There has been more than a few discussions on income inequality with
the view point of some being, the spread of those making less compared
to those making more is on its face, wrong, is it wrong?
If simply the difference between the top and bottom is wrong on its face
just because there is a difference between the top and bottom, why?
Why should equal pay be better having everyone make the same
amount if not everyone is willing to put out the same effort?
Why would some who save or be willing to go into debt to buy nicer
things be thought of as somehow wrong or selfish compared to those
that have less, because they spend what they have as soon as they get
it?
If it is something else that disturbs like greed where the playing field is
not level, but twisted so that only a few can get rich, than I believe
there is almost universal agreement that is wrong. If is it simply that
someone’s business starts making more money so that the owners do
well, and that can be thought of as wrong, why?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayThere has been more than a few discussions on income inequality with
There has been more than a few discussions on income inequality with
the view point of some being, the spread of those making less compared
to those making more is on its face, wrong, is it wrong?
If simply the difference between the top and bottom is wrong on its face
just because there is a difference between the top and bottom, why?
Why should e ...[text shortened]... making more money so that the owners do
well, and that can be thought of as wrong, why?
Kelly
the view point of some being, the spread of those making less compared
to those making more is on its face, wrong, is it wrong?
That depends on how one defines "wrong."
If simply the difference between the top and bottom is wrong on its face
just because there is a difference between the top and bottom, why?
Why should equal pay be better having everyone make the same
amount if not everyone is willing to put out the same effort?
Where did you find "more than a few discussions" where people argued for equal pay? Such an extreme position is quite unpopular, I believe, although I am sure it is held by a few. Haven't seen them on these forums, though.
Why would some who save or be willing to go into debt to buy nicer
things be thought of as somehow wrong or selfish compared to those
that have less, because they spend what they have as soon as they get
it?
If it is something else that disturbs like greed where the playing field is
not level, but twisted so that only a few can get rich, than I believe
there is almost universal agreement that is wrong. If is it simply that
someone’s business starts making more money so that the owners do
well, and that can be thought of as wrong, why?
Kelly
I believe we should set the conditions in society such that talent and hard work is rewarded, while luck is not. This means giving the people the ability to develop their talents and businesses. Unfortunately, in the US, it is much harder for talented and hard-working people to fulfill their ambitions than in many other industrialized nations. Extreme inequality appears to add to this difficulty, as one can observe for example in the Great Gatsby curve.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI am trying to find this, "That depends on how one defines "wrong"..." in my
[b]There has been more than a few discussions on income inequality with
the view point of some being, the spread of those making less compared
to those making more is on its face, wrong, is it wrong?
That depends on how one defines "wrong."
If simply the difference between the top and bottom is wrong on its face
just because there is a d ...[text shortened]... ity appears to add to this difficulty, as one can observe for example in the Great Gatsby curve.
questions. If it is all a level playing field with no one cheating, would the fact
that some have more than others, mean something is wrong just for the
simple fact someone has more than another?
Kelly
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI do not know what the "Great Gatsby curve" is, could you enlighten me I've
[b]There has been more than a few discussions on income inequality with
the view point of some being, the spread of those making less compared
to those making more is on its face, wrong, is it wrong?
That depends on how one defines "wrong."
If simply the difference between the top and bottom is wrong on its face
just because there is a d ...[text shortened]... ity appears to add to this difficulty, as one can observe for example in the Great Gatsby curve.
heard of the Great Gatsby, but never read it.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayUnfortunately, the playing field is not level. If it were, then it depends on what one wishes to achieve. I am loosely aligned with utilitarian philosophy, so the optimal government policy would be the one maximizing people's happiness. However, which policy that would be is not a trivial question.
I am trying to find this, "That depends on how one defines "wrong"..." in my
questions. If it is all a level playing field with no one cheating, would the fact
that some have more than others, mean something is wrong just for the
simple fact someone has more than another?
Kelly
As for the Great Gatsby curve: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Gatsby_Curve
Originally posted by KazetNagorra"you can't really experience ever-growing income inequality without experiencing a decline in Horatio Alger-style upward mobility because (to use a frequently-employed metaphor) it's harder to climb a ladder when the rungs are farther apart.[6]"
Unfortunately, the playing field is not level. If it were, then it depends on what one wishes to achieve. I am loosely aligned with utilitarian philosophy, so the optimal government policy would be the one maximizing people's happiness. However, which policy that would be is not a trivial question.
As for the Great Gatsby curve: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Gatsby_Curve
When you think about the minimun wage, I'd suggest that it is very
hard to climb the ladder when they keep ripping the lower rungs off
the ladder so less people can step on them to even begin to work their
way up.
I don't think it is my job or anyone else' to make people happy, I do
competely think we should make the playing field level so that they
can if they want pursue happiness. They can figure out what it is they
want to do, I don't feel like anyone should be forced to give away their
income to someone who doesn't want to fend for themselves through
the government. That said, if they want to work to help others, give to
help others, they should be able to do that.
I read one of those signs on a social media that said part of the American
government was boasting about how many people it was feeding, the
caption next to it was another government agency warning people that
they should NOT feed wild animals that they were in charge of! The
reason why was so they would not become dependent on people to eat
they would be able to feed themselves.
