Income Inequality

[apeman]

[Okeefenokee]

My GI Joe hovercraft will be buried with me.

I lost everything when the house burned down. I guess in a way you could say they were all cremated like vikings.

[C-Mag]

I've been thinking about this issue in relationship to politicians, campaign contributions, political parties and the Deep State. It came to me that the view the RNC and DNC through the perspective they tell us to view them through. But if we view them for what they are, at least for me, it makes the picture clearer.

The DNC and RNC are both corporations. They are Tax-Exempt 527 Corporations. These two Corporations has as it's employees nearly every single political leader in this country from Mayors to the President. Currently the RNC stock is rising and the DNC stock is falling.

[jbird4049]

Our government has zero will to do that

I am skeptical that our current system is even capable of it.

If Americas workforce suddenly became 10x smarter, produced 10x more, and worked in place of 10 other people, then wouldn't you say that they deserved at least 10x more in wages?

If everyone's wages go up 10x, we'll all just be paying $40 for a meal at McDonalds.

I think we agree that the income of the very rich doesn't line up with their production when compared to the rest of us. Income inequality is a real thing. I just don't think there is a realistic solution for it right now.

No, there would be some inflation, but it's only money that was being spent by the rich on whatever-they-wanted, rather than regulars.
There is no new money created by this, only a gigantic shift from the vaults of the leisure class to the masses.

I have not done any deep research, but whenever I do any reading on whether wage growth causes inflation, the former seems to have little effect on the latter. There is some connection, but one has to really bump up income especially if it is increasing very low wage earners. It's like raising raising the minimum wage from 8 to 10-15 per hour might cause that big mac to go up 0.35. There is some waffling in the studies, but not that much. Yes, if it was raised 50 or a 100 per hour, there would be some very real inflation. But we are not talking about that are we?

Keep in mind this is not about printing money, but about redistributing what is already in the system. In 1968, just before income inequality started to grow again, the minimum wage, adjusted for inflation, was around 10.50, and if productivity increases from that time to this were added, like they had been before it would be 15 per hour. Also, going from memory, in 1968 the income ratio from the average CEO in a corporation to the average worker was about 30-1. Today it's about 350 to 1. That's average CEO to the average worker, not bank teller to CEO.

From the 1930s up to the 1970s, the federal government deliberately arranged policies like taxes, and minimum wages, to create, and maintain, the shrinking income, and wealth, gap. Something like 70-80 percent(down from 90%!) were the top marginal income tax rates on net profits, and wages, in the mid 1960s for both corporations, and individuals. Since the tax code was simpler, the government more determined, and the average person, from top to bottom, more willing, the income taxes were more likely to collected.

All of this also helped to even out incomes throughout the country. Yes, the South was still poorer, than say the Northeast, but the differences were much less pronounced. Also the available jobs of any kind were also more evenly spread out the country, partly because almost everyone had income they could spend. Which meant that governments on all levels had more revenue. Restated, there was much less of a so called Blue State/Red State divide.

Soooo, since the national minimum wage has decreased adjusted for inflation. The tax rates for the wealthy has cratered. Tax shelters for them are ubiquitous. Higher ed of any kind is becoming too expensive, yet needed evermore just to survive. Decently paying jobs for most are going to the Dodos. And it doesn't look like the increasing income/wealth gap is going away anytime soon.

[jbird4049]

High Progressive Income taxation (pre-Reagan) & Confisicatory Inheritance taxes will fix the Nouveau Aristocracy problem in America, but of course, no one wants to hear that because everyone wishes they could become royalty themselves.

But that's Communism!

I've been thinking about this issue in relationship to politicians, campaign contributions, political parties and the Deep State. It came to me that the view the RNC and DNC through the perspective they tell us to view them through. But if we view them for what they are, at least for me, it makes the picture clearer.

The DNC and RNC are both corporations. They are Tax-Exempt 527 Corporations. These two Corporations has as it's employees nearly every single political leader in this country from Mayors to the President. Currently the RNC stock is rising and the DNC stock is falling.

Exactly. They are not political parties, they are businesses. They are less concerned about serving the country, than in making money.

[Speaker to Animals]

Ideally we'd abolish confiscatory taxes altogether. Address the economic system that leads to poverty and the destruction of the middle class itself. Trying to bandaide it with confiscatory taxes just redistributes the damage and dysfunction, really. It also will cause people to flee at some point. You can do that for only so long.

Case in point: Chicago and Detroit have been taxing the living fuck out of people for generations, and now people are just opting out of that entire system. When you create a taxation system that makes living in that jurisdiction not worthwhile, highly productive people are going to pack their shit and move to a better place.

[Martin Hash]

Dude, I've written about this many times. Folks who can make money will eventually get all the money unless it is forcibly redistributed. There is no magic "fairness" about moneymaking, or anything else for that matter. You live in a Liberty society, people will do what they're good at.

[Speaker to Animals]

They will accumulate more wealth, but that doesn't mean that everybody else will necessarily see a decline in quality of life. I don't care so much about income inequality if everybody's quality of life is going up, and real wages are growing along with the wealth at the top.

If we didn't have these trade deals and mass immigration for the past thirty years, I doubt our middle class would be falling into welfare and poverty right now.

Fix the problems themselves rather than try to mitigate them through taxes. If you keep raising taxes, people will simply leave the country. You can't force people to live here any more than Chicago can stop people from leaving, or Detroit force people to come back for that matter.

Solving problems through taxes, I think, is a really bad idea.

[Martin Hash]

Almost everybody is replaceable. I don't live in America for the money, I live here for the liberty. People who want to leave the only Liberty Nation to make even more money are good riddance.

p.s. If America goes socialist, I'm gone.
p.p.s. You're correct about Illegal Immgration & off-shoring jobs.

[ssu]

Dude, I've written about this many times. Folks who can make money will eventually get all the money unless it is forcibly redistributed. There is no magic "fairness" about moneymaking, or anything else for that matter. You live in a Liberty society, people will do what they're good at.

True, during rapid economic growth the income gap widens, in a severe recession it becomes smaller. But there's more to it.

Rich will prosper if the poor get wealthier, and that doesn't happen simply by income transfers with taxes given as aid, but if they can get jobs that can give an middle class income. But typically anything hinting towards that is just said to be socialist. One way is that the working class is so qualified that it can fill jobs that are in such a demand that they can simply move somewhere else if the salary isn't good enough. Then de facto the employers have to pay more. Or then it's the classic argument: that wages paid to the employees is a decent share of the income.

Now basically you do have a system, promoted as liberalism and free market, where on class of people really can get it all and decrease the share of vast majority of workers thanks to global competition.



With a global labour market you would need also global regulation on that market. But that's naturally the thing the fat cats never want to see.