The tax cuts of the early 80's and Bush tax cuts produced the largest
increases in tax revenue in the history of the country. The problem is that we
spend it faster than we raise it. Our problems are spending problems not tax
revenue problems. I agree with the commentator that the richest counties vote
blue. These are the Beverly Hills ultra/ubber rich type of counties (low
population). The blue is made of the bottom 1/3 urban class, the 1/5 social
blue (more fiscal red but socially blue) and the small elite rich. Remember
that what makes someone blue isn't necessarily agreement with economics but
social agreement. I know lots of people who voted for Obama because of social
liberalism. If they had their way they would like a fiscal conservative and
socially liberal candidate. When they make their mind up they go for the social
@ Stalwart SentinelI am suspect you to be a school teacher the way
you jumped on my typo. I will leave school teachers alone in this post. Dang
those are impressive numbers but I have heard them before from California
folks.That must be a cookie cutter reply out there. I didn't care then and
I don't care now. Dang you folks must be busy out there. You are 125% more
productive than I am.Here are some stats you might want to see. CA. is upside
down some $300 billion. Your unemployment is over 10%. You have one third of
Americas welfare recipients while being one eighth of the population. Americas
highest state or in other words the Welfare Queen.You have the lowest credit
rating of all the states according to S&P.Over 4 million on food stamps.You
better get a lot more productive cause it appears you will need it. You need to
point your finger at Sacremento and Washington D.C and most of all yourselves. I
do not think that SLC has that much to do with your problems.I am glad you are
there and I am not.
@Stalwart SentinelAll you have verified is that The Federal
Government via socialistic programming has made: ALL States
dependent on the government for federal funding,has put all schools
under federal control via dependence on federal funds, ( a hundred years is was
socialists idea to push all children into public schools where they could be
taught what they wanted the children to be taught, before that most children
were in private schools, or locally funded and controlled schools)and has 50% of the population dependent on federal funding from EIC to
welfare, from headstart to SS, from food stamps to obamaphones,the
government is now dictating over bake sales, light bulbs, the size your soda,
and on and on,How is all this control in the hands of few such a
good thing?If the federal government controls all income then they
have all control over all things and all people. Tyranny.You
don't effect change with federal power, you effect change by changing minds
and hearts.But the left will not allow true change because they
will not allow the teaching of morals, values, and principles.It's ALL about power not change.HOw is this good thing.
Capitalism is not a perfect but it has provided the incentive for the prosperity
we have enjoyed over many many years. "Capitalism is the
unequal distribution of wealth. Socialism is the equal distribution of
poverty". Winston Churchhill
@frugalfly:"You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging
thrift..."Abraham Lincoln never said that. It was written by
John Henry Boetcker, a Presbyterian minister, in 1916.Since you got
that wrong, how much of the rest of your argument is similarly flawed?
mohokat1 - That quote was first penned decades after Lincoln's
death, he never said it. If you're misinformed about a simple quote, where
else are you misinformed? 2 - The "whining class envy
soclialists (sic)" that kept Romney out of the White House literally pay for
you to live. Since 1981, the State of Utah has received more than $22billion
USD in Federal dollars that it didn't pay into the system. In other words,
your entire state has been subsidized to the tune of nearly a billion dollars a
year while my state, CA, paid out more than $489billion more than it received.
We literally bail your state out every single year. Further, our GDP per capita
is more than 125% of Utah's. On any given work day, the average
Californian will produce 125% of the wealth you do. So, I'll make you a
deal, you can start accusing the productive members of society of being
"soclialists" when a) you pay off your $22billion tab, and b) catch up
with the rest of us in productivity. Deal?
A lot of people are struggling in today's economy. It is not fair to label
all the poor as lazy and unmotivated. I just turned 57. I am buried in debt
and just getting by. I have worked since I was fourteen. I earned money for an
LDS mission by bagging groceries and farm labor. I served 25 years in the Army
National Guard. Yes I have made mistakes, I freely admit it. The issue I have
with conservatives is they are so judgemental of others. Americans are not lazy
people, never have been and never will be. Conservatives need to stop buying
into all the stereotypes and start being more charitable towards others.
Charity is not socialism. The Book of Mormon warns us of the dangers of pride,
materialism, inequality and turning our backs on the poor and needy. I am
conservative myself. Conservatives need to stop blaming the poor for being poor.
That was Romney's problem. He has no clue what it is like to be poor or
even middle class in America. Assigning character flaws to others is
hypocritical. We all have faults and shortcomings.
To all the whining class envy soclialists. Lincoln said it best :"You cannot
help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot strengthen the weak by
weakening the strong. You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging
thrift. You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. You cannot build character and courage by taking away people's initiative
and independence. You cannot help people permanently by doing for them,
what they could and should do for themselves." ... Abraham LincolnReading all this whining proves to me Obama has been succesful in tearing down
One thing I forgot to mention, and given what today is, I would be remiss. I
work throughout the world, helping many of these companies being referred to
figure out ways to make yet even more money through sharpening their margins and
increasing productivity. Focused on energy and exploration, I get to go to a
lot of remote locations through the world well off the tourist beaten paths.In doing so, I witness real poverty, what having the chance at jobs
really means to some What rings home is despite our differences, our flaws,
and all our problems , there are many in this world that would exchange their
problems for ours in a heart beat. We truly do live in a blessed time and
place. We need to keep those "issues" we think we have in perspective,
and give thanksgiving for the many things we have. The graft, corruption, and
despair experienced through out the world should remind us that our differences
are far less than we imagine, and our problems are ever so much more solvable -
if we just remember and give thanks for those things we do have.
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.
@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.
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?
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.
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
@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.
"...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
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...).
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.
"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.
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.
UtahBlueDevil,I can't say it any better then frugalfly. In
this country, we are free to succeed.
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?
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?
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.
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.
@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.
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
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.
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,
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.
@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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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. 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.
"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.
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.
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.
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....
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!
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.
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
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.
DesNews, let me introduce you to Ronald Reagan's policies... oh, I see
you've only just met.
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
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.
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