Do We Really Need To Do Income Redistribution To Fix Income Inequality?

[cpwill]

This is an appeal to emotion.

No, it is an appeal to reality. The reality is that describing poor people in the United States as being in a Mariana Trench of poverty is ridiculous.

Putting it directly after a statistic (you did not cite)

And asking for citation is always legitimate. And I'm glad you did so, because it turned out either I am out of date, or sources disagree slightly. Google states that 32,000 isn't the Global 1% - it's $34,000. Thanks for making me re-look at that.

does not make it any less so, or evidence your premise that poor people are poor because those poor, poor people are so poor.

.....poor people being poor is tautological. If you want to argue for what-makes-poverty, I typically use the Federal Poverty Line, and address most of my attention to those living below 150% of it. Usually I don't like the term "poor" because of that precise problem, and so I prefer to use "low income", because I believe it helps to address the issue.

No matter how you try to understand why poor people got to where they are, or romanticize the wealthy, you will not fix it by pointing fingers.

People are naturally poor, just as our lives are naturally brutish and short. The question is how do we create security and wealth so that we can leave poverty.

In the United States, we can identify key behaviors and starting positions that make it less likely that someone will do so, or that someone will fall from the middle class back into poverty. Identifying those and trying to determine how to alter those circumstances so that we can reduce the number of persons who either stay in or fall into poverty is the basis of good policy.

You're welcome to say that all homeless people are crazy to be poor,

:shrug: I didn't say that. In fact, I explicitly pointed out that that was not the case for all homeless people. I have friends who have been homeless at various points who aren't mentally ill. It happens.

but making a broad sweeping generalization about the ultra poor doesn't seem to have any implication for your claim about poor people in general. In fact, it would be quite rude to say that all poor people are crazy, but you're not doing that, are you? You're saying poverty can be fixed and you've got the tools to do it.

I don't think poverty can be "fixed", because much of what drives poverty is behavioral, and people will always manage to make bad decisions. I think that poverty can be reduced and it's negative effects partially alleviated, and I do believe that there are some tools we could use towards that end.

This is hugely oversimplifying poverty by the principle that success is an end to which there is a means which does not include poverty.

Are you A) high or B) a college student. ?

I ask because you seem to be deliberately attempting to use overly-stilted language to appear well-thought out while, in fact, missing the actual point of the text you are addressing. I wasn't describing poverty, I was describing the instinctive liberal and conservative approaches to poverty. Me being fat won't be solved by forcing fit people to eat more twinkies and exercise less, but rather by me going to the gym and eating healthier.

Economic success is an end to which there are a series of means, many of which reinforce or build upon others.

 

[cpwill]

Oh, and yeah, the tax rates paid by the wealthy? They've gone down repeatedly in the past 40 years, yet it's not enough. No tax cut is ever enough.

I'm happy to see you endorse the use of nominal marginal tax rates.

Can we agree, then, that raising taxes doesn't bring in more revenue?

 

[MrWonka]

The difference in opinion on how to handle the issue of wealth distribution starts with the perception of the classic liberal and the classic conservative. Liberals view the results as the standard for fairness. Ideally, if they could see perfectly even distribution a crossed the board, they would consider the results to be fair. Conservatives look at the process. If the process allows for anyone to succeed, they view the results as fair, regardless of the distribution.

False. This is your mistaken perception. Perfect equality in the end is not now nor has it ever been the goal of liberalism. The equality of opportunity you claim Conservatives strive for is what Liberals desire. The problem here is that conservatives are unwilling to acknowledge the reality that the process itself is not fair, and they are happy to ignore this reality because the white christian men who support their bull**** ideology are benefiting massively from this broken system. When virtually every single solitary institution of power in the United States is controlled by White Christian Men it is the height of arrogance to claim such a system allows for a "fair" process. The winners of a game almost always believe the game was played fairly. Given that white christian men are very clearly winning 90% of the time it is absolutely insane to let them continue to write all the rules. That would be like having Quarterbacks write all the rules for a football game, and expecting them to not write rules that make completing passes easier.

 

[MrWonka]

Can we agree, then, that raising taxes doesn't bring in more revenue?

HAHAH!!!! Even your boy Laffer wouldn't agree with that nonsense beyond a certain point. "Can't" is very different than "haven't."

 

[cpwill]

HAHAH!!!! Even your boy Laffer wouldn't agree with that nonsense beyond a certain point.

