Nine Pictures of the Extreme Income/Wealth Gap

[vy65]

This doesn't take into proper consideration the HUGE grey area that exists between the two poles of obliging one to dedicate his/her money to the greater good and encouraging him/her to selfishly dedicate that same money to the greater suck.

I agree that the answer to all of this is not obligation or forced philanthropy, but that doesn't mean that we should swing all the way to the other side and abandon any hope of a system in which a) the disparity between the wealthy and the poor is quite so severe, and b) it becomes financially attractive for those with money to invest in the betterment of their own community/country. An imagined utopia free of capitalistic greed and its resulting power/privilege dynamic is, for better or worse, completely unrealistic; but that doesn't mean that violently stomping on the heads of those below you HAS TO BE a necessary part of climbing the ladder.

Yah, I couldn't disagree more. That violent stomping you describe is the world we live in and a necessary part of climbing the ladder. That fear of being stomped is exactly what incentivized people to innovate, work, and ultimately succeed. Yah, it would be nice if the system weren't otherwise, but it's willful ignorance to think that wealth can be ac ulated and enjoyed by anyone without a concomitant taking from someone else.

[vy65]

And I don't see how I'm ignoring any supposed gray area because there is no such area. Everyone here is quick to say that, for example, Bill Gates devoting his wealth to charity is good for everyone involved. But why is that? And more importantly, who decides whom amongst the wealthy should "give back." And how much should they give back to society? Does it have to be money? And how wealthy do you have to be to have this obligation triggered?

Would you feel comfortable giving up your car and sending the money saved on car payments, gas, etc ... to the less fortunate in Iraq, Angola, or even rural Texas? Surely you can't claim that there isn't a massive economic gap between you and those people?

[baseline bum]

Would you feel comfortable giving up your car and sending the money saved on car payments, gas, etc ... to the less fortunate in Iraq, Angola, or even rural Texas? Surely you can't claim that there isn't a massive economic gap between you and those people?

A swing and a miss. It's pretty hard to go to a job in this country with no car, and pretty ridiculous to compare a necessity like transportation to a few points of taxation on wealth that has a very low marginal utility.

[sickdsm]

Is it possible the left is trying to say we need to legislate morality?

Obligated to pay more taxes to give back to the society that helped him earn it?

[vy65]

A swing and a miss. It's pretty hard to go to a job in this country with no car, and pretty ridiculous to compare a necessity like transportation to a few points of taxation on wealth that has a very low marginal utility.

Doesn't have to be your car. Could be a computer, a tv, etc ... Now stop evading the question and answer it.

[baseline bum]

Doesn't have to be your car. Could be a computer, a tv, etc ... Now stop evading the question and answer it.

Probably not to Iraq and Angola, as their well-being doesn't affect my nation much. For East Texas? Yeah, I wouldn't mind paying extra taxes to bring it into the 21st century. You seem to want to pin me down as some kind of Communist wanting an equal standard of living for all, irrespective of other factors, which I am not arguing for. I do find the thought of letting all the riches rise up to the top to dump on the rest of society extremely shortsighted and highly detrimental to the health and future of this nation. I know you don't see it that way, since in this thread you have sympathized with the rich buying off politicians and such.

[The_Worlds_finest]

This just in...


Some people unfairly brilliant.

on that note....I wish I was little bit taller,I wish I was a baller.

[Capt Bringdown]

This one's making the rounds, a must-see. Former neoliberal free-market cheerleader Jeffry Sachs speaking candidly about Obama's budget cuts:

"Do we really have to have our own Egypt here in the United States?”

“What is happening in this country? We give up massive amounts at the top in tax cuts and then we turn around and squeeze the poorest of the poor.”

“Our politics is so odd right now because it is driven just by the top.”

"History has shown what nonsense it (The Laffer cure) is."

"Both parties are center-right."

"Our country has become two completely different countries."

[LnGrrrR]

And I don't see how I'm ignoring any supposed gray area because there is no such area. Everyone here is quick to say that, for example, Bill Gates devoting his wealth to charity is good for everyone involved. But why is that?

I don't think I have to explain to you why giving money to poor people is a good thing, really.

And more importantly, who decides whom amongst the wealthy should "give back." And how much should they give back to society? Does it have to be money? And how wealthy do you have to be to have this obligation triggered?

