"Income inequality"

[syntaxmachine]

If corporations and rich people payed more taxes, all of our problems would go away.

[bears]

If corporations and rich people payed more taxes, all of our problems would go away.

an absolutely silly assumption.

[Archer77]

an absolutely silly assumption.

Its syntax's classic brand of sly dry humor.

[whork]

There is no income inequality among the masses in North Korea.

Do we want to be like North Korea?

Keep supporting the dumocrats and we will get there.

Actually there is and the gap is a lot bigger than in the US.

You should get an education Tony.

[whork]

I'm tiring of u but I will continue a bit further.

Do u think the bankers at Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, et al., who all funded Obama's campaign and that of other Democrats (and all politicans, including Republicans) want their money taken away? No. They want more of it and they want what they already have protected.

Who do u think pays for political campaigns? The "average American"? Nope. It's the monied interests. The choices they give u  (that's right they give u the choices, u don't pick them) will all look out for who got them there not some idiot complaining about overreaching government.

Obamacare is making your conservative heroes richer than the already are. They're all heavily invested in the healthcare/insurance industry which is going to be the biggest benefactor of this.   

This man knows what he is talking about.

[tonymctones]

Actually there is and the gap is a lot bigger than in the US.

You should get an education Tony.

LMFAO I dont know if you thought that post was from me or just think that dario is my gimmick.

but to be clear I dont have nor do I need a gimmick to put moronic libtards like you back in your place.

[Al Doggity]

LMFAO I dont know if you thought that post was from me or just think that dario is my gimmick.

but to be clear I dont have nor do I need a gimmick to put moronic libtards like you back in your place.

...nor do you need to put anyone in their place to believe you did. 

[tonymctones]

...nor do you need to put anyone in their place to believe you did. 

thank you albert, my interweb stalker...go back to your apartment now and live well you moron

[whork]

LMFAO I dont know if you thought that post was from me or just think that dario is my gimmick.

but to be clear I dont have nor do I need a gimmick to put moronic libtards like you back in your place.

Sorry my mistake

[tonymctones]

Sorry my mistake

[bears]

Its syntax's classic brand of sly dry humor.

oops

my bad

[whork]

oops

my bad

Lot off fuckups in this thread

[Necrosis]

If corporations and rich people payed more taxes, all of our problems would go away.

But seriously though, it couldn't hurt, I mean facebook is stashing billions away that they earned in the US, I don't like the idea of anyone not paying what's just.

[syntaxmachine]

But seriously though, it couldn't hurt, I mean facebook is stashing billions away that they earned in the US, I don't like the idea of anyone not paying what's just.

1. It could hurt, depending on the specific solution you have in mind. And anyway, even if it couldn't hurt, this doesn't seem to me to be a necessary or sufficient condition for adopting this (or any other) policy. Do you have any specific policies in mind?

2. It is the USG's above-average corporate tax rate that incentivizes corporations to send profits overseas in the first place. This benefits large corporations, because they have the resources to do as such, whereas smaller corporations do not.

3. Even with a specialized policy that specifically targets offshore profits, the after-tax corporate share of GDI (gross domestic income) is a whopping 7.1% -- there just isn't that much money to tax (and even less squirelled away offshore), contrary to many peoples' perceptions. So, I think it's fair to say that squeezing more money out of corporate entities would have a marginal effect on the nation's finances -- even if it didn't have any costs associated with it.

4. As for rich people, well, our tax system is currently more progressive than it was under Clinton (the Bush tax cuts made permanent for everyone but the rich + Pease limitations + PEP), and the wealthy are largely funding the government as is. This state of affairs seems 'just' enough for me. How about you?

I would be very surprised if the marginal utility of taking even more money from the wealthy and sicking the IRS on corporations abroad is higher than addressing the government's spending problem.

[Shockwave]

1. It could hurt, depending on the specific solution you have in mind. And anyway, even if it couldn't hurt, this doesn't seem to me to be a necessary or sufficient condition for adopting this (or any other) policy.

2. Ironically, it is the USG's above-average corporate tax that incentivizes corporations to send profits overseas in the first place. This benefits large corporations, because they have the resources to do as such, whereas smaller corporations do not.

3. Even with a specialized policy that specifically targets offshore profits, the corporate share of GDI (gross domestic income) is a whopping 7.1% -- there just isn't that much money to tax (and even less squirelled away offshore), contrary to many peoples' perceptions. So, without getting into the numbers, I think it's fair to say that squeezing more money out of corporate entities would have a marginal effect on the nation's finances -- even if it didn't have any costs associated with it.

4. As for rich people, well, our tax system is currently more progressive than it was under Clinton (the Bush tax cuts made permanent for everyone but the rich + Pease limitations + PEP), and the wealthy are largely funding the government as is -- this state of affairs seems 'just' enough for me.

I would be very surprised if the marginal utility of taking even more money from the wealthy and sicking the IRS on corporations abroad is higher than addressing the government's spending problem.

we dont like your kind around here, what with your liberal use of facts, ligic and reasoning.

