It looks more like the Republicans really are trying to concentrate as much wealth as possible into the fewest hands, and they just still have to work on getting that little bit that still unfortunately ends up in the hands of the lower classes. They are only grabbing 93 cents of every new dollar of growth - there is still more to get!
How does it "look" that way, specifically? Republican tax policy makes the code more progressive (http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/everyday_economics/2004/10/bushs_tax_cuts_are_unfair_.html), Republican regulatory policy keeps big players from pricing out smaller upstarts. What else do you want them to do?
Try to pretend that you are someone without an ideology or agenda. Doesn't the obvious inequality of the graph speak for itself? It's not even close. You might go on to say it's misleading, because of other factors (e.g., that the top guys bring so much more to the economy), but you cannot say it is a big mystery how someone can think something smells fishy here.
That is an interesting article about Bush's tax cuts, but as you know, tax rates used to be much, much higher for the rich, before Reagan, and as you have argued before, the surface-level of tax law doesn't really tell you the whole story. Obviously, the end result of those taxes has not been to lessen inequality. The rich can get around taxes, right?
It doesn't just "look" like there is massive inequality. There is massive inequality. The only question is whether you think it is justice or not. 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.
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.
Try to bear in mind that this is not a Red State forum. We don't share the same assumptions. It's not that you are a super-smart person humoring dumb people. You are an out-there right-winger who apparently likes to play where the people are pretty left-wingy.
Your attack doesn't make much sense here, again. This is not me expecting people to be right wing. It's me expecting not "some big mystery," but rather some competence beyond looking at one graph. I expect that from some Red State forum, not here.
Again, if you want me to consider people here the lowest common denominator, that's fine. But you seem to not want that, so don't then get all whiny when I establish standards. I gave you a perfectly reasonable reply, so maybe address that instead, or, even better, maybe start policing some of your own before trying me.
It was an honest attempt to get you to look outside yourself, and to maybe consider your condescending attitude, to reconsider what is going on here.
It's not condescending to complement people by saying they are better thinkers than what is being assumed. If you're concerned about me being condescending, don't be so crass as to be condescending to me in order to make your point.
Is this you not addressing any more of the meat of this? If so, very well.
Oh, it's true, for instance, that I am not entirely sure what your interest is. I mean, I couldn't do what you do: go into a Red State forum and try to argue how everyone there is wrong as I tell them my truths and take the shower of unrelenting criticism, even abuse. But other than that - and it doesn't really matter why anyone is here (and you do bring something, by the way you do expose me to some things I'd probably miss or overlook, such as Gore's being rather gung-ho about Iraq) - I don't think anyone is really confused. We just don't agree with you.
I mean, I couldn't do what you do: go into a Red State forum and try to argue how everyone there is wrong as I tell them my truths and take the shower of unrelenting criticism, even abuse.
What on earth is this "Red State forum" thing you keep talking about?
I don't think anyone is really confused. We just don't agree with you.
I am fine with disagreement, I welcome it. The disagreement isn't the problem. It's why I'm here, after all - it's good to hear the other side. I don't like echo chambers.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2014-07-28 09:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-07-28 10:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-07-28 10:16 pm (UTC)Try to pretend that you are someone without an ideology or agenda. Doesn't the obvious inequality of the graph speak for itself? It's not even close. You might go on to say it's misleading, because of other factors (e.g., that the top guys bring so much more to the economy), but you cannot say it is a big mystery how someone can think something smells fishy here.
That is an interesting article about Bush's tax cuts, but as you know, tax rates used to be much, much higher for the rich, before Reagan, and as you have argued before, the surface-level of tax law doesn't really tell you the whole story. Obviously, the end result of those taxes has not been to lessen inequality. The rich can get around taxes, right?
It doesn't just "look" like there is massive inequality. There is massive inequality. The only question is whether you think it is justice or not. 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.
no subject
Date: 2014-07-28 11:06 pm (UTC)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
Date: 2014-07-28 11:49 pm (UTC)Try to bear in mind that this is not a Red State forum. We don't share the same assumptions. It's not that you are a super-smart person humoring dumb people. You are an out-there right-winger who apparently likes to play where the people are pretty left-wingy.
no subject
Date: 2014-07-28 11:52 pm (UTC)Again, if you want me to consider people here the lowest common denominator, that's fine. But you seem to not want that, so don't then get all whiny when I establish standards. I gave you a perfectly reasonable reply, so maybe address that instead, or, even better, maybe start policing some of your own before trying me.
no subject
Date: 2014-07-28 11:57 pm (UTC)It was an honest attempt to get you to look outside yourself, and to maybe consider your condescending attitude, to reconsider what is going on here.
no subject
Date: 2014-07-29 12:04 am (UTC)You've done both.
It was an honest attempt to get you to look outside yourself, and to maybe consider your condescending attitude, to reconsider what is going on here.
It's not condescending to complement people by saying they are better thinkers than what is being assumed. If you're concerned about me being condescending, don't be so crass as to be condescending to me in order to make your point.
Is this you not addressing any more of the meat of this? If so, very well.
no subject
Date: 2014-07-29 09:58 pm (UTC)and nobody else here needs persuading.
Don't you see? Everyone but you sees it.
Are you sure the problem is with us?
Are you still complimenting us when you say we are all wrong
and you are the only one with the true vision?
no subject
Date: 2014-07-30 12:52 am (UTC)Are you sure the problem is with us?
Yes. 100% so.
Are you still complimenting us when you say we are all wrong
and you are the only one with the true vision?
This is why I don't think you're paying attention half the time.
no subject
Date: 2014-07-30 12:54 am (UTC)You are playing some other game.
no subject
Date: 2014-07-30 12:55 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-07-30 01:06 am (UTC)Oh, it's true, for instance, that I am not entirely sure what your interest is. I mean, I couldn't do what you do: go into a Red State forum and try to argue how everyone there is wrong as I tell them my truths and take the shower of unrelenting criticism, even abuse. But other than that - and it doesn't really matter why anyone is here (and you do bring something, by the way you do expose me to some things I'd probably miss or overlook, such as Gore's being rather gung-ho about Iraq) - I don't think anyone is really confused. We just don't agree with you.
no subject
Date: 2014-07-30 01:11 am (UTC)What on earth is this "Red State forum" thing you keep talking about?
I don't think anyone is really confused. We just don't agree with you.
I am fine with disagreement, I welcome it. The disagreement isn't the problem. It's why I'm here, after all - it's good to hear the other side. I don't like echo chambers.