Okay, you’re saying income disparity is not a myth, it just doesn’t matter. But, one doesn’t have to want to redistribute wealth to believe it is worthwhile to compare economies among nations and among citizens. CEO pay as a multiple of worker’s salaries is not a measure of net worth, it’s a measure of annual compensation. It doesn’t measure families, it measures individual pay, annually. You may not want it to be a “goal” of government to allocate wealth, but surely that allocation is related to the effect of government tax, spending, and other policies. The government of Somalia may be perfectly neutral by staying out of the way of pirates (or, somewhere else, the Mafia) and letting them do their jobs and take everyone else’s assets, but that’s a very bad government that does not serve its citizens.
Okay, you’re saying income disparity is not a myth, it just doesn’t matter. But, one doesn’t have to want to redistribute wealth to believe it is worthwhile to compare economies among nations and among citizens. CEO pay as a multiple of worker’s salaries is not a measure of net worth, it’s a measure of annual compensation. It doesn’t measure families, it measures individual pay, annually. You may not want it to be a “goal” of government to allocate wealth, but surely that allocation is related to the effect of government tax, spending, and other policies. The government of Somalia may be perfectly neutral by staying out of the way of pirates (or, somewhere else, the Mafia) and letting them do their jobs and take everyone else’s assets, but that’s a very bad government that does not serve its citizens.
Wuh?
Let’s break it down:
Okay, you’re saying income disparity is not a myth, it just doesn’t matter.
No, I said GROWING income disparity, is a myth. IB said it isn’t a problem. I believe it would have to reach levels way past what we have now to be a problem.
But, one doesn’t have to want to redistribute wealth to believe it is worthwhile to compare economies among nations and among citizens.
Sure more data is always cool. That’s what the OWS crowd is right? A bunch of economists comparing data?
CEO pay as a multiple of worker’s salaries is not a measure of net worth, it’s a measure of annual compensation. It doesn’t measure families, it measures individual pay, annually.
Not sure it’s really relevant. Quarterback salary has gone up a lot faster than a fan’s salary over the same time period.
You may not want it to be a “goal” of government to allocate wealth, but surely that allocation is related to the effect of government tax, spending, and other policies. The government of Somalia may be perfectly neutral by staying out of the way of pirates (or, somewhere else, the Mafia) and letting them do their jobs and take everyone else’s assets, but that’s a very bad government that does not serve its citizens
Snarkiness aside, I don’t think most reasonable people want NO government. But look at what our government spends money on. About half of it goes to wealth redistribution in the form of social security/Medicare/Medicaid. And as they are entitlements they get more expensive every year. If there is theft going on, it isn’t so much the rich stealing from the poor, it’s everybody alive today stealing from future citizens in the form of massive debt and crippling entitlement obligations. Everything else is small potatoes.
Okay, you’re saying income disparity is not a myth, it just doesn’t matter. But, one doesn’t have to want to redistribute wealth to believe it is worthwhile to compare economies among nations and among citizens. CEO pay as a multiple of worker’s salaries is not a measure of net worth, it’s a measure of annual compensation. It doesn’t measure families, it measures individual pay, annually. You may not want it to be a “goal” of government to allocate wealth, but surely that allocation is related to the effect of government tax, spending, and other policies. The government of Somalia may be perfectly neutral by staying out of the way of pirates (or, somewhere else, the Mafia) and letting them do their jobs and take everyone else’s assets, but that’s a very bad government that does not serve its citizens.
Wuh?
That was in response to IB Freebasing. CEO pay vs. workers’ is used because the CEOs are a big part of the “one percent.” And IB didn’t want government making any transfers, which is not possible. If the government builds a road, there is a transfer to some who use it or benefit from it more than others. The question Troll raises is whether the financial structures are slanted toward benefiting the top group. IB Freebasing seems to argue that it does, because, in part, he thinks there is an incentive to keep taxes offshore. The fact is that about every governmental policy has in it, somewhere, an incentive or disincentive to somebody. Alan Greenspan said he thought he had the perfect model to show how it all runs, and then admitted he didn’t. I don’t claim to have any such knowledge, but do think the system ought to result in positive encouragement to all income levels, not only to the “one percent.”
Okay, you’re saying income disparity is not a myth, it just doesn’t matter. But, one doesn’t have to want to redistribute wealth to believe it is worthwhile to compare economies among nations and among citizens. CEO pay as a multiple of worker’s salaries is not a measure of net worth, it’s a measure of annual compensation. It doesn’t measure families, it measures individual pay, annually. You may not want it to be a “goal” of government to allocate wealth, but surely that allocation is related to the effect of government tax, spending, and other policies. The government of Somalia may be perfectly neutral by staying out of the way of pirates (or, somewhere else, the Mafia) and letting them do their jobs and take everyone else’s assets, but that’s a very bad government that does not serve its citizens.
Wuh?
That was in response to IB Freebasing. CEO pay vs. workers’ is used because the CEOs are a big part of the “one percent.” And IB didn’t want government making any transfers, which is not possible. If the government builds a road, there is a transfer to some who use it or benefit from it more than others. The question Troll raises is whether the financial structures are slanted toward benefiting the top group. IB Freebasing seems to argue that it does, because, in part, he thinks there is an incentive to keep taxes offshore. The fact is that about every governmental policy has in it, somewhere, an incentive or disincentive to somebody. Alan Greenspan said he thought he had the perfect model to show how it all runs, and then admitted he didn’t. I don’t claim to have any such knowledge, but do think the system ought to result in positive encouragement to all income levels, not only to the “one percent.”
“Freebasing” says Too. “IB says it is not a problem” but Jim doesn’t agree. What a bunch of deep thinkers we have here.
Of course it is not a problem. If the economy grows the disparity is going to get MUCH wider on an aggregate basis but our overall standard of living is going to be MUCH higher. This is what happened over the last 30 years pre recession. The poor are much richer than they were in 1970 but the disparity is bigger because the overall income is way bigger.
Are you two geniuses now saying that when the economy starts growing again some politicians should get together and do one of or the other of the only solutions to this so called problem:
1) Restrict the growth of higher earner’s income so the natural math of growing income does not work
2) Somehow require the lower income earners to be paid at a rate MUCH higher than the growth of the economy
Fools. What part of the 10% growth and 10% decline in income scenario I gave previously is too hard for you guys to understand??
Okay, you’re saying income disparity is not a myth, it just doesn’t matter. But, one doesn’t have to want to redistribute wealth to believe it is worthwhile to compare economies among nations and among citizens. CEO pay as a multiple of worker’s salaries is not a measure of net worth, it’s a measure of annual compensation. It doesn’t measure families, it measures individual pay, annually. You may not want it to be a “goal” of government to allocate wealth, but surely that allocation is related to the effect of government tax, spending, and other policies. The government of Somalia may be perfectly neutral by staying out of the way of pirates (or, somewhere else, the Mafia) and letting them do their jobs and take everyone else’s assets, but that’s a very bad government that does not serve its citizens.
Wuh?
That was in response to IB Freebasing. CEO pay vs. workers’ is used because the CEOs are a big part of the “one percent.” And IB didn’t want government making any transfers, which is not possible. If the government builds a road, there is a transfer to some who use it or benefit from it more than others. The question Troll raises is whether the financial structures are slanted toward benefiting the top group. IB Freebasing seems to argue that it does, because, in part, he thinks there is an incentive to keep taxes offshore. The fact is that about every governmental policy has in it, somewhere, an incentive or disincentive to somebody. Alan Greenspan said he thought he had the perfect model to show how it all runs, and then admitted he didn’t. I don’t claim to have any such knowledge, but do think the system ought to result in positive encouragement to all income levels, not only to the “one percent.”
“Freebasing” says Too. “IB says it is not a problem” but Jim doesn’t agree. What a bunch of deep thinkers we have here.
Of course it is not a problem. If the economy grows the disparity is going to get MUCH wider on an aggregate basis but our overall standard of living is going to be MUCH higher. This is what happened over the last 30 years pre recession. The poor are much richer than they were in 1970 but the disparity is bigger because the overall income is way bigger.
Are you two geniuses now saying that when the economy starts growing again some politicians should get together and do one of or the other of the only solutions to this so called problem:
1) Restrict the growth of higher earner’s income so the natural math of growing income does not work
2) Somehow require the lower income earners to be paid at a rate MUCH higher than the growth of the economy
Fools. What part of the 10% growth and 10% decline in income scenario I gave previously is too hard for you guys to understand??
Go back and read what I wrote.
Maybe slower this time. Apology accepted in advance.
Okay, you’re saying income disparity is not a myth, it just doesn’t matter. But, one doesn’t have to want to redistribute wealth to believe it is worthwhile to compare economies among nations and among citizens. CEO pay as a multiple of worker’s salaries is not a measure of net worth, it’s a measure of annual compensation. It doesn’t measure families, it measures individual pay, annually. You may not want it to be a “goal” of government to allocate wealth, but surely that allocation is related to the effect of government tax, spending, and other policies. The government of Somalia may be perfectly neutral by staying out of the way of pirates (or, somewhere else, the Mafia) and letting them do their jobs and take everyone else’s assets, but that’s a very bad government that does not serve its citizens.
Wuh?
That was in response to IB Freebasing. CEO pay vs. workers’ is used because the CEOs are a big part of the “one percent.” And IB didn’t want government making any transfers, which is not possible. If the government builds a road, there is a transfer to some who use it or benefit from it more than others. The question Troll raises is whether the financial structures are slanted toward benefiting the top group. IB Freebasing seems to argue that it does, because, in part, he thinks there is an incentive to keep taxes offshore. The fact is that about every governmental policy has in it, somewhere, an incentive or disincentive to somebody. Alan Greenspan said he thought he had the perfect model to show how it all runs, and then admitted he didn’t. I don’t claim to have any such knowledge, but do think the system ought to result in positive encouragement to all income levels, not only to the “one percent.”
