Published: Wednesday, Nov. 21 2012 6:30 a.m. MST
Survival of the stongest is the common, in the animal world.If a
lion grows old, get injured, or raised by humans,--it starves to death, in the
real world.In our country, it's the survival of the weakest
that's destroying our society.Liberal ideas promotes weakness,
Stalwart Sentinel,I'm not quite sure what you are trying to
say. Are you making note of the ironic fact that NBC, whose parent company is
non-income tax paying General Electric, is and has been for decades a propaganda
mill for left wing, liberal, authoritarian, tax and spend politicians in our
centralized federal government in Washington DC? Or were you referring to state
media outlets PBS and NPR, who themselves have made a decent fortune off of
advancing socialism on behalf of their benefactors? If you were, then noted.
To "UtahBlueDevil" if GE using tax loopholes to get out of paying
corporate income tax means that they receive corporate welfare, doesn't
that mean that the 50% of the US that pays no income taxes because of tax
loopholes also recieve welfare?Wouldn't you consider a nation
where 50% of the population receive welfare to be headed in the wrong direction?
Shouldn't we be working towards minimizing the amount of welfare given
@Mountainman - you should inform yourself before you go on your rants -
Corporate Welfare in any form is bad news, so in principle we might agree.
Unfortunately our government is controlled by wealthy aristocrats, in both
parties. I believe Obama gave tax cuts to the green builders yes, but the
process of stirring and investing in innovation is nothing new. As a matter of
fact the 5 big oil companies recieve US subsidies - corporate welfare - that
reduces what they owe to zero and in fact get money back fom the govt. They
receive those breaks to, uhm, stir innovation but of course they just pocket it.
The corporate tax rate was even higher in the past and some great companies paid
it because they know that nowhere in the world will the find innovators and
dedicated employees like in the good ole USA! If they dont have the wherewithal
and patriotism to stay here and invest further into our country than they can
leave. @killpack - there are 6 institutions that own 85% of the media outlets in
the country. Uhm im pretty sure poor lefties dont own them.
UtahBlueDevil,General Electric is a perfect example of why we should
NOT pay more taxes. If I'm rich, poor, middle class, I don't want to
send another single dime to the inept and immoral den of thieves in Washington
DC so they can pay off special interests keeping them in power. General Electric
is just one of many. AIG, GM, Solyndra, etc., etc. The list is endless. If I
could get away with it, I would hide every cent I made in the Cayman Islands.
How many of the poor and hungry in this world go without because the wealthy are
forced to send their money to Washington DC to fund graft and corruption when
the money could have been used for food, clothing and shelter. No wonder there
is inequality in this world.
Worf - Precisely right. Which explains why California, NY, Massachusetts,
Connecticut, New Jersey, Washington, etc... are all such weak economies while
Alabama, Mississippi, West Virginia, Kentucky, Arkansas, etc... are economic
powerhouses. Er, wait.... Your analogy does help explain why nearly every
single conservative state in the Union receives more in federal tax dollars than
it pays in while nearly every single liberal state in the Union pays more in
federal taxes than it receives back. Conservative state politics create a weak
and dependent society. Please, look it up. killpack - No, I'm
pointing out the ironic fact that people think media organizations, often owned
by corporations, that have made decent fortunes advance socialism.
To all those who think that regulations and laws are the reason for income
inequality let me ask you a question. Would the standard of living go up if
labor laws like, ot after forty hour work weeks and minimum wage laws were
repealed? What if unions were outlawed? Would this nation be better off or would
we be more like china?
We are (or were until this election) a land of opportunity, where those who
studied hard, worked hard and played by the rules really could get rich. Richer
than those who did not bother studying hard, did not work hard, or only loaf
around waiting for the next Santa Claus gift from the liberals to their reliable
dependency class voters.Thus the disparity of results clearly comes
from a disparity of effort.I am not one of the "evil rich"
but I object to those who think that by stealing from those who work hard they
will somehow enrich everyone else.The Pilgrims tired it that way,
and nearly starved, until they abandoned the communal socialist experiment and
instituted private property and keeping the fruits of one's labors.How about the NBA players making millions while the rest of the people
in the basketball industry only make peanuts? Let's take away from those
rich guys! Or the trial lawyers who make more than their secretaries? Or union
bosses who make more than their members?
UtahBlueDevil,I can't say it any better then frugalfly. In
this country, we are free to succeed.
One of the major problems in America today in Entitlements, and it affects both
ends of the class system. Many in the Upper Class believe that they are entitled
to all they can get regardless of who it hurts or kills. For example, the
banking CEO's that received millions in "bank bail-out" funds,
after helping to cause the banking crisis, just because they donated to some
politicians campaign. Many in the Lower Class have been taught that they are
entitled to everything for nothing. There are more special programs, for low
income people everyday, i.e., the new cell phone programs, that enable the Lower
Class to have cell phones.
"At the same time, over the past 12 years tax rated for the richest 400
Americans have effectively been cut in half, according to data from the IRS. In
2007, the last year for which the IRS has released data, the richest 400
Americans paid a tax rate of 16.63 percent."=================Hmmm. I wonder why an article about differences in income ends by
talking about tax rates? Particularly when the quoted tax rate for the richest
400 Americans of a mere 16.63% is obviously NOT related to the type of income of
people in the lower income ranges. This is obvious partly because we all know
that our income tax rates are "progressive", meaning that people pay a
higher percentage tax as their regular earned income goes up. So much so that
the people earning the top 10% pay more than 50% of the income tax in the
country.So, clearly, the 16.63% figure, must mean that it is mostly
from -investment- income, making the use of it here more than a little
misleading and disingenuous. Or, put more bluntly, it is used dishonestly.
