The fundamental question: Why is inequality bad?

Same thing happens when you buy a loaf of bread or hire a carpenter to build an addition.

The difference is, the money that goes into the stock market or offshore account doesn't create demand for more production.

But "working class people" generally aren't the ones selling stock, which the vast bulk is owned by the wealthy.

 

I just explained to you that money doesn't "go into" the stock market. The money is given from one person to another person.

I guess you've never heard of a 401k or an IRA.

 

You are not helping your case. Overall inequality of wealth distribution is somewhat reduced by the fact that many regular people own at least part of their house. If it comes to financial wealth only (stocks and other investments), which is even more unequal than overall wealth, then the distribution looks like this:



That's right, the bottom 80% own only 5% of the financial wealth. So, what was your point again about stock ownership by the regular guy?

 

My point is that money doesn't "go into" the stock market, like Iriemon said it did. It is transferred from one person to another.

 

And I explained to you that 1) people that play in the stock market are most likely to be wealthy, and 2) one rich guy giving money to another rich guy to buy stock isn't creating demand for goods and services like when someone buys a product or pays for a service.

You guess wrong. Yet again.

 

Yeah, you did explain that, and it's not relevant to the fact that it is factually inaccurate to say that money "goes into" the stock market. It actually moves from one person to another.

Unlike you, I don't care how much money others have or what they spend it on, nor do I want to use government force to take it away from them and redistribute it.

 

That's obvious. Before the Reagan "trickle down" revolution, the "contribution" to the 1% was about 10% of the nation's income, and now it's about 20%.

You guess wrong.

I've stated my solutions many times. Reverse trickle down. Make education available at lower cost or low interest rate loan to make sure all Americans are trained. Empower unions to represent more workers to leverage better wages. Raise the minimum wage to levels that keep up with wage growth so that working people can make a above poverty level living. Expand and enforce FLSA laws so that people are paid for work and overtime. Cut FICA taxes working middle and lower class folks pay. Raise taxes on the richest to make up the difference and bring down the debt. Eliminate (like Reagan did) the difference between investment income taxes and earned income taxes so that there is not a tax disadvantage to earning money. Create jobs through Govt programs so that there will be more competition for workers.

 

Exactly. When the rich get more of the nation's income and buy stock, they're basicall trading the money back and forth with other rich folk.

Whereas the middle/lower class folks are more likely to spend it buying goods and services that create demand, more production, more jobs, and better pay for workers.

- - - Updated - - -

I disagree. It is completely relevant because it explains why more money going to the richest results in less spending for goods and services in the economy.

 

That would be the "and give it to others" part.

That would be the "take other people's property" part, in this case money.

That would be the "take other people's property" part, in this case money.

That would be the "take other people's property" part, in this case money.

That would be the "and give it to others" part.

 

Price fixing does not work. College is a luxury, period. Why should the rich or I have my tax dollars fund another's education? I'm prospering just fine without a college education. Most productive/ wealth producing jobs do not require a college education. We do not need a country filled with college degrees. Since they are not a requirement for survival, the federal government has no business addressing it.

So, you want to completely bastardize SS/Medicare from its SCOTUS approved design. Basically, you want a communist country and not the america the founders established.

 

Reading comprehension, my friend. I said it's not relevant to the fact that it is factually inaccurate to say that money "goes into" the stock market.

Money doesn't "go into" the stock market. To say so is inaccurate. The fact that you keep saying it is very telling.

 

American getting trained so we have a better workforce? I don't view that as "giving to others."

Workers getting paid is "taking other people's property"? Not in my view.

See above.

People working is giving it to others?

I can see with your viewpoint you claiming that American workers sharing in America's growth and prosperity is "taking" from the rich.

I don't share your viewpoint.

 

Sweeping generalization.

I actually sold shares yesterday. That means some rich guy just gave money to a poor working schlub.

 

I disagree college is a luxury that should be reserved for only the richest who can afford it so they can carry on their privileged positions.

Our entire nation and economy benefits when every person gets the level of education they are capable and desire.

- - - Updated - - -

But not inaccurate as one. The data was posted above.

You must be in that 5% sliver.

- - - Updated - - -

That's for sharing your opinion. I'll trust our members here can comprehend my use of the common phrase.

 

You claim you don't want to take people's property and give it to others. Yet you want to:

"Make education available at lower cost or low interest rate loan to make sure all Americans are trained." This is the "give it to others" part.

"Raise the minimum wage to levels that keep up with wage growth so that working people can make a above poverty level living." This is the "take other people's property" part, by forcing them to pay more than they need to.

"Raise taxes on the richest to make up the difference and bring down the debt." This is the "take other people's property" part.

"Eliminate (like Reagan did) the difference between investment income taxes and earned income taxes so that there is not a tax disadvantage to earning money." This is more of the "take people's money" part.

"Create jobs through Govt programs so that there will be more competition for workers." This is more of the "give it to others" part.

 

By the way, what exactly would you do to empower unions to represent more workers? What does that mean exactly?

 

FYI, college is affordable for everyone if you get the government out of it. And, I could provide you a laundry list of billionaires and millionaires who do not,have college educations. I could also provide you lists of those who have massive college debt and no marketable skills.

Your socialist mindset is a crock and does not benefit anyone.

 

Your 1% apologist mindset to keep the masses ignorant does not benefit anyone. Except the 1%.

 

How is a free market for the luxury of a college eduction a mindset to keep people ignorant? And again, college does not equate to intelligence and prosperity.

 

With the "free market" approach to the luxury of a college education, it will be a luxury that only the wealthier can afford. Keep the masses ignorant and tax on the rich low. Right up you alley, right?

 

This is complete hogwash. Again, your socialist ideology is bankrupting the country financially and morally.

 

The complete hogwash was in the post to which I responded.

Again, your 1% apologist ideology is bankrupting the country financially and morally.

 

The ability to educate one's self has never been easier. Here are some free resources for the 99%:

http://lifehacker.com/get-an-mba-equivalent-education-with-these-free-courses-1628424181
https://redhoop.com/
https://www.khanacademy.org/
http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/

 

Gee that doesn't make any sense compared to the data. Education spending by the federal government was 3x higher in the 50s, in the 70s the average college received 66% of its funding from federal government, state subsidies varied but most were generally higher then now. After a series of republican cuts, it's now only receiving 33%. Private colleges charge substantially higher then state funded colleges.

 

Income inequality isn't so bad as poverty is. As long as we can set a minimum standard of living I see no issue in the rich getting richer

The thing is there's a historical pattern of the poor being worse off when the rich get richer