Income inequality (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

tazzygirl -> Income inequality (12/28/2011 12:12:59 PM)

This is something many people have bandied around.

Something the OWS is against.

I see many complain how liberals want the money from the rich, something for free, ect ect.

So, what is "income inequality" to you and how do we take care of that issue? or do we?



Fellow -> RE: Income inequality (12/28/2011 12:48:00 PM)

In practice, nobody gives away anything. The issue takes care of itself. French revolution solved some problems. Economic collapse will solve some. The consumption-driven economy under the situation where most can not afford to buy anything except basic necessities inevitably collapses followed by a renaissance.



tazzygirl -> RE: Income inequality (12/28/2011 12:58:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Fellow

In practice, nobody gives away anything. The issue takes care of itself. French revolution solved some problems. Economic collapse will solve some. The consumption-driven economy under the situation where most can not afford to buy anything except basic necessities inevitably collapses followed by a renaissance.


Yet you dont state what it means to you.



hlen5 -> RE: Income inequality (12/28/2011 1:26:35 PM)

Income Inequality is having the economic deck stacked against you through no fault of your own.

Education is said to be the engine of access to opportunity. Studies have shown that your zip code is your education destiny. Your education determines the likelihood of bettering your economic standing.

Poor education hobbles people and they and their children, and their children's children fall farther behind.

The wealthy then feel justified in believing in Social Darwinism. That's inequality to me.



DomKen -> RE: Income inequality (12/28/2011 1:27:22 PM)

FR

For me income inequality means the situation where a person cannot find a job that pays a living wage while the CEO's continually get bigger and bigger compensation packages, usually for running their companies into the ground.



Lucylastic -> RE: Income inequality (12/28/2011 1:38:57 PM)

what Ken said



hlen5 -> RE: Income inequality (12/28/2011 1:43:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

what Ken said


Ditto! That too!!



Lucylastic -> RE: Income inequality (12/28/2011 1:55:56 PM)

Heh Im sleepy ive been fighting an allergy I didnt know I had and the antihistamine is making me sleeeepy, so Im not up for typing my thoughts.
mebbe later if I can think past wanting to hurt someone




kdsub -> RE: Income inequality (12/28/2011 2:30:49 PM)

quote:

So, what is "income inequality" to you and how do we take care of that issue? or do we?


Income inequity to me means a situation or system where a reasonable opportunity to make a good, decent, or minimal income does not exist when a privileged few control that opportunity.

That situation does not exist in America so there is no issue to address.

I do agree that the world economy, and predatory business practices, are making it harder than 30 years ago to take advantage of opportunities. We should be looking for ways to make climbing the ladder to economic security easier. But opportunity still exists therefore there is no wide spread income equality in America…in my opinion.

Butch



tazzygirl -> RE: Income inequality (12/28/2011 2:41:22 PM)

quote:

reasonable opportunity to make a good, decent, or minimal income does not exist


You need to define each of these terms... and explain why good is different than decent, and why minimal is different from good or decent.



kdsub -> RE: Income inequality (12/28/2011 2:47:11 PM)

Good would be the 1 percent in your way of thinking... decent would cover the basics of life with some left over for entertainment of various kinds...minimal would just cover the very base necessities of life. The difference between them would be drive and education...with a bit of luck.

Butch



tazzygirl -> RE: Income inequality (12/28/2011 2:50:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Good would be the 1 percent in your way of thinking... decent would cover the basics of life with some left over for entertainment of various kinds...minimal would just cover the very base necessities of life. The difference between them would be drive and education...with a bit of luck.

Butch


I asked for your way of thinking.

quote:

That situation does not exist in America so there is no issue to address.


So its your opinion that no one in this country that works a full time job doesnt make enough to cover the base necessities of life?

Perhaps Im not understanding... can you explain the base necessities?



kdsub -> RE: Income inequality (12/28/2011 2:54:56 PM)

quote:

I asked for your way of thinking


No in the post i was addressing you asked for the difference ...I gave it to you in terms you could understand.

quote:

So its your opinion that no one in this country that works a full time job doesn’t make enough to cover the base necessities of life


No it is my opinion that there is opportunity for all if they take advantage of it.

