Let's Debate Inequality

[sayak83]

This is a talk by Nobel Laureate in Economics on the current trends and future (grim) prospects of Inequality. Thought it would be a good place to start a debate and discussion on inequality. Do you think it is one of the most urgent problems facing the world today? If not, why not? If yes, what should be the solution.

 

[Heyo]

This is a talk by Nobel Laureate in Economics on the current trends and future (grim) prospects of Inequality. Thought it would be a good place to start a debate and discussion on inequality. Do you think it is one of the most urgent problems facing the world today? If not, why not? If yes, what should be the solution.

I couldn't make it through the hole talk. He is just an unorganized speaker, interrupting himself constantly, making it impossible to follow through a thought.
From the third that I did manage, he is pointing out mainly two things: 1. Accumulation. A concept very well studied and explained precise and in detail by Karl Marx in Das Kapital. 2. Reaganomics increases and accelerates inequality.
The solution is simple: tax the rich.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I couldn't make it through the hole talk. He is just an unorganized speaker, interrupting himself constantly, making it impossible to follow through a thought.
From the third that I did manage, he is pointing out mainly two things: 1. Accumulation. A concept very well studied and explained precise and in detail by Karl Marx in Das Kapital. 2. Reaganomics increases and accelerates inequality.
The solution is simple: tax the rich.

How exactly is taxing the rich going to help or benefit anyone aside from the government who are the only ones who are getting the money?

UBI?

 

[Yerda]

How exactly is taxing the rich going to help or benefit anyone aside from the government who are the only ones who are getting the money?

UBI?

Governments spend the funds raised through taxation on a number of things. Theses are normally detailed in the budgets published by the governments.

What did you think was happening to money raised through taxes? They don't take it home, man.

 

[Spice]

I know it will never be so simple, but if we were to have a flat $1,000 deductible per household member, and a flat 10% tax, look how "fair" it would appear. And yet it still hits the poor the hardest in attainable living.
Family of 4 @ $45,000 gross
Pays 10% of 41,000 = $4,100.
Family of 4 @ $250,000 gross
Pays 10% of 246,000 = $24,600
Family of 4 @ $1,000,000 gross
Pays 10% of 996,000 = $99,600

So when the Dems speak of restructuring tax oblation for households above $400,000, they're still being extremely generous.

 

[Audie]

Governments spend the funds raised through taxation on a number of things. Theses are normally detailed in the budgets published by the governments.

What did you think was happening to money raised through taxes? They don't take it home, man.

They don't? Surely you're joking.

 

[Yerda]

They don't? Surely you're joking.

Nah, I'm jesting. They sneak it out the back in big sacks.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

How exactly is taxing the rich going to help or benefit anyone aside from the government who are the only ones who are getting the money?

The poor and middle class literally labor under the constant threat that the retirement age will be increased. Meanwhile, the Social Security tax limit stands at $168,600. Golly gee shucks, what could we possibly do to achieve a more equitable society?

 

[sun rise]

In the 1950's and more, the difference in income between CEOs and regular folk was pretty moderate and in the USA at least being middle-class was achievable. Now we find many with good incomes not able to afford the basics while the superrich compete on the sizes of the yachts and private planes.

As the Brookings folk noted, this is a problem not only in the US but world-wide Rising inequality: A major issue of our time

 

[Watchmen]

Government has repeatedly demonstrated it’s bad at handling money and inefficient at getting things done (making projects and legitimate worthy goals much more expensive than needed). We shouldn’t give the government more until the government demonstrates financial responsibility.

 

[sayak83]

Government has repeatedly demonstrated it’s bad at handling money and inefficient at getting things done (making projects and legitimate worthy goals much more expensive than needed). We shouldn’t give the government more until the government demonstrates financial responsibility.

Government can simply redistribute the extra taxes as income to the poor and let the poor families decide how to use that money. A universal social security at a good enough level is not hard to do.

 

[Watchmen]

Government can simply redistribute the extra taxes as income to the poor and let the poor families decide how to use that money. A universal social security at a good enough level is not hard to do.

And you missed my point. The government is terrible at distributing money and building things and getting things done. Why should I give my money to someone demonstrably incapable of using it wisely and efficiently?

 

[Koldo]

And you missed my point. The government is terrible at distributing money and building things and getting things done. Why should I give my money to someone demonstrably incapable of using it wisely and efficiently?

Because... what's the alternative?

 

[Watchmen]

Because... what's the alternative?

Demand government responsibility and efficiency.

 

[Heyo]

How exactly is taxing the rich going to help or benefit anyone aside from the government who are the only ones who are getting the money?

UBI?

UBI would be a good thing to fight inequality, if combined with a more progressive tax system.
An alternative to a progressive tax system would be a 100% estate tax. You simply pay your taxes when you're dead.

 

[Madsaac]

Increase minimum wage.

Ensure money generated from taxes is spent on incentives for 'poorer' people to find their way out of poverty. Things like education, incentives for work, more assistance for single parent families.

Policies left of centre, like Denmark for example, share the wealth

 

[RestlessSoul]

How exactly is taxing the rich going to help or benefit anyone aside from the government who are the only ones who are getting the money?

UBI?

The purpose of government in a democracy, is to serve the people. When it serves only a small minority of people, namely the rich, the people lose faith in government, and society fails. That’s what’s happening now, throughout the democratic world. The answer is, self evidently, for governments to reign in the power of the rich; stop surrendering to their interests, tax them properly, hold them to account for the damage they cause to the environment, to the fabric of society, etc.

 

[RestlessSoul]

.

 

[PureX]

I couldn't make it through the hole talk. He is just an unorganized speaker, interrupting himself constantly, making it impossible to follow through a thought.
From the third that I did manage, he is pointing out mainly two things: 1. Accumulation. A concept very well studied and explained precise and in detail by Karl Marx in Das Kapital. 2. Reaganomics increases and accelerates inequality.
The solution is simple: tax the rich.

An even better solution would be to end capitalism and set up a socialist mechanism for conducting a business enterprise. Once the people being effected by a business enterprise have a say in how that business is being conducted, we will not have this constant disparity of wealth and power occurring in the first place. And yes, when it does occur, we should tax that accumulated excess wealth back into the economy.

 

[Koldo]

Demand government responsibility and efficiency.

And let the government distribute money and build things.