• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Inccome inequality is the defining challange of of our generation??

Wait until gas prices start on the up ward trend over the next decade, which will inflate every other consumable good and service. Wages need to start falling in line with stock market gains or we will be facing way more than just income inequality. This is also not really a generational problem but a society problem in the overall. What I see coming is the baby boomer generation, the ones that created most of the problems society faces today as they bilked the system for everything they could. Wait until the final bilking of the system through Social Security and Medicare fall way shorter than they needed it to last and they find themselves to old to be in any position to fix it for themselves again. I don't think that generation x will hesitate to cut them off and push grandma over the cliff. The generations that follow x will not really care either because they will be the ones assuming the bulk of their debt.
 
Absurd.

Limiting the the level of relative poverty....is "rewarding economic failure", as if poverty is a choice.

Now, here is your opening to further stigmatize those "economic failures" known otherwise as "the poor".

I can't wait for some Randian rant.

Poverty is a choice. By choosing to not do what is necessary to raise one's self out of poverty, one is choosing poverty. And yes, only the individual can cure themselves of poverty.
 
Poverty is a choice. By choosing to not do what is necessary to raise one's self out of poverty, one is choosing poverty. And yes, only the individual can cure themselves of poverty.

that fifth generation kid raised in the projects
you saying he is choosing poverty
i'm saying no one has ever been around to teach him how to rise from poverty
but prove me wrong and you right. identify for me the people in this kid's life who both know how to elevate a person from a life of poverty who are also those explaining those facts of life to the kid
tell me who is available to show that kid how to break the cycle of poverty
 
that fifth generation kid raised in the projects
you saying he is choosing poverty
i'm saying no one has ever been around to teach him how to rise from poverty
but prove me wrong and you right. identify for me the people in this kid's life who both know how to elevate a person from a life of poverty who are also those explaining those facts of life to the kid
tell me who is available to show that kid how to break the cycle of poverty

Agreed. So why aren't those with the power to do it going to that kid to show him/her how to break the cycle of poverty? Why isn't the money going into programs to encourage self reliance, personal responsibility, initiative, the virtue of achievement, excellence as the goal, to succeed instead of more and more programs to make people more comfortable in their poverty and telling them that the problem isn't them? It's income inequality. It's Fox News. It's Rush Limbaugh. It's those eeeeeeeeeevul Republicans. They don't stand a chance. They're victims of the rich and greedy but believe that sugar daddy government will eventually get around to fixing that. Just keep voting Democrat. It's working for you so well you know.
 
How, exactly, would this "level economic playing field" be attained? There will always be those that have more/less money than the average/median income.
post 383 offered a perspective andf an approach to address the inequityhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/government-spending-and-debt/181717-inccome-inequality-defining-challange-our-generation-10.html#post1062821934

Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
Lets take this nonsense apart brick by brick

what does it mean to level the economic playing field

1) confiscatory death taxes

2) punishing kids who go to top colleges

what is your solution
delighted you asked:
1). Rein in the financial sector.
... break up the giant financial monopolies and install a regime that seriously addresses the continuing epidemic of reckless speculation.

2). Increase the Minimum Wage.
Over the past 40 years, the real value of the minimum wage has fallen sharply. If Congress had linked the minimum wage to inflation, it would currently be $10.74 per hour instead of $7.25

3). Trade agreements must put as much emphasis on worker rights as property rights.
The globalization of the world economy is inevitable. But the race to the bottom to cut wages and benefits is not. No other first-world nation has been so reckless with the well-being of its workers in its trade negotiations as has the United States.

One reason corporations push for pacts that open trade is to move their production overseas and employ foreign workers at sweat shop wages. Fair trade requires that agreements demand the same protections for the rights and remuneration of workers in other countries that we should be providing in the United States.

Otherwise - particularly while we allow corporations to systematically undercut the power of unions - there is nothing to stop wages from continuing to fall since there is a virtually unlimited number of workers in the developing word that are willing to work very, very cheap.

4). Change the labor laws to make it easy to exercise worker rights to collective bargaining.
... The decline of union membership is no accident. It is the product of a massive, long-term campaign to limit the rights of workers to organize unions and collectively bargain over wages and benefits.

