democrats, few issues rank as high as “income inequality.” Reducing it is a priority of both
Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders.

That's why Hillary and Bill Clinton are giving their entire $500 million fortune to needy illegal alien children
and inviting homeless bums in NY City to move into Chelsea's $10.5 million dollar apartment.

[rbg81]

One thing here: in terms of spending, they are comparing the top 1% to the bottom 20%. So, effectively, they are comparing 1 person to 20 people. So, a single person in the top 1% still spends 33% more than 20 people in the lower 20%.

That being said, I’m not that surprised by this.

[LambSlave]

As an example, they look at 40- to 49-year-olds. While the top 1% of this age group has 18.9% of wealth, they account for only 9.2% of spending. Those in the bottom 20%, in contrast, have only 2.1% of wealth but account for 6.9% of total spending

Guess this is how the "poor" have nicer things than me; I lose close to half my income in various taxes, while they get a plus up of untaxed benefits that largely balances out spending power.

[Sir Napsalot]

It is of no interests to those who propose yet more wealth redistribution what has worked or not.

The question should have been asked is WHY ‘income equality’ holds such sway amongst huge swash of people in every generation.

[central_va]

The best thing that could happen to the dying middle class would be to return to our protectionist roots that created the USA industrial might on the first place.

[Koracan]

...“The fact that spending inequality is dramatically smaller than wealth inequality....


I always knew, these guys had more spending money then me.

[MamaTexan]

The entire 'equality' bit is a sham.

By equality, in a democracy, is to be understood, equality of civil rights, and not of condition. Equality of rights necessarily produces inequality of possessions; because, by the laws of nature and of equality, every man has a right to use his faculties in an honest way, and the fruits of his labor, thus acquired, are his own.

But some men have more strength than others; some more health; some more industry; and some more skill and ingenuity, than others; and according to these, and other circumstances the products of their labor must be various, and their property must become unequal. The rights of property must be sacred, and must be protected; otherwise there could be no exertion of either ingenuity or industry, and consequently nothing but extreme poverty, misery, and brutal ignorance.

Of the Several Forms of Government, Section VI, St. George Tucker, "View of the Constitution of the United States" 1803