Wealth & Income Inequality

oneniltothearsenal said:
Are you saying you can't fault someone for choosing to dedicate their life to personal power and profit over helping people or dedicating themselves to some morality besides greed and money?

Which distinguishes your stance her from Ayn Rand then?
Click to expand...

Ultimately its a personal choice. As long as they weren't breaking any rules or law then there's absolutely nothing wrong with it. Same applies to Carter - its a personal choice he made. Most politicians who are in office for any number of years are confronted with loads of business and speaking opportunities when they finish up with politics, so its up to them whether or not to go in that direction or in some cases where they are older, simply retire.
 
Raoul said:
Ultimately its a personal choice. As long as they weren't breaking any rules or law then there's absolutely nothing wrong with it. Same applies to Carter - its a personal choice he made. Most politicians who are in office for any number of years are confronted with loads of business and speaking opportunities when they finish up with politics, so its up to them whether or not to go in that direction or in some cases where they are older, simply retire.
Click to expand...

I agree with what you say. But to answer @oneniltothearsenal . Those people who purse the Ayn Rand route have had their road made easy by others like them who own politicians.
We are not on a level playing field.
The laws have to be changed to benefit the vast majority rather than the few.
 
Red Dreams said:
The focus needs to be redistribution of wealth.
The more ordinary people have the better the economy.

Policies Social Democrats advocate will be a start to get the ball rolling.
Click to expand...
Most of the policies advocated by left leaning parties (here in the UK at least) would have virtually no impact on wealth inequality. Such inequality is, for the most part, built up over generations and maintained through inheritance. Most of the policies of the left focus on income rather than accumulated wealth, so they don't even address the root cause. As a result, the seriously rich would be left largely untouched by a Corbyn government, but the aspirational middle classes could be clobbered.

It would also be true to say that a lot of people are pretty ignorant when it comes to managing their finances, and are prone to making very poor decisions as a result. Things have certainly changed a great deal since I was at school, but I suspect the almost total absence of teaching on financial management hasn't changed.
 
Steerpike said:
Most of the policies of the left focus on income rather than accumulated wealth, so they don't even address the root cause. As a result, the seriously rich would be left largely untouched by a Corbyn government, but the aspirational middle classes could be clobbered.
Click to expand...

A Labour government will guarantee no rises in income tax for those earning below £80,000 a year, and no increases in personal National Insurance Contributions or the rate of VAT.

Under Labour’s plans, 95 per cent of taxpayers will be guaranteed no increase in their income tax contributions, and everyone will be protected from any increase in personal National Insurance contributions and VAT. Only the top 5 per cent of earners will be asked to contribute more in tax to help fund our public services. We renew our pledge not to extend VAT to food, children’s clothes, books and newspapers, and public transport fares.
[...]
Corporation tax in the UK is the lowest of any major developed economy. Our new settlement with business will ask large corporations to pay a little more while still keeping UK corporation tax among the lowest of the major developed economies. In turn, we will meet the business need for a more skilled workforce with extra corporate tax revenues while contributing to education and skills budgets.
Click to expand...
https://labour.org.uk/manifesto/


Does't sound like the "aspirational middle class" being targeted.

I agree that inherited wealth inequalities eventually matter more than income. But I think it's also true that the floor provided by a welfare state- functioning healthcare, schools, unemployment benefits, etc - can indirectly reduce the effects of generational wealth.
 
Raoul said:
Ultimately its a personal choice. As long as they weren't breaking any rules or law then there's absolutely nothing wrong with it. Same applies to Carter - its a personal choice he made. Most politicians who are in office for any number of years are confronted with loads of business and speaking opportunities when they finish up with politics, so its up to them whether or not to go in that direction or in some cases where they are older, simply retire.
Click to expand...

This sounds like you believe legality=morality so if something is legal there is nothing wrong with it and if it is illegal then it is somehow automatically immoral.

I definitely don't agree with that viewpoint. Its not philosophically sound. There are definitely some things that are wrong that are legal especially when you consider amoral corporations and immoral individuals are the ones writing the laws in the first place.
 
berbatrick said:
https://labour.org.uk/manifesto/
Corporation tax in the UK is the lowest of any major developed economy. Our new settlement with business will ask large corporations to pay a little more while still keeping UK corporation tax among the lowest of the major developed economies. In turn, we will meet the business need for a more skilled workforce with extra corporate tax revenues while contributing to education and skills budgets.

Does't sound like the "aspirational middle class" being targeted.

I agree that inherited wealth inequalities eventually matter more than income. But I think it's also true that the floor provided by a welfare state- functioning healthcare, schools, unemployment benefits, etc - can indirectly reduce the effects of generational wealth.
Click to expand...
I take your point, but I think £80,000 per annum is an income that fits in with the 'aspirational middle class' description (but so does a lower level of income, say £50,000).

The problem with Corporation Tax is the most interesting, and I don't see it as a right/left issue. We have tax laws which were developed when most businesses were domestic, and there were few big multinationals, and it's quite obvious that those laws are not fit for purpose in today's world (incidentally, this is a global problem, not just a UK one). Large multinationals can almost choose how much tax they pay simply by domiciling their companies in places with advantageous tax regimes. The frequent complaints about how little tax organisations like Starbucks can get away with paying are a testament to this. I'd like to see a regime where taxes are based on sales made to customers in this country, and where foreign companies pay a higher rate than UK ones (the rationale being that the profits generated by UK companies will be generally be recycled through the UK economy whereas profits made by foreign companies will not).

I'm not sure that simple adjustments to the headline rate of Corporation Tax would achieve much. There is probably a sweet spot somewhere which balances the attractiveness of the UK as a place for investment, and the amount of tax raised, and this is the figure we need to aim for.
 
Last edited:
oneniltothearsenal said:
This sounds like you believe legality=morality so if something is legal there is nothing wrong with it and if it is illegal then it is somehow automatically immoral.

I definitely don't agree with that viewpoint. Its not philosophically sound. There are definitely some things that are wrong that are legal especially when you consider amoral corporations and immoral individuals are the ones writing the laws in the first place.
Click to expand...

in a nut shell.
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
This sounds like you believe legality=morality so if something is legal there is nothing wrong with it and if it is illegal then it is somehow automatically immoral.

I definitely don't agree with that viewpoint. Its not philosophically sound. There are definitely some things that are wrong that are legal especially when you consider amoral corporations and immoral individuals are the ones writing the laws in the first place.
Click to expand...

That is my viewpoint too. If it’s legal, then you are free to proceed.
 
Way to go over the top in an attempt to further your points, lads. Whenever Hitler is mentioned in an knternet discussion you have pretty much gone full circle!
 
Godwins aside, being a cnut might be legal, still makes you a cnut. Thats probably the point .
 
SirAF said:
Obviously that was the point, and it was a bad one.
Click to expand...
Depends, if you're an idealist, you endeavor to make the world a better place than the current status quo.

I think it's very important for a society to constantly reevaluate itself and evolve over time. This means legalizing some things that are illegal and vice versa. Therefore, it's legal so it's fine isnt a great defense.

If you're a conservative you want to keep stuff the way it is now. And more power to you, if you are.

Matter of perspecrive I'd say.
 
SirAF said:
Way to go over the top in an attempt to further your points, lads. Whenever Hitler is mentioned in an knternet discussion you have pretty much gone full circle!
Click to expand...

If there's one thing more annoying than people bringing up Hitler in every discussion, it's people who throw up their hands and shout "Godwin's law!" whenever Hitler is being brought up in a discussion, as if it's some kind of magic spell that immediately means they don't have to respond to the claim.

Phew, you sure dodged that one.
 


I've mentioned this on here a bunch of times before but everyone should watch this documentary. This is just the trailer, the full thing is on Netflix.
 
niMic said:
If there's one thing more annoying than people bringing up Hitler in every discussion, it's people who throw up their hands and shout "Godwin's law!" whenever Hitler is being brought up in a discussion, as if it's some kind of magic spell that immediately means they don't have to respond to the claim.

Phew, you sure dodged that one.
Click to expand...
This gets me too, it's some sort of ha, I win button.
 
KirkDuyt said:
Depends, if you're an idealist, you endeavor to make the world a better place than the current status quo.

I think it's very important for a society to constantly reevaluate itself and evolve over time. This means legalizing some things that are illegal and vice versa. Therefore, it's legal so it's fine isnt a great defense.

If you're a conservative you want to keep stuff the way it is now. And more power to you, if you are.

Matter of perspecrive I'd say.
Click to expand...

I’m not an idealist, but I’m not a conservative either. I don’t have a fixed political philosophy and I’m not opposed to change.

niMic said:
If there's one thing more annoying than people bringing up Hitler in every discussion, it's people who throw up their hands and shout "Godwin's law!" whenever Hitler is being brought up in a discussion, as if it's some kind of magic spell that immediately means they don't have to respond to the claim.

Phew, you sure dodged that one.
Click to expand...

KirkDuyt said:
This gets me too, it's some sort of ha, I win button.
Click to expand...

A magic spell was not needed because the point was inane, regardless of me bringing up Godwin or not.
 
Eboue said:
The point was that there is a moral value of each action, not just a legal value. The fact that you think moral right and wrong is insane doesnt surprise me.
Click to expand...


Would you like to elaborate on that one? We have barely crossed swords earlier. Also, I did not say it was insane - once again you put words in posters mouths.
 
SirAF said:

Would you like to elaborate on that one? We have barely crossed swords earlier. Also, I did not say it was insane - once again you put words in posters mouths.
Click to expand...

Autocorrect changed inane to insane.

Crossed swords? I wouldnt put it that way. You seem like a friendly guy. But I've read plenty of your posts in the CE forum and you dont strike me as someone who particularly cares for people less fortunate than himself. You also have a tendency to dismiss anyone who argues too far outside of your worldview without putting too much thought into it. One example is your "two Norwegian historians said George Bush was fine and that's enough for me" take.
 
Eboue said:
Autocorrect changed inane to insane.

Crossed swords? I wouldnt put it that way. You seem like a friendly guy. But I've read plenty of your posts in the CE forum and you dont strike me as someone who particularly cares for people less fortunate than himself. You also have a tendency to dismiss anyone who argues too far outside of your worldview without putting too much thought into it. One example is your "two Norwegian historians said George Bush was fine and that's enough for me" take.
Click to expand...

Autocorrect is a bitch.

That’s actually a reasonable response and I appreciate it. I don’t want to go too much off topic but I do believe my comment on Bush 41 was in relation to his foreign policy being a success or not and I quoted two well respected academics that I presume know more about the subject than both you and I. I’m not going back to read over again at this hour, but I believe they heralded his part in ending the cold war and the reunification of Berlin.

This last sentence is not really directed at you but, for the record, I’m not a bloody right winger - I voted Labour during the last Norwegian GE!
 
SirAF said:
Autocorrect is a bitch.

That’s actually a reasonable response and I appreciate it. I don’t want to go too much off topic but I do believe my comment on Bush 41 was in relation to his foreign policy being a success or not and I quoted two well respected academics that I presume know more about the subject than both you and I. I’m not going back to read over again at this hour, but I believe they heralded his part in ending the cold war and the reunification of Berlin.

This last sentence is not really directed at you but, for the record, I’m not a bloody right winger - I voted Labour during the last Norwegian GE!
Click to expand...

Right, I think you are a mainstream liberal. I would apply the same criticism of you as I would to mainstream liberals. I'm well aware that my political positions are outside the mainstream, it's why I always get tagged by 3 or 4 people who regard me as "crazy".
 
Eboue said:
Right, I think you are a mainstream liberal. I would apply the same criticism of you as I would to mainstream liberals. I'm well aware that my political positions are outside the mainstream, it's why I always get tagged by 3 or 4 people who regard me as "crazy".
Click to expand...

To be fair to @SirAF, the mainstream liberals in Norway have their own party. The Liberal Party. Labour is Social Democratic. They're centre-left as far as Norway goes, but that basically means that by default he supports positions that would be radical in the US.
 
Eboue said:
Right, I think you are a mainstream liberal. I would apply the same criticism of you as I would to mainstream liberals. I'm well aware that my political positions are outside the mainstream, it's why I always get tagged by 3 or 4 people who regard me as "crazy".
Click to expand...

Although I probably have a poke now and again I don’t think you’re «crazy». Truth be told I enjoy reading your input in the CE forum, even if I don’t agree with everything!
 
also Its not about Left or Right.

Its about Right and Wrong.

there is an awful lot that is wrong in our society when a retired person cannot live on social security but needs to depend on relatives or the county. And I am here talking of survival.
While people who do Not deserve anything get huge tax cuts.

I call that evil.
 
SirAF said:
That is my viewpoint too. If it’s legal, then you are free to proceed.
Click to expand...

Two questions.

1) How much does that have to do with getting caught? So if say, you could get away with things 100% and not get caught would you still hold strictly to not doing anything illegal? Would you steal from your neighbors? If not, would you steal from strangers? If you could get away with anything where would you draw the line?

2) Is your legality based solely on your country you live in? So for instance, if you were a Saudi Prince and could do things legally that you couldn't do in the UK would you still do them?

shamans said:
I have no clue about HFT's morality. Will take your word for it. I just see too many people that avoid taking part in "immoral" stuff as a stance but then being hypocrites by benefiting/using the same system. Usually out of good intention but just ignorance. I think we all do it.

I have my own set of morals too. Being a software Engineer, I'll never work for drone technology development, Defense companies or anything of that sort that make weapons. However, when an evil gang is on the lose I'm gonna be the first advocating force against them. Point is, I am well aware of my hypocrisy here but I still cannot ever bring myself to work for such companies.

I can understand if others feel the same about banks but I think it's good to be aware of our very own hypocrisies as well. We're all too busy blaming others.
Click to expand...

I get your point hypocrisy is a thing and personally I try not to be a hypocrite on anything if I can help it. But I would counter by saying the fact that we might not be perfect is not an excuse to not try to be the best person we can be. In other words I don't like the excuse of "we can't be perfect" to not even try.
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
You say that likes its some small amount when in fact the scandals of the finance industry have completely dwarf Trump's tiny 5billion and have decimated the working class and middle class wealth (in the form of mutual funds, retirement accounts, etc).