The Wagoner Act gave all employees the right to organize unions and bargain collectively. But over the last thirty years those rights have been systematically eroded by corporate abuses that can only be addressed by major labor law reform.

... Without unions to demand their share of growing productivity, corporations and the financial sector will continue to siphon it all off for themselves. We don't have to speculate about whether they will do it. They have done it for over 30 years. Now if we are serious about dealing with the crisis of economic inequality we have to act to restore the right of collective bargaining.

5). Refuse all efforts to cut benefits that have been earned by everyday Americans --and raise the cap on Social Security taxes paid by the wealthy.
We must stop cold attempts by the Right to eliminate Medicare, slash food stamps, and cut Social Security benefits. If we don't, those cuts will simply increase economic inequality since they come right out of the hides of ordinary middle class families.
... We live in a country that is richer than ever - by a lot -- yet the Right claims we "no longer can afford" Medicare or current levels of Social Security benefits - or food for children - or funding for education? That's just hogwash.

And to make certain that Social Security is there for generations, we must raise the cap income covered by the Social Security (or FICA) payroll tax.

Right now individuals don't pay the FICA taxes that finance Social Security on income above $113,700. But the average income of the top 1% is $717,000, so $603,300 - or 84% of the income of the highest income Americas is exempt from paying Social Security taxes. The idea of progressive taxation is that those who can most afford it - who have benefited the most by our shared economic activity - should pay the most. Here just the opposite is true. That's absurd.

6). Make certain the Affordable Care Act (ACA) functions as it was intended.
... The law's most important provision may be the expansion of Medicaid for the working poor. Before its passage, many people in low wage jobs were not covered by employer based insurance, unable to afford private insurance, and could not quality for Medicaid. Now, if employers don't provide insurance for low wage workers, they can either qualify for Medicaid or for substantial subsidies toward private coverage.

7). Create a new tax rate for income above $1 million - close tax loopholes that benefit the wealthy and big corporations - and increase the maximum estate tax rate.
... The super rich - who have benefited so incredibly from the American economy - must be taxed at a level that is reflective of their qualitatively different income status.

The top tax rate went up to 39.6% as a result of the fiscal cliff deal earlier this year. That's a big improvement over the 35% rate that resulted from the Bush tax cuts. But that is a far cry from the 92% top tax rate in effect during the early Eisenhower years - or the 77% top rate that pertained during the Nixon Presidency - or the 70% rate under Gerald Ford.

Under the fiscal cliff deal, the estate tax imposes a levy of 40% on inheritances of over $5.2 million. That is a long way from the 77% top rate that applied from 1916 to 1975. One critical way to decrease long-term economic inequality is to increase the taxes paid on the inheritances by the sons and daughters of multi-millionaires who did nothing to earn these fortunes except benefit by the accident of birth.

And how smart do you have to be to know it's a bad idea to give big tax incentives to companies who outsource jobs from the United States.
It's Economic Inequality Stupid -- What to Do About the Biggest Crisis Facing America | Robert Creamer

and to that list i would add - at the top - eliminate campaign bribes to politicians
any registered voter can give a contribution to any candidate whose name might appear on the ballot he will vote on
no one else can do so
and all contributions must be disclosed on a public web site within 10 days for a contribution to NOT be found a political bribe
 
that fifth generation kid raised in the projects
you saying he is choosing poverty
i'm saying no one has ever been around to teach him how to rise from poverty
but prove me wrong and you right. identify for me the people in this kid's life who both know how to elevate a person from a life of poverty who are also those explaining those facts of life to the kid
tell me who is available to show that kid how to break the cycle of poverty

I suggest you read judge Sonia Sotomayor's book. Great book and very instructive to answer your point. Harder yes, impossible NO!
 
