What do people think about income inequality?

I could read it,digesting 1000 pages is something else.

Take myself for instance. I'm fairly bright, I've worked hard, gotten good grades, stayed away from addictive substances, never had any trouble with the law, in other words, I've played by the rules. I've also lost my job, have no health insurance, and am having to borrow $20,000/year to make my tuition payments. Now, if I were living in Europe, not only would I not be paying tuition, I would actually be receiving a modest stipend to cover my living costs while I was in school. In addition, I'd be covered by a public health plan, which admittedly would probably not provide quite as good a coverage as the private insurance I could opt for if I wanted to spend the extra money on it, but at least I would have something, which, compared to the nothing I have right now in our wealthy US, sounds kind of like a step up to me.

Not trying to be snide here, a legitimate question. So, why are you still here? Why aren't you taking advantage of that opportunity? A rational actor working for his own best interests, believing the above, would move and partake. So there must be other considerations.

Have you read Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand? You may find some of your answers there.

As to the disparity of income, my recent experience working with high school students is that there are very few who are motivated to work hard and go on to be the so called Captains of Industry. More and more are happy just to "chill out" and take whatever the nanny state hands to them, and then complain about it. Fewer and fewer want to actually "work" at a career. So as the high achievers (like really good, proven CEOs) become more scarce their compensation gets bid up. Just paying a mediocre executive 25X a workers salary doesn't make him smart enough to run a company. Money doesn't make the CEO. The CEO is so well paid because there are few of them that can consistently make profitable decisions. The CEO makes the money.

As for appreciating the value of money, I can't help but feel that, if anything, the working poor in this country who often have to work multiple jobs just in order to make ends meet, would be more appreciative of the value of an earned dollar than some billionaire who rakes in millions simply by clicking a button and selling a bunch of stocks.

You just blew any credibility you had.

" namely the widening gap between rich people and poor people."

There is no widenig gap. Folks standard of living has beeen going up.

"According to the US Treasury Department, the richest 2% of the country own 80% of the wealth in the US.

According to spunkets that 80% is mostly stuff that can't be spent, and is largely paper valuation that depends on economic activity to maintain it's valuation.

"Wal-Mart. At the same time, human resources staff for Wal-Mart, when they hire a new employee, will routinely complete paperwork for new hires to receive foodstamps, as the wages they pay their workers are so low that..."

Pure BS.

"Does this sort of thing not bother conservatives?"

What bothers me is that all the whiners don't do a damn thing to create their own opportunities and create wealth. What they do go after is other folks that have done that and raid their enterprises for what liquid assets they have. Once they trash one, they'll go on to the next.

Tell us, why is it that all the Ds do nothing with their wealth, except to use it to gain power, trash enterprise, destroy Freedom and trash the very cultures and morals that created the nation they raid in the first place. Why is it that the Republican party collects it's money from small $25-30 donations and the rats get theirs in bulk deposits from wealthy big mouths having the moral code of a sleazy thief? Why are all the Ds liars and the Rs are largely truthful and honest?

"One of the efforts to redistribute wealth here in the US is the estate tax - so called the millionaire tax. An estate valued at over 1 mil is subject to HEAVY taxes. Here in Ohio this is destroying family farms 260 acres, farm buildings, farm equipment may provide a reasonable income but if you try to leave it to your kids they are going to have to come up with a real hefty cash tax payment because of the value of the property."

The simple answer to this is 'FAMILIY LIMITED PARTNERTSHIPS'. Mom and Dad are the General Partners with the children being Limited Partners. The Limited Partners have no decision rights authority until they become General Partners. When the parents die, all property owned by the FLP automatically passes to the kids which were already partners who then gain decision making rights authority. There is no estate taxes whatsoever on FLP property, just normal business taxes.

The IRS has taken this to court and lost repeatedly in all cases where the General Partners did not form the partnership to avoid taxes, such as being in poor health at the time with death a strong probability within a year or two.

"Now, if I were living in Europe, not only would I not be paying tuition, I would actually be receiving a modest stipend to cover my living costs while I was in school. In addition, I'd be covered by a public health plan, which admittedly would probably not provide quite as good a coverage as the private insurance I could opt for if I wanted to spend the extra money on it, but at least I would have something, which, compared to the nothing I have right now in our wealthy US, sounds kind of like a step up to me."

You should move to Europe and quit asking me to pay for you to remain alive. Kick your parents in the ass for forgetting, "If you can't feed them, don't breed them." What I pay in taxes every year would certainly supply you with everything you are asking for. You would become a comfortable middle class citizen immediately just for being born. Complain to your Representative for not giving it to YOU.

