[ronimacarroni]

How do libertarians solve the problem of wealth inequality.
inb4 its not a problem.

[Nunt]

How do governments solve the problem of wealth inequality? As far as I know there was at least some wealth equality in every country in history.

[BATIK]

You need to provide a clear explanation as to why it is a problem.

You need to list the current ways of dealing with wealth inequality and if they are effective at all.
I eagerly await your response.

[ronimacarroni]

You need to provide a clear explanation as to why it is a problem.

You need to list the current ways of dealing with wealth inequality and if they are effective at all.
I eagerly await your response.

Its a problem because then rich people hold an disproportional amount of wealth/power which is bad for democracy
And the solution is to tax them at a progressive rate like we always have

[Kman]

Its a problem because then rich people hold an disproportional amount of wealth/power which is bad for democracy

Why is it bad for democracy for stupid/lazy people to be poor and hard working smart people to be rich?

[anticlimacus]

Why is it bad for democracy for stupid/lazy people to be poor and hard working smart people to be rich?

What is bad for society is the false sense of superiority exhibited here, which is nothing more than either a) being duped by propaganda of capitalist wealth accrual or b) a condition of privilege .

[ronimacarroni]

Why is it bad for democracy for stupid/lazy people to be poor and hard working smart people to be rich?

Poor people are not necessarily stupid or lazy.
Teachers, construction workers, waiters are all poor somewhat I think.
It also affects the middle class, as the size of the middle class is an indicator of how equal/unequal a society is.
Also wealth inequality leads to rich people buying the government.
You could say many of today's problems stem from wealth inequality.

[Kman]

Also wealth inequality leads to rich people buying the government.

But how does this take place exactly? Politicians depend on votes, not money for staying in office, a politician can be extremely poor and still stay in office for 40 years, all it takes is people voting for said person, are you saying that democracy doesnt work and that the common people cannot figure out who to vote for ?

[ronimacarroni]

But how does this take place exactly? Politicians depend on votes, not money for staying in office, a politician can be extremely poor and still stay in office for 40 years, all it takes is people voting for said person, are you saying that democracy doesnt work and that the common people cannot figure out who to vote for ?

Saying politicians don't depend on money is naive.
Campaigns are very expensive to run and they've been getting progressively more expensive.
Specially after the citizens united decision which allowed unlimited campaign spending.
Nowadays campaign contributors like Goldman Sachs or GE get huge tax discounts.
To the point where they literately pay 0% corporate tax.

[Baff]

Rich people cannot buy a democratic government.
At least not without first buying the electorate.

Ultimately in a democracy no matter how much money you have, it gets decided by the vote and you still only get one per person.

Of course inequality still exists. A rich person might use his wealth to influence a politican or patronise an electorate. Just as a sexy woman might use her body to, a intellectual might use his mind to, a family member might use his loyalty to and a bully might use his fist to. A famous person might use his public profile to.


There is inequality in all things. Celebrate your differences and play to your own strengths.


Wealth inequality is not an issue for me. I fully expect people to be richer than me. I am pleased for them when they are.
I'm just looking for the odd opportunity to better myself once in a while.

I have no equal in this life. I do not seek equality at all. Far from it. I seek individualism.
To find a niche for myself in which I am without equal.


Contributors like Goldman Sachs pay more tax than you do I expect. Certainly more than me.
Yes they can negotiate directly with the taxman as can I. But the idea that they are getting away lightly on tax is preposteous and riddiculous.
They are going to be amongst the countries very highest tax payers.

Their taxation is anything but equal. It is unequal.
Our tax system makes those with the most money pay the most tax. It doesn't give a shit about equality. It just takes as much as it can.

Corporate tax is paid only on profits. If you make no priofit, you pay no corporation tax.
That's not to say that these people don't pay any tax. they do. But they only pay tax on profits, if they make any.
Most of us in the country do not pay any tax on our non existant profits either. If they pay 0% corporation tax, then this makes them the equals of all the rest of us who pay no corporation tax.
Corporation is a funny one for governments as they are in direct competition with other govts for the same money. They have to make deals.
Personally I'd be a little bit more worried about why Goldman Sachs&co were unable to make any profit, than how much tax the government was or wasn't able to loot from them. But then I'm no fan of governments so I would be.

[ronimacarroni]

That's not to say that these people don't pay any tax. they do

But they don't
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/04 ... oliticians
Also progressive taxation is fair.
To someone who earns 20k a year paying 5k means a lot more than someone who earns 1 million and pays 400k.
Well the guy who earns 1 million probably puts a bulk of his money on stocks so he ends up paying capital gains tax rates anyways...

[BATIK]

Its a problem because then rich people hold an disproportional amount of wealth/power

You didn't explain why a disproportional amount of wealth/power is problematic. You only asserted your initial claim.

which is bad for democracy

When making sweeping statements, you should provide empirical, logical or rational reasoning in order to assert this claim.

I think the libertarian position of significantly reducing or entirely eliminating government would mean wealth would not allow you special privileges, as is seen in crony capitalism.

You also haven't proved how wealth inequality is inherently bad. If everyone's living standards and incomes are rising, yet the wealthy's incomes and wealth is increasing at a higher rate, then is that wrong? Would you prefer complete equality where the quality of life is lower or inequality where the average person lives an enjoyable life.