I suggest you read judge Sonia Sotomayor's book. Great book and very instructive to answer your point. Harder yes, impossible NO!

but the point is, intervening in an attempt to break the cycle of poverty is not happening


degree of difficulty is not a factor, since it is not happening
 
Agreed. So why aren't those with the power to do it going to that kid to show him/her how to break the cycle of poverty? Why isn't the money going into programs to encourage self reliance, personal responsibility, initiative, the virtue of achievement, excellence as the goal, to succeed instead of more and more programs to make people more comfortable in their poverty and telling them that the problem isn't them? It's income inequality. It's Fox News. It's Rush Limbaugh. It's those eeeeeeeeeevul Republicans. They don't stand a chance. They're victims of the rich and greedy but believe that sugar daddy government will eventually get around to fixing that. Just keep voting Democrat. It's working for you so well you know.
juxtaposed with
Because 90% of us didn't do or were not capable of doing what the $125k person did to earn that $125k. It is the same concept that not everybody capable of being a great football player or golfer or artist or author or scientist etc. will do what is necessary to be that.

The emphasis should be on re-establishing a culture in which all people regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, politics, or socioeconomic status know that it is up to them how much they will succeed in life and in what way. Government cannot do that for them. Giving them more money to spend will not do that for them. Making the richer less rich will not accomplish that.

The problem with the 'income inequality activists' is that they seem to think that wealth is finite. That there is only so much of it to be had. They are tunnel visioned in that they see the only way to remedy it is to take from the haves and give to the have nots. And they follow through on that by creating and reinforcing a victim mentality that hinders initiative to become unpoor by merit rather than by fiat.


you acknowledge that there is a need for intervention to teach those in poverty to rise out of it
but then you also insist government has no role in the matter
if not government, the entity paying the tab for the safety net of those trapped in poverty, then who/what should be responsible for breaking the cycle?
 
but the point is, intervening in an attempt to break the cycle of poverty is not happening


degree of difficulty is not a factor, since it is not happening

Just do not think that is true. There are more programs now to allow disadvantaged youth scholarships etc than there was 40-50 years ago. Getting one of these for an inner city kid is a big leg up getting into a fine university.
 
capitalism isn't a zero sum game. just because he produces more doesn't mean someone else produces less.

Capitalism isn't a zero sum game, but distribution is.

We can assume that the demand for pizza is what it is in that particular market. I doubt that just because one pizza shop cooks a little more pizza, that the demand for that pizza is any more than what it would have been if that one shop hadn't cooked a few more pizza's. No restuarant will ever produce more food than what they expect to sell. If all it took to create more demand was to cook more, then every restraunt would be cooking food as fast as they can all the time. but it doesn't work like that. A pizza shop will only produce as many pizza's as they have pizza orders. businesses don't make money by producing more than they can sell.

no idea what you are talking about

So you don't understand the concept of lower taxes?

I was addressing the fact that while government can create demand it can lead to economic bubbles that hurt more than help.

And I agree that is possible. But I don't think that cutting middle class taxes would do that. Do you?

i have always argued for lower taxes in general. it is economic activity that generates taxes not tax rates. the more disposable income that people have the more
economic activity you are going to have.

OK then, you DO understand what I was talking about! Why did you claim that you didn't? You must have been pulling my leg on that one. I should have known that you weren't that stupid.
 
Because 90% of us didn't do or were not capable of doing what the $125k person did to earn that $125k. It is the same concept that not everybody capable of being a great football player or golfer or artist or author or scientist etc. will do what is necessary to be that.

The emphasis should be on re-establishing a culture in which all people regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, politics, or socioeconomic status know that it is up to them how much they will succeed in life and in what way. Government cannot do that for them. Giving them more money to spend will not do that for them. Making the richer less rich will not accomplish that.

The problem with the 'income inequality activists' is that they seem to think that wealth is finite. That there is only so much of it to be had. They are tunnel visioned in that they see the only way to remedy it is to take from the haves and give to the have nots. And they follow through on that by creating and reinforcing a victim mentality that hinders initiative to become unpoor by merit rather than by fiat.

Wealth is created by production. Production is a result of demand.

No business will produce more than they expect to sell, thus increasing demand is paramount to increasing wealth.
 
Wealth is created by production. Production is a result of demand.

No business will produce more than they expect to sell, thus increasing demand is paramount to increasing wealth.