The people do, by voting representatives in through law that write taxation bills.

They also determine the how much, the why, etc etc.

Would you feel comfortable giving up your car and sending the money saved on car payments, gas, etc ... to the less fortunate in Iraq, Angola, or even rural Texas? Surely you can't claim that there isn't a massive economic gap between you and those people?

This analogy would've worked much better if you just stuck with the rural Texas thing. The problem is that, to most people, a "car" is an essential need.

Look at it this way. There's an essential amount of money people need to get by, right? Everything OVER that line is "extraneous" in a sense.

In some areas, a car is a necessity to get to work. A cell phone might be a necessity for work. Clothes, food and shelter are obvious, etc etc.

The rich pay more in taxes simply because they can afford to. Let's assume that there's a flat tax of 10%. Who do you think will feel the crunch more? The person making 100,000 a year who now only takes home 90,000? Or the person taking home 30,000 a year who now only takes home 27,000?

[vy65]

Probably not to Iraq and Angola, as their well-being doesn't affect my nation much. For East Texas? Yeah, I wouldn't mind paying extra taxes to bring it into the 21st century. You seem to want to pin me down as some kind of Communist wanting an equal standard of living for all, irrespective of other factors, which I am not arguing for. I do find the thought of letting all the riches rise up to the top to dump on the rest of society extremely shortsighted and highly detrimental to the health and future of this nation. I know you don't see it that way, since in this thread you have sympathized with the rich buying off politicians and such.

You do realize that the reason why gas prices are so low (compared to what they could be) is because oil companies basically run Angola. Iraq is pretty self evident on that account to. To think that those places don't affect your well being is shortsighted and ignorant.

The biggest problem I have with your argument is that it penalizes people who work their ass off to obtain a level of wealth, only to have that returned to others who didn't work to obtain said wealth. Why is that fair?

I've only "sympathized" with the powerful doing whatever it takes to protect thier power. That's the way the world works. You sound like someone who realizes that s/he is unable to attain power or wealth, and so leaches off of others who have under the guise of helping the "future of this nation."

[LnGrrrR]

The biggest problem I have with your argument is that it penalizes people who work their ass off to obtain a level of wealth, only to have that returned to others who didn't work to obtain said wealth. Why is that fair?

It isn't. But if the rich people don't want the poor to attack them, they probably will give in.

I've only "sympathized" with the powerful doing whatever it takes to protect thier power. That's the way the world works. You sound like someone who realizes that s/he is unable to attain power or wealth, and so leaches off of others who have under the guise of helping the "future of this nation."

Why is it "fair" that rich people have so much sway in politics?

And pssst your bias is showing.

[vy65]

The people do, by voting representatives in through law that write taxation bills.

They also determine the how much, the why, etc etc.

I understood CF to be speaking in "moral," not legal terms. If I'm right, I don't see the relevance of this.

This analogy would've worked much better if you just stuck with the rural Texas thing. The problem is that, to most people, a "car" is an essential need.

Look at it this way. There's an essential amount of money people need to get by, right? Everything OVER that line is "extraneous" in a sense.

In some areas, a car is a necessity to get to work. A cell phone might be a necessity for work. Clothes, food and shelter are obvious, etc etc.

The rich pay more in taxes simply because they can afford to. Let's assume that there's a flat tax of 10%. Who do you think will feel the crunch more? The person making 100,000 a year who now only takes home 90,000? Or the person taking home 30,000 a year who now only takes home 27,000?

This might be a Dallas thing, but there are easily parts of town here where you could get by without a car. Or, you could move closer to work. But regardless of the car, what about giving up cable, a computer, etc... The point of the analogy doesn't revolve around the car.

The last point you raise begs the question though. If you and I are at a burger king, and I can only afford 1 whopper but you can afford 2, why is it fair to charge you more for your meal (assuming we order the same thing) solely based on your ability to pay more? Clearly, it's beneficial for BK, but how is it fair to you considering you've gotten the same thing I have, but I pay less according to my means?

On a side note, if you were to subs ute race or gender for economic wealth, people would be having a coniption fit - why is it ok to discriminate based on affluence?

[vy65]

It isn't. But if the rich people don't want the poor to attack them, they probably will give in.

I'm far more skeptical that the revolution is coming.

