Posted on 01/04/2014 4:32:59 AM PST by Kaslin
#2 would be the biggest one. If people are protected from the consequences of poverty, they don’t try to improve so they can lift themselves out.
Take two farmers in the U.S, who live next to each other, and two farmers in the USSR, who also live next to each other. In each case, one farmer gets a new cow and the other doesn't. In the U.S., the neighbor farmer would praise the cow and aspire to get one for himself. In Russia, the neighbor would hope his neighbor's new cow dies!
Historically, the only examples of income equality have been societies with universal poverty.
Those who complain about “inequality” never mention how much Oprah or Mick Jagger earn or how little their stage help is paid. Nor do will they seem to care that Seattle Mariners second baseman Robinson Cano just signed a contract worth $240 million, nor that over 40 university presidents have pay packages that exceed $1 million. So who exactly are they complaining about? Times up: they only complain about business leaders who earn a lot of money. Now why would that be?
In 2012 the CEO of Walmart made $20.7 million. People who complain about income inequality imply he is a paraiste and gets paid at the expense of his workers, some of whom do not make much money. But the CEO’s job is to make sure Walmart is economically sustainable so that as many people have jobs as possible. His pay amounts to about a half cent per hour, certainly less than those employees would pay in dues to a union. Compare that to how much per hour government levies in taxes and tell me which party is a parasite and which party grows the economy.
But let’s take a different tack: the fact that people like J.K. Rowling can earn so much indicates how powerful and valuable a good idea can be in the free marketplace. Never in human history has any private citizen been able to do what Rowling has done, or Oprah or Mick Jagger or a host of other people. Today, nothing stops anyone from developing a good story for publication, nor someone from writing good software, nor holding a concert that millions want to attend.
And when they do, they don’t make anyone poor by becoming wealthy.
“Income inequality” joins Peak Oil and Global Warming as frauds of the left that are really aimed at advancing ideological agendas rather than advancing prosperity and liberty.
The answer to ‘inequality’ is not thinly veiled coveting of the wealth of prosperous people, but to encourage every person to rise to their highest potential as a human. Above all, we must never confuse our worth as human beings with money, which is the mistake made by many.
This “income inequality” currently being parroted by the Democrat Party is simply a propaganda tool, a sound bite being used as a last-ditch effort to remain relevant.
Naturally the American media is being the Democrat lapdog in helping with this effort.
In many cases it isn’t what people earn; it’s what they do with what they earn.
Income redistribution is the ultimate leftist wet dream. It is at the core of all their other schemes, such as global warming.
They want to be in charge of all the money and decide who gets how much.
If you’re black, female, homo or some other favored class, you are lead to believe you’re on the receiving end.
If you’re white and doing well, prepare to pay.
The fact is, its nothing more than a scam that enriches and empowers the re distributors...the BIG GOVERNMENT MASTERS.
So called income redistribution is nothing more than TRICKLE DOWN BIG GOVERNMENT.
This is exactly right. It’s not how much you make; it’s how much you end up with. Poor and broke are not the same thing. The lack of money is temporary. It’s what you do when their is no money that matters. Most poor people stay poor because they continue to do what makes them poor. Rich people are rich because they continue to do what makes them rich.
Yes, of course, it’s false rhetoric, but the American people for generations have embraced false rhetoric and will continue to do so.
Nobody in their right mind wants to pay a Starbucks barista and a brain surgeon the same thing. But it is true that the USA was healthier economically, more prosperous and faster growing in the 1950s and 1960s when the income curve, or pyramid, whatever, was flatter than it is now. In 1960, a corporate CEO only made about 40 times as much as the guy on the shop floor, now he makes 400 times as much. And income distribution wasn’t nearly so lopsided (i.e. crowded at the top of the pyramid) back in those days as it is now. That’s the problem.
America's rise from axes and hoes to men on the moon, and from a population of wilderness immigrants fleeing religious oppression to a place of refuge and wealth for hundreds of millions, occurred as a result of rebellion against government planning, taxation, control and regulation--not from a forced equality among persons resulting from some self-described group of so-called "progressives" who catered to the wealthy, as long as those "wealthy" ones would pay for their political power grab.
What hypocrisy they exhibit!!
They have turned upside-down the principles which made America a place of opportunity, creativity, prosperity and freedom, and now they decry the result of their coercive actions as a new rallying cry for more destruction--calling it income inequality.
The number one cause of poverty is unweb births and divorce. But, don’t expect Obama to promote real marriage. Liberals create the crises, and then use it as a straw dog to promote an evil solution (socialism).
Unfortunately, government interference doesn’t make it any better. Makes it worse.
“Unfortunately, government interference doesn’t make it any better. Makes it worse.”
Excellent post
1: It’s not the government’s job to promote ‘income equality.’ Not according to the Constitution.
2: Prove that it was the government that did it. Back up your claims.
And 3: Why is income inequality, in itself, such a bad thing in the first place?
Income inequality, like anything else in life, is fine in moderation. Like I said before, you don’t want to pay the barista the same wage as the brain surgeon. But never in 100 years have we had so much income concentrated into so few hands. That’s a receipe for revolution, and not necessarily the kind we want.
I would argue that the #1 cause of poverty is gov’t handouts (welfare, SNAP, Medicaid/Medicare, etc.) and massive regulation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.