Companies always produce more than what they can sell. that is why we watch inventory levels for companies. when inventory levels get to high companies stop production and start layoff's.

most companies (even restruants) have a little more on hand than what they think they need.
a eatery that constantly runs out of food and there are still orders to be taken will go out of business soon as people get mad.

the widget company will also produce more widgets than what they need in case there is an issue with an order or a batch they can quickly replace it.
having to much inventory is a bad thing yes but you have to maintain some kind of inventory levels or else you are going to be hurting.

this is all priced into overhead though.

personally our tax system is so messed up that I think it prohibits growth and expansion.

we should have 2 tax brackets 10/20% (personally I am favor of a straight consumption tax with 0 tax up to the poverty level for you family size all other taxes are removed with this).
105 for everyone making less than 500k a year and 20% for everyone else. limited deductions on those making over 500k unless they are a business.
all business has a 10% tax with limited deductions. for companies making over 500m in sales a year.
capital gains is set at 15%.

basically you can fill it out on a post card send it in and you are done.

we need to take back our economic freedom. we should be number 1 in the world and we are not.
 
that fifth generation kid raised in the projects
you saying he is choosing poverty
i'm saying no one has ever been around to teach him how to rise from poverty
but prove me wrong and you right. identify for me the people in this kid's life who both know how to elevate a person from a life of poverty who are also those explaining those facts of life to the kid
tell me who is available to show that kid how to break the cycle of poverty

The fifth generation kid raised in the projects is taught to live in poverty. He can do what he has been taught to do or choose to do something different.

Prove you wrong? Ok, I was raised in poverty...bounced around in foster care...entered the workforce with a 9th grade drop out education...now I'm in the top 10% of american wage earners.

You have a choice. Choose to live in poverty or make your own way.
 
But maybe a government that forces charity is worthy of getting into heaven. ???

Charity is supposed to be given from the heart, and it's a personal thing. When you have shown you believe otherwise, then forced income distribution might be the result, but I can't think heaven might be your next stop! :mrgreen:

Greetings, Imagep. :2wave:
 
Just do not think that is true. There are more programs now to allow disadvantaged youth scholarships etc than there was 40-50 years ago. Getting one of these for an inner city kid is a big leg up getting into a fine university.

what does that kid in the projects know about college
for that kid it is as distant as mars, and about as reachable
and his parents/parent probably have little education and thus do not value it
why should the kid understand the importance of education. the people he sees making it are athletes, musicians and drug dealers. who is telling him the odds of NOT making it in those careers
that kid was preceded by four generations of project residents who never learned about life and work skills
she has no basis to think that her future income will not also come in the form of a check the first of the month
why should she think it will be different for her
there is no apparent program in place to break this expensive cycle of poverty and government dependence. why?
 
The fifth generation kid raised in the projects is taught to live in poverty. He can do what he has been taught to do or choose to do something different.
why would he/she choose to do anything any differently than they have seen their parent(s), grandparent(s), great grandparent(s) and great-great grandparent(s) have do ... sit back and collect a check, being an unproductive, non-contributing member of society
how should the kid know how to break that cycle of poverty?

Prove you wrong? Ok, I was raised in poverty...bounced around in foster care...entered the workforce with a 9th grade drop out education...now I'm in the top 10% of american wage earners.

You have a choice. Choose to live in poverty or make your own way.
sorry, but i do not find you or your story credible. while i do hope i am wrong and that you have found economic success, nothing i have seen from your posts in my years at this forum allows me to believe you have achieved any significant degree of success
i believe if you had actually pulled yourself up from your bootstraps, you would be able to offer some pointers which would aid other young people who need a lift out of poverty. that you are without such expertise allows me to conclude you are without such experience. in short, you have proven nothing - to me, anyway
 
why would he/she choose to do anything any differently than they have seen their parent(s), grandparent(s), great grandparent(s) and great-great grandparent(s) have do ... sit back and collect a check, being an unproductive, non-contributing member of society
how should the kid know how to break that cycle of poverty?

because he wants to get out of poverty. Or doesn't. That's what a choice is.

sorry, but i do not find you or your story credible. while i do hope i am wrong and that you have found economic success, nothing i have seen from your posts in my years at this forum allows me to believe you have achieved any significant degree of success
i believe if you had actually pulled yourself up from your bootstraps, you would be able to offer some pointers which would aid other young people who need a lift out of poverty. that you are without such expertise allows me to conclude you are without such experience. in short, you have proven nothing - to me, anyway

I don't give a flying fck if you find it credible.