Tax the rich more! fair share (unless you make nothing and pull 10x more than you've ever put in)! Corporations! Arrrrrggggg!!

[Shockwave]

What is your point? The government spending problem will never be addressed. The recent budget deal that Paul Ryan and the Democrats engineered is proof of that. The political class could not even live with the mild "cuts" brought about by the sequestration. Who is going to cut spending? That's laughable.

so whats y9ur solution? tax everyone 100% so that the government can attempt to sustain its ridiculous spending and waste? There is literally one answer... to cut spending. Thats it. There is no other way out really.

[syntaxmachine]

The government spending problem will never be addressed.

No one knows whether this is true, so your feigning certainty is unreasonable. And anyway, even if you're right, that doesn't preclude discussion of what the government ought to do all the same.

I myself think that some, but not all, of the necessary reforms will be installed in the aftermath of the next crisis, whatever form it may take -- just like some, but not all, of the necessary banking reforms were put into Dodd-Frank in the midst of the Great Recession. Such semi-satisficing in the midst of crises will perhaps be the new norm.

Recall as well that it is the relative amount of spending that needs to be reduced, not the absolute amount. In all probability, the debt pile will never be reduced to any significant degree, but that is immaterial. The average debt-to-GDP ratio during the profligate Bush years was 3.14%; so, spending needs to be reduced just a bit below that, assuming 3% average GDP growth. What about this is so clearly impossible to you?

[syntaxmachine]

What?! U are confusing debt and deficit.

No, I'm not. Each year's deficit is added to the debt. That's why we care about the deficit in the first place, hence my discussing it. Are you trying to be difficult? That said, I accidentally referred to the debt as the 'debt-to-GDP ratio' in my previous post, so I apologize if there was any confusion.

The values I discussed indicate that, with reasonable assumptions about economic growth, all that needs to happen for a sustainable fiscal course is that deficits stay a bit under their Bush-era average (since this will reduce the debt-to-GDP ratio, albeit marginally, each year) -- something that doesn't sound "impossible" to me in the slightest, and something you still haven't properly argued cannot occur.

When one takes into account intra-government spending (money the government owes itself) the US' debt-to-GDP ratio is over 100%. This is unsustainable. And once Obamacare fully kicks in, combined with growth in other entitlement programs, not only will the deficit grow but the debt-to-GDP ratio is going to skyrocket completely out of control. Current projections have this beginning in 2016 and that is when the next crisis will occur.

Yes, the current path is unsustainable over the long-term. That isn't in question. However, (i) it remains to be seen how Obamacare will effect costs, and (ii) these projections assume nothing is done to address burgeoning government spending, the very issue we are discussing at present.

If the CBO projections are your main piece of evidence that the US fiscal position is insurmountable, you still have to present a proper argument that the government will in fact do nothing to curtail spending, since that's what the projections assume.

Please don't treat me like the rest of the dopes around here.

[syntaxmachine]

How will government spending be cut when no one in a position to do something about it is even proposing that we cut it? Even the recent budget deal pushes the "cuts" into the future, when the problem will be even worse (because of entitlement growth), in exchange for increased spending now. The US didn't get $17 trillion into debt by exercising fiscal restraint.

We're still in the midst of a tepid recovery from the worst crisis in decades, so it isn't reasonable to expect the requisite reforms to be instituted now. It's also the case that, as the CBO projections indicate, the USG's fiscal position will actually improve for several years before beginning the slow descent into unsustainability. It seems to me that these two incentives are enough to explain policymakers' current behavior.

Even so, the latest budget deal did not renew extended unemployment benefits, so the retrenchment is under way, slowly but surely.

I think it's reasonable to suppose the incentives will change when the next (less severe) crisis occurs, furnishing the needed political capital to institute spending reforms. They won't be anywhere near optimal, but they will be something -- there are an infinity of opportunities to cut spending in productive ways.

[arce1988]

The US didn't get $17 trillion into debt by exercising fiscal restraint.

^

22 trillion and growing fast

[James28]

The only allegiance of the elites is to money and those who are like minded. They could care less about any national identity.

Only your working class cares about 'national identity'. Or blue collar I believe it's called in the US. Or your Christian Conservatives (the low IQ lot that believes in magic and sky gods).

It's a ridiculous outdated concept in a global world. You either adapt to a changing world, or you starve whilst bleating for the good old times. Companies are global, markets are global, work forces are global. I chose to adapt, constantly educate myself and take opportunities where I see them.

If you're too inept to do the same, fuck you.

[temple_of_dis]

So now the failureinchief is preaching that government should tackle this issue, as if government has the solution.

Is it now a right for everyone to earn about the same despite the varying skill sets, education levels and effort? Is this what America is about and where in the constitution or any written work by the founding fathers does it support such idea?

What are the countries that have very little or no "income inequality"?

How about 'production equality'?