“Freebasing” says Too. “IB says it is not a problem” but Jim doesn’t agree. What a bunch of deep thinkers we have here.
Of course it is not a problem. If the economy grows the disparity is going to get MUCH wider on an aggregate basis but our overall standard of living is going to be MUCH higher. This is what happened over the last 30 years pre recession. The poor are much richer than they were in 1970 but the disparity is bigger because the overall income is way bigger.
Are you two geniuses now saying that when the economy starts growing again some politicians should get together and do one of or the other of the only solutions to this so called problem:
1) Restrict the growth of higher earner’s income so the natural math of growing income does not work
2) Somehow require the lower income earners to be paid at a rate MUCH higher than the growth of the economy
Fools. What part of the 10% growth and 10% decline in income scenario I gave previously is too hard for you guys to understand??
Go back and read what I wrote.
Maybe slower this time. Apology accepted in advance.
You say it isn’t a problem now. I say it isn’t a problem ever in a free market. Moving the poverty level up is a good thing and happens in a growing economy. These wealth redistributors have only as their goal equal wealth. I would much prefer increases in the overall standard of living even if the income disparity widens as has been the case since 1980.
Troll and Too must from their incessant attention to the leftist prefer 1979 to today.
Isn’t it amazing that poverty in troll’s post is defined by income of $20000+? I bet in 1979 it was $5000. This poverty level line hopefully will always move up.
What is really crazy about this whole conversation is troll’s and the leftist’s refusal to offer a plan to address this so called problem.
Okay, you’re saying income disparity is not a myth, it just doesn’t matter. But, one doesn’t have to want to redistribute wealth to believe it is worthwhile to compare economies among nations and among citizens. CEO pay as a multiple of worker’s salaries is not a measure of net worth, it’s a measure of annual compensation. It doesn’t measure families, it measures individual pay, annually. You may not want it to be a “goal” of government to allocate wealth, but surely that allocation is related to the effect of government tax, spending, and other policies. The government of Somalia may be perfectly neutral by staying out of the way of pirates (or, somewhere else, the Mafia) and letting them do their jobs and take everyone else’s assets, but that’s a very bad government that does not serve its citizens.
Wuh?
That was in response to IB Freebasing. CEO pay vs. workers’ is used because the CEOs are a big part of the “one percent.” And IB didn’t want government making any transfers, which is not possible. If the government builds a road, there is a transfer to some who use it or benefit from it more than others. The question Troll raises is whether the financial structures are slanted toward benefiting the top group. IB Freebasing seems to argue that it does, because, in part, he thinks there is an incentive to keep taxes offshore. The fact is that about every governmental policy has in it, somewhere, an incentive or disincentive to somebody. Alan Greenspan said he thought he had the perfect model to show how it all runs, and then admitted he didn’t. I don’t claim to have any such knowledge, but do think the system ought to result in positive encouragement to all income levels, not only to the “one percent.”
“Freebasing” says Too. “IB says it is not a problem” but Jim doesn’t agree. What a bunch of deep thinkers we have here.
Of course it is not a problem. If the economy grows the disparity is going to get MUCH wider on an aggregate basis but our overall standard of living is going to be MUCH higher. This is what happened over the last 30 years pre recession. The poor are much richer than they were in 1970 but the disparity is bigger because the overall income is way bigger.
Are you two geniuses now saying that when the economy starts growing again some politicians should get together and do one of or the other of the only solutions to this so called problem:
1) Restrict the growth of higher earner’s income so the natural math of growing income does not work
2) Somehow require the lower income earners to be paid at a rate MUCH higher than the growth of the economy
Fools. What part of the 10% growth and 10% decline in income scenario I gave previously is too hard for you guys to understand??
Go back and read what I wrote.
Maybe slower this time. Apology accepted in advance.
You say it isn’t a problem now. I say it isn’t a problem ever in a free market. Moving the poverty level up is a good thing and happens in a growing economy. These wealth redistributors have only as their goal equal wealth. I would much prefer increases in the overall standard of living even if the income disparity widens as has been the case since 1980.
Troll and Too must from their incessant attention to the leftist prefer 1979 to today.
Isn’t it amazing that poverty in troll’s post is defined by income of $20000+? I bet in 1979 it was $5000. This poverty level line hopefully will always move up.
What is really crazy about this whole conversation is troll’s and the leftist’s refusal to offer a plan to address this so called problem.
We disagree on exactly one word: ever. I don’t think income disparity has been growing. I think the disparity that exists is a not problem. I can imagine a time where it would become a problem; but I don’t necessarily think that government intervention would solve that problem.
