|
Post by aufan on Apr 2, 2023 16:31:41 GMT
I think we both agree on the following: We want a thriving middle class, with as few people on Medicaid, SNAP and other government assisted programs, while driving down the national deficit and maybe even national debt.
This happens when the bottom of the country has access to income and wealth. The more income and wealth that the bottom 50%, 90%, etc. have, the more thriving the middle class will be. When wealth inequality increases, it drives our country and society away from that goal.
Mathematically, if left unfettered, wealth inequality will be the downfall of our society. What happens when 1% own 90% of the wealth? This is particularly scary when you combine the Citizen's United decision with improvements in automation that can make people more and more obsolete as laborers. This has dystopia written all over it.
One thing to note, is that the rich still get richer, create value, have obscene wealth, etc. even if wealth inequality does not grow.
The straw-man you keep attacking is that I just want to tax the rich and let government waste it (I won't argue with you on government waste). I want policy that puts wealth back into the hands of the middle class.
My bottom line, wealth inequality increasing is not a positive trend for anyone but the very rich. It will lead to the continued depredation of society, including the symptoms that you complain about, people on welfare.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Apr 3, 2023 23:08:07 GMT
I think we both agree on the following: We want a thriving middle class, with as few people on Medicaid, SNAP and other government assisted programs, while driving down the national deficit and maybe even national debt. I do agree with that. The question is: what policies will best lead to this outcome? It’s not easy. Too many times, in the past, policies supposedly intended to do this, end up making the situation worse. Printing $6 Trillion from thin air to give out cash payments to the less fortunate, forced to quarantine themselves against a disease that, for most of them, was no worse than a cold, turned out to be a tremendous boon to the super-rich. Maybe, if we allowed rich people to bypass the government and claim tax credits for money used to train or educate the poor? Or grant stock shares to their employees? Or to aid entrepeneur? Maybe we should more severely limit immigration? Maybe reduce incentives to have more children? Especially for people who already can’t provide for themselves? Maybe we incentivize instead capital spending for job creation ? Maybe we require Corporation Boards have at least equal representation from the non-salary labor force? Maybe for every share of stock buybacks, companies have to give a half share to their employees, or donate to local charities? Welfare, by itself, is not bankrupting the country. I have no issue with the concept of helping people in transition during times of crisis, or those completely incapable of helping themselves. I do have an issue with paying people who COULD be working, and are not even trying. It’s dehumanizing to them, whether or not they care about that. I’d rather subsidize, when needed, people who are working but still need help. Although, even this has problems. It can create a strong incentive for people to ‘not earn too much’, less they lose their assistance. Our system structure is complicated. I do think everyone would benefit, in the long run, if we could just get out budget under control and stop debasing our currency.
|
|
|
Post by tigercpa on Apr 4, 2023 12:46:21 GMT
I think we both agree on the following: We want a thriving middle class, with as few people on Medicaid, SNAP and other government assisted programs, while driving down the national deficit and maybe even national debt. I do agree with that. The question is: what policies will best lead to this outcome? It’s not easy. Too many times, in the past, policies supposedly intended to do this, end up making the situation worse. Printing $6 Trillion from thin air to give out cash payments to the less fortunate, forced to quarantine themselves against a disease that, for most of them, was no worse than a cold, turned out to be a tremendous boon to the super-rich. Maybe, if we allowed rich people to bypass the government and claim tax credits for money used to train or educate the poor? Or grant stock shares to their employees? Or to aid entrepeneur? Maybe we should more severely limit immigration? Maybe reduce incentives to have more children? Especially for people who already can’t provide for themselves? Maybe we incentivize instead capital spending for job creation ? Maybe we require Corporation Boards have at least equal representation from the non-salary labor force? Maybe for every share of stock buybacks, companies have to give a half share to their employees, or donate to local charities? Welfare, by itself, is not bankrupting the country. I have no issue with the concept of helping people in transition during times of crisis, or those completely incapable of helping themselves. I do have an issue with paying people who COULD be working, and are not even trying. It’s dehumanizing to them, whether or not they care about that. I’d rather subsidize, when needed, people who are working but still need help. Although, even this has problems. It can create a strong incentive for people to ‘not earn too much’, less they lose their assistance. Our system structure is complicated. I do think everyone would benefit, in the long run, if we could just get out budget under control and stop debasing our currency. I agree on these as well. I have no issue at all providing a temporary safety net to anyone in legitimate need. The problem is that we end up subsidizing permanent lifestyles. Maybe these programs are for 6 months only, then you must wait 1 year to rea--pply for another 6 months. I don't know what might be best. IF the USD is not going to be the world's reserve currency much longer, we will definitely feel that pain.
