16 members, or so (So Far...) voted "no" to Issue #4 on the "6 Issues" Thread
 

I put the following together in the hope that all of you will respond with your opinions of whether you view inequity of wealth distribution as a serious concern...in the US, the top ten percent hold 70 percent of all assets, and trending to still greater inequity.

I know that some of you have no use for me, but this is not about me, and neither is the info in this post. It's about what kind of a country you want to live in and leave to your children. If we continue on the present course, those of you who have lived in Manhattan have some idea how the rest of the country will probably look like, more and more. A noticeably affluent class, and a larger, but less visible, "attending", or "servant" class, at least in areas that are sought after places to live and work in....

Do you dismiss rising wealth inequity, especially to the degree and trend now experienced in the US, as a potential threat to social order, and to orderly "on schedule" elections, in the future?

Is there some point of even greater inequity, say....when the wealthiest ten percent own 80 percent of all assets in the US, where you predict that you might become more concerned that it is a serious problem, than you are now?

....and, if you are concerned about rising wealth inequity, <h3>besides progressive taxation, how do you see society remedying the inequity, to any significant and timely extent?</h3>

Do you see the US as a place with more in common socially, economically and in the "world view" area, with the countries in the US gini co-efficient "neighborhood, i.e., with Mexico, China, etc/, or with countries with much lower and dramatically lower wealth inequity, Japan, the UK, Canada, France, Germany, and down, down, down, on the gini scale, down to Sweden, Norway, and Denmark?

One question for all 16 of you. Do you view your politics to be the principle influence that has put and maintains the US in it's "gini neighborhood", as the politics of folks in Denmark and France keep those countries in the gini neighborhood that they are in? If you don't think you're responsible, collectively, can you accept that the combination of who you vote for and your "it's okay to be very rich and no compensation for the work you do is too extreme", POV, has something to do with US wealth inequity placing it where it is compared to other over developed countries?

I disagree with the way you answered question #4
...and I see wealth inequity and the continued trend as a grave threat to our society and our representative govenrment. I believe that progressive taxation is the only way to lower the US gini number at least to the level of Japan's, say....within ten years, or, to even halt the current trend.

I am ashamed and disappointed to see the "gini neighborhood" that the US is in. Since we know that living conditions rise appreciably when the gini number in an over developed country is in the mide 20's to low 30's, for the overwhelming majority, and a gini number above 45 potentially triggers social unrest and threatens the democratic election process, I'm hoping I can influence just one of you to become more concerned about wealth inequity in the US....

https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...elds/2172.html
<h3>Field Listing - Distribution of family income - Gini index</h3>
............. Gini
Denmark .........23.2 (2002)
Norway ...... 25.8 (2000)
Sweden ...... 25 (2000)
France ....... 26.7 (2002)
Finland ...... 26.9 (2000)
Czech Republic . 27.3 (2003)
Germany ...... 28.3 (2000)
Netherlands .... 30.9 (2005)
Austria ........ 31 (2002)
European Union .31.6 (2003 est.)
Canada ...... 32.6 (2000)
Belgium .......33 (2000)
Switzerland .....33.7 (2000)
Ireland ...... 34.3 (2000)
Spain ...... 34.7 (2000)
Australia ......35.2 (1994)
Korea, South ....35.8 (2000)
United Kingdom ..36 (1999)
Italy ...... 36 (2000)
New Zealand .....36.2 (1997)
Japan ...... 38.1 (2002)
Israel ...... 38.6 (2005)

If you are against progressive taxation to mitigate the extreme of US wealth distribution inequity, does the preceding argument influence you? The fact that so little research has been done in the past seems to me to be a sign that neither "side" wanted to risk seeing the results.

We have the taxation and government policies of the long list of "low gini" OD countries to compare to our own, so I think we know that the policies can move gini lower, or even higher....

China is on the same "block" in our gini neighborhood. How can China's wealth distribution, be called "glaring inequalities", and ours, with such a similar gini number, not even a widely discussed "problem"?

<h3>The U.S. gini "neighborhood":</h3>

................Gini
Ecuador 42
note: data are for urban households (2003)

Burundi ........ 42.4 (1998)
Iran ........ 43 (1998)
Uganda ........ 43 (1999)
Nicaragua ...... 43.1 (2001)
Turkey ........ 43.6 (2003)
Nigeria ........ 43.7 (2003)
Kenya ......... 44.5 (1997)
Philippines .....44.5 (2003)
Cameroon ........44.6 (2001)
Uruguay ........ 44.6 (2000)
Cote d'Ivoire ...44.6 (2002)
<h3>United States ...45 (2004)</h3>
Jamaica ........ 45.5 (2004)
Rwanda ........ 46.8 (2000)
Malaysia ........46.1 (2002)
Mexico ........ 46.1 (2004)
<h3>China ........ 46.9 (2004)</h3>
Nepal .......... 47.2 (2004)
Mozambique ......47.3 (2002)
Madagascar ......47.5 (2001)
Venezuela .......49.1 (1998)
Argentina .......48.3 (June 2006)
Costa Rica.......49.8 (2003)
Sri Lanka .......50 (FY03/04)
Niger ...........50.5 (1995)
Papua New Guinea 50.9 (1996)
Thailand ........51.1 (2002)
Dominican Republic 51.6 (2004)
Peru ............52 (2003)
Zambia ........ 52.6 (1998)
Hong Kong........52.3 (2001)
El Salvador......52.4 (2002)
Honduras ........53.8 (2003)
Colombia ....... 53.8 (2005)
Chile .......... 54.9 (2003)
Panama ........ 56.1 (2003)
Brazil ......... 56.7 (2005)
Zimbabwe ........56.8 (2003)
Paraguay ........58.4 (2003)
South Africa ....59.3 (1995)
Guatemala 59.9 (2005)
Bolivia ........ 60.1 (2002)
Central African Republic 61.3 (1993)
Sierra Leone ....62.9 (1989)
Botswana........ 63 (1993)
Lesotho 63.2 (1995)
Namibia .........70.7 (2003)


This is what a conservative from a conservative institution wrote:

host, it's reallly simple actually. There are two ways to remove wealth inequality.
1) make people totally dependent upon these wealthy individuals by forcing financial equality through taxation thereby removing any and all incentive for human nature to succeed..
2) make people totally independent by removing the constraints on trades and specialties that wealthy individuals have bought to protect their wealth, allowing people to pursue their interests with a view to prosperity.