:facepalm:

 

[MrWonka]

1. You don't need religion to be Conservative, nor does having a faith make you conservative.

That's true you could simply be a white male who has benefited massively from the con, not necessarily someone falling for it, but usually they're pretty close to hand in hand.

 

[cpwill]

That's true you could simply be a white male who has benefited massively from the con, not necessarily someone falling for it, but usually they're pretty close to hand in hand.

What does all that bigotry get you, Wonka? Is it just the small joy of trying to look down on those unlike you?

 

[AliHajiSheik]

There is always a presumption that the people in the 1% remain the same. They don't.

There is a confusion between income and wealth. Income is earned each year and wealth is what is possessed. Most complaining about income are really complaining about wealth.

 

[Frank Apisa]

There certainly are ways to reduce the WEALTH inequality without doing much in the way of equitable INCOME redistribution.

We do not have to "rob" from the rich to see that wealth inequality does not require that the poor languish in poverty. The rich can have more than enough to wipe their asses with $1000 bills every morning...and the "poor" can still have enough to live a decent life.

As for the guys who are always going to teach people to fish...

...I don't see that much teaching going on.

 

[Celebrity]

No, it is an appeal to reality. The reality is that describing poor people in the United States as being in a Mariana Trench of poverty is ridiculous.

Sorry, maybe I was not clear the first couple of times. It is not up to us to substantiate your claim that our position is enviable. Envy is an emotion. You are appealing to our emotions by claiming that less wealthy people should envy us as it is.

 

[Celebrity]

There is always a presumption that the people in the 1% remain the same. They don't.

There is a confusion between income and wealth. Income is earned each year and wealth is what is possessed. Most complaining about income are really complaining about wealth.

The difference between the death tax and the estate tax is... that it's people complaining about death and people complaining about estates on either side. Now I get it! :2razz: Wealth is a consequence of income.

 

[Moderate Right]

And exactly what are these magical "free" tools that you speak of. As right wing nuts are fond of stating you cannot give someone something for free without taking it from someone else. So please enlighten us on how you plan to pull these awesome tools out of your magical freedom hat....

"Robbing" denotes something that is a crime. If the law states that congress has the right to lay and collect taxes there is no crime whatsoever being committed. Taxes are the dues you pay for membership in a society. They are the HOA fees of the Gated community known as America. The wealthy have clearly benefited exponentially more from the institution that is the United States of America. It would then only seem logical that they contribute exponentially more for it's up keep.

The reality is that about 90% of what the government does is defend rich people from poor people. Some of the defense is provided for using guns, soldiers and police. The rest is done simply by making sure their is a safety net to keep people from becoming desperate in the first place, and by investing in things like public education to insure the poor have the exact tools you're claiming to want to give them.

Just the other day I saw a post from the Libertarian Party to Bernie Sanders supporters trying to get them to vote for Gary Johnson. Their moronic argument was that rather than make college free they should eliminate government subsided education entirely. In order to make it cheaper. While it is true that would likely make education cheaper for the people who could still manage to afford it(those who are already rich). It would accomplish this by eliminating a ton of demand for education coming from those who can no longer afford it(the poor).

So please do not give us this bull**** absurdity about how you want to give the poor the tools they need to succeed, it is people like yourself that are trying to take those tools away to consolidate more power for yourself.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

As an aside, I saw a guy at the pool this weekend wearing a Reagan/Bush '84 shirt. The pool was packed and him and is girlfriend were struggling to find a chair. I told him if he found a chair he should give it to me and my friends since we had plenty of chairs we'd make sure some trickled down to him. He didn't like that idea for some reason.

I didn't say free tools. But most of the right is not against "investing" money now in order to save money later. We need to invest in the poor to raise them up out of their holes instead of just giving them handouts which do nothing more than keep them in their cycle of poverty.

 

[Renae]

The gulf between the poor and the rich is vast, and there are very few oppertunity for advancement for those with lower income.

It does not matter if the poor are given the tools to dig themselves out of their holes when the holes are as deep as the Mariana Trench.

For the left, it's a zero sum game, you aren't good enough, smrt enough, able enough to achieve. YOU MUST look to the Government, there is no other way.

 

[mmi]

Liberals view the results as the standard for fairness.

As has been pointed out, you don't have the first clue of what liberalism is. You just parrot the right-wing lie about "results" and "all must be equal."

Liberals support personal freedom, self-regulating, free markets, and a political orientation favouring progress and reform. When personal freedom is denied, we do things like enact civil rights legislation. When market failures like excessive industrial concentration and negative externalities such as pollution develop, we enact antitrust statutes and establish agencies like the EPA.

>>fair tariffs based on living standards

What the hell does that mean?

>>I would also change the way our schools are run to reduce class and campus sizes

And how would you accomplish that "change"?

>>fund classroom technology

With what?

 

[Frank Apisa]

We have plenty of EVERYTHING.

What we should do is to insure that everyone has SUFFICIENT...perhaps MORE THAN SUFFICIENT.

Then the ones who want to work...can work...and earn MUCH, MUCH MORE THAN SUFFICIENT.

And the ones who do not want to work...can stay the hell out of the way...so that more can get done...and more can produced...and then we will have even more than PLENTY OF EVERYTHING.

 

[ksu_aviator]

False. This is your mistaken perception. Perfect equality in the end is not now nor has it ever been the goal of liberalism. The equality of opportunity you claim Conservatives strive for is what Liberals desire. The problem here is that conservatives are unwilling to acknowledge the reality that the process itself is not fair, and they are happy to ignore this reality because the white christian men who support their bull**** ideology are benefiting massively from this broken system. When virtually every single solitary institution of power in the United States is controlled by White Christian Men it is the height of arrogance to claim such a system allows for a "fair" process. The winners of a game almost always believe the game was played fairly. Given that white christian men are very clearly winning 90% of the time it is absolutely insane to let them continue to write all the rules. That would be like having Quarterbacks write all the rules for a football game, and expecting them to not write rules that make completing passes easier.

See, that is the trap that you fall into. You just used this logical fallacy that because skin color is skewed that it must be because of an unfair process. As I stated before, if the process is fair, you can get any result. The second fallacy is that if the process wasn't fair, that it is ok to assume that anyone that benefited from that process knowingly and willingly wronged those that did not. The reality is, most people that are successful worked very hard. To automatically and categorically declare everyone that is successful a villain worthy of being punished by law is inherently unjust. If you think someone achieved their success unfairly, then it is incumbent upon you to make the situation known to authorities and allow that individual to have his/her day in court.

Now, I never said the system was perfect. That is why I proposed a bevy of bullet point changes that I would make. But you notice, that those changes did not include the redistribution of wealth. Rather, they are policies directed are creating more opportunity by releasing the free market from pressures that have driven jobs and businesses over seas.

I should also address your inherent racism. You've assumed that white christian men are inherently guilty of social injustice. It is understandable because the left needed an enemy to coalesce the special interests around. As such, the christian white male has been systematically and legally oppressed through legislation and federal hiring practices. This form of racism has become an acceptable and even preferable attitude among the American left.

 

[ksu_aviator]

As has been pointed out, you don't have the first clue of what liberalism is. You just parrot the right-wing lie about "results" and "all must be equal."

Liberals support personal freedom, self-regulating, free markets, and a political orientation favouring progress and reform. When personal freedom is denied, we do things like enact civil rights legislation. When market failures like excessive industrial concentration and negative externalities such as pollution develop, we enact antitrust statutes and establish agencies like the EPA.

No they don't. Personal freedom is only acceptable if it flies in the face of traditional values. Anyone that is interested in traditional values is deemed a racist/sexist/homophobe or other -ist or -phobe. Self-regulating is far from the liberal mindset. Every day liberals try to find another way to regulate the market or individual. Favoring progress and reform? What does that even mean? To be honest, every thing you say here is rhetoric used by the left but actually policy enacted by the right.

>>fair tariffs based on living standards

What the hell does that mean?

It means if a country pays crap wages then there will be high tariffs to counter their reduced costs from the exploitation of their people. That'll even out the competition with Americans and the foreign country will either have to raise their wages or lose the jobs.

>>I would also change the way our schools are run to reduce class and campus sizes

And how would you accomplish that "change"?

Build more schools. Actually, I'd like to rent homes in neighborhoods and have micro-schools.

>>fund classroom technology

With what?

Money.

 

[cpwill]

Sorry, maybe I was not clear the first couple of times. It is not up to us to substantiate your claim that our position is enviable. Envy is an emotion. You are appealing to our emotions by claiming that less wealthy people should envy us as it is.

:raises eyebrow: I'm not trying to make anyone envious of anyone else. I'm pointing out that our position is perceived as worthy of being envied by the rest of the world. Our position is - objectively, not emotionally - better off, and that includes the position of our poor.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

I am all for giving the tools needed to succeed. That is one reason I support tax-payer funded college and trade schools.

 

[faithful_servant]

By "our poor," I assume you mean poor Americans, and that includes homeless people just like in other less fortunate areas of humanity. Pointing out a class of humanity which is less economically successful doesn't make your position any better. It's a basic appeal to emotion when you put it like that.



Wait, let me just make sure I'm getting this correctly. Conservatives justify poor people by saying that everyone would be poor if some people weren't poor? Well by golly, everyone being poor means everyone is rich, too. Being more wealthy than the guy with nothing doesn't make one wealthy, and it doesn't justify stopping income redistribution. Why do poor conservatives support policies that make the rich richer at their expense? Because they think that money is going to good ol' boys. There's no two ways about it, you conservatives (in this thread) are totally partisan - and at the expense of reason on issues that affect you.

Nobody is justifying anything, I'm just trying to explain that you don't have to take from the rich to give to the poor (which is what too many on the Left keep proposing). It is entirely possible and PREFERABLE to provide everyone with the opportunity to get richer than they currently are. It does not require that some get poorer in order for others to get richer. Economics is not a zero-sum game. The idea that a rising tide lifts all boats is how we should be addressing this issue....

 

[Absentglare]

I think this is one of the biggest differences between the left and the right. The left feels we have all this income inequality and wants to rob from the rich and give it to the poor. Most of the right is not against bringing up and helping the poor but not at the expense of the rich. What's wrong with giving the poor (not necessarily money) the tools to lift themselves up out of their holes and cycles of poverty but not by just taking it from the rich and redistributing it? What's wrong with a strategy of letting the rich be rich but helping the poor climb up from where they are?

... Well, you can't generally solve a math problem by painting a flower.

If we had this catastrophic problem where there was a total shortage of, say, energy, is there ANY way to fix that problem without finding a source of energy ?

 

[Logicman]

For the left, it's a zero sum game, you aren't good enough, smrt enough, able enough to achieve. YOU MUST look to the Government, there is no other way.

That's right, because the left threw God under the bus. He could be their provider, but because Christianity comes with moral values that the left doesn't like, they choose big-daddy government instead.

 

[Logicman]

We have plenty of EVERYTHING.

What we should do is to insure that everyone has SUFFICIENT...perhaps MORE THAN SUFFICIENT.

Then the ones who want to work...can work...and earn MUCH, MUCH MORE THAN SUFFICIENT.

And the ones who do not want to work...can stay the hell out of the way...so that more can get done...and more can produced...and then we will have even more than PLENTY OF EVERYTHING.

We could have more money for social programs here if we weren't giving away so much in charity to other nations for their poor. But here's a solution for them:

 

[Celebrity]

Nobody is justifying anything, I'm just trying to explain that you don't have to take from the rich to give to the poor (which is what too many on the Left keep proposing). It is entirely possible and PREFERABLE to provide everyone with the opportunity to get richer than they currently are. It does not require that some get poorer in order for others to get richer. Economics is not a zero-sum game. The idea that a rising tide lifts all boats is how we should be addressing this issue....

One way to address this is to give everyone in the country $1,000, in case of an emergency. The government can print it all and it devalues our currency for generations to come, but doesn't tax the rich. Would you be satisfied with this approach, by chance?

 

[pdog]

I think this is one of the biggest differences between the left and the right. The left feels we have all this income inequality and wants to rob from the rich and give it to the poor. Most of the right is not against bringing up and helping the poor but not at the expense of the rich. What's wrong with giving the poor (not necessarily money) the tools to lift themselves up out of their holes and cycles of poverty but not by just taking it from the rich and redistributing it? What's wrong with a strategy of letting the rich be rich but helping the poor climb up from where they are?

"not at the expense of the rich"? If you don't believe in MMT where else would you get the money from? In order to create a truly level playing field in terms of education and upbringing, we would need to spend a lot of money, no?

If you don't want to dive into that right now, consider a different question: 40 years ago the average ceo made 40 times his workers. Today he makes 400 times his workers. Why is it not ok to desire something we had in our recent history?