4 ms·

I assume you mean the Glass–Steagall Act. I keep seeing this idea of 'asking for more equality' and I have no idea what that means. Equality of what? pay? opp

by gwright 15y ago

I assume you mean the Glass–Steagall Act. I keep seeing this idea of 'asking for more equality' and I have no idea what that means. Equality of what? pay? opportunity? Forced redistribution of money to equalize incomes would be an unmitigated disaster so I can only hope that isn't their actual demand. Anyway, the protesters and their supporters need to refine their message a bit.

CWuestefeld 15y ago
I see those attractive young people protesting, and I can't help but wish for equality of appearance. Why should I be stuck with this body, when all of those people flaunt -- or worse, ignore -- their beauty? Seriously, it's ironic that the same set of people who claim that "material possessions aren't important, it's the people that matter" are the ones who find money so important that they've got to redistribute what others have earned. But they don't give attention to the myriad other ways in which some people are better-advantaged than others.
hxa7241 15y ago
> Forced redistribution of money to equalize incomes would be an unmitigated disaster Not really. A different balance of taxation would be a form of redistribution of income (and indeed would be interpreted as 'forced' by some). Would that be an unmitigated disaster? Well, it needs checking in the detail, but one suspects that such different tax profiles and hence 'redistribution' existed at various times in the USA's past: the 1960s probably, for example. That is unlikely to be called a period of disaster: it was one of growth and creativity, was it not? If all that happened was going to the moon and inventing the internet, you would have to call it pretty good.
- gwright 15y ago
  Not really. I'm sorry, but I simply can't take you seriously. you don't understand that the very definition of a tax incorporates the idea of 'force' (hint if it is optional, it isn't a tax) you are confusiong redistribution and/or progressive tax structure with 'equal incomes' you claim without any evidence that the 1960s represented a time when this redistribution was implemented My comment was about the ambiguity of 'equality' without any clarification or context and about the dangers of promulgating 'equal incomes' via forced redistribution. I do not want to live in a world where any individual effort made to raise my income above the average results in the government grabbing my wallet and giving it to someone making no effort at all.

by gwright 15y ago

CWuestefeld 15y ago

I see those attractive young people protesting, and I can't help but wish for equality of appearance. Why should I be stuck with this body, when all of those people flaunt -- or worse, ignore -- their beauty? Seriously, it's ironic that the same set of people who claim that "material possessions aren't important, it's the people that matter" are the ones who find money so important that they've got to redistribute what others have earned. But they don't give attention to the myriad other ways in which some people are better-advantaged than others.

hxa7241 15y ago

> Forced redistribution of money to equalize incomes would be an unmitigated disaster Not really. A different balance of taxation would be a form of redistribution of income (and indeed would be interpreted as 'forced' by some). Would that be an unmitigated disaster? Well, it needs checking in the detail, but one suspects that such different tax profiles and hence 'redistribution' existed at various times in the USA's past: the 1960s probably, for example. That is unlikely to be called a period of disaster: it was one of growth and creativity, was it not? If all that happened was going to the moon and inventing the internet, you would have to call it pretty good.

gwright 15y ago
Not really. I'm sorry, but I simply can't take you seriously. you don't understand that the very definition of a tax incorporates the idea of 'force' (hint if it is optional, it isn't a tax) you are confusiong redistribution and/or progressive tax structure with 'equal incomes' you claim without any evidence that the 1960s represented a time when this redistribution was implemented My comment was about the ambiguity of 'equality' without any clarification or context and about the dangers of promulgating 'equal incomes' via forced redistribution. I do not want to live in a world where any individual effort made to raise my income above the average results in the government grabbing my wallet and giving it to someone making no effort at all.