Income Inequality

[Ibonibo]

@Danoff I go over globally instead of quoting everything apart, as everything is pretty much connected:

Firstly, hiring or profiting from tax deduction is totally okay. Though laws and tax declaration should (principle of law) be understandable to a normal person. This is not the case anymore, so a lot of people need to rely on professional help.

But there is a difference between deduction and "creating a company in a foreign country, transferring your money there over different companies, to get a tax deduction...and thus leaving a gap in the househoild of the country it should belong to) And it's not because those people don't get caught that what they doing is legal. And if they get caught (like Uli Hoenes from the biggest Soccer Club in Germany, having tax frauded 29 millions) they get a slap on the hand, maybe 6 months (like in the case of Uli) in open incarceration.
If the little butcher frauds taxes in the 100 000 range, it's close prison.


Now on hypercapitalism

new form of capitalistic organization marked by the speed and intensity of global flows that include exchange of both material and immaterial goods, people, and information. Hypercapitalism, sometimes referred to as corporate capitalism, is blamed for causing misbalance and fragmentation of social life by allowing commercial or business interests to penetrate every aspect of human experience. this new type of capitalist system has moved toward an extreme laissez-faire capitalism that is marked by greed, selfishness, destruction, wars, and exploitation. Since the 1980s, a push for deregulation has allowed for a free flow of capital with little or no regulation and opportunity for intervention from governments.

Or more simply

Extreme capitalism at the expense of tradition values

As said I am all for capitalism. The guy who works his ass off, takes risks should earn more. I am not for a equal salary no matter your function in society.

But to retake the exemple of VW, I could be fine with those people gaining millions if everything is dandy. But now it's not, and insisting on a bonus (which is not the salary) while the company is in deep dodo. I cant under any circumstance defend that. An independant (shop, company owner) invest in his company with his private fortune if the buisness is in bad shape. They even sometimes dont pay themselves salaries in those cases. The gap between one mentality and the other is huge!


Your farmer in Kansas probably doesn't burn million of tons of weat just to keep the price high, while even in the US, some people are starving.
And the CFD trades on raw food materials has been stopped in most cases after 2013 because we saw the desasterous results in Africa.

Africa, granted, is a whole other problem. But we keep them on their knees, so they could never rise (that being an overly complex theme, and probably needing a whole thread on itself, but the corrupt goverment are often pawns placed by "us", industries being undermined by "ours", our subventions cutting growth in Africa,... (a potato planted and cultivated in Africa is more expenisive then the subvention food we import to them...if we deny them agriculture, how could they ever reach industrialisation)

TTIP, a lot in US are against it too, and what was released today is shocking. It has no political stand. None. Just companies interests. And to 99% US companies interest.


On gender inequality, a quick google will give you plenty of data, proof and analysis and while it has improved over the last 10 years it is still there...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap

And how to stop the cooperatisation of the politics?

My personal opinion : Direct democracy (with politics just playing the role of the execution of the will of majority while protecting the minorities)


And I would put also a stop to subventions.Subventions are break to the free market. Their base idea is good, but in the now, the subvention often get exploited by those not needing them, and those needing them not getting them

As to lighten the mood a bit:

Some good points made


A fine exemple of cooperate influance takeovers:

 

[Johnnypenso]

On gender inequality, a quick google will give you plenty of data, proof and analysis and while it has improved over the last 10 years it is still there...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap

I didn't ask for generalities, I asked for specifics. I know what the party line is, I wanted you to establish your claim:

we have income inequailty between genders for the same job, same qualification.

There are many factors that go into a generalized wage gap like choice of career, total experience, time available for work due to child rearing etc.

By the way, what would you do to address the income inequality between young and single men and women?

 

[Danoff]

@Danoff I go over globally instead of quoting everything apart, as everything is pretty much connected:

Firstly, hiring or profiting from tax deduction is totally okay. Though laws and tax declaration should (principle of law) be understandable to a normal person. This is not the case anymore, so a lot of people need to rely on professional help.

