Not "mandated", but much can be done to affect outcomes long-term via tax policy. Income and wealth disparity have been increasing since the highest marginal rates in taxes have been decreasing...
View attachment 67179184
How tax can reduce inequality - OECD Observer
As for the poll - why should I care what the highest-income earners make? I am doing alright, and it's not as if a dollar in their paycheck means a dollar less in mine.
Given that the U.S. has the most progressive income tax structure IN the OECD, and given that income inequality is highest within the United States in states that are high-progressive income tax states, you may want to reconsider that argument .
As for the poll - why should I care what the highest-income earners make? I am doing alright, and it's not as if a dollar in their paycheck means a dollar less in mine.
good. and one day, I hope the one percent unite rather than halving half supporting big government in a desire to get more power. and once united we can crush the idiotic socialist nonsense that wealth should be limited
Not "mandated", but much can be done to affect outcomes long-term via tax policy. Income and wealth disparity have been increasing since the highest marginal rates in taxes have been decreasing...
View attachment 67179184
How tax can reduce inequality - OECD Observer
As of this writing, 3 people out of 300 see no problem with the current income disparity. Um, 1%.
That said, I don't think I have ever seen such a lopsided poll on DP.
Also, wealth disparity is a much bigger problem than income disparity.
The poll has been spammed, unfortunately.
The richest in the country openly "uniting" against the majority of the working class hasn't ever led to good news for the richest...
Why must it be fixed and how do you fix it? This issue reminds me of the liberal positions on energy and the environment. Liberals elevate an issue to a dire threat to humanity, then offer zero with regard to solutions. Global warming is bad, but they offer no solution to actually stop it: fossil fuels are bad, but they offer nothing as an alternative. Here they say income inequality is bad, but offer nothing that will even remotely address the supposed 'problem.' Raising the minimum wage by a buck or two and raising taxes by a few billion as Obama is proposing will do absolutely NOTHING to alter the current income or wealth gap--the very problem these 'solutions' are supposed to be addressing. These are feel good measures, power grabs and envy salves for liberals, nothing else.
its funny watching some lefties thinking that all the rich are pro freedom-less government. Many rich liberals require a big government to stay rich
Those steps may reduce emissions, but will not reverse global warming. To actually do something about AGW requires massive and draconian measures that no one proposes or will ever accept. So it is a lot of hot air about, well, hot air.There are many proposals for addressing global warning, the problem is that the people who benefit from the status quo and those who love them don't like them and often wrongly complain that they won't work and/or sabotage them. They include banning the use of coal, alternative fuel autos, increased use of solar and wind power, reduced use of resources, more recycling, reduced manufacturing of disposible items, and more sharing of items and less materialism. They do require change and some sacrifice.
Again, I doubt these will have any significant impact on anything. Massive taxation only empowers and enriches the state. The super rich will always be super rich, thus skewing the wealth balance well in their favor. Unless you just plan to confiscate a large portion of the wealth of people like Gates and Buffett the Waltons and Zuckerberg et al. You will have zero impact on wealth disparity.Proposals for addressing income disparity include tax reform to eliminate loopholes and deductions that aren't beneficial to society, higher inheritance taxes, regulations to prevent dodging taxes by offshoring money, taxes on stock trades etc., infrastructure building jobs programs, incentives to encourage domestic investment and more.
False dichotomy. The only thing anyone's seriously suggesting now is minimizing AGW, not reversing it. Much can be done before we get to "draconion" steps.Those steps may reduce emissions, but will not reverse global warming. To actually do something about AGW requires massive and draconian measures that no one proposes or will ever accept. So it is a lot of hot air about, well, hot air.
Nonsense: there was a 90% top tax rate in the Eisenhower years, when the state was far from all-powerful.Again, I doubt these will have any significant impact on anything. Massive taxation only empowers and enriches the state.
Without China and India and the rest of the non-industrialized world, nothing can be done to even slow it let alone reverse it.False dichotomy. The only thing anyone's seriously suggesting now is minimizing AGW, not reversing it. Much can be done before we get to "draconion" steps.
LOL Things have changed since Eisenhower. A lot. There is virtually no comparison between the size, scope and power of the Federal government between then and now.Nonsense: there was a 90% top tax rate in the Eisenhower years, when the state was far from all-powerful.
Without China and India and the rest of the non-industrialized world, nothing can be done to even slow it let alone reverse it.
LOL Things have changed since Eisenhower. A lot. There is virtually no comparison between the size, scope and power of the Federal government between then and now.
Without China and India and the rest of the non-industrialized world, nothing can be done to even slow it let alone reverse it.
Given that the U.S. has the most progressive income tax structure IN the OECD, and given that income inequality is highest within the United States in states that are high-progressive income tax states, you may want to reconsider that argument .
its funny watching some lefties thinking that all the rich are pro freedom-less government. Many rich liberals require a big government to stay rich
The news came out today that OXFAM found that by 2016, the richest 1% will control half of all the world's wealth.
That begs the question, then - what level of income inequality do you believe should be the upper limit, if there should be any limit at all? And if there should be a limit, how would that be achieved, since this is obviously something that can't be mandated by governments?
What does it mean when the highest earners are taking a larger and larger piece of the pie then?
You are deluding yourself.
Generally, that the pie has grown.
No, you are merely demonstrating either an unwillingness or inability to understand the difference between "relative" and "actual". If the economy consists of you and me and I make $10 and you make $90, and then I get a raise to $15 and you get a raise to $150, your relative "share of the pie" has gone up even as my actual pie has increased as well. A high income person earning a dollar is more likely to benefit me than it is to harm me - unless he literally stole it, the odds are he earned that dollar in mutually beneficial trade, possibly with myself.
The problem is everywhere. We are just the richest so the numbers are higher. Even you can admit that the trend is unsustainable.
The less progressive taxes have gotten the worse the inequality gets, that is abundantly clear.
You are deluded. What is happening goes like this. 5 people are sharing a business that makes $100, they each get $2. Then one of them says "It was my idea, I should get more so the other 4 give him a dollar so he gets five and they get one. The business grows and soon is making $1000, the problem is 4 are STILL getting $1 and the "ideaman" is getting $996! That's our economic problem in a nutshell.
If you kept up with the news, you would know that China and India are cooperating.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?