Butch



Real0ne -> RE: Income inequality (12/28/2011 2:58:28 PM)

yep ditto ken here too.

this is getting freaky, thats twice in the same month LOL


Money is the least understood thing I have ever seen right next to the development of what we want to call law.  cough...

There is no reason what so ever why people of the world should pay someone to print money and then allow them to loan it into existence and then pay taxes on top of that for every transaction we make there after ballooning the costs into oblivion.

Now the gubafia is 110 TRILLION IN THE BLACK in all their corporate sub agencies.    http://cafr1.com/

They hide it from us right in front of our faces and they have the ability to simply raise taxes and FORCE you to pay.

Then you have the ludicrous wealthy.   Rothschild with known over 8 billion in gold before the 1900, thats no typo 1900.  That is only what they knew about most ill gotten.

Finally as much as this goes against my view on personal rights there is the reality that the bucket only holds so much that must be looked at.

If changes were made not to fear the people who should be giving it up wont, it will as always fall on the middle class.  The people have only have enough time to support themselves and pay the bills to get that house paid for.

Once a person has enough to live out the rest of their life in comfort I have no problem with there being a cap of some sort that starts after several million, 3 to 5 maybe.

All trusts should be busted, corporation should have mandatory charter re-evaluation.  They rob us by taxation simply say anyone with more than 5mil pays a holding tax of 10 mil per year or 50% which ever is more. LOL

do to the boys on top what the boys on top have done to us.





tazzygirl -> RE: Income inequality (12/28/2011 3:01:22 PM)

quote:

No it is my opinion that there is opportunity for all if they take advantage of it.


Hold on to that opinion. [;)]



kdsub -> RE: Income inequality (12/28/2011 3:03:36 PM)

I do...did and have followed it.

Butch



DarkSteven -> RE: Income inequality (12/28/2011 3:06:48 PM)

Income inequality has two meanings to me.

1. The ratio of income of the top earners to the bottom earners, both within a given company, and in the economy in general.
2. The ratio of income to an individual's actual value, something Ken alluded to when he mentioned C level execs damaging their own companies and getting rewarded.

I consider it to be a huge threat.  This is because the spending of the middle class drives the consumer economy (conservatives will say that it's the money available for companies through stock investment that matters.  It's debatable whether that's true as a general principle, and in today's economy, lack of consumer demand is killing things while money is available for investment).  If the top dogs are able to get their income without the middle class getting theirs, there will be little incentive to fix the economy.



Real0ne -> RE: Income inequality (12/28/2011 3:10:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

No it is my opinion that there is opportunity for all if they take advantage of it.


Hold on to that opinion. [;)]


mikey D's!

and slavery deficit.



Real0ne -> RE: Income inequality (12/28/2011 3:13:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

Income inequality has two meanings to me.

1. The ratio of income of the top earners to the bottom earners, both within a given company, and in the economy in general.
2. The ratio of income to an individual's actual value, something Ken alluded to when he mentioned C level execs damaging their own companies and getting rewarded.

I consider it to be a huge threat.  This is because the spending of the middle class drives the consumer economy (conservatives will say that it's the money available for companies through stock investment that matters.  It's debatable whether that's true as a general principle, and in today's economy, lack of consumer demand is killing things while money is available for investment).  If the top dogs are able to get their income without the middle class getting theirs, there will be little incentive to fix the economy.



it would be nice to have a world that was not so hell bent on greed.  Having a cap on wealth is not different than the rules of no mare than 640 acres of land per person when the settlers came here to prevent monarchies, though we have 51 sovereigns anyway.



kdsub -> RE: Income inequality (12/28/2011 3:22:56 PM)

I know what I am going to say will not set well with many…and it is just an opinion of mine.

I believe the concentration of wealth is just a temporary phenomena caused by the expansion of the world economy into so called third world countries. These third world workforces will soon demand more for their labor and will organize unions if necessary to assure themselves a decent wage for their labor.

As business costs rise in these third world countries the better educated labor force in stressed industrial countries will become more attractive again and the wealth will spread.

When there is no easily manipulated low wage work forces to take advantage of... world labor incomes will rise in comparison to their employers.

I must also disagree with you on the CEO’s getting exorbitant compensation packages and running their companies into the ground… It just does not happen and they keep their jobs.

Butch



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875