Income inequality: Is there any benefits?

Openmind

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2011
Messages
4,111
Location
Currently Belgium
I'm pretty sure no one will take the time to watch this expose on Income Inequality around the world. It is fairly long (16 minutes) and it does require your attention to follow up the charts presented.

And yet, it is an excellent expose, that is in no way political, but demonstrates the differences in many areas of life that differences in income inequality (more or less inequality) make around the world, including in the US, and AMONG the 50 US States (around minute 9).

I hope at least some of you will take the time to watch this.

tp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ7LzE3u7Bw
 
Werbung:
seems the question would be is there supposed to be a benefit.

are there benefits from strength inequality ?

I understand you have a jones about income inequality, just an odd premise.
 
seems the question would be is there supposed to be a benefit.

are there benefits from strength inequality ?

I understand you have a jones about income inequality, just an odd premise.


that's kind of a dumb comment!

If there is no benefits, but only a lot of increasing negatives for everyone (including the wealthy in social terms) when income inequalities get too large, why would anyone in his right mind preconize and work toward increasing one of the largest inequality that exist among developped countries?

You either have not watched the lecture or, once again, you missed the point!
 
that's kind of a dumb comment!

If there is no benefits, but only a lot of increasing negatives for everyone (including the wealthy in social terms) when income inequalities get too large, why would anyone in his right mind preconize and work toward increasing one of the largest inequality that exist among developped countries?

You either have not watched the lecture or, once again, you missed the point!


One can believe in private property or not. You cannot alter this only by seizing the property of one to give to another. I don't believe that is right but I understand you disagree.
 
One can believe in private property or not. You cannot alter this only by seizing the property of one to give to another. I don't believe that is right but I understand you disagree.

what does that have to do with "seizing private property!". When did I ever propose that kind of measure?

You are wrong. Income inequality gap can change over time, and it has over inthe US, . . . But in the WRONG direction, getting larger, and bringing with it all the negative consquences discussed in that lecture. And if the GOP has their way, income inequality in the US will only get a lot worse, a lot faster. . . Putting us closer and closer to third world countries.
 
what does that have to do with "seizing private property!". When did I ever propose that kind of measure?

You are wrong. Income inequality gap can change over time, and it has over inthe US, . . . But in the WRONG direction, getting larger, and bringing with it all the negative consquences discussed in that lecture. And if the GOP has their way, income inequality in the US will only get a lot worse, a lot faster. . . Putting us closer and closer to third world countries.


As I said, I know you do not agree.
 
You said that I didn't agree that it was wrong to seize one's property. . . And I said I never said we should seize anyone's property.

You are twisting my words again!


You have stated words to the effect that taxes are the price of living in a society. And I don't disagree with that. I just believe that unequal taxation is contradictory to the Constitution. You do not.
 
You have stated words to the effect that taxes are the price of living in a society. And I don't disagree with that. I just believe that unequal taxation is contradictory to the Constitution. You do not.



I believe that the tax system is unequal at this time.
I look, not at the amount of tax that is paid "in a vacuum," but as a portion of what is left AFTER the taxes are paid.

And for me, a person makinf $50,000 a year, and beeing left, after a 10% tax with $45,000 IS unequal to a person making $500,000 a year and being left with $400,000, after all the loopholes that person can access, and the 20% tax that person will end up paying!

The hardship of the tax burden is obviously MUCH greater on the lower income person than it is on the higher income person, even if the tax bill is greater.

So, basically, I look at the "hardship" on people as unequal, I do not believe that lookdidng solely at the "amount of dollars paid" without looking at the context in which those dollars are paid is a fair way to evaluate the tax.
 
Werbung:
I believe that the tax system is unequal at this time.

no argument there

I look, not at the amount of tax that is paid "in a vacuum," but as a portion of what is left AFTER the taxes are paid.

And for me, a person makinf $50,000 a year, and beeing left, after a 10% tax with $45,000 IS unequal to a person making $500,000 a year and being left with $400,000, after all the loopholes that person can access, and the 20% tax that person will end up paying!

The hardship of the tax burden is obviously MUCH greater on the lower income person than it is on the higher income person, even if the tax bill is greater.

So, basically, I look at the "hardship" on people as unequal, I do not believe that lookdidng solely at the "amount of dollars paid" without looking at the context in which those dollars are paid is a fair way to evaluate the tax.

So you are good with eliminating all deductions ?
How about having everyone pay something ?
What would you do differently with taxation to accommodate the scenario you take issue with ?
 
Back
Top