Doesn't work, dk....we'll "trickle down" into widespread unrest...... read the documentation in the OP. Are you really offering a proposal to remove existing impediments to the rich getting even richer, more quickly? Who is in the best position to immediately leverage gains from the changes that you're advocating? The lawyers and lobbyists the rich pay to write the language of regulatory "reform", <i> removing the constraints on trades and specialties.</i> Then they'll "front run" the reforms, positioning themselves for initial profitable opportunities.

You're gonna "grow" your way out of the trend? We're heading into a period of extremely deep recession, and during the boom just ended, the lowest income tax rates on the highest incomes since 1916 didn't disperse any wealth, it became even more concentrated, in their pockets and in the increase to our treasury debt burden.

I predict that you will have an opportunity to use your guns to protect "what's yours"....

Here is some news from a neighbor in the US's "gini neighborhood", here's what gini 53, looks like...and we're only 8 points away !

Sorry, even primates have wealth disparity.

I seriously doubt we're more advanced.

Nice neighborhood....how long are you going to keep us here?
How about an actual discussion. The questions are in the OP. Your post hints that you don't see a problem with US wealth inequity.

All I will say right now is to ask for statistics on the distribution of wealth throughout American history to

1) Compare to see how different eras had their wealth distributed and

2) See if there are any patterns moving towards equality or inequality, and how they correlate with perceptions of quality of life and politics throughout our history.

Until then, simply stating that "10% holds 70%" and building scenarios off of that is not worth discussing.

The top 25% pay 84.5% of the taxes.

The top 1% pay 36.89% of all taxes.

You take out the wealth producing class and after the initial government theft, tax revenues will crash.

The US is the only superpower for a reason, we are RICH, we are rich because we allow people to be rich, who in turn pay a shitload of tax money, disproportionately already.

host wants to destroy the very hand that feeds the federal government in an idealistic fantasy world where somehow punishing those with wealth will make people richer as a whole completely oblivious to the fact that wealth needs to be CREATED it doesn't just happen. The rich already pay for most of this country, the top 50% earners by 96.7% of all income taxes. Think about that, half the country pay for just about NOTHING and yet they deserve more from the government?

Robert Heinlein described socialism as a disease, and I can't think of a more apt description. Its sick to think about what these people want to do to the country.

1) I said REMOVE impediments, not REFORM current hoops and loopholes. With less constraints on people to utilize their own skills and knowledge to work for themselves. It's long been known that owning and running your own business will make you more money than working for someone else, like the wealthy uppers.
2) recessions are the PERFECT time to have almost no constraints on people creating their own business and utilizing their own skills and knowledge without the government rules and regulations breathing down their neck.
You've got this perception that by taking money from the wealthy and redistributing it among the non-wealthy is going to 'fix' the inequality, but it will most certainly make it worse. As the wealthy start 'losing' money, they will start finding ways to cut their losses. You should know better than anyone that the first thing an employer is going to do is reduce their labor costs....in other words, people are going to lose their jobs. with lost jobs, comes lost ability to spend money, and now more people making less money starts the recession in high gear to depression again.

history has shown violent upheaval an end result when the poor are prevented from improving their lot in life. Our current situation will be no different. Following your plan for wealth redistribution will only delay the inevitable as doing so will end up locking people in to a permanently frozen income category.

I'll add they are rioting in France again, glad those taxes are working out for them.

i have had enough.

it is a shame that the libertarian/conservative set cannot manage a coherent discussion of the op.
i didn't really expect much, but i sure thought the community would manage SOMETHING. but no.
this in itself i have come to expect.

but the post i bit above is among the most ridiculous and uninformed i can remember having encountered here.

why is this ok?


if you want to talk about the strikes and other such that have been happening in france then fine--but you have to AT LEAST have some fucking idea of what you are talking about.
i dont see this---having at least SOME idea of what you are talking about----as an unreasonable baseline in a discussion forum.
you cannot possibly understand--even remotely--what is going on and say this.

my assumption is that this horseshit is ok because host started the thread and you, ustwo, do not like host

well, it isn't.

Before getting pissy read my first post instead of quoting the one liner.

think for a minute about, ustwo.
how the hell does this help the community?
how does it help the quality of discussion in this forum?
you play here too--i imagine that SOMETHING about the quality of discussion explains it.

sarkosy is a neo-liberal.
jesus christ.
you have even the most basic factual dimension that lay behind the strikes--and the "riots" of the past couple nights--backwards.

edit: i saw the earlier post.
i dont agree with it, but that's to be expected.
but you cannot imagine that it constitutes a premise for your statement re. the french strikes etc.
it doesnt.

I plan to enter that top 10%. Why would I want to eliminate it? Whether we like it or not, the 'top 10%' (and even more so, the top 1%) are the movers, shakers, and innovaters.

How many inventions were made practical and cost effective by the American free market economy which rewards the innovaters, and have now changed the world?

I think that one could easily point to any time, in American history, and pick out the sickenly rich, the incredibly wealthy, the very comfortable, the "average Joe", and the down and out. How is this point in time any different?

How would you propose to remedy this..."situation". I mean, if you start playing Robin Hood, and robbing the rich to give to the poor, then you will remove the incentive for innovation. On top of that, you encourage people to sit back and be non-productive.

Look. It's not that I'm completely unsympathetic to your concerns. I, too, grow angry when I read stories of CEOs that walk away with millions in salaries and bonuses, after running a company into the ground and laying off hundreds of the working class. That's not right. But, then neither, is punishing those that have earned the rights to the fruits of their hard work. Would you have Bill Gates just write everyone that makes less that $50,000 a check for $500?

The problem with socialists is they have no idea where wealth comes from. They treat it as a zero sum game where there is a big pile, and some people grabbed too much of the pile to be fair. They act as if they could only give everyone more of the pile everything would be all better, not realizing that people have been adding to the pile all along. Those people stop adding, and then what you have is a smaller pile with few people adding.

