Matt Davies for August 25, 2011

The income inequality gap is larger than that, we’re 64th worst off in the world, just “ahead” of Uganda- and lobbyists and Congress got us there. The TEA party candidates are out to INCREASE that gap, so it might be handy for their “supporters” to wake up and not carry their bags any longer.

Amen. America may not have a overt monarchy, but we have the oligarchy of access as power.

“‘Will the circle be unbroken?” …That is a toughy. You analysts doing lots of research seem to be silent on how to fix this. It is easier to poke each other than to offer ideas for ‘breaking the circle’. It would be a great contribution to US and high caliber thinking to move this debate along.

“later deregulation brought us” …would you be referring to Clinton’s deregulating the Banks as he walked out of office. Or to Barney Frank’s deregulating the Mortgage Industry to include unqualified borrowers. Or Bank Regulators turning their head the other way when housing appraisers were being black-balled by banks for Not inflating the value of a house. Or S&P rating junky mortgage derivatives as AAA.

It looks like Ms. Clinton & Obama like military solutions as much as the Bush boys. Maybe this is called Stimulating the Economy. Historians say it worked for FDR.

Term Limits will bring more new people to congress. The Lobbyists can buy them. The newbies leave to be replaced by more Freshwo/men. The Lobbyists buy them. Eventually, there will be lots more rich people than there was before.

^^I don’t see hating the rich so much as wanting to do what’s best for America, including ultimately the rich as well as the poor. That includes more productive spending, ending wars that drains the country of $billions weekly, and mobilizing pools of capital that by definition is in the hands of the rich.

Thanks for the book suggestion. I’m still working my way through “Collapse”, then I’ll need a break for something lighter, but after that, I’ll read “The Spirit Level”.

Bruce, you change it by maintaining a progressive tax rate. Nobody is “plowed under”; those who are currently the wealthiest will in all likelihood remain the wealthiest, but the disparity between the highest and the lowest is mitigated. Put strict limits on inherited wealth. Keep the money circulating.

Income disparity is an ill in itself, which needs to be addressed, and soon. It may be justifiable that some have more than others, but it is injustifiable that so few have so much while so many have so little.

I’ve known, and had close friends who were “millionaires”, some, many times over. One stated that people who REALLY have money and talent are willing to share, and aren’t “brats”. It is those who THINK they have money or talent, and want more, always more, who are the “a-holes”. I also found famous people with great talent were the most “down to Earth” in real life. It is those jealous, or resentful of others who always feel they’re going to “lose”. It is those very losers who reject the concept of “share the wealth”, no matter how LITTLE it actually “costs” them.

Bruce, if an individual is making $20,000 per year, the taking even $200 may be “flat” but by no means is it “fair.”

Yes, I’m saying that 20K per year should not pay anything at all. “From each according to their means”, when the person has none to spare, is zero.

Look – We can draw the lines where it’s appropriate to do so, but if the three “classes” can be described as “Not enough”, “Enough”, and “More than enough”, then those with “Not enough” should not have what little they have taken away from them, especially while there are those with “More than enough.”

Hypothetical: We set the line for “Enough” at, say, $30,000 per year (for an individual; if we’re talking households, set it at $45,000). If you are making less than that, you RECEIVE 50% of the difference between what your income in fact was and the baseline. You still have substantial motivation to make as much money as you can. Profit motive stays intact. If you make between $30,000 and $80,000 (“Enough”), you pay 20% of the amount over $30,000. If you make between $80,000 and $200,000 (“Somewhat more than enough”), you pay $10,000 (20% of the $50K above 30K), plus 40 of the amount earned over $80K. If you make over $200,000 (“Far more than enough”), you pay $58K ($10K + $48K) plus 75% of the amount you make over $200,000. In all cases, the higher your gross income goes, the higher your net income will be. The profit motive survives. PLUS, it’s in EVERYBODY’S interest to reduce the number of those earning “Less than enough.” Maybe the “Job Creators” would actually create jobs.

I can only believe you are deliberately misreading me, Bruce. Yes, I am talking about a “living wage”, whether $30K or some other number. But I specifically said that that subsidies would be make up a portion of the difference between actual wages and the baseline (50%, but that too is arbitrary, or at least hypothetical). And your income over the baseline would not be “confiscated”, but TAXED (as it already is, although some argue nonsensically that ALL taxation is “theft”), at a progressive rate.

The goal is not across-the-board leveling, but flattening/broadening of the curve. To quote myself (not out of vanity, but simply to remind you), " It may be justifiable that some have more than others, but it is injustifiable that so few have so much while so many have so little."

Under the scenario I posted above, the profit motive remains intact at all levels: The more money you earn, the more money you keep, even if you’re starting from below the baseline.