You can read the full thing here, it’s not that long.
So this begs two questions. The first, asked in the article (I’m sure I’ve asked the same thing elsewhere), is whether not those who bemoan the level of income inequality in the U.S. would jump for joy if, on a year to year basis, everyone’s income increased by the same percentage? Or would they bemoan the fact that the rich would be making comparatively more than the poor even given the same percent increases in their income level? Or would they claim that everyone should make the same amount of money?
The second is whether or not those “Great Society” programs should be done away with, since they just add to the income equality gap? Really, I’m not expecting a serious answer to that question, for obvious reasons, but here’s hoping.
I don’t understand. Are you asking that, given the choice among:
Social justice, and the rich get richer
Social injustice, and the rich get richer
Social justice, and the rich don’t get richer
Social injustice, and the rich don’t get richer
Liberals would reject #1 and #2 automatically, while seeking #3… that’d they reject a decent shot at #1 in the hopes of #3? That curbing the rich is more important than helping the poor? That they’d even grab at #4, just to screw with the rich?
I think your typical liberal/progressive would simply say that taxes need to be raised on the wealthy (especially by eliminating the FICA limit) to counteract the effects of federal programs for the elderly, and/or that those programs should be means tested.
So, just speaking of #3 since that’s what liberals apparently want:
If the rich don’t get richer, then do the poor get richer? Or do neither get richer? Well, obviously, I don’t see liberals advocating for the latter policy, not that it seems at all possible, so that leads us to the first policy where the poor get richer and the rich don’t get any richer. Given enough time with such a policy in place, the poor will catch up the rich, and they’ll both have the same incomes. So is that what liberals advocate for?
But that doesn’t address income inequality. Well, unless society is going to tax away the rich’s income to bring them down to the levels of the poor.
All the more reason to avoid violating fair use rules by posting more than 50% of the original article instead of simply summarizing and linking to it.
Nope. You could pay for additional transfers to the poor by means testing transfers to the elderly and taxing the wealthy more without “bring[ing] them down to the levels of the poor”. That’s just a scare tactic.
n.b.: I’m not advocating those things, but just saying it’s a pretty easy thing for a liberal/progressive to advocate, thus invalidating your attempt at a “gotcha” here.
He’s not making one. He’s taking cheap shots based on his own baised view of what “liberals” want.
I’m not a liberal, or a conservative. I’m painfully moderate.
If someone found and pressed the magic button that automatically suddenly boosts everyone’s income by 65%, in the long run absolutely nothing would change. There would be a short term party, and then the market would adjust with 65% rise in prices across the board. Short term good, long term no change in the current situation at all.
As for your “serious question” at the end, you are using the excluded middle fallacy. It’s certainly possible to modify them, rather than keep them business as usual or completely do away with them.
posting after preview**
I think what you would find, if you actually listened, is that what MOST folks want is for the rich to be taxed on a level comparable to the middle class, which they currently are NOT. I think you would find that most want to see government subsidies of mega-corps to end. There is no reason on Earth for Exxon to get tax breaks or subsidies. At all. If you have some, I would like to hear it.
And they would like to see some changes in things like Medicare or SS. Means testing is a good start. I see no reason whatsoever for Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, et al to be receiving SS payments.
Unless you, like most conservatives, think it’s ok to rob from me, to give the money to old people NOW as part of a program taht won’t be able to pay me in 30 years when I retire?
I’d say that they would be somewhere in the middle of the two extremes of bemoaning and jumping for joy. The trouble has been that, depending on how you look at it (or even not), the ‘poor’ and ‘middle classes’ incomes have been pretty stagnant for the last decade or so, while the ‘rich’ has increased…THAT is what I believe most liberals are having heart burn over.
I’m sure that there are plenty of people both on and off the 'dope who would say that, to be ‘fair’, everyone has to make the exact same amount. But I think most people acknowledge that this isn’t either likely to happen or even all that desirable. Again, I think the main contention here isn’t that the rich and poor are getting the same percentage of increase but that this translates into more for the rich, but that depending on how you are looking at things, the ‘poor’ aren’t getting any increases at all, or even going backwards, while the ‘rich’ have increased their wealth and the ‘middle class’ has been a mixed bag.
Nah. This sort of straw man argument sounds silly when its reverse is used against conservatives by a few of our more extreme Right-hating posters and it sounds no better when you invent positions for other people to hold and then demand that they defend your false premise.
Show me where Buffet or Soros have demanded that the rich need to get poorer and we can discuss your assertions. Otherwise, you are simply being silly.
Liberal Programs Deserve Blame for Income Inequality
Whether they do or not, I have never understood why I should care.
There is nothing just or unjust about income inequality (absent the usual class envy by rabble-rousers and other dolts). If I have enough, I am not harmed in the least if my neighbor has twice, or ten times, or a hundred times more than me.
Apart from that, your article has a point - transfer payments like Social Security and Medicare are regressive forms of taxation, and Social Security in particular should be means-tested. But that has little to do with income disparity.
If I get $1000, I would be silly to complain if my neighbor got $10,000.
It’s important to note that no one said anything about bringing the rich down to the levels of the poor, but rather bringing the poor up to the levels of the rich, if that’s what liberals want (which apparently they do), and getting rid of the income equality gap, which they complain about.
Speaking of straw men, you’re going to have to explain this to me. Show me where I said anything about the rich getting poorer. Just show me one post. The absolute closest thing to this you’ll get is me responding to Brian’s post about the rich not getting richer which, last I checked, doesn’t mean “get poorer”. If you’re going to claim straw man, actually get what I’ve typed out right.
The bottom line is that the whole article is just a stupid strawman made to make “liberals” look like buffoons. Seriously? “Liberals” think wealth is just a faucet of money where the rich claw into line ahead of everyone? That’s just stupid.