For example, I'm opening an office thats costing me 600,000 dollars to get the doors open on. This to me is a lot of money. I am doing it not to serve the community, thats just a great bonus. I'm doing it to make money, which is why I'm taking a huge risk, to do so. The bank thinks I'm a good risk and loaned me said money, which I have to start paying back in 2 months even though my doors are not open yet. I will be hiring 7 people for full time work, I will be paying more in taxes, I will be providing a wanted service in the community. Win, win, win but it all required MY risk, my investment, my effort, my ulcers (figuratively).

Lets pretend we get all socialist on this. I am already in the top 10% wage earners or something close to that, so I'm sure I"m part of hosts little hit group. Never mind I still live in a modest home, drive old cars, and haven't bought a new pair of shoes in over a year, I'm one of those evil wealthy people apparently. Ok so president for life host decides I make too much money and shouldn't make any more, or should be taxed on ridiculous percentage.

Does anyone think I'm going to take a huge risk like that? No fucking way, not on your life. So 7 people need to find jobs else where, a bank needs to find another client, the community has to hope someone else opens up, and about a million dollars of commerce a year that would be required to just RUN my place never happens. Now multiply that across the country by the millions of business owners and guess what the outcome is?

Now lets say host is a benevolent president for life after his armed overthrow of the government. He says 'Ustwo, let me tell you, we will build your clinic, you can work there, it will be good!'. This can happen for me, after all mine is medical (though not life threatening so odds are it would be cut but thats another issue). Why would have I worked my ass off in the first place to get there? I spent 11 years of my life in school PAST college to do what I do at the level I do it, do you think I did it because it was just fun? But lets say I did it, and that I felt working my ass off for a decade longer than most people was worth the lack of extra money.

Is this going to happen for business? Will people be motivated when the boss is the state?

Hell no, yet these non-producing people are going to tell us how its suppose to work, or because they don't mind working harder than most for the same wages its somehow going to work for the population as a whole?

Its not about equity, its about jealousy. Its about if we can't figure out how to get it, you can't have it either or as hosts states they will kill us in a revolution. How well did those revolutions in the past work out for the poor? Think thats going to change too?

Its disgusting and sad how little people understand that reason America is the big kid on the block has nothing to do with us being a republic, but the economic freedom we have been given, something which in the past WAS only allowed to the elites.

In the US you can become an 'elite' if you have the right stuff, you don't have to be born into the right family or vote for the right political party, and this very thing is what people like host want to see destroyed.

thanks for shifting gears, ustwo.

the problem that runs through post 15 is basically a refusal to think in either historical or social-system terms. instead, the arguments are moralistic, erasing anything analytic (at all if you read the post carefully) and replacing analysis with a series of adjectives attached to the noun "socialist"--the definition of which i have never been sure that ustwo actually knows--what is clear is that "socialist" means functionally "empty space onto which i project whatever i want."

the adjective pile-up starts with the first sentence of the post:

x is defined by the predicate "they have no idea where wealth comes from."
and proceeds to heap other such attribute up one after the other.

by the third paragraph, it is clear that we are not talking about socialist at all, but we are in fact talking about who ustwo imagines host to be--first negatively---"I'm sure I"m part of hosts little hit group" then by way of inversion--"president for life host..."

and so on.

so a cynical fellow might say that given there is no content to the category
socialist in ustwo's post above, that it is negative space he fills with projections, and that most of those projections one way or another are about projections concerning host, whom he apparently sees as some kind of inflatable stalin doll (even that seems to grant too much content to the term "socialist" as it functions above) that the "analysis" is mostly a hysterical ad hominem--ad hominem in that it is a personal attack on host, hysterical in that the post manages to collapse make-believe host into a bigger make-believe category "socialist".

hedging this nonsense round, you have a very simple and simplistic claim repeated lots of times: a "socialist" is someone who wants to take ustwo's money. because ustwo defines himself as the embodiment of all things virtuous and holy--the last term because it is pretty obvious that money is sacred---then it follows that a "socialist"--as an abstraction the only content of which that is not based in ad hominem is "someone who wants to take my money"--is simply Evil.

on what planet is this coherent?
on what planet does it address the question of redistribution of wealth, its political functions, and the problems that might be raised by an ideology that---myopically so far as i am concerned--refuses to even acknowledge that there are political functions to the resdistribution of wealth----that is in ameliorating the social consequences of tendencies to concentration in actually existing capitalism--tendencies that are self-evident if you actually bother to look at the actual history of actual capitalist systems over the past 200 years and don't replace them with empty nonsense based entirely on a simple state of affairs:

i benefit materially from the existing order--i am the embodiment of virtue--therefore an order that enables an embodiment of virtue such as myself to benefit must be in itself virtuous.

so it seems that we are not even talking about capitalism--we are not talking about an empirical system at all---we are talking the private language of conservatives for whom capitalism is a sum of projections--no different in kind from "socialists" except with the signs reversed.


try again.

most neoliberal "remedies" for problems political and ethical generated by the *radically* uneven distribution of wealth are of three types:

a. arguments for the reduction of the political effects of these consequences by rolling the state out of wealth redistribution functions. this one makes a certain degree of sense, given that "globalizing capitalism" has posed and continues to pose signficant political problems for nation-states---it reduces their purview in terms of making the rules of the game, greatly increases uncertainty as a result, and so opens the state up for deep and potentially unresolvable political crisis IF the state is exposed in the wrong way at the wrong time---the wrong way means here that the state is involved in attempting to manage social inequities in a situation that it cannot control or even make accurate predictions about; but the fact that the state is involved means that these management efforts are POLITICAL and so the consequences of failure are POLITICAL.

seen from this viewpoint, neoliberalism can be taken to acknowledge that the radically uneven distribution of wealth is, in fact, a problem--but neoliberals see a choice: either reduce political risk for the state, or continue trying to buy political consent for capitalism through redistribution of wealth--and they opt for the former.

so they deal with the problem of a *radically* uneven distribution of wealth by running away.