The reason that blue states are so economically advanced has less to do with the
fact that they are "blue" and more based upon history and geography.
The reason many of them are "blue" is that they have massive takers of
unemployment and welfare. There are so many low income individuals that are on
the government dole that they skew the voting. An interesting experiment would
be if you took away all the urban welfare out of states like New York,
Massachusetts, Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, I think many of those states would
be far more red than you think. My theory is that wealth of the blue states is
highly "red created". There are the blue elites and then the blue
bottom 1/3 as well as blue 1/5 based upon social issues but these people are
fiscally "red". Blue is explained by race as well not because of
economic philosophy. Blue is explained many times by social issues not economic
issues. The blue's shouldn't take too much "fiscal credit"
for the state of their economically powerful states. Probably a lot of red
energy and red fiscal contribution moving those blue states.
It seems many posting here don't realize significant wealth disparity is
bad for all, not only those at the bottom. If you don't understand, study
basic antitrust law for a few minutes. It's actually fairly simple to
explain why significant wealth gaps are not good for society. But there will
always be those who argue based on the extremes and don't realize they are
making points that nobody disagrees with (e.g., we should be rewarded for our
hard work! -- fyi - nobody disagrees with you and nobody is saying it
shouldn't be this way...).
"...Skyrocketing income inequality in America over the past 30
years...".This is news?The purpose of reagan
republican trickle down economics has nearly been achieved.The
current bumper crop of reagan wannabees are falling all over themselves helping
the job creators NOT create jobs faster than ever.Dutch would be
@frugalfly - you propose that the top wealth in Blue states is held by Red
people. And yet in this last election, 8 of the top 10 wealthiest counties in
the nation voted blue. he data just doesn't support that proposition. If
you look in your own state of washington, it is the deeply affluent areas that
voted Blue the heaviest, where as eastern side of the state that voted in higher
rates conservative. Point is there is just a lot more issues at play than just
rich versus poor... and the Republicans need to figure that out. @Worf - perhaps you believe that this country is about survival of the
fittest... and maybe that really is the direction we are headed. But in my
opinion and faith, it is to become higher than the carnal man that is our
commandment. I pray we are not devolving into a dog eat dog world.... but
perhaps.... you are right.
As much as I like your views it is kind of funny to see all the normally
conservative commentators commenting and justifying income disparity.I agree with what you are saying that someone who because of their hard work
earns more than someone else, but look at it this way. Obamacare is forcing
employers to cut some employees from full-time to part-time. I would propose
that a lot of those people needed those hours that are being cut. Are you OK
My brother and I were born in a home with no plumbing or electricity. Our family
was dirt poor. Used an outhouse. No phone in the home until I was 20 and long
gone. My older brother and I had equal opportunity. I chose to work hard and
graduate high school. He quit in 9th grade. I joined the LDS church and served a
2 year mission. He never set foot in church and spent his time drinking, smoking
and partying. I chose to go to college. He chose to wander from one job to
another, just getting by. I worked very hard, set goals and moved up in my
career. He never made much more than minimum wage. I invested my money, never
buying needless things. He spent every available dollar on lottery tickets.
Today I am 54, debt free, own my own business, have a very comfortable life and
looking forward to retirement. My brother lives with one of his kids in a
trailer, bumming money from them for smokes. Can't work because of lung
cancer. Can't take care of himself.Choices have consequences.
My brothers poor choices were his choices. HE CHOSE THE LIFE HE LIVES.
Why in the world is this supposed to be a bad thing?Basic economics
tells us that people are paid based on their productivity. In the past 30
years, the productivity of the least productive workers in our society -
unskilled labor - has certainly gone up a bit. The work of personnel in retail,
unskilled manufacturing, fast food, etc has gotten more productive as
computer-controlled systems were co-mingled with their traditionally low-tech
jobs. But the productivity of our nations highest 20% of productive
workers has skyrocketed with the advent of personal computing. Desk-top
computing has made members of this group be able to do the work of multiple
workers that had the same job description 30 years earlier, whether they are
financial analysts, physicians, pharmacists or physicists. If you
increase productivity of the least productive segment of society by say 50% over
30 years, but increase it by 300% in the top segment, how could you not expect
an increase in income inequality?
@statman - it is an interesting theory, and at some level seems to make sense.
But do you really think executives have become 300 percent more productive? And
do you really think their compensation is tied to economic value generated? For
example, locally our garbage people have gone from 2 people on a truck to a
single person, with an automated arm that dumps the cans. The process is
probably 25 to 40 percent faster. The productivity of the truck has gone up
several fold because you have reduced the human cost, and increased the number
of residences served per hour. Do you think the remaining driver of the trucks
wage has increased in any relationship to the increased productivity? I doubt
it. But maybe.If you try building models around this "survival
of the fittest" mentality as one proposed, it becomes difficult because
using education as a constraint, you end up an inordinate number of outliers.
There are far more factors that predict future wealth. Anyway.... first person
to truly figure this out will surely do very well financially.
I'm not worried that someone will make a ton more money than I, my concern
is when it comes from using that extreme financial power to keep the masses from
having a general choice to make a decent living wage. The Jungle by Upton
Sinclair shows an example of what can happen with unregulated corporate
behavior. Freedom disappears, anything that matters beyond the next meal
disappears for most of the working classes. In the last 20 years,
we've had a shift away from 'socialism' policies in the U.S. It
seems we have also increased permanent poverty. Humans are always going to
create inequality, the trick is to not let it get so far that your whole system
turns into masses starving vs. a few ultra-rich. That's a recipe for
revolution and not progress for freedom.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments