what is wrong with having a high income?

[Grave_n_idle]

For non-elective treatments, yes I can.

Give or take some extra-curricular activities, yes I can.

Yes it is. It's as simple as making it much harder if not impossible for people to buy themselves better access to societal necessities. In fact, you'll find the this "total equality" is already mostly present in our education systems and healthcare today.

So total equality is possible? Making the same income as someone in your profession is possible? Having the same socio-economic status as someone with a higher wealth than you is possible?

Total equality is impossible.

'Total equality' most certainly is possible, in the context in which it's being used here.

I'm not saying everyone will be the same height, or equally attractive - but everyone most certainly could have the same 'socio-economic status' or earn the same income. Those things aren't even improbable, much less impossible.

[Draica]

Other than raise taxes, I agree with you. This has been proven time and time again, no matter how much you raise taxes on the rich, even taxing them at 50% will not put a dent in our national deficit. Not even over 7 years.
According to CNBC reverting to Clinton-era levels would just get you about $40-$45 billion in the first year. The Government is going to need that money for it's wasteful spending programs, necessary spending programs, and other necessities. What even are we proposing here? We will not make the poor richer by make the rich poorer. It doesn't work that way. But lets say we attempt to close this gap by raising the minimum wage and making businesses raise wages for their workers. If every single worker saved just a little bit of their money overtime, weather it be 5 or even 1 dollar, and used some of it to INVEST then maybe this would work. But the truth is that doesn't happen whatsoever in MOST cases.

Secondly, tax hikes on those making $250K or more won't dent the deficit much. In all reality, the UNEMPLOYMENT rate is what causes income inequality, not the tax code.

About education, the states do not run it. The local communities nor parents don't even have input on what their children learn, the Government dominates public education.

We have to increase the taxes on the wealthy because they have the vast majority of the money.

Of course they don't invest, it's hard to save what you don't have to spare. Asking the poor to invest in the stock market is like asking them to play russian roulette, they cant afford to lose the money. You need quite a large amount of discretionary income to have the diverse portfolio needed to actually make money in the stock market.
also most of what your child learns is controlled at the local school board level, and the state budget level.

oh and you do realize 40 billion is equal to all the money the US government spends on child education, right?

Lasty do you have a source for your information, not and internet search of blogs, a source.

1. On education, the Government has set the standards through Common Core(it is a Government funded program even if it may not be 100% from Washington.) They want EVERYONE to go to college, not every shoe will fit everyone. Education receives significant amounts of oversight and funding on the elementary and secondary levels from the federal government. So sadly it is not a state issue, it is a Government issue which it shouldn't be.

2. I'm talking about those who make minimum wage. If they don't invest, other than their living necessites, what do they spend their money on? Some on drugs, some on shopping, some just silly things. But some minimum wage makers save up little by little so the can have available money in the future. Can this be hard? Yes. Which is why budgeting is needed.

3. Education alone. You are correct. Now what about the countless other programs Government operates? As I said, raising taxes will not and I said WILL NOT reduce the deficit, no matter what the NYTIMES or the Huffington post tells you.

4. CNBC and BusinessInsider are highly accredited, non-biased sources.

Edit: Unemployment is the biggest driving factor of Income inequality.

[The Scientific States]

Nothing is.

However, if you are greedy with your large amount of money, and refuse to help those who are less fortunate, that's a problem.

[The Serbian Empire]

I hear a lot of arguments that CEOs and owners of large companies make too much money. I hear quite often that they should have their money redistributed because they didn't earn it. Why is this so? Furthermore, how did they not earn their money? If one starts a company are they not responsible for everything that company accomplishes? Are they not responsible for all of it's employment, and all of it's profits? After paying all the overhead of that business that they started why should they not be allowed to keep the rest?

I'm genuinely interested in discovering the reasoning behind this ideology. I'm sure debates will start over this, but can we try to answer explain the beliefs first?

1) CEOs do not necessarily found their companies
2) they also do not personally do every job in the company, so no they aren't really
3) because having ridiclous situations like 1% of the people control 42% of the wealth, 4% of the people control 29% (i.e. 5% of the people control 71% of the wealth), 15% of the people control 21% of the wealth and 80% of the people control 7% of the wealth is actually really bad for the economy and society on various levels

I suspect income inequity can't be solved until one can take the media away from the controls of the rich. As long as the rich have the controls, the average person will believe everything is hunky-dory.

