Wealth & Income Inequality

I don't understand for life of me why @Edgar Allan Pillow in threads about how current system is broken, always argues on things that are illegal or legal based on the laws of current system.

I don't recall ever arguing that. I'd happily agree tax codes are outdated and lots needs to be fixed. My point was the wealth redistribution solution is not the answer.

To summarize:

- Is wealth inequality a capitalist problem? No, it was equally prevalent in every other form of economy.
- If we take away top 10 billionaires money, can we guarantee minimum standard of life or everyone? No. Nobody even seem to know how much it'll cost or how it'll work.

All that is being argued is some idealistic sentiments with no background or data to support that.
 
Last edited:
I don't recall ever arguing that. I'd happily agree tax codes are outdated and lots needs to be fixed. My point was the wealth redistribution solution is not the answer.

To summarize:

- Is wealth inequality a capitalist problem? No, it was equally prevalent in every other form of economy.
- If we take away top 10 billionaires money, can we guarantee minimum standard of life or everyone? No. Nobody even seem to know how much it'll cost or how it'll work.

All that is being argued is some idealistic sentiments with no background or data to support that.

I have a hard time understanding how updating and fixing tax codes isn't an exercise in wealth redistribution tbh. Is anyone suggesting we literally empty Jeff Bezos bank account and start giving it out at soup kitchens?
I agree the conversation is mostly redundant as there isn't a hope in hell of the current US government doing anything whatsoever to address the problem. Its pretty hard to see any scenario where that becomes possible in the future too. The room for maneuver for any other country to get vaguely serious about the problem is pretty limited while thats the case imo.
 
I don't recall ever arguing that. I'd happily agree tax codes are outdated and lots needs to be fixed. My point was the wealth redistribution solution is not the answer.

To summarize:

- Is wealth inequality a capitalist problem? No, it was equally prevalent in every other form of economy.
- If we take away top 10 billionaires money, can we guarantee minimum standard of life or everyone? No. Nobody even seem to know how much it'll cost or how it'll work.

All that is being argued is some idealistic sentiments with no background or data to support that.

Most people, so long as they aren't blind idealists, acknowledge that such improvements aren't easy. I understand that governments don't always invest money wisely, and that there are ways for rich people to get around taxes they don't want to pay.

But we should still work towards greater levels of income equality. Left-wing movements have new tools at their disposal which allow them to work on a more global scale such as social media. They should work together to either elect left-wing governments who want to tackle income inequality together, or they should put pressure on existing governments by highlighting how companies like Amazon avoid their taxes and how they try to cheat the system.

I'm not sure what your wider point is supposed to be here insofar as you're sort of ignoring a lot of the points being made. I get that this isn't simple; I'm not saying it isn't. But this is a thread about income inequality, where people are discussing potential solutions to...income inequality. Better that than accepting everything's fecked and not trying to do anything about it.
 
I don't understand for life of me why @Edgar Allan Pillow in threads about how current system is broken, always argues on things that are illegal or legal based on the laws of current system.

Bezos paying less (in percentage) taxes than his secretary is totally legal. It also shows how much the system is broken when the richest man in modern history is taxed less than people who work on minimum wages.

But then @Edgar Allan Pillow will argue that this is legal, because the law says so. And if someone replies that the law is so cause ultra-rich people sponsored these types of law (like the latest tax bill), he says that lobbying is legal too. A bit like someone in medieval saying that you know, burning those scientists is legal, cause the inquisitor who is the law says so.

When everyone argues about what is right and wrong, what is moral and amoral, Edgar argues on what is legal and what isn't.
Doesn't he work in finance? Not exactly surprising that he seems to believe making money is the highest virtue of all, and all that matters in the pursuit of the Holy Dollar is that the means applied are legal according to the letter of the law.

It's a good example of most people who are ardent fans of unfettered capitalism. They bought into the idea that making money is the ultimate indicator of competence and ability. EDIT: and the examples brought up are always tech billionaires like Gates, not oil giants or finance lords who invented nothing, merely used money to make more money.
 