Wow, this is amazing, I was going to be grateful if a got just a dozen replies! This is kind of overwhelming, you guys are plainly a very passionate bunch around here, but let me take a stab at responding to some of your comments. My apologies to those who concluded that I must be a troll since I had to leave to go do some studying, but I hope you'll you'll understand I couldn't spend the entire day on FR.

First of all, thank you all for your replies. One poster I saw noted that you were probably doing all of the research for my graduate thesis and I have to say, although I'm not writing a thesis on this particular topic, I probably have gotten enough material here to write one!

Moving on, it sounds like no one here really has much of a problem with some people making more money than others, although I was interested to note that several of you stipulated that the money be earned in an ethical fashion. I think we're pretty much on the same page there. I think part of my concern is that, as many of you have already stated, it's human nature to aggressively pursue wealth, which gives rise to the question in my mind of just how aggressively is aggressive? It seems like the more one deregulates business, the more opportunities it creates for opportunistic individuals to acquire wealth in a manner which may or may not be ethical. I mean, hell, if you dangle a big enough carrot in front of me, I'd probably loot a pension fund or bilk little old ladies out of their life savings, whatever. But even though it might net me a fortune, it wouldn't necessarily be in the best interests of my community or my country.

I also concur that individual financial incentive is a crucial ingredient in our economic success. If you'll read my original posts, you'll see that I said as much at the outset. For me personally, the question is how much incentive does there need to be and I'm still a little unclear on how Freepers feel on that issue. It sounds like most of you are not concerned about even very extreme degrees of individual wealth. If I've understood that correctly, I feel like I have to ask, is that an absolute, i.e., is there no degree of income inequality which would bother you? Or are you simply saying that things just aren't that bad in this country, but it might bother you if it became more pronounced? If, for instance, we were to return to feudal times where a small handful of nobility owned literally all of the wealth, as long as you had a roof over your heads, you'd be okay with that?

I'm asking because I'm honestly not clear on it. One poster observed that, in many respects, today's captains of industry and finance are even wealthier than the royalty of past ages, yet that same poster didn't seem unduly concerned by it. If that is in fact a statement with which most here would agree, well, then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. While I certainly do believe in rewarding individual achievement, I believe that the purpose of a national economy should be to provide the greatest good to the greatest number of the country's population. So, yeah, call me a socialist if you must, but if an economy reaches a level at which the vast majority of the rewards are going to a tiny fraction of the population, at the expense of the majority of the population, then, yes, I have a problem with it.

A number of posters have asked whether I think it's fair that the wealthiest people should pay the greatest share of taxes. Well, yeah, actually, I do. I mean, if the richest people in America own 80% of the total wealth, why wouldn't they be responsible for 80% of the taxes on that wealth? I don't see how that's unfair at all, that just seems like a straight dollar to dollar correlation to me.

In addition, although I don't pretend to be an expert on it, I certainly hear a great deal from a wide variety of sources about the ingenuity that the wealthy demonstrate in finding offshore tex shelters and other creative ways of escaping tax bills. Do people here contest that those kinds of tax shelters exist and are used? If so, what do all of those forensic accountants do with their days? Are they just chasing ghosts?

I'm sorry my account of my own personal circumstances caused some of you to infer that my comments were simply a reflection of sour grapes. I mentioned it not to whine, but as illustrative of a larger problem. I am by no means the only unemployed, uninsured person in this country these days. We've lost some 3 million jobs in the last 3 years, that's an historical level of upheaval by any standard. I'm also but one of what? 30 million? 40 million uninsured? I forget the precise number, but it's one hell of a lot of people walking around without health insurance these days. I'm actually much better off than most in that I own my own home and have considerable savings to see me through this period of unemployment. Sorry to disillusion those of you who inferred from my student status that I was still young: I'm 37, I worked for several years as a public policy analyst before I was laid off and returned to school.

Anyway, my point is that we aren't talking about a small handful of people who are slipping through the cracks of the system (whom you can safely dismiss as "whiners" or "deadbeats"), we're talking about millions of people who are having a very hard time these days. Do you really have no sympathy for any of them? Here's hoping you're never one of them.

Oh, and for those who observe that I should just move to another country, you'd be surprised how hard it is to do that. Immigation regulations around the world have tightened considerably and it's very difficult to obtain work and residency permits. You might be interested to know that it's harder in part because so many Americans have followed your advice - the waiting list for Americans to get into Canada now exceeds two years. However, this is all moot as I happen to be an American, maybe not your kind of American, but an American nonetheless, with just as much commitment to my country as you have. I just happen to think that my country, although a pretty damn cool place already, can and should be always striving to be even better.

Oh hell, what else have I forgotten? I know a lot of you made really made great points and I'm probably forgetting at least half of you. Nuts, sorry, my mind's a blank. I'll try and get back to anyone I missed later.

What in the hell does unions have to do with who becomes successful?

Did you drive a new car when you were 25? I sure didn't. Being stupid enough to hang a large loan bill from the bank around your neck will certainly keep someone from having any extra cash to invest in real estate or the stock market.

Buying the newest style clothes is more important to many than investing their money in a growth fund that will guarantee early retirement or a comfortable lifestyle.

Also most wealthy individuals (maybe not the ultra-wealthy, I don't know) didn't start that way.

I know several ultra-wealthy people.

Most people could not bear the amount of stress and effort that they put themselves through for years on end to achieve such. You don't waltz into loads of wealth, it usually requires taking grave financial risks and working 80+ hours a week every week for years on end without vacation and no real hope of financial gain.

Quite frankly most people do not have the fortitude to do what it takes to accrue great wealth in a relatively short amount of time. It isn't hard to do in theory, but it pushes a human being to the breaking point and only the strongest survive in practice. I doubt most people can fathom the amount of determination it requires to carry such a burden without rest for years on end.

For most people, the personal cost, stress, and pain isn't worth the benefit of acquiring all that wealth. It is MUCH easier to coast by on 40-60 hours a week on a regular income. Of course, most of the really successful wealthy people that you meet aren't really in it for the money per se. To them, the money is often just recognition of the monumental effort they put into whatever it is they do. For a lot of them, it is just in their nature to build things and work hard.

Income equality is alive and well in the USA and often goes along with performance equality. :)

Why is it that a farmer can't incorporate his farm, make his children employees and have the farm automatically pass on to his children without estate tax issues?

Just wondering.

Both nice selections, but the only one he needs is Hayek.

Serfdom kills the still wriggling corpse of socialism.

Well, PSS, I'm glad you weren't a troll and did come back to continue the discussion. I hope you stick around and keep posing provoking questions. You are lucid, rational, not insulting, and well organized. We can use that around here.

Now, let me address some of your later points without going back and cutting and pasting.

It is clear to me from your comments that your earlier life experiences have biased you toward the socialist side. PolySci student, public policy analyst, etc would tend to make me think you lean in that direction. It's obvious your ideas differ from those of most of us here, but that's OK. Not likely we're going to change each other's minds, but it may make us consider some things we hadn't previously.

Does income disparity bother me? No. Is there any monetary level of disparity that would bother me? No. Would I feel the same way under a return to the fuedal system? No. Apples and Oranges. In a fuedal system no amount of hard work or study gets the peon off the land (other than military service.) Here and now, there are always ways to get ahead if you stop whining and take them.

I mean, hell, if you dangle a big enough carrot in front of me, I'd probably loot a pension fund or bilk little old ladies out of their life savings, whatever.

That, unfortunately say a lot about you. Especially if you think that everyone thinks that way. They don't. I don't. Some do. They need to be sanctioned, not restrict commerce in general because some may be unethical. Besides, until you codify "unethical" into crimminal behaviour, it's just another set of opinions.

I believe that the purpose of a national economy should be to provide the greatest good to the greatest number of the country's population. So, yeah, call me a socialist if you must, but if an economy reaches a level at which the vast majority of the rewards are going to a tiny fraction of the population, at the expense of the majority of the population, then, yes, I have a problem with it.

I believe that there should be NO purpose to a national economy. It just IS. The national economy is merely the aggregate of the individual microeconomic activites. To try to impose control over the national economy is an unacceptable intrusion into the actions of free individuals. (I know, I know, it's done constantly, but it's the principle.) As to the percentage of rewards going to the few, if it's the few that are putting out the effort, then so be it. I mentioned above that I am not encouraged by the attitude of today's youth. The majority attitude of most (including, unfortunately, my own 24 yr old son) is to work just enough to get along. Yes, there are exceptions, but the trend is depressing.

In addition, although I don't pretend to be an expert on it, I certainly hear a great deal from a wide variety of sources about the ingenuity that the wealthy demonstrate in finding offshore tex shelters and other creative ways of escaping tax bills. Do people here contest that those kinds of tax shelters exist and are used?

I don't. The politicians write laws carefully crafted to extract as much tax as they can without being thrown out by their constituents. The people examine these same laws to find ways to lessen the tax. In many cases the tax code is written in a way to encourage a certain social or economic behavior. Then they complain when too many people take advantage of it. Want to get rid of tax shelters? Write tax laws without loopholes. It's hard. How about a flat tax?

Several million people without health insurance. So? That's about 1% of the population. Almost insignificant statistically. Maybe it's not to them, but I am not responsible for their well-being. They are. Call me cruel.

I guess that's enough for now. I usually don't write this much, but I've been home from work for two weeks now with a lung infection, so have more time on the 'net. Yes, I have health insurance, but I have still had to write checks for over $1000 in the last two weeks for doctor's copay and procedures that weren't fully covered. But. hey, I'm insured.

Come back.

Good post. I hope you feel better soon.

It is telling that this young man thinks that so many people are crooks that his statement about looting pension funds would go un-noticed.

This would result in a gigantic increase in the cost of labor in our economy.

I'm making a similar argument in a reply I'll post later. Wouldn't the argument from inflation also apply *against* tax cuts? The targeted tax bracket will get more money, so the things that the people in that tax bracket buy will cost more.

I do hope the fellow who started this thread comes back. Otherwise I shall have wasted my time on a troll.

Thanks!

Hi, weaponeer!

Thanks for your courteous greeting and for sharing your views. As you say, although it's unlikely that we're going to change each other's minds, that's really not the point of the exercise as far as I'm concerned - I'm honestly not trying to convince anyone of anything here - the goal is to keep an open mind and hear as many different perspectives on an issue as possible in order to arrive at the most responsible conclusion possible, which is why I'm here.

Okay, so I probably wouldn't bilk some old lady out of her life savings, you're right, I'm exaggerating. But I do think that corporate malfeasance does exist and one ignores that at one's peril. I think it's asking a lot of a business executive who spends all of their time and energy educating themselves on the issues most pertinent to their company's interests, to simultaneously be an authority on every subject area which may be directly or indirectly affected by that company's actions. If, for instance, an executive knew that their chosen method of disposal of hazardous waste byproducts was detrimental to the health of inhabitants in a nearby community, I certainly hope that they would chose to find some other solution to their problem. But is an executive trained to be an environmental public health specialist? No, of course not, that's not their job, but I still think someone who is thus trained has a role to play in that equation.

With respect to the uninsured, I managed to find a number for you. According to the US Census Bureau (http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p60-223.pdf for those of you who keep asking for links (-:), the number of uninsured in the US as of 2002 was 43.6 million, accounting for 15.2% of the population. Also worth mentioning, that figure is on the rise, up by 2.4 million people from the year before. C'mon, weaponeer, 1 out of every 6 people is not "statistically insignificant."

By the way, I hope your lung infection's clearing up. Are you alright?

I'm no Donald Trump, but what do I think about income inequality? I think you should get off of your dead ass and go earn some income.

Clear enough?

One more question. Actually it's been asked several times in passing:

Have you read "Atlas Shrugged"?

Your response to that book will tell us (and yourself) a lot about how you think.

See, I knew I'd forgotten something. No, I have not read Atlas Shrugged. My general impression of Ayn Rand's work is that it needs to be appreciated in the context within which it was written. As a victim of the Russian Revolution and subject of the subsequent totalitarian regime, she has some understandably unfavorable observations to make about the ideas which were circulating about her at the time. Who could blame her? I'd be pissed as hell too. But make no mistake, she's not writing from an objective point of view, but rather one which has been intensely colored by her personal experience. I don't mean to be dismissive, I think she makes a lot of valid points, but I do take what she says with a grain of salt.

By the way, I hope your lung infection's clearing up. Are you alright?

Thanks for your concern. Yes, it's getting better. But the nagging cough is still a pain. It gets a lot worse when I lay down, so I am spending a lot of each night sitting up in a chair trying not to cough and wake my wife. Therefore lot's of keyboard time available.

I guess there are a lot of people without insurance. 15% is significant. Some of them are like my son. Refuses to pay for any part of health insurance, even when offered. He says he'll take his chances. At 24, he still thinks he's invincible. He also has no assets to lose, so if he really gets sick or hurt he'll throw himself on the mercy of the State. He isn't bothered by that at all. part of the new culture.

The others, folks with young families needing insurance and don't have it as a job benefit? Sad, but true. Some could maybe scrape up premiums for private insurance from another job. I just don't feel like it's my responsibility to take care of everyone. I'm not a compassionate conservative. This is a tough world and sometimes things are rough. As sometimes closes threads like this doscussing medical insurance, AIDS, smoking deaths, and other "needless" deaths, where would we be if no one ever died?

('Course it's tougher saying that now with this damn cough!).. :-)