"Income Equality"; a Myth, a Fools Folly

How do you use it in practice? Is this one of those the hedge fund manager pays less taxes again then the inventor and the farmer?

 

Under an Economic Rent Tax, the hedge fund manager would, without a doubt, face a tax burden significantly larger than a family farmer.

 

In feudalism property was mainly owned by direct producers. Eventually some peasants were forced into serfdom to 'work' for the estates. The lords owned the land which the serfs worked in the same way capitalists own modern means of production - illegitimately.

 

Firstly, I want to steal nothing. I just won't be upset when the people no longer have to face the force of the state in satisfying their natural inclination to run their places of work. Private property is theft from the working class.

I hate the idea of the modern 'commune'. Nobody has a right to even partial ownership over a home which I use exclusively. But since you are so fond of capitalists owning things which they do not use, perhaps you would be more satisfied in a commune where others have a right to property which you should legitimately own.

 

Why is that? What do they do would come under an economic rent tax?

 

They are free to start their own business. Stealing what someone else bought is theft.

but not their business, that is free for you to take because you dont have one?

The business owner legitimately owns their business. Not the new guy they hired.

 

Modern concepts of ownership are legal fiction, completely at odds with man's natural desires. I am aware that legally a business owner own a place of work which they themselves do not use in the same legal sense as you own your house, I am equally aware that this is an absurdity only maintained by force.

 

You yourself said you want to own your home exclusively. I desire to own your computer. Give it to me. Without property laws who do we sole this dispute if I have a baseball bat and you have silly rhetoric? See why we have property laws yet?

The force is defense from you taking from others what they earned. Just like if I took what you owned you would want to defend against that. If you don't think do send me that computer you got comrade.

 

They receive Economic Rents.

 

Property law only grew out of the feudal lord's needs to organize systematic expropriation of the surplus crop from peasants, and to normalize their relationships and territories with one another. Property law has never been a benevolent institution intended to protect people's homes and productive lands, quite the opposite.

 

Oh in that case send me your computer or address and I will send someone over to take your stuff for me. Thanks! You don't need archaic notions of things you own. You aren't a hypocrite and completely irrational person at all.

 

It appears that the Democrats are going to make "income inequality" the focal point during this year's political campaign. A Gallup poll released earlier this week showed that 2 out of 3 Americans " . . . are dissatisfied with the way income and wealth are currently distributed in the United States . . . " This poll also points out that 54% of Republicans are "unhappy" to see wealth concentrated among a relative few.

As Rex Huppke points out that to get anything done on this issue, the "Do Nothing" Congress needs to play a major role in neutralizing the "income inequality" abomination. Unfortunately, the Center for Responsive Politics reports that " . . . Of the 535 current members of Congress, at least 268 had an average net worth of $1 million or more in 2012 . . . " So our hope for "solving" the "income inequality" problem lies in the so-called "$$$$-strained" of a government body that is "run" by a majority of millionaires.

The CRP considers this year's elections as a watershed moment at a time when the vacation-prone lawmakers in Congress are facing such issues as the unemployment benefits, food stamps and the minimum age, which affect people with far fewer resources, as well as considering an overhaul of the tax code. Don't hold your breath.

 

FOX News Polls:

A new Fox News poll shows a possible disconnect between President Barack Obama and voters on what the president says will be the top priority for the rest of his term: reducing income inequality.

The poll finds that only a small minority of voters (13 percent) thinks the government should do something about the fact some people make a lot more money than others. A 62-percent majority is okay with disparities in income “because that’s just how the economy works.” Another 21 percent say income inequality “stinks,” but still think the government “shouldn’t get involved.”

Fox News Poll
How Do You Feel About Income Inequality?
Fine, That’s How Things Work 62%
Stinks, But Not A Govt. Problem 21%
Angry, Govt. Should Be Involved 13%
January 19-21, 2014
Registered Voters +/- 3% Pts.

Twenty-one percent of voters with annual household incomes below $30,000 think the government should do something about income inequality, while 12 percent of those with incomes $100,000 or more feel that way.

One reason there’s an apparent lack of enthusiasm for the government to address income inequality may be that most voters don’t see success as a zero-sum game: 12 percent say if someone makes a lot of money it means someone else has to make less, while 84 percent don’t think it works that way. Fully 83 percent of voters with incomes below $50,000 say it doesn’t work that way, compared to 84 percent of those with incomes $50,000 or more.

