If someone were to give me a trillion dollars, I promise to fight the good fight for income equality. Really, I promise. I'd be a trillionaire, so you can trust me.

Boru

Inequality is awful and unfair... hypocrisy is something I truly despise.

The best way to deal with income inequality is to invest heavily in public education. Of course this alone won't be enough, but it would be a good first step.

I don't even look who said that in the quote of the OP. I don't care if that person is left or right or what they stand for. The quote speaks for itself and is fundamentally stupid.

Nobody I know argues for egalitarism. What they want are mandatory living wages and the rich paying the same proportion of taxes without being allowed to use one loop hole after the other. I for one argue for incomes like in the 70ies and early to mid 80ies, where everyone earned a sufficient amount of money to build a modest life for themselves, even at the bottom of the food chain.

The reasons for that no longer being the case are many. But it's the politician's job to offer solution. Otherwise the whole system will blow up sooner rather than later.

(September 22, 2016 at 11:49 am)Crossless1 Wrote: I'm far less troubled by income inequality than I am by the inequality of political access that results. Now that money=speech for 1st Amendment purposes, Orwell's 'all animals are equal but some are more equal than others' sentiment seems to have been enshrined in our political system. Yes, it has always been thus, but now the SC has put the stamp of approval on it. If a relative handful of people can possibly queer an election result by dumping tons of money into a Super Pac and spreading misinformation about a candidate they don't like (and, yes, it cuts both ways among conservatives and liberals), then our entire political system is largely a joke and up for grabs to those interests with the most disposable wealth.

I favor sensible tax policies that are not regressive but also don't unduly stifle investment and capital creation. There's a sensible medium somewhere that we, as a country, seem to have a hard time wrapping our arms around. The real culprit I think we should focus on is the out-of-control money that gets dumped into every election.

America's strongest economic performance happened at a time when the highest marginal tax rate was 98% (granted few people paid any tax at that rate and only on a small portion of their income). The thing was, at that time America was a far more equal society than it is now (even with the overt racism) and more people had the ability to buy luxuries as well as needs and the security to go into business, innovate or learn new skills to better their job prospects. That's the worst thing about income inequality, that it stifles upward social mobility while accelerating downwards mobility.

(September 22, 2016 at 10:39 am)ChadWooters Wrote: For a while I have been vacillating on the current issue of income inequality. The fact that overwhelming wealth has been concentrated into an extremely small group of individuals is something I find disturbing. At the same time, I'm not sure how my life would be different were that not the case. I certainly believe that average citizens have unprecedented access markets and audiences - more than any other time in human history.

Do you own (as in own outright with no liens or leverage) your own home, vehicles, a bankable acreage, do you have savings set aside for reasonable eventualities, did your kids go to the college of their choice, did you?  How many vacations do you take, yearly, and what sort of vacations are they (as in, do you stay home for a week or book a flight)?  Could you lose your job or switch careers without losing any of the previously mentioned this and thats?

Quote:By culture and temperament I value liberty more highly than material equality - at least once a people have achieved a basic level of sustenance and security.

The two are tied at the hip.  I have more liberty than a poorer man whose sustenance and security requirements are met.  

Quote:The author also did not treat much of longevity and how advances in technology would produce what I believe would be an even more odious kind of inequality. Despite difference of wealth and power, those of more common stock could at least take some consolation that death comes to all - from kings to peasants. I'm curious about how others feel.

(hat tip: maverick philosopher)

When we first start modifying ourselves, there will be a two class society.  The improved, and the rest of us.

(September 28, 2016 at 5:07 am)Tazzycorn Wrote:

(September 22, 2016 at 11:49 am)Crossless1 Wrote: I'm far less troubled by income inequality than I am by the inequality of political access that results. Now that money=speech for 1st Amendment purposes, Orwell's 'all animals are equal but some are more equal than others' sentiment seems to have been enshrined in our political system. Yes, it has always been thus, but now the SC has put the stamp of approval on it. If a relative handful of people can possibly queer an election result by dumping tons of money into a Super Pac and spreading misinformation about a candidate they don't like (and, yes, it cuts both ways among conservatives and liberals), then our entire political system is largely a joke and up for grabs to those interests with the most disposable wealth.

I favor sensible tax policies that are not regressive but also don't unduly stifle investment and capital creation. There's a sensible medium somewhere that we, as a country, seem to have a hard time wrapping our arms around. The real culprit I think we should focus on is the out-of-control money that gets dumped into every election.

America's strongest economic performance happened at a time when the highest marginal tax rate was 98% (granted few people paid any tax at that rate and only on a small portion of their income). The thing was, at that time America was a far more equal society than it is now (even with the overt racism) and more people had the ability to buy luxuries as well as needs and the security to go into business, innovate or learn new skills to better their job prospects. That's the worst thing about income inequality, that it stifles upward social mobility while accelerating downwards mobility.

America's strongest economic performance also happened during a period of rebuilding in Europe and east Asia. The American economy pretty much swaggered into a situation in which it was the only really big player in the game, at first. It's in that context that the marginal tax rate became as high as it did, that union membership flourished, that our manufacturing base was extremely strong and virtually unchallenged, and when the tide could lift most boats and prosperous middle class status was within reach of so many.

Then came real competition on the international stage and a string of, in my opinion, disastrous political decisions over the past 30-40 years in response to this competition. I've long regarded the U.S.'s "golden age" during the '50s-60s as an historical anomaly created by WWII and its Cold War aftermath -- not as something inevitable or 'natural' due to our 'American way of life'. We were just fortunate in that our cities weren't destroyed, our manufacturing base wasn't flattened, and our wartime losses (grave as they were) were actual servicemen, not vast numbers of our civilian population. Oh, and we benefited mightily from the influx of scientific and technical know-how that managed to escape the Germans and the Soviets.

We'd leveled the manufacturing base of the rest of the world (such as it was) through high altitude carpet bombing.  Last man left standing. Sure, there were the soviets, hence the cold war...but they had their own problems. We dropped fridges on them as a subversive measure...........

To the victor go the spoils.