Income Inequality in America

[distraff]

And they are - we are.

Why isn't it good enough?

What more could our children and grandchildren WANT out of life?

Well, a wealthier America can provide an end to homelessness. It can mean that a person won't have to wait months for receive medical treatment. It can mean fewer people who have to worry whether they will be able to pay their rent, or pay their morgage, or keep their job. It means fewer college graduates who can't find work. It can mean that many parents won't have to work full time jobs to support their children and can spend more time with their families.

 

[distraff]

Less government intrusion into people's lives. Start by stopping the stupid redistribution of the limited health care resources from the middle class to the poor.

How are these things supposed to provide more equality between the rich and everyone else?

 

[P. Kersey]

Where's the neither is required, both are unacceptable?

Say what? Try again.

 

[P. Kersey]

How are these things supposed to provide more equality between the rich and everyone else?

There is no such thing as "equality".
When "equality" does occur it is only temporary. Nothing in nature is "equal". No two trees...no two animals of the same breed and especially no two humans...Everyone has different abilities, skills and knowledge...

 

[Slyhunter]

provide a living wage. Tie the minimum wage to the cost of living so that as the cost of living goes up so does the minimum wage. It needs to become more expensive for the more well off to live so that it can become less expensive for the less well off. Install a tariff on any country's imports that does not pay the American minimum wage or equivalent in their country as a means to even the playing field. This will insure that manufacturing will not leave our country and end up being an import only country with little to no exports. Make it so it's cheaper to make products in country paying a living wage than to import the same goods.

What matters is the percentage of income spent on survival. It should control the percentage of income spent on taxes. The more spent on survival the less spent on taxes. And as such the less of a percentage needed to survive the more in taxes you should pay.

I can't toe the Democrat line because I hate socialist.
I can't toe the Libertarian line because they are separatist and heartless.
We need a new Republican party for all the people all of the time.
I'm from the realist and common sense party.

 

[distraff]

Why should there be any redistribution of the country's resources? I've never met anyone unwilling to support essential functions of our government, but I have met many that resent supporting able bodied individuals for an extended period of time......

The problem here is that only a minority of the non-rich are getting welfare. Only 4%. And it is only this high because of the recession. In 2006 it was more like 2.5%.

 

[distraff]

There is no such thing as "equality".
When "equality" does occur it is only temporary. Nothing in nature is "equal". No two trees...no two animals of the same breed and especially no two humans...Everyone has different abilities, skills and knowledge...

I am not looking for complete equality. I am only looking for more income equality like what we had in the 1950's and 1960's. Why don't we go back to that?

 

[Hard Truth]

But the overall system could be reformed. Ranging from regulations to the individual schools to what is actually being taught to the students and when it is taught. Our overall philosophy with regards to education has its roots to the Renaissance.

How does adding more money to education make me a Marxist? That doesn't make any sense.

How we allocate the money could be changed. Inner city schools have to be targeted. With the systematic and financial reform of struggling schools, this would pull surrounding communities out of poverty while participating in the free markets. There is nothing Marxist about that.

Conservatives/libertarians deny that income inequality exists, they also claim that it doesn´t matter, then they claim that any and every solution is equivalent to Stalinism. There is no point in including them in any attempt to address these issues. It is like including Nazis in a discussion on how to address racial relations.

 

[P. Kersey]

I am not looking for complete equality. I am only looking for more income equality like what we had in the 1950's and 1960's. Why don't we go back to that?

Are you saying there were no rich people and no poor people in the 50's and 60's?

"Income equality" is a fake term with no real meaning (other than a tool to be used by marxists) and can never be achieved.

Socialism and Marxism must have a poor, weak "victim" and a rich evil "exploiter" in order to grow. Naive people and young people inexperienced in real life are the targets because they are the most impressionable and less able to think critically.

 

[Born Free]

But the overall system could be reformed. Ranging from regulations to the individual schools to what is actually being taught to the students and when it is taught. Our overall philosophy with regards to education has its roots to the Renaissance.

How does adding more money to education make me a Marxist? That doesn't make any sense.

How we allocate the money could be changed. Inner city schools have to be targeted. With the systematic and financial reform of struggling schools, this would pull surrounding communities out of poverty while participating in the free markets. There is nothing Marxist about that.

School choice is the answer, meaning a voucher system, then you can send your kids to a school of your choice. One that actually teaches your kids. Of course that idea is lobbied against by the teachers unions as they are for increasing their wealth over teaching the students.

 

[Slyhunter]

Are you saying there were no rich people and no poor people in the 50's and 60's?

"Income equality" is a fake term with no real meaning (other than a tool to be used by marxists) and can never be achieved.

Socialism and Marxism must have a poor, weak "victim" and a rich evil "exploiter" in order to grow. Naive people and young people inexperienced in real life are the targets because they are the most impressionable and less able to think critically.

There is a difference between relative middle income in the 50's vs now. Folks are poorer now in purchasing power than they were in the 50's, except for the 1%.

 

[Slyhunter]

School choice is the answer, meaning a voucher system, then you can send your kids to a school of your choice. One that actually teaches your kids. Of course that idea is lobbied against by the teachers unions as they are for increasing their wealth over teaching the students.

The problem with school choice is the good schools won't simply accept the vouchers as full payment. I bet you the good schools will require additional funds before your child is allowed into their school and what good does that do to the folks who can't pay?

 

[TiredOfLife]

Say what? Try again.

Where is the third option? No one needs too much and should have too little?

 

[P. Kersey]

Conservatives/libertarians deny that income inequality exists, they also claim that it doesn´t matter, then they claim that any and every solution is equivalent to Stalinism. There is no point in including them in any attempt to address these issues. It is like including Nazis in a discussion on how to address racial relations.

Income equality exists...and it always will.
See my post #34.

What is your solution? Everyone in america meet every friday night and divide all of our money with each other until everyone has the same amount?

All cars should cost the same...a ford and a ferrari?...no difference in price...All jobs should pay the same...a brain surgeon shouldn't make any more than a groundskeeper....A 1000 acre farm should cost no more than an efficiency apartment.....LMFAO...what nonsense you kids talk...

 

[Born Free]

There is a difference between relative middle income in the 50's vs now. Folks are poorer now in purchasing power than they were in the 50's, except for the 1%.

Maybe that is the result of the more educated than those that are not. Our public schools are a disaster to say the least. Teacher unions are not for teaching but increasing their individual wealth. School choice would solve that problem with the use of a voucher system. Then you can enroll your kid in a school that actually teaches.

 

[P. Kersey]

There is a difference between relative middle income in the 50's vs now. Folks are poorer now in purchasing power than they were in the 50's, except for the 1%.

Because prices and incomes rise and the dollar is worth less....in 1957 the average price of a house was 12,000...average income was 4500 per year...a new car was 2000...milk cost 1.00 per gallon...gas was 24CENTS a gallon..a postage stamp was 3 CENTS...it's all relative...

 

[Slyhunter]

Income equality exists...and it always will.
See my post #34.

What is your solution? Everyone in america meet every friday night and divide all of our money with each other until everyone has the same amount?

All cars should cost the same...a ford and a ferrari?...no difference in price...All jobs should pay the same...a brain surgeon shouldn't make any more than a groundskeeper....A 1000 acre farm should cost no more than an efficiency apartment.....LMFAO...what nonsense you kids talk...

I posted the solution already in a previous post. Stop chasing after red herrings.

 

[ttwtt78640]

There is a difference between relative middle income in the 50's vs now. Folks are poorer now in purchasing power than they were in the 50's, except for the 1%.

Housing has certainly gone up (a lot) but what was "needed" in the 1950s, as far as electronics and household appliances, was far less. Even when you had "everything" you still had nothing like what you have today. People also "saved up" to get a car, you did not take out a 6 year loan.

 

[TiredOfLife]

There is no such thing as "equality".
When "equality" does occur it is only temporary. Nothing in nature is "equal". No two trees...no two animals of the same breed and especially no two humans...Everyone has different abilities, skills and knowledge...

Nature is not our guide to economics. If it was we would still be hunter-gatherers.

 

[Neomalthusian]

I am not looking for complete equality. I am only looking for more income equality like what we had in the 1950's and 1960's. Why don't we go back to that?

Why don't we go back to the population we had in the fifties and sixties, and regress technologically as well? Also, we must make sure third world nations are not modernizing and increasing their living standards the way they are now. When all that is achieved, we should be able to "go back to that."

Lastly, please read my signature line.

 

[Born Free]

The problem with school choice is the good schools won't simply accept the vouchers as full payment. I bet you the good schools will require additional funds before your child is allowed into their school and what good does that do to the folks who can't pay?

Sorry but a voucher system gives many more students to a better education that what they can get now. Why say no to that? You are saying nothing is better so stay in a public school that is taught by union teachers that could give a **** if you lean anything.

 

[distraff]

Are you saying there were no rich people and no poor people in the 50's and 60's?

There have and will always be rich and poor. However there is a happy median of income inequality for optimal economic growth for the US.

"Income equality" is a fake term with no real meaning (other than a tool to be used by marxists) and can never be achieved.

It can be quantified with the GINI index or by measuring which percentiles are getting how much of the national income.

 

[P. Kersey]

Where is the third option? No one needs too much and should have too little?

You deserve as much as you can make.

If I invent a "widget" that costs a dollar and lasts for 5 years and the other guy has one that costs 5 dollars and lasts 2 weeks...which one would you buy?..assuming you needed a widget. Better products/services cost more for a reason...People with better skills deserve to make more than those who don't have any skills...don't you understand how real life works?

 

[P. Kersey]

Nature is not our guide to economics. If it was we would still be hunter-gatherers.

Oh..ok..word games?

Equality does not exist...anywhere. Period. When it does occur it is temporary and variable.

 

[Slyhunter]

Sorry but a voucher system gives many more students to a better education that what they can get now. Why say no to that? You are saying nothing is better so stay in a public school that is taught by union teachers that could give a **** if you lean anything.

I'm saying a voucher system would be missing the point and not repairing what it needs to repair if it only helps those who can afford to pay a surcharge for sending their kids to a good school. Then those who can't afford the surcharge are left in failing schools who have less dollars (because of lost heads) to pay with thus even worse schools than they were before vouchers were issued.