So the problem is government?

@Danoff
But there is a difference between deduction and "creating a company in a foreign country, transferring your money there over different companies, to get a tax deduction...and thus leaving a gap in the househoild of the country it should belong to) And it's not because those people don't get caught that what they doing is legal. And if they get caught (like Uli Hoenes from the biggest Soccer Club in Germany, having tax frauded 29 millions) they get a slap on the hand, maybe 6 months (like in the case of Uli) in open incaceration.
If the little butcher frauds taxes in the 100 000 range, it's close prison.

Yea, tax fraud is bad. Are you angry that they're getting away with it sometimes? That'd be government again.

@Danoff
But to retake the exemple of VW, I could be fine with those people gaining millions if everything is dandy. But now it's not, and insisting on a bonus (which is not the salary) while the company is in deep dodo. I cant under any circumstance defend that. An independant (shop, company owner) invest in his company with his private fortune if the buisness is in bad shape. They dont pay themselves salaries in those cases. The gap between one mentality and the other is huge!

If they're contractually entitled to bonuses, they should complain about not getting them. You'd be angry too if your company refused to pay you something you were owed. If they're not contractually entitled to those bonuses, they're just greedy jerks. Greedy jerks do exist.

@Danoff
Your farmer in Kansas probably doesn't burn million of tons of weat just to keep the price high, while even in the US, some people are starving.

I wonder if other commodities work like that... like say... diamonds. If it's not your wheat (and it isn't), it's not up to you what is done with it.

@Danoff
Africa, granted, is a whole other problem. But we keep them on their knees, so they could never rise (that being an overly complex theme, and probably needing a whole thread on itself, but the corrupt goverment are often pawns placed by "us", industries being undermined by "ours", our subventions cutting growth in Africa,... (a potato planted and cultivated in Africa is more expenisive then the subvention food we import to them...if we deny them agriculture, how could they ever reach industrialisation)

So we need to stop giving them government handouts? We can't police africa. We can't even really police "our" people in Africa. It's up to African governments to do that.

@Danoff
On gender inequality, a quick google will give you plenty of data, proof and analysis and while it has improved over the last 10 years it is still there...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap

It has its own thread, and I've got a decent theory on why it might exist.

@Danoff
And how to stop the cooperatisation of the politics?

My personal opinion : Direct democracy (with politics just playing the role of the execution of the will of majority while protecting the minorities)

Direct democracy has no protection for minorities. That's why we don't have it. I have a better idea, fewer laws (in otherwords, enforce the constitution).

 

[A2K78]

Apart from all those people who were property, of course, and the miserable standard of living for those who didn't enjoy prosperity. You're talking out of your hat. People aren't a paragraph in a textbook.

If this is the way you see the 19th century then you should really stop reading Howard Zinn and pay attension to individuals such as Federic Bastiat, Tom Woods, Murray Rothbard, Walter E. Williams, Thomas DiLorenz right down to the economist Peter Schiff as they would give you the real scoop on that era.

 

[squadops]

If it's not your wheat (and it isn't), it's not up to you what is done with it.

We'd like to think that but we'd be wrong in doing so. Of course we do need the government to stop us from burning our own crops

This is worth a read for anyone supporting the government in the way Ibonibo is suggesting. It's a 180.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/317/111/case.html

Direct democracy has no protection for minorities. That's why we don't have it. I have a better idea, fewer laws (in otherwords, enforce the constitution).

And very much this 👍

 

[A2K78]

Can you remind me how many women served in the US Congress during the 19th century?

Asking me how many women served in congress is like asking how many blacks, let alone gays served congress as who gets to serve in congress is determined by voters. And for the record women have served in congress long before 19th amendment...see the woman voted against America's involvement in WW1&WWII

I seem to remember that one-half of the country couldn't vote during the 19th century. The 19th Amendment to the Constitution wasn't passed until 1920.