Reagan's S+L scandal cost 160 BILLION. The Great Recession (a Clinton+Bush+Dem and Rep establishment legacy) is hard to estimate but it could cost up to 10 TRILLION.
Click to expand...

You do realize that about $14 trillion of US Dollars that flows through financial systems every day? For a common man, $10bn seems a lot of money, but in financial markets, it's common place. Anyway it's just to give you a context, not a justification for the scandal. I'm not a fan of HRT myself, but it's a dying trend, imo. Better to do away with it.

Not sure his this pertains to wealth cap?
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
You do realize that about $14 trillion of US Dollars that flows through financial systems every day? For a common man, $10bn seems a lot of money, but in financial markets, it's common place. Anyway it's just to give you a context, not a justification for the scandal. I'm not a fan of HRT myself, but it's a dying trend, imo. Better to do away with it.

Not sure his this pertains to wealth cap?
Click to expand...

Not sure what your point is. That stealing from a large pool is okay because the relative amount is tiny?

Hey Halliburton stole a few hundred million from the taxpayers but its only a few hundred million so who cares right?
 
Red Dreams said:
there is an awful lot that is wrong in our society when a retired person cannot live on social security but needs to depend on relatives or the county. And I am here talking of survival.
While people who do Not deserve anything get huge tax cuts.
Click to expand...

Won't argue with that, as the system is flawed..what I'm arguing is that the solutions proposed (no big companies, wealth cap, income cap etc) are probably bad and won't help the issue.

But you should realize that the budget was Social Security was nearly a trillion dollars. Surely that's a significant amount of money that fails to achieve it's full value when it trickles down to the actual recipients. US Healthcare of nearly 3 times as expensive as UKs. The problem has never been lack of money...it's more on how the money is utilized.
 
And why only mention the 10 million per day while ignoring the other numbers like 160 billion and 10 trillion and that's just two events.

Really Edgar you are like a 50s-80s Republican. It really shows how far right the US has moved in the last 25 years that you actually identity as a Democrat with these economic views.
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
And why only mention the 10 million per day while ignoring the other numbers like 160 billion and 10 trillion and that's just two events.

Really Edgar you are like a 50s-80s Republican. It really shows how far right the US has moved in the last 25 years that you actually identity as a Democrat with these economic views.
Click to expand...

I don't get you point at all. I was arguing wealth cap is not the solution and you jump in with financial scandals in banking industry. I already said, the industry needs an overhaul...which is already currently underway. Hopefully 5 years down the line people may not see such scandals.

Not sure what the relevance to this thread is.

And tacking on a Rep vs Dem label based on response to one single issue is pretty nonsensical and lazy.
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
But you should realize that the budget was Social Security was nearly a trillion dollars. Surely that's a significant amount of money that fails to achieve it's full value when it trickles down to the actual recipients. US Healthcare of nearly 3 times as expensive as UKs. The problem has never been lack of money...it's more on how the money is utilized.
Click to expand...

This argument about "trickle down" makes no sense. Social security in the US has extemeley low overhead and is close to being the most efficient system in the US. Its expoentially more efficient, functional and beneficial than the broken privatized health care. Its much less wasteful with lower overhead than inefficient privatized SS systems that waste resources creating unneeded profits for investors.
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
This argument about "trickle down" makes no sense. Social security in the US has extemeley low overhead and is close to being the most efficient system in the US. Its much less wasteful with lower overhead than inefficient privatized SS systems that waste resources creating unneeded profits for investors.
Click to expand...

So you're saying a trillion dollar budget for Social ain't sufficient? How much is?
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
So you're saying a trillion dollar budget for Social ain't sufficient? How much is?
Click to expand...

When did I ever say that? Stop with the strawman.

I said nationalized social security is efficient and succeeds in achieving the goal of its existence. Social Security is not a problem. Its saving millions of seniors from awful life outcomes like happened due to excessive laissez faire market fundamentalist greed that caused the Great Depression. You can thank Social Security and the meagre welfare we have with lessening the impact of the Great Recession caused by finance industry malfeasance.

Without Social security the Great Recession would have been the Second Great Depression.

The inefficiency and drag on the functional US economy is due in very large part to the greed, selfishness and endless capacity for trying to scam people out of money in the finance industry.

Stop implying that Social Security is somehow a problem. The problem is directly a result of deregulation of finance and other industries that systematically unbalance the economy in order to redistribute more wealth to the rich.

Wealth is not infinite and a lot of finance industry is based on creating profits at the direct expense of life outcomes of poor, working and middle class. For example, the tens of thousands who lost their homes and savings while the bad actors that caused the the collaspe of the economy got bailed out and got to keep their fortunes while the poor and workers lost their assets.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.