the great divergence:

liblady · Sep 7, 2010

a good article on income inequality and IMAGINED social mobility. a good argument to maintain a progressive income tax, and by extension, letting the bush tax cuts for wealthiest among us expire.

Economically speaking, the richest nation on earth is starting to resemble a banana republic. The main difference is that the United States is big enough to maintain geographic distance between the villa-dweller and the beggar.

But income inequality is a topic of huge importance to American society and therefore a subject of large and growing interest to a host of economists, political scientists, and other wonky types. Except for a few Libertarian outliers (whose views we'll examine later), these experts agree that the country's growing income inequality is deeply worrying. Even Alan Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve Board chairman and onetime Ayn Rand acolyte, has registered concern. "This is not the type of thing which a democratic society—a capitalist democratic society—can really accept without addressing," Greenspan said in 2005. Greenspan's Republican-appointed successor, Ben Bernanke, has also fretted about income inequality.

The Great Divergence: Trying to understand income inequality, the most profound change in American society in your lifetime. (1) - By Timothy Noah - Slate Magazine

Patria Antiqua · Sep 10, 2010

It's okay, if you work really hard then you will be rich.

Anyone who tells you otherwise is just lazy and loves black people too much.

liblady · Sep 15, 2010

Patria Antiqua said:
It's okay, if you work really hard then you will be rich.

Anyone who tells you otherwise is just lazy and loves black people too much.

funny how people don't understand that undermining social mobility is a recipe for disaster, even as we wage war in countries where citizens become terrorists because they are hopeless.

Patria Antiqua · Sep 15, 2010

liblady said:
funny how people don't understand that undermining social mobility is a recipe for disaster, even as we wage war in countries where citizens become terrorists because they are hopeless.

I vaguely remember a group of radicals taking over an aristocratic society with a corrupt politico-economic class in Russia a while back.

Wonder what happened to those guys, we could use something like that here.

Grim17 · Sep 15, 2010

May I introduce you to the great Milton Friedman:

liblady · Sep 15, 2010

Patria Antiqua said:
I vaguely remember a group of radicals taking over an aristocratic society with a corrupt politico-economic class in Russia a while back.

Wonder what happened to those guys, we could use something like that here.

a little drastic, don't you think?

liblady · Sep 15, 2010

thank you so much, but how does that address my post?

Patria Antiqua · Sep 15, 2010

liblady said:
a little drastic, don't you think?

Probably.

Have to love those proletarian values, though.

liblady · Sep 15, 2010

Patria Antiqua said:
Probably.

Have to love those proletarian values, though.

hmm...which values?

phattonez · Sep 15, 2010

Thomas Sowell said:
Those who criticize the existing ‘distribution’ of income in the United States are criticizing the statistical results of systemic processes….for the economic positions of given individuals vary greatly within a relatively few years. What is really being said is that numbers don’t look right to the anointed–and that this is what matters, that all the myriad purposes of the millions of human beings who are transacting with one another in the marketplace must be subordinated to the goal of presenting a certain statistical tableau to anointed observers.

To question the ‘fairness’ or other index of validity of the existing statistics growing out of voluntary economic transactions is to question whether those who spent their own money to buy what they wanted from other people have a right to do so.

. . .

“Again, no one would seriously entertain such an arrogant and presumptuous goal, if presented openly, plainly, and honestly….

wakalix » Blog Archive » Thomas Sowell on income inequality

liblady · Sep 16, 2010

phattonez said:
wakalix » Blog Archive » Thomas Sowell on income inequality

that quote does nothing to address the point of my post, but thanks anyway.

Goobieman · Sep 16, 2010

liblady said:
a good article on income inequality and IMAGINED social mobility. a good argument to maintain a progressive income tax, and by extension, letting the bush tax cuts for wealthiest among us expire.

Only if you can show your premise - that it is the government's job to maintain some eqial distribution of wealth - to be sound.

The*Great*Divergence:**Trying to understand income inequality, the most profound change in American society in your lifetime. (1) - By Timothy Noah - Slate Magazine[/QUOTE]

liblady · Sep 16, 2010

Goobieman said:
Only if you can show your premise - that it is the government's job to maintain some eqial distribution of wealth - to be sound.

i never mentioned "equal" distribution of wealth. without social mobility, our way of life will collapse. hope is necessary for a thriving society, which is why the tea party seems to be doing pretty well these days. the problem is, although what they are advocating for IS social mobility, (albeit for a select group of people) they don't realize they can't have it without progressive taxation, which is NOT equal distribution.

