How to distribute wealth equally?

[pjdude1219]

We're talking apples and oranges here. I'm not using those companies as examples of the best workplace or the best corporate governance.

nonsense. you specificly stated that they were good for the economy as a whole. you literally reffered to the fable of the golden goose. that implies they are the source of prosperity. their not. they actually hinder prosperity.

They are examples of why the U.S. economy is as large as it is compared to most other countries.

they are examples of corporate capitalism at its finest. they aren't examples of why the us economy is as large as it is.

You don't see as many companies that are able to take over the global market coming from many other countries./

Montblanc, Diageo, BMW, Volkswagen, and i could go on and on. that you have a very uscentric world view is not my problem. just because they dont penetrate to far in the US doesn't mean they haven't taken over the global market place.

They don't have economies that are as strong as the U.S.

no in many cases they have stronger economies

You can't redistribute income if there is no income.

true but people also need money to buy companies products if the current trends continue thats not going to continue happening.

 

[Seattle]

no merely implied it. correction it does. i'm a strong believer in keynesian economic theory the uberrich aren't doing anything all that productive with their money.


cute, how very republican of you.

That makes no sense. Taking your money wouldn't be a Republican thing now would it? Do you consider yourself a Republican?

Regarding the Uberrich. How do you know that they aren't doing anything all that productive with their money? How is one unproductive with money? Most anyone (uberrich or merely just sensible) is productive with their money.

I'm not a fanboi for the uberrich. There is certainly room to raise their tax rates but it shouldn't go back to the 90% range. That didn't work even when it existed. It just changes behavior and promotes loopholes.

No one is going to sit around and pay a 90% tax rate for long. They will just take more of their compensation in stock, they will just move more assets offshore, etc.

The uberrich isn't the only segment you guys are addressing. You guys are talking about the top 20%. When governments start to tax more it usually doesn't stop with the top 20% either. It becomes political and then anyone who doesn't own any stocks/mutual funds is all for increasing taxes on them, regardless of income, just because they associate that with "the rich".

Property taxes in a liberal area (I'm liberal and I live in a liberal area) also continue to go up without regard to the underlying programs to be funded. If property values jump 10% in some year that's no reason for already high property taxes to jump up another 10% but that's what happens.

People who can just barely afford to own a house are now paying the equivalent of a used car every year to the city just for the privilege of living in a house that they are already paying for.

People who don't have a house are all for increasing the property taxes. Some people are on fixed or lower incomes. No one cares if it doesn't effect them.

My point is, any decisions need to be rational and not based on the boogy man of the "rich".

 

[Seattle]

nonsense. you specificly stated that they were good for the economy as a whole. you literally reffered to the fable of the golden goose. that implies they are the source of prosperity. their not. they actually hinder prosperity.


they are examples of corporate capitalism at its finest. they aren't examples of why the us economy is as large as it is.

Pick the country whose economy and political system is more in line with your views. By most measures, they are probably below the U.S. in that ranking.

 

[pjdude1219]

That makes no sense. Taking your money wouldn't be a Republican thing now would it? Do you consider yourself a Republican?

it was more reference to the sarcastic remark that showed poor understanding of an iddue. like paul ryans socialism halloween candy video.

Regarding the Uberrich. How do you know that they aren't doing anything all that productive with their money? How is one unproductive with money? Most anyone (uberrich or merely just sensible) is productive with their money.

because they are putting money into things that don't actually produce anything. its creates money via accounting mechanics..

I'm not a fanboi for the uberrich.

it would be more believable if you werent acting like one.

There is certainly room to raise their tax rates but it shouldn't go back to the 90% range. That didn't work even when it existed. It just changes behavior and promotes loopholes.

first off neither ice and I ever said to go back to 90%. it did in fact work back than. the US was at its most prosperous when tax rates were that high. they rich already push for loopholes and everything changes behavior.

No one is going to sit around and pay a 90% tax rate for long.

repeating strawman arguments isnt going to get you anywhere.