The last I remember many states such Wyoming were already gaving women the right to vote(in the 19th century) long before the 19th Amendment.

Do you consider the 19th Amendment progress or was it a step backwards?

It was neither and why? First off like many other useless laws(and SCOTUS rulings) on the books an Amendment was never need to allow a group of individual as it was already taking place on the state level. Secondly when government pass laws often in the favor of particular group nobody wins other than the fact it represent an expansion of government force in some manner.


@Ibonibo


On Capitalism:

Saying that Capitalism(free market) is about a guy working his ass off and taking risk is the wrong characterization of what free market capitalism really is about. Free market capitalism is more about private property and what one choose to do with it in terms of interaction with other people without the need of any form of intervention by the state.

Your farmer in Kansas probably doesn't burn million of tons of weat just to keep the price high, while even in the US, some people are starving.
And the CFD trades on raw food materials has been stopped in most cases after 2013 because we saw the desasterous results in Africa.

Africa, granted, is a whole other problem. But we keep them on their knees, so they could never rise (that being an overly complex theme, and probably needing a whole thread on itself, but the corrupt goverment are often pawns placed by "us", industries being undermined by "ours", our subventions cutting growth in Africa,... (a potato planted and cultivated in Africa is more expenisive then the subvention food we import to them...if we deny them agriculture, how could they ever reach industrialisation)

TTIP, a lot in US are against it too, and what was released today is shocking. It has no political stand. None. Just companies interests. And to 99% US companies interest.

The problems you describe have nothing do with free market capitalism running amok but rather the ill-effect of state intervention in the process. As for the issue of trade the problem with many of these free trade deals is the fact that they aren't free. Secondly these deals only exist to serve certain protected parties may they be farmers or corporations.

I would suggest you watch these videos:

 

[x3ra]

TTIP - http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-05-08/obama-ttip-necessary-so-protect-megabanks-prosecution

Under TTIP, a megabank fined this way might in turn sue the nation’s taxpayers to restore the megabank’s ensuing loss of profits. If the cheated investors win, taxpayers might thus end up bearing the cheated investors' losses. Under TTIP, the fined company would be arguing that the law under which it had been fined is in violation of TTIP and thus constitutes a violation of that treaty, so that the violating government is obliged to be paying the fine — the law against fraud would itself be violating the fined company’s rights. If the three-arbitrator TTIP panel rules in the megabank’s favor, the government would need to pay the fine it had assessed against the bank, and no appeals court exists for any of these arbitration-panels’ rulings — these rulings are final. Obama and other proponents of that system, which is called ISDS for Investor State Dispute Settlement, say that it’s a more efficient way of handling such disputes. In international commercial affairs, it not only eliminates appeals courts, it gradually eliminates democracy, by fining the government into ultimate submission to these three-person panels of international-corporate-accountable arbitrators.

TTIP - Get out of jail free card.

 

[Danoff]

Can someone please explain to me how raising taxes fights income inequality? Every time some goes off complaining about rich people making too much money, their solution is to raise taxes. But raising taxes does nothing to address the "problem" of income inequality.

Your income is what it is pre-tax. If you made $1M per year, that's your income regardless of whether there's a 100% income tax on it. Raising taxes on $1M income from 30% to 100% doesn't change the income number. It is what it is.

Likewise, social programs do not increase the income of the poor. If someone makes $20k/year, getting food stamps doesn't change that. Their income is still $20k. So if they got free housing, free clothing, free food, free education, free transportation, and a free back massage from the government, it wouldn't change the fact that their income is $20k/year.

Raising taxes does absolutely nothing to address income inequality as best I can tell, and yet it is always the number one proposed solution. Can someone explain what I'm missing?

 

[Rallywagon]

Yeah. Other than redistribution via welfare, I don't think it's the means to go about changing income inequality. What I can see it doing though is playing to fix/ update public infrastructure, fund more science and education grants, improve functionality of the VA, more money into public education system and improved public transport. But, I also think the are better ways to go about it than drastically raising taxes on a small group of people.