[Olthar]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with having a high income or a lot of money. However, neither are infinite. If you earning millions causes poverty and destitution, then it's a problem. Then, your income should be cut so that others can survive.

[Othelos]

Raise taxes, cut some of the military, end the wars in the middle east, and reduce spending elsewhere. The states (who are in charge of education) would handle a lot of it.

Other than raise taxes, I agree with you. This has been proven time and time again, no matter how much you raise taxes on the rich, even taxing them at 50% will not put a dent in our national deficit. Not even over 7 years. According to CNBC reverting to Clinton-era levels would just get you about $40-$45 billion in the first year. The Government is going to need that money for it's wasteful spending programs, necessary spending programs, and other necessities. What even are we proposing here? We will not make the poor richer by make the rich poorer. It doesn't work that way. But lets say we attempt to close this gap by raising the minimum wage and making businesses raise wages for their workers. If every single worker saved just a little bit of their money overtime, weather it be 5 or even 1 dollar, and used some of it to INVEST then maybe this would work. But the truth is that doesn't happen whatsoever in MOST cases.

Secondly, tax hikes on those making $250K or more won't dent the deficit much. In all reality, the UNEMPLOYMENT rate is what causes income inequality, not the tax code.

About education, the states do not run it. The local communities nor parents don't even have input on what their children learn, the Government dominates public education.

$40-45 billion is a nice chunk of change. If all of that went to education, it would definitely help with expanding the school system to k-14.

[Union Of Canadorian Socialists Republic]

Having a high income in and of itself is not wrong; what is wrong is that you cannot acquire capital without taking it from others. The excesses of the rich by necessity must involve the deprivation of said resources from others. If we are to promote human wellbeing, we must ensure that everyone has access to resources. That is impossible under present conditions.

Everyone has access to these resources; only a few actually pursue them.

[Vicious Debaters]

Having a high income in and of itself is not wrong; what is wrong is that you cannot acquire capital without taking it from others. The excesses of the rich by necessity must involve the deprivation of said resources from others. If we are to promote human wellbeing, we must ensure that everyone has access to resources. That is impossible under present conditions.

Everyone has access to these resources; only a few actually pursue them.

That is a falsehood.

What you are saying sounds ludicrous when you logically follow it through. Do you really think everyone has the chance to join the wealthy if they work hard, really?

Aren't there people who work hard and don't get adequately rewarded in our society? And inversely, aren't there people who get wealthy- not by honest, hard work but by exploiting and manipulating others?

Does a 13-year-old girl working in a Bangladeshi garment factory really stand a chance to become the next CEO of Adias?
Could a recent college grad working at McDonalds really become the head of McDonalds?
How about someone living in an urban ghetto, working at Walmart? I could go on and on.

Explain to me how 'everyone has access to these resources.' Explain to me how our system isn't one filled with exploitation and manipulation by the very rich. Show me how you'd seriously expect a hard-working poor person to join the ranks of the wealthy.

The rags-to-riches folktale is just that for most people- a tall tale. Most people are confined to the class of their birth throughout their lives, except in circumstances where economic conditions force them into poverty.

[Strawman Capitalist]

There's nothing wrong with a high income. The problem is the parasites with the low incomes.

[Sociobiology]

(Image)
We have to increase the taxes on the wealthy because they have the vast majority of the money.

Of course they don't invest, it's hard to save what you don't have to spare. Asking the poor to invest in the stock market is like asking them to play russian roulette, they cant afford to lose the money. You need quite a large amount of discretionary income to have the diverse portfolio needed to actually make money in the stock market.
also most of what your child learns is controlled at the local school board level, and the state budget level.

oh and you do realize 40 billion is equal to all the money the US government spends on child education, right?

Lasty do you have a source for your information, not and internet search of blogs, a source.

1. On education, the Government has set the standards through Common Core(it is a Government funded program even if it may not be 100% from Washington.)

common core only covers language and math, and states do not have to adopt it, in fact several have chosen not to.

Education receives significant amounts of oversight and funding on the elementary and secondary levels from the federal government.

but far less than it does from local sources.


http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cma.asp

So sadly it is not a state issue, it is a Government issue which it shouldn't be.

I can only assume this sentence is a typo.



2. I'm talking about those who make minimum wage. If they don't invest, other than their living necessites, what do they spend their money on?

so you don't understand that if you are living on minimum age nearly everything you earn is going to living expenses.
ok this is going to be a shock for you, poor people have very little disposable income.

Some on drugs, some on shopping, some just silly things. But some minimum wage makers save up little by little so the can have available money in the future.

or on medical bills, repairs, christmas presents for their childrens so they can not feel like total failures.
$1 a month would take 42 years to pay off one rent check.
saving tiny scraps of money is completely useless, even if it would disappear the first time someone had a medical bill or an appliance broke down (which is what usually happens to the savings of the poor)

Can this be hard? Yes. Which is why budgeting is needed.

its, not hard it is prohibitively difficult, there is a difference.

3. Education alone. You are correct. Now what about the countless other programs Government operates? As I said, raising taxes will not and I said WILL NOT reduce the deficit, no matter what the NYTIMES or the Huffington post tells you.

Why?
assume the budgets was perfectly balanced, they would still have to raise taxes to pay off the deficit, just as they had to do after every time before.
Also I assume you are confusing deficit with debt, because the US could but a decent dent in its deficit.
although I will agree the majority of the problem is the obscene military budget.

4. CNBC and BusinessInsider are highly accredited, non-biased sources.

do you know what an editorial is?
I'll give you a hint it is not considered a legitimate source for a reason.

Edit: Unemployment is the biggest driving factor of Income inequality.

(Image)

OR income inequality is the leading cause of unemployment, which would make a lot of sense since you are talking about how much money the majority of consumers have to spend.
If you actually look at your graph, and assume the red line indicates inequality (because otherwise why show the graph?) the unemployment rate changes after inequality.

[Sociobiology]

In terms of wealth? Yes.
And, no, I didn't miss your point. But societies that have attempted to achieve equal wealth have always failed.

So have all others. A point you seem to be missing.

An if you look mat why, for example, the Russian society that PRECEDED the soviet society failed - it was overturned by bloody rebellion BECAUSE of inequality.

not to mention that many countries have achieved and sustained far better equality than the US,



hell just getting to what tha average person assumes the income inequality is would be a huge improvement, getting to what people consider the ideal would be even better but I'll take a step in the right direction. Notice of course the Ideal is not equal.

[TerraPublica]

The fascination with level of income is a deeply liberal phenomenon. While income inequality is certainly an issue, it is only the symptom of a larger economic disease. For us to get anywhere, it is far more important to analyze an individual's role in production, rather than their accumulated wealth, when asking this question.

The worker, the lowest paid participant in production, is the one performing the productive labor, be it providing a good or service. As their name implies, they do the work. An overwhelming majority of society fits into this productive role.

For profits to exist, the worker cannot be fully paid for his or her labor. It is mathematically impossible to compensate them for what they have done, as some of what they have created must be taken for them to pay management and investors. Therefore, the worker is exploited. This is the true injustice of the capitalist system.

In theory there is nothing wrong with having a high income. However, in a large majority of cases, this high income has been attained by exploiting labor, such as in the cases of the "CEOs and owners of large companies" of which you speak. This is the root of class conflict. Therefore, the answer, is to replace the role of the investors and the management with the workers themselves through common ownership and democratic control of the means of production.

[Grave_n_idle]

Having a high income in and of itself is not wrong; what is wrong is that you cannot acquire capital without taking it from others. The excesses of the rich by necessity must involve the deprivation of said resources from others. If we are to promote human wellbeing, we must ensure that everyone has access to resources. That is impossible under present conditions.

Everyone has access to these resources; only a few actually pursue them.

Demonstrably untrue.

[Norstal]

I hear a lot of arguments that CEOs and owners of large companies make too much money. I hear quite often that they should have their money redistributed because they didn't earn it. Why is this so? Furthermore, how did they not earn their money? If one starts a company are they not responsible for everything that company accomplishes? Are they not responsible for all of it's employment, and all of it's profits? After paying all the overhead of that business that they started why should they not be allowed to keep the rest?

