3 ms·

Who 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. Wh

by webXL 11y ago

Who 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 ago
steady 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 ago
  Why 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 ago
    Because I think pointing to global improvement of living standards to excuse undemocratic centralization of power is a cop-out.
    - webXL 11y ago
      "undemocratic centralization of power" Who is centralizing power undemocratically?
enraged_camel 11y ago
>>What if this was shown not to be the case? Would you still be okay with the inequality? I would be okay with it, yes. But since we have mountains upon mountains of evidence to the contrary (i.e. the wealthy corrupt the political system and make it serve their own ends at the expense of others), your hypothetical is rather meaningless. >>And if it is the case, how does this make you and me worse off in the absolute sense? Because it goes against the "one person, one vote" principle of democracy.
- webXL 11y ago
  > we have mountains upon mountains of evidence to the contrary Do you mean the mountains of insinuation and innuendo in that article? Just because the Koch brothers want lower taxes and the people who engaged in these tax avoidance schemes do too, doesn't necessarily mean they are colluding to buy elections. You might as well claim that Apple and Google are buying political power because of the billions they keep offshore, too. They buy power alright, just like all corporations that want to snuff out competition by influencing the laws in their favor. That also keeps the rich rich. But you don't hear of anybody attacking lobbyists, do you?

by webXL 11y ago

tremon 11y ago

steady 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 ago
Why 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 ago
  Because I think pointing to global improvement of living standards to excuse undemocratic centralization of power is a cop-out.
  - webXL 11y ago
    "undemocratic centralization of power" Who is centralizing power undemocratically?

enraged_camel 11y ago

>>What if this was shown not to be the case? Would you still be okay with the inequality? I would be okay with it, yes. But since we have mountains upon mountains of evidence to the contrary (i.e. the wealthy corrupt the political system and make it serve their own ends at the expense of others), your hypothetical is rather meaningless. >>And if it is the case, how does this make you and me worse off in the absolute sense? Because it goes against the "one person, one vote" principle of democracy.

webXL 11y ago
> we have mountains upon mountains of evidence to the contrary Do you mean the mountains of insinuation and innuendo in that article? Just because the Koch brothers want lower taxes and the people who engaged in these tax avoidance schemes do too, doesn't necessarily mean they are colluding to buy elections. You might as well claim that Apple and Google are buying political power because of the billions they keep offshore, too. They buy power alright, just like all corporations that want to snuff out competition by influencing the laws in their favor. That also keeps the rich rich. But you don't hear of anybody attacking lobbyists, do you?