Fox News Poll
Someone Making Lots Of Money
Means Someone Else Has To Make Less
Yes, That’s Right 12%
No, Doesn’t Work That Way 84%
January 19-21, 2014
Registered Voters +/- 3% Pts.

Furthermore, many voters think government involvement can make things worse: for example, 55 percent think giving unemployment benefits to people who have been out of work for a long time discourages them from looking for a job. More voters than not in both higher and lower income groups say the benefits keep people from trying to find work.

http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/01/22/poll-voters-reject-income-inequality-politics

 

If I'm not mistaken, Herbert Spencer applied Darwin's theory of evolution and applied it to the development of human society. Simply put --- Spencer's "Social Darwinism" to justify laissez-faire, or unrestricted --- capitalism. He believed that keeping government limited would ensure the "survival of the fittest." To this British philosopher, the fittest persons inherited such qualities as industriousness, frugality, the desire to own property, and the ability to accumulate wealth. The "unfit" inherited laziness, stupidity, and immorality.

Many of Spencer's views on capitalism are still relevant in today's world. Rex Huppke's article "Dear 85 richest people in the world: Adopt me" that appeared in this week's Chicago Tribune on Thursday, would make Spencer say --- "I told you so." I'm sure that Spencer would be upset to learn that today's economy in the United States is a managed/mixed system (the blend of capitalism and socialism) --- That's the truth!

 

Yes! Indeed! Perception is reality. "We the people . . . " need to remember that Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes does not run a normal business, but a shadow state. Benjamin Disraeli said it best: "There are lies, damn lies and statistics." In the minds of a growing number of Americans, Fox "News" is not reliable. Polls can be very deceptive.

 

Why is it so hard to extend unemployment insurance at a time when the jobless rate nationally is still at 7% and higher than that in 21 states? It hasn't always been like this. I was not some socialist but a president named George W. Bush who declared --- "These Americans rely on their unemployment benefits to pay for the mortgage or rent, food and other critical bills. They need our assistance in these difficult times, and we cannot let them down." Bush fully accepted that it was shameful to allow fellow citizens who had done nothing wrong to suffer because they had been temporarily overwhelmed by economic forces beyond their control.

Since you "like" statistical data, let's turn our attention to a survey that was released at the end of December by Hart Research in which Americans supported extending unemployment insurance by a margin of 55% to 34%. Several recent surveys, including a Fox "News" poll, found that about two-thirds of Americans support an increase in the minimum wage.

This leads to two conclusions:

* The first is that most Americans broadly accept the New Deal consensus. It's clear that there is far more agreement among us than there is among the D.C. lobbies, the elite in the "Do Nothing" Congress or various political commentators on the core proposition that government should help us through rough patches and guarantee a certain level of economic fairness.

* The second conclusion is that we have to stop letting the politics of culture "wars" so dominate our "thinking" that we forget how much we actually share when it comes to life's day-to-day struggles and what we can do to ease them. Let's remember that disputes over personal morals and lifestyle choices may get more space in the media, but they do little to improve anyone's standard of living.

 

Do you think that it is possible for our country to adopt the idea of laissez faire economics and not interfere with the "natural course" of free markets and free trade?

 

Regarding the bold above;

Income is not distributed...it is earned. If a person desires more...then take steps to earn more. If a person desires less...then take steps to earn less.

There is no solution to the 100% political term of 'income equality'. If you believe there is, then please provide a well thought out and lucid solution so we can discuss it...

 

If we are going to discuss the "income equality" issue, it's imperative that we address the standards that have been used by "rich" to manipulate the average American under the existing tax code.

I'm sure you would agree that many wealthy people argue that they are already paying a disproportionate share of taxes. It seems that the IRS supports this point of view. However, as the saying goes, statistics are like a bikini, what they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital. With this in mind, missing from the discussion is the way the IRS's data fails to accurately describe the true income of the "rich and wellborn." Each year the IRS releases its analysis of the year's tax returns, which shows the allocation of taxes over various income groups. Yes! The statistical data is informative. But it's misleading.

How can that be? Well! If I'm not mistaken, the top 1% of earners (those with adjusted gross incomes of at least $369,691 paid about 37% of all income taxes --- but reported just less than 19% of all income. Yes! Based on this data, the United States income tax system appears to be "truly" progressive. This would lead us to "believe" that the wealthy are paying even more than their "fair share."

But statistics can be only as good as the information on which they are based. And here the IRS's data is fundamentally misleading. Simply put --- Average Americans (like the two of us) pay income tax only on amounts that Congress counts as "income." This excludes the sources of revenue most commonly enjoyed by the "rich and famous" (i.e., gifts, inheritances, distributions from trusts and proceeds of life insurance et.al).

Here's a question --- How much tax-free income do the wealthy enjoy each year? While "We the people . . ." can all guess --- and common sense tells us that the numbers are significant --- we cannot know for sure. This income is not only tax-free, but there's not even an obligation to report it. Remember Mitt & Ann Romney?

I think you would also agree that "fairness" matters when it comes to income taxes. But we cannot have an honest discussion about tax "fairness" when we are kept in the dark about how much income people actually receive. Only when full reporting is required can we have an accurate picture of people's true income. Then we can begin to fashion a tax plan that is "fair" for all Americans.

 

Is this a joke? Are you really arguing that most of the rich peoples income comes from gifts, inheritances, distributions from trusts and life insurance?

Most rich people are not rich because someone GAVE them their money. That's ludicrous.

 

No it is not imperative to discuss taxation. This is a thread about so-called income inequality. If 50-100 million Americans don't pay a dime or very little federal income tax then who do you suppose is paying the bulk of the taxes? How much wealth someone accumulates is none of our business. Wealthy people cannot have money without paying taxes! I could care less how much money my neighbor has or how much taxes they paid...they acquired their income by whatever means and they pay taxes according to US tax policy and laws. It would be a 100% waste of my time to whine about my neighbor's wealth!

Regarding income inequality...it's 100% political and I didn't think you would have a solution we could discuss. Every American has different potential, different successes, different luck, different interests, different work ethics, different jobs, and forever and always people will earn between $0 and $infinity. Do you actually believe those at the upper end of earnings should 'donate' some of their earnings to others who earn $0? If this is the case, then I'll pay another person $35K per year and they can mow my lawn, wash my car, cook my meals, chauffeur me around town, clean my house, and whatever other chores needed to fill a 40 hour work week.

Bottom line; if a person desires more out of life...then ONLY that person needs to take personal steps to achieve more of whatever it is they desire. If government wishes to provide housing and food and health care and pocket money to those who refuse to take personal steps then this is fine with me as long as the collective we are willing to fund these programs. If we are not willing to fund these programs, then people must put forth some effort, avoid alcohol and tobacco and gambling and new cars and entertainment, etc., and live within their means. Do not take these statements literally because to create the necessary change requires two things; first is a lot of time, and second, is a nation willing to do better with education, health care, infrastructure, safety/security, etc. and unfortunately our nation is not willing to do this...

 

What did the four Walton family members do to earn $10 billion apiece in gains just for last year alone?

 

I don't think the left can really work income inequality as a core issue because they have a blind spot when it comes to the marriage gap, which is the #1 driver of household-based income inequality, which is the metric they need to use in order to make it look dramatic.

If they acknowledge the marriage gap then they alienate social liberals, but if they don't acknowledge it then they get demolished in debate. Obama has been trying to segway towards "social mobility" recently and will probably continue to do that in the SOTU, but even that brings up sub-issues of policy that conservative ideas can offer more on in the face of entitlement expenditures that are applying crippling taxation onto the newer generations.

 

And here is another more simpler way to understand income inequality through a video for the beginners who can't grasp what you're links are saying; http://on.msnbc.com/1e2VGaI

 

Who cares? It's family money and they can do whatever they wish as long as they follow tax laws. Always jealousy of others??

Seems to me the founders of the largest grocery/retail company in the world are entitled to the rewards from their successes. My father left me a few dollars which he EARNED AND PAID TAXES, and hopefully I'll have some to pass on to our two kids which was EARNED by me and taxes were paid...it's my money and it doesn't make any difference if it's $10 million or $10 billion...except for jealousy...