the argument for doing so is utilitarian--the greatest good for neoliberals is in the continuation of the existing order--the way to continue the existing order is to reduce the risk to its main institutions.

b. the problem is that this will not sell.
so there's a second mode of activity: marketing.
here there is a distinction between neoliberalism and the populist conservatism that you find in the states--the former can be seen as understanding something about the actual, empirical situation generated by globalizing capitalism and making a choice--a bad choice, but an expedient one from a certain viewpoint---while the latter is a kind of test market for the flip of neoliberalism--the ideology that collapses capitalism into a natural phenomenon.
you cant oppose a natural phenomenon.
populist conservatives and libertarians share an affection for this general viewpoint, and so share another feature as well, that of being chumps.

c. when political crisis ensues, deal with it with violence/repression.
if you believe (b) then you will have no problem with (c).
to take ustwo's post above as an index, because it is worth nothing else, the language in it reminds me, paradoxically, of that you find in the short course of the history of the soviet communist party on the topic of the "hitlero-trotskyite wrecker, the saboteur, the Insect.." the Enemy Which Must Be Exterminated so that the otherwise Perfect Order can resume its Perfection.

so neoliberalism does not pretend that the radically uneven distribution of wealth is not a problem. neoliberals see it. they just dont know what to do about it in the present context. they apply a political calculation to the matter and decide that reducing the risk to which the state is exposed will enable them to survive as holders of some degree of political power longer, so they go that way.

to sell this choice, they market a different ideology, which we all know and love because we get to see it trotted out in all its simple-minded grandeur here every fucking day.

this makes populist conservatives the simple lackies of an ideology they do not understand. they will function to legitimate state violence as a response political crisis CREATED BY the neoliberal gamble with respect to state functions.

there is more, there is always more, but i'm stopping now.

How is what UsTwo said not a personal and specialized case of what I said in post #13? Rewarding hard work, innovation, and risk = good for the economy, and the motivational rewards for these risks and innovations are the potential financial gains.

Host,

I have a very simple perspective on this issue.

Wealth accumulated honestly based on profiting from adding value in the market should not be redistributed through taxation to those who choose not to add value in the market.

First for the record, teachers, religious leaders, social workers, loving parents caring for their children, do add value. So don't create a straw-man argument on that basis.

The market should determine the value of what one contributes to society. If sitting around watching TV, eating Doritos and smoking a little weed, adds no value to society that behavior should not be rewarded by stealing (or unfairly taxing) from those who actually add value.

As I have stated before, I have no problem with taxation for the care and well being of children, elderly and those who are disabled.

if you read the rest of my post, i make it pretty clear why.

and here another little example of conservative substitution of projection for thinking:

so the "analysis" is:
conservatives=righteous; those who oppose them: lazy.

Just because you don't agree with my viewpoint, libertarian OR conservative, does not mean that I'm managing an incoherent discussion. It's not my fault if you can't see past a liberal/socialist ideology or viewpoint.

I see what ace is getting at, and, for the most part, I agree.

I'll tell you very simply I do believe in a safety net, but outside of that people deserve to keep what they earn. I don't know that I would go so far as to say that a completely free market should determine the value of ones contribution, after all we are talking about a market that must, logically, then value a fourth string receiver for the Miami Dolphins more than bank tellers and teachers. However, if we are talking about a market that will tolerate some measured regulation then it can be trusted to reward participation correctly.

i laid out something of my actual position in the second part of no. 16, dk.
you want to talk to me, take that on.

or just watch the fine clip i posted.
it's more fun.

One thing is clear.

roachboy has awful taste in music.

yeah, I read what you posted and you sound like baghdad bob saying it.

To the capitalist market? First off, wouldn't that suggest that god is a marketable good or service? That brings up serious philosophical problems for a lot of people. I mean,. they're giving money to god. The money is not intended to purchase church time or favor. Second, obviously religious institutions and the people they employ are non profit. Not for profit. The intent is only to earn enough to function, not to show profit, not to reward investors. I'm sure a capitalist like yourself is well aware of both points.

and to BOR and dksuddeth, I thank you for your willlingness to have a serious discussion. My point is that the inequity trend will be stopped, when it reaches a level that triggers reactionary response...either planned and orderly...via the ballot box, or chaotic and in the streets.

I'm surprised that it is not obvious that "the haves" <h3>do not have the choice to pursue their politics, where ever "the free market" takes them</h3>, as far as their cornering of existing assets, i.e. "the pie". Why do you think that "old Europe" is now the way that it is, as far as it's socialist bent and much more equal wealth distribution than we enjoy?

Isn't it because the wealthiest are more pragmatic because of their awareness of history? They have to live somewhere, just like everyone else. They can live prosperously and peacefully, without fear, or they can endure kidnappings of loved ones, and sabre rattling from "the rabble".

djtestudo here's some re-posted support for the trend towards greater wealth concentration:

...but...the compromise that resulted in lowering the top tax bracket....in 1986, has yielded to newer tax breaks for the wealthiest:

<h3>So the wealthiest ten percent....the elite who own more than 70 percent of all US assets....succeeded in achieving both a dramatically lower top tax bracket...compared to the rates in the early 1980's, and...over time....they also received a huge break on the capital gains taxes they pay....receiving the break that they traded away in 1986 to obtain the lowered top tax bracket.....</h3>


I originally posted this on a thread in this forum on 01-09-2007:


Graphics displaying trends at this link:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...5&postcount=29

host, what do you do for a living? I'm curious, who is the man behind ideology?

Yes but what is the percent of the income that each of those groups pay compared to the people making $30,000 a year? IE who sees a greater tax burden? What percent of their income after taxes is spent on necessities?

The one big problem with taxing the rich is it is just taxing the masses anyway since the rich will just raise the prices of what their selling and we will all pay for it. Ie the trickle up effect.

In your example: There are about 1,696 active NFL players. Less than 5% of all graduating college division I football players get drafted by the NFL, and only about 250 of those make a team each year. And it is only about 3% of all high school football players play division I football. Of those who make it to the NFL we are truly talking about the ultimate cream of the crop, and it is either make it and make millions or nothing.