They will just take more of their compensation in stock, they will just move more assets offshore, etc.

they are all ready doing this.

The uberrich isn't the only segment you guys are addressing. You guys are talking about the top 20%. When governments start to tax more it usually doesn't stop with the top 20% either. It becomes political and then anyone who doesn't own any stocks/mutual funds is all for increasing taxes on them, regardless of income, just because they associate that with "the rich".

first off the top 20% owns 92% of all stock so it is fair to asscociate that with the rich.

Property taxes in a liberal area (I'm liberal and I live in a liberal area) also continue to go up without regard to the underlying programs to be funded.

I havent found that. also property taxes tend to regressive.

If property values jump 10% in some year that's no reason for already high property taxes to jump up another 10% but that's what happens.

i do hope your talking relative percentages not absolute because the highest property taxes in the country are 2.4%. and again thats generally not how it goes. as property value increase the effective tax rate decrease with regard to property taxes. they are regressive.

People who can just barely afford to own a house are now paying the equivalent of a used car every year to the city just for the privilege of living in a house that they are already paying for.

yes that what 2% of 400k looks like. that doesn't mean the property taxes are too high.

People who don't have a house are all for increasing the property taxes. Some people are on fixed or lower incomes. No one cares if it doesn't effect them.

oh those evil poor people attacking those above them. you claim to be liberal but peddle in republican talking points.

My point is, any decisions need to be rational and not based on the boogy man of the "rich".

we are being rational. its not based on a boogy man its based on fact.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...voice-support-for-higher-taxes-on-the-wealthy
the last time income and wealth inequality got this high the great depression happened

 

[iceaura]

Regarding the Uberrich. How do you know that they aren't doing anything all that productive with their money?

By examining the economic statistics of different economies and given economies at different times.
Too much wealth and income inequality is solidly correlated with comparatively lower productivity, economic stagnation, and reduced prosperity. It's correlated with the general population being shorter in height, lower in IQ, more often sick, less well educated, and sooner dying. These correlations hold independently of the total wealth and level of economic development.

Cuba's economy isn't top heavy but its strength is lacking

So? Top heavy, as the US is becoming, is weak. It's not the only weakness an economy can have - it's just one of worst.

Meanwhile: the island of Cuba's been sanctioned and blockaded by the world's dominant sea power, 90 miles away, for decades. It's doing pretty well, considering that. Compare more top-heavy Haiti, right next door: apparently even blockade and sanction and continual attack by the world's biggest economic and military power is not as economically destructive as allowing wealth to accumulate at the top. Apparently even authoritarian central planning and political oppression of the entire economy is not as harmful as deregulating one's banking and financial sectors, failing to tax the rich and regulate capitalist corporate enterprise.

If you want to call the situation in San Francisco "bubble pricing", that's not the case in Detroit.

Yes, it was. The Detroit region was bubble priced and predated upon just like everywhere else, and is suffering the consequences of that as well as the other afflictions particular to itself.

If you want to distribute wealth more evenly then I guess you could argue for a system like Finland.

For starters, how about adopting a system like the United States had for fifty years after its big Crash, until the 1980s?

 

[Seattle]

it was more reference to the sarcastic remark that showed poor understanding of an iddue. like paul ryans socialism halloween candy video.

What is an "iddue"?

because they are putting money into things that don't actually produce anything. its creates money via accounting mechanics..

How do you know what "they" put money into and how do you create money via "accounting mechanics" without creating real money?

it would be more believable if you werent acting like one. first off neither ice and I ever said to go back to 90%. it did in fact work back than. the US was at its most prosperous when tax rates were that high. they rich already push for loopholes and everything changes behavior.

I think iceaura did imply that tax rates of 90% were a good thing (maybe I'm wrong?). The U.S. economy was prosperous for a brief period right after WWII. There was a lot of pent up demand and prosperity due to all the money injected into the economy. Once manufacturing jobs went, things changed. Global changes are the reason for the manufacturing changes.

Unreasonable union demands in some cases hastened that as well.

