Even then there will be serious disparities. There is no force in capitalism that will equalize everyone's salaries exactly.Until people are absolutely equal there will be disparities in what they're paid.
Even then there will be serious disparities. There is no force in capitalism that will equalize everyone's salaries exactly.Until people are absolutely equal there will be disparities in what they're paid.
It's perfectly natural. It may not be a desired outcome - but it's natural for wealth to be concentrated in a few people over time in any capitalistic democracy.
?? Democracy is not "the majority." Democracy is giving everyone a say, even if they are not in the majority.Democracy is truly the majority
Why allow the poor to exist? Why allow whites to exist? Why allow blacks to exist?why allow the 1% to exist?
If they don't have to live anywhere in the meantime.Anyone who can afford a 30 year mortgage can buy a similar house by saving up for 20 years.
They could do it, they'd just be effectively paying two rent payments each month. Takes a healthy income to do that. Our rent is our largest single outlay.If they don't have to live anywhere in the meantime.
And their wages track the same inflation that housing prices track.
Most people do have enough to survive. Why would we want to distribute wealth equally?Top ten richest men almost have 50% of the total wealth of middle class people.
This is not balanced.
How to distribute wealth equally?
You do not need billions to survive, do you?
So, why accumulate billions of wealth? Greedy?
Can we make all people to have enough money to survive?
There aren't middle class, cause the wealthy are hording it all.Most people do have enough to survive. Why would we want to distribute wealth equally?
The problem isn't that the top wealthy people have more than the middle class people. The problem is that more people aren't in the middle class.
1) If it happens, good. Then others will have access to the money they would otherwise monopolize - that diversification increases overall efficiency and productivity, to everyone's benefit.
2) When there was such a de facto cap - the days of 90% income tax brackets in the US, otherwise known as the days of booming prosperity never before seen on this planet - rich people and productive people apparently worked hard and invested much and produced like mad, anyway;
3) Have you noticed the wealthy and productive putting in five or ten times as much effort as they used to, say thirty years ago? Being five or ten times as well paid, they would have to - if they aren't, we're paying for nothing.
(Hint: we're paying for nothing.)
( In some cases less than nothing - the last analysis I checked indicated that the large Wall Street "hedge funds", whose billionaire CEOs pay the lowest overall tax rates of anyone with a job in the US, were reducing US economic growth by about 1.4%).
Except...that's not true.There aren't middle class, cause the wealthy are hording it all.
Why would that happen? In normal and universal historical circumstances, money sits around more when it's in large piles, not smaller ones.No, that money will just sit in the ground not being invested.
OK. That's a start.Bingo. Why not start by closing all the existing tax loopholes?
Because that would be stupid, counterproductive, and contrary to the whole purpose of a progressive income tax.In that case, why not tax everyone who can afford it at 90% after basic expenses are covered? I can't think of a society where that's ever worked since the invention of electronic television.
They look pretty similar. So you think the tax cuts for the rich being immediately followed by quickly burgeoning inequality and stagnation of the lower 2/3 of the economy, exactly as predicted by modern economic theorists and visible in the historical record of other places, was a coincidence?Totally different times, technology and circumstances.
Talking about different times, places, technologies, and circumstances - - - - -Confiscate those assets, and you end up with Venezuela.
Assets are leveraged to finance new production in response to demand, not supply, and as efforts of the asset holder. By piling up all the wealth in a few barns, one throttles demand. By sharply reducing the number of asset holders, one restricts the available effort and ideas and new projects. The economy stagnates - and this is visible: people get shorter, live sicker, die sooner.Existing assets won't be leveraged to finance new production.
In which case they could afford a nicer house with a 30 year mortgage, or pay the same house off in ten or eleven years with extra payments on a fifteen year fixed - come out about the same, and live better meantime.They could do it, they'd just be effectively paying two rent payments each month.
I think the only problem with the wealth gap in the US is at the bottom end of the spectrum. There are people who are so poor they can't afford medical care, basic education and housing. This not only hurts them, it hurts the economy in general - because they have less money to spend and so contribute less to the economy. And their lack of medical insurance means they use ER's instead of primary care doctors, and then they don't pay - which hoses everyone.Most people do have enough to survive. Why would we want to distribute wealth equally?
The problem isn't that the top wealthy people have more than the middle class people. The problem is that more people aren't in the middle class.
