Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Money and Finance > Economics


Thanks Tree72Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 1st, 2017, 07:23 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Virginia
Posts: 180
Income inequality is not a problem that needs solving

There are some who speak of eliminating income inequality as though it's a problem that needs to be done away with, but it actually isn't.

The only kind of "problem" that can be drawn from the notion of income inequality is envy by those who have less of those who have more.

One way to eliminate the "problem" of income inequality is to force everyone to have an income of 0. As long as we live under capitalism - meaning at some point someone somewhere has to exert force (mentally, physically, or both ways) in order to be able to produce goods and services we need and trade with each other - we're going to have to have some sort of income in some form, and with an income of 0 that means no one can exchange goods & services. We would all have to be 100% self sufficient, which is at best the most inefficient way to live, and at worst not feasible for everyone. This means that's not going to happen.

The only other option is to make it so everyone is getting the same income. This means just about everyone is going to go after the easiest & most comfortable jobs to do, and almost no one is going to go after the difficult or undesirable jobs. Rather than doing the most difficult jobs, such as being scientists, engineers, computer programmers, physicians, dentists, nurses, teachers, professors, airline pilots, etc., the smartest people will be going after the easy jobs just like everyone else (except they'll probably get them first since they're smarter). That leaves people who aren't as smart as them having to do those difficult jobs.

It also means the people who start and run businesses that employ people are not going to have the incentive to start or continue to run businesses, because that's much harder work than being an employee.

There's a reason people get paid more as they climb the ladder, someone's boss gets paid more than them, and not the other way around.

Income inequality is just a natural part of a healthy economy.

I'd rather work for someone getting paid 100 times more than I get paid, be able to make ends meet, have a nice home, a nice car for getting around and back & forth to work, a good computer, nice TV, good food, etc., if all it means is that I might be envious. I'd rather not want my boss to be forced to make the same income I do - not have a job at all & struggle to make ends meet, have a shack for a home, have to walk to work, crap for food, etc.
Thanks from Sabcat
Neil is offline  
Old December 1st, 2017, 07:35 PM   #2
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Between everywhere
Posts: 27,336
Several studies by knowledgeable economists and experts in the field disagree. I have these links to back up my claim that wealth inequality hurts the economic health of countries and in fact the world. Do you have a link for your treatise?

https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft...15/sdn1513.pdf

Higher taxes for rich will not harm economic growth, says IMF | The Independent
Thanks from Neil
RNG is offline  
Old December 1st, 2017, 07:39 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Virginia
Posts: 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
Several studies by knowledgeable economists and experts in the field disagree. I have these links to back up my claim that wealth inequality hurts the economic health of countries and in fact the world. Do you have a link for your treatise?

https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft...15/sdn1513.pdf

Higher taxes for rich will not harm economic growth, says IMF | The Independent
LOL

I want to thank you for promptly engaging me in this dialogue. I'll review your sources when I get the opportunity & get back to you; right now I'm out of time.
Neil is offline  
Old December 1st, 2017, 08:29 PM   #4
end capitalism now
 
right to left's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,797
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil View Post
LOL

I want to thank you for promptly engaging me in this dialogue. I'll review your sources when I get the opportunity & get back to you; right now I'm out of time.
Meanwhile, the working class is looking over old blueprints of guillotines to decide which design to put into production and place in town squares all over the world!
right to left is offline  
Old December 1st, 2017, 08:31 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Hollywood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Memphis, Tn.
Posts: 20,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil View Post
There are some who speak of eliminating income inequality as though it's a problem that needs to be done away with, but it actually isn't.

The only kind of "problem" that can be drawn from the notion of income inequality is envy by those who have less of those who have more.

One way to eliminate the "problem" of income inequality is to force everyone to have an income of 0. As long as we live under capitalism - meaning at some point someone somewhere has to exert force (mentally, physically, or both ways) in order to be able to produce goods and services we need and trade with each other - we're going to have to have some sort of income in some form, and with an income of 0 that means no one can exchange goods & services. We would all have to be 100% self sufficient, which is at best the most inefficient way to live, and at worst not feasible for everyone. This means that's not going to happen.

The only other option is to make it so everyone is getting the same income. This means just about everyone is going to go after the easiest & most comfortable jobs to do, and almost no one is going to go after the difficult or undesirable jobs. Rather than doing the most difficult jobs, such as being scientists, engineers, computer programmers, physicians, dentists, nurses, teachers, professors, airline pilots, etc., the smartest people will be going after the easy jobs just like everyone else (except they'll probably get them first since they're smarter). That leaves people who aren't as smart as them having to do those difficult jobs.

