The Biggest Weakness To Income Equality

Income inequality means that regardle4ss of the circumstances of job, or what kind of training the job requires, that a medical doctor making $80,000 a year and a ditch digger making $40,000, the medical doctor should give up his money so that the ditch digger can live on $60,000.

But there's one big weakness and one huge flaw to that.

Why should the ditch digger dig ditches if the doctor is just gonna pay him everything ANNNND....

Why should a person become a doctor if their salary is just going to be taken away from them so they will live in poverty in favor of the ditch digger?

Income equality is a system that squashes ambition.

So how are you going to get these guys to work if they don't have to, without using any kind of coercion or force?

The only such a system will work is if people volunteer for it. It can not work an y way else, and you will have to resort to using force and coercion to get these people to work.

Because people certainly don't want to work if you're just going to take everything away from them.

And of course, most people don't want to work if they're going to have everything given to them.

So what is the solution to this problem?

 

You are assuming that most people that support less income inequality want all professions paid equally. That could not be further from the truth in most cases, IMO.

I'm perfectly happy with the doctor making more than the ditch digger, IMO. I just think the ditch digger should be able to make enough money to be able to sustain a basic, modest level of lifestyle. Shelter, Food, Heating/Cooling, Electricity, Transportation, and Health-Care.

Of course, when the inequality gets bad enough, heads will likely roll, literally. Are your material possessions worth the risk to your life if things get THAT bad?

 

Being a doctor is far more interesting work than being a ditch digger, so that in itself, will be enough to encourage people to enter medicine, plus various other perks involved in skilled work

 

Depends upon the possession.

And if they are just possessions to you, why can't I keep them and why must I give them up to somebody else?

Why must I give up my wedding ring from the woman I love who will just sell it to make money that he or even she in some cases, will jsut spend it on wine money or song?

If they are just possessions why can't I keep them? why is it so all fired important to yout hat I have to give them up to somebody else that you think deserve it more than me?

And why do they deserve it more than me?

Why can they live in a good house but I must give up everything I own for them?

Of course you will only try to turn this against me in some way because you ahve no real answer of valid justification for this to happen.

Thus, more ambition is squashed.

And yes, I will kill people who try to take things from me, especially something like a wedding ring.

This it's just a possession is an absolutely ludicrous thing to say.

 

There is no solution and shouldn't be in a society like the U.S. where equality in the pursuit of happiness is guaranteed by the Constitution which has its roots in certain inalienable rights bestowed upon US by the Creator.

Equality of outcome is Socialism which distributes misery equally.

 

lets say you lived in a secluded village where everyone worked for eachother for free, would you rather be the guy digging the ditches or the village doctor? money is a new invention humans got along for tens of thousands of years with out it. A question you should also be worried about is why does even the most difficult doctor jobs pay around 500k per year yet the average ceo pay is around $15 million? Also why does someone like warren buffet or steve jobs continue to work even though they have enough money to never lift a finger? Why would a currently poor person be any different? Even bill gates plans to give 90% of his money to charity after he dies so why is he still working?

This idea that if poor people aren't half starved to death, they wont work is one of biggest problems in america.

 

That's just being argumentative and has no substance or credibility. Try again.

 

which part?

 

Are you talking in general, or about the current inequality in which some are making 250 times as much as the average worker?

In your example the ditch digger is only making half as much as the doctor.

What is being complained about is where the doctor is making his $80,000, the corporation head running eg a medical insurance company thriving on denying medical insurance claims could be making 200 times that, or 200 X 80,000=
$16,000,000. Additionally, the doctor is producing a positive benefit to society while the medical insurance executive is just making people suffer by denying their claims wherever he can get away with it--while, incidentally, depriving the doctor of his just due because his patients' treatments are not being covered by the medical insurance company, and the patients themselves, who have already paid out as much as they can afford on medical insurance, no longer have any money left to pay the doctor directly.

Another would be the bank clerk making maybe $15,000 a year and being laid off when his bank's corporation head decides the clerk knows too much about the head's shady bank practices, or hires a foreign worker who will keep his mouth shut because he is on a green card. That banker is also on boards which also pay, so he is pulling in maybe 300 X 15000 = $4,500,000 ---probably a low figure for that field. Meanwhile, it is the clerk and others like him that stand on their feet all day waiting on customers. The banker exec spends his time trying to figure new ways to extract money from his victim customers. Who really is doing more for the country?

I'm not saying there aren't some big money people doing positive things, but in general those who are the most overpaid best excel in extracting money and underpaid work and resources from others and spend most of their time doing that. Bill Gates is a prime example. He reputedly bought his first program for $10,000 from the poor schmuck that developed it, instead of offering to go in together as partners. Had he chosen that more sharing route, we would undoubtedly have a better computer operating system today.

http://fundersandfounders.com/how-bill-gates-started/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gates

We're not talking about the friendly neighborhood doctor, dentist, small business owner, or even local banker or realtor here.

 

This is not a binary problem. No nation is forced to choose either / or
In fact through the eisenhower years there wax a very progressive tax Rate
Topping out at about 90%
We still had doctors, and investment bankers... And maybe the most dominant economy the world has ever seen.

