3 ms·
Because it's the Guardian and this is how they gin up controversy ignore real solutions to societal problems. You wouldn't know it by reading articles like thi
by webXL 11y ago
Because it's the Guardian and this is how they gin up controversy ignore real solutions to societal problems.
You wouldn't know it by reading articles like this, and certainly things can be a lot better and fairer, but over the last 50 years, every single ethnic group in this country is better off when you look at this Census report on median household income: https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/demo/p60-252.pdf https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publicatio.... Welfare programs have only expanded, and necessities like food and clothing have only gotten cheaper.
I admit it isn't staggering advancement, but 50 years is a blip on the grand scheme of things. At the same time we might have just been lucky. But things aren't dire and many in the 1% have contributed in ways that have made us all better off.
Real solutions to the tax dodging problem don't come by slinging emotionally charged statements like this around:
"In so doing, you rob your own society of cash for hospitals, schools, roads…"
Real solutions start by asking why wealthy people don't see value in publicly-financed goods and services, and if these people would have created more or fewer jobs under a more progressive tax regime, and if we want more jobs or more/better social services, and if we want new people in the top 1% every year. These are real tradeoffs that go beyond just negatively impacting the top 1%.
- enraged_camel 11y agoYour argument boils down to the Republican sound-bite (referring to the poor): "But... but... they have refrigerators and air conditioners now!" Which is totally irrelevant to the main point being debated: it's not about wealth relative to the past, but about wealth relative to everyone else in the present. The reasons are simple: wealth buys political power, and political power is inevitably used to further concentrate wealth in the hands of those who have a lot of it.
- webXL 11y agoWho cares who can use my argument? Is it not true? > it's not about wealth relative to the past, but about wealth relative to everyone else in the present. Who is debating that, exactly? I said things can be a lot better and fairer. But steady improvement over 50 years is nothing to be scoffed at and needs to be recognized and analyzed if we want to preserve those gains for those most marginalized. > wealth buys political power.... is inevitably used to further concentrate wealth What if this was shown not to be the case? Would you still be okay with the inequality? And if it is the case, how does this make you and me worse off in the absolute sense?
- tremon 11y agosteady improvement over 50 years is nothing to be scoffed at But there hasn't been a steady improvement over 50 years. Here's what the OECD says [1]: "According to the OECD income distribution database, income inequality among total population in the United States has steady increased from 1974 to 2010." And here's what the US Census Bureau says about poverty in the United States [2]: "In the late 1950s, the poverty rate was approximately 22 percent, with just shy of 40 million Americans living in poverty. The rate declined steadily, reaching a low of 11.1 percent in 1973 and rising to a high of nearly 15 percent three times – in 1983, 1993 and 2011. However, the 46.2 million Americans in poverty in 2011 is the most ever recorded." [1] http://www.oecd.org/els/soc/OECDIncomeDistributionDataReview-UnitedStates.pdf http://www.oecd.org/els/soc/OECDIncomeDistributionDataReview... [2] https://www.debt.org/faqs/americans-in-debt/poverty-united-states/ https://www.debt.org/faqs/americans-in-debt/poverty-united-s...
- webXL 11y agoWhy do you bring in the unequal distribution of newly created wealth when I'm talking about average people being better off decade over decade? Seriously, if I have a glass of water in front of me and you are thirsty, do you lament this unequal distribution of water? No, you ask your waiter, find a drinking fountain, or obtain water some way somehow. The people on the way to the top, and the ones there actually providing a net benefit to society, just figured out a way to create an unequal benefit for themselves and whomever was without whatever they were offering. They didn't look at any charts that told them their net wealth vs others was too high. If someone uses "free" public services to generate some of their wealth, then we should charge for those services and subsidize those who can't afford them. We can afford Subsidies because wealth is not a fixed pie! Let entrepreneurs create wealth and tax them in a way that promotes more wealth creation.
- tremon 11y agoBecause I think pointing to global improvement of living standards to excuse undemocratic centralization of power is a cop-out.
- sievebrain 11y agoBecause it's the Guardian and this is how they gin up controversy ignore real solutions to societal problems. It's especially ironic in this situation because the Guardian itself uses offshore tax avoidance techniques to lower its tax bill.
- gech 11y ago" don't see value in publicly-financed goods and services" That is not the reason they dodge taxes. Also, tax funded infrastructure and general stability are major factors in why any business is able to thrive but that success is assumed to be wholly owned.
- webXL 11y ago> That is not the reason they dodge taxes. So, the reason is... > Also, tax funded infrastructure and general stability are major factors in why any business is able to thrive but that success is assumed to be wholly owned. Just like politicians taking credit and blame for economic conditions. Is your argument that they dodge because think taxation is theft? Fine, figure out a way to get them to pay for the government goods and services they use. If they don't pay, they don't get to use them!