Except for the very rich (1%) no one has seen a lot of wage increases for a long while. It's been about 1% a year for most people and only about 1.5 for the top 20%. For the 1%, yes. They've done well.

first off the top 20% owns 92% of all stock so it is fair to asscociate that with the rich.

It's not fair to associate the top 20% with the "rich". That starts with a household income of over $100,000/year. That's not "poor" but for two college educated adults that middle-class. That is what should be encouraged. 52% of adults own stocks, including mutual funds.

If you want to encourage people to work, save, and get ahead in any sense of the word you have to put any excess money you have somewhere. That pretty much leaves stocks/mutual funds and real estate. Anyone with a 401k has mutual funds.

I havent found that. also property taxes tend to regressive. i do hope your talking relative percentages not absolute because the highest property taxes in the country are 2.4%. and again thats generally not how it goes. as property value increase the effective tax rate decrease with regard to property taxes. they are regressive.

They should be regressive but they are not (just going by my taxes here in Seattle).I live in a old, small (1,000 sq ft) two bedroom/1 bathroom house. My property taxes are about $5,000/year. My property valuation goes up most years and so do my taxes.

Of course property taxes as a percentage are lower than income or sales taxes. Who could buy a house if you had to pay those rates on something that you've already purchased, each year?

yes that what 2% of 400k looks like. that doesn't mean the property taxes are too high.

You want affordable housing for everyone other than those who might be able to actually afford a house.

oh those evil poor people attacking those above them. you claim to be liberal but peddle in republican talking points.

I'm not political. You deal in ignorance and emotion. It's not uncommon for liberal parties, who are well meaning, after a long run in power to get kicked out due to raising taxes without regard for those consequences. Unions are well meaning but they are often destructive as well. Striking and bringing a company to it's knees isn't good for anyone. It's not about "us vs them". You can see what happened.

Companies moved, went out of business, people bought both better and cheaper cars, etc.

we are being rational. its not based on a boogy man its based on fact.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...voice-support-for-higher-taxes-on-the-wealthy
the last time income and wealth inequality got this high the great depression happened

I don't disagree with the 1%.

 

[Seattle]

By examining the economic statistics of different economies and given economies at different times.
Too much wealth and income inequality is solidly correlated with comparatively lower productivity, economic stagnation, and reduced prosperity. It's correlated with the general population being shorter in height, lower in IQ, more often sick, less well educated, and sooner dying. These correlations hold independently of the total wealth and level of economic development.

So? Top heavy, as the US is becoming, is weak. It's not the only weakness an economy can have - it's just one of worst.

Meanwhile: the island of Cuba's been sanctioned and blockaded by the world's dominant sea power, 90 miles away, for decades. It's doing pretty well, considering that. Compare more top-heavy Haiti, right next door: apparently even blockade and sanction and continual attack by the world's biggest economic and military power is not as economically destructive as allowing wealth to accumulate at the top. Apparently even authoritarian central planning and political oppression of the entire economy is not as harmful as deregulating one's banking and financial sectors, failing to tax the rich and regulate capitalist corporate enterprise.

Yes, it was. The Detroit region was bubble priced and predated upon just like everywhere else, and is suffering the consequences of that as well as the other afflictions particular to itself.

For starters, how about adopting a system like the United States had for fifty years after its big Crash, until the 1980s?

According to your argument, we should adopt a system like Cuba as it's less top heavy. It's actually pretty top heavy as party officials have the much better life style but whatever.

Your view of the 50's is simplistic. We have the same "system" as the 50's. Economically there was a peak, you can't have a perpetual peak. I'd say the present is usually a better time to live.

In the 50's white males were at their peak economically. Blacks, women, not so much. When you expand the workforce you do so at the expense of that peak but it's still a good thing.

There is less racism and intolerance in society even though it might not always seem to be the case. It is definitely the case. Technology has made our lives better (and more equal) and this is something that we now take for granted.