Why is it "fair" that rich people have so much sway in politics?

And pssst your bias is showing.

Why isn't it fair? They have more power - they're exercising it.

[LnGrrrR]

I understood CF to be speaking in "moral," not legal terms. If I'm right, I don't see the relevance of this.

Then you need to define where you stand when you make the argument. By vacillating between the different stances (moral, legal, realpolitik) you confuse the issue.

This might be a Dallas thing, but there are easily parts of town here where you could get by without a car. Or, you could move closer to work. But regardless of the car, what about giving up cable, a computer, etc... The point of the analogy doesn't revolve around the car.

I doubt there'd be much of an issue if you said people had to give up some sort of non-essential item, such as video games, junk food, etc.

The last point you raise begs the question though. If you and I are at a burger king, and I can only afford 1 whopper but you can afford 2, why is it fair to charge you more for your meal (assuming we order the same thing) solely based on your ability to pay more? Clearly, it's beneficial for BK, but how is it fair to you considering you've gotten the same thing I have, but I pay less according to my means?

Because BK is not a nation. Slight difference in scale there.

On a side note, if you were to subs ute race or gender for economic wealth, people would be having a coniption fit - why is it ok to discriminate based on affluence?

That's a dumb argument, frankly. People do have some control over their wealth.

People discriminate on everything. Looks, personalities, etc etc.

Let me give you a scenario VY.

Two different homeowners have their houses broken into. One of them used security, locks, etc etc. The other left their door wide open. Which do you think society will have more sympathy for?

[LnGrrrR]

I'm far more skeptical that the revolution is coming.

It isn't right now. The poor are still able to afford creature comforts and whatnot. But what do you think would happen if they couldn't?

Why isn't it fair? They have more power - they're exercising it.

And the masses have legislative power, don't they? Why isn't it fair for them to use that power?

[boutons_deux]

"the masses have legislative power, don't they"

You haven't been paying attention. The UCA and its Congressional self-enriching s have completely removed the electorate's ability vote for its own benefit and interests.

George had it pegged years ago, and it so much more true now, and it getting worse, unstoppably worse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIraCchPDhk

The beautiful example is the tea baggers, suckered by social issues and phony patriotic bull , see their candidates coopted/corrupted by DS, and pushing legislation and rule making and regulatory defunding that benefits their financiers, the Kock Bros and the financial sector.

[LnGrrrR]

"the masses have legislative power, don't they"

You haven't been paying attention. The UCA and its Congressional self-enriching s have completely removed the electorate's ability vote for its own benefit and interests.

Boutons, don't derail the thread! We're talking about theory here, not actual results.

[vy65]

Then you need to define where you stand when you make the argument. By vacillating between the different stances (moral, legal, realpolitik) you confuse the issue.

I've been pretty unequivocal in saying the only obligation is the legal obligation to pay taxes.

I doubt there'd be much of an issue if you said people had to give up some sort of non-essential item, such as video games, junk food, etc.

This whole tangent obfuscated the issue. The point is 1) US citizens, even the poor, enjoy an obscene level of wealth compared to those in the third world 2) people who take your position should be comfortable giving up a large amount to those in said third world countries as a redistributive measure.

Because BK is not a nation. Slight difference in scale there.

That's a dumb argument, frankly. People do have some control over their wealth.

People discriminate on everything. Looks, personalities, etc etc.

Let me give you a scenario VY.

Two different homeowners have their houses broken into. One of them used security, locks, etc etc. The other left their door wide open. Which do you think society will have more sympathy for?

If so, then everyone would be a millionaire, so the answer is no. It takes many things (skill, knowledge, luck, cir stance, etc etc).

You're earlier quote suggests that earning power is the result of immutable characteristics (skill, knowledge, luck, cir stance, etc.) that one has no control over. But this whole issue is a tangent anyway.

I don't see the relevance of your analogy.

My point is this: taxes are the costs one pays for governmental services. The poor use those services to a greater degree than the rich. Why then is it ok to charge the rich more for services which they don't use as much as the poor, who are charged a lesser amount?

[vy65]

Boutons, don't derail the thread! We're talking about theory here, not actual results.

He's actually on to something - but I ain't touching that.