 

[Danoff]

Yeah. Other than redistribution via welfare, I don't think it's the means to go about changing income inequality. What I can see it doing though is playing to fix/ update public infrastructure, fund more science and education grants, improve functionality of the VA, more money into public education system and improved public transport. But, I also think the are better ways to go about it than drastically raising taxes on a small group of people.

So we have people pointing at a "problem", that being income inequality. And the proposed solution will not affect the "problem". So no matter how much of the solution we sign up for, we never make a dent in the problem. So we can always ask for more solution because the problem will never go away.

This sounds like pure insanity to me.

 

[BobK]

Likewise, social programs do not increase the income of the poor. If someone makes $20k/year, getting food stamps doesn't change that. Their income is still $20k. So if they got free housing, free clothing, free food, free education, free transportation, and a free back massage from the government, it wouldn't change the fact that their income is $20k/year.

If I am earning $20K a year and someone gives me an extras $2400 a year with the proviso I must spend it on food, doesn't that make my total income $22400 in the eyes of the IRS? Even though my earned income is still only $20K.

 

[Rallywagon]

If the stance is that income inequality is a problem and that it will never go away, then sure. But that's a self defeating means. Really, it's just the natural consequence of capitalism. Not everyone gets to be a CEO, a CFO, a manager. In order for capitalism (and really, society for that matter) to work, you need a working class. I think the real problem is when people feel the inequality has become to much. I think that is where we are getting now.

 

[ryzno]

So we have people pointing at a "problem", that being income inequality. And the proposed solution will not affect the "problem". So no matter how much of the solution we sign up for, we never make a dent in the problem. So we can always ask for more solution because the problem will never go away.

This sounds like pure insanity to me.

It's just an excuse to tax people more, waste said extra tax revenue on ridiculously high government contracts/programs and give themselves an undeserved raise.

 

[Danoff]

If I am earning $20K a year and someone gives me an extras $2400 a year with the proviso I must spend it on food, doesn't that make my total income $22400 in the eyes of the IRS? Even though my earned income is still only $20K.

Totally depends. Welfare and food stamps are not taxable income.

If the stance is that income inequality is a problem and that it will never go away, then sure. But that's a self defeating means. Really, it's just the natural consequence of capitalism. Not everyone gets to be a CEO, a CFO, a manager. In order for capitalism (and really, society for that matter) to work, you need a working class. I think the real problem is when people feel the inequality has become to much. I think that is where we are getting now.

You don't need a working class for capitalism to work.

 

[Keef]

I haven't read much of the discussion here but I agree with the very first paragraph of the entire topic - income inequality is a symptom of numerous and serious problems in government and society, problems which were caused both intentionally and accidentally by real people, and which tend to cause harm to the groups of people who have the least amount of power to address the problems.

 

[Pupik]

This is going to sound totally naive, but income inequality of the highest 5% (or whatever single-digit number) isn't typically a problem for the rest.

It's only a problem when the wealthiest often use that to influence political decision-making in what becomes massively disproportionate amounts.

It becomes obvious that the wealthiest have the most to donate to keep the status quo chugging along or steer legislation in a way that benefits them. Who cares about the rabble if they don't give anything in return? Feed them some lies, point fingers, and half of them will believe any misguided viewpoint.

It's distasteful how much a company will pay some fools to run their business, disposing of talent and morale, running them too lean to the point of detonation, and then blaming "market demand" when that economic engine has to be rebuilt, but hey...not all things are to my taste. If that's what they want to pay folks for a job well done, then good for them.

 

[Rallywagon]

You don't need a working class for capitalism to work.

