High Income inequality is detrimental to a societies wellbeing.

I disagree. There will always be the haves, and the have nots. Any attempt to do anything about it causes more damage than it fixes.

airshocker

Let's just forget about people who are actually suffering from inequality, then.

It's not just some trivial thing that jealous and greedy poor people are complaining about.

You are the one denying it...Banjo_Kongfooie

You're the one that made a statement without any proof...

[QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]

because you certainly don't undstand studies and looking at your other posts you're none too familar with tax policies.

airshocker

I do understand studies, I'm just not coming to the same conclusion you are.

What tax policies am I unfamiliar with?

Let's just forget about people who are actually suffering from inequality, then.

It's not just some trivial thing that jealous and greedy poor people are complaining about.

ghoklebutter

We spend BILLIONS on the war on poverty. What else should we do?

Yes, but what about the founding fathers? It is clear that calvinism and reaganomics were the only things they envisioned for Murricka, and you don't want to make them cry, do you?

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

I disagree. There will always be the haves, and the have nots. Any attempt to do anything about it causes more damage than it fixes.

ghoklebutter

Let's just forget about people who are actually suffering from inequality, then.

It's not just some trivial thing that jealous and greedy poor people are complaining about.

Everyone knows poor people get welfare and live like kings!

Income inequality is one of the main reasons for the financial crisis.

Rising cost of living+stagnating wages=the difference being financed on credit=[spoiler] [/spoiler]

-Sun_Tzu-

lynch sun

Sun has time for OT but not for mafia

makes

no

sense

Sun has time for OT but not for mafia

makes

no

sense

DroidPhysX

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

Sun has time for OT but not for mafia

makes

no

sense

-Sun_Tzu-

sun if you and I got robbed at the n0tcars then how are you going to win at the OTcars

[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

I disagree. There will always be the haves, and the have nots. Any attempt to do anything about it causes more damage than it fixes.

Bane_09

Let's just forget about people who are actually suffering from inequality, then.

It's not just some trivial thing that jealous and greedy poor people are complaining about.

Everyone knows poor people get welfare and live like kings!

Compared to the rest of the world, they kind of do. Economic inequality is and will always be prevelant, even in the most prosperous of all nations but as long as classes aren't divided and allowed to move up (or suffer the consequences by going down), then it works out. What they didn't take into consideration was how welfare and tax loopholes can benefit even the wealthier of people, how small businesses can't compete with larger busisnesses due to costly red tape and regulation, and the culture itself (i.e. overeating leading to obesity, thus leading to higher deaths, contrary to what they said). Yes, every situtation is different but it still doesn't mean much in the long run.

sun if you and I got robbed at the n0tcars then how are you going to win at the OTcars

Joshywaa

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

Sun has time for OT but not for mafia

makes

no

sense

Joshywaa

sun if you and I got robbed at the n0tcars then how are you going to win at the OTcars

[QUOTE="Joshywaa"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Need to campaign for OTcars.DroidPhysX

sun if you and I got robbed at the n0tcars then how are you going to win at the OTcars

If you want to live in Denmak, be a dane. But yes, polarization of wealth is not good for any society. There's nothing wrong with people being successful, but any healthy society should have a decent distribution of income. If it becomes too concentrated then we have to sit through hours of slogans.

Well yeah, it's Political Science 10-

I disagree. There will always be the haves, and the have nots. Any attempt to do anything about it causes more damage than it fixes.

airshocker

Really? REALLY?

Well yeah, it's Political Science 10-

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

I disagree. There will always be the haves, and the have nots. Any attempt to do anything about it causes more damage than it fixes.

THE_DRUGGIE

Really? REALLY?

He's an idiot. Just ignore him. It's impossible to get through to him.

[QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]

Well yeah, it's Political Science 10-

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

I disagree. There will always be the haves, and the have nots. Any attempt to do anything about it causes more damage than it fixes.

Guybrush_3

Really? REALLY?

He's an idiot. Just ignore him. It's impossible to get through to him.

I know, believe me, I know.

Still, I have to stop and stare in bewilderment sometimes.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

I disagree. There will always be the haves, and the have nots. Any attempt to do anything about it causes more damage than it fixes.

Guybrush_3

You are wrong. This isn't something that you can argue on a theoretical level because in the real world the numbers say that you are wrong. This is a fact.

no, i think i agree with him- if we all were super rich playboys who would take care of the trash, connect our calls, cook our food, etc.? These people on the low-end of the income scale are definitely important to society as a whole and will always exist.

[QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

I disagree. There will always be the haves, and the have nots. Any attempt to do anything about it causes more damage than it fixes.