Goobieman · Sep 16, 2010

liblady said:
i never mentioned "equal" distribution of wealth.

Neither did I.

without social mobility, our way of life will collapse

OK... Assume, very generously, for the moment that this is true.
Only if you can show your premise - that it is the government's job to maintain some degree of social mobility - to be sound.

hope is necessary for a thriving society

OK... Assume, very generously, for the moment that this is true.
Only if you can show your premise - that it is the government's job to maintain some degree of "hope" - to be sound.

they don't realize they can't have it without progressive taxation

You cannot have hope, a thriving society or upward mobility w/o progressive taxation?
That's absurdly silly, given that all of these things existed in plenty before there was such a thing as progressive taxation.

liblady · Sep 16, 2010

Goobieman said:
Neither did I.

OK... Assume, very generously, for the moment that this is true.
Only if you can show your premise - that it is the government's job to maintain some degree of social mobility - to be sound.

OK... Assume, very generously, for the moment that this is true.
Only if you can show your premise - that it is the government's job to maintain some degree of "hope" - to be sound.

You cannot have hope, a thriving society or upward mobility w/o progressive taxation?
That's absurdly silly, given that all of these things existed in plenty before there was such a thing as progressive taxation.

without progressive taxation, unfair burdens are placed on the people who can least afford it. we have to maintain a certain overall level of tax revenue to support social mobility.....by way of education, for example. we also have to maintain tax revenue for defense and other programs. i happen to think taxation should be somewhat in proportion to means. a person should not have to forego a meal to pay taxes.

Geo Patric · Sep 16, 2010

Goobieman said:
Only if you can show your premise - that it is the government's job to maintain some eqial distribution of wealth - to be sound.

it is the gummint's job to execute the will of the people. it is the will of the people that the wealth of THIS nation not be held exclusively by a small elite. oligarchy is not constitutional.

geo.

Goobieman · Sep 16, 2010

Geo Patric said:
it is the gummint's job to execute the will of the people.

It is the government's job to protect the rights of the people -- the will of the people is subservient to this.

oligarchy is not constitutional.

Based on...?

Goobieman · Sep 16, 2010

liblady said:
without progressive taxation...

I see you simply conceded that you could not show your premises to be sound.

Without progressive taxation unfair burdens are placed on the people who can least afford it....

And yet, before there was progressive taxation, there was plenty of hope, a large, grwoing, thriving society and virtually limitless opportunity for upward mobility - and so, there is absolutely NO necessary relationship between these things and progressive taxation.

we have to maintain a certain overall level of tax revenue to support social mobility

Given that there was virtually limitless opportunity for upward mobility before there was any 'certain overall level of tax revenue', your statement is patently false.

by way of education...

Taxation, let alone progressive taxation, is not necessary to provide an worthwhile education system - simply looking at the Scottish enlightenment, that which produces most of what you consider the modern world, proves this beyond doubt.

we also have to maintain tax revenue for defense and other programs.

Yes... but, again, this existed before the advent progressive taxation, and so there's no way to argue that progressive taxation is 'necessary' for 'defense and other progreams'.

I happen to think taxation should be somewhat in proportion to means.

The more you make, the more you pay? You dont need progressive taxation for that.
One man makes $500. The other $5000. Both pay 10% in taxes.
The man who made more paid more in tax, yes?

Geo Patric · Sep 16, 2010

Goobieman said:
It is the government's job to protect the rights of the people -- the will of the people is subservient to this.

based upon? this is silly... the first right of anyone is his right to execute his own will. to protect the rights of anyone is to first protect his right to execute his own will

The fact... must be that the individuals, themselves, each, in his own personal and sovereign right, entered into a compact with each other to produce a government: and this is the only mode in which governments have a right to arise, and the only principle on which they have a right to exist.

- Thomas Paine, The Rights Of Man.

a thing is not Constitutional implicity, that is, because the the Constitution fails to ban it. it is Constitutional because the Constitution explicitly makes provision for it. There are no provisions for an elite, monied class to organize and institute policy towards their own ends.

geo.

Goobieman · Sep 16, 2010

Geo Patric said:
based upon?

The first para of the DOI.

this is silly... the first right of anyone is his right to execute his own will.

Really? Why can't I then just kill anyone I want, should that be my will?

A thing is not Constitutional implicity...

So you cannot cite the part of the Constititoion that prohibits an Ogilarchy. 10-4.

liblady · Sep 16, 2010

Goobieman said:
I see you simply conceded that you could not show your premises to be sound.

And yet, before there was progressive taxation, there was plenty of hope, a large, grwoing, thriving society and virtually limitless opportunity for upward mobility - and so, there is absolutely NO necessary relationship between these things and progressive taxation.

Given that there was virtually limitless opportunity for upward mobility before there was any 'certain overall level of tax revenue', your statement is patently false.

Taxation, let alone progressive taxation, is not necessary to provide an worthwhile education system - simply looking at the Scottish enlightenment, that which produces most of what you consider the modern world, proves this beyond doubt.

Yes... but, again, this existed before the advent progressive taxation, and so there's no way to argue that progressive taxation is 'necessary' for 'defense and other progreams'.

The more you make, the more you pay? You dont need progressive taxation for that.
One man makes $500. The other $5000. Both pay 10% in taxes.
The man who made more paid more in tax, yes?

when were there limitless opportunities? we've had some sort of progressive taxation since the civil war.

Goobieman · Sep 16, 2010

liblady said:
when were there limitless opportunities?

You -have- to be kidding. The entire history of the nation, pre and post-civil war, is replete witl limitless opportunilty. That's why people came here to begin with.

Its clear that you cannot show any necessary relationship between progressive taxation and ANY of the things you mentioned - that they all exited sans said taxation disproves the notion in its entirety.

Now, be honest and admit you're wrong, or please illustrate said necessary relationship.

MaggieD · Sep 16, 2010

liblady said:
a good article on income inequality and IMAGINED social mobility. a good argument to maintain a progressive income tax, and by extension, letting the bush tax cuts for wealthiest among us expire.

Too many people in our country have come to believe that giving men fish instead of teaching them to fish is the road to equality. It isn't. What can many liberals not understand about "We simply must stop spending" ??

Geo Patric · Sep 16, 2010

Goobieman said:
The first para of the DOI.

when in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

nope.... read it... not there... nothing in there about the obligation of the gummit to protect the rights of people. next paragraph, though, mentions that

"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

the consent of the governed... the will of the people.

Really? Why can't I then just kill anyone I want, should that be my will?

because it is against the law.

So you cannot cite the part of the Constititoion that prohibits an Ogilarchy.

again, "not constitutional" does not mean "banned by the constitution", it means "not provided by the constitution". murder is not prohibited by the constitution, either. nor is it Constitutional in being granted and only in being granted is it Constitutional. taking a life MAY result in federal prosecution based on the deprivation of liberty which IS prohibited by the constitution. the same argument may be made against Oligarchy..

geo

Goobieman · Sep 16, 2010

Geo Patric said:
next paragraph, though, mentions that

Yes - the 2nd para. There's the basis -- governments are formed to protect the rights of the people.

because it is against the law.

Why is it against the law? It prohibits the free exercise of will. If you're right, the laws against murder violate the porpose of the Constitution.

I never said that Oligarchy was prohibited, only that is is not constitutional.

LOL
For an action of a private individual, or a gourp of individuals, to be unconstitutional, it must be prohibited by the constitution. Otherwise, nothing in the constitution prohibits it and it is therefore constitutional.

the great divergence:

liblady

pirate lover

Patria Antiqua

liblady

pirate lover

Patria Antiqua

Grim17

Battle Ready

liblady

pirate lover

liblady

pirate lover

Patria Antiqua

liblady

pirate lover

phattonez

Catholic

liblady

pirate lover

Goobieman

liblady

pirate lover

Goobieman

liblady

pirate lover

Geo Patric

Goobieman

Goobieman

Geo Patric

Goobieman

liblady

pirate lover

Goobieman

MaggieD

Geo Patric

Goobieman

the great divergence:

pirate lover

pirate lover

Battle Ready

pirate lover

pirate lover

pirate lover

Catholic

pirate lover

pirate lover

pirate lover

pirate lover

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency