Nine Pictures of the Extreme Income/Wealth Gap

[LnGrrrR]

Captain Downer...

Sorry you hate others for being successful. If you hate the American Dream so much, move to a different country.

Awesome strawman. I'm impressed.

[vy65]

Awesome strawman. I'm impressed.

He's actually on to something for once. There is nothing wrong with successful people who amass large amounts of wealth in their lifetimes. They're free to do with it what they want. That article is full of whiny resentment for people who have done well in life.

There is a separate question about 1) inheritance 2) the death tax and 3) tax cuts. I understand why people and complain about the concentration of power in the hands of the already-powerful, but if you were in that position, would you do anything else? What does that 10% owe the remaining 90%

And no, I'm not saying tax cuts for the rich are good, or that there is no problem with these lop-sided demographics.

[boutons_deux]

WC supports a punitively regressive flat tax, like the 17% that Warren Buffet says he pays, to be paid by Wal-Marters @$20K/year.

[LnGrrrR]

He's actually on to something for once. There is nothing wrong with successful people who amass large amounts of wealth in their lifetimes. They're free to do with it what they want.

WC tried to represent that the poster hated the American Dream because the poster was concerned about wealth inequality. That's obviously a non-sequitur/logical fallacy.

Just because you are concerned about wealth inequality doesn't mean you hate America.

I'll take the thought experiment upthread and tweak it slightly.

(This is a bit wordy, so forgive me in advance.) If America were making a GDP of 15 billion a year, but 14.9 of that billion was controlled by three people, would that be better than America making 13 billion a year, where 12.9 billion was controlled by 5,000?

IOW, is the "bottom line" of how much America is making really the most important statistic?

There is a separate question about 1) inheritance 2) the death tax and 3) tax cuts. I understand why people and complain about the concentration of power in the hands of the already-powerful, but if you were in that position, would you do anything else? What does that 10% owe the remaining 90%

There's an argument to be made that the 10% made their money off the backs of the 90%, but I won't go into that. I also don't agree with the inheritance/death taxes, personally.

While something might not be justified "morally", per se, we run into issues where what's best for the nation isn't justifiable on an individual basis. For instance, education taxes. If I don't have a kid in school, is it morally justifiable for the gov't to require money from me?

But long term, said child's education will be supporting our nation's infrastructure/future.

If an extreme gap in wealth equality leads to an increased likelihood of mass riots/protests/etc etc, shouldn't we look for ways to avoid those outcomes?

Sometimes the "optimal" way to do things isn't really optimal. (See Game Theory and actual outcomes.)

[vy65]

WC tried to represent that the poster hated the American Dream because the poster was concerned about wealth inequality. That's obviously a non-sequitur/logical fallacy.

Just because you are concerned about wealth inequality doesn't mean you hate America.

Fair point. WC is a ing re .

I'll take the thought experiment upthread and tweak it slightly.

(This is a bit wordy, so forgive me in advance.) If America were making a GDP of 15 billion a year, but 14.9 of that billion was controlled by three people, would that be better than America making 13 billion a year, where 12.9 billion was controlled by 5,000?

IOW, is the "bottom line" of how much America is making really the most important statistic?

I don't know what the right answer to this is. But it's not responsive to my point. I think that the wealth gap is both inevitable and a good thing. If we really were stringent on equally-amassed levels of wealth, what'd be the point of working real hard? But that's probably besides the point too.

There's an argument to be made that the 10% made their money off the backs of the 90%, but I won't go into that. I also don't agree with the inheritance/death taxes, personally.

While something might not be justified "morally", per se, we run into issues where what's best for the nation isn't justifiable on an individual basis. For instance, education taxes. If I don't have a kid in school, is it morally justifiable for the gov't to require money from me?

But long term, said child's education will be supporting our nation's infrastructure/future.

If an extreme gap in wealth equality leads to an increased likelihood of mass riots/protests/etc etc, shouldn't we look for ways to avoid those outcomes?

Sometimes the "optimal" way to do things isn't really optimal. (See Game Theory and actual outcomes.)

