Destroying one crucial pillar of liberal ideology — "Wealth Inequality is bad"

To comprehend my argument, which most sane individual would find compelling as well as convincing, you need to meet some basic hardware requirements:

An above 90 IQ
Basic reasoning ability and logical faculty
Ability to temporarily suspend the lust for playing words

That's it. So what is my argument?

Let's say one day, the US government decided to be super cool with rich people: Rich US citizens pay below 5% tax and no corporate tax. Rich foreigners, regardless of your background, can buy a citizenship at 100,000 dollar each, and enjoy the same near-zero taxation as native US citizens.

Let's say US government still enjoy quite a reputation for being truthful and reliable (*diabolic laughter*) and waves after waves of rich people swarm in.

To liberals, this is a nightmare. Because the quantity of the "1%er" will rise rapidly beyond that number. And wealth gap will surely enlarge.

Ignore the following paragraph in the bracket if you don't want to read too much.

(Yea I know, some of the smarter liberals here would point out in my scenario, the entire wealth of America had increased massively — which kinda make my argument less substantial since, these liberals would argue: no liberal would oppose anyone from becoming rich, and no liberal is against the rich people, to which I would reply in a sarcastic tone: Really? You don't? What's all the hoo-ha about regulations and taxation that are dedicated in making rich people's life harder? Who are the ones that are obsessed with wealth inequality? )

Now, let's get back to the bottom 10% US citizens that were here all along. Will their life be worse?

OF COURSE NOT! It's gonna be PRECISELY THE OPPOSITE. The rich people, even if all their factories and plants were abroad, still need to live a life and enjoy themselves. They need nail techs, pedicurists, janitors, waiters/waitresses. What, you look down on these professions? Fine. They still need musicians, home-grown, American rockbands, visual artists, athletes. Their kids need to go to school, staffed by US citizens, staffed by people right out of the bottom 10%. Oh, they too need good authors, American literature, American scientists and engineers to do R&D.

In short, Rich people getting richer and more numerous would only benefit everyone since they HAVE TO CONSUME, THEY HAVE TO SPEND MONEY TO BUY GOODS AND SERVICES, and in turn, help the poor and help themselves.

Check the 3 requirements at the beginning of this thread, if you qualify, this is the only logical conclusion to draw.

But this is not what liberals are all about. Liberals are all about dimming others' shine, they are not about alleviating suffering, but making sure everybody suffers the same. That's why instead of helping the needy and poor, they push forward, one policy after another that is dedicated to give rich folks hardtimes, which may or may not work and in some circumstances, backfire immensely.

The hypothetical scenario that most of this thread dedicated to is clearly not what happens in reality. In reality, US government impose various taxes and regulations on rich people, US citizens OR NOT (yes, even if you were a rich Mexican, you can't get a break as long as you have the most trivial relation with a US firm).

But rich foreign people still are making money in America, right? Yep, one lucrative way is guess what — speculation. And the problem with speculation is that whether it "generate" real wealth is arguable. Consider Mr.Wang, he became ultra-wealthy in the mining industry and decided to establish a manufacturing facility in Seattle for aircraft parts. After careful study, he was dumbstruck by the bureaucratic nightmare he must go through and was completely shocked and awed by the redundant laws and regulations. And... he decided to buy a building in downtown Manhattan and, should one day, the US government decided to crackdown on him, or the property value of Manhattan starts to drop — enough revenues would have been generated, and he would be long gone. He doesn't need to buy machines or equipments, he doesn't have to hire more than 20 wall st. people.

You wanna know why America is slowly drifting towards the south? This is why.

Sometimes, you just find the stupidity veiled liberal do-goodism that almost always yields undesirable consequences amusing as well as disturbing.

TL;DR: Read only lines marked in blue. But I encourage you to read the entire post and it only takes less than 4 minutes.

 

So how about this. Let's say you're rich person with 1 kid. How many teachers do you need to teach your kid?

 

If by destroying you mean "Did absolutely nothing to counter," then yeah, you came in like a wrecking ball bra. Hehe.

Your post is meaningless and is merely a tirade full of partisan/ideological drivel with absolutely nothing to substantiate it besides what basically amounts to "Because I said so."

 

This is largely true. That if X has a high rate of consumption, then the logical assumption would be that there should be a Y rate of demand to meet that consumption. However, artificial demand does not inflate but it deflates the supply. This is where Wealth "inequality" is a necessary evil, in that it curbs the rate of demand to a level of sustainability.

Understanding then, that wealth "inequality" is both a necessity and inevitable, "countering" wealth inequality is nothing short of economic stagnation as well as utterly stupid policy. If the Liberals really did feel as though wealth "inequality" is a problem, then they should be for opening up opportunities to the rest of America.

That means lower taxation for everyone. It means the government doesn't need 17 trillion dollars of revenue to run itself. It means only regulating necessary sectors, while stripping away those redundant regulations as you point out.

It means "tax and spend" will NEVER reduce the deficit or create jobs. All it'll do is continue to inflate the 1% who can game the system that Washington is currently playing.

What makes Liberals so adorable is they think they're fighting the 1%, they're the 1%'s biggest allies.

 

Rich people create lots of jobs, that is the simple truth.

Every job I had in my life is thanks to rich people who founded the companies I worked at. I'm thankful they saved the money and took the risks to provide me a ready made means of income.

 

Wealth inequality isn't intrinsically bad. The problem I have with wealth inequality is when the wealthy use their excess capital to manipulate the economy to maintain the poorest in society in poverty even if they are working forty hours a week.

There is no such thing as a self-made billionaire as far as I am concerned. Billionaires accrue their billions because of their workers. People like Henry Ford understood that. You can be a self-made millionaire quite easily if you are the beneficiary of a very adept financial mind, however, it is very difficult and close to impossible to turn a million dollars into a billion within the span of one person's lifetime by playing the stock-market alone.

Most billionaires get their money because they are the beneficiaries of people lower down in society who do more work than the billionaire could ever accomplish alone.

My philosophy is to bring the working poor out of poverty by paying them a minimum wage that is a living wage. Poverty in a large population such as the United States cannot be completely eliminated, but it can certainly be brought down to a significantly lower level than what it currently is, which is roughly 16 percent of the country. We need a system like we had during the Great Depression, agencies like the Works Progress Administration, Public Works Administration, and Civilian Conservation Corps.

 

Please describe in detail how this is done.

And?

And imagine how much work those people 'lower down' would have done without the billionaire!

Oh. Wait.

That's no solution, it's true voodoo economics. If you arbitrarily decide that the jobs which require the least amount of skill cost more to do, then the cost of living will escalate to compensate for the increased costs at the bottom, and simultaneously limit those jobs to the fewest possible to get by.

In short, it's stupid. STUPID.

No, we need exactly what the OP proposes.

- - - Updated - - -

Eloquent rebuttal. No really.

My 5 year old niece could have done better.

 

If the U.S. could get back to the conditions of medieval times, when a privileged few owned all the property, controlled all wealth, and ruled with an iron fist, the conservatives and neoconservatives would have their perfect world.

Not only would the workers be paid very little, they would be responsible for all taxes.

This is the direction the U.S. is heading.

 

So by your logic, the poor people would be better off if I produced $1 billion in counterfeit currency and spent that money on frivolous luxuries? Heck, I could even hire a crew to run the counterfeiting machinery, and that would give them a job too. The poor would soon be rich by spending all their labor building yachts and vacation mansions for me … something like that?

 

Private school teacher on math X1
Early Math tutor with a degree from Bryn Mawr X1
Math tutor when the kid was in elementary school X1
Math tutor when the kid was junior high X1
Math tutor from Asia for SAT test X1

Ballet dancing class teacher X2
Private Swimming lesson tutor X1
Private painting lesson tutor X2
Violin Lesson teacher, from 5 to 16 years old, X3

Teachers on other subjects, science, english etc not included, total:13

You have never been rich, nor have you witnessed how rich kids grow, have you? You think all rich kids are Donald Trumps who go back home from school in a huey to play XBOXes, right?

Let me tell you something, most rich kids that I know always have something to show for, which would provide them with better and more opportunities into the future job market. Alot of them are keen to try out new stuff and learn, even if it is something they would never usearachuting, flying lessons...

I recall a Jewish kid back when I was 11-12, when we were still fascinated by leave cells under microscope, he was reading balance sheets and income statements, of his fathers' company. I remember that not because he is Jewish, but he was quite vocal about Zionism of which I had no interest back then but nevertheless impressed.

 

This is indeed the reasoning of the right-wingers.

 

Please check the requirements for comprehending my post, especially the first one noting an above 90 IQ.

If you find my arguments truly fallible or even worthless, you would surely point out, with ease, at least one flaw in my argument, instead of resorting to emotional responses weaved using words such as "drivel" or "meaningless " which I suspect is what all that you could find in the vocabulary of an undereducated, stubborn simpleton.

 

How ironic it is that most rational voices are made by people that consider themselves to be progressives — NOT!

Your last sentence is particularly true considering how many 1 percenters got rich by gov't housing projects and infrastructures. I don't think the US gov't would turn to an average Joe for cruise missiles or warships, which usually is extremely profitable.

 

MY good sir, you are mixing up monarchists, dictators and businessmen.

Note how very different They are? The first two can point a gun at you and demand you to give them your money. The last one have to beg, lie and hoax you into giving out your penny for their products. Or they can make their products really neat and cool like iPhone and make you beg to give your money.

 

Right. Once you get so much wealth CRAMMED into the hands of a few... the monopolizing of society itself becomes the issue.

And as you suggest, putting people to work and paying them a LIVING wage... is the best all-around solution.

A society populated by the working POOR... is never going to be anything but a society that SUCKS!!

 

As an example, the average CEO makes at least 250 times the average American Worker. It was only 40 times the average Worker during the Great Depression.

Inequality should/will always exist as a rule(that CEO didn't sit on his behind for the most part bro, he took some really creative ideas and made it a productive business). But opening up opportunities for more Americans means making it more profitable to hire for example.

 

How does that work? How can few have all the wealth and not spend it in the society we all inhabit? Do they just put it in safes and stuff?

 

I've become accustomed to coming to this forum and seeing people justify GREED in the most creative ways.

In reality, society is catching onto the problems with the same and are whittling-away (election-to-election) at the ability of those who have much already, to take too much. Really, that cannot be allowed, in perpetuity; it's foolish.

Yes, this society allows one to become wealthy... but part of that blessing must be paid back (to society), so that all that is utilized to generate that wealth (the livelihoods of workers, for one) is not run into the dirt.

Laugh all you wish, but YOUR paradigm isn't THE one that everyone MUST embrace in the end.

Things need to change, and eventually they will.

 

You offer a simpleminded ( at best) scenario. It is not the accumulation of little green pieces of paper that the super wealthy are aggregating. It is power. It is why things like the " Citizens United" ruling accompany the consolidation of wealth. Voicing stupidity in order to discredit reality is a sad thing to witness.

 

Good post. Thank you.

The ability to profit from other people's work, defines "success" today.

 

Your argument is inherently bad as has been shown over and over by history. The super rich can only buy so many pedicures, read so many books, and buy so many lawyers to get their murderous teenage son off the hook for killing someone while driving wasted.

 

Minimum wage jobs are the future of the economy? How long has Obama been in office to rot out the optimism in this country that we all now hope to work for minimum wage but thankfully if you can't produce enough to raise a family it is illegal to pay you what you can produce?

Minimum wage bumps do not help the poor and you have no data otherwise. It just makes the lowest skilled people permanently unemployed.

- - - Updated - - -

True. They will have lots of money to invest. Also a good thing.

- - - Updated - - -

The ability to lose money off of other people work would make you what? Government?
Government takes far more from everyone then the CEO earns on their workers. If you actually cared about them you would lower taxes. But you only care about dragging the rich down into your misery and envious loathing.

 

Printing money to stimulate the economy is what Obama calls a "jobs bill". Try again. That is exactly what you argue for every day you just don't know it because you are so fixated on tearing others down to your level. That is why wealth inequality for the left is all about taxes and taking.

 

Typical conservative/neoconservative BS.

Let's do it the right-wingers way, redistribute ALL the wealth to a handful of the super rich, and let them trickle a tiny bit down on us. Unfortunately, you righties want that tiny, little trickle cut down to a drip. You believe any more that that steals from the hard working billionaires, and right-wingers will not tolerate anyone stealing from their gods.