The fundamental question: Why is inequality bad?

so, how many "poor" people with IRAs does it take to equal a rich person who may not need an IRA but does know how to invest directly and can, due to existing capital.

 

Ayuh,.... Does it matter how many poor people, as yer position is to take a tax break Away from All of Us poor folk that use that tax advantage to build Our retirement, 'n estate worth,.....

 

No, it isn't; my position is to merely end the capital gains distinction whenever average wages for labor don't outpace inflation.

 

Right,.... Which removes My, a poor folk's tax break,.....

Every tax the rich scheme the left comes up with, attacks the middle class they claim to be helpin',.....

 

Lower wage earners can invest in Roths and pay no tax on their earnings. They can also invest in the same investments and pay less tax(capital gains).

Our taxcode is a clusterfrick of inefficiency and special treatment. A simple consumption tax would better serve everyone. For all Americans to prosper, they need to participate in the economy from all fronts and not just the consumption side. The government robbing them of 15.3% of their incomes does nothing but stifle most Americans and promotes them to retire in poverty tied to failing Ponzi schemes.

A better plan would be mandated personal retirement accounts. This way, you do not have generational theft and government theft to fund other misguided functions.

 

I guess it may depend on whether or not you value Labor working to make ends meet or not. Wages not out-pacing inflation is merely losing money by working with the sweat of one's brow.

 

Ayuh,..... I have an agreement with the guy I work for, that benefits both of Us mutually,...

I labor, he pays me, 'n offers other non-money benefits,....

My wealth is accumulated gains from my labors,...
Yer plan, cuts out the tax advantages I've labored long, 'n hard to achieve,...

Why, oh Why are you progressives out to ruin the lower middle class with yer tax the rich schemes,..??..??

 

Nothing but non-sequiturs and propaganda and rhetoric for your Cause? You have already been losing money merely by working while inflation outpaces wages. It may be one reason why some Capitalists of wealth may believe, "only fools and horses should have to work".

The tax distinction would only end when you are losing money by practicing a work ethic, even from the Iron Age; it would continue in effect when it is doing its job and not merely resorting to affirmative action for the wealthiest.

 

I am, at the heart, an equalist. I despise the rich with unfettered passion, infinitely more so if they have climbed that ladder of success through morally wrong, if fiscally/businessly logical, means. Capitalism, in its entirety, infuriates me. The idea that the individual is ever anything more than part of the whole truly hurts me. We are not made of individual effort, as a country, and yet we celebrate individual triumphs. More so than ever nowadays. Inequality among our people, and I will limit it just to us as a nation, is disgusting. Why should GOOD, honest, hard-working people suffer daily trouble while practically, and just BARELY on the good side of completely, worthless celebrities enjoy fame and riches they're both irresponsibly unqualified to own and ignorant in applying? Tell me how a Kim Kardashian, and a dozen of her family members, deserve to never work a hard job in their lives for having sex with a terrible music artist on film, I beg you. Corporations aren't people. They're businesses. Period. Religion has no place in law, and just because you can throw a billion dollars at the government doesn't mean you should be able to do whatever you want. Communism isn't the answer, but it's about time we accept the truth that capitalism isn't either.

 

Ayuh,.... No rhetoric, just real life Facts you wish to ignore while screamin' the progressive talkin' points,...

Yer pathetic,... Why do you refuse to answer my questions,..??

Why, oh Why are you progressives out to ruin the lower middle class with yer tax the rich schemes,..??..??

 

right here, grasshopper: The tax distinction would only end when you are losing money by practicing a work ethic, even from the Iron Age; it would continue in effect when it is doing its job and not merely resorting to affirmative action for the wealthiest.

 

From land's producer, I assume...? Oh, wait, land doesn't and never had a producer. The landowner qua landowner takes from the economy without adding anything to it.

 

Now you just need to explain what capital goods the landowner adds to the economy in exchange for the enormous amount of wealth he gets for the land.

Hint: He adds 0.00 capital goods. The land would exist anyways.

So why do you have your nose so far up the landowner's butt?

 

If we are talking about inequality in our country - here's my main argument.
Inequality in country where the main idea is EQUALITY - is absurd!
Maybe somewhere in third-world country, but not in our!