On the other hand there are about 6 million teachers in the US.
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/...ns/001737.html

There is about 1.8 million bank employees in the USA.
http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs027.htm

I appreciate the issue, but given the NFL monopoly and the craze this country is in over football, I think the market is telling us what we truly value.

Taking this out further: Sports arenas and sports broadcast advertsising (superbowl anyone?) are big businesses that ultimately rely on the players to be productive. By that measure, they're underpaid, if anything.

:thumbsup:

Yes they are and while I think its insane to pay someone 15 million dollars a year because he can run with a ball around people its not my money, and from a business stand point it makes sense. It doesn't hurt me in the least how much he gets paid.

It really had nothing to do with their value though, its easier to get a good teacher than a good running back, and the teacher doesn't sell t-shirts and season tickets.

So in other words we should lower the taxes on the rich to help the poor, brilliant!

Reagan approves.

I absolutely agree. The fact that I think that is terribly wrong is the very reason I can't get behind a free market determines value point of view. However, I can get behind the idea of market determination in a market that will suffer regulation to dodge this sort of pit fall.

To get back to the original question. I do not think the problem is as big as some make it out to be. I also reject the notion that revolution is inevitable without a great redistribution of wealth. I honestly believe that a minor redistribution (read: safety net) meets our ethical duty to our fellow man and, more relevantly, will steer us clear of all the revolution. I think that's clear at the ballot box where you have large middle class support for conservative economic policies. So long as people can meet the needs of themselves and their families then people largely believe in getting what they earn out of the market.

Ahahhh !!!! You've found me out!

I currently apportion my time (for the past seven years):

Business Hours: Trader-In-Securities filing a schedule "C" tax return as a sole proprietor, since 1998

Evenings: Waiter at a fine dining establishment, employed for 5 years at same establishment. Professional waitstaff, ten years plus seniority not unusual, low staff turnover, 16 waiter 'floor plan". (95 percent of income is via credit card "on the books", gratutities from clientele.)

Previously employed as waitstaff member in smallish fine dining venue on upper West side, NYC, for 2 years.

Full-time securities trader @home in my living room 1998 - 1999....

Spend much time in my wife's company as she was a critical care nurse suddenly stricken, 5 years ago with an ischemic stroke causing right side paralysis and severe speech aphasia, speech impairment and total paralysis of her right arm are persistant.

1990 to 1997: Co-owner and general manager in partnership with previous wife, of an 18 employees, small business, service to the consurmer and small er commercial account segment, ninety percent of revenue source from third party payers, insurance carriers. Responsible for successfully managing all facets of day to day operations, from employee supervision and relations, to a heavy emphasis on face to face customer service, and negotiations with their insurers.

I know "the drill" of signing over personal assets as a condition for obtaining six figure business expansion loans, and the value of a good accountant and a tax lawyer...and dealing with all the regulatory BS from government, from the EPA to OSHA, and the EEOC....

Prior to that, 13 years experience in dealing with union employees in a specialty metals manufacturing environment in a supervisory role, direct and as a supervisor of production foremen from a production planning and inventory control responsibility.

Began "career" in manufacturing with three year period as a production worker and union shop steward, after several years as a full time college student.
I was such a "pain in the ass" to management as a union rep. that they offered me a management position. I made that transition and found myself driving strikebreakers through union picket lines (my former union brothers...)during a labor strike, so that they would not be injured when they tried to go home at the end of their workday.

I "live it", Ustwo....in front of a computer screen, all day, watching the elite rape the retail trader and investor in "the market", and then off, into the evening, to serve "the rich", close up, and immerse myself in a kitchen totally staffed with hardworking illegal aliens.

Have you ever observed a man worth $2300 million dining with his wife and another couple who are using a "coupon", good for a custom, chef cooked , "anyway you want it", dinner, won at a charity benefit, and then respond to a request from the billionaire, for catsup?

If I was a more successful securities trader, I could remove myself from "the real world", but I wouldn't trade the insight that I gain in "real time", for anything.

I am the son of a former marine and labor relations attorney, employed by management through all of his career. He did time studies in an intensely hot brass casting shop for the first five years after he earned an accounting degre via the "GI bill", and then did five years nights in law school with four young children and a complaining wife along the way.

He knew how hard unionized manufacturing workers labored. He once saved a foreman's life, in his own office, after the slightly built man brought a large, offending worker to my father to be disciplined in the personnel office wher e he was working on the 3-11 shift to gain labor relations experience. The worker picked the paper weight up off my father's desk and began pounding the foreman in the head with it. My father got between them and the worker bit through his wool suit jacket and sunk his teeth into myy father's arm, resulting in a nasty infection.

My father's family came from nothing, he was the first to graduate from college. He always respected labor and still regards himself as one of them.

I think I see "both sides" and I think I know as much as anyone can about "the real" America, from my past and current perspective. I can tell you that the wealthiest are some of the nicest and most thoughtful people, and soem of them are the most self centered, obnoxious, and alarmingly oblivious.

It is easy to tell which customers remember their own days, waiting, tables, and which don't.

I work alongside an M.E. who has been working his career "day job" for thirteen years while waiting tables 5 nights per week. He has a nice house and has taken his wife and kids to Paris, and now he's waiting impatiently for his wife can finish her nursing degree courses so he can "stand down".

Actually what i'm saying is while the rich pay more in taxes the poor have a higher tax burden. Also the rich should not be railing against the taxes because they pass that cost onto their consumers. If tomorrow the government raised the tax on the rich or the cooperations the prices for those good would increase. However, if the taxes were reduced the the prices would likely stay the same and the profits would increase.

In the end there isn't a good solution because the system is driven by greed, which is a very evil human quality.

(note: i'm not saying all buisnesses and rich are greedy, there are many who are not, unfortunately many of them are)

While it is true that a teacher doesn't sell t-shirts, I'm not sure that it is easier to get a good teacher than a good running back. There isn't much money in education (compared to professional sports). As a consequence, our selection criteria for teachers aren't as refined.

In my life time in/around Chicago, I've had personally at least a dozen teachers who I think of as great for various reasons.

We haven't had a good running back since Walter Payton.

Those two standards have nothing to do with each other. With teachers, your version of good is really "much better than adequate". With running backs, your standard of good is "excellent even among the best in the country".

