Reason for income inequality. It's because there are people who work harder than you.

[Revoltingest]

Being able to attend a good school? It should matter if the reason they were able to attend was due to family wealth, and the person is arguing that hard work is the way to success. It should be clear to anyone that hard work might actually be the smallest factor relating to success.

See post #39.

Additionally, hard work is still a great factor.
Working smart generally won't accomplish much unless one works long hard hours at such work.
The "you didn't build that" crowd attribute success to luck & dependence upon government in
order to justify taking ever more in taxes from the 'undeserving' successful & productive
elements in society. That's why hard work & greater skills/intelligence are so easily dismissed.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think you are underselling how exceptional (and more than likely lucky) this example is.

I have you to point that out for me.

 

[Revoltingest]

Exactly what I was going to say. The most important thing I believe is education. Unfortunately in the US we made a business out of it. It also takes in massive amounts of tax money and produces poor results. To get a real education you have to be willing to go into debt. So the rich get richer and send their kids to the best schools, while the poor are stuck with public education.

Don't get me going on education reform!

 

[Revoltingest]

My nephew got his education through video games. He failed at school and spent all his time playing some online game. He'd acquire virtual items and sell them for virtual money. We all thought he was wasting his time. Then he started buying matching car paint from the manufacture and selling it on Ebay at a profit. Now he's 23 and owns his own business pulling in $40 to $50k each month. He just figured out what people wanted and found an easy way to deliver it to them. He is still lazy. Now He hires other folks to do the work.

There's much to be said for having the intellectual wherewithal to strike while the iron is hot.

 

[Nietzsche]

See post #39.

Additionally, hard work is still a great factor.
Working smart generally won't accomplish much unless one works long hard hours at such work.

And even then it's not likely to accomplish much anyway. Your point?

The "you didn't build that" crowd attribute success to luck & dependence upon government in
order to justify taking ever more in taxes from the 'undeserving' successful & productive
elements in society. That's why hard work & greater skills/intelligence are so easily dismissed.

If you are Bill Gates or Warren Buffet rich, you're not going to notice a higher tax. The super-rich will not be even remotely inconvenienced by higher taxes. In the 50s the ludicrously wealthy paid a 91% tax. It worked beautifully. We got the highways built amongst countless other things. It worked once when we were even less wealthy than we are now. It didn't stifle growth, it did nothing but improve the lives of the country as a whole.

 

[Revoltingest]

And even then it's not likely to accomplish much anyway. Your point?

That was my point.

If you are Bill Gates or Warren Buffet rich, you're not going to notice a higher tax. The super-rich will not be even remotely inconvenienced by higher taxes.

It isn't about inconveniencing them.
It's about how tax policies & rates affect their behavior.
If we don't consider the effects of taxes, then we'll be bitten by unintended consequences, eg, driving away investment.

In the 50s the ludicrously wealthy paid a 91% tax. It worked beautifully. We got the highways built amongst countless other things. It worked once when we were even less wealthy than we are now. It didn't stifle growth, it did nothing but improve the lives of the country as a whole.

The marginal income tax rate is only part of the picture.
This 90+% rate was accompanied by far more extensive tax shelters than we have today.
When the income tax rates were lowered, the generous shelters went away.
This was a big improvement.
(Note: there were other factors that let our economy do well back then despite high marginal tax rates.
But those factors are gone now, eg, little foreign competition, our huge technological advantage, our not suffering WW2 destruction.)
I don't like games where the high rates are avoided by non-economic tax shelters because it skews behavior to be unproductive.
This happened in real estate, where one could make money with unprofitable properties because of accelerated depreciation & low capital gains recapture rates upon sale.
All one had to do is own property to make money.....the property itself didn't have to be profitable.
This resulted in much waste.

People who advocate returning to those confiscatory rates never look at the whole picture.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

If you are Bill Gates or Warren Buffet rich, you're not going to notice a higher tax. The super-rich will not be even remotely inconvenienced by higher taxes. In the 50s the ludicrously wealthy paid a 91% tax. It worked beautifully. We got the highways built amongst countless other things. It worked once when we were even less wealthy than we are now. It didn't stifle growth, it did nothing but improve the lives of the country as a whole.