 

[iceaura]

According to your argument, we should adopt a system like Cuba as it's less top heavy.

No such argument appears in any post of mine. Nothing remotely similar to any such stupidity appears in any post of mine. A very derogatory reference to Cuba's system appears explicitly in the posting you quoted.
I have to post some kind of correction like that in every single reply to you. Are you even reading my posts?

Your view of the 50's is simplistic. - -
- - - -
In the 50's white males were at their peak economically

I have posted no view of the 50s. I have made no argument based on the 50s. I have already reminded you of that, above. Give me a hint: what kind of posts do you actually read, before responding?

Your view of the 50's is simplistic. We have the same "system" as the 50's.

We do not. I have pointed directly and explicitly to the Reagan Era alterations beginning in 1981, still in force, which are directly and centrally relevant to this thread, several times.

Economically there was a peak, you can't have a perpetual peak.

There were fifty years of gaining prosperity. Then Reagan. Then nearly forty years of declining prosperity, still happening. The correlation with inequality of wealth and income is perfect.

There is less racism and intolerance in society even though it might not always seem to be the case

Government intervention. It's often a good thing.

In the case of the inevitable accumulation of disproportionate wealth in few hands under market capitalism, government intervention is necessary.

 

[iceaura]

Global changes are the reason for the manufacturing changes.

The Reagan administration's launching of the alterations in the US tax and regulatory setup was - look at the stats - the major cause of the decline in prosperity felt by the entire USA economy except the very wealthy.

Unreasonable union demands in some cases hastened that as well.

The decline in prosperity dates from a bit after the beginning of the decline in union power - not the rise of it, or the peak of it. Reagan was famous for breaking unions, which were already in mild decline. That boosted inequality, of course - as did every other change in the Reagan Era now ending.

The U.S. economy was prosperous for a brief period right after WWII.

The US economy was gaining in prosperity for fifty years after the imposition of the New Deal curbs on wealth accumulation. Not even the massive debt burden of WWII crippled it, or the Korean and Vietnam war drain - it kept right on gaining for thirty more years after WWII.

 

[Seattle]

Meanwhile: the island of Cuba's been sanctioned and blockaded by the world's dominant sea power, 90 miles away, for decades. It's doing pretty well, considering that. Compare more top-heavy Haiti, right next door: apparently even blockade and sanction and continual attack by the world's biggest economic and military power is not as economically destructive as allowing wealth to accumulate at the top. Apparently even authoritarian central planning and political oppression of the entire economy is not as harmful as deregulating one's banking and financial sectors, failing to tax the rich and regulate capitalist corporate enterprise.

How about comparing the Dominican Republic on the other half of the same island? Their numbers are better than Cuba. Everyone is doing better than Haiti.

 

[RainbowSingularity]

The decline in prosperity dates from a bit after the beginning of the decline in union power - not the rise of it, or the peak of it. Reagan was famous for breaking unions, which were already in mild decline. That boosted inequality, of course - as did every other change in the Reagan Era now ending.

Reagan was all about "Them Vs Us" as an excuse to have un regulated government spending of working class tax money.
The ongoing con has been the Republican conservative puppet faces pretending to want to limit government spending by saying they wish to limit govrnment control.

its all a load of bollocks.
they are just playing to get as much of the working class tax as they can and remove all the voters and tax payers ability to control their own tax revenue and government.

its farcical.
the farce feeds the pro gun lobbys feeling of paranoia control as they continue to support facist government role models as their political party model.

 

[iceaura]

How about comparing the Dominican Republic on the other half of the same island?

And they have been less topheavy than Haiti as well (with, also, many advantages of trade and diplomatic cooperation. Haiti was the first colony to free its slaves, and suffered ever since).

Their numbers are better than Cuba.

No, they aren't. https://www.indexmundi.com/facts/indicators/SP.DYN.LE00.IN/compare?country=do#country=cu:do

Everyone is doing better than Haiti.