When you stack the deck like that it isn't surprising that "good teachers" are easy to find and "good running backs" aren't.

You haven't followed Bears football for the last 20 years. We haven't had an adequate running back since then.

My point is that NFL running backs are harder to find, by a couple of order of magnitudes than teachers, and great ones get another order of magnitude thrown in.

Then add in that NFL running backs are revenue generators, people pay to see them play, to have their adds when they play, to buy team merchandise with their name on it. Honestly I have no idea how the numbers work out, but they must because they couldn't pay them if they didn't.

As such a NFL player should and would get more than a teacher. Hes an entertainer by nature, and can entertain more people than any teacher can teach.

Now if you can figure out a way for one guy to teach 10 million people for an hour then you can start to see that sort of pay out.

Really its simple jealousy. This 'athlete', most likely not very intelligent, poorly educated despite his rubber stamp college degree, is making more money than pretty much 99.999999% of the country. I find it somewhat irksome my self that one of these guys makes in one year what I might make in a life time as a doctor, but hey so what? It doesn't make what I have less.

No, I do get it.

Any running back in the NFL, even a bench warmer is an example of extremely elite skill. That was covered in posts before mine.

My point is simply that the standard of comparison between running backs and teachers that determines pay differentials has nothing to do with quality or skill. It's solely about their ability to generate revenue. It's pretty obvious, actually, in that the highest paid teacher in the country might get paid for teaching what the 35th best running back gets paid for running. Clearly that's an estimate, but I think the point is valid.

In other words, I'm not necessarily arguing against your point, but just tightening the language up a bit.

If there was as much money is education as there is in football, we would likely see:

1. Massive competitive among individuals for teaching positions, resulting in a much better pool from which to select teachers.

2. Much better selection criteria for picking teachers. (To put it another way, linebackers are evaluated and selected using a microscope. Teachers are evaluated and selected using a coke bottle.)

(My intent is not to denigrate teachers. I have been taught by many talented, noble teachers in my life).

Host,

Thank you for sharing your background with us in such detail. It's nice to "get to know the man behind the posts" a bit.

I will try and answer your question (op) when I have a bit more time. I would like to give it more attention and detail. By the way, I really like the way you framed this thread as a spin-off of the context of the 6-questions thread.

I actually think football players are underpaid. The Bears running back woes start with the offensive line. Cedric Benson and Adrian Peterson would probably do better if the O-line offered better protection and opened up lanes better. Rex Grossman's struggles are also related to poor O-line protection. Football players have to possess some measure of intelligence as it is a very cerebral game requiring mental and physical discipline. The play books alone are hundreds of pages of memorizations. When I used to play, I often struggled and missed a few assignments myself.

Host, here is my issue with your OP: question #4 of the 'six issues' post asked whether the function of taxes is to redistribute income. I answered no, the function of taxes is to raise money to enable the government to operate. Here is my reasoning:

1) Taxes have been around a very, very long time, since the very first governments, and it's only relatively recently that redistribution had anything to do with taxation. That's because (among other things) we are now rich enough as a society to worry about things like that. Redistribution is a luxury of rich societies. If everyone is poor there isn't much to redistribute. (Rich societies are dynamic societies, which means that the rich guy isn't just the son of the local lord of hte manor, who inherited his estate in a line from the original duke who was granted the land by William the Conqueror and didn't work a day in his life. The rich guy more likely than not is highly productive and creative, which is how he got rich.) When there wasn't much to redistribute there still were taxes. Why? Because the government had to run. And also because potentates had power and were greedy, and used taxes to enrich themselves. But even the benevolent ones taxed their populace. After all, someone has to pay for defense of the realm. So when you ask whether the purpose of taxation is redistribution, the answer has to be no.

2) The premise of your OP is that wealth inequality and income inequality in and of themselves are bad things. My answer to that is, "it depends." In France in 1788 there was an indolent, lazy, landed aristocracy that spent its days idly and hadn't done a thing to earn its position. That sort of inequality is a bad thing. And that sort of inequality arises from closed economic systems of the sort that had existed for a few previous millenia. In a closed economic system there is little growth, which means that for all intents and purposes an extra penny in a rich man's pocket comes out of the poor man's pocket. That is the sort of economy that the bible had in mind when it adjured charity. The redistributionist impulse traces to Christian teachings, and is based on an economic formula that simply no longer exists in Western countries. This isn't a knock on charity but it is a knock on redistribution. Inequality in and of itself is not a problem, if the inequality came about honestly. Unless a person is a horrendously envious type (which is very very ugly), it does not hurt him one bit if someone else has more than he does.

I'll go out on a limb here: by historical standards we have no poverty in America. None, zero, zip, nada. If you go back to 1600 and consider what poverty meant then, we have NOTHING like that. The biggest health problem for poor people in this country is obesity.

The premise for your OP, that inequality by itself is bad, reminds me of the story about the two Russian peasants, Pavel and Ivan. They were equally poor and miserable for years, friends and neighbors. Then one day Pavel was walking past Ivan's hut and noticed that, instead of the one chicken Pavel always had, Pavel had TWO chickens in his yard. Ivan was struck by the injustice of it all. Why should Pavel have two chickens and he, Ivan, only have one? So every night he would pray that this horrendous injustice should be rectified. One evening when he was praying, he heard an angel speaking to him: "Ivan, your prayers have been heard. We will fix the injustice." Ivan looked up, overjoyed, and said "you mean you're really going to kill Pavel's chicken?"

