If Reducing Income Inequality Meant that Your Wealth had to Be Reduced?

[nanook12]

It seems under capitalism when the rich get richer the poor get richer as well. Therefore, when the wealth of the rich gets reduced the wealth of the poor will get reduced as well. It is not a 1:1 ratio I believe. For example, if you reduce the wealth of a millionaire by 100k, then the poor employee working under him may see his pay reduced by only 0.50 cents.

Personally, I am willing to take a cut in my pay in order to shrink income inequality because I do not like the social issues that come with lots of income inequality.

[Spectral]

I don't view income inequality as a serious problem. My concerns are with absolute poverty and with living standards, not with a numerical measurement that doesn't really mean much of anything. Given the present situation, as an abstract policy I think increased taxation at the highest levels to mitigate poverty makes sense in the context of the United States. Income inequality is only a problem inasmuch as we've failed to mitigate poverty appropriately.

If left to make tax policy by fiat, I would not increase my own taxation by any amount at all. The present state of American government spending does not leave me with confidence that increased spending is an answer to much of any problem.

Most people alleging their own nobility when it comes to voluntary tax increases are basically liars engaging in a zero cost form of signaling. If they meant what they were saying, they'd donate whatever excess wealth they think they have that's too much to effective altruism organizations that focus on mitigating poverty. If you're not currently dumping excess wealth into GiveWell's top charities, I don't think you're a genuine egalitarian - you just want to take confiscate more wealth from me to make yourself feel better.

[Serpha]

I'm not stupid, so no.

[morpen]

So to make things more equal we could make it worse for someone instead of making it better for someone else?

Sounds stupid

[StayTuned]

Cut my income some more and I'm qualified for a raise again.

[Nathasil]

I think your premise is flawed. The absolute numbers are useless.

What is important is the relative ratio. 100 years ago the person owning a company made what? 10 times as much as his average employee? 15? I don't feel like googling the numbers right now but but those ratios have shifted. Extremely. To points were single human beings make more money sitting around doing nothing in one day than hard working people can make their entire lives. Inside the same country.

Why is this a problem if the average worker can still afford more "luxury" now than 100 years ago? Because there are some goods which pierce through this system, most notably any kind of housing related costs. So while the average worker now can afford a flat screen TV and the average worker 100 years ago could not even afford a radio, the worker today may have a problem paying his rent an get forced out of his home.

In many places the same will happen to food+water in the forseeable future.

[Deleted]

What wealth? I don't want more taxes for anyone. We could reduce our lifetime total taxation to about 60% and be better for it here in Finland, though.

Most issues here are due to ethical leading to Swede and Marxist corruption, really. Too close to USSR. Then several depressions came and politics had turned into an inside job circlejerk, but that's the same nearly everywhere. This model of ours isn't sustainable with endless loads of minimum 120 years of currently foreseeable unproductive unemployable brown people either causing a ruckus due to ideologies of entitlement, lack of literacy and all kinds of unimaginable shit that the bureaus put up with due to most clerks being wasted bitter cunts that love it when they can be employed serving anyone.

That's a rant and a half.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Yes that’s how it’s works now people spend money privately to do the same they could do publicly and make everywhere a great place to be.

[Sunseeker]

What you're suggesting is essentially a "flat tax". If you took .50c off of the "little guys" then your average comrade working 40hr/week would see a loss of ~$1k/year (reducing someone at minimum wage to ~$14k from ~$15k. That $1k also has a dramatic impact on their purchasing power.

But if you took $100k off of someone making a $1M/year they'd still be making $900k/year. Making 60 times what someone working for minimum wage does. You've done nothing to affect their purchasing power or actually reduce their income. Yeah, it's a LOT of money compared to how much you took from Comrade Joe, but it's not significant towards their yearly income. This person is still not actually spending the money they're making (an individual's needs are met somewhere around $75k/year).

You haven't actually reduced income inequality.

[Deleted]

**** No you commie cuck.

Also why isn't using the hammer and sickle as an avatar a bannable offense.

Unless this is of course a troll account.

Infracted

[Ghostpanther]

For those who did not work hard like myself to get it? Hell no! They can get out and work hard, make sacrifices like I did.

[NED funded]

No. And I am not worried at all about income inequality as much as I'm worried about mobility, while the two are related (someone richer will have more successful kids than the poor guy) it would be stupid to think that the solution to this is make everyone equally poor.

