• Please keep all posts on the Rittenhouse verdict here: Rittenhouse Verdict. Note the moderator warnings in the thread. The thread will be heavily moderated with a zero tolerance policy for any baiting, flaming, trolling or other rule breaks. Stick to the topic and not the other posters. Thank you.
  • 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!

Is Fixing Income Inequality Actually Un-American?

Moderate Right

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 21, 2015
Messages
53,813
Reaction score
10,860
Location
Kentucky
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Do we really want to put a cap on how wealthy someone can be?

Is forcibly taking from the rich and giving to the poor American and Democratic values?

Do we really want to pass laws against people hoarding money and not spending it when there are poor who could use that money?

Are we just merely wanting to change what our country is to a socialistic country, thereby changing America from the land of opportunity and the American Dream to being a socialist state where there are no poor and there are no wealthy (except of course for those in power in the government)?
 

Chomsky

Social Democrat
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2015
Messages
58,680
Reaction score
45,532
Location
Third Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Do we really want to put a cap on how wealthy someone can be?

Is forcibly taking from the rich and giving to the poor American and Democratic values?

Do we really want to pass laws against people hoarding money and not spending it when there are poor who could use that money?

Are we just merely wanting to change what our country is to a socialistic country, thereby changing America from the land of opportunity and the American Dream to being a socialist state where there are no poor and there are no wealthy (except of course for those in power in the government)?
I do not think we want a society that redistributes wealth, but one that allows for equal opportunity for one's success (or failure!).

As long as all the citizen's have equal access to the institutions and tools required to succeed in life, that's good enough for me.

The homeless guy on the street should have the same opportunity to walk into a courtroom as Donald Trump, and prevail if his case has merit.

I believe in fairness - nothing more, nothing less.
 

Thrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2011
Messages
20,295
Reaction score
9,801
Location
Texas, Vegas, Colombia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I do not think we want a society that redistributes wealth, but one that allows for equal opportunity for one's success (or failure!).

As long as all the citizen's have equal access to the institutions and tools required to succeed in life, that's good enough for me.

The homeless guy on the street should have the same opportunity to walk into a courtroom as Donald Trump, and prevail if his case has merit.

I'm for fairness - nothing more, nothing less.

that's pretty much where i sit as well..... and one of the reasons I don't qualify as a Democrat or an American leftist.( who are very supportive of the direct redistribution wealth)
 

JohnfrmClevelan

DP Veteran
Joined
May 12, 2014
Messages
6,345
Reaction score
4,054
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
that's pretty much where i sit as well..... and one of the reasons I don't qualify as a Democrat or an American leftist.( who are very supportive of the direct redistribution wealth)

From where we are now, do you believe that we would/could ever get to a place of real fairness without strong government intervention? If so, what mechanism do you think would bring about or enforce this fairness?
 

Chomsky

Social Democrat
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2015
Messages
58,680
Reaction score
45,532
Location
Third Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
that's pretty much where i sit as well..... and one of the reasons I don't qualify as a Democrat or an American leftist.( who are very supportive of the direct redistribution wealth)
Understood.

But I do have addendum to my post above concerning the truly indigent due to disability or advanced age. To not assist those in dire need through no fault of their own, strikes me as cold to the point of cruelty.

This area is the most difficult for us as a nation to resolve in terms of societal responsibility, I believe.
 

Thrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2011
Messages
20,295
Reaction score
9,801
Location
Texas, Vegas, Colombia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Understood.

But I do have addendum to my post above concerning the truly indigent due to disability or advanced age. To not assist those in dire need through no fault of their own, strikes me as cold to the point of cruelty.

This area is the most difficult for us as a nation to resolve in terms of societal responsibility, I believe.

I don't think there's much opposition to helping the truly needy...... though there seems to be a wide chasm between peoples notion of "truly needy".
 

jaeger19

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 18, 2013
Messages
33,939
Reaction score
9,251
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Do we really want to put a cap on how wealthy someone can be?

Is forcibly taking from the rich and giving to the poor American and Democratic values?

Do we really want to pass laws against people hoarding money and not spending it when there are poor who could use that money?

Are we just merely wanting to change what our country is to a socialistic country, thereby changing America from the land of opportunity and the American Dream to being a socialist state where there are no poor and there are no wealthy (except of course for those in power in the government)?

Fixing inequality is not un-American.. in fact its everything about being American..

HOW we fix inquality however CAN BE un American.
 

jaeger19

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 18, 2013
Messages
33,939
Reaction score
9,251
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
From where we are now, do you believe that we would/could ever get to a place of real fairness without strong government intervention? If so, what mechanism do you think would bring about or enforce this fairness?

Well.. the problem is john.. can you recognize that part of the reason that we have inequality is BECAUSE of strong government intervention.?

Some ways of "fixing" inequality.. with "strong government intervention" will make things worse.
 

Chomsky

Social Democrat
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2015
Messages
58,680
Reaction score
45,532
Location
Third Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I don't think there's much opposition to helping the truly needy...... though there seems to be a wide chasm between peoples notion of "truly needy".
Absolutely!
 

Chomsky

Social Democrat
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2015
Messages
58,680
Reaction score
45,532
Location
Third Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Fixing inequality is not un-American.. in fact its everything about being American..

HOW we fix inquality however CAN BE un American.
:thumbs:

I agree 100%!

[as long as your using "equality" in terms of 'equal rights' & 'equal opportunity', not in terms of attempting to 'make everyone equal'].
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
73,194
Reaction score
41,728
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Understood.

But I do have addendum to my post above concerning the truly indigent due to disability or advanced age. To not assist those in dire need through no fault of their own, strikes me as cold to the point of cruelty.

This area is the most difficult for us as a nation to resolve in terms of societal responsibility, I believe.

I find the bolded above to be largely omitted for most government aid applications. Is it society's or the individual'a fault if a person drops out of school and joins a street gang? Is it society's or the individual's fault if they become disabled breaking a law or through other self destructive behavior? if 1/3 of folks are obese, which greatly increases medical care risks, are their obesity related medical problems through no fault of their own? Obesity is largely the result of a choice just like tobacco and other recreational drug use.
 

jimbo

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 30, 2011
Messages
19,078
Reaction score
6,745
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
From where we are now, do you believe that we would/could ever get to a place of real fairness without strong government intervention? If so, what mechanism do you think would bring about or enforce this fairness?

I believe that we cannot get to fairness with strong government intervention.

The goal of government in this issue should be to provide its citizens with the tools to succeed in their own way, then get out of the way.

Society must recognize the fact that all will not succeed, and that some will have more success than others.
 

Thrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2011
Messages
20,295
Reaction score
9,801
Location
Texas, Vegas, Colombia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
From where we are now, do you believe that we would/could ever get to a place of real fairness without strong government intervention? If so, what mechanism do you think would bring about or enforce this fairness?

well, I don't believe it can be truly attained at all...nor should it even be attempted with such perfection in mind....inequality is not entirely bad for us.

that said, I wouldn't put it in the frame of "strong" government intervention versus no government intervention... i'd rather look at it in terms of "smart" intervention versus counterproductive intervention.
some very smart intervention would be removing government from the premises ( such as our licensing requirement for everything under the sun) ... other smart approaches would be based entirely on government policy.
I do not subscribe the approach that government intervention is always good.. and stronger government is always better.... that's a leftist notion with no basis in reality in history

if Strong government intervention was actually productive, our poverty and "fairness" problems would not exist.... as government has intervened itself in to literally every aspect of our lives...especailly our economic lives.
( maybe a good start would be to do away with income taxes... confiscating wealth while pretending to be interested in people keeping more of their earned wealth is not only illogical, but ultimately counterproductive)



I also don't belive our government pitting us against each other is a very good way to go about things.
we operate better, and produce better results, if we are unified in our goals.... much like the national environment during and directly following WW2

now, to a "strong" government intervention that i would actually support..well, that would be a Basic Income Guarantee....but it would have to happen in conjunction with other policy changes in order to have maximum effect and beneficial results to society overall ( such as making income taxes wholly and forever illegal)
 

Chomsky

Social Democrat
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2015
Messages
58,680
Reaction score
45,532
Location
Third Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I find the bolded above to be largely omitted for most government aid applications. Is it society's or the individual'a fault if a person drops out of school and joins a street gang? Is it society's or the individual's fault if they become disabled breaking a law or through other self destructive behavior? if 1/3 of folks are obese, which greatly increases medical care risks, are their obesity related medical problems through no fault of their own? Obesity is largely the result of a choice just like tobacco and other recreational drug use.
Well, this is where it gets tough. Because while I agree in principle, I think there should nearly always should be a path to redemption and temporary assistance along the path for those sincere in bettering themselves and desiring to contribute to society.

But no - we can't save or rehabilitate everyone, and there's always going to be some percentage of incorrigibles in any society.
 

SmartCat

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 5, 2015
Messages
3,953
Reaction score
889
Location
North East USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Median income adjusted for inflation has declined for most of the twenty-first century.

Median Household Income Growth: Deflating the American Dream - dshort - Advisor Perspectives

Nevertheless, the stock market sets new records.

