Doesn't the obvious inequality of the graph speak for itself? It's not even close.
It tells me nothing about policy. There's not nearly enough context to the graph to tell me anything about policy alone. A closer look at the history, the economic realities, basic economic theory in all directions, and so on, give us a much better idea. Not just some graph with specific, cherry-picked years designed solely to make a specific case without that context.
but you cannot say it is a big mystery how someone can think something smells fishy here.
No, but I also expect more from some here.
Obviously, the end result of those taxes has not been to lessen inequality. The rich can get around taxes, right?
Sure, but if you think tax policy is being used on the right to "lessen inequality," which I assume you mean income inequality in this context, you're wrong. It's more about tax fairness (people should not have to worry about most of their income going to the government) and using taxes not to drive a social agenda, but to simply fund the government. This is one of those clear right/left divides, for sure, but assuming the right is using tax policy the same way as the left is not bright.
It doesn't just "look" like there is massive inequality. There is massive inequality.
According to some measures. Others, not so much (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1202932.html).
The only question is whether you think it is justice or not.
Does it matter? Does everything have to be "just" or "unjust?" Can't it just be?
As I recall, you believe it is justice, or if it is not, it is because CEOs and such are still undervalued and we shouldn't have a minimum wage that artificially boosts the wages of laborers, etc.
Entirely separate issue. My point on CEOs and salary value is independent of any concern for income inequality.
no subject
It tells me nothing about policy. There's not nearly enough context to the graph to tell me anything about policy alone. A closer look at the history, the economic realities, basic economic theory in all directions, and so on, give us a much better idea. Not just some graph with specific, cherry-picked years designed solely to make a specific case without that context.
but you cannot say it is a big mystery how someone can think something smells fishy here.
No, but I also expect more from some here.
Obviously, the end result of those taxes has not been to lessen inequality. The rich can get around taxes, right?
Sure, but if you think tax policy is being used on the right to "lessen inequality," which I assume you mean income inequality in this context, you're wrong. It's more about tax fairness (people should not have to worry about most of their income going to the government) and using taxes not to drive a social agenda, but to simply fund the government. This is one of those clear right/left divides, for sure, but assuming the right is using tax policy the same way as the left is not bright.
It doesn't just "look" like there is massive inequality. There is massive inequality.
According to some measures. Others, not so much (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1202932.html).
The only question is whether you think it is justice or not.
Does it matter? Does everything have to be "just" or "unjust?" Can't it just be?
As I recall, you believe it is justice, or if it is not, it is because CEOs and such are still undervalued and we shouldn't have a minimum wage that artificially boosts the wages of laborers, etc.
Entirely separate issue. My point on CEOs and salary value is independent of any concern for income inequality.