Should Everyone Be Entitled To A Piece Of The Wealth Pie?

Yes, but what is the quality of it in terms of the end result it offers? Does it provide equal opportunity of education for those being educated compared with schools in 'better off' areas and private schools? Does a child genuinely have an equal chance of getting equal result for equal effort compared with a child in a school in a more wealthy area? Does that school have equal facilities, teachers of equal quality, and so on.

Although I'm sure there are many fine schools making efforts to do their best, and some that are succeeding in doing very well despite the difficulties they operate in, I don't think I'm be saying anything particularly contraversial in suggesting that schools in poorer areas have, on average, a harder time operating, and the kids in those schools have, on average, less chance of getting good results than their counterparts in wealthier areas.

Of course, it's easy to think in terms of every school being equally funded, so that a problem doesn't develop. The trouble is, the problem already exists and already needs to be addressed. In practise, the schools in poorer areas are likely to need increased investment to bring them up to a level where they can provide an equal opportunity for the kids going there to succeed for equal effort (and equal ability).

That includes having to attract 'better' teachers to 'worse' schools (and that probably means paying them more), having to deal with social issues that other schools might not have (in order to deal with some of the peer pressure issues that exist), having to deal with the problems of being placed in areas with higher crime rates, and so on, and having to deal with the fact that individual parents may simply not be able to afford to pay for the things that other schools may take for granted (fundraising activities, educational school trips, books and computers for the kids to use at home, etc.). All of these things are likely to mean that schools in poorer areas are going to have to cost more to be able to produce similar outcomes.

That is the kind of thing I mean be dealing with the inequalities of opportunity that already exist for the poor (and children born into their numbers). Not 'redistributing wealth' by giving money from rich to poor, but recognising that money does need to be invested in the infrastructure to enable them, in the long term, to have a fair opportunity to earn a 'piece of the pie' for themselves. The alternative would be to just ignore the problem of such inequalities and just leave the poor to continue to have little chance of ever being anything but poor, when in a state of free competition with people who have a huge headstart simply from being born into a better financial and social situation.

Or to put it another way, nobody is entitled to a slice of the 'wealth pie', but everyone should be entitled to a reasonably fair slice of the 'freedom and opportunity pie' that allows them to earn wealth for themselves through their own efforts. Since massive inequality of opportunity already exists in society, infrastructure investment is required to undo that damage and allow that fair share of opportunity for everyone.

 

I disagree on the latter part. There should be no limits on the money a person can make, and everyone should be entitled to the lifestyle they choose according to the fruits of their own labour. However, everyone also has a duty to society, and should pay their fair share in tax. Clearly the richest have the greatest ability to pay, but tax rates of that level would be simply unfair to the earners while being a very effective way of reducing the incentive for wealth creation (which would not be a good thing for anyone).

Given that the unit cost of good are the same regardless of the income of the purchaser (in theory - in practise, the richest can often get the best discounts!), then the lower paid cannot afford to pay the same portion of their income in pure percentage terms as the higher paid, so the higher paid should pay a higher rate of tax on that portion of their income which is over a given threshold level (and it has to be done tht way rather than on their entire income, otherwise by earning a little more a person could actually end up getting considerable less income, which is silly!). The higest rate should never be punitive, which 70% plus would obviously by. I would set an absolute maximum theoretical rate for the highest earners (on only that part of their income over the relevant threshold, remember, so not on their entire income) of 50%, but try to ensure that it only actually reaches as high as that in 'harder times' when tax income needs to be maximised - it should, for most of the time, fall somewhere between 40 and 50% (on that highest portion of the income, so it's not 40-50% of total income, of course).

 

That's stupidity. Nobody making a $400K should pay 70-90%.

 

Beggars who think they should be allowed to take what they want make my blood boil. Your so-called poll is incredibly stupid.

No deadbeat who refused to work is "entitled" to anything. I think I deserve more of the pie so I'll be over to take yours, Greg, and I'll had a government SWAT to help.

 

Mainly because A. We're at war. And B. we're in the worst economic crisis since the great depression and it was caused by the 1%.

 

Folks making $400K are in the top 1%.
It is ridiculous to say they caused it.

It was cased by a few ultra wealthy individuals and their willing accomplices in washington, both D and R.

 

You're right. That was a bit of a generalized statement on my part. Regardless we are in a crisis and we need people to pay for it. And it would be best if the people paying for it are the ones who would see the least financial impact from doing so.

 

Really?,,,all of them? Or you just figure lets just nail all of them,,after all they are rich....
How about we punish all people on welfare, after all some are cheats...

See how I did that?

 

I am grinning from ear to ear right now. Thank you for creating the environment that's going to get Obama elected a second time! Would you like a check or a bottle of wine? My gift to you.

 

between taxes and your success as a businessman/businesswoman. Generically, if you want fair play, suggest that a liquor license can be purchased for $1 instead of hundreds of thousands of dollars if you want to open a bar. Your ire should be directed at the laws preventing you from competition as opposed to punitive financial measures upon others that the successful have lobbied for. The ire should be directed at lawyers and politicians that have structured the system to make it impossible for you to compete. You should be specific about your concern so that generalizations are avoided.

 

how about the financial elite that caused it by leveraging their portfolios to hundreds of trillions of dollars ? Perhaps they should pay instead of being rewarded with trillions of dollars ?

 

Wealth generally flows to those who make the pie bigger in a free market. We don't have a free market. We don't even really have a pie.


Your are entitled to your life, your body, and your own decisions. Do what you will with it.

 

You clearly don't want proper discussion by asking such a slanted question.

 

The problem is the rich as a class, even if we confiscated 100% of their wealth and earnings for life do not have enough money to make good the losses in wealth that accrued.

Like it or not, teh 47% that pay no income taxes are going to have to bite the bullet and suffer some negative financial impact too.

There is no "painless" solution where only teh rich pay and everyone else doesn't. The pain must be universal and yes, people who had nothing to do with the crisis will have to still pay, becuase that is the reality of the situation.

I know you don't want to hear it, but innocent working class people who had no stake in the actions of the big banks, are none the less going to have do with less welfare benefits, less social security, less health care, etc. because the rich (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up so bad they as a class cannot alone make up the losses. That is the cold harsh cruel reality of it. You can get angry, you can fight to make sure it doesn't happen again, but whether you like it or not, the losses of the big banks must be socialized and spread out around the entire population down to the last poor person.

I understand that you hate that idea, but that is the reality of the situation. The rich alone cannot cover the losses and all of us were (*)(*)(*)(*)ed over and we all have to pay and suffer and the only thing we can do is try to assure it never happens again but the damage is already done.

 

that is incorrect, we're not just targeting the wealthy but the big businesses too that is where alot of the money is in those big corporations

they won't pass the higher taxes on to us if we let government set prices and they won't leave the US because this is the biggest middle class but they will pay for our debts because they are the ones forcing us to borrow from china

 

that is fine but most of the middle class does not make 400k anyone making more than 200k is in a minority and their interests should not be protected any longer by the majority

we will make them share their pie now

 

Let's have a slice of that pie ... and some ice cream , please ?

I just made 'Guru' .... finally ....

 

well at least you admit that you would seek to remove protections for individuals who have done nothing wrong, for your own gain.

 

If you want a piece of the "wealth pie" then go out and earn it. Increase your marketable skills so your employer will pay you more, or start your own business.

 

There are only so many ways to redistribute wealth. You can steal it. You can tax it. Or you can legislate it. If the 99% had the legislature locked down (instead of it being locked down by the 1%), you'd see a whole 'nuther world out there. Right now there are so many protections, loopholes, downright subsidies and favors being given to the 1% that redistribution is a necessity. For example, we don't have a $700,000,000,000/year Pentagon protecting MY global interests.

 

Doesn't leave you squat then so why bother??

 

Sure it is - for some. Didn't we just guarantee Wall Street's right to melt down any time it wants? Or the mega-banks? Or foreign governments so they can pay off US investors a la Mexico a few years back? C'mon, man, once you've got it, you've got it for life.

 

It has been and their own society rejects it. And then there is the single unwed mother who became the brave courageous hero in the 90's and now we see the results. Poverty, high crime, welfare fraud, since of entitlement. The way to end it is as Gingrich and Kasich showed and forced Bill Clinton to sign onto.

 

Then sign on for the flat tax or the fair tax.

 

Hmmmm....I'm pretty sure that would be the fault of the government.