Income Inequality Doesn’t Matter, Study Finds — Here’s What Does

Investor's Business Daily ^ | 3/25/2016 | John Merline

[IBD editorial writer]

For Democrats, few issues rank as high as “income inequality.” Reducing it is a priority of both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders.

But a new study finds that we are measuring inequality all wrong, and that as a result, imposing still more wealth-transfer laws probably won’t do anything to help.

[exDemMom]

Income inequality cannot be solved by any government action, and it is stupid and short-sighted to even try. People are born with different talents and abilities—inequality is built into our nature.

Income equality could only be achieved by making everything the same across the board—thus removing any incentive to produce. A system of “equality” cannot exist.

[upchuck]

A system of "equality" cannot exist.

Bump!

[sphinx]

Bttt

[ronnie raygun]

Consistently moving us to communism

[SMARTY]

If you don't finish school, if you bear children OUT of wedlock, if you cover yourself with tattoos, if you put hardware on your face, if you take drugs and break the law, and basically FU your chances of gainful employment ... you cannot ALSO expect to make as much money as the person who studied hard in school, and avoided all the distractions YOU couldn't resist!

[Perchant]

Income inequality is caused by the devaluation of labor. You can do that by implementing slavery or by mass immigration, the Democrats’ two favorite things. Both parties want one class of people working for an equalized wage and one elite class above them. They just have different ideas about how to get there and who gets to be the elite class.

[ThunderSleeps]

So wait, you're saying the 'rats are advocating for laws that will be costly, transfer more power and control to the government, yet will be ineffective at their stated purpose? I'm shocked! :-/

Seriously, my first reaction to anything proposed by the 'rats or liberals is that it is probably:

• not going to work as stated
• not going to work as they intend (which is generally not the same as above)
• going to cost me money
• going to cost me freedoms
• going to give the government even more say in how I spend my time and/or money
• generally be bad for the USA

Or some combination of the above. Yes I have a cynical outlook on 'rats and libtards. They have earned it many, many times over.

[Wildbill22]

The lack of class mobility is the real problem, and that is caused by tampering with the free market and big government.

[YepYep]

Yes, I agree.

And how terrible it would be if we were all alike. That would be a sort of robot society and UNFUN.

What’s that French phrase? Hooray for the differences!

[Little Pig]

I might even go so far as to say that a ‘Rat proposal not only won’t work as stated, nor as they purportedly intend (depending on how cynical you are), but that it will produce results nearly 180 degrees off the stated goal.

[BroJoeK]

Perchant: "Both parties want one class of people working for an equalized wage and one elite class above them.
They just have different ideas about how to get there and who gets to be the elite class."

By "both parties" I'm certain you mean the Democrats and Socialists, right?

Conservatives & even Republicans have always espoused a very different vision.

[Iron Munro]

For Democrats, few issues rank as high as “income inequality.” Reducing it is a priority of both
Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders.

That's why Hillary and Bill Clinton are giving their entire $500 million fortune to needy illegal alien children
and inviting homeless bums in NY City to move into Chelsea's $10.5 million dollar apartment.

[DungeonMaster]

If you don't finish school, if you bear children OUT of wedlock, if you cover yourself with tattoos, if you put hardware on your face, if you take drugs and break the law, and basically FU your chances of gainful employment ... you cannot ALSO expect to make as much money as the person who studied hard in school, and avoided all the distractions YOU couldn't resist!

The hardware face is an exact description of my 18 year old neighbor. His girlfriend just had a baby. He has no job and no serious intention of getting one. "His back hurts". So he does nothing but live in his girlfriend's mother's house and converts oxygen to CO2.

[ThunderSleeps]

Agreed. Gems like “we should subsidize X to make it more affordable” yet the net effect based on supply and demand is that now with more of a demand for X, the cost goes up - actually making it less affordable and knocking more people out of the running...requiring more subsidies... lather, rinse, repeat...

[rbg81]

One thing here: in terms of spending, they are comparing the top 1% to the bottom 20%. So, effectively, they are comparing 1 person to 20 people. So, a single person in the top 1% still spends 33% more than 20 people in the lower 20%.

That being said, I’m not that surprised by this.

[LambSlave]

As an example, they look at 40- to 49-year-olds. While the top 1% of this age group has 18.9% of wealth, they account for only 9.2% of spending. Those in the bottom 20%, in contrast, have only 2.1% of wealth but account for 6.9% of total spending

Guess this is how the "poor" have nicer things than me; I lose close to half my income in various taxes, while they get a plus up of untaxed benefits that largely balances out spending power.

[rbg81]

Equality of outcome cannot be expected where you have freedom (and thus a diversity of behaviors).

[kearnyirish2]

Republicans too often have failed to address the open border, affirmative action, etc. when they had the power to do so; they are simply one half of the Uniparty/Republocrats.

Trump is doing well because many Republicans have finally realized this. Will he fix it? Who knows...but we know who won’t.

[i_robot73]

IMO, we should start with sports and entertainment/news:

All the talking heads, ‘movie stars’ and owners/athletes can make do with 2x the avg. of the State they reside, maybe even 3x.

For the sake of ‘science’, of course /s