[AeneasBK]

Happiness is a lack of wants/attachment.

[Elba]

That's not how that works. That's not how anything works.

[oxymoronic]

I think your premise is flawed. The absolute numbers are useless.

What is important is the relative ratio. 100 years ago the person owning a company made what? 10 times as much as his average employee? 15? I don't feel like googling the numbers right now but but those ratios have shifted. Extremely. To points were single human beings make more money sitting around doing nothing in one day than hard working people can make their entire lives. Inside the same country.

Why is this a problem if the average worker can still afford more "luxury" now than 100 years ago? Because there are some goods which pierce through this system, most notably any kind of housing related costs. So while the average worker now can afford a flat screen TV and the average worker 100 years ago could not even afford a radio, the worker today may have a problem paying his rent an get forced out of his home.

In many places the same will happen to food+water in the forseeable future.

that is not how it works... people pay fair market value. if people could not afford their rent then rent on a whole will be dropped. problem is we have widened the gap between the poor (people that refuse to work) and those that do work every time we fuck with the min wage. THINK ABOUT IT, use the brain. THERE WILL ALWAYS BE PEOPLE THAT REFUSE TO WORK.

- - - Updated - - -

That's not how that works. That's not how anything works.

for once i agree. unfortunately you have no clue either how anything on this fucking planet currently works. only ideals

- - - Updated - - -

What you're suggesting is essentially a "flat tax". If you took .50c off of the "little guys" then your average comrade working 40hr/week would see a loss of ~$1k/year (reducing someone at minimum wage to ~$14k from ~$15k. That $1k also has a dramatic impact on their purchasing power.

But if you took $100k off of someone making a $1M/year they'd still be making $900k/year. Making 60 times what someone working for minimum wage does. You've done nothing to affect their purchasing power or actually reduce their income. Yeah, it's a LOT of money compared to how much you took from Comrade Joe, but it's not significant towards their yearly income. This person is still not actually spending the money they're making (an individual's needs are met somewhere around $75k/year).

You haven't actually reduced income inequality.

yeah according to this guy we have to take 50% income cause hey, some random dudes needs were met at 75k/yr.

not understanding that some people spend that money in one night. why are liberals so against business having money yet they want to pay basketball players 40million a year? spend 25m on an actor/actress and not even bat a fucking eye? WHY IS THAT? People in entertainment dont even have a real fucking job with real fucking hours yet you never hear a fucking liberal complain about them? WHY IS THAT?

https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/201...celebrities/5/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money...016/339079001/

so puffy combs literally makes more fucking money than the #1 CEO IN THE FUCKING WORLD. get bent

and he dont offer shit of worth to our country, if anything he is a driving force in ruining the black culture.

[Sunseeker]

yeah according to this guy we have to take 50% income cause hey, some random dudes needs were met at 75k/yr.

not understanding that some people spend that money in one night. why are liberals so against business having money yet they want to pay basketball players 40million a year? spend 25m on an actor/actress and not even bat a fucking eye? WHY IS THAT? People in entertainment dont even have a real fucking job with real fucking hours yet you never hear a fucking liberal complain about them? WHY IS THAT?

https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/201...celebrities/5/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money...016/339079001/

so puffy combs literally makes more fucking money than the #1 CEO IN THE FUCKING WORLD. get bent

and he dont offer shit of worth to our country, if anything he is a driving force in ruining the black culture.

What on earth are you on about?

[Torto]

The musings from the left on this forum are a constant source of both bemusement and astonishment.

How about instead of letting yourselves be consumed with envy because some people have more wealth, you put that energy towards enriching yourselves. Maybe once you've worked hard for your resources you might be less willing to give it away to someone who would rather sit and bitch about income inequality.

[unbound]

If Reducing Income Inequality Meant that Your Wealth had to Be Reduced?

Then you are in the 0.1% most likely, and you won't be giving up any aspect of your life that will matter.

[Vankrys]

There has to come a point when increasing your wealth is nothing but a game of number on paper or computer screen, a point when increasing your wealth does little to nothing to improving your lifestyle. I mean, what could you possibly do with a billion dollars that you cannot do with a few hundred millions, i mean as an individual, not a company.

Meanwhile, the income gap keep on growing.

[oxymoronic]

What on earth are you on about?

you dont understand english?> holy fuck, let me get sarashtasher to translate for you, since you seem to only understand stupid.

Infracted