 

Not if you get OT.

- - - Updated - - -

Should a ditch digger get the same pay as a doctor?

 

Inequality when it comes to wealth could have a huge chunk taken out of it by doing one simple thing.

Requiring companies to share their profits with their employees. I'm not talking equalizing all wages so that the janitor makes as much as the president, I'm simply talking about giving a percentage of those profits back to the employees who made those profits entirely possible in the first place.

 

The people that call for income redistribution from the rich to the poor are the same people in Soviet Russia who shot their more well to do neighbors and their families simply because their farm was bigger. They are envious of other people's possessions and just like the Nazis (yes, I just went there) they feel they are entitled to other peoples possessions simply because they feel they deserve it and the other people don't deserve it.

 

So you're saying rich people don't have more money in the bank than poor people. Interesting.

 

I'm not saying that, they have about as much as the typical middle class family does.

I suppose my point is that those who hate the "rich" think they have millions of dollars in their bank accounts they can access at any time and that is an absolute fallacy. They certainly do have almost unlimited credit but they're not going to blow (*)(*)(*)(*) tons with credit - that would be stupid.

Hell, I know a venture capitalist that is worth about 5 million, yet his family live in a 150k home in middle class US and he drives a Honda - 95% of what hes worth is tied up in long term investments. Sure he has some cash but If I asked to borrow 15 grand he would laugh and claim he doesn't have it because he doesn't just have 15k laying around and he's not going to take a loan out just to loan me money.

So the notion that the wealthy have some bank account with piles of cash sitting in it is nothing more than a simpleminded misconception.

 

sweating harder, not smarter; some on the left, get it.

 

The notion that someone worth 5 million dollars is "rich", is a simpleminded, outdated, misconception. The top 1% are not the rich, the top .1% and above are. That is how much wealth is concentrated these days. And the fallacy that is constantly introduced by inequality apologists, is that people who have a few million bucks in net worth are the issue. They are only today's upper middle class.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/phildem...ble-tragedy-of-income-inequality-among-the-1/

 

When one is discussing problems with inequality, it's pretty silly to discuss it in terms of it being strictly a moral issue, or the equally silly, "what's rich?".

The problem with inequality - especially institutionalized inequality - is that it is a perception that is used very effectively for recruiting large masses of people to a radicalized and violent movement (Communism, religious extremism, etc.). That's the reality.

People can argue about whether it's morally right to envy others who have accumulated more, and that's fine for lecture halls. But history has shown that in real world situations, eventually there comes a tipping point where violent revolution occurs. That's why too much inequality is bad.


So, yes, inequality is bad - whether perceived or real.

By the way, I kinda have to chuckle at people who think here who think a net worth of 5 - 10 - 20 million is "wealthy". I work in the yachting industry. The average upkeep on a 30 million dollar yacht is about 3 million per year. 30 million is about a middle of the road yacht price. We're not talking 2 or 3 million a year - we're talking 2 or 3 million dollar cash flow per month - or week - or, in the case of some of the mega-yachts, you would really need to be in the million per day range.

 

OK, so investing in stocks is not hoarding their money... is that the point? So if you keep your money in paper, it would be hoarding. What about gold, would that be hoarding? Is it that legal tender is hoarding, but assets aren't? So cash is hoarding, but gold is not. If Gold is also hoarding, then why are stocks not. Both are assets.

And I think you are missing the entire point of the hoarding comment.. It is that the money is not utilized to grow the economy. So giving more money to the wealthy won't grow the economy, it will just increase their hoarded assets. If you agree with that and are just splitting hairs on what is "hoarding" then that is a useless debate.

 

Essentially, a few people with all the money behaves more like a clog in pipe, rather than fluid flowing through it. Regular Americans are the engine that propels the U.S. economy; workers, consuming the goods and services they produce.

 

I assume you'd prefer the government to be the monopoly owner of all the land in the country, as oppose to the land being owned by millions of individual owners. And what capital goods would this single landowner add to the economy in exchange for the enormous amount of wealth it gets for the land? Zero.

I'll take a competitive market over a monopoly any time.