Thread: The Real Causes of Income Inequality

Originally Posted by michael h

Been there done that Aces. We all try to educate ... you, me, others ... you are capable of introducing some pretty good ass bites and info ... without being windy. Go back 10 pages in this debate ... a lot of intelligent conservative responses, biting wit, and support for position. Very little ego stroking and fluff.

I'll lose posts sometimes ... it happens, but I feel a bit of responsibility to reply when someone responds ... its tougher when the response is light in content and heavy in ego stroking.

I keep seeing the guy saying ... "the rent is to damn high" and I want to say "the post is to damn long" "cut the fluff"

I tend to post opinion, and supporting data from link, without posting much if any of the link unless I feel it's necessary.

Sadly, all too many refuse to read the link, and want me to do their thinking for them.

I've always been of the mindset don't use 5 words when 4 will do.

Originally Posted by 9aces

Why should we have income equality? There's no good reason to do so.

ahoy 9aces,

we don't have income equality, me hearty.

i guess thar be a feelin' amongst some in our nation that the current inequality we have be too extreme, and 'tis not healthy fer the nation as a whole. i was curious in light 'o JohnLocke's comments if he thought that lowerin' taxes and cuttin' government spendin' was the best way to closin' the gap a wee bit.

- MeadHallPirate

Originally Posted by dnsmith

I don't have a protfolio. Where did you get that idea? Early on I said I had sold my stock and I don't own a single share now.So you blaming the case of the missing web site. I haven't missed many days looking into that stuff and it has always been a civil suit, not a criminal case. So far you have not supported the claim of broken laws.I am not a Romney fan, but why would he care about a gay man on his staff? As for my needing an explanation, it is only when your comment is inaccurate or not understandable.

Romney's chief of staff has left a trail of misogynistic statements on Twitter, Facebook, various other sites and e-mails.
Romney is having this "trail" cleansed from the web.
Information that is considered inflammatory to influential people/businesses is very often professionally sought and removed.

As for the differences between criminal and civil lawsuits...ahhh! What a difference even when a trail of evidence is left behind.
Distract Attorneys RARELY pursue criminal cases concerning major contributors.
This was pretty much a shock to me when I went for my Masters in Legal Forensics but I soon discovered how true this is.

I have seen so many examples, both nationally and regionally where the DA was simply told not to pursue a case if they wanted their career to forge ahead successfully.
See Matt Taibbi's coverage of Goldman-Sachs and Credit-Suisse; a shameful affairs

Sometimes it happens because the police screw up the crime scene as in the body found off the Belt Parkway near the East Bound Pennsylvania Exit several years ago.
A major story for a week and then gone because the supposed unknown suspect bragged that he/she studied forensics and would never be caught.
The scene was horrendously compromised by the first police officers on the scene, there was virtually no evidence to be found, and the case literally vanished overnight.

Originally Posted by eohrnberger

Romney's homosexual, supposedly misogynistic press agent

Now why would I really care that Romney as a homosexual press agent? Yeah, the extreme right and religious nuts will have a fit, but really? Why should I care what the man does behind the privacy of his bedroom doors? Not my business. Shouldn't be anyone elses either really.

Perhaps because Romney's strategist thinks that every single vote counts.
I'm not commenting on motive, I'm posting what his team is doing.
They are concerned, for whatever reason, about this issue.
The first question, of course, is why get someone who needs a historical white wash in the first place?

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

Can you elaborate? I've never heard the talking points of the WTO.

The WTO web-site stresses liberalization of Free Trade.
Yep, that's done a lot of good for the US.

By far the largest loans taken out by students are Salle Mae loans and they CANNOT be had without collateral.
I know more than my share of college professors and THEY know the cost of education far outweighs the rewards.
Hell, go for a PhD in Speech or Audiology and you will NEVER recoup your tuition unless you can successfully ripoff health insurance firms.
This is isn't coming out of MY head, it's coming from the parents who themselves could NEVER have afforded to pay current tuitions based on pay eventual opportunity and pay.
AND they partially blame in it on a flood of physicians coming in from overseas, thus lowering their rates and disallowing them from working for clinics and hospitals.

Originally Posted by dnsmith

Then you miss a lot of good information which gets down to specifics as to why your posts contain no valid substance from which an economy can work. His posts are long because he explains what you appear not to understand or don't want to understand that which you don't agree.

Well, of course I'm going to like this one. Thank you dn. Its nice to know someone can read.

tashi deleks,

M

Originally Posted by MeadHallPirate

ahoy 9aces,

we don't have income equality, me hearty.

i guess thar be a feelin' amongst some in our nation that the current inequality we have be too extreme, and 'tis not healthy fer the nation as a whole. i was curious in light 'o JohnLocke's comments if he thought that lowerin' taxes and cuttin' government spendin' was the best way to closin' the gap a wee bit.

- MeadHallPirate

Meadhead, in my opinion the big pink elephant in the room that everyone is ignoring is this. When you have almost 50% of people who get everything back when they file taxes every year, effectively paying no income tax you cannot give them a tax break. There is nothing to lower for those folks. Where as those of us who actually have incomes taxes that don't come back from the government can benefit from lowered taxes.

In that case it is also the job makers that benefit and in the long run those without jobs will find them.