I'm not sure what your wider point is supposed to be here insofar as you're sort of ignoring a lot of the points being made. I get that this isn't simple; I'm not saying it isn't. But this is a thread about income inequality, where people are discussing potential solutions to...income inequality. Better that than accepting everything's fecked and not trying to do anything about it.

Here are my wider points:

1. Wider point being, there is cause and effect. Unless you fix the cause, it's nonsensical to be bitching about the effect. Fix the tax codes. stop whining about Amazon. Once tax laws are fixed, the Amazon's and Facebook's will sort themselves out.

2. Income inequality is a generic idealistic term that means nothing in this context. Greece, Estonia, Czech republic and Slovak republic have better income equality ratio than US. Does that mean they are better places to live in? Are the poor people in those countries happier than in the US? It does not matter if every person earns equal income if that income level is near poverty line. Income equality is a stat that is so widely used that people rarely look at context or bigger picture. Totally misused and misrepresented statistic imo. It's a vital stat, but not in the way used here in this thread.
 
EDIT: and the examples brought up are always tech billionaires like Gates, not oil giants or finance lords who invented nothing, merely used money to make more money.

Very valid point. I read an article on this some time earlier (will try to find it) and this has been in my mind for quite some time.

I've been thinking if there's any practical way to implement a "inheritance cap". A person can get rich by his skills, but there's only so much he can pass on to next generation. Haven't gotten any practical traction on it though. Say after Bezos death his immediate family can inherit 10% of their personal wealth only. Rest (like company stocks) will be put up in open market for sale. Not sure if this actually works or will be a good thing, though!
 
Very valid point. I read an article on this some time earlier (will try to find it) and this has been in my mind for quite some time.

I've been thinking if there's any practical way to implement a "inheritance cap". A person can get rich by his skills, but there's only so much he can pass on to next generation. Haven't gotten any practical traction on it though. Say after Bezos death his immediate family can inherit 10% of their personal wealth only. Rest (like company stocks) will be put up in open market for sale. Not sure if this actually works or will be a good thing, though!

Might cause an upturn in the mysterious deaths of billionaires.
 
https://harpers.org/archive/2018/07/the-death-of-new-york-city-gentrification/

The new rich infesting the city, by contrast, are barely here. They keep a low profile, often for good reason, and rarely stick around. They manufacture nothing and run nothing, for the most part, but live off fortunes either made by or purloined from other people—sometimes from entire nations. The New Yorker noted in 2016 that there is now a huge swath of Midtown Manhattan, from Fifth Avenue to Park Avenue, from 49th Street to 70th Street, where almost one apartment in three sits empty for at least ten months a year. New York today is not at home. Instead, it has joined London and Hong Kong as one of the most desirable cities in the world for “land banking,” where wealthy individuals from all over the planet scoop up prime real estate to hold as an investment, a pied-à-terre, a bolt-hole, a strongbox.

For most of a decade now, like lava flowing inexorably from some deadly volcano, the residences of the superrich have moved east from the Time Warner Center to create Billionaires’ Row, the array of buildings on 57th Street and several adjoining streets and avenues that is already dominating much of the Manhattan skyline. These “supertall” skyscrapers are defined as buildings taller than 984 feet: One57, at 157 West 57th Street (1,004 feet); 432 Park Avenue (1,396 feet). Well on their way to being built: 53 West 53rd Street (1,050 feet), 111 West 57th Street (1,428 feet), and 217 West 57th Street (1,550 feet). Finished or not, many of the apartments were—at first—snapped up as soon as they went on the market. The Times used to tick off their record-setting sales in its Sunday real estate section, down to the absurdly exact dollar and cent: one recent lower-end example, $47,782,186.53! Nor are the records these sales set likely to remain for long. A triplex at the forthcoming 220 Central Park South will reportedly be sold for $200 million, and a four-story apartment at the same address is priced to move at $250 million. These would be the largest home sales ever recorded anywhere in the United States.
 
I don't recall ever arguing that. I'd happily agree tax codes are outdated and lots needs to be fixed. My point was the wealth redistribution solution is not the answer.

To summarize:

- Is wealth inequality a capitalist problem? No, it was equally prevalent in every other form of economy.
- If we take away top 10 billionaires money, can we guarantee minimum standard of life or everyone? No. Nobody even seem to know how much it'll cost or how it'll work.

All that is being argued is some idealistic sentiments with no background or data to support that.
What's the answer according to your views then?
 
Here are my wider points:

1. Wider point being, there is cause and effect. Unless you fix the cause, it's nonsensical to be bitching about the effect. Fix the tax codes. stop whining about Amazon. Once tax laws are fixed, the Amazon's and Facebook's will sort themselves out.

2. Income inequality is a generic idealistic term that means nothing in this context. Greece, Estonia, Czech republic and Slovak republic have better income equality ratio than US. Does that mean they are better places to live in? Are the poor people in those countries happier than in the US? It does not matter if every person earns equal income if that income level is near poverty line. Income equality is a stat that is so widely used that people rarely look at context or bigger picture. Totally misused and misrepresented statistic imo. It's a vital stat, but not in the way used here in this thread.


1. The tax codes are only part of the problem. The problem is that laws themselves have been influenced by the wealthy and powerful special interests. Its not as simple as you imply when people have already made massive profits directly from socializing risk and privatizing profit so they have a special interest in keeping the unbalanced and unfair system. @berbatrick linked before academic studies that show how much more political influence the rich have in crafting laws in the first place. Its a big part of the problem when special interests shape the laws that are supposed to regulate them. You can't just 'blame the tax code' without understanding who created that imbalanced code to begin with. I can't find that article on google now so hopefully berbatrick links again as everyone should see what the data and research reveals.

We have to blame both the problematic laws and the greedy actors who crafted those laws in the first place. Things like the FSMA and CFMA did not appear out of thin air. The radical deregulation that crashed markets and robbed institutional investors of massive value in the 2000s were the direct result of financiers radically deregulating to create new vehicles for personal profit.

2. This literally makes no sense income inequality is a proven phenomena that has very bad consequences when allowed to proliferate (like in 1880s USA and 1920s USA). And since class mobility sinks with inequality it becomes a compounding problem.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/06/the-birth-of-a-new-american-aristocracy/559130/


And you want to call out idealism? Here is some whopper idealism: The belief that a bunch of actors behaving in purely greedy manner in pursuit of personal profit without regulation results in an "Invisible Hand" that magically makes the end result the best of all possible worlds. Now that is some serious idealism.
 
Last edited:
Here are my wider points:

1. Wider point being, there is cause and effect. Unless you fix the cause, it's nonsensical to be bitching about the effect. Fix the tax codes. stop whining about Amazon. Once tax laws are fixed, the Amazon's and Facebook's will sort themselves out.

2. Income inequality is a generic idealistic term that means nothing in this context. Greece, Estonia, Czech republic and Slovak republic have better income equality ratio than US. Does that mean they are better places to live in? Are the poor people in those countries happier than in the US? It does not matter if every person earns equal income if that income level is near poverty line. Income equality is a stat that is so widely used that people rarely look at context or bigger picture. Totally misused and misrepresented statistic imo. It's a vital stat, but not in the way used here in this thread.

1. Well, yes. We're asking for the cause to be fixed.

2. The Czech and Slovak Republics are fairly advanced EU states that have grown exponentially since their older communist days. They're both doing alright, and while the quality of life might not be as good as it is in Western Europe, they're probably on a similar level if not better than the US where certain areas have been cited as having conditions that could belong in a third world country.