|
|
|
Post by aufan on Apr 5, 2023 1:38:23 GMT
|
|
|
Post by tigercpa on Apr 5, 2023 14:31:59 GMT
The correlation and subsequent divergence were intentional as a result of significant policy. in the late 70s Congress began to dismantle many of the polciy positions that kept wages moving with productivity - a tolerance for excess unemployment, deregulation of the airline and trucking industries, a general hatred towards unions... These same policies also slowed overall economic growth, as well as increased the inequality. More of the productivity gains ended up in the highly compensated corporate employee checks and the rest went to shareholders. Significant policy changes will be needed to reverse this trend. Do we have the stomach for it?
|
|
|
Post by aufan on Apr 6, 2023 0:43:31 GMT
I’m confused on your point.
How did these policies increase inequality?
I understand how they slow growth. But I also understand that growth is code for stock market gains. Slower growth in exchange for increased wages is not always a bad thing for those earning wages.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Apr 6, 2023 8:30:08 GMT
The all-powerful Chinese government BLOCKS that weforum website. Must be some subversive "free thinking" going on there. From what I recall when I briefly saw it on my phone, going through a VPN, the separation seemed to start nearer to 1970, not 'late 70's". That also corresponds to the time that Nixon officially cut the ties between our currency and gold. That's when the devaluing of our currency really began in earnest. There was a time when unions were quite useful at improving the wages and working conditions for the masses. I don't actually recall any great change in legislative support that caused the demise of unions... except maybe, for more and more states changing laws that REQUIRED union membership. Never in a million years would I live in a state that required such a thing. Unions fell out of favor because a) They were corrupt, and b) they eliminated meritocracy in the workforce. In a union, EVERYONE gets the same raise... whether they work hard, or not. Firing decisions are made based on seniority, not talent. My Dad was laid off from Shell by this method the year I was born. He always HATED unions and never worked in one again. Maybe, a re-constituted kind of union could help? One of the BEST things we could do to improve our financial situation would be to BAN unions of government employees. Even the sainted liberal FDR, recognized what a colossal conflict of interest this would be. Personally, I think the combination of out of control immigration and automation are more to blame than the demise of unions. Then again, it could just be a problem with the way the data is calculated. economicsfromthetopdown.com/2020/01/17/debunking-the-productivity-pay-gap/
|
|
|
Post by aufan on Apr 6, 2023 15:24:00 GMT
Amazon, Starbucks, etc. seem to be afraid of unions. There was not one law or even a group of laws or decisions you can pinpoint, and maybe unions had become too much of d drag. But I'd argue the pendulum has swung in the opposite direction, and now we need stronger worker's rights which unions can provide. Support and membership seem to be on the upswing.
Also that link is interesting, but it basically comes to the same conclusion about inequality.
|
|
|
Post by aufan on Apr 6, 2023 17:30:52 GMT
I’m reading that a Supreme Court justice has not disclosed recipes of benefits (from a billionaire), which he is legally required to do.
This goes back to my biggest fundamental point: billionaires exist. Money is legally defined as speech. Corporations are legally defined as people.
The above three points should shake fear into anyone with half a brain who wants democracy to work.
For those with less than half a brain: rich people are entitled to more speech, more influence, more power. We should be grateful when they choose to ‘trickle down’ on us. They are rich because they are smart, so I’m glad they make decisions for us.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Apr 7, 2023 0:34:46 GMT
Amazon, Starbucks, etc. seem to be afraid of unions. There was not one law or even a group of laws or decisions you can pinpoint, and maybe unions had become too much of d drag. But I'd argue the pendulum has swung in the opposite direction, and now we need stronger worker's rights which unions can provide. Support and membership seem to be on the upswing. Also that link is interesting, but it basically comes to the same conclusion about inequality. The primary conclusion I took was, labor is making a lower % of income. I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing. It just means more people are salary workers rather than hourly workers.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Apr 7, 2023 0:39:12 GMT
I’m reading that a Supreme Court justice has not disclosed recipes of benefits (from a billionaire), which he is legally required to do. This goes back to my biggest fundamental point: billionaires exist. Money is legally defined as speech. Corporations are legally defined as people. The above three points should shake fear into anyone with half a brain who wants democracy to work. For those with less than half a brain: rich people are entitled to more speech, more influence, more power. We should be grateful when they choose to ‘trickle down’ on us. They are rich because they are smart, so I’m glad they make decisions for us. In a free society, people should be able to give money to candidates. Yes… that means if they give a LOT, they’ll have influence over politicians. But, in the end, it’s VOTES that matter.. and even the rich only get 1. I don’t think there should be ANY limit. But, every cent should be publicly known, in real time. And yes… I believe corporations must have the right to participate, through donations to politicians that they believe will support favorable policies. Labor unions can donate too. So why not business?
|
|
|
Post by EvilVodka on Apr 7, 2023 12:32:22 GMT
I’m reading that a Supreme Court justice has not disclosed recipes of benefits (from a billionaire), which he is legally required to do. This goes back to my biggest fundamental point: billionaires exist. Money is legally defined as speech. Corporations are legally defined as people. The above three points should shake fear into anyone with half a brain who wants democracy to work. For those with less than half a brain: rich people are entitled to more speech, more influence, more power. We should be grateful when they choose to ‘trickle down’ on us. They are rich because they are smart, so I’m glad they make decisions for us. And yes… I believe corporations must have the right to participate, through donations to politicians that they believe will support favorable policies. Labor unions can donate too. So why not business? you don't think this is a direct link to corruption? seriously, you don't see any red flags with this?
|
|
|
Post by aufan on Apr 7, 2023 12:33:10 GMT
I’m reading that a Supreme Court justice has not disclosed recipes of benefits (from a billionaire), which he is legally required to do. This goes back to my biggest fundamental point: billionaires exist. Money is legally defined as speech. Corporations are legally defined as people. The above three points should shake fear into anyone with half a brain who wants democracy to work. For those with less than half a brain: rich people are entitled to more speech, more influence, more power. We should be grateful when they choose to ‘trickle down’ on us. They are rich because they are smart, so I’m glad they make decisions for us. In a free society, people should be able to give money to candidates. Yes… that means if they give a LOT, they’ll have influence over politicians. But, in the end, it’s VOTES that matter.. and even the rich only get 1. I don’t think there should be ANY limit. But, every cent should be publicly known, in real time. And yes… I believe corporations must have the right to participate, through donations to politicians that they believe will support favorable policies. Labor unions can donate too. So why not business? I stand by my point. Money legally being speech, with such huge discrepancies in wealth, does not make for a healthy democracy. This is beyond even the normal means for money to influence, like may be the case with a Supreme Court justice. It seems that you will stand behind a select few’s ability to rape society for all of its worth because you value their liberty to do so. The disappointing thing is that they have the common man supporting them while they do it! It goes to show what vast influence money can buy.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Apr 8, 2023 19:37:31 GMT
And yes… I believe corporations must have the right to participate, through donations to politicians that they believe will support favorable policies. Labor unions can donate too. So why not business? you don't think this is a direct link to corruption? seriously, you don't see any red flags with this? There are always red flags. But, the greatest disinfectant is sunlight. As long as voters can see from where the money is being donated, I think it's ok. The ACTIONS of these politicians are very public. Voters can decide based on their actions.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Apr 8, 2023 19:40:01 GMT
In a free society, people should be able to give money to candidates. Yes… that means if they give a LOT, they’ll have influence over politicians. But, in the end, it’s VOTES that matter.. and even the rich only get 1. I don’t think there should be ANY limit. But, every cent should be publicly known, in real time. And yes… I believe corporations must have the right to participate, through donations to politicians that they believe will support favorable policies. Labor unions can donate too. So why not business? I stand by my point. Money legally being speech, with such huge discrepancies in wealth, does not make for a healthy democracy. This is beyond even the normal means for money to influence, like may be the case with a Supreme Court justice. It seems that you will stand behind a select few’s ability to rape society for all of its worth because you value their liberty to do so. The disappointing thing is that they have the common man supporting them while they do it! It goes to show what vast influence money can buy. I think everyone should have the right to give money to whomever they choose.... especially to people who might represent them in the government. Political donations do come with limitations on how they can be used. I really don't see any other way to manage it.
|
|