Is income inequality unjust, and if so, where is the injustice?

Reactions
2,735 794 25
Maybe the REAL problem is that income taxes are just a bad idea poorly executed in just about every situation.
We can argue about whether money should be taxed when it is given to you (income tax) or when you give it to someone else (sales tax, gift tax, inheritance tax) or whether it should even be taxed at all, but the reality is this--as @AshburnerX says above, the people who have dedicated their lives to the growth and accumulation of money (like, for example, hedge fund managers) are also the people least likely to feel any sort of social responsibility. As such, in order to get them to contribute to society as a whole, they must be forced to do so though mechanisms like taxation, because otherwise they would happily sit on their piles of money, continuing to build their private little dynasty and watching the world crumble around them, so long as everybody else keeps their hands off of their stack. And I don't wanna hear anything about "That's Government interference, they earned that money, therefore it's theirs to do with or not as they will," because that's just as ludicrous as suggesting that everyone else should work for no wages, merely the satisfaction of a job well done, in order for Mr. Rich Guy's fortune to be permitted to grow at its maximum possible speed.

--Patrick
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Reactions
7,590 1,612 30
We can argue about whether money should be taxed when it is given to you (income tax) or when you give it to someone else (sales tax, gift tax, inheritance tax) or whether it should even be taxed at all, but the reality is this--as @AshburnerX says above, the people who have dedicated their lives to the growth and accumulation of money (like, for example, hedge fund managers) are also the people least likely to feel any sort of social responsibility. As such, in order to get them to contribute to society as a whole, they must be forced to do so though mechanisms like taxation, because otherwise they would happily sit on their piles of money, continuing to build their private little dynasty and watching the world crumble around them, so long as everybody else keeps their hands off of their stack. And I don't wanna hear anything about "That's Government interference, they earned that money, therefore it's theirs to do with or not as they will," because that's just as ludicrous as suggesting that everyone else should work for no wages, merely the satisfaction of a job well done, in order for Mr. Rich Guy's fortune to be permitted to grow at its maximum possible speed.

--Patrick
Government is a necessary evil, and as such it requires money to operate, so obviously some form of taxation is needed. We've had multiple huge threads over the various arguments of how big a government needs to be and what the best/fairest way to fund it is. I don't think it would be productive to do so yet again. But in this specific case, it was definitely an instance of New Jersey making a bad decision with a predictable result. Griping that one billionaire affects the tax roles so much is little else than wealth envy.
 
Reactions
697 101 11
Griping that one billionaire affects the tax roles so much is little else than wealth envy.
Yup, there's no other reason why it's a bad idea to have most of the wealth in the hands of a few people but envy...

I mean, who needs a middle class anyway... it's not like having one has ever helped.

Neo-feudalism will be great.


Somehow Texas manages to get by better than most with 0% income tax.
Is it because most other red states get more in federal taxes then they pay into?

Also, if i remember Dallas well enough, i'm also guessing oil has something to do with Texas being one of the few states that is a net contributor instead of a welfare moocher... And yet it's still not the worlds 6th (or was it 5th nowadays with Brexit?) largest economy, like that damn liberal hellhole called California.
 
Reactions
952 71 2
Also, if i remember Dallas well enough, i'm also guessing oil has something to do with Texas being one of the few states that is a net contributor instead of a welfare moocher... And yet it's still not the worlds 6th (or was it 5th nowadays with Brexit?) largest economy, like that damn liberal hellhole called California.
Texas is like the 10th largest economy in the world. Yes, it's not even CLOSE to California, but it's still up there.

The biggest employers in Texas are Pizza Hut (I'm assuming they include all national workers in this), AT&T (same), Keller Williams (Real Estate), American Airlines, Tennet Healthcare. Of those companies... Pizza Hut is basically on the way out unless they do something MAJOR to compete with Dominoes and new chains like Blaze Pizza and AT&T isn't exactly doing hot ether.
 
Reactions
697 101 11
Texas is like the 10th largest economy in the world. Yes, it's not even CLOSE to California, but it's still up there.
So it's only half as good then... :troll: :troll: :troll:


I wasn't really knocking Texas, i was just pointing out that an opposite example exists, and is doing better!
 
Reactions
2,735 794 25
Griping that one billionaire affects the tax roles so much is little else than wealth envy.
While it’s true I would be lying if I said I have no desire to be more wealthy, I did not link the article out of jealousy nor spite. I linked it because I believe it to be an example of how it is inherently dangerous to allow that much influence to be concentrated in any one person, regardless of their tax rate(s). To argue otherwise is to suggest someone like the Mule should have been allowed to carry out his plans unimpeded.