The point in referring to the US when it comes to income inequality is that it's clearly not a country where people are all near the bottom of the line - it's a nation where there are a lot of wealthy and influential figures, and many people feel those figures should redistribute their wealth to a greater extent.
 
I don't recall ever arguing that. I'd happily agree tax codes are outdated and lots needs to be fixed. My point was the wealth redistribution solution is not the answer.

To summarize:

- Is wealth inequality a capitalist problem? No, it was equally prevalent in every other form of economy.
- If we take away top 10 billionaires money, can we guarantee minimum standard of life or everyone? No. Nobody even seem to know how much it'll cost or how it'll work.

All that is being argued is some idealistic sentiments with no background or data to support that.
Of course that is the answer, or part of the answer. The rich can essentially get away with paying lower taxes (cause they back their politicians to make those types of laws) and they can get away with providing the conditions for it to happen.

Higher taxes for the rich, higher minimal wage, introduce a company minimal wage (minimal wage for the likes of Amazon should be higher than the national minimal wage), tax inheritance (not 100% though, not even near), make lobbying illegal like in the rest of the world, free education, free healthcare and so on. The rich will still be rich. Just that instead of owning 100b, they will own 1b or 10b. The poor will still be 'poor' in comparison but they will have a bit more and won't live in streets, not knowing if they will have to eat in that day, when 3 miles away you have multiple mansions costing on tens of millions without anyone living there.
 
Last edited:
The point in referring to the US when it comes to income inequality is that it's clearly not a country where people are all near the bottom of the line - it's a nation where there are a lot of wealthy and influential figures, and many people feel those figures should redistribute their wealth to a greater extent
One of the best places I can think of to highlight American income inequality is Washington DC.

It's a tiny little place, so the swings in income levels can be seen within blocks instead of miles. I stayed in a townhouse on a street where homes were valued above $500,000 with foreign luxury cars parked out front... and two blocks up were government housing, homeless people (one literally dead on the sidewalk), and people working street corners.
 
One of the best places I can think of to highlight American income inequality is Washington DC.

It's a tiny little place, so the swings in income levels can be seen within blocks instead of miles. I stayed in a townhouse on a street where homes were valued above $500,000 with foreign luxury cars parked out front... and two blocks up were government housing, homeless people (one literally dead on the sidewalk), and people working street corners.

Yeah, never been myself but remember someone I know who's been telling me that a lot of visitors get a real shock when they're heading to the White House and see some of the stark poverty that becomes evident not too far away from it.
 
What's the answer according to your views then?

US currently spends $1,900 billion dollars on social security and healthcare....and what's the result? Unsatisfaction all through! It's an astounding amount of money that is essentially thrown down the drain as the needy don't get the value. For a country of 350mio+ population, if $1,900 billion is not enough, then what is?

Everyone should be able to earn their way to afford normal lifestyle and at a mandatory minimum basic necessities (food & shelter). I'd be happy to support increase of minimum wages, free quality primary education, healthcare for all etc which are realistic and permanent goals to improve any country as a whole. If this needs to be funded by revising tax laws so big companies pay more, then yes, I support it.

There is absolutely no real focus on this, just offbeat comments on "yeah, that needs to be fixed too". But then every man and his dog wants wealth 'redistributed". How does one exactly 'redistribute' wealth? Assuming we steal a portion of wealth from rich people and say get another $500 billion...do you think the problem will be magically solved? Eliminating poverty by giving away money is a ridiculous idea with zero practical value. There needs to be a safety net for those in need, but that's it! Giving subsidies and benefits is never a permanent solution.
 
We have to blame both the problematic laws and the greedy actors who crafted those laws in the first place.

And what is your solution? You seem to be of the opinion that all the senators and congressmen in the US are lackeys for the rich people. And average poor guy who can change the politicians is an idiot for thinking "Trump is a businessman, so he'll fix everything". What do you propose to do about it?
 