BTW I remember an article not long ago that %5 unemployment was considered the best you can hope for as it is the number of people who absolutely refuse to work. Whether it be those on the street or whatever reason. I believe one of the reasons is when you start getting below %5 the push for higher wages in any level of the economy would hurt the cost of goods and services by pushing them up. Simply supply and demand. Low supply of applicants raises demand for applicants which in turn gives them the ability to demand higher wages. Such as remember seeing some McDonalds in the late 80's with signs reading $8 to start.

Originally Posted by USCitizen

The WTO web-site stresses liberalization of Free Trade.
Yep, that's done a lot of good for the US.

The problem as I understand it is not free trade but the non-sustainability of growing economies all over the world. America produces more than it consumes. Many countries have reached that point. Have you ever read about Zeitgeist?

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

The problem as I understand it is not free trade but the non-sustainability of growing economies all over the world. America produces more than it consumes. Many countries have reached that point. Have you ever read about Zeitgeist?

Saw the movie; not very Pro-US or MNC.
We have been pumping money all over the world since Reagan and very few nations have become self-sustaining.
Look at India and China; one bogged down by a Caste system and over a billion super-humans who need the lazy and stupid American consumer and the Authoritarian China who executes those who want out of their 24/7 factories.
I know, I know, it's all about WalMart and CostCo, which is where we all have to shop now on our economic descent to our two favored trade partners,.

Originally Posted by dnsmith

I do not believe the tax payers should have to support that class of people you refer to as people who bring it on themselves. Worse case, build group homes to house and feed them with no extras if they don't work to earn that level of keep.

I had a grandson who used the money he got for grass and other mind bogglers. When he hit bottom and came for help, I put him in a guest room separated from the rest of the house. I called him for dinner and that is all. After spending almost 3 months with nothing he started to think. He is now managing a small office. Had I supported his bad habits he would still be useless to humanity. He at first complained we didn't love him. He now recognizes we not only loved him but went through some bad times of our own watching him suffer.

I realize some people will never get the point. They are lost as a productive member of society and tax payers should not have to support them. (Truly unemployable people - physically or mentally disabled are the exception.)

You did more than I would have.

Originally Posted by MeadHallPirate

ahoy 9aces,

we don't have income equality, me hearty.

And we never have had income equality. Ever. The Soviet Union and other Communist regimes got close, but income equality has never occurred in history.

i guess thar be a feelin' amongst some in our nation that the current inequality we have be too extreme, and 'tis not healthy fer the nation as a whole.

That’s the claim but it is baseless. I know there are several who buy into the neo-Keynesian ideas about demand and the means of the common man to meet those demands fueling the economy, but demand side economics can’t do anything until the supply side is able to produce what consumers demand.

i was curious in light 'o JohnLocke's comments if he thought that lowerin' taxes and cuttin' government spendin' was the best way to closin' the gap a wee bit.

I don’t know about John, but lowering taxes and cutting spending would not close the gap (it has never been closed), but it would move us toward acting fiscally responsible and would lower the debt burden on our children and grandchildren. We know what rising government spending does, increases our debt and creates conditions where the Fed and Treasury “feel” they have to do something, which of course leads to doing stupid stuff with our currency and bond markets and a massive bill owed the Chinese. Rising taxes would do what it has always done. At first there would be an increase in government revenue, but then in short order, the Laffer Curve effect would be begin and government revenue would decline. The economy as a whole would contract, perhaps only a little, but the sluggishness of economic growth would be apparent to all. I don’t know of an economic study that shows a country can tax and spend itself out of either a massive federal debt or an economic downturn. A few point to the post-WW II economy as an example of government tax policy leveling the playing field and encouraging economic growth, but the conditions that allowed that growth to happen during the post-war years no longer apply. Both Europe and Japan are industrialized and can compete in the world, they weren’t in such a position after WW II. There are other factors involved that enabled America to become the economic powerhouse of the world, but those factors cannot help us today, since they are no longer factors to our advantage.

tashi deleks,

M

Originally Posted by Wlessard

Meadhead, in my opinion the big pink elephant in the room that everyone is ignoring is this. When you have almost 50% of people who get everything back when they file taxes every year, effectively paying no income tax you cannot give them a tax break. There is nothing to lower for those folks. Where as those of us who actually have incomes taxes that don't come back from the government can benefit from lowered taxes.

In that case it is also the job makers that benefit and in the long run those without jobs will find them.

BTW I remember an article not long ago that %5 unemployment was considered the best you can hope for as it is the number of people who absolutely refuse to work. Whether it be those on the street or whatever reason. I believe one of the reasons is when you start getting below %5 the push for higher wages in any level of the economy would hurt the cost of goods and services by pushing them up. Simply supply and demand. Low supply of applicants raises demand for applicants which in turn gives them the ability to demand higher wages. Such as remember seeing some McDonalds in the late 80's with signs reading $8 to start.

So a "true" market for employees is bad? Much the reason the FED used to up rates ... to stop competition for employees. It's not like a vital economy could afford to pay wages. It's the best of both worlds driving down the true value of employees ... while eliminating unions who attempt to increase that value through collectivism. Now when unions are a blip and the market for employees has been stripped of value, we complain about their tax contribution. Hilarious and hypocritical.