But everyone is not doing better than Cuba. Not even everyone in the Caribbean is doing better than Cuba. Cuba should be the case study in misery on this planet, no? Unless it has some advantages - and aside from the inequality issue, what advantages does it have?

 

[iceaura]

Meanwhile, we have indications of what the future holds for a North American society that allows its wealth to accumulate in a small number of hands:
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7855.Planet_of_Slums
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2006/aug/19/shopping.society

 

[Seattle]

An argument could be made that being poor in this world is the norm for most of history and it's only fairly recently that there were pockets of "middle-class" wealth. Capitalism has mainly brought that even though the gains aren't distributed equally.

Throughout world history it's hard to find a lot of equally distributed wealth. It's not that easy to find "middle classes" that expected to be anything other than subservient and poor.

 

[iceaura]

An argument could be made that being poor in this world is the norm for most of history and it's only fairly recently that there were pockets of "middle-class" wealth. Capitalism has mainly brought that even though the gains aren't distributed equally.

That does not make giving up a greater prosperity and returning to the misery of slums and lords a good idea.

Throughout world history it's hard to find a lot of equally distributed wealth. It's not that easy to find "middle classes" that expected to be anything other than subservient and poor.

So if we're fortunate enough to have found a way, we should hang unto it. History tells us it's not easy to get back, once lost.

 

[Seattle]

That does not make giving up a greater prosperity and returning to the misery of slums and lords a good idea.

So if we're fortunate enough to have found a way, we should hang unto it. History tells us it's not easy to get back, once lost.

History tells us that a heavy hand on taxation doesn't always end up with positive results as well.

There was a period where the Democrats only talked about business as the enemy. Something to be taxed like a free lunch. People started voting Republican more then the "Third Way" came about in the UK and Clinton, especially after the first mid-term elections, began to embrace that as well.

He began to work with business, realized that jobs come from business and adapted a more balanced approach. He was sleazy himself but he was a pretty good President. The economy was good during his two terms. It wasn't all due to him of course but the budget was balanced and there was even a surplus some years as I recall.

The Bush tax cuts were not needed. The outlandish size of our military budget is not needed. The current outsized gap between "haves and have nots" is probably a temporary thing. The 1% could be taxed more but other than appearances, it wouldn't change much for the "poor".

 

[pjdude1219]

What is an "iddue"?

Cute. its a typo. People interested in actual debate ignore them. issue.

How do you know what "they" put money into and how do you create money via "accounting mechanics" without creating real money?

Because i pay attention to ecconomics. Also i never said it didn't create real money. I said It created money without being productive. its one of the primary complaints against hedgefund managers. What i am of course refering to is income that is derived from stock price manipulation and the like. there is a whole movement against the financial sector because it adds nothing productive to the economy. its not adding any good or service that benefits the economy. hell the very fact most people in the industry buy index funds and not managed funds you could argue it actually hurts the economy.

I think iceaura did imply that tax rates of 90% were a good thing (maybe I'm wrong?). The U.S. economy was prosperous for a brief period right after WWII.

in the right context. also the top marginal rate was in the 90's til 64. i would hardly call a decade and a half later a brief period. it should be noted that i believe and i'm sure ice believes as well that in addition to raising the top brackets marginal rate to create more brackets.

There was a lot of pent up demand and prosperity due to all the money injected into the economy.

for 16 years?

Once manufacturing jobs went, things changed. Global changes are the reason for the manufacturing changes.

which still doesn't account for the decrease in wages despite the rising productivity for the past 30+ years the correlates almost directly with reagan's slashing of the top marginal rate

Unreasonable union demands in some cases hastened that as well.

unreasonable is subjective. i'd hardly think wanting your real wages to at least be stable is not unreasonable. somehow i think you would.

Except for the very rich (1%) no one has seen a lot of wage increases for a long while. It's been about 1% a year for most people and only about 1.5 for the top 20%. For the 1%, yes. They've done well.

your begining to get the point

It's not fair to associate the top 20% with the "rich".

its not fair to assciociate with the rich something only they can do to any sort of large degree.