—Patrick
 
Reactions
2,735 794 25
Somehow Texas manages to get by better than most with 0% income tax.
Well maybe it's easier to get by with 0% income tax when you have a country right next door to your south which the President says is going to cover your defense budget. :p

--Patrick
 
Reactions
1,411 272 6
While it’s true I would be lying if I said I have no desire to be more wealthy, I did not link the article out of jealousy nor spite. I linked it because I believe it to be an example of how it is inherently dangerous to allow that much influence to be concentrated in any one person, regardless of their tax rate(s). To argue otherwise is to suggest someone like the Mule should have been allowed to carry out his plans unimpeded.

—Patrick
Nah, see, the ultra rich controlling everything is fine, so long as the GOVERNMENT doesn't interfere. Because that would be like slavery.
 
Reactions
2,735 794 25
Nah, see, the ultra rich controlling everything is fine, so long as the GOVERNMENT doesn't interfere. Because that would be like slavery.
No, it would be de facto plutocracy, which obviously has a different name.

--Patrick
 
Reactions
2,735 794 25
Maybe instead of “The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017,” they should have named it “The Tax and Jobs Cut Act of 2017.”

—Patrick
 
Reactions
697 101 11
Small counterpoint to the keep taxes low and rich people will shower the wealth down upon the unworthy.
Verizon, too.

I know we talked about the upcoming AT&T layoffs (but can’t find it), because my BIL is one of the people who got laid off. 10-15yrs service? Who cares, take a hike, enjoy unemployment.

—Patrick
It's like people invest money in their business only if it makes them more money, and not just because they have cash lying around...

Also, if they really wanted to encourage them to trickle it down on the masses, they'd make laws that give tax breaks for investing the profits back into the firms instead of just regular tax cuts. Not that most taxes i know of usually tax profits, and not operating income, which has teh same effect.
 
Reactions
2,735 794 25
It's like people invest money in their business only if it makes them more money, and not just because they have cash lying around...
It’s one thing to trim fat, cut dead weight, etc. it’s another to replace experienced employees with greenhorns just to cut your payroll budget.

—Patrick
 
Reactions
1,255 421 11
It’s one thing to trim fat, cut dead weight, etc. it’s another to replace experienced employees with greenhorns just to cut your payroll budget.

—Patrick
Just Ask Circuit City. Oh, wait. You can't. Because firing all the most experienced people then telling them they could reapply at starting wages was one of the things that killed the company.
 
Reactions
507 176 1
Just Ask Circuit City. Oh, wait. You can't. Because firing all the most experienced people then telling them they could reapply at starting wages was one of the things that killed the company.
Initially I had no idea what you were talking about, so I hopped over to Google for info.

Holy shit.

That might be the most boneheaded move I’ve ever heard from a company.
 
Reactions
697 101 11
It’s one thing to trim fat, cut dead weight, etc. it’s another to replace experienced employees with greenhorns just to cut your payroll budget.

—Patrick
Just Ask Circuit City. Oh, wait. You can't. Because firing all the most experienced people then telling them they could reapply at starting wages was one of the things that killed the company.
"That's next quarter's problem." - golden parachute having motherfucker...
 
Reactions
952 71 2
Initially I had no idea what you were talking about, so I hopped over to Google for info.

Holy shit.

That might be the most boneheaded move I’ve ever heard from a company.
This is pretty much what's killed Barnes & Noble too. Fire associates making over a certain paygrade, tell them to reapply at starting wages.
 
Reactions
2,735 794 25
I mean, a few more advances in mesh networking and we won’t NEED telecoms for anything other than hooking the continents together.

—Patrick
 
Reactions
299 37 13
This is pretty much what's killed Barnes & Noble too. Fire associates making over a certain paygrade, tell them to reapply at starting wages.
Isn't this how it's supposed to work? Company A vs Company B. Company A does stupid shit, goes out of business. Company B doesn't, stays in business. Where it breaks down is when you have an unhealthy labour market, where people are scrambling for any job possible, and thus abusing your workers is "fine" because there's always more who can be abused. Unlimited labour supply means that you are only worth something if you have a skill, and you'd better hope that your skills are better than somebody else's.

And that's the labour market. Like any supply/demand, unlimited supply or unlimited demand leads to many getting screwed. Unlimited demand means wages rise, and workers benefit, and "owners/companies" (whatever your term) can't fleece employees, but also often leads to increased prices, and/or decreased margins, where some businesses can't cope. Also fewer businesses see it as "worth it" to start up. Unlimited supply means that wages freeze (or decline), and the workers are exploited, because nobody has job security.

