4 ms·

You're talking about equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome? This is specifically not what Sanders is talking about. He's saying that the basic fact

• mmanfrin 11y ago
  Really? Every single point there is about increasing taxes on the rich and reducing taxes/burdens or increasing pay for the poor, leading to one thing: more opportunity for the poor to pursue life decisions that aren't mandated by position or need (e.g., not going to school because you cant afford it or dont have the time when not working your two jobs). The rich being richer and the poor being poorer is an indication of the disparity of opportunity. This disparity is being used to illustrate the difference -- it is the cough caused by the cold; the cough is not the root cause, but a signal. Income inequality growth is not the root cause, it is the outcome of policies that affect access to opportunities and why all of the points that he proposes are goals to alleviate that access imbalance.
  • stvswn 11y ago
    Oh -- so income inequality is evidence of disparity of opportunity, so you are actually concerned with income inequality. You'd prefer incomes to be more equal. If opportunity were perfectly equal (your ideal state), what would you imagine income distribution to look like? Would that be acceptable then? In other words, at what distribution would you not argue that the distribution itself is evidence of unfairness?
    • mmanfrin 11y ago
      You'd prefer incomes to be more equal The way you've worded your questions you are trying to lead me in to a talk of wealth redistribution. Incomes being more equal is not about distributing, but in countering things that are naturally regressive by: Establishign a more progressive tax rate, ending on the cap of social security payments (which is the literal definition of a regressive tax), a livable minimum wage, equal access to education (education being generally a flat cost, and so affects the poor a lot harder than the wealthy), a singlepayer healthcare system which will put a much larger portion of income for the poor (than the rich) back in to their pockets ($300/mo for insurance is a lot more to someone who earns $1k a month than to someone earning $10k a month). These happen to be points 1, 8, 2, 7, and 9 on the page you linked. See? You can make income (and thus opportunity) more fair without redistributing.
      • zo1 11y ago
        Progressive taxation is wealth redistribution. What definition of "wealth redistribution" are you working off of? In my opinion, it's just word-trickery to call it anything else: Take money from A, and give to B. As opposed to: Take money from A, pay C to provide service to B, so that B doesn't have to pay. Moral discussion about "taking" vs "voluntarily giving" aside, of course. That never ends productively.
  • stvswn 11y ago
    I also think that we fundamentally disagree as to what "equality of opportunity" means. You think it means that the government has a role in making sure the poor and the rich have the same outcomes available to them. In that sense, the rich being able to afford fancier educations, better housing, better healthcare, etc. is something that needs to be fixed. I think it means that the law is blind as to your station in life -- that you are free to do with your life as you please, as your abilities and good fortune allow. That you do not get special treatment from your government if you happen to be rich or connected -- but definitely not that you can be assured that life will be fair, and that the hand you're dealt will be worth the same as your neighbor's.
    • mmanfrin 11y ago
      That you do not get special treatment from your government if you happen to be rich or connected Sure you do. Up until a few years ago you paid a significantly smaller tax rate, since capital gains were taxed at 15%. The rich also hit the social security tax cap, which means the rich pay a smaller tax rate there too. Not to mention tax protection shelters that having an expensive accountant affords you. You also have access to better lawyers to protect you from crimes you commit, which means you'll serve a lighter sentencing (on average). Being rich has very clear advantages beyond simply having more money, and to deny that is to be willfully obtuse.
      • stvswn 11y ago
        I agree, I didn't say we were at the perfectly optimal point of equality of opportunity. I was defining what I think the term means. I agree with most of those points. Except social security cap -- social security was supposed to be a benefit, not a tax. You don't get paid more after that cap is reached. And capital gains tax is a stupid example outside of the very narrow debate of carry-interest income.
        • dragonwriter 11y ago
          > Except social security cap -- social security was supposed to be a benefit, not a tax. You don't get paid more after that cap is reached. There is a social security benefit cap, but its on final benefits based on lifetime social security qualified earnings adjusted to account for wage inflation from the year earned. Capping annual social security qualified wages and tax liability isn't actually essential to maintain the integrity of that scheme (and it arguably is unfair treatment to income earners based on degree of annual income volatility.) Further, the benefit formula already has bend points where aggregate qualified wages past a certain point contribute less in benefits per dollar of wages than below that point, so there's no reason that couldn't be extended and the benefit cap removed, possibly with another bend point. > And capital gains tax is a stupid example Asserting that is not an argument. Capital gains are income, and it doesn't make a lot of sense to treat them more favorably than other income in taxation, except that you want to favor capital holders over those deriving income from other sources. (It may make sense to excluded them from the kind of SS/Medicare taxes and qualification calculations, though arguably this is unfair to minor capitalists who must actively manage their own capital to derive income from it, and face similar issues to actual workers when it comes to loss of their own ability to do so; it would makes ense to include individually-received capital gains in both the tax and benefit calculations for SS & Medicare). Favorable treatment of long-term capital gains is sometimes justified, in a progressive tax system, by the fact that not giving some favorable consideration overtaxes the capital gains as they are not earned over a single year, but progressive tax is based on the presumption that the income received in that year is earned in that year. But when you have enough capital that you can structure it such that you are consistently rotating holdings so that you are regularly realizing "long term" gains, that's less sensible. A more sensible approach to addressing this problem -- which also addresses labor income that has volatility, where the peaks are enabled by the choice to work in a domain where the troughs are also an occurrence, is to simply set up a system for all income where income can be recognized for tax purposes in advance of being realized (and thus, taxed) without limit, and also, with some limits on time and amounts, deferred after realization for tax purposes, giving tax payers with irregular income from whatever source the ability to smooth those irregularities within the structure of a progressive income tax system, without structurally favoring those with large, consistent, capital income streams.
  • zo1 11y ago
    What opportunities are you referring to, exactly? Which of them are inaccessible to some, but not to others?