But, here ya go. I joined the Navy, got a GED after a few years...then worked my way through a BS using CLEP and tuition assistance while establishing myself in my field. Served 24 years in the Navy and got a job that valued that experience. Now, I make well over 100k a year. Not bad for a son of an alcoholic and a dead mother from Benson Hurst, you douche.
 
Last edited:
what does that kid in the projects know about college
for that kid it is as distant as mars, and about as reachable
and his parents/parent probably have little education and thus do not value it
why should the kid understand the importance of education. the people he sees making it are athletes, musicians and drug dealers. who is telling him the odds of NOT making it in those careers
that kid was preceded by four generations of project residents who never learned about life and work skills
she has no basis to think that her future income will not also come in the form of a check the first of the month
why should she think it will be different for her
there is no apparent program in place to break this expensive cycle of poverty and government dependence. why?

Just don't buy what you are trying to push. I do know that inner city kids attend one of the most elite high schools in the country. I am sure that there are good parents who though they have not succeeded want their children to do better.

No one in my family went to college, ever. Yet me and a sibling did. People make choices. While it true that for some it is harder, perhaps they start with the proverbial two strikes against them, but they were still lucky enough to have been born in the US, not some caste system in India.
 
because he wants to get out of poverty. Or doesn't. That's what a choice is.
as if most kids rooted in poverty even know how to climb out of it
who the hell actually chooses to remain impoverished
you don't get it ... and based on your responses, i am not sure you can


I don't give a flying fck if you find it credible.
for your personal sake, i do hope that i am wrong and that you have found economic success among the top 10% of Americans
there is just nothing in the many posts of your that i have read over the years to indicate that is the circumstance
i've been wrong before
 
as if most kids rooted in poverty even know how to climb out of it

I did. As you've pointed out, I'm nothing special. How did I get out then, pythagoras?

who the hell actually chooses to remain impoverished

anyone that accepts the hand they're dealt.

you don't get it ... and based on your responses, i am not sure you can

Oh, I got it, son, and fixed it.

for your personal sake, i do hope that i am wrong and that you have found economic success among the top 10% of Americans
there is just nothing in the many posts of your that i have read over the years to indicate that is the circumstance

My personal sake doesn't rely in the least on what you think.

i've been wrong before

Frequently.
 
Just don't buy what you are trying to push.
what, you think kids in the projects just instinctively understand to do those things which will elevate them from poverty, and they simply choose not to do those things. that they chose not to have a better life
that approach does not resemble what i see now or have seen over the past 61 years


I do know that inner city kids attend one of the most elite high schools in the country.
while i accept your presentation, that is certainly not the norm. at least not in my section of the country. it is the kids in the projects who are likely to be assigned to the worst performing schools. the kids of affluent homes are the ones who are likely to attend the better performing schools
explain why your poor students get to attend the elite schools. explain why the affluent parents do not marshal their significant economic and political influence to instead have their kids enrolled at the better schools


I am sure that there are good parents who though they have not succeeded want their children to do better.
that may be the exception, but it certainly is not the rule. how are people who are unable to figure out the road to success for themselves going to teach their kids how to be successful? more importantly, why do we allow that to continue to be the norm rather than intervening to break the cycle of poverty?