And the solution is to tax them at a progressive rate like we always have

Wait a second... You just complained about wealth inequality causing problems, and then you refer to the supposed solution. If this is the solution, and we're currently doing it (to quote you: "like we always have") then why is there still inequality?

[ronimacarroni]

Wait a second... You just complained about wealth inequality causing problems, and then you refer to the supposed solution. If this is the solution, and we're currently doing it (to quote you: "like we always have") then why is there still inequality?

More like we pretend we're doing it.
Even if someone who is wealthy is honest and pays his income tax (which is very rare)
Then s/he'd only be paying like 30%
Which is among the lowest it has ever been

[BATIK]

More like we pretend we're doing it.
Even if someone who is wealthy is honest and pays his income tax (which is very rare)
Then s/he'd only be paying like 30%
Which is among the lowest it has ever been

What do you propose the wealthy, as a percentage, pay on their income?

What do you propose corporate enterprises, as a percentage, pay on their income?

Do you honestly believe an extreme increase in taxes would be more beneficial than harmful to the economy?

Also, please explain why a progressive tax system is 'fairer' than a flat tax, or a 0% income tax?

[Kman]

Saying politicians don't depend on money is naive.

Why would they depend on money? Voters can go look at a politicians website and find out what his position is on things easily, anybody no matter how poor can setup a website. Unless ofc you think voters are lazy people that vote according to 30 second ads on TV and not careful intellectual insight into the political positions of the various politicians.

Campaigns are very expensive to run and they've been getting progressively more expensive.

But you dont need to have those in a democracy, all you need are people who decide to vote for you, there are plenty of examples of poorer candidates beating rich candidates, money is not an easy win, poorer candidates often beat rich candidates in elections.

[ronimacarroni]

What do you propose the wealthy, as a percentage, pay on their income?

40% atleast, that'd be Clinton era tax rates

What do you propose corporate enterprises, as a percentage, pay on their income?

If every pays their income tax like their supposed to then corporate tax can be overlooked somewhat I suppose

Do you honestly believe an extreme increase in taxes would be more beneficial than harmful to the economy?

More benefitial, we'd be able to pay back some of that debt for starters and use the rest of the money for public sector jobs

Also, please explain why a progressive tax system is 'fairer' than a flat tax, or a 0% income tax?

Because like I mentioned earlier
Taxation is subjective
People who earn little need every penny they get in order to stay afloat.
Whereas after a certain point money becomes less of whats necessary to survive and more of what you want to use to buy consumer goods.

[Baff]

Why do you feel that people who worked harder than you to get their money value it any less than you do?
For me the reverse is more intuative. Those who value it more have more of it. Those who value it less don't bother wasting their time acquiring so much of it.

[]That's not to say that these people don't pay any tax. they do[/]
But they don't
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/04 ... oliticians
Also progressive taxation is fair.
To someone who earns 20k a year paying 5k means a lot more than someone who earns 1 million and pays 400k.
Well the guy who earns 1 million probably puts a bulk of his money on stocks so he ends up paying capital gains tax rates anyways...

Don't be so ridiculous man.

Each GS employee pays his tax same as everyone else.
Each shareholder too.
Their economic endeavours are as taxed as the next mans. Plus they have a much higher proportion of high earners than usual, which means they pay much more than usual.

If they make a profit together as a business, they then pay extra tax on top of what everyone else typically pays.



Progressive taxation is not in any way fair.

If you pay 5K in taxes and I pay 150k in taxes, what is so fair about that?
Did the govt provide 145k more of services to me than it did you?

Lets take me as an example. I don't earn 25k a year. I earn 5K a year.

So I pay less tax.


Why do I only earn 5K a year? Because that's all I want to. It's my choice.
I could have gone into the city and chosen to work on the stock exchange.
I could have chosen to sign on with an emergency plumber and work through the nights.
I chose not to.
I could still be teaching or dancing or making TV shows. I choose not to.
I could even sign on for govt financial support. I choose not to.

Because I choose to be comparatively lazy and unproductive, do I use less govt services than anyone else?
WTF has the amount of money I earn have to do with how much anything costs to provide?

Only this, the govt can't take so much from me because I have nothing of value for it to take.
But if you who worked much harder than me, resultingly acquire more wealth than me, the govt can take more of it off you than it can me.
What's fair about that?

I'm more lazy than you, so you have to pay extra?
Seems like a pretty obviously bogus sense of fairplay to me.

[BATIK]

Let's say there's a flat 10% income tax.

Person A earns $20,000 a year.
Person B earns $10,000 a year.

Person A pays $2,000 in income tax and person B pays $1,000 in income tax.

The total taxes earned by the government is $3,000.

Person A earns double that of person B, and pays double that, in taxes, of person B. What is unfair about that?

Person A is paying ~67% of the taxes, and person B ~33% of the taxes.

Demonstrate why this is unfair, please.

[Baff]

Couldn't be easier.
In your example Person A pays $2,000 for the same service as Person B pays only $1,000.
He is thus a second class citisen. Being clearly and obviously ripped off.


Calculate the total spending of the govt and then divide that number by the amount of citisens. This is fairer.


If this means that govts can't afford to spend on massive projects they wish to without completely taking all the money the poorest people have available, then they should scale down their ambitions until it can.

[mikema63]

And the solution is to tax them at a progressive rate like we always have