At some point helping hands need to stop spoon feeding others and
make them do it themselves otherwise they will never learn how to
take care of themselves.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayHow do you make the playing field level without some form of income redistribution?
"you can't really experience ever-growing income inequality without experiencing a decline in Horatio Alger-style upward mobility because (to use a frequently-employed metaphor) it's harder to climb a ladder when the rungs are farther apart.[6]"
When you think about the minimun wage, I'd suggest that it is very
hard to climb the ladder when they keep ri ...[text shortened]... ke them do it themselves otherwise they will never learn how to
take care of themselves.
Kelly
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI hate the word redistribution, it sounds like someone is standing around
How do you make the playing field level without some form of income redistribution?
passing out money and giving to some more than others. It does work
a disjustice by belittling effort in my opinion. If you are speaking of pay
for time and effort, that in my opinion is not distribution. Taking away
from those who earned it to give to people who didn't is a redistribution
of wealth, which should be kept to the lowest possible percentage in my
opinion from those who work for it.
Kelly
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThank you for the links.
Unfortunately, the playing field is not level. If it were, then it depends on what one wishes to achieve. I am loosely aligned with utilitarian philosophy, so the optimal government policy would be the one maximizing people's happiness. However, which policy that would be is not a trivial question.
As for the Great Gatsby curve: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Gatsby_Curve
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJay"The lowest possible percentage." So you feel that the lowest incomes should pay the highest taxes? And you favour the abolition of Social Security? Please, be more precise in what you mean.
I hate the word redistribution, it sounds like someone is standing around
passing out money and giving to some more than others. It does work
a disjustice by belittling effort in my opinion. If you are speaking of pay
for time and effort, that in my opinion is not distribution. Taking away
from those who earned it to give to people who didn't is a redis ...[text shortened]... ould be kept to the lowest possible percentage in my
opinion from those who work for it.
Kelly
Given the empirical fact that high income inequality leads to an absence of a "level playing field," how do you reconcile your desire for both high income inequality and a "level playing field"? You cannot have both.
First, every self made wealthy individual used resources and infrastructure created by taxes the rest of us pay to achieve their wealth. They attended schools funded by taxes. They used roads and utilities funded by taxes. They hired workers trained in institutions funded by taxes. They probably have received tax breaks which means the taxes of less wealthy individuals covers their break. Even the minimum wage is an entitlement for businesses. If someone works full time yet cannot afford basic shelter, food, clothing, transportation to and from work and a phone, then they may well qualify for some form of assistance which means that my taxes are used to supplement their income thus giving their employer more profit.
Basic beliefs about human nature are at the root of this discussion. If your view is that most people want to earn enough money to be considered middle class meaning being able to afford to buy a modest home, clothe and feed their family, have a functioning vehicle and save for their children's education and their own retirement and take the occasional vacation, then you are likely to support access to educational opportunities without extreme student debt, minimum wages and public transportation in urban and surrounding suburban areas so workers can easily access jobs. If you believe that people who are poor are mostly lazy free loaders who are poor due to their own lack of ambition, not a lack of resources to change their situation, then you are all for letting them continue to live in poverty, able to only earn minimum wages or enter the black market for income. Realize that if you take this view, we will continue to need more prisons which are expensive. These individuals do not pay taxes so the nation's infrastructure will suffer which will hurt those who own businesses and an ever growing number of people will be unable to purchase goods and services which means businesses will have no reason to expand or hire workers. It is a belief system that will eventually destroy a country's economy.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraIf I were to design our tax system:
"The lowest possible percentage." So you feel that the lowest incomes should pay the highest taxes? And you favour the abolition of Social Security? Please, be more precise in what you mean.
Given the empirical fact that high income inequality leads to an absence of a "level playing field," how do you reconcile your desire for both high income inequality and a "level playing field"? You cannot have both.
First 30K tax free, after that all share the same percentage I favor 10%.
If the taxes go up, they go up on everyone equally, no more deductions.
Simple and straight forward.
Kelly
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThe way we are taxed now has more to do with our behavior than most
"The lowest possible percentage." So you feel that the lowest incomes should pay the highest taxes? And you favour the abolition of Social Security? Please, be more precise in what you mean.
Given the empirical fact that high income inequality leads to an absence of a "level playing field," how do you reconcile your desire for both high income inequality and a "level playing field"? You cannot have both.
other things, if they want this they deduct, if they dislike that tax it. That
is pure power with which to buys votes with.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayPlaying fields are never level. Not even close to level. Money itself inherently makes playing fields uneven. Money by its very nature imparts power, and power is height on the playing field.
If it is something else that disturbs like greed where the playing field is
not level, but twisted so that only a few can get rich, than I believe
there is almost universal agreement that is wrong. If is it simply that
someone’s business starts making more money so that the owners do
well, and that can be thought of as wrong, why?
Your posts demonstrate you have not done much reading or studying on the topic. I fully admit that I have not either. This is why I recommended to you a course on the topic in another thread. The course is from Harvard, and is free. I am halfway through and it has already expanded my knowledge greatly and changed some of my views on the topic.