Even conservatives like Greg Mankiw seem to acknowledge that income inequality is a concerning development, even though he opposes the use of redistributive taxes to reverse the trend – but at the same type says that redistributive taxes would be the most efficient way to spread the wealth, if that were what we chose to do – cite.
If one accepts that income inequality is a growing problem, the idea that wealth would be added across the income scales in a proportional fashion would simply freeze the current state of inequality. So unless someone is happy with the way the economic pie is being sliced, there’s no reason why someone should find this “solution” desirable.
Of course, if this is simply a religious exercise of worshiping at the altar of the infallible, unerring god known as The Market, then there is no amount of reason that can cause the OP to question his ideological zeal.
Apparently* want or do want? Not the same thing, since what is “apparent” to an observer is affected by the observer’s preconceptions and whatnot.
What is a “liberal” to you? An American who votes Democrat? A typical European? A typical Canadian? Do you have a definition in mind that covers a sufficiently large bloc of people so that they have actual political influence (i.e. something beyond a small fringe minority comprising of members of the American Communist Party, or something).
As I understand it, Canada is generally considered on the overall political left of the United States? Are we overrun with “liberals”, by American standards? If so, would you expect us to have laws restricting the rich? If we don’t, does that suggest that restricting the rich is perhaps not a liberal thing?
You’re basically arguing that freebles apparently like gormels, without defining what a freeble or gormel is, except that it’s bad, somehow, and whatever it is, you’re against it.
I daresay increasing taxes on the rich (or just restoring tax rates to where they’ve been in the past) won’t keep the rich from getting richer. It’ll slow them down a little, is all. In any case, if the government needs money to meet its various obligations, it’s unclear where else this money could come from. I don’t buy the “job creator” meme - suggesting that lowering taxes even further on the rich will lead to economic benefit to all. It didn’t work when Reagan called it “supply-side economics”, either.
I don’t know of any mainstream liberal (by any reasonable definition of the term) advocating that. In the U.S. among, say, elected Democrats at the Federal level, who has advocated that? At the state level? Officials appointed by Democrats? Elected or appointed officials of any party? How wide a net do we have to cast?
Why? It never bothers you to post straw men (such as nearly the entirety of your OP as well as the lenghty screed you unfairly originally posted). Even adjusting from “get poorer” to “not get richer” your claim that “liberals” want that is a false claim. The most you can reasonably claim is that some small but undetermined number of liberals might want such a thing. In which case, you need to identify who has said that and take it up with them.
So there’s absolutely nothing wrong with the fact that real wages for the richest have been increasing dramatically in the past 30 years while real wages for the rest have stagnated?
Cite for any mainstream liberal wanting to eliminate the income gap? Reducing it, especially seeing how much it has grown in the past decade, is not eliminating it. Also, a cite for anyone wanting to force the rich to not get richer?
During the glory days of the bubble, the rich got richer but the income equity gap got smaller since everyone else did as well or even better on a percentage basis. Which is of course easy to do when you are starting out with not much.
That will suffice. I’m not going to get drawn into a “What’s a(n American) liberal?” debate, since you can just go look it up.
No, I don’t think I did.
Quite possible because I didn’t say there was any mainstream liberal, or any at all, advocating for such a policy.
Now, with that being taken care of, would you answer my initial question? Preferably the first one, since that’s the one I really care about?
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Why? It never bothers you to post straw men (such as nearly the entirety of your OP as well as the lenghty screed you unfairly originally posted). Even adjusting from “get poorer” to “not get richer” your claim that “liberals” want that is a false claim. The most you can reasonably claim is that some small but undetermined number of liberals might want such a thing. In which case, you need to identify who has said that and take it up with them.
[/quote]
So now you’re complaining because I said “liberals”? I’m sorry, but that sounds a lot like nitpicking semantics. There are many threads on the Dope that talk about what Republicans/conservatives want based on what Republican/conservatives have said, but now that I make a thread on something liberals have said then suddenly I need to identify who said what and take it up with them?
But, anyway, as to your claim of a straw man, how do you figure? Have you not been listening to the OWS movement going on about the 1% increasingly takes home a bigger share of the proverbial pot relative to the rest of the country? There’s also this thread regarding the government seeking to maximize prosperity.
Speaking for myself, for me it’s not the mere fact of income inequality, which I imagine is inevitable in a capitalist society, but rather the extent to which this inequality has grown and the cost it imposes on the poorest among us. Unlike Shodan, I don’t think that everybody’s got ‘‘enough,’’ because I am aware that people who are poor have higher infant mortality rates, unequal access to health care and education, and higher rates of chronic disease. Their children are developmentally affected and thus unable to grow to their full potential, which just decreases the likelihood of that child’s success. People may not be starving to death in the streets for the most part in the U.S., but that doesn’t mean the ramifications of their poverty aren’t serious.
I don’t think that standard of living is acceptable for anyone in a country as prosperous as the United States. I don’t need everybody to be driving a Ferrari, but I do need people to have a basic quality of life and at least a reasonable chance of advancement. Personally, if everybody in this country were guaranteed access to health care and a good education, I wouldn’t really be so hung up on the need for public welfare and ‘‘Great Society’’ programs. If we could really resolve the inequality of health, educational and other basic quality of life outcomes, I’d consider us equal enough.
I thought it was pretty clear that Bryan Ekers was asking the OP a (rhetorical) question. Here’s an edited version of what he posted:
“I don’t understand. Are you asking that, given the choice among (four different possibilities) (l)iberals would reject #1 and #2 automatically, while seeking #3(?) (T)hat’d they reject a decent shot at #1 in the hopes of #3? That curbing the rich is more important than helping the poor? That they’d even grab at #4, just to screw with the rich?”