That is what complaining about inequality is.

uh...i dont think the digressions about the aristocracy work too well, loquitor:

donning my workhat, then, and compressing stuff shamelessly at the same time (historians like to blab, you see):

the aristocratic "revolt" that triggered the french revolution (1787) happened because the crown defaulted on the bonds it had floated to pay for intervening in the american revolution. that is how the estates general came to be convened--and it was around this that things started to fall apart.

the problems that faced the aristocracy by that point had nothing to do with the fact that they were an aristocracy and everything with the particulars of the situation the aristocracy was in by 1787--much of it had to do with the actions of louis 14 in centralizing the court, forcing the aristocracy to attend court, which put a huge strain on their resources, most of which were generated by land holdings, the revenue from which was static for a long long time. this strain was part of the point of the court--to subordinate the aristocracy, make them dependent on the crown for patronage, support, military commissions, etc.

you're wrong about the chaos of the french taxation systems before the revolution as well--they WERE about redistributing wealth.
the problem was not that, but rather that there were lots of such systems and no co-ordination between them...it's a confusing mess to read about even. if you're interested, read tocqueville's "ancien regime" on this, the best analysis of the financial problems this created, the link between this chaotic non-system and large-scale undertakings like war--the crown paid for wars by floating bonds--which were also a way to redistribute wealth.....

the main changes the revolution brought about really was the centralization of taxation, the rationalization of the processes and of the wealth redistribution functions they served. these functions are the central occupations of the modern bureaucratic state. that is what it does, at its core. tocqueville sees the main consequence of the french revolution as the rise of the modern state--and that this had nothing to do with what the revolutionaries thought they were doing.

the points:

1. the modern state is fundamentally different from what preceded it, and it makes no sense to jump around it as if this wasn't the case and make comparative arguments as if nothing changed after bonaparte.

2. wealth redistribution works in a lot of directions. if you think of it that way, it is absurd to argue that taxation is not about this.

3. (more to the side of the above) the effects/meanings of social inequality are ALWAYS contextual--you treat inequality as some metaphysical construct in your post, and the end of it simply runs to its conclusion the problems with thinking in this way about social inequality.

by contextual in the modern context, i mean political.
you cant wish the political away by thinking in terms of essence.

i decided along the way that i'm not going to do anything with the first point in your post----in the period of william the conqueror, the entire social system was so differently organized that it makes no sense to draw on it for a point about the functions of taxation in the modern period. it's comparing wombats to toaster ovens or some such.

roachboy, you're missing the point. of course society was different if you go back more than 200 or 300 years - but there were still taxes. That's my point. Whether taxes can be used for other purposes, too, is a different issue. Of course they can. You can use a book for purposes other than reading, too, such as to hold up a table leg, but that doesn't mean the purpose of a book is to hold up a table leg.

Robin Hood redistributed wealth, too. He did it honestly - he used a gun, openly. Well, not a gun, but its medieval equivalent.

i'm sorry, comrade, but i dont understand what you are saying.

seems to me that you're now doing the same thing to taxes that you did to inequality in the earlier post.

taxation is not a table--it is a process.

it is simply the case taxation after the french revolution has nothing to do with pre-french revolution taxation. totally different organization, totally different functions, totally different states.
there's no way around this.

the possible confusion lay in that we use the word "taxes" to talk about wealth transfer mechanisms that in an abstract sense are similar across contexts.

it seems that is all you are talking about... that the same word gets applied.

why is that interesting?

Being that I live in a socialist country, I'll throw out my tax-free two cents:

Wealth inequality and redistribution cannot (and should not) be remedied by adjusting taxation alone. If America wants to continue with prosperity and avoid going to hell in a handbasked, she should consider further mixing her economy à la style Canadien.

1. Adopt a national healthcare system modelled after Tommy Douglas' revolutionary vision;
2. Fix, revitalize, or bloody well completely rebuild the labour laws (use Ontario's as a model if you must);
3. Use more government intervention to protect certain industries of lower-income, skills-based earners (i.e. manufacturing, agriculture, certain services, etc.);
4. Penalize (or increase penalties for) corporations who violate labour standards, or who use unsavoury practices to bust unions or plans for establishing unions;
5. Rewrite immigration policies to help with the decriminalization of hard-working immigrants.

This is just a few ideas. I would also like to point out that although the wealthiest of people pay the majority of tax, I believe that this is essential because of how that wealth is created: generated by the hard work of low-income workers. But paying less tax should not mean receiving fewer services. Government services should be equalized to ensure a basic health and well-being of all citizens.

America needs to rethink her budget to stop an increasing wealth disparity. Her military budget is simply ridiculous. Her education budget, ludicrous. Now don't get me wrong; I'm not saying Canada is perfect, nor would I say she is the best nation in the world, but there is a reason why it has been said that Canada is one of the best places in the world to live. The socialists have had a hand in that. A mixed economy and a mixed political system encourages stability and prosperity. America could use a healthy dose of that to help improve the quality of life overall.

roachboy, taxation is the process of taking from the populace to pay for the government. it's been around for thousands of years. its purpose isn't to redistribute wealth to the needy, it's to pay for the govt. its use for redistribution is a recent phenomenon.

Not that complicated, really, and I have to wonder why you are complexifying something so simple.

Then what would you call social security? This is just one example of redistribution of wealth.

Wealth distribution has been an issue of taxation for a long time. Do you mean recent as in last decade, or last century?

I just wanted to point out that I see this as the redistribution of wealth, which is why I voted yes to #4

loquitor:
i took the steps as an inferential chain.
so if the steps are wrong, the inference collapses.

it seems to me that you are simply fooled by nouns/names, that you think if you drag a name from one context to another that you designate the same thing in the same way in each context.

the redistribution of wealth in the direction of the poor in the modern context is a political function, one of the ways in which the state legitimates itself. you can see infrastructure development and maintenance in the same way.

the pre-revolutionary french state did not act in anything like these ways to legitimate itself--it operated with a fundamentally different ideology of the state.

the modern state is primarily a bureacuracy that allocates resources.
all functions--including military functions--involve wealth redistribution and can be understood as linked to creating conditions of equality within a capitalist context that tends the other way.

(the military, for example, is as much a mechanism for social mobility as it is anything else--it then can be seen as a mechanism that IN ADDITION TO ITS OTHER FUNCTIONS enables folk who are socially or educationally from difficult situations to access different, maybe better situations by providing training and other forms of cultural capital--this is obvious is you remember that militaries persist beyond wartime periods--it is a side-effect of having a standing army etc.)

so to say that taxation allows "the government to work" is a very limited viewpoint--simply because it treats government as separate from the social context it administers, as if it floats in space, referring to itself, generating itself, legitimating itself.

it ain't like that, except insofar as it is framed as a neoliberal phantasm.

btw: the underlying issue is that i find the entire trajectory in this thread that tries to define taxation as something other than the redistribution of wealth (which goes in a variety of directions) to be ridiculous, and decided to go after your post because at least you had the courtesy to say something interesting to back it up.

the purpose of an army is to fight wars. It has other effects as a result, but that's its purpose.