I'm genuinely interested in discovering the reasoning behind this ideology. I'm sure debates will start over this, but can we try to answer explain the beliefs first?

I invest money into Company A.

Company A give their executive raise with the money I invested it in.

Company A now has less money to spend on its R&D or sales or marketing.

What do OP? What do?

[Grave_n_idle]

The fascination with level of income is a deeply liberal phenomenon.

Because conservatives don't have to pay rent or buy food?

Sorry, but that's a silly claim even compared to some of the already pretty silly claims this thread has generated.

[TerraPublica]

The fascination with level of income is a deeply liberal phenomenon.

Because conservatives don't have to pay rent or buy food?

Sorry, but that's a silly claim even compared to some of the already pretty silly claims this thread has generated.

I don't mean liberal as "US social liberal" or "Democrat", I mean it in the sense of "classical liberalism". I was critiquing OP for his stereotypical laissez-faire capitalist stance (tho I certainly see where the misunderstanding comes from).

And I certainly don't say this as a conservative, and the rest of my comment should show my position as being firmly based in leftism. My point wasn't to say that inequality isn't an important issue (it certainly is), but rather that it is more worth-while to look at it in terms of production and how wealth is accumulated through exploitation than to look at it in terms of income brackets.

[Tule]

There's nothing wrong with a high income. The problem is the parasites with the low incomes.

Those with a high income are more often the parasites than the ones with the low income.

We live in a world with finite resources that must sustain everyone. Every extra dollar spent on gasoline for some rich guy's Hummer is gasoline not used to make fertilizer for a poor farmer in a third world country, it's gasoline that won't ever come back.

Some level of inequality is unavoidable and unnecessary, but spending money on sports cars, mansions and swimming pools does make you more of a parasite than any street beggar or welfare queen on the planet.

[Liberaxia]

There's nothing wrong with a high income. The problem is the parasites with the low incomes.

Those with a high income are more often the parasites than the ones with the low income.

We live in a world with finite resources that must sustain everyone. Every extra dollar spent on gasoline for some rich guy's Hummer is gasoline not used to make fertilizer for a poor farmer in a third world country, it's gasoline that won't ever come back.

Some level of inequality is unavoidable and unnecessary, but spending money on sports cars, mansions and swimming pools does make you more of a parasite than any street beggar or welfare queen on the planet.

Take note of his/her name.

[Tule]

Those with a high income are more often the parasites than the ones with the low income.

We live in a world with finite resources that must sustain everyone. Every extra dollar spent on gasoline for some rich guy's Hummer is gasoline not used to make fertilizer for a poor farmer in a third world country, it's gasoline that won't ever come back.

Some level of inequality is unavoidable and unnecessary, but spending money on sports cars, mansions and swimming pools does make you more of a parasite than any street beggar or welfare queen on the planet.

Take note of his/her name.

Oh I see. Thanks.

[Keyboard Warriors]

Unless they hoard their money by keeping stacks of notes hidden under their bed or something, the wealth isn't exactly stagnant.

actually hoarding money as real estate and other stagnant goods is actually quite common.
that is one of the reasons I support a net wealth tax.

No thanks, I enjoy the freedom to spend my after-tax income how I want.

[Sociobiology]

actually hoarding money as real estate and other stagnant goods is actually quite common.
that is one of the reasons I support a net wealth tax.

No thanks, I enjoy the freedom to spend my after-tax income how I want.

so reading, not your strong suit?

[Benshir]

If it's made/achieved through good work ethic, then there's nothing wrong with it.

[Grave_n_idle]

If it's made/achieved through good work ethic, then there's nothing wrong with it.

Not necessarily true. You could have the best work-ethic in the world, but also have enough wealth that literally no-one else could afford to eat. For example. Clearly there is something about the allocation of income that isn't just about work-ethics.

[Molsonian Republics]

If you take money away from the rich who are creating jobs, then you're just causing more poverty. People need money to create jobs and give other people money.

[Silent Majority]

There's nothing inherently wrong with it, it's just that it more often than not comes at the expense of other people.