Dow Jones - 100 Year Historical Chart | MacroTrends

An economy where the richest ten percent get richer, and the richest one percent advances even more will not necessarily provoke a left wing reaction. The popularity of Donald Trump demonstrates that. Nevertheless, the fact that Bernie Sanders is even more ahead of Trump than is Hillary Clinton

RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - General Election: Trump vs. Sanders

RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - General Election: Trump vs. Clinton

demonstrates that a socialist reaction is certainly possible.

Moreover, an economy in which the average standard of living keeps declining while the rich keep getting richer does not generate a healthy society. A true conservative should find such an economy alarming.

The Republican Party faces additional problems. Since at least 1980 it has been the party of the white majority. Increasingly it the party of older whites, and whites with less education. Older Americans are more dependent on government spending. Less educated Americans are less affluent, and more likely to know that they do not benefit from the Republican economic panacea, which is tax cuts for the rich.

Since at least 1933 when Democrats have been president there has usually been more growth in the per capita gross domestic product, and more growth in the job market and the stock market.
 

Attachments

  • MedianIncome.jpg
    MedianIncome.jpg
    23 KB · Views: 59

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
73,194
Reaction score
41,728
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Well, this is where it gets tough. Because while I agree in principle, I think there should nearly always should be a path to redemption and temporary assistance along the path for those sincere in bettering themselves and desiring to contribute to society.

But no - we can't save or rehabilitate everyone, and there's always going to be some percentage of incorrigibles in any society.

What kind of logic would make it illegal for a private medical care insurance provider to consider obesity, a major actuarial risk factor, and then compel everyone to buy into that nonsense premium rate setting scheme? We seem to go overboard in removing personal responsibility from consideration - sure he was drunk and speeding his motorcycle down the road but he is disabled from hitting that building causing spinal cord damage. ;)
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
From where we are now, do you believe that we would/could ever get to a place of real fairness without strong government intervention? If so, what mechanism do you think would bring about or enforce this fairness?

What is fairness or what you call real fairness? Why put real in front of fairness anyway? Is there a such thing as fake fairness or something?

How do we know when we obtained real fairness? I don't know about you, but I like working of concrete ideals, not undefined ones. Or in other words, I want to know where I'm going before I leave to get there.
 

Gimmesometruth

I got a Donolantern!
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 21, 2012
Messages
30,570
Reaction score
6,748
Location
US Southwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
Well.. the problem is john.. can you recognize that part of the reason that we have inequality is BECAUSE of strong government intervention.?

Some ways of "fixing" inequality.. with "strong government intervention" will make things worse.
Like, for instance, your claim that inequality was made worse.....by going off the gold standard.


And of course, don't forget, govt intervention....like letting alll those nasty Mexicants into the country.....why that happened because of "govt intervention" too.


Ya know, I did not realize how much of a Bircher you sound like.
 

AlbqOwl

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 12, 2005
Messages
22,772
Reaction score
11,837
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Do we really want to put a cap on how wealthy someone can be?

Is forcibly taking from the rich and giving to the poor American and Democratic values?

Do we really want to pass laws against people hoarding money and not spending it when there are poor who could use that money?

Are we just merely wanting to change what our country is to a socialistic country, thereby changing America from the land of opportunity and the American Dream to being a socialist state where there are no poor and there are no wealthy (except of course for those in power in the government)?

I think if there was a cap on income and a threshold below which nobody could go, most would put out just enough effort to reach that cap and would do no more. And some would be satisfied with that lowest threshold. Our productivity would plummet, there would be no incentive to risk capital to produce new products or services or inventions and we would just become another mediocre country of complacent, unambitious people marking time in their own self interest.
 

Chomsky

Social Democrat
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2015
Messages
58,680
Reaction score
45,532
Location
Third Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
well, I don't believe it can be truly attained at all...nor should it even be attempted with such perfection in mind....inequality is not entirely bad for us.

that said, I wouldn't put it in the frame of "strong" government intervention versus no government intervention... i'd rather look at it in terms of "smart" intervention versus counterproductive intervention.
some very smart intervention would be removing government from the premises ( such as our licensing requirement for everything under the sun) ... other smart approaches would be based entirely on government policy.
I do not subscribe the approach that government intervention is always good.. and stronger government is always better.... that's a leftist notion with no basis in reality in history

if Strong government intervention was actually productive, our poverty and "fairness" problems would not exist.... as government has intervened itself in to literally every aspect of our lives...especailly our economic lives.
( maybe a good start would be to do away with income taxes... confiscating wealth while pretending to be interested in people keeping more of their earned wealth is not only illogical, but ultimately counterproductive)



I also don't belive our government pitting us against each other is a very good way to go about things.
we operate better, and produce better results, if we are unified in our goals.... much like the national environment during and directly following WW2

now, to a "strong" government intervention that i would actually support..well, that would be a Basic Income Guarantee....but it would have to happen in conjunction with other policy changes in order to have maximum effect and beneficial results to society overall ( such as making income taxes wholly and forever illegal)
To the bolded:

You're hitting them out of the park today, Thrilla!

I believe basic income (by dropping most means-based social programs) would go a long way to motivating those otherwise abusing the means based-systems. I suspect productivity (in terms of the 'above ground' economy) would flourish as the prime obstacle to increased marginal employment for those individuals would be removed (that obstacle being benefits curtailment).

I've been a proponent of this for a long time, but I'm usually met with rebuffs of incredulity!

The only big question is: Will the entitlement savings equal the program costs? In other threads there was some attempt to quantity this, but the results were nebulous at best. However, I believe the numbers get in the ballpark at a relatively low (but IMO workable) guaranteed income level - one quite a bit below that of the recent Swiss referendum (2500 USD/mo).
 

Gimmesometruth

I got a Donolantern!
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 21, 2012
Messages
30,570
Reaction score
6,748
Location
US Southwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
I think if there was a cap on income and a threshold below which nobody could go, most would put out just enough effort to reach that cap and would do no more. And some would be satisfied with that lowest threshold. Our productivity would plummet, there would be no incentive to risk capital to produce new products or services or inventions and we would just become another mediocre country of complacent, unambitious people marking time in their own self interest.

Higher taxes cause those who are selfish to be less motivated.....which is fine with me.
 

Moderate Right

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 21, 2015
Messages
53,813
Reaction score
10,860
Location
Kentucky
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
From where we are now, do you believe that we would/could ever get to a place of real fairness without strong government intervention? If so, what mechanism do you think would bring about or enforce this fairness?

What is fairness?
 

Thrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2011
Messages
20,295
Reaction score
9,801
Location
Texas, Vegas, Colombia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
To the bolded:

You're hitting them out of the park today, Thrilla!

I believe basic income (by dropping most means-based social programs) would go a long way to motivating those otherwise abusing the means based-systems. I suspect productivity (in terms of the 'above ground' economy) would flourish as the prime obstacle to increased marginal employment for those individuals would be removed (that obstacle being benefits curtailment).

I've been a proponent of this for a long time, but I'm usually met with rebuffs of incredulity!

The only big question is: Will the entitlement savings equal the program costs? In other threads there was some attempt to quantity this, but the results were nebulous at best. However, I believe the numbers get in the ballpark at a relatively low (but IMO workable) guaranteed income level - one quite a bit below that of the recent Swiss referendum (2500 USD/mo).

due the machinations of modern finance, i'm utterly unconcerned of the cost ( as long as the program is enacted at the federal level)...therefore, I don't seek to quantify anything....I just know that it's a simple program, easily financed, every single citizen benefits from it directly( rich or poor, black or white,we all get the same rate), and it does not pit one demographic against another.... it's literally equal across the board.

our system is currently highly complex, so even trying to quantify costs versus savings would be tough, to any degree of accuracy.... I can't list every program that currently used to dole out payments to citizens, let alone account for how many dollars are at stake for each program....

about the only concern i have is how many federal employees would be out of a job once enacted... and to be honest, i'm more concerned about the game of thrones finale than I am bureaucrats being employed by the government.

as for the exact amount to assign, i think it gets a lil tricky there, due to regional cost of living differences... but its a solvable equation. ..we might, for example, peg it to current poverty levels for enactment, and subsequently peg it to inflation for future calculations... i dunno.

unfortunately, i think it's a pipe dream right now... neither the establishments of the left nor the right are supportive of such a thing, for differing reasons.... but i think with time it will become much more appealing.( i'll be long dead and gone by then)
one fo hte bugger impediments against such a notion right now is that it doesn't bring with it power .... politicians , more than anything, are interested in power... division and strife among the populace brings power, not sensible and equal policy approaches.
 

Gimmesometruth

I got a Donolantern!
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 21, 2012
Messages
30,570
Reaction score
6,748
Location
US Southwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
What is fairness?
We could start with an easy one.......how about "no discrimination based on race, sex, orientation..."?

Did we get to a more perfect environment without govt intervention from this aspect?
 

AlbqOwl

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 12, 2005
Messages
22,772
Reaction score
11,837
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Higher taxes cause those who are selfish to be less motivated.....which is fine with me.

Now who is being selfish? The person who earned the money and the right to use it as he/she chooses? Or the person who wants some of what he/she has not earned or who wants to deny others opportunity to earn?
 
Top Bottom