Iridionprime

You are wrong. This isn't something that you can argue on a theoretical level because in the real world the numbers say that you are wrong. This is a fact.

no, i think i agree with him- if we all were super rich playboys who would take care of the trash, connect our calls, cook our food, etc.? These people on the low-end of the income scale are definitely important to society as a whole and will always exist.

Probably more important.

I would explain the intricacies of the GINI coefficient to everyone so there could be a better understanding of the comparative impact of income inequality between first and third world nations but...well screw it.

[QUOTE="Iridionprime"]

[QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]

You are wrong. This isn't something that you can argue on a theoretical level because in the real world the numbers say that you are wrong. This is a fact.

Ilovegames1992

no, i think i agree with him- if we all were super rich playboys who would take care of the trash, connect our calls, cook our food, etc.? These people on the low-end of the income scale are definitely important to society as a whole and will always exist.

Probably more important.

In a sense, yeah. I definitely have more respect for them than I do for some people raking in six-figure+ incomes

I would explain the intricacies of the GINI coefficient to everyone so there could be a better understanding of the comparative impact of income inequality between first and third world nations but...well screw it.

THE_DRUGGIE

If you do that, I'm going to have to explain how magnets work.

[QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]

I would explain the intricacies of the GINI coefficient to everyone so there could be a better understanding of the comparative impact of income inequality between first and third world nations but...well screw it.

Iridionprime

If you do that, I'm going to have to explain how magnets work.

At this point, I feel like trying to teach even that to the point of common understanding would be an insurmountable feat.

[QUOTE="Iridionprime"]

[QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]

I would explain the intricacies of the GINI coefficient to everyone so there could be a better understanding of the comparative impact of income inequality between first and third world nations but...well screw it.

THE_DRUGGIE

If you do that, I'm going to have to explain how magnets work.

At this point, I feel like trying to teach even that to the point of common understanding would be an insurmountable feat.

You're probably right.

[QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]

[QUOTE="Iridionprime"]

If you do that, I'm going to have to explain how magnets work.

Iridionprime

At this point, I feel like trying to teach even that to the point of common understanding would be an insurmountable feat.

You're probably right.

Such is the way of the Internet.

I would explain the intricacies of the GINI coefficient to everyone so there could be a better understanding of the comparative impact of income inequality between first and third world nations but...well screw it.

THE_DRUGGIE

chessmaster1989 has stated that the GINI coefficient doesn't tell us much. Do you agree with this statement or not and why?

[QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]

I would explain the intricacies of the GINI coefficient to everyone so there could be a better understanding of the comparative impact of income inequality between first and third world nations but...well screw it.

coolbeans90

chessmaster1989 has stated that the GINI coefficient doesn't tell us much. Do you agree with this statement or not and why?

I say it's a good indicator for the reason I outlined to diffuse that moronic argument that "OH the lowest in the US is greater than the highest in Somalia so we shouldn't change anything here hurr durr" but it is subject to being skewed depending on various factors: population, average income, amount of poor vs. wealthy, etc.

However, I think of it as an adequate tool in the social sciences for getting a general grasp on the level of egalitarianism in a given country, which would be good for explaining the severity of a wealth gap in comparison to another country on its level (comparing a first world state with a first world state) but extensive research does need to follow in order to gain a complete grasp on how the disparity of wealth truly affects the country in question.

tl;dr: good general comparative tool for an overview, but not sufficient for a detailed research endeavour.

I guess that counts as a half-agreement?

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]

I would explain the intricacies of the GINI coefficient to everyone so there could be a better understanding of the comparative impact of income inequality between first and third world nations but...well screw it.

THE_DRUGGIE

chessmaster1989 has stated that the GINI coefficient doesn't tell us much. Do you agree with this statement or not and why?

I say it's a good indicator for the reason I outlined to diffuse that moronic argument that "OH the lowest in the US is greater than the highest in Somalia so we shouldn't change anything here hurr durr" but it is subject to being skewed depending on various factors: population, average income, amount of poor vs. wealthy, etc.

However, I think of it as an adequate tool in the social sciences for getting a general grasp on the level of egalitarianism in a given country, which would be good for explaining the severity of a wealth gap in comparison to another country on its level (comparing a first world state with a first world state) but extensive research does need to follow in order to gain a complete grasp on how the disparity of wealth truly affects the country in question.

tl;dr: good general comparative tool for an overview, but not sufficient for a detailed research endeavour.

My curiosity has been sated. Thanks.

When are black people ever onna receive reparations?

[QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

chessmaster1989 has stated that the GINI coefficient doesn't tell us much. Do you agree with this statement or not and why?

coolbeans90

I say it's a good indicator for the reason I outlined to diffuse that moronic argument that "OH the lowest in the US is greater than the highest in Somalia so we shouldn't change anything here hurr durr" but it is subject to being skewed depending on various factors: population, average income, amount of poor vs. wealthy, etc.

However, I think of it as an adequate tool in the social sciences for getting a general grasp on the level of egalitarianism in a given country, which would be good for explaining the severity of a wealth gap in comparison to another country on its level (comparing a first world state with a first world state) but extensive research does need to follow in order to gain a complete grasp on how the disparity of wealth truly affects the country in question.

tl;dr: good general comparative tool for an overview, but not sufficient for a detailed research endeavour.

My curiosity has been sated. Thanks.

My pleasure, beans.

I disagree. There will always be the haves, and the have nots. Any attempt to do anything about it causes more damage than it fixes.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]

I would explain the intricacies of the GINI coefficient to everyone so there could be a better understanding of the comparative impact of income inequality between first and third world nations but...well screw it.

THE_DRUGGIE

chessmaster1989 has stated that the GINI coefficient doesn't tell us much. Do you agree with this statement or not and why?

I say it's a good indicator for the reason I outlined to diffuse that moronic argument that "OH the lowest in the US is greater than the highest in Somalia so we shouldn't change anything here hurr durr" but it is subject to being skewed depending on various factors: population, average income, amount of poor vs. wealthy, etc.

However, I think of it as an adequate tool in the social sciences for getting a general grasp on the level of egalitarianism in a given country, which would be good for explaining the severity of a wealth gap in comparison to another country on its level (comparing a first world state with a first world state) but extensive research does need to follow in order to gain a complete grasp on how the disparity of wealth truly affects the country in question.

tl;dr: good general comparative tool for an overview, but not sufficient for a detailed research endeavour.

I disagree. There will always be the haves, and the have nots. Any attempt to do anything about it causes more damage than it fixes.

airshocker

Also, correct me if I am wrong, but aren't you a police officer that receives his salary from the gov't?

I'm curious, is there any amount of inequality within a given society that you would find unacceptable (meaning something proactive should be done to help correct it), or does it not matter as long as you are one of the 'haves'?

Also, correct me if I am wrong, but aren't you a police officer that receives his salary from the gov't?

EntropyWins

Sure, serfdom comes to mind. We're not nearly at that level, nor do I think we ever will be.

I am, what's your point?

[QUOTE="EntropyWins"]

I'm curious, is there any amount of inequality within a given society that you would find unacceptable (meaning something proactive should be done to help correct it), or does it not matter as long as you are one of the 'haves'?

Also, correct me if I am wrong, but aren't you a police officer that receives his salary from the gov't?

airshocker

Sure, serfdom comes to mind. We're not nearly at that level, nor do I think we ever will be.

I am, what's your point?

I'm interested in why one would not want to benefit society as a whole, is it because you are afraid that it will just be training people to be lazy and live off the system? If there was some sort of program (like a modified welfare program) that required people to work on some level to receive a certain level of income and benefits, would that be acceptable?

I guess what I am getting at is that there are ways to lower the income gap without just taking money from rich people (who may or may not deserve to be that rich) and writing checks to poor people who have done nothing to earn it. Are none of these avenues worth exploring because trying to lower the wealth gap is in its very principle wrong?

[QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

chessmaster1989 has stated that the GINI coefficient doesn't tell us much. Do you agree with this statement or not and why?

kuraimen

I say it's a good indicator for the reason I outlined to diffuse that moronic argument that "OH the lowest in the US is greater than the highest in Somalia so we shouldn't change anything here hurr durr" but it is subject to being skewed depending on various factors: population, average income, amount of poor vs. wealthy, etc.

However, I think of it as an adequate tool in the social sciences for getting a general grasp on the level of egalitarianism in a given country, which would be good for explaining the severity of a wealth gap in comparison to another country on its level (comparing a first world state with a first world state) but extensive research does need to follow in order to gain a complete grasp on how the disparity of wealth truly affects the country in question.

tl;dr: good general comparative tool for an overview, but not sufficient for a detailed research endeavour.

Never thought I'd see the day when I'd completely agree with someone on GS in a political thread.

I mean sure, the strong correlation in my view is more pertaining to the general scope of a country's economic disparity but is it right for me to assume that you feel the same way since you said it's not the whole story? If so, then yeah I completely agree with this. If not, your opinion is still an outcome that has considerable weight for reasons you've outlined.