[LnGrrrR]

This whole tangent obfuscated the issue. The point is 1) US citizens, even the poor, enjoy an obscene level of wealth compared to those in the third world 2) people who take your position should be comfortable giving up a large amount to those in said third world countries as a redistributive measure.

What's my position?

What's a "large" amount?

You're earlier quote suggests that earning power is the result of immutable characteristics (skill, knowledge, luck, cir stance, etc.) that one has no control over.

Knowledge is an immutable characteristic now?

I don't see the relevance of your analogy.

Society has no great sympathy for those making more than the average, so they get shafted when it comes to taxes.

My point is this: taxes are the costs one pays for governmental services. The poor use those services to a greater degree than the rich. Why then is it ok to charge the rich more for services which they don't use as much as the poor, who are charged a lesser amount?

Speaking from a moral standpoint? One could argue that because they can afford to pay more to help, they should. But really, then you're getting into different models of morality. Do you really want to get into that?

[LnGrrrR]

He's actually on to something - but I ain't touching that.

Probably because it goes completely contra to your argument.

[vy65]

What's my position?

What's a "large" amount?

That redistribution of wealth is a good thing. A large amount would be enough to accomodate the needs of the less fortunate. I don't have an exact number

Knowledge is an immutable characteristic now?

Intelligence is. Anyone can memorize facts - so yes knowledge is not immutable. Why is that significant when the ability to use that knowledge is immutable What about the other factors?

Society has no great sympathy for those making more than the average, so they get shafted when it comes to taxes.

Speaking from a moral standpoint? One could argue that because they can afford to pay more to help, they should. But really, then you're getting into different models of morality. Do you really want to get into that?

I think I've figured this out. I'm looking at this from the lens of services provided by the government. I'd say that, after the New Deal, that's largely what government is about these days - providing a series of services for its citizens. Given that, it's not "fair" for those who use less of those services to pay more.

Now your point is that something other than mere use of these services obligates the rich to pay more - and that "thing" is the rich's ability to pay more.

I don't know where that obligation comes from though. It's certainly not a legal obligation. You could say that its "moral" becaue the more fortunate are simply obligated to help the less fortunate. But that's up for debate.

Basically, for your argument to make sense, you have to prove that some ethical or moral obligation should force wealth redistribution. For me, I don't see the existence of said obligation (other than tax laws).

[vy65]

Probably because it goes completely contra to your argument.

How?

[LnGrrrR]

That redistribution of wealth is a good thing. A large amount would be enough to accomodate the needs of the less fortunate. I don't have an exact number

Some redistribution of wealth is necessary for a large functioning society. Feel free to provide evidence of a flat tax in a modern society.

What, you're backing down from the "large" amount now? How about you give a rough percentage?

Intelligence is. Anyone can memorize facts - so yes knowledge is not immutable. Why is that significant when the ability to use that knowledge is immutable What about the other factors?

Intelligence is not knowledge. Knowledge is learning facts/figures/etc. Intelligence determines how much knowledge you can retain/learn/etc.

Do you deny that the other factors play a role in the success of an individual?

I think I've figured this out. I'm looking at this from the lens of services provided by the government. I'd say that, after the New Deal, that's largely what government is about these days - providing a series of services for its citizens. Given that, it's not "fair" for those who use less of those services to pay more.

Yes, if you're only going to look at it from that one perspective, you'd be right.

Now your point is that something other than mere use of these services obligates the rich to pay more - and that "thing" is the rich's ability to pay more.

Yes.

I don't know where that obligation comes from though. It's certainly not a legal obligation. You could say that its "moral" becaue the more fortunate are simply obligated to help the less fortunate. But that's up for debate.

You could argue that unequal levels of taxation help keep a society running (as I do), or you could choose to argue from a moral standpoint (ie. utilitarianism.) But yes, different moralities are certainly up for debate.

Basically, for your argument to make sense, you have to prove that some ethical or moral obligation should force wealth redistribution. For me, I don't see the existence of said obligation (other than tax laws).

Honestly, I haven't been arguing from a moral standpoint, but from a "real-world" standpoint.

A good way to point out the difference in "real world" vs "moral" arguments would be looking up the term "moral luck" and how society deals with it.

[LnGrrrR]

How?

Boutons was arguing how the common citizen has almost no sway when it comes to politics. The "rich" person has much more influence, to an "unfair" degree one might say.