That starts with a household income of over $100,000/year. That's not "poor" but for two college educated adults that middle-class.

that is upper middle class at worst.

That is what should be encouraged.

encouraging people who make twice their states minimum wage to think of them selves as middle class is part of the of problem.

52% of adults own stocks, including mutual funds.

If you want to encourage people to work, save, and get ahead in any sense of the word you have to put any excess money you have somewhere. That pretty much leaves stocks/mutual funds and real estate. Anyone with a 401k has mutual funds.

I'm not demonizing stocks and mutual funds. their is a huge difference between mom and pops retirement fund and say a big time day trader playing around in the market. income and wealth concentration is a problem do to something called marginal utility. if you've taken a econ 101 course you'd know about it. the economy is like a water pump it needs a certain amount flowing through it to work properly. wealth concentration hurts the flow. 1 person with a million dollars spends less and less economically efficiently than 10 people with 100 grand a piece.

again 92% of stocks are owned by the top 20%
the top 10% own 81% the top 1% owns 38%
trying to play the taxing stocks as if it hurts everyone equally is just plain dishonest

They should be regressive but they are not (just going by my taxes here in Seattle).I live in a old, small (1,000 sq ft) two bedroom/1 bathroom house. My property taxes are about $5,000/year. My property valuation goes up most years and so do my taxes.

First off if your property valuation goes up your taxes should go, larger pie larger piece. also I'm not sure you understand what regressive tax means. it means it takes up a larger percentage of your income as your income decreases. not that the tax rate its self never goes up.

Of course property taxes as a percentage are lower than income or sales taxes. Who could buy a house if you had to pay those rates on something that you've already purchased, each year?

after some of the stupid shit i've seen people post i'm afraid to give people the benefit of the doubt.

You want affordable housing for everyone other than those who might be able to actually afford a house.

Now thats just assine. I want more than the top quintile to be able to afford a house. thats not the same as wanting what you claimed.

I'm not political

. that explains a lot.

You deal in ignorance and emotion. It's not uncommon for liberal parties, who are well meaning, after a long run in power to get kicked out due to raising taxes without regard for those consequences.

I deal in fact and knowledge. it has been my experience that it is conservative parties who are the ones peddling in ignorance and emotion. they the ones who hate science and promote bigotry. they tend to get kick out because conservatives are good at playing peoples emotions against them not some sort of tax backlash.

Unions are well meaning but they are often destructive as well.

Unions aren't perfect but a shitty union is still better than no union.

Striking and bringing a company to it's knees isn't good for anyone. It's not about "us vs them". You can see what happened.

un true. when worker make gains and can actually you know afford to live a decent life everyone wins in the long run.

I don't disagree with the 1%.

I know that's the problem.

 

[RainbowSingularity]

Because i pay attention to ecconomics. Also i never said it didn't create real money. I said It created money without being productive. its one of the primary complaints against hedgefund managers. What i am of course refering to is income that is derived from stock price manipulation and the like. there is a whole movement against the financial sector because it adds nothing productive to the economy. its not adding any good or service that benefits the economy. hell the very fact most people in the industry buy index funds and not managed funds you could argue it actually hurts the economy.

it syphons off small investors wages at a big end like communism.
which is quite ironic for a supposed capitalist Ego to soo obviousely use a communist financial system to line the pockets & gilt the toilet seats of the rich elite.

such is the way of money. which is why strict regulation is critical to market stability.

 

[Seattle]

Because i pay attention to ecconomics. Also i never said it didn't create real money. I said It created money without being productive. its one of the primary complaints against hedgefund managers. What i am of course refering to is income that is derived from stock price manipulation and the like. there is a whole movement against the financial sector because it adds nothing productive to the economy. its not adding any good or service that benefits the economy. hell the very fact most people in the industry buy index funds and not managed funds you could argue it actually hurts the economy.