Either way, that was a good post.

I assume you feel as though the gov't is justified in taking my money to pay for your salary, because upholding law and order is important for the health of a society. However, if maintaining a smaller wealth gap between the 'haves' and the 'have nots' is also important for a healthy, functioning society, then wouldn't it be wise to devote some energy and resources in that direction to make it better for everyone (since it is better for society itself)?

I'm interested in why one would not want to benefit society as a whole, is it because you are afraid that it will just be training people to be lazy and live off the system? If there was some sort of program (like a modified welfare program) that required people to work on some level to receive a certain level of income and benefits, would that be acceptable?

I guess what I am getting at is that there are ways to lower the income gap without just taking money from rich people (who may or may not deserve to be that rich) and writing checks to poor people who have done nothing to earn it. Are none of these avenues worth exploring because trying to lower the wealth gap is in its very principle wrong?

EntropyWins

The government is indeed justified to take some money from those they serve in order to maintain a functioning government for all. I, however, don't agree with you that income inequality needs to be addressed by some type of welfare program. I simply don't believe taking from someone to give to another benefits society in any way, shape, or form.

That type of program would not be acceptable to me, no. There simply aren't that many things that need to be done. And if things need to be done, we should look into outsourcing them to a private business first and foremost.

There certainly are ways to lower the gap...by allowing the private sector to create jobs. That's the only acceptable way, in my eyes, that we can close the gap. Aside from other obvious things like getting the government out of the student loan business(in order to bring down college tuition costs) and other evil conservative ideas.

[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]

Let's just forget about people who are actually suffering from inequality, then.

It's not just some trivial thing that jealous and greedy poor people are complaining about.

airshocker

We spend BILLIONS on the war on poverty. What else should we do?

And we spend billions, if not trillions on wars that aren't really necessary, perhaps our priorities are not in order.

.

And we spend billions, if not trillions on wars that aren't really necessary, perhaps our priorities are not in order.

StrifeDelivery

What does that have to do with the money we have spent on the war on poverty already with little to show for it?

[QUOTE="ZumaJones07"]what kind of damage?airshocker

Tax increases hurt those who are affected by it. It also disenfranchises them. That's the fix for income inequality by liberals.

And why is that wrong again?

We don't have to be theoretical about this, we just need to look at facts. Nearly every development or quality of life index has countries with relatively low income inequality at the top, usually Scandinavian countries.

And why is that wrong again?

We don't have to be theoretical about this, we just need to look at facts. Nearly every development or quality of life index has countries with relatively low income inequality at the top, usually Scandinavian countries.

nunovlopes

Because I believe socialism is wrong. I don't think success should be met with higher taxes everytime the government wants to spend more money. I don't believe the US government was meant to be anything like the countries in Europe.

[QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

I disagree. There will always be the haves, and the have nots. Any attempt to do anything about it causes more damage than it fixes.

Iridionprime

You are wrong. This isn't something that you can argue on a theoretical level because in the real world the numbers say that you are wrong. This is a fact.

no, i think i agree with him- if we all were super rich playboys who would take care of the trash, connect our calls, cook our food, etc.? These people on the low-end of the income scale are definitely important to society as a whole and will always exist.

You could *gasp* earn a bit less money (while still being super rich) so that said people could have a better life. I know, shocking.

You could *gasp* earn a bit less money (while still being super rich) so that said people could have a better life. I know, shocking.

nunovlopes

Or said people can get more work to supplement their income.

[QUOTE="nunovlopes"]

And why is that wrong again?

We don't have to be theoretical about this, we just need to look at facts. Nearly every development or quality of life index has countries with relatively low income inequality at the top, usually Scandinavian countries.

airshocker

Because I believe socialism is wrong. I don't think success should be met with higher taxes everytime the government wants to spend more money. I don't believe the US government was meant to be anything like the countries in Europe.

You didn't get my point. It is irrelevant what you believe. Look at hard numbers. When it comes to quality of life, development, etc.Scandinavian countries are far above the US (although the US is still a great country). This is not up for discussion. You may love your country because you grew up there, like I love my completely f*cked-up country, but this is the reality. Just look at hard data and you'll come to the same conclusions.

[QUOTE="nunovlopes"]

You could *gasp* earn a bit less money (while still being super rich) so that said people could have a better life. I know, shocking.

airshocker

Or said people can get more work to supplement their income.

Yeah they could work 16-hour days instead of 12-hour days, while making next to nothing per hour worked. Neglecting family, etc. That seems like a good plan.

I'm going to guess you grew up as a rich spoiled kid who never faced any income-related difficulties.