US currently spends $1,900 billion dollars on social security and healthcare....and what's the result? Unsatisfaction all through! It's an astounding amount of money that is essentially thrown down the drain as the needy don't get the value. For a country of 350mio+ population, if $1,900 billion is not enough, then what is?

Everyone should be able to earn their way to afford normal lifestyle and at a mandatory minimum basic necessities (food & shelter). I'd be happy to support increase of minimum wages, free quality primary education, healthcare for all etc which are realistic and permanent goals to improve any country as a whole. If this needs to be funded by revising tax laws so big companies pay more, then yes, I support it.

There is absolutely no real focus on this, just offbeat comments on "yeah, that needs to be fixed too". But then every man and his dog wants wealth 'redistributed". How does one exactly 'redistribute' wealth? Assuming we steal a portion of wealth from rich people and say get another $500 billion...do you think the problem will be magically solved? Eliminating poverty by giving away money is a ridiculous idea with zero practical value. There needs to be a safety net for those in need, but that's it! Giving subsidies and benefits is never a permanent solution.

No one is saying we should just 'give away money'. That money should be invested in things like healthcare and education to ensure people are healthier and are well-educated. This benefits employers themselves and the nation by ensuring their workers are less likely to need to take time off, and ensures their workers are more skilled for the work they're performing.

You're creating strawmen here based on arguments we're not making - I've acknowledged a lot of government expenditure is often wasteful, but the fact is that if you invest more in key public services, people are going to benefit. The fact that the rich are currently able to hoard an obscene amount of money at the moment means the public can't benefit from the wealth they're generating, and leads to increased income inequality as we've seen in recent decades.

You agree there needs to be a safety net but in the US currently many don't even have that. Hence taxation on the rich needs to be increased to ensure better living conditions for the poorest.
 
And what is your solution? You seem to be of the opinion that all the senators and congressmen in the US are lackeys for the rich people. And average poor guy who can change the politicians is an idiot for thinking "Trump is a businessman, so he'll fix everything". What do you propose to do about it?

With lobbying, many are. Certainly a lot of politicians are wary of going after elite donors.
 
You're creating strawmen here based on arguments we're not making - I've acknowledged a lot of government expenditure is often wasteful, but the fact is that if you invest more in key public services, people are going to benefit. The fact that the rich are currently able to hoard an obscene amount of money at the moment means the public can't benefit from the wealth they're generating, and leads to increased income inequality as we've seen in recent decades.

And I'm arguing that the budget already has enough funds....just that they are wasted. Pouring more money into a broken system will not yield better results.

For Fed Reserve declaration mid last year, the total household wealth in US was about $95 trillion. The top 25 Americans have $1 trillion, or perhaps 1 percent of the US household wealth. That's it.
 
US currently spends $1,900 billion dollars on social security and healthcare....and what's the result? Unsatisfaction all through! It's an astounding amount of money that is essentially thrown down the drain as the needy don't get the value. For a country of 350mio+ population, if $1,900 billion is not enough, then what is?

Everyone should be able to earn their way to afford normal lifestyle and at a mandatory minimum basic necessities (food & shelter). I'd be happy to support increase of minimum wages, free quality primary education, healthcare for all etc which are realistic and permanent goals to improve any country as a whole. If this needs to be funded by revising tax laws so big companies pay more, then yes, I support it.

There is absolutely no real focus on this, just offbeat comments on "yeah, that needs to be fixed too". But then every man and his dog wants wealth 'redistributed". How does one exactly 'redistribute' wealth? Assuming we steal a portion of wealth from rich people and say get another $500 billion...do you think the problem will be magically solved? Eliminating poverty by giving away money is a ridiculous idea with zero practical value. There needs to be a safety net for those in need, but that's it! Giving subsidies and benefits is never a permanent solution.
Using tax funds to invest into social programs is what wealth redistribution is. We just need a better system that both simplifies taxes and closes loopholes to keep everyone accountable for their fair share. No one is saying to take the billionaire's money and just hand it out to poor people.
 