I guess that's really the debate. But it's not like the rich are not paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to the USFG in taxes. I'd also be curious to see how much that 10% actually ends up paying (like a gross amount) compared to the other 90%.

My point was more along the lines of: if you were rich and powerful, wouldn't you try to "buy politicians" and protect the wealth you've amassed via lenient tax rates? And can you really blame the rich for doing so?

[baseline bum]

I don't know what the right answer to this is. But it's not responsive to my point. I think that the wealth gap is both inevitable and a good thing.

The wealth gap is a very bad thing, since having money in the hands of those with higher marginal utilities for their dollars is what keeps the economy going. It's much better for our country to have its money being spent on tangible goods than it is for it to be used in speculation on real estate and commodities that serve to raid even more of the wealth of the vast majority of our population.

[LnGrrrR]

I don't know what the right answer to this is. But it's not responsive to my point. I think that the wealth gap is both inevitable and a good thing. If we really were stringent on equally-amassed levels of wealth, what'd be the point of working real hard? But that's probably besides the point too.

I don't think ANYONE knows. If they did, they'd be anointed world president/leader. I also don't think it's some static number that will work for all time.

But the way that some conservatives decry unequal taxation is a bit extreme, in my eyes. They make a 30% tax bracket sound like a death knell, when it was 70% or so IIRC only a few decades ago.

I guess that's really the debate. But it's not like the rich are not paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to the USFG in taxes. I'd also be curious to see how much that 10% actually ends up paying (like a gross amount) compared to the other 90%.

The biggest problem is that wealth tends to make more wealth, so without any controlling factors you'll get what we have today, which is an increasing inequality gap.

My point was more along the lines of: if you were rich and powerful, wouldn't you try to "buy politicians" and protect the wealth you've amassed via lenient tax rates? And can you really blame the rich for doing so?

Can't really blame the rich for trying to work the system, no. Then again, I guess on the flip side you can't complain about the masses trying to get taxation laws written that try to equalize that income, right?

[vy65]

The wealth gap is a very bad thing, since having money in the hands of those with higher marginal utilities for their dollars is what keeps the economy going. It's much better for our country to have its money being spent on tangible goods than it is for it to be used in speculation on real estate and commodities that serve to raid even more of the wealth of the vast majority of our population.

The biggest problem is that wealth tends to make more wealth, so without any controlling factors you'll get what we have today, which is an increasing inequality gap.

I'd want to know how you can control how the wealthy decide to spend their wealth. I can see how speculation can harm people, but to restrict the rich's ability to do so seems more destructive because, by limiting what peolpe can do with their property, you disincentivize innovation, labor, etc... Plus, who ever said anything about what's best for the country? The point is that if you earn it - you should be able to do with it what you please, even if that's detrimental to others.

And no, I can't blame the "90%" from trying to game the system - but frankly it doesn't seem like a fair fight.

[baseline bum]

The point is that if you earn it - you should be able to do with it what you please, even if that's detrimental to others.

I could sell heroin to your kids for their lunch money, their playstation, their ipod, bike, and so on.

[vy65]

I could sell heroin to your kids for their lunch money, their playstation, their ipod, bike, and so on.

True, because legitimately ac ulated wealth = heroin.

[baseline bum]

True, because legitimately ac ulated wealth = heroin.

But I don't have any social responsibility. So why can't I sell your kids heroin?

[vy65]

But I don't have any social responsibility. So why can't I sell your kids heroin?

Because I never said you don't have any social responsibility.

Don't over-generalize what I said - it makes you look as re ed as WC.

[LnGrrrR]

I'd want to know how you can control how the wealthy decide to spend their wealth. I can see how speculation can harm people, but to restrict the rich's ability to do so seems more destructive because, by limiting what peolpe can do with their property, you disincentivize innovation, labor, etc...

Yes, it's a thorny situation.

Plus, who ever said anything about what's best for the country? The point is that if you earn it - you should be able to do with it what you please, even if that's detrimental to others.

If that's your line of thought, how do you accept any taxation as moral that isn't specifically agreed upon by the party being taxed?

And no, I can't blame the "90%" from trying to game the system - but frankly it doesn't seem like a fair fight.

It certainly isn't. Those 10% are like heavyweights against a lightweight.

Quick question! How many Senators are middle-class?

[baseline bum]

Because I never said you don't have any social responsibility.

Don't over-generalize what I said - it makes you look as re ed as WC.

Plus, who ever said anything about what's best for the country? The point is that if you earn it - you should be able to do with it what you please, even if that's detrimental to others.

I please to screw people over to grow my wealth.

[vy65]

^^ I dunno about moral, but to a certain extent, everyone benefits from being within the country (ability to do business here, military/police protection, etc...). I guess consent to taxation comes from accepting the benefits of such services

[coyotes_geek]

The wealth gap is a very bad thing, since having money in the hands of those with higher marginal utilities for their dollars is what keeps the economy going. It's much better for our country to have its money being spent on tangible goods than it is for it to be used in speculation on real estate and commodities that serve to raid even more of the wealth of the vast majority of our population.

Bill Gates is the beneficiary of a pretty big wealth gap. He also gives away over a billion dollars a year to charity. Is our country better off because of his charity, or would we be better off with that billion dollars being spent on junk food, video games, booze, cigarettes or whatever other tangible goods you think people would be spending their re-distributed income on?

[vy65]

I please to screw people over to grow my wealth.

which = selling heroin.

Congrats on being a mouth-breathing reductionist.

[LnGrrrR]

The whole point about "what's best for the country" is that once an income gap grows too large, it hurts everyone. (See the Great Depression.) And since the nation is made up of, well, ya know, every citizen, then citizens surely have a right to do what's best for the nation (legally), correct?

After all, citizens who don't like being taxed still have two options: influence the legislature, or leave the country.

[LnGrrrR]

^^ I dunno about moral, but to a certain extent, everyone benefits from being within the country (ability to do business here, military/police protection, etc...). I guess consent to taxation comes from accepting the benefits of such services

So then, taxation IS moral. Kinda defeats your "what right do they have to take money in the first place" argument.

[vy65]

The whole point about "what's best for the country" is that once an income gap grows too large, it hurts everyone. (See the Great Depression.) And since the nation is made up of, well, ya know, every citizen, then citizens surely have a right to do what's best for the nation (legally), correct?

After all, citizens who don't like being taxed still have two options: influence the legislature, or leave the country.

At what point do I, in earning a ton of money, become obligated to do what's best for the country? I'm skeptical that there is such a point - especially with how "globalized" business is.

I think your obligation to better the country starts and ends with your tax burden. And the rich, while proportionately not paying as much as the 90%, do pay a ton in taxes.

[baseline bum]

which = selling heroin.

Congrats on being a mouth-breathing reductionist.

It's funny you about WC and throw around the same insults he does.

[vy65]

So then, taxation IS moral. Kinda defeats your "what right do they have to take money in the first place" argument.

Like I said, I don't know about this morals business.

And I'm pretty sure I never said anything about this "right to take money in the first place."

[vy65]

It's funny you about WC and throw around the same insults he does.

About as funny as those insults actually being applicable in your case?

[LnGrrrR]

Bill Gates is the beneficiary of a pretty big wealth gap. He also gives away over a billion dollars a year to charity. Is our country better off because of his charity, or would we be better off with that billion dollars being spent on junk food, video games, booze, cigarettes or whatever other tangible goods you think people would be spending their re-distributed income on?

Could you come up with a more leading question if you tried?

I can do that too! Check it out.

Is our country better off because of his charity, or would we be better off with that billion dollars being spent on health care, small business startup money, or infrastructure?

Now, on a serious note, it doesn't really matter (in a fiscal sense) whether he gives it to saints or crackheads, as long as it's recirculating. The problem is with rich people saving/investing, especially in offshore areas.

Outsourcing to other nations benefits the rich, because they get the same product for less cost. The argument goes that the average worker benefits too, because they are able to receive said product at a lower cost as well.

Course, that doesn't mean jack squat if the person doesn't have a job in the first place.

[vy65]

So then, taxation IS moral. Kinda defeats your "what right do they have to take money in the first place" argument.

That was just a response to BB's drivel about how the specualtion harms the country - it had nothing to do with taxes.