It also means the people who start and run businesses that employ people are not going to have the incentive to start or continue to run businesses, because that's much harder work than being an employee.

There's a reason people get paid more as they climb the ladder, someone's boss gets paid more than them, and not the other way around.

Income inequality is just a natural part of a healthy economy.

I'd rather work for someone getting paid 100 times more than I get paid, be able to make ends meet, have a nice home, a nice car for getting around and back & forth to work, a good computer, nice TV, good food, etc., if all it means is that I might be envious. I'd rather not want my boss to be forced to make the same income I do - not have a job at all & struggle to make ends meet, have a shack for a home, have to walk to work, crap for food, etc.
I agree, it is not a disparity, or inequality, in income in and of itself that is a problem.
The problem is the DEGREE of the disparity. That should be obvious.
If the inequality reaches a point where we have pretty much only the very rich and the very poor, with a insignificantly sized middle class a quick look at any history book will tell you the country is headed into complete disaster.
Thanks from imaginethat and Clara007
Hollywood is offline  
Old December 2nd, 2017, 12:58 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 56,766
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil View Post
There are some who speak of eliminating income inequality as though it's a problem that needs to be done away with, but it actually isn't.

The only kind of "problem" that can be drawn from the notion of income inequality is envy by those who have less of those who have more.

One way to eliminate the "problem" of income inequality is to force everyone to have an income of 0. As long as we live under capitalism - meaning at some point someone somewhere has to exert force (mentally, physically, or both ways) in order to be able to produce goods and services we need and trade with each other - we're going to have to have some sort of income in some form, and with an income of 0 that means no one can exchange goods & services. We would all have to be 100% self sufficient, which is at best the most inefficient way to live, and at worst not feasible for everyone. This means that's not going to happen.

The only other option is to make it so everyone is getting the same income. This means just about everyone is going to go after the easiest & most comfortable jobs to do, and almost no one is going to go after the difficult or undesirable jobs. Rather than doing the most difficult jobs, such as being scientists, engineers, computer programmers, physicians, dentists, nurses, teachers, professors, airline pilots, etc., the smartest people will be going after the easy jobs just like everyone else (except they'll probably get them first since they're smarter). That leaves people who aren't as smart as them having to do those difficult jobs.

It also means the people who start and run businesses that employ people are not going to have the incentive to start or continue to run businesses, because that's much harder work than being an employee.

There's a reason people get paid more as they climb the ladder, someone's boss gets paid more than them, and not the other way around.

Income inequality is just a natural part of a healthy economy.

I'd rather work for someone getting paid 100 times more than I get paid, be able to make ends meet, have a nice home, a nice car for getting around and back & forth to work, a good computer, nice TV, good food, etc., if all it means is that I might be envious. I'd rather not want my boss to be forced to make the same income I do - not have a job at all & struggle to make ends meet, have a shack for a home, have to walk to work, crap for food, etc.
I tell ya what, all those "lower-tier" shit jobs, like maid, garbage man, dishwasher, janitor ... try running a healthy economy without them.
imaginethat is offline  
Old December 2nd, 2017, 04:28 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
Clara007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Arizona
Posts: 7,889
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollywood View Post
I agree, it is not a disparity, or inequality, in income in and of itself that is a problem.
The problem is the DEGREE of the disparity. That should be obvious.
If the inequality reaches a point where we have pretty much only the very rich and the very poor, with a insignificantly sized middle class a quick look at any history book will tell you the country is headed into complete disaster.


You nailed it, H. Reasonable people don't think everyone should be paid the same, but most of us DO SEE a pattern developing and it's not a pretty picture.

People try to explain rising inequality away by arguing we live in a winner-take-all economy or that inequality is the result of the skill-biased technological change, these arguments are baloney. Inequality has been driven by public policy choices that favored the rich, the decline of unions and the rise of finance.
AND one of the reasons that we the people should be concerned is that IF the lower and middle class continue to disappear we have no consumers--no home buyers--no car buyers--no large ticket items sold.
The 1% cannot fuel the economy alone.

The same political forces that allowed the 1 percent to take our political system hostage have only worsened in the past decade. Look at our administration and cabinet. Look at the new tax bill.

