Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
That is to say, you support a two tier tax bracket. 25% for everyone under the threshold and 100% for everything above the threshold.
I don't disagree, but would suggest that direct experience is not the only way to gain knowledge. It's quite possible to become an expert on a subject by observation from the outside. In fact, given the sheer amount of time needed to actually participate in everything a person wants to have knowledge of, I would suggest that "experts by direct experience" are a minority.
I agree. It's not good or bad, it's a matter of degree. The top of the pyramid has ASTOUNDING wealth!
Sigh. Once again my tendency to tell stories and assuming people will see what I'm getting at bites me in the ***.
Alright, the owner leases or rents things to everyone else, so you have control over what you have and what you do with it. Whatever. Is there something inherently wrong about wealth inequality when that's all there is?
What does that have to do with what I said?
:winner:What does that have to do with what I said?
To the contrary, there is evidence that for-profit prisons have paid state, county, or local officials to hand out longer sentences to make more money incarcerating people.
- "Kids for Cash" Scandal: One prominent case is the "Kids for Cash" scandal in Pennsylvania, which involved two judges receiving kickbacks from a for-profit juvenile detention center in exchange for sentencing juveniles to extended stays. The judges were found guilty of racketeering, money laundering, and other charges in 2009.
- The GEO Group: In 2013, the GEO Group, one of the largest for-profit prison companies in the United States, reached a settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice over allegations of inadequate medical and mental health care at a Mississippi facility they operated. The settlement required the company to improve conditions and pay a substantial sum.
- Arizona Prison Conditions: A federal lawsuit in 2012 accused the private prison operator Corrections Corporation of America (now known as CoreCivic) of grossly inadequate healthcare, understaffing, and dangerous conditions at several Arizona prisons. The lawsuit alleged that these conditions were driven by the company's pursuit of profit.
- Lobbying and Political Contributions: For-profit prison companies have been criticized for their extensive lobbying efforts and political contributions, which some argue aim to influence legislation and policies that would lead to higher incarceration rates. These efforts have faced scrutiny regarding potential conflicts of interest and the influence on sentencing laws.
- Sentencing Incentives: Critics argue that the profit motive in for-profit prisons can lead to perverse incentives, where longer sentences or increased incarceration rates translate into higher profits. This potential conflict of interest raises concerns about fair and unbiased decision-making in the criminal justice system.
With respect, I can't tell if your being coy as a tactic or if I really need to explain this to you. However, either way, this conversation is getting tedious.
In general, a society with smaller disparities in income between the poor and the very wealthy is more likely to provide better conditions for the poor compared to a society with larger income disparities. Here's why:
- Economic Opportunity: In a society with smaller income disparities, there is typically a greater distribution of resources and opportunities. This can result in improved access to education, job training, healthcare, and other essential services for the poor. It provides a more level playing field and enhances the potential for upward mobility.
- Social Safety Nets: Societies with smaller income disparities tend to prioritize social safety nets and welfare programs to support those in need. These programs can include income support, affordable housing, healthcare, and nutritional assistance. With a more equitable distribution of resources, it becomes feasible to allocate adequate funds to support the basic needs of the poor, reducing poverty levels and improving overall well-being.
- Reduced Social Divisions: Smaller income disparities contribute to social cohesion and a sense of shared purpose within a society. When income gaps are extreme, social divisions tend to widen, which can lead to social unrest, crime rates, and a breakdown of trust. In societies with smaller disparities, there is generally less polarization and a greater sense of solidarity, promoting a more stable and supportive environment for the poor.
- Health and Quality of Life: Studies have shown that income inequality has negative effects on public health, including higher rates of physical and mental health issues among the poor. In societies with smaller disparities, the poor are more likely to have access to better healthcare, nutrition, and living conditions, leading to improved health outcomes and overall quality of life.
Evidence for these claims can be found:
- "The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger" by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett: This influential book analyzes data from multiple countries and demonstrates the negative social and health impacts of income inequality, including higher rates of health problems, crime, and social unrest. It argues that societies with smaller income disparities tend to have better outcomes for all their members.
- World Bank's "Inclusion Matters: The Foundation for Shared Prosperity" report: This report examines the relationship between inequality and poverty reduction. It highlights how more equal societies tend to have higher levels of social mobility and better outcomes in areas such as education, health, and overall well-being.
- Research by economists such as Raj Chetty, Nathaniel Hendren, and others: Their studies focus on economic mobility and the impact of income inequality on intergenerational income mobility. The research suggests that in societies with smaller income disparities, individuals from lower-income backgrounds have higher chances of upward mobility and escaping poverty.
- Studies on the social determinants of health: Research in this field consistently shows that income inequality is associated with negative health outcomes, including higher rates of physical and mental health issues, lower life expectancy, and health disparities among socio-economic groups.
You really like to take what I said and rephrase it in a way that that makes it something I didn't say and frankly, that's pretty dishonest. To say something occurs more in one place (where disparities are high) vs less in another place (where disparities are low) are not the same as saying "not that often" which lacks any relevant context.
I gave an example of where, specifically in Nordic countries where they lead on socioeconomic factors:
- Teen Birth Rate: The teen birth rate refers to the number of births per 1,000 females aged 15-19. Nordic countries generally have low teen birth rates compared to many other regions. This can be attributed to comprehensive sex education, accessible contraception, and social support systems that provide reproductive health services and education.
- Incarceration Rates: Nordic countries typically have lower incarceration rates compared to many other countries. They emphasize rehabilitation and reintegration rather than punitive approaches. The focus is on addressing the root causes of crime, providing education and job training programs for prisoners, and prioritizing alternatives to incarceration.
- Recidivism: Recidivism refers to the rate at which individuals who have been previously incarcerated reoffend and return to prison. Nordic countries have relatively low recidivism rates compared to other regions. Their emphasis on rehabilitation, providing support during and after imprisonment, and offering comprehensive social services contribute to successful reintegration and reduced recidivism.
- Drug Use: Nordic countries have implemented a harm reduction approach to drug use. They focus on public health initiatives, treatment programs, and prevention strategies rather than solely relying on criminalization. Overall, drug use rates in Nordic countries tend to be lower compared to some other regions, although specific patterns may vary by substance and population group.
- Happiness: Nordic countries often rank highly in happiness indices. Factors contributing to this include strong social welfare systems, low income inequality, access to healthcare and education, social support networks, work-life balance, and high levels of trust in society. The focus on well-being and quality of life contributes to the overall happiness of the population.
And While I'll concede that there are more than one factor that contribute to these outcomes (another major factor is they are much less likely to be religious).
That said, if you'd like to dismiss this section, feel free, I've posted plenty that stands on it's own.
Right, these sorts of things are usually fall into a Pareto distribution, the fact that most investors aren't rich is irrelevant.
Agree completely, which is why I said, all other things being equal.
Right, and that's a excellent example, and one that I concede is probably true (this is why I asked you to explain rather than dismissing this point). Take a company like Costco that is, at least anywhere I've ever live, is known to pay workers well above the average for a given job. There are certainly benefits and lower turnover is one of them. Employees tend to be more loyal and I suspect they feel valued more than other people in similar positions and you might be right, this might help offset higher wages.
Sounds like you're on to something!
That said, It's hard to know if these tangible and intangible benefits really do offset the higher wages people are paid, but I think when added to their increased purchasing power, in an economy that has room for more spending (and more jobs), the overall effect is definity positive.
Given the amount of money in the hands of just a few, it doesn't take many of the nations richest people to act selfishly to effect the lives of 10's of millions of Americans.
I don't give homework assignments so do with this what you will, but Jammie Johnson, the son of Johnson And Johnson fortune made a documentary that exposes some of what we're discussing.
It's pretty interesting.
With this idea of yours, you said it would level the playing field; how? If for example I am 70 years old when I die with millions that goes to the government, my kids will be approx 45-50 and will have already have had more advantages than people their age with poor parents; so how does this level the playing field? Also you mentioned the parents will just gift their possessions to their kids before death; how could that be prevented? If Gifting becomes illegal, I can just buy something my son made for a million bucks before death; I just don’t see how the government can prevent someone from giving their possessions to their kids. I think there is a huge incentive to pass something along to your kids when you pass, if you take away that incentive, people would have no interest in creating wealth and the economy will suffer because of it.
No; I’m saying if people don’t have a say in how their money is invested, they will refrain from investing. Also, where is the incentive of spending a lifetime paying off a house, if you can’t leave it to your family? I think most would just rent; and only investors will buy
But as people die and their shares goes to the government, it’s only a matter of time before the vast majority of the shares are owned by the government, unless the government chooses to sell some of them.3. I didn't lay it out and it is not part of the general idea but I'd prefer that the government should be bound to sell stock in excess of 25% of any corporation that isn't essential (like water and energy). But it should be done over a period of time to not interrupt the market. (And I'd prefer workers to be specially incentivized to buy stock from the corporation they're working at.)
What happens if I start a business, but when I retire, I wanna sell the business to someone else? does the government wait till the new owner dies before taking it? Or do the government still take it when I die.
My problem with your links is it assumes if the rich didn't have so much money, the poor would have more; which isn't true. The reality is, if the rich had less money, the poor would not have more, they would likely have even less.Generally speaking, the greater the income disparity, the more problems typically result. In anthropology, we have seen this pattern over and over and over again.
The U.S. Inequality Debate
Public policy experts call income and wealth inequality one of the defining challenges of this century. Recent crises have accelerated these divisions, and the COVID-19 pandemic has deepened them fur…www.cfr.org
6 facts about economic inequality in the U.S.
Over the past 50 years, the highest-earning 20% of U.S. households have steadily brought in a larger share of the country’s total income.www.pewresearch.org
The problem with wealth inequality
The World Economic Forum is an independent international organization committed to improving the state of the world by engaging business, political, academic and other leaders of society to shape global, regional and industry agendas. Incorporated as a not-for-profit foundation in 1971, and...www.weforum.org
So you agree with me?
BLM was powerful without wealth.
BLM is a social movement, no one person or group of people controls, it's not comparable to the power of of a corporation or a hedge fund.
What power? What has changed due to BLM?
The prison for profit system would exist with all of it's flaws regardless of income disparity, so what does it have to do with the income gap?
I'm talking about USA society; not some country with a different culture. In the 1950's there was less income disparity than today, do you think the poor were taken care of better by the rich back then better than today? I don't think so
I don't think any of that stuff was better in the 1950's when income disparity was not as wide than today. It's getting late, I will respond to the rest later
Name a corporation or hedge fund that has done more to change the things in this country than what BLM did.
there are a lot of changes in the way the police does their jobs, they got a lot of police departments temporarily defunded, resulting in increased crime, and violence unchallenged.
They at least don't gain additional (unfair) advantages. Also, even if you paid for your kids tuition, other kids could probably also afford a better education as they didn't have to pay taxes during their lifetime. I don't get why this doesn't convince people of the idea.
They already do it. Transfer of big sums of money or notable wealth is already taxed.
How do you know?
Off course not. The government will just take the money you got for your business. Saves them the hassle of selling it themselves.
