Economic Inequality - page 4. | Bitcointalksearch.org

NotLambchop

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 254

Quote from: wenben on November 24, 2014, 01:06:19 PM

...
Taxes create more inequality by subsidizing the super rich.

Progressive taxation means the rich paying more than the poor. What you just described ain't it.
You are correct, the super rich try to avoid paying their fair share--by finding loopholes in the system, and by convincing the credulous rubes that "[t]axes create more inequality."

wenben

full member

Activity: 164

Merit: 100

Quote from: pattu1 on November 24, 2014, 12:32:17 PM

Quote from: NotLambchop on November 22, 2014, 01:55:44 PM

Quote from: gts476 on November 20, 2014, 12:24:36 PM

Quote from: pattu1 on November 20, 2014, 10:50:08 AM

Quote from: gts476 on November 19, 2014, 05:46:24 AM

It is the government that creates increases wealth inequality.

If not for progressive taxes, wealth inequality would be higher.

Prove it.

Cite peer reviewed evidence or argument from first principles.

Because if not for progressive taxation, rich people would pay less in taxes, and poor people would pay more.
Are you suggesting that rich people paying less in taxes would make them poorer?
Or that poor paying more in taxes would make them richer?
Those are the only scenarios which would reduce financial inequality, and both are self-contradictory.

Couldn't have put it better myself. Grin

I thought that it was obvious that progressive taxation reduces wealth inequality.

Taxes create more inequality by subsidizing the super rich.

pattu1

hero member

Activity: 675

Merit: 500

Quote from: NotLambchop on November 22, 2014, 01:55:44 PM

Quote from: gts476 on November 20, 2014, 12:24:36 PM

Quote from: pattu1 on November 20, 2014, 10:50:08 AM

Quote from: gts476 on November 19, 2014, 05:46:24 AM

It is the government that creates increases wealth inequality.

If not for progressive taxes, wealth inequality would be higher.

Prove it.

Cite peer reviewed evidence or argument from first principles.

Because if not for progressive taxation, rich people would pay less in taxes, and poor people would pay more.
Are you suggesting that rich people paying less in taxes would make them poorer?
Or that poor paying more in taxes would make them richer?
Those are the only scenarios which would reduce financial inequality, and both are self-contradictory.

Couldn't have put it better myself. Grin

I thought that it was obvious that progressive taxation reduces wealth inequality.

shawshankinmate37927

hero member

Activity: 854

Merit: 1000

Bitcoin: The People's Bailout

Quote from: brian_23452 on November 22, 2014, 02:46:56 PM

Quote from: shawshankinmate37927 on November 22, 2014, 01:28:06 PM

Common sense tells us that wealth inequality isn't "the" problem or even "a" problem. Attempting to equally distribute wealth only creates problems. Understanding the/a problem is key to understanding why Bitcoin is the/a solution.

It is "the" problem because the OP identified it as such for this thread.

OP could start a thread that identified too many stars in the Milky Way as a problem, that still doesn't make it so.

brian_23452

sr. member

Activity: 350

Merit: 250

Quote from: odolvlobo on November 22, 2014, 03:12:33 PM

Quote from: NotLambchop on November 22, 2014, 01:55:44 PM

Quote from: gts476 on November 20, 2014, 12:24:36 PM

Quote from: pattu1 on November 20, 2014, 10:50:08 AM

Quote from: gts476 on November 19, 2014, 05:46:24 AM

It is the government that creates increases wealth inequality.

If not for progressive taxes, wealth inequality would be higher.

Prove it.

Cite peer reviewed evidence or argument from first principles.

Because if not for progressive taxation, rich people would pay less in taxes, and poor people would pay more.
Are you suggesting that rich people paying less in taxes would make them poorer?
Or that poor paying more in taxes would make them richer?
Those are the only scenarios which would reduce financial inequality, and both are self-contradictory.

It is not so cut and dry. A progressive tax reduces the productivity of the most efficient producers. Reduced productivity results in more expensive goods for the poor, countering the benefits of their lower taxes.

It is cut and dry. Trickle down economics works exactly as common sense says it would, reducing the taxes on the rich leads to the rich being richer, and no one else. We tried it here in the US in the 80s for many years. We tried it again just recently. Exactly as you would expect, reducing taxes on the rich results in the rich being more rich. None of that wealth ever "trickles down" because they simply pocket it. The idea that you are taxing the "most efficient producers" is fallacious because it assumes the rich are rich because they are the most efficient producers. In reality, with the exception of a few rare, lucky cases, the overwhelming majority of the rich are no different then anyone else except that their parents were rich. Quite the opposite, the people at the top generally speaking don't actually produce anything at all, but rather use their power and position to siphon wealth off from the actual workers who actually create wealth.

NotLambchop

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 254

^Anything could be argued, that's neither here nor there.
I addressed a specific claim--one of the effects of progressive taxation on wealth disparity.
If you wish to argue that higher taxes for the poor would translate into reduced wealth disparity, feel free.

Soros Shorts

donator

Activity: 1617

Merit: 1012

Quote from: NotLambchop on November 22, 2014, 03:34:48 PM

Quote from: odolvlobo on November 22, 2014, 03:12:33 PM

Quote from: NotLambchop on November 22, 2014, 01:55:44 PM

Quote from: gts476 on November 20, 2014, 12:24:36 PM

Quote from: pattu1 on November 20, 2014, 10:50:08 AM

Quote from: gts476 on November 19, 2014, 05:46:24 AM

It is the government that creates increases wealth inequality.

If not for progressive taxes, wealth inequality would be higher.

Prove it.

Cite peer reviewed evidence or argument from first principles.

Because if not for progressive taxation, rich people would pay less in taxes, and poor people would pay more.
Are you suggesting that rich people paying less in taxes would make them poorer?
Or that poor paying more in taxes would make them richer?
Those are the only scenarios which would reduce financial inequality, and both are self-contradictory.

It is not so cut and dry. A progressive tax reduces the productivity of the most efficient producers. Reduced productivity results in more expensive goods for the poor, countering the benefits of their lower taxes.

It is as cut-and-dry as that.
If progressive taxation indeed increases the prices of good, those prices are increased for rich & poor alike, allowing us to factor out this [disputable] increase when solving for economic inequality.

Wealth disparity is not a problem in and of itself. The problem is having too many people living in poverty. It can be argued that reduced productivity would lead to this.

NotLambchop

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 254

Quote from: odolvlobo on November 22, 2014, 03:12:33 PM

Quote from: NotLambchop on November 22, 2014, 01:55:44 PM

Quote from: gts476 on November 20, 2014, 12:24:36 PM

Quote from: pattu1 on November 20, 2014, 10:50:08 AM

Quote from: gts476 on November 19, 2014, 05:46:24 AM

It is the government that creates increases wealth inequality.

If not for progressive taxes, wealth inequality would be higher.

Prove it.

Cite peer reviewed evidence or argument from first principles.

Because if not for progressive taxation, rich people would pay less in taxes, and poor people would pay more.
Are you suggesting that rich people paying less in taxes would make them poorer?
Or that poor paying more in taxes would make them richer?
Those are the only scenarios which would reduce financial inequality, and both are self-contradictory.

It is not so cut and dry. A progressive tax reduces the productivity of the most efficient producers. Reduced productivity results in more expensive goods for the poor, countering the benefits of their lower taxes.

It is as cut-and-dry as that.
If progressive taxation indeed increases the prices of good, those prices are increased for rich & poor alike, allowing us to factor out this [disputable] increase when solving for economic inequality.

odolvlobo

legendary

Activity: 4522

Merit: 3426

Quote from: NotLambchop on November 22, 2014, 01:55:44 PM

Quote from: gts476 on November 20, 2014, 12:24:36 PM

Quote from: pattu1 on November 20, 2014, 10:50:08 AM

Quote from: gts476 on November 19, 2014, 05:46:24 AM

It is the government that creates increases wealth inequality.

If not for progressive taxes, wealth inequality would be higher.

Prove it.

Cite peer reviewed evidence or argument from first principles.

Because if not for progressive taxation, rich people would pay less in taxes, and poor people would pay more.
Are you suggesting that rich people paying less in taxes would make them poorer?
Or that poor paying more in taxes would make them richer?
Those are the only scenarios which would reduce financial inequality, and both are self-contradictory.

It is not so cut and dry. A progressive tax reduces the productivity of the most efficient producers. Reduced productivity results in more expensive goods for the poor, countering the benefits of their lower taxes.

brian_23452

sr. member

Activity: 350

Merit: 250

Quote from: shawshankinmate37927 on November 22, 2014, 01:28:06 PM

Quote from: brian_23452 on November 18, 2014, 06:36:11 AM

No, it isn't. Banks have been issuing money for at most a few hundred years. Wealth inequality has existed for many thousands of years. Common sense tells us that a problem can not exist before it's cause.

Common sense tells us that wealth inequality isn't "the" problem or even "a" problem. Attempting to equally distribute wealth only creates problems. Understanding the/a problem is key to understanding why Bitcoin is the/a solution.

It is "the" problem because the OP identified it as such for this thread.

NotLambchop

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 254

Quote from: gts476 on November 20, 2014, 12:24:36 PM

Quote from: pattu1 on November 20, 2014, 10:50:08 AM

Quote from: gts476 on November 19, 2014, 05:46:24 AM

It is the government that creates increases wealth inequality.

If not for progressive taxes, wealth inequality would be higher.

Prove it.

Cite peer reviewed evidence or argument from first principles.

Because if not for progressive taxation, rich people would pay less in taxes, and poor people would pay more.
Are you suggesting that rich people paying less in taxes would make them poorer?
Or that poor paying more in taxes would make them richer?
Those are the only scenarios which would reduce financial inequality, and both are self-contradictory.

shawshankinmate37927

hero member

Activity: 854

Merit: 1000

Bitcoin: The People's Bailout

Quote from: brian_23452 on November 18, 2014, 06:36:11 AM

No, it isn't. Banks have been issuing money for at most a few hundred years. Wealth inequality has existed for many thousands of years. Common sense tells us that a problem can not exist before it's cause.

Common sense tells us that wealth inequality isn't "the" problem or even "a" problem. Attempting to equally distribute wealth only creates problems. Understanding the/a problem is key to understanding why Bitcoin is the/a solution.

gts476

full member

Activity: 210

Merit: 100

Quote from: pattu1 on November 20, 2014, 10:50:08 AM

Quote from: gts476 on November 19, 2014, 05:46:24 AM

It is the government that creates increases wealth inequality.

If not for progressive taxes, wealth inequality would be higher.

Prove it.

Cite peer reviewed evidence or argument from first principles.

pattu1

hero member

Activity: 675

Merit: 500

Quote from: gts476 on November 19, 2014, 05:46:24 AM

It is the government that creates increases wealth inequality.

If not for progressive taxes, wealth inequality would be higher.

gts476

full member

Activity: 210

Merit: 100

It is the government that creates increases wealth inequality.

brian_23452

sr. member

Activity: 350

Merit: 250

Quote from: bitdraw on November 18, 2014, 05:33:58 AM

the problem is, that all central banks issue more and more money.

the money the issue doesnt get distributed fairly if you look at real wages etc.

so people who already own capital and are invested earn more and more of the newly created money, increasing the gap to the poor..

gravity somehow works for capital as the more capital you have the more capital flows to you

No, it isn't. Banks have been issuing money for at most a few hundred years. Wealth inequality has existed for many thousands of years. Common sense tells us that a problem can not exist before it's cause.

bitdraw

hero member

Activity: 504

Merit: 500

the problem is, that all central banks issue more and more money.

the money the issue doesnt get distributed fairly if you look at real wages etc.

so people who already own capital and are invested earn more and more of the newly created money, increasing the gap to the poor..

gravity somehow works for capital as the more capital you have the more capital flows to you

brian_23452

sr. member

Activity: 350

Merit: 250

Quote from: username18333 on November 18, 2014, 02:50:19 AM

Quote from: brian_23452 on November 18, 2014, 02:43:36 AM

Quote from: username18333 on November 18, 2014, 02:28:49 AM

Quote from: brian_23452 on November 16, 2014, 04:34:31 AM

Quote from: ARadzi on November 08, 2014, 09:33:01 PM

Lets face it, there's a colossal gap between the rich and the poor, and that gap is certainly getting wider. But whose to blame in this economic inequality? Is it the government that favors capitalist who contributed large amount during their campaign periods? Is it our constitution that institutionalized the practice of contractualization and other forms of labor flexibilization, hence undermining job security? Like a joke from my previous job, "If you are not a regular employee, you are casual. And after 5 or 6 months, your employer says TY (Thank You) to you which makes you a casualTY. Can we blame capitalist that hoard as much wealth as possible leaving only a thin slice of the .pie for the average guy to share among themselves?

Well, we know that the economic inequality has existed since the beginning of civilization so we can rule out all possible reasons listed here, as they are much newer than civilization. There is clearly something intrinsic about civilization itself which leads to this result.

Obviously, as the people who are rich are historically the people who make the rules, it stands to reason that they would establish rules that maintain and increase their wealth; this is true regardless of political or economic systems in place. Further, it is also clear they it is critical to their wealth that they main a lower class (basically everyone else). Even if there were an abundance of wealth to go around such that we could all be "rich", it is not in their best interests to facilitate this. After all, I can't hire another billionaire to do my work for me, it requires someone who has no choice but to do my work for me.

“Civilization” began with the ability to “store” (read: withhold to an unnatural degree) value. Prior that, Homo sapiens had to meander about with the animals they hunted—enduring egalitarianism.

Precisely. If I can't store excess, it makes little sense to extract more than I can immediately consume, especially if the excess comes at your expense (and since we are all equal, even if I wanted to do this everyone else would hate me for it and punish me). If I *can* store the excess though, and use that excess to do things like, pay someone else to work for me, than that is what I will do. I can further use this excess to essentially bribe other people to see things my way (especially given that historically, the rate of return on capital vastly exceeds inflation, if my family was rich in say 1800 they are even richer now barring some catastrophic event). As the ability to store excess is intrinsic to civilization, all these people who think bitcoin is going to magically solve a problem that is older than money itself are simply fooling themselves.

In this case, it is deprivation that is utilized—not “excess.”

I suppose it is a matter of perspective. From my point of view I am extracting excess, more than I need. If it comes at your expense, than from your point of view it would be deprivation.
In reality though it would be both. Theoretically anyways (since there is no practical way to compare) in a modern, western society, I am of course depriving you of some of the resources you extract by syphoning them off for my own use (without actually having to produce them myself), but because our overall production is so much higher than it would otherwise be, you agree to go along with it. So instead of producing say, 100 units a day of food that you need to survive, you produce 300 a day and I take half of them.

username18333

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Knowledge could but approximate existence.

Quote from: brian_23452 on November 18, 2014, 02:43:36 AM

Quote from: username18333 on November 18, 2014, 02:28:49 AM

Quote from: brian_23452 on November 16, 2014, 04:34:31 AM

Quote from: ARadzi on November 08, 2014, 09:33:01 PM

Lets face it, there's a colossal gap between the rich and the poor, and that gap is certainly getting wider. But whose to blame in this economic inequality? Is it the government that favors capitalist who contributed large amount during their campaign periods? Is it our constitution that institutionalized the practice of contractualization and other forms of labor flexibilization, hence undermining job security? Like a joke from my previous job, "If you are not a regular employee, you are casual. And after 5 or 6 months, your employer says TY (Thank You) to you which makes you a casualTY. Can we blame capitalist that hoard as much wealth as possible leaving only a thin slice of the .pie for the average guy to share among themselves?

Well, we know that the economic inequality has existed since the beginning of civilization so we can rule out all possible reasons listed here, as they are much newer than civilization. There is clearly something intrinsic about civilization itself which leads to this result.

Obviously, as the people who are rich are historically the people who make the rules, it stands to reason that they would establish rules that maintain and increase their wealth; this is true regardless of political or economic systems in place. Further, it is also clear they it is critical to their wealth that they main a lower class (basically everyone else). Even if there were an abundance of wealth to go around such that we could all be "rich", it is not in their best interests to facilitate this. After all, I can't hire another billionaire to do my work for me, it requires someone who has no choice but to do my work for me.

“Civilization” began with the ability to “store” (read: withhold to an unnatural degree) value. Prior that, Homo sapiens had to meander about with the animals they hunted—enduring egalitarianism.

Precisely. If I can't store excess, it makes little sense to extract more than I can immediately consume, especially if the excess comes at your expense (and since we are all equal, even if I wanted to do this everyone else would hate me for it and punish me). If I *can* store the excess though, and use that excess to do things like, pay someone else to work for me, than that is what I will do. I can further use this excess to essentially bribe other people to see things my way (especially given that historically, the rate of return on capital vastly exceeds inflation, if my family was rich in say 1800 they are even richer now barring some catastrophic event). As the ability to store excess is intrinsic to civilization, all these people who think bitcoin is going to magically solve a problem that is older than money itself are simply fooling themselves.

In this case, it is deprivation that is utilized—not “excess.”

brian_23452

sr. member

Activity: 350

Merit: 250

Quote from: username18333 on November 18, 2014, 02:28:49 AM

Quote from: brian_23452 on November 16, 2014, 04:34:31 AM

Quote from: ARadzi on November 08, 2014, 09:33:01 PM

Lets face it, there's a colossal gap between the rich and the poor, and that gap is certainly getting wider. But whose to blame in this economic inequality? Is it the government that favors capitalist who contributed large amount during their campaign periods? Is it our constitution that institutionalized the practice of contractualization and other forms of labor flexibilization, hence undermining job security? Like a joke from my previous job, "If you are not a regular employee, you are casual. And after 5 or 6 months, your employer says TY (Thank You) to you which makes you a casualTY. Can we blame capitalist that hoard as much wealth as possible leaving only a thin slice of the .pie for the average guy to share among themselves?

Well, we know that the economic inequality has existed since the beginning of civilization so we can rule out all possible reasons listed here, as they are much newer than civilization. There is clearly something intrinsic about civilization itself which leads to this result.

Obviously, as the people who are rich are historically the people who make the rules, it stands to reason that they would establish rules that maintain and increase their wealth; this is true regardless of political or economic systems in place. Further, it is also clear they it is critical to their wealth that they main a lower class (basically everyone else). Even if there were an abundance of wealth to go around such that we could all be "rich", it is not in their best interests to facilitate this. After all, I can't hire another billionaire to do my work for me, it requires someone who has no choice but to do my work for me.

“Civilization” began with the ability to “store” (read: withhold to an unnatural degree) value. Prior that, Homo sapiens had to meander about with the animals they hunted—enduring egalitarianism.

Precisely. If I can't store excess, it makes little sense to extract more than I can immediately consume, especially if the excess comes at your expense (and since we are all equal, even if I wanted to do this everyone else would hate me for it and punish me). If I *can* store the excess though, and use that excess to do things like, pay someone else to work for me, than that is what I will do. I can further use this excess to essentially bribe other people to see things my way (especially given that historically, the rate of return on capital vastly exceeds inflation, if my family was rich in say 1800 they are even richer now barring some catastrophic event). As the ability to store excess is intrinsic to civilization, all these people who think bitcoin is going to magically solve a problem that is older than money itself are simply fooling themselves.

Topic: Economic Inequality - page 4. (Read 8907 times)