Published: Wednesday, Nov. 21 2012 6:30 a.m. MST
Who'se fault is that?;* we all had free schooling* Head
Start program was there to help the poor* many benefits created to help
people become successful* war on poverty was declared, with trillions of
dollars being spent.* and now Obama care is going to help? I pay for my
insurance, and now will pay more. Not fair.And the inequality gap
Skyrockets?---Why?What did we get for a sixteen trillion dollar
What did we get for a sixteen trillion dollar debt? We got 2 extended middle
east wars, Medicare Part D, and forgiveness of all Wall St. mistakes so that
bankers didn't have to go to jail.What we should have purchased
instead was single payer health care, heavily subsidized higher education, and a
new power grid.
They were suppose to invest those tax cuts into new jobs for other Americans!
You mean they kept it and also raised their wages at a much higher rate than
they did for their employees? Color me surprised!Greed is NOT a
DesNews, let me introduce you to Ronald Reagan's policies... oh, I see
you've only just met.
Those with a good education (and the intellingence gained via genetics) were in
a position to gain from the existence of Chinese peasant factory workers. Those
with a poor education (and less intelligence) got to compete with Chinese
peasant factory workers.
Have no fear, egalitarians. Income inequality will soon disappear in this
country. Since the wealthy are repeatedly vilified by politicians and media
talking heads and since they are threatened more and more with higher taxes and
more regulation, they will likely close up shop here and take their business and
wealth abroad. Actually, they have already been doing this in droves and will
only continue to do this if anti-business rhetoric continues. Latin America and
Asia would kill for all of this 'inequality.' Why do you think they
have so many business friendly incentives? Low or no taxes. Low regulations. Why
would any business in this country not want to relocate abroad? But, hey, at
least when that happens, we will have achieved that equality that everyone
wants. At least every one will be paying there fair share. Forget the fact that
we scared away all of the good businesses. Ah, what do I care, I'll
probably move to Taiwan or Hong Kong anyway. Good luck to the rest of you. Enjoy
The funny thing is that the liberals are trying to reduce income inequality
through laws and regulation, and it is all of the laws and regulations that are
making the problem worse.You can't legislate away poverty, that
only happens when people and employers can concentrate on their jobs and not the
next regulation coming down from Washington.
There will always be income inequality and there needs to be. If one person
works harder, is more innovative and takes calculated risks more than another,
shouldn't he receive the benefit? America used to be a country where
everyone had an equal opportunity to increase their income. That's the only
incentive to improve, invent, invest and create; that they themselves will
receive the reward for their efforts! Now, Democrats have arranged it so anyone
who earned a dime more than someone else is punished, his dime and all his
incentive to create wealth is confiscated and redistributed to someone who
didn't earn it! It certainly wins elections for Democrats but how long can
our economy exist? It isn't politically correct to ask this but why are
most (not all) people in America poor? Could it be that they have chosen not to
improve their marketable job skills, chosen not to improve themselves so they
are capable of earning more income? There will always be some among us who will
choose the easier path in life, and lust and envy the property of those who were
rewarded for choosing a more difficult road of personal achievement!
killpac and Mountanman, what?? The story spells out the issues for you but yet
you still dont get it? The press is liberal? Haha, the press is CORPORATE
OWNED!! Anyone who earned a dime more than another is punished? Punished how? By
being given raises and tax breaks and corporate welfare?? The article states
that income inequality in the US is worse than Pakistan. Pakistan is a country
with super-elites on one side and millions of super poor peasants on the other..
they have better income equality than we do!! Either you guys are on the payroll
or you both are blind....
In a school classroom, there sre inequality in grades.Why take
points from honor rolls students, and give it the students with lower grades?Why should students with low grades, gain the honor of being an honor
roll student? Why would an honor roll student be lowered to a lower
status? Doesn't make sense.
What this article describes is NOT income inequality; but rather, earning
disparity. Income inequality would be differing pay for the same work. Earning
disparity simply means that some occupations earn more than others. And the
problem with this is......? If someone invests time, money, sweat, loss of
sleep, and whatever it takes to build a successful business into an extremely
profitable empire; why should they not make substantially more than the high
school drop out who wants nothing more than a simple job with no stress. This
is actually income equality not inequality. You get back what you put in. The
whining by those who are willing to risk nothing is destroying this great
country. And the politicians that listen and pander to them only need to be
held accountable. There is plenty of wealth to go around; but, it needs to be
earned and not just yearned.
"You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot
strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the wage earner by
pulling down the wage payer. You cannot encourage the brotherhood of man by
encouraging class hatred. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You
cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn. You cannot build
courage and character by taking away man's initiave and independence. You
cannot help men permanently by doing for them that which they could and should
do for themselves."- Abraham Lincoln. What did we get for 16
trillion? Corporate Bailouts/stimulus packages that didn't work. More debt
in the past 4 years than the entire preceding 230 years of the country's
history. We need a flat tax. What the story doesn't say is how much GDP
has increased. Though the discrepancy is higher now than 1970's, the GDP
is much higher too. Tax cuts raised tax income more than any other thing in the
last 50 years (economy grew!). We aren't dividing up the same pie. Though
discrepancy is more the pie is much much bigger per capita.
NYJazzFan. Let me try again! 80% of all federal income taxes collected by to IRS
comes from the wealthiest Americans while nearly 50% of Americans pay no federal
income taxes at all! Therefore, in America, if you work hard, are
innovative,creative and produce wealth, you are punished with taxes and your
money is redistributed to others who are produce nothing. I hear this term
"corporate welfare" thrown around by liberals but they never explain it.
By corporate welfare do you mean the tax breaks Obama gave to "green
energy" corporations like GE that has never produced any energy? The US has
one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world! Do you think, maybe, just
maybe that's why so many corporations leave the US and take their business
to China? I hope this helps you.
To correct an imbalance, do you tear down one or build the other up? You
can't build one up by taking from the other, only by increasing the
opportunity for the lesser. And is this inequality leading to envy and jealousy
or to a determination to work smarter and harder? If our system doesn't
reward the later, it will spawn the former.
NYJazzFan,News Flash. Corporations do not have police power.
Congress does. Huge difference. If there are unfair policies in place, like
'corporate welfare,' only CONGRESS is to blame. Congress makes the
laws of this land. Congress writes the ridiculously unfair, complex and
special-interest serving tax code. Corporations have absolutely ZERO authority
to make laws and throw people in jail. That authoritarian, police power lies
strictly with Congress and The White House. Of course, corporations, however
unsavory, will respond to the incentives placed in front of them. They'll
pay whatever bribes for the lawmakers to get out of their way or even give them
a handout like AIG, GM and Solyndra. But ultimately it is the lawmakers who
decide the law of this land and the consequences for breaking it, not
corporations. Corporations own the media? Are you nuts? Excepting FoxNews, the
mainstream media is the propaganda arm of our authoritarian, anti-business,
class warfare-inciting central government in Washington DC. Take the above story
for instance. Maybe you should reread it.
Oh, good grief. OF COURSE there is greater "inequality" between the top
fifth and the bottom fifth of earners in the U.S. than in Pakistan and the Ivory
Coast. In those two countries, 97% of the population is poverty-stricken. The
top fifth makes nothing, and the bottom fifth makes nothing. But at least
they're equal, right? Absolute nonsense. How 'bout we compare the
bottom fifth of the U.S. to the top fifth of Pakistan and the Ivory Coast? Does
that put things in a different light?
Reality - There is factual, demonstrable increasing income inequality since
Reagan's policies have been enacted. Poor are doing worse, rich are doing
better, rich have effective access to Congress via lobbyists while the poor do
not, the rich heavily skew rules/laws in their favor to the detriment of the
poor. Union strength is down, income disparity is up. CEO pay is up, share of
respective tax burden is down. Conservative group think - Complain
corporations are taxed too much while those same corporations own the media
outlets, complain the media outlets have anti-business, anti-conservative bias
even though they are owned by the corporations. Somehow don't consider the
leading news outlet to be "mainstream." Consider what was once a
patriotic act when it was a higher rate (paying taxes) to be stealing and
looting now that the amount for wealthy Americans is far less, complain that an
unfair system kills work ethic (have they no pride or honor?), and then accuse
the poor of having no work ethic in the most unbalanced society America has ever
seen. The irony is palpable.
This article points out the disparity of wealth but does not point out the value
and possession of the current wealth base. The question I would ask
is not what the wealth gap is, but rather, what is the current average value of
the wealth currently possessed. In other words, is the average income family of
today more or less wealthy in terms of resources they have access to versus the
same family 50 years ago. I would suspect in terms of housing,
medical care, nutrition, transportation, entertainment, and many other metrics,
that the average family in our country today has greater access than at any
other time or place in history.
@Mountainman - let me explain corporate welfare for you then. When a
corporation the size of GE pays next to no income tax because of specially craft
tax credits - that is corporate welfare. When a friend of mine owns over 30
properties, but gets to show a negative income through tax loop holes - that is
corporate welfare.I don't see how anyone can't see this as
a problem. 30 years ago the average exec made 40 times his average employee.
The number currently is 400 times. I don't care what justification you
try, that change is going to have a drastic impact on how employees see their
employers.@worf - again, you have completely missed the point here.
We are not talking about top exec to the janitor wage differences, we are
talking top to even middle management and professionals. The gap is hitting
every level of organizations. I don't know anyone is saying that the
lowest ranking person should be raised to the upper level incomes... the is a
pure red hearing argument. It is that companies used to be about products, long
term viability, and serving their customers. Long term investments have been
replaced with short term returns.
GDP has increased 250-300 percent in the last 30 years so it isn't like the
wealthy top 1/5 are taking any more than the same percentage of increases they
have created in the economy...I'd have an issue with the wealthy taking a
higher percentage if they hadn't grown the economy but they have and thus
they are taking directly in proportion to the growth of the economy. The real
question is if you didn't have the tax relief of the 1980's would you
have ever had the GDP growth of the last 30 years? I would postulate NO! The
difference between views in this country is that liberals think that "fair
share" means that those who save and produce should provide more because of
"fairness" which is really envy/entitlement. I don't care how much
the rich make or pay. What ever they can do to earn wealth and save on expenses
(taxes) the more power to them. The move toward Socialism/Communism has only
produced more poverty. Liberty and opportunity doesn't guarantee outcome,
it never has. It only guarantees potential incentive for talent, skill,
ambition, good fortune, and risk.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments