U.S. inequality is curable

Prudent Bear ^ | 6 January 2014 | Martin Hutchinson

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

The truth of income inequality is that it changes not by making the rich poorer, but by increasing the wealth of those who create wealth.

That is, beyond a certain degree of wealth, all wealth is tied up in investments. But there is a choice of investments: either to what amounts to rigged gambling games, that create no wealth except for investors; or to investing in things that create wealth, such as R&D and new businesses.

So the idea is not to increase taxes on the rich, but to increase taxes on the gambling games, not on the wealth creating investments. Create incentives in taxation for the wealthy to get wealthier by helping others to get wealthier.

The problem, however, lies with leftists. They so hate the wealthy that they want to *hurt* them, and not just financially, but physically, if they could. This matters more to them than tax revenues for government, or even income inequality.

As long as such irrational people are in charge, there will be no common sense approach to helping people to help themselves.

In many ways, they are like the approach Palestinians take to Israelis. They do not care if the Israelis are kind and generous to a fault, and even provide them with water and power and food. They have blood in their eyes, and want to hurt and kill Israelis, and they don’t care who is hurt in the process.

[CorporateStepsister]

One thing I am certain of is that it’s going to cause bosses to resent their employees and maybe cause a lot of hostility that could be avoided. You’re paid according to your talent and skill set, that is all. If I set up a franchise and work hard at marketing and such, I should not have to pay someone who is NOT working as hard as I am the same salary.

[jpl]

How does one account for the liberals being in love with people like Ben Bernanke and Janet Yellen, whose idea of great policy is to conjure up trillions of dollars out of thin air and give it to the richest of the rich?

[yldstrk]

sow what about equality of effort?

will those who sleep til 2 pm force me to sleep til 2 pm or will they drag ass out of bed at 5 am and start their day like I do?

Will those who don’t hit the hay til after midnight force me to stay up late or will they hit the rack at 10 pm like I do?

Will those who don’t hang up they clothes force me to leave mine in filthy piles on the flo or will they hang theirs up like I do?

Will those that don’t pay their bills every Saturday like I do force me to refrain from paying or will they pay theirs like I do?

Will those who don’t have dinner on the table for the kids by 6 pm every night force me to ignore dinner time or will they have dinner on the table by 6 pm like I do?

will those who don’t change their oil every 90 days force me to not change mine every 90 days or will they change their oil every 90 days like I do?

will those who don’t go to church every Sunday force me to miss church or will they go to church like I do?

will those who don’t pay their taxes every year like I do force me to blow it off or will they pay?

and so on and so forth and I think the inequality mantra will stop

[cicero2k]

I think the ultimate objective is to tax wealth (that is, assets) because so far the government has only been able to get at wealth through death taxes.

True. They see S&P500 going up 32% and only the upper two quintiles participate.

We already have forced government deferred assets in the form of Social Security.

Upon retirement the actuarialized value as an asset paying our SS payments is easy to determine.

[B4Ranch]

[B4Ranch]

[dalereed]

To hell with these communists!!!

Income and wealth should never be equal or even close to it!

[dfwgator]

As long as people have unequal levels of ambition, there will be inequality of income.

[Steve_Seattle]

This debate is usually framed in misleading or even downright wrong terms. "Income equality" is a misstatement of the problem. The problem in this country is NOT that there is a 1% of fabulously wealthy people, or that CEO salaries are too high, or that the minimum-wage is too low; it is that middle-class jobs are disappearing or are being monopolized by two-income families.

It is politically incorrect, but the mass entry of women into the workforce has had the effect of concentrating more middle- and upper-income jobs into the same families. People tend to marry at their own educational level, and now we have well-educated women marrying well-educated men, and often both of them are holding primo jobs. That makes fewer good jobs available for fewer families.

On top of that, we have outsourcing and competition from millions of illegals at the lower end of the job market, therefore depressing wages and increasing unemployment.

[RatRipper]

“Equality” is a utopian commie dream used as propaganda for the stupid that is impossible to ever achieve. But even the terminally stupid know that promises of equality are merely code speak for a politician’s willingness to steal from one group of people to give to them in the form of some benefit . . . of course, after the politician takes his “juice money” out of the transaction. It amounts to corruption wrapped up as compassion and delivered with a wink and a nod.