 

Living wage..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_wage

Harvester judgment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvester_case

 

The solution is equality of opportunity. Equality of outcomes is just a red herring that people who like the status quo use to avoid discussing the real issue.

 

Is anyone really in favor of the government taking 90% of what a person earns? If you're in favor of that say so and also state your annual salary.

 

Please show us a person that is wanting a doctor that makes $200,000 a year or so to have 90% of what he makes to be taken away in taxes so he is left with $20,000.

 

how about any doctor who was alive in the 40's when the tax rate was 94%? besides that rate only went towards people making $2.5 million (in 2014 dollars) doctors make on average $190k per year, you have to be a porn star or a feild goal kicker, you now important jobs, too make that kind of money

 

Let me use an analogy:

I regularly teach a large intro university class. We always fight with the grade distribution for those classes. There are two extremes:

1) Absolute equality, i.e. everyone gets the same grade, regardless of skill and effort. Clearly, the outcome would be that no students would put in any effort. Therefore, this system won't work (analogy to communism).
2) Winner takes all, i.e. the top student gets an A, everyone else fails. Now, what do you think the outcome of this system would be? Again, nobody will put in any effort, because what's the chance to get the only A in a class of 200?

Clearly, the optimum has to be somewhere in-between. Usually, we go for a grade scale of about 8-10% As and A-s, with an average in the B- range, and about 10% fails. However, it is very critical to not go to a more unequal grade distribution. Why? Because it leads to large-scale discouragement and students giving up. This is not theory, we observe this every year in the classroom when individual exams go badly. It is a constant fight against discouragement.

Now, in our economy, I believe that the inequality scale has tipped too far towards a winner takes all system. That's why you see so many people dropping out of the labor force, they are giving up due to discouragement. Even the most motivated can only take so many rejections before they throw in the towel.

This is a problem that is normally not recognized by the ones against redistribution: They are so worried that the top earners lose incentive. However, what about all those low earners and unemployed, who outnumber the top earners by a large number? Isn't the society as a whole much more harmed by discouraging the larger number of people (i.e the poor)?

 

Well there was a tax rate of 94% but you could write a lot of that off through tax loopholes.

 

so let's take the premise that we are a successful country
Doctors make a good income, even after taxes
They have nice houses, cars etc

Now lets consider the vast bulk of workers
Fast food, retail, ditch diggers, etc
Lets suppose that many of these are hard working
Maybe even two jobs
And kids

What should their lives look like?

Also, what would their lives look like w/o the government
No minimum wage, unemployment, medical and housing programs, food stamps
You know, in the idealized world of condervatives

 

You don't HAVE to give them up.

However, you WILL have to deal with the consequences of that choice if the wealth gap ever gets so large that the poor (that have the same voting power you do) decide to change the laws to close the gap, even if that change isn't what you want.

And of course, you'll still have to deal with them getting violent if the above option fails. Even if you have a gun, so will many of them. Can you take them ALL out before they take you out?

Doctors should still make more than cashiers, which should still make more than ditch diggers. But, for heaven's sake, let's have SOME standards of decency and living around here, right?

 

Show you a person? What kind of answer is that to my question? Not only am I informed on this forum, sometimes I'm amused.

 

Who is it that as forced the U.S. to have either a capitalistic or socialist model? I am simply saying that socialism is equality of outcome which distributes misery equally.

The rich never actually paid 91% of their income in taxes during Eisenhower.

"Liberals often claim that the rich paid a 91% income tax rate during the Eisenhower years, and while it is true that the top marginal rate was 91% from 1954 to 1963 that is not what matters. The important part is how much the rich actually paid.

Here were the effective individual income tax rates of the 3 very high income AGI groups.

$200,000-$500,000 group: Tax as Share of Amended AGI (%)

1953 = 45.9
1954 = 39.3
1955 = 36.8
1956 = 37.4
1957 = 38.6
1958 = 36.9
1959 = 33.8
1960 = 33.1
1961 = 31.5

$500,000-$1,000,000 group: Tax as Share of Amended AGI (%)

1953 = 46.3
1954 = 38.7
1955 = 35.6
1956 = 36.7
1957 = 36.6
1958 = 36.0
1959 = 32.1
1960 = 30.8
1961 = 29.1

Over $1,000,000 group: Tax as Share of Amended AGI (%)

1953 = 49.3
1954 = 38.8
1955 = 35.8
1956 = 36.1
1957 = 40.0
1958 = 33.1
1959 = 30.6
1960 = 31.3
1961 = 27.2

SOURCE: William Williams, The Changing Progressivity of the Federal Income Tax, National Tax Journal (1964)"

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=665814

 

If you were that informed, you'd understand we have marginal tax rates, so no one would be getting taxed more up to the same level of income regardless of how they structured the tax increases. Which means, no one would be getting 90% of their entire income taxed.

 

My main focus is on the fact that 10% of the workers pay 90% of the income taxes. App 50% pay no income tax and some receive the "Earned Income Tax Credit". Anyone think that's fair?

 

It was a time I was thinking that having that much or more than most and others was a right. Now that I know more the people around and a lot of rich, I'm sure that it's a not right.
I'm for social inequity, the things I don't understand is how you can do that.