The issue isn't needing a higher tax rate. The issue is capping the deductions so we have a higher effective tax rate. Like revolt said the 91% tax rate didn't matter since they were still only playing around 15% or so on average anyway.

Though one major change is that now tax records are confidential. They were at one time a matter of public record. Now you need a court order to have them released.

 

[suncowiam]

Is there such a thing as income equality to begin with?

Why do we expect such a concept to exist? As if life is fair or should be fair?

If you don't like your income, then what are you doing to make it better? If someone else can do it, why not you (generally speaking)?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

NBA players make a fortune because that's a limited skill pool.

Not really. They only make a fortune because of merchandise, ticket sales, product endorsements, and so on.

I don't care what school someone goes to, how much money their parents had,

or if they have no great suffering which confers rising-above-victimhood status.
I care primarily about what agendas they'd implement in office, & how effective
they' be at effecting them. This is simpler & germane.

As I said, it would be more impressive. Our entire national political scene is overflowing with people who come from wealth, went to "rich" colleges, and it isn't surprising because it takes a lot of money to even get your foot in the door.

Is there such a thing as income equality to begin with?

What else do you call it when a few people have more money than some nations combined, while you have many who work but can't afford the necessities?

If you don't like your income, then what are you doing to make it better? If someone else can do it, why not you (generally speaking)?

If anyone could do it, our system would implode on itself. If everyone who wanted to be rich became rich, things would turn ugly, and we would have things like sky-rocketing inflation.

 

[Revoltingest]

If anyone could do it, our system would implode on itself. If everyone who wanted to be rich became rich, things would turn ugly, and we would have things like sky-rocketing inflation.

I've also read (here) that if everyone were gay the human race would die out.
I don't worry about hypotheticals which don't happen.

 

[Penumbra]

It depends whether one refers to inequality to mean the existence of rich and poor, or whether one refers to inequality to mean the magnitude of that divide.

The reasons for there to be rich and poor are numerous, including work ethic, intelligence, investment, education, geography, luck, inheritance, and countless others. It's not work ethic alone; many low-income people work harder than high income people. When I worked as a deli clerk in my teens, I had to stay on my feet all day to deal with the constant flow of customers, and had only two short breaks each shift, with no paid sick or vacation days, and didn't make much money. Now, I have a lot of paid leave, don't work as physically hard, but work mentally instead, and make a much higher income. Overall I would say I worked harder when I was a teen. Laborers of various types are among the hardest workers in the economy.

But when various countries are measured and some countries are found with a much larger divide between the rich and poor (or put another way, meaning that much of the wealth is concentrated in the hands of very few), that has a lot to do with politics. Tax rates and social programs are a big driver of that.

 

[Simplelogic]

I think part of the problem in this discussion is that it starts with an illogical premise. Namely, the expectation for a fair system that honors "hard work" which is only a fairy tale that utopian westerners could conjure up.

 

[suncowiam]

What else do you call it when a few people have more money than some nations combined, while you have many who work but can't afford the necessities?
If anyone could do it, our system would implode on itself. If everyone who wanted to be rich became rich, things would turn ugly, and we would have things like sky-rocketing inflation.

My question was, if there was such a thing as income equality? Not income inequality.

Why is there an assumption that everyone should earn the same exact income? And as I stated, life is not fair nor should it be fair. I will never be Tom Brady nor will I date super models.

Let's assume there is a utopian society that has implemented income equality. This basically means there is no need for currency. People would not need to trade anything for anything. But how does that really play out in the real world when there are finite resources. Does this mean we all drive exotic cars and live in 20 room mansions? Or do we simply ban the idea of luxury and all people will have to live in 10 x 10 rooms? What about families that want 5 kids compared to a family that is fine with 1 kid? Every new born is another person needing resources. How do we allocate to those families?

I didn't suggest everyone to get filthy rich. I'm suggesting that anyone can increase there income, if that was their primary goal. I stopped that goal when I understood that it would mean spending less time with my family and pursuit in areas that I'm not interested in.