Skilled labour more-or-less (depending on whom you ask) regulates itself via availability. Unskilled labour and the "supply" of such is a "politically charged" topic right now. A country can have too much of it, but rarely can it have too little.
 
Reactions
507 176 1
Having too little labor also leads to lower customer service and/or employee work ethic. If you know that you won't be fired because the company is desperate to keep workers, you won't feel pressure to actually work hard.

Admittedly this is a very rare circumstance overall.
 
Reactions
882 351 14
Also, automation throws a wrench in the whole thing...unskilled labor is first to be replaced. The USA has always had cheap labor, comparatively (you have people bagging groceries ffs!). We've talked about such differences before here - Belgium is an example of a much more expensive labor market (partially because of the unions), and as a result, much more labor gets replaced by much more machines much faster. We've got plenty of highly educated people, and one engineer is cheaper than ten unskilled workers. Great for the higher educated people, but lower education people, including but certainly not limited to a majority of immigrants, suffer as a result.
 
Reactions
697 101 11
Where it breaks down is when you have an unhealthy labour market, where people are scrambling for any job possible, and thus abusing your workers is "fine" because there's always more who can be abused.
Luckily, there's finally a solution:




Also, Ford had this shit figured out like 80+ years ago... pay people enough money to buy your shit, which makes the other monkeys want to buy your shit too...
 
Reactions
2,735 794 25
The USA has always had cheap labor, comparatively (you have people bagging groceries ffs!).
I will again mention how I was practically booed for bringing a shopping cart into the store from the lot, with someone actually rebuking me because: “People get paid to do that, why are you depriving them of work?”

—Patrick
 
Reactions
1,411 272 6
I will again mention how I was practically booed for bringing a shopping cart into the store from the lot, with someone actually rebuking me because: “People get paid to do that, why are you depriving them of work?”

—Patrick
As someone who manages a grocery store, you are welcome to come down to Florida and push in as many carts as you want.
 
Reactions
299 37 13
I will again mention how I was practically booed for bringing a shopping cart into the store from the lot, with someone actually rebuking me because: “People get paid to do that, why are you depriving them of work?”
As someone who manages a grocery store, you are welcome to come down to Florida and push in as many carts as you want.
As somebody who worked in high school at a grocery store for a few years, I would also encourage you to continue this practice. Or at least keep putting carts into the corrals. The "rogue carts" across the lot are a huge pain in the ass.
 
Reactions
55 6 3
Isn't this how it's supposed to work? Company A vs Company B. Company A does stupid shit, goes out of business. Company B doesn't, stays in business.
Sometimes staying in business isn't even the point. Much of the time the point is to suck all the money out of the company and put it in the owner's pocket IE: Toys R Us and Sears. Which is just terrible for the company but a huge payout for the vulture capital company and the executives that receive big bonuses to drive it into the dirt and sell it.

As for the rest of your point which I foolishly deleted rather than just quote off to the side. I don't think that has ever been the case. I mean the history of labor in America has always been one of exploitation and degradation. Up until unions were formed to negotiate and laws were put in place to insure workers rights.
 
Reactions
2,735 794 25
Sometimes staying in business isn't even the point. Much of the time the point is to suck all the money out of the company and put it in the owner's pocket
THIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIS.

So many "corporate takeovers" aren't takeovers in the sense that the people doing the takeover want their shot at running the company. They're takeovers because the company has XXmillion dollars in cash with expected YYmillion revenue in the next year (or so), BUT controlling interest in the company can be acquired for significantly less than XX+YY, so the takeover folks buy the company for (XX+YY)/2 or whatever, and then spend the remainder of that company's life just putting as much of that money into their or their friends' pockets as possible until it runs out, at which point they just toss the empty wrapper aside and hunt for their next victim.

--Patrick
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Reactions
7,590 1,612 30
THIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIS.

So many "corporate takeovers" aren't takeovers in the sense that the people doing the takeover want their shot at running the company. They're takeovers because the company has XXmillion dollars in cash with expected YYmillion revenue in the next year (or so), BUT controlling interest in the company can be acquired for significantly less than XX+YY, so the takeover folks buy the company for (XX+YY)/2 or whatever, and then spend the remainder of that company's life just putting as much of that money into their or their friends' pockets as possible until it runs out, at which point they just toss the empty wrapper aside and hunt for their next victim.

--Patrick
1547062113432.png
 
Reactions
3,104 568 6
Top