No one in my family went to college, ever.
hell, on my Mother's side i am still the ONLY family member to have graduated from HIGH SCHOOL. still. and i am 61 years old! and no surprise - none of them have been able to do more than earn a sustainable living

Yet me and a sibling did.
me too. and it was because i was raised in a family where my Father expected me to do well in school. he understood that a good education was the possible ticket to a successful life. my Mom dropped out of eighth grade. she was not going to push me, because she did not appreciate the value of an education. had it not been for someone showing me that an education was key, i would not have known. and that is the plight of millions of young people stuck in the projects - and other poor domiciles - today. they are without guidance to learn how to move up and out


People make choices.
wrong assumption. if you cannot dream it, you will never do it. and for too many, there is no one telling them that it is OK - no it is desirable - to dream big ... just never give up on the dream


While it true that for some it is harder, perhaps they start with the proverbial two strikes against them, but they were still lucky enough to have been born in the US, not some caste system in India.
and i get that. i believe we are fortunate to be the 5% born as Americans. but there is pronounced income - and opportunity - inequality, as this thread bears out. what is our nation doing to help those in poverty emerge from it?
 
what, you think kids in the projects just instinctively understand to do those things which will elevate them from poverty, and they simply choose not to do those things. that they chose not to have a better life
that approach does not resemble what i see now or have seen over the past 61 years



while i accept your presentation, that is certainly not the norm. at least not in my section of the country. it is the kids in the projects who are likely to be assigned to the worst performing schools. the kids of affluent homes are the ones who are likely to attend the better performing schools
explain why your poor students get to attend the elite schools. explain why the affluent parents do not marshal their significant economic and political influence to instead have their kids enrolled at the better schools


that may be the exception, but it certainly is not the rule. how are people who are unable to figure out the road to success for themselves going to teach their kids how to be successful? more importantly, why do we allow that to continue to be the norm rather than intervening to break the cycle of poverty?


hell, on my Mother's side i am still the ONLY family member to have graduated from HIGH SCHOOL. still. and i am 61 years old! and no surprise - none of them have been able to do more than earn a sustainable living


me too. and it was because i was raised in a family where my Father expected me to do well in school. he understood that a good education was the possible ticket to a successful life. my Mom dropped out of eighth grade. she was not going to push me, because she did not appreciate the value of an education. had it not been for someone showing me that an education was key, i would not have known. and that is the plight of millions of young people stuck in the projects - and other poor domiciles - today. they are without guidance to learn how to move up and out



wrong assumption. if you cannot dream it, you will never do it. and for too many, there is no one telling them that it is OK - no it is desirable - to dream big ... just never give up on the dream



and i get that. i believe we are fortunate to be the 5% born as Americans. but there is pronounced income - and opportunity - inequality, as this thread bears out. what is our nation doing to help those in poverty emerge from it?

My sense is that you are asking too much from society. There is a place and responsibility of the family. Government and charities can do only so much.

Society helped the justice get into a great school and helped her along the way. Then it was up to her to produce and she did. She is now one of a handful of the most important people in America.

Why can't we look at the successes versus the folks who can't climb out for any of a number of reasons.

In my view, we should focus on looking to insure equal opportunity, not necessarily equal result.
 
This isn't uncharted territory. The U.S. was successful at narrowing inequality before. It was done through higher progressive income taxes, pro-labor policies and more subsidization of things such as higher education.

Obama raised taxes on the most productive taxpayers and the gap has become greater. The danger and damages done by giving government that power is far more evil than letting the winners win and the losers lose
 
I notice how you either wittingly or accidentally mislead with numbers. By use "the top 10%" This lumps together civil servants with the wolves of Wall Street. I would contend that since the top 10% earn about half the national income, it isn't outrageous that they pay 71% of the taxes. The top 0.1% earn 12.5% of national income.

Why tax the the more affluent? They are the ones that have had their incomes grow.

and-the-explosion-of-senior-executive-pay-meanwhile-has-sent-the-earnings-of-the-richest-americans-going-through-the-roof.jpg


source

There are two "fair" scenarios

if ONE percent of the taxpayers earns 22% of the income they should pay 22% of the income tax

right now they pay almost 40% and when you add the fact that they pay almost all the DEATH TAX its clearly unfair

the other fair scenario is that one percent ought to pay ONE PERCENT of the tax burden
 
juxtaposed with



you acknowledge that there is a need for intervention to teach those in poverty to rise out of it
but then you also insist government has no role in the matter
if not government, the entity paying the tab for the safety net of those trapped in poverty, then who/what should be responsible for breaking the cycle?

I think you missed the point. Why don't you re-read what I posted and let's discuss that.
 
Back
Top Bottom