Personally, I don’t want to emulate anyone, including someone that has more than me. I just want to be me. My likes and dislikes are not “equal” to others. Even with equal subsistance stipends, if only because some are more frugal and are better managers - smarter if you will, some people will live better and more comfortably than others.

[Uncle Miltie]

Every time Dems want to talk about income redistribution, point out that 0bamaCare is a huge one, and that it is FAILING.

Change the subject right back to the topic they want to avoid.

[FlingWingFlyer]

Barry and his ‘RATS won’t be satisfied until a motel maid brings home the same amount of income as a heart surgeon.

[fhayek]

I agree with you. I will go one further. I believe that income inequality is a good thing - strike that - a great thing. Remember when America was called 'the land of opportunity'? That did not mean that if you came here you could sign up for an entitlement. It meant that if you worked hard, came up with a great idea, maybe caught a break somewhere, you could experience 'income inequality' in a big way. It inspired millions to build a great country by trying to better themselves. Unequal incomes and free market are all the incentives you need. I don't know if you have noticed, but no one calls America the 'land of opportunity' any more.

[usconservative]

The entire problem with "income inequality" and using punitive government taxation to "solve" the problem can be debunked by simply stating the following:

It doesn't matter how much money the government confiscates from wealthy citizens via punitive taxation, as none of that money will ever make it directly into poor citizens pockets.

That's just fact. The government would never directly "cut a check" to those who they deem "deserve" our wealth. Rather, the government will simply start up another wasteful federal program which they'll claim benefits the poor. That's just more "feel good" government socialim.

The bottom line is "income inequality" is nothing more than the government enriching its own coffers through punitive taxation. There's ZERO intent in actually "helping" the poor.

The "poor" however will be completely bamboozled by the Government rhetoric and simply rejoice in the fact that the "rich" are being punished and made miserable like they are.

[Lazamataz]

The Reagan approach was to build an economy in which the poor were lifted to higher levels (provided they put in a little effort).

The Obama approach is to tear everyone down to poverty (no matter how much effort you put in).

Guess which one works?

[CommunityMan]

I think you need to read your Adam Smith again. Consider these quotes:

"Our merchants and master-manufacturers complain much of the bad effects of high wages in raising the price, and thereby lessening the sale of their goods both at home and abroad. They say nothing concerning the bad effects of high profits. They are silent with regard to the pernicious effects of their own gains. They complain only of those of other people." "Whenever the legislature attempts to regulate the differences between masters and their workmen, its counselors are always the masters. When the regulation, therefore, is in favor of the workmen, it is always just and equitable; but it is sometimes otherwise when in favor of the masters." "All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind." "No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the greater part of the members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, cloath and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, cloathed and lodged."

Adam Smith was one of the earliest and strongest proponents of Capitalism, but even he knew that excess is destructive to society. If only more of the current Titans of Industry(tm) knew this as well.

[MegaSilver]

The truth of income inequality is that it changes not by making the rich poorer, but by increasing the wealth of those who create wealth.

Precisely.

And this is why, in the great realignment, there will be many vulgar plutocrats whose fortunes disappear. Because, seriously, what have Mark Zuckerberg and Warren Buffet done to improve anyone's standard of living?

Much of the "wealth" the Left wants to tax at the "top" today is fake. It is widely acknowledged among economists that sequestering of the excess liquidity is one of the major reasons why Bernankeism has not yet resulted in spiraling inflation. So the obvious problem is that if we force such largess into the pockets of people who are likely to spend it, releasing it into the real economy, its worthlessness will become immediately apparent.

[moonshinner_09]

When Obamacare kicks in everybody will be broke and millions of jobs lost.

[RipSawyer]

It is amazing that so many actually think that slogan makes some sort of sense. Much of modern life consists of babbling by stupid people who imagine themselves to be smarter than everyone else. Do any of them ever ask how the one obtained the “means” which is to be taken from him or who is to determine the “needs” of the other or why a “need” constitutes a valid claim while possession of “means” constitutes an obligation? It is truly pathetic.

Very few nuclear families are close enough to function under such a rule, anyone who imagines that an entire nation will come to aught but ruin by trying to follow it is a blithering idiot.