Why does the poor expect the wealthy to lose their wealth? Why cant the same expectations be applied to the poor to build their wealth and their security?

I'm an immigrant and know plenty of immigrants that came from extreme poverty to middle income. They have more than enough to support themselves and their families. Some of my relatives are are consider wealthy. I can tell you that they didn't sit around doing nothing and this all occured out of thin air.

My richest uncle tinkered on an engineering idea that banked for him. He had a long stage in his life where he was consumed with work. He's beyond that stage and now he lives very comfortably in a big house, wealthy neighborhood and such. I take nothing away from him. But I do jokingly call his kids spoiled brats.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Does this mean we all drive exotic cars and live in 20 room mansions? Or do we simply ban the idea of luxury and all people will have to live in 10 x 10 rooms? What about families that want 5 kids compared to a family that is fine with 1 kid? Every new born is another person needing resources. How do we allocate to those families?

It means we place less emphasis on material junk, realize the difference between a need and a want, and because it is a necessity, make-do with less. The idea and design of planned obsoletion is something that needs to go. Advertisements that prey upon people's insecurities to manipulate them just so a company can make a buck need to go. We need to stop glorifying the hoarding of wealth and possessions, because we are destroying the planet and allowing severe exploitation so companies like Apple can release a new model of iPhone every so often and cell phone companies can offer upgrades every other year.
On other words, what we need is social push away from materialism and consumerism.

 

[suncowiam]

It means we place less emphasis on material junk, realize the difference between a need and a want, and because it is a necessity, make-do with less. The idea and design of planned obsoletion is something that needs to go. Advertisements that prey upon people's insecurities to manipulate them just so a company can make a buck need to go. We need to stop glorifying the hoarding of wealth and possessions, because we are destroying the planet and allowing severe exploitation so companies like Apple can release a new model of iPhone every so often and cell phone companies can offer upgrades every other year.
On other words, what we need is social push away from materialism and consumerism.

There are some communist countries still in existance. Maybe you like to try them?

Cuba, maybe?

 

[Simplelogic]

It means we place less emphasis on material junk, realize the difference between a need and a want, and because it is a necessity, make-do with less. The idea and design of planned obsoletion is something that needs to go. Advertisements that prey upon people's insecurities to manipulate them just so a company can make a buck need to go. We need to stop glorifying the hoarding of wealth and possessions, because we are destroying the planet and allowing severe exploitation so companies like Apple can release a new model of iPhone every so often and cell phone companies can offer upgrades every other year.
On other words, what we need is social push away from materialism and consumerism.

Every revolution pretends to be the answer to social injustice and inequality. Humans have been overthrowing governments and trying out new forms of Gov't since the dawn of man. Yet every attempt has resulted in the same conclusion. Slavery! Its because the majority of humans that crave political power are the worst people on the planet morally. The honest and good people on earth don't generally give a **** and continue to live their lives regardless of the political machine they are slaves to. You are suggesting that people need to rise up against the economic giants who get rich by exploiting people, but to what end?

 

[idav]

I think part of the problem in this discussion is that it starts with an illogical premise. Namely, the expectation for a fair system that honors "hard work" which is only a fairy tale that utopian westerners could conjure up.

It isnt ridiculous to ask that hard work pay off instead of unreasonably having to work passed 70 years while the rich can retire as Kids.

 

[Simplelogic]

It isnt ridiculous to ask that hard work pay off instead of unreasonably having to work passed 70 years while the rich can retire as Kids.

Of course its not ridiculous….just naive.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Of course its not ridiculous….just naive.

It is Naive to think that such a system simply rewards hard work and those deserving. It is not naive to think there are ways to increase the average income of the lower and mid paying jobs of today while reducing the incredible amassing of wealth accumulating at the top.

 

[Simplelogic]

It is Naive to think that such a system simply rewards hard work and those deserving. It is not naive to think there are ways to increase the average income of the lower and mid paying jobs of today while reducing the incredible amassing of wealth accumulating at the top.

Sure, you can move the goal posts a little bit.