Are you arguing that it's not productive for companies to raise capital through the stock market? Are you arguing that it's not productive to have a mechanism to provide liquidity for those who do invest in the stock market? Are you arguing that the average individual shouldn't be able to "own" part of the large corporations that do well in a capitalistic economy?

unreasonable is subjective. i'd hardly think wanting your real wages to at least be stable is not unreasonable. somehow i think you would.

What is unreasonable is to make demands that aren't linked to the underlying economics. If a company isn't profitable for a number of years the workers still get paid. Wanting your wages to be at least stable is fine as a want. It doesn't always mean that it's in the best long-term interest of the company to meet that in any one year.

Stopping work on a Boeing airplane for a month to insist on a pay raise in a time period when the company isn't profitable isn't reasonable. Costing your company millions of dollars isn't ultimately helping you.

Building shitty overpriced cars while still making demands of your company just results in something like Detroit.

1 person with a million dollars spends less and less economically efficiently than 10 people with 100 grand a piece.

again 92% of stocks are owned by the top 20%
the top 10% own 81% the top 1% owns 38%
trying to play the taxing stocks as if it hurts everyone equally is just plain dishonest

A person with a million dollars was more economically efficient in the first place than 10 people with 100 grand. Why discourage that? Why take productive people's money just to give it to less productive people?

It's not necessary that they be more productive with that money after it's earned. It's their money after all. Money tends to be products whoever it belongs to however.

What is dishonest (other than taking people's money) is to want to tax stocks at a higher rate just because more wealthy people own them. Tax the wealthy if you must but don't focus on the fact that the vehicle is stocks.

That's taxing something at a higher rate even if it's owned by a person who isn't wealthy. That's dishonest.

First off if your property valuation goes up your taxes should go, larger pie larger piece.

Why? If my property valuation goes up 10% that has nothing to do with my income. I don't have more money in my bank account just because my property goes up.

The result is that people have to start selling their houses and move into apartments because they can't afford the property taxes. That's the opposite of what you claim to want.

Unions aren't perfect but a shitty union is still better than no union. un true. when worker make gains and can actually you know afford to live a decent life everyone wins in the long run.

No, a shitty union is a shitty union. Of course workers should make gains. A "worker" is an employee. Everyone is a "worker". It's not "us vs them".

Extortion isn't something that we allow in our everyday lives and it's not made any better when it's legal and allowed at work.

 

[iceaura]

History tells us that a heavy hand on taxation doesn't always end up with positive results as well.

It is necessary, not sufficient.

There was a period where the Democrats only talked about business as the enemy.

There was not. That's a fairy tale.

Everyone is a "worker".

People who get most of their income and wealth from capital gains are not workers.

Building shitty overpriced cars while still making demands of your company just results in something like Detroit.

That was management, not labor. And racism, btw (another of the problems that are amplified by concentrated wealth).

The economy was good during his two terms. It wasn't all due to him of course but the budget was balanced and there was even a surplus some years as I recall.

Wages plateaued toward the end, rather than falling, but he never restored the regulatory structure (the opposite) and never came close to touching the debt. He slowed the decline, but did not stop it.
It took him eight years of battling the Republican Party just to dig the utterly crazy out of Reagan's messhole, and he ended up getting impeached so the Reps could get their last deregulations through - the only surplus was in that last year, it was partly an accounting trick, and the restoration of Republican administration blew it out of the water anyway.

The current outsized gap between "haves and have nots" is probably a temporary thing.

Historically, it maintains itself until something destroys the wealth of the rich - war, plague, natural disaster, something like that. We have one example of peaceful correction of that gap - the New Deal, in the US, 1933 - 1983. 90% income tax brackets.

Why take productive people's money just to give it to less productive people?

The rich are less productive when they have too much of the wealth. And those who inherit wealth are seldom unusually more productive than others. Combine the two circumstances, inherited wealth and topheavy economy, and you have stagnation and decline.

A person with a million dollars was more economically efficient in the first place than 10 people with 100 grand.

That's not true.
And your scale is off: the critical problem is one guy with a billion dollars vs ten thousand guys with a hundred grand.