The degree of wealth and income inequality currently suffered by the US is harmful regardless of the absolute levels of wealth and income involved.I think the only problem with the wealth gap in the US is at the bottom end of the spectrum.
Among the several and still disputed ways in which inequality in itself is thought to do its measured and observed harm:I could care less if one guy in the US has a million times more than I do. He's not hurting anyone, and since money isn't a zero sum game, it's not like he's keeping money away from anyone else.
Side point: you are talking about a majority of the families with children in the US. This fraction you describe as "the bottom end", the people who cannot afford the medical care, education, and housing considered normal in the US in 1975, say, or France and Germany and Norway right now, includes a majority of the parents with children.I think the only problem with the wealth gap in the US is at the bottom end of the spectrum. There are people who are so poor they can't afford medical care, basic education and housing.
Side point: you are talking about a majority of the families with children in the US. This fraction you describe as "the bottom end", the people who cannot afford the medical care, education, and housing considered normal in the US in 1975, say, or France and Germany and Norway right now, includes a majority of the parents with children.
Depending, of course, on what you mean by "'afford". I interpret the word as "can reliably pay for using their own income and wealth, without charity or debt peonage".
You can't solve any of them without raising the tax rates on high incomes and great wealth.There are several major problems going on in the U.S.
No, they weren't. Not on the rich. Look at what happened when he lowered them.The tax rates before the Reagan era were too high.
They are higher than in all other countries, by a large margin.Medical costs are too high and they are higher than in most other countries that have more comprehensive medical coverage. There is a systemic problem here.
For which you can thank Reagan's tax and regulation cuts, in large part - braced and enforced by his Supreme Court picks and subsequent established Republican policy of politicizing the Court.In particular, Congress is broken, there is too much "big money" involved resulting in representation of corporations but not the average citizen.
You can't solve any of them without raising the tax rates on high incomes and great wealth.
No, they weren't. Not on the rich. Look at what happened when he lowered them.
They are higher than in all other countries, by a large margin.
Yep. Here's one of them: The rich control the prices but do not pay the costs. We don't tax the wealthy to provide medical care for the rest, we don't restrict the wealthy to the level of medical care available to the rest, so they have no incentive to keep the costs down or see that the care is delivered, and every incentive to use their power to extract greater profits and more wealth for themselves by any means handy.
The Constitution and Supreme Court rulings have much more to do with this.You can't solve any of them without raising the tax rates on high incomes and great wealth.
No, they weren't. Not on the rich. Look at what happened when he lowered them.
They are higher than in all other countries, by a large margin.
Yep. Here's one of them: The rich control the prices but do not pay the costs. We don't tax the wealthy to provide medical care for the rest, we don't restrict the wealthy to the level of medical care available to the rest, so they have no incentive to keep the costs down or see that the care is delivered, and every incentive to use their power to extract greater profits and more wealth for themselves by any means handy.
For which you can thank Reagan's tax and regulation cuts, in large part.
The Constitution has nothing to do with it.The Constitution and Supreme Court rulings have much more to do with this.
It's not. It's hardcore coldblooded technical economics, biology, history, etc.It shouldn't be an emotional decision.
When the underlying problem is that you have allowed the capitalist rich to accumulate too much wealth and obtain too high an income stream, using your regular democratic political system to tax your way out of the bad situation is by far the most attractive option.You can't just tax your way out of a problem without fixing the underlying problem.
So I didn't do that. There are lots of nice rich people, I'm sure.Portraying one segment of the population as only caring about profit or as being greedy isn't a rational assessment.
Yes, it would. It did, when we did it.You could increase taxes to a ridiculous degree on everyone with any income or wealth but without addressing problems in Congress it would make no difference.
I'm not. I'm identifying a primary factor - extreme and growing wealth and income inequality. I blamed Reagan, Republicans in general, and so forth, because that's who did the bad stuff that created this primary factor in our most serious troubles, but that's as far as the blaming needs to go. We don't have to affix blame to handle this problem (except for the Republican Party, of course).Again, there are many problems in our society but blaming them on the rich or wealthy for the most part is just scapegoating them.
That's an irrelevant concept. Whats wrecking itself along with its host country cannot be "fair" in any relevant sense. We've got an economic ship to right here, if we can. Everybody has do do their part.However one would determine what "fair" was and how far the current taxing standard is from "fair", that is all that should be changing in that regard.