Democracy is MORE than just an idea. The wealth in this country should not be controlled by 1% of the population. But it is and it's going to get worse.
Thanks from Hollywood
Clara007 is offline  
Old December 2nd, 2017, 05:51 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: massachusetts
Posts: 9,586
It's like the Laffer Curve, we can all agree on the extremes.
That nobody owning anything is probably bad, and that one guy owning everything probably doesn't work either, so the ideal distribution lies somewhere in between.

We had a system, that for 50 years lowered the concentration of wealth, the middle class had a bigger share at the end of the year, the wealthy were wealthier at the end of almost every year, but their share of the pie was less.
During that period, the growth rate of the economy was greater than the average after tax return on investment.
Then Reagan rejiggered that tax rates, so the average after tax return on investment was greater than the growth rate of the economy, and at the end of every year, the middle class had a smaller share of the pie, and the wealthy had a larger share of the pie. And something else happened, the growth rate of the economy slowed.
Since Reagan lowered taxes on the wealthy, the growth rate has shrunk.
No president has finished his time in office with 4% growth or greater.
And the growth rate since 2001 has been 1.8%.

The last time we had a president with an over 5% growth rate , the top tax rate was 70%.

So when wealth becomes too concentrated, like in Haiti, or Venezuela or Zimbabwe, the economy is shit.
When wealth becomes less concentrated, the economy thrives, because if it's a market economy, then a big middle class with a bigger share of the wealth is a better market to drive growth.
Draw down that middle class share of the wealth and the economy slows down.
And that has been the effect of the low tax rates that have been in effect since Reagan.

The data screams "We need a big tax increase on the wealthy".

But our electorate, most of whom are economically illiterate, believe the nonsense that tax cuts for the wealthy are better for everyone.
Thanks from Hollywood
goober is offline  
Old December 2nd, 2017, 07:53 AM   #9
M(A)GA
 
Sabcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 23,418
Quote:
Originally Posted by goober View Post
It's like the Laffer Curve, we can all agree on the extremes.
That nobody owning anything is probably bad, and that one guy owning everything probably doesn't work either, so the ideal distribution lies somewhere in between.

We had a system, that for 50 years lowered the concentration of wealth, the middle class had a bigger share at the end of the year, the wealthy were wealthier at the end of almost every year, but their share of the pie was less.
During that period, the growth rate of the economy was greater than the average after tax return on investment.
Then Reagan rejiggered that tax rates, so the average after tax return on investment was greater than the growth rate of the economy, and at the end of every year, the middle class had a smaller share of the pie, and the wealthy had a larger share of the pie. And something else happened, the growth rate of the economy slowed.
Since Reagan lowered taxes on the wealthy, the growth rate has shrunk.
No president has finished his time in office with 4% growth or greater.
And the growth rate since 2001 has been 1.8%.

The last time we had a president with an over 5% growth rate , the top tax rate was 70%.

So when wealth becomes too concentrated, like in Haiti, or Venezuela or Zimbabwe, the economy is shit.
When wealth becomes less concentrated, the economy thrives, because if it's a market economy, then a big middle class with a bigger share of the wealth is a better market to drive growth.
Draw down that middle class share of the wealth and the economy slows down.
And that has been the effect of the low tax rates that have been in effect since Reagan.

The data screams "We need a big tax increase on the wealthy".

But our electorate, most of whom are economically illiterate, believe the nonsense that tax cuts for the wealthy are better for everyone.


They do that in NK. Take everything from the productive and give it to the state.

You should move there. You would love it.
Sabcat is offline  
Old December 2nd, 2017, 07:58 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
Hollywood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Memphis, Tn.
Posts: 20,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabcat View Post
They do that in NK. Take everything from the productive and give it to the state.

You should move there. You would love it.
Flame-baiting gibberish on your part.
Thanks from RNG
Hollywood is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Money and Finance > Economics

Tags
income, inequality, problem, solving



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Income inequality is bad for everyone, IMF report concludes RNG Economics 54 November 19th, 2015 09:46 AM
Rubio-Lee tax plan means more debt and greater income inequality LongWinded Current Events 3 March 9th, 2015 12:00 AM
Income Inequality roastpork Current Events 6 May 8th, 2014 09:54 AM
GOP senators offer proposals to close 'income inequality' gap guy39 Americas 43 January 31st, 2014 05:49 AM
Obama Causes Income Inequality sumara Current Events 24 December 11th, 2013 08:23 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.