You kinda do though. Previously too current, without workers no goods get produced, no goods, no products, no economy. No economy, no capitalism. As we move into the future and all the mundane work; manufacturing, janitorial, low level programming, legal representation, clerical and lots and lots of other jobs move from human too automation and AI (working in IT I can promise you this is right around the corner, it's happening right now in IT), we are going to see large swaths of the population without work. Again, the just is not enough, white collar, executive jobs out there to cover this change in the work force. Machines will pump out the goods, and for a time capitalism with grind along being supported by the white collar, but since the majority of those that keep capitalism going are blue collar, it's not going to last. Inequality will eventually grow to great. Capitalism as we have it today has done a good job getting us where we are. Sooner than later, however, we are going to need to change that paradigm. Technology will force it too.

 

[Vegard]

Can someone please explain to me how raising taxes fights income inequality?

It doesn't.

So we have people pointing at a "problem", that being income inequality. And the proposed solution will not affect the "problem". So no matter how much of the solution we sign up for, we never make a dent in the problem. So we can always ask for more solution because the problem will never go away.

This sounds like pure insanity to me.

Do you have an example of someone sane proposing this? I don't think I've ever seen anyone sane claim what you are suggesting.

Raising taxes is effective in fighting wealth inequality though. Extreme wealth inequality is dangerous, not least for the wealthy.
Remember this:

 

[DK]

Louis XVI's problem (and that of his mates) was that they didn't have private armies with 21st century weapons.

 

[Vegard]

Louis XVI's problem (and that of his mates) was that they didn't have private armies with 21st century weapons.

Are you suggesting that sending a private army with 21st century weapons after the people, who in this instance is armed to the teeth, isn't dangerous?

 

[Danoff]

I haven't read much of the discussion here but I agree with the very first paragraph of the entire topic - income inequality is a symptom of numerous and serious problems in government and society, problems which were caused both intentionally and accidentally by real people, and which tend to cause harm to the groups of people who have the least amount of power to address the problems.

Can you explain any of that? Like why you think it's a symptom of serious problems, and why you think it causes harm?

You kinda do though. Previously too current, without workers no goods get produced, no goods, no products, no economy. No economy, no capitalism. As we move into the future and all the mundane work; manufacturing, janitorial, low level programming, legal representation, clerical and lots and lots of other jobs move from human too automation and AI (working in IT I can promise you this is right around the corner, it's happening right now in IT), we are going to see large swaths of the population without work. Again, the just is not enough, white collar, executive jobs out there to cover this change in the work force. Machines will pump out the goods, and for a time capitalism with grind along being supported by the white collar, but since the majority of those that keep capitalism going are blue collar, it's not going to last. Inequality will eventually grow to great. Capitalism as we have it today has done a good job getting us where we are. Sooner than later, however, we are going to need to change that paradigm. Technology will force it too.

You started out saying that you do, and then kinda explained why you don't. A "working class" which usually means lower class rather than "working" because white collar people work as well, is not needed. In fact, classes aren't even a thing in capitalism. But if you're talking about physical labor, yea that's not need either, and the history of the economies of the world are a good lesson in why. Right now we have more automation of physical labor than any time in history, and yet unemployment is very low, and standard of living is very high.

It doesn't.
Do you have an example of someone sane proposing this? I don't think I've ever seen anyone sane claim what you are suggesting.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/warren-buffett-eitc-150619498.html
https://money.cnn.com/2015/05/21/news/economy/bernie-sanders-income-inequality-2016/index.html

It doesn't.
Raising taxes is effective in fighting wealth inequality though. Extreme wealth inequality is dangerous, not least for the wealthy.
Remember this:

You're equating two very different situations.

 

[Vegard]

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/warren-buffett-eitc-150619498.html
https://money.cnn.com/2015/05/21/news/economy/bernie-sanders-income-inequality-2016/index.html

Your premise was that a flat raise of the tax rate wouldn't address the income inequality, or did I misunderstand?
Neither Buffet nor Sanders is suggesting that it would.

You're equating two very different situations.

No, I'm not equating them, I'm just drawing parallels.

____________________________________________________

When I said that raising taxes was effective in fighting wealth inequality I forgot to mention that I'm so used to income tax rates being progressive that I forgot to specify just that.