Taxes pay for government. Some people decided to extend the functions of government, so taxes followed that too. But that doesn't change the basic function of taxes. We can argue about whether govt should be in the redistribution business, and that would be a worthwhile discussion, but you're getting hung up on unnecessary overconceptualization. The purpose of taxes is to pay for the government to operate.

well, this isn't getting us anywhere.

call it a differend, then.

C'mon loquitur,

you post like someone in deep denial, or under the spell of Ayn Rand. US income and inheritance taxes are a direct response to the excesses of a few, intended as reform to benefit the many.

I've asked repeatedly, if 70 percent of total US wealth in the hands of just ten percent of us is not a problem, what greater percentage would be a problem? What mechanism, aside from government, is in a position, and authorized by the majority to lessen the extreme concentration of wealth?

We never even get to the second question, do we? Extreme concentration of wealth is "never a problem". Unchecked, it inevitably provokes violence, after it breaks the self esteem, and then the hope of the vast majority. But that's a problem for another day, another generation, like....the $9.3 trillion federal treasury debt....correct?
Who was correct, loquitur? Ayn Rand. born in Russia, and in adulthood, believing that capitalism is the "only protector of rights", and that the government was "distorting capitalism", or was Jefferson, believing the only authority and protector of rights to be "the people"?

"The people" are not seperate of a government "by and for them", and an economic "system" should be as the people deem it to be, not Ayn Rand's
"with a separation of state and economics".

When an accused is charged with a crime, the court conducts a hearing to determine if there is justification to hold in custody or to grant bail to the defendant. The judge asks for the opinion of a representative of "the people", from the DA's office present in the courtroom.

The economic system and the distribution of money and wealth are as unfettered or regulated as "the people", through their vote and input given to their representatives in the legislature, determine that they should be.

It is an orderly, slow, and deliberative process, and it's a hell of a lot better than violent disruption to achieve similar ends, isn't it?

If you don't admit that there is a problem, or if you do, but don't have a plan that is fairer and more democratic than what I've described to deal with it, it's either government attempt redistribution of wealth via progressive taxation and inheritance tax on the top tier....or ???????????

Inequal distribution of wealth has been a fact of life since men got together to form groups (networks). It has nothing to do with individual competence or lackthereof. It is a law of economics which naturally emerges as an organizational feature of a group (network).

Perhaps I am confused but the suggestion that a small percentage control nearly all of the wealth and this is a problem, seems to suggest that there is a limited amount of wealth (i.e. no further wealth can be generated).

Can I get some clarity on this please?

This is a recent study, and it is consistent with data covering all US age groups. I predict that the response will be that "they are young", and the fact will be ignored or downplayed,that the gains in income and wealth accumulation are confined to the top 20 percent, as every other set of data also indicates.

Why does it matter if total wealth is increasing? It is, and it mostly goes to where it is already concentrated, and none of the increase reaches the bottom 20 percent, at all.

There is a heavy emphasis on declining numbers of savings accounts. Where would the money come from for the masses to deposit in the bank. The money is not reaching them and the costs of basics...housing, food, transportation have risen dramatically since 2001.

I suggest people go to the original link in hosts post and read it for themselves.

He cherry picked the hell out of it since the article was about how people are making more money but not properly saving and expecting the federal government to do it for them, even though, due to the CURRENT social programs each of them will need to pay 16k a year into said programs by the year 2025.

Yes the article if anything is anti-socialist. I was going to break it down and started to but frankly its a waste of time. The gist is that people need to manage their money better, not get hand outs.

One of the more interesting points is that today you spend over 8k just to pay for social programs a year, and by 2025 you will be paying 16+k a year due to less workers in the work force and more retired people. Its estimated that a worker today will pay 220k for social programs in their working time. Just think if they invested that properly instead.

Another one that made me chuckle was like I said in a thread in general it does NOT take 2 incomes these days, and the 'need' for it is a farce.

I don't know if its misinterpretation, misrepresentation, or not reading the whole thing himself, but this is another one, off the mark and in this case 180 degrees off the mark.

So here is what I am getting from this, and please correct me if I am off on this:

Of the total wealth that has been generated, the majority of it is being held by a small percentage but over all the amount of wealth is up so that those who are holding less of the total are individually holding more overall.

Add to this the fact that people, throughout the spectrum of wealth, are not managing their money wisely and therefore have less savings than they should.

To me, while the percentages might be a bit off from what *I* might like to see but ultimately I am not going to advocate for a system that strives to impose equality in economic matters. That just seems counter-productive.

The struggle here is always between equality and freedom in these discussions and to my mind, the answer is somewhere along the spectrum between the two rather than either extreme.

I don't think that the american system necessarily strives for equality. It seems to me like a matter of good policy to keep the worse off in your country just happy enough so that they don't start causing a lot of problems as a result of their dissatisfaction. This often involves "wealth redistribution", but not really in any kind of significant way (at least not in america).

Filth... my read is that the US favours freedom over equality.

Wealth redistribution occurs in the US more along the lines of charity than through taxation, at least in the minds of most.

Countries like Canada have a more pronounced social "safety net", universal health care, etc. which strive to bring about an equality of social services.

One can discuss the merits of this pro or con, but ultimately my point here is that it is closer (economically speaking) to the "equality" end of the spectrum than the US is currently.

"God", "Guns", and "race baiting", ain't Huckabee's style, and the "old guard" are concerned that their "evangelical faithful" are receptive to Huckabee's message.
"Horrors" if wealth inequity and the decline of the middle class earnings growth is actually discussed.

An amazingly revealing article touching on the scam that is the republican party manipulation of the mostly southern evangelical vote. Selfless christians, persuaded to vote against their own economic interests, election after election:

The last thing Grover Norquist wants is a mass of disenchanted middle class voters putting economic issues ahead of religious ones.....