And I'm arguing that the budget already has enough funds....just that they are wasted. Pouring more money into a broken system will not yield better results.

For Fed Reserve declaration mid last year, the total household wealth in US was about $95 trillion. The top 25 Americans have $1 trillion, or perhaps 1 percent of the US household wealth. That's it.
$1.9 trillion is indeed enough to make a decent public health care system. There are certainly a few things out of balance.
 
And what is your solution? You seem to be of the opinion that all the senators and congressmen in the US are lackeys for the rich people. And average poor guy who can change the politicians is an idiot for thinking "Trump is a businessman, so he'll fix everything". What do you propose to do about it?

That actually sums it up succinctly.
 
He wants you to accept it because the status quo benefits him. He's not just disagreeing in good faith, his entire existence is premised on him not understanding this point.

Hahaha. That's solid gold.
 
I don't recall ever arguing that. I'd happily agree tax codes are outdated and lots needs to be fixed. My point was the wealth redistribution solution is not the answer.

To summarize:

- Is wealth inequality a capitalist problem? No, it was equally prevalent in every other form of economy.
- If we take away top 10 billionaires money, can we guarantee minimum standard of life or everyone? No. Nobody even seem to know how much it'll cost or how it'll work.

All that is being argued is some idealistic sentiments with no background or data to support that.
Smith wasn’t a big fan of inequality himself.

https://www.theatlantic.com/busines...th-inequality-according-to-adam-smith/486071/

He would definitely argue that workers wages should be higher, thus bringing down corporate profits, executive salaries, etc., essentially a redistribution of wealth.
 
If political power is a function of wealth, then of course it is both.

Its both. Its a lack of political will to tackle an economic problem

It is not, simply because the solution to the problem differs.

If we treat it as a economic problem, we can discuss redistribution etc.
If we treat it as a political problem due to lobbying, then no amount of redistribution discussions will fix this. It needs new solutions.
 
Well then, it's not a economic problem at all. It's a political one!

Politics and economics are interconnected. Politicians dictate economics and the economic systems we live under, and are of course inherently influenced by people with money who want certain conditions to arise or persist.
 
Not at me, but I'll offer the opposing (I assume) viewpoint: some days I'm for it, other I'm against. I'm not fully comfortable with the moral hazard, nor with open-ended obligations.

What does this mean?
 
Not at me, but I'll offer the opposing (I assume) viewpoint: some days I'm for it, other I'm against. I'm not fully comfortable with the moral hazard, nor with open-ended obligations.

You're going to have to go deeper than that bud.
 
What does this mean?
Pulled from wikipedia: In economics, moral hazard occurs when someone increases their exposure to risk when insured, especially when a person takes more risks because someone else bears the cost of those risks.

You're going to have to go deeper than that bud.
But that's really it... I'm philosophically inclined to expect people to make decisions to ameliorate their situation (buy insurance) or suffer the consequences. Like I said, some days I'm in favor and that's mostly the days I look at the world as is and realize that some public healthcare can do a lot of good. I'll just never be 100% comfortable with it.
 
Pulled from wikipedia: In economics, moral hazard occurs when someone increases their exposure to risk when insured, especially when a person takes more risks because someone else bears the cost of those risks.


But that's really it... I'm philosophically inclined to expect people to make decisions to ameliorate their situation (buy insurance) or suffer the consequences. Like I said, some days I'm in favor and that's mostly the days I look at the world as is and realize that some public healthcare can do a lot of good. I'll just never be 100% comfortable with it.

Why is the word insurance in there? Are you wedded to it because you're American? (I assume)
 
Why is the word insurance in there? Are you wedded to it because you're American? (I assume)
I'm not american. And because its the assumed way that most people would go about allocating their healthcare spending if no public system at all existed. Regardless of the fact that americans decided to marry their public provision of healthcare to insurance and cross-subsidies for insurance, which is a whole other mess