 

[Danoff]

Your premise was that a flat raise of the tax rate wouldn't address the income inequality, or did I misunderstand?
Neither Buffet nor Sanders is suggesting that it would.

They're both proposing using higher taxes to provide assitance that will not affect the incomes of anyone involved. They cite income inequality as the reason. In otherwords:

"We have income inequality. That's bad. Here's a plan for dealing with that that doesn't address income inequality". That conversation can happen forever.

No, I'm not equating them, I'm just drawing parallels.

...and posting them too... for no apparent reason. I mean, I could point out that it's unequal that I have freedom and a convicted murderer is in jail and that that inequality is good. But it doesn't have any bearing on the conversation does it?

 

[Vegard]

"We have income inequality. That's bad. Here's a plan for dealing with that that doesn't address income inequality"

They're both proposing progressive reforms that will address income inequality.

...and posting them too... for no apparent reason.

Don't worry, I see your true colors now. I'll let you have your trench war, sorry, discussion without me interfering.

 

[Danoff]

They're both proposing progressive reforms that will address income inequality.

Which? How?

Don't worry, I see your true colors now. I'll let you have your trench war, sorry, discussion without me interfering.

Uh...

Ok here's how that went. You posted something that's not particularly relevant because the details in this case make an ENORMOUS difference philosophically and ethically. I pointed that out. You said that you were just spouting stuff that was superficially associated. And I pointed out how I could do the same and it wouldn't help further the discussion.

So what are my "true colors" here?

 

[Vegard]

Which? How?

Raised minimum wage, progressive income tax rates and the Earned Income Tax Credit.

You were mixing income and pretax income as if they were the same thing so I'm not 100% sure what you mean when you say income. If you mean pretax income, ignore the progressive tax rates. If you're talking about just plain income, forget the Earned Income Tax Credit as well.

Now, if you could point out the part where they state that a flat raise of the income tax will reduce income inequality that'd be great.

 

[Danoff]

Raised minimum wage, progressive income tax rates and the Earned Income Tax Credit.

You were mixing income and pretax income as if they were the same thing so I'm not 100% sure what you mean when you say income. If you mean pretax income, ignore the progressive tax rates. If you're talking about just plain income, forget the Earned Income Tax Credit as well.

Income is pretax income.

Raised minimum wage has absolutely zero to do with taxes. The government doesn't pay for increased minimum wage, employers do. Earned income tax credit does not affect income either, it's a tax break.

None of these do anything to address income inequality.

Now, if you could point out the part where they state that a flat raise of the income tax will reduce income inequality that'd be great.

You misunderstood me. I meant raising income taxes even to pay for things... like what you're talking about above.

 

[Vegard]

Income is pretax income.

Income is income. Pretax income is after deductions but before income tax.

Edit: pretax is for businesses only, my mistake. 'Lost in translation' and 'regional differences' played a trick on me there.

Raised minimum wage has absolutely zero to do with taxes.

I didn't say it did, I said it was part of a proposed progressive reform that would address income inequality.

 

[Danoff]

I didn't say it did, I said it was part of a proposed progressive reform that would address income inequality.

Oh. Well then... how does that respond to what you quoted?

 

[huskeR32]

Can someone please explain to me how raising taxes fights income inequality? Every time some goes off complaining about rich people making too much money, their solution is to raise taxes. But raising taxes does nothing to address the "problem" of income inequality.

I usually see people using wealth inequality rather than income inequality as the argument for raising taxes. Maybe some people just colloquially interchange the two terms?

Raising taxes does absolutely nothing to address income inequality as best I can tell, and yet it is always the number one proposed solution. Can someone explain what I'm missing?

Or, perhaps it's a backup solution when their actual number one proposed solution - raising the minimum wage, which would have a direct correlation - gets argued down by the same folks who then act perplexed as to why they've fallen back to less direct solutions?

Either way, when a good chunk of the electorate will never be convinced that any method of pulling people out of poverty is acceptable, I'm not sure why it matters what reasoning they give.