Some Practical Thoughts On Dealing With Income And Wealth Inequality

[Taxcutter]

Wealth and income inequality are not intractable problems. But the answer is not in an activist government. There are some niches for government to help but their scope is very, very limited.

How do you reduce wealth and income inequality? Help poor and middle-oncome people develop a mindset of saving. Of being cheap. You know, Suze Ortman stuff.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/03/how-to-fix-americas-wealth-inequality-teach-americans-to-be-cheap/273940/

Basically four things determine your wealth.
1. How much you started out with
2. Your income
3. Your consumption
4. Returns of your investments.


Some people on this board fixate on item 1, but in the link it is pointed out that items 1 and 2 are dwarfed by Items 3 and 4. Even modest-income people who start out with nothing can amass considerable fortunes, but they have to be cheap-Charlie about it.

Most people used to be that way. Indeed the day doesn’t go by that you hear of some old coot who lived like a pauper died a millionaire. The habits of being cheap transcend actual wealth and poverty.

It ain’t about government. Government just gets in the way. It’s all about the thousands of petty decisions individuals make every day.

[Cigar]

So what you're saying is; all the talk about getting a Free Obama Phone isn't true? :angry:

[patrickt]

In the U.S., people who start with very little can become wealthy and those who start with millions can go broke. I've known representatives of both groups.

Take a look at people who get a lot of money--lottery winners, sports figures, entertainment--and end up broke. By liberal logic, they should be on a roll for the rest of their life and so should their children. The factor liberals don't want to consider is ridiculous spending. Luxury vacations, ridiculously expensive clothing and jewelry, and incredible toys can deplete the funds of a lottery winner or anyone who has to pay for those things.

When you thrive on jealousy, hatred, racism, and greed it eats you alive.

[Chris]

So what you're saying is; all the talk about getting a Free Obama Phone isn't true? :angry:

Taxcutter is not talking about buying votes, cigar.

[Cigar]

In the U.S., people who start with very little can become wealthy and those who start with millions can go broke. I've known representatives of both groups.

Take a look at people who get a lot of money--lottery winners, sports figures, entertainment--and end up broke. By liberal logic, they should be on a roll for the rest of their life and so should their children. The factor liberals don't want to consider is ridiculous spending. Luxury vacations, ridiculously expensive clothing and jewelry, and incredible toys can deplete the funds of a lottery winner or anyone who has to pay for those things.

When you thrive on jealousy, hatred, racism, and greed it eats you alive.

Well that explains everything ... :grin:

Allan Powell: The decline and fall of the Republican Party -
http://articles.herald-mail.com/2013-02-08/opinion/36979611_1_disaster-relief-republican-party-political-party

Ever since the great British historian Edward Gibbon wrote “The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire” (1776), writers have adapted a portion of this title to describe “The Decline and Fall” of everything from a regime to a prominent family or person. So there should no alarm when it is applied to a political party.

The Republican Party, now 159 years of age, shows all of the signs of decline and possible death. A party that began with a vision of free men and free territories has declined to an aggregate of naysayers dominated by a cadre of political absolutists who continue to bring the nation to the edge of financial chaos if they don’t get their way. When their demise is final, I suggest this limerick be on the gravestone:

Here lies the party of “no.”
They knoweth not which way to row.
There’s no doubt about it,
Their record doth shout it,
’Twas truly their time to go.

[Chris]

I found this interesting: Much of what we're told about inequality is in fact wrong (http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/economics/much-of-what-were-told-about-inequality-is-in-fact-wrong). It talks about revealed preferences, and the difference between what people say they want and what they actually do.


At least, much of what we're told about inequality is wrong if we go off and have a look at revealed preferences that is. Here's what is now, on the left side of the political aisle, what is generally accepted as a truism about inequality:


Inequality matters because people evaluate their economic well-being relative to others, not in absolute terms.

...All of which makes the importance given to relative wealth or income very much less important than some currently claim it is. Not that I think it has no importance: but that plain and simple fact that people do, voluntarily, move to lower relative incomes but higher absolute ones means that we cannot, just cannot, insist that only relative incomes are what we use to make decisions or measurements. The claim fails because it simply isn't true.

[patrickt]

The cut-and-paste lemming is still at it. Can't actually respond, can you, Cigar? Your original posts are usually cut-and-paste cartoons.

[Taxcutter]

He won't even address what the link said - that wealth and income are controlled by people rather than by government.

[Cigar]

He won't even address what the link said - that wealth and income are controlled by people rather than by government.


The only way the Government makes individuals wealthy is if they win a State Lottery.

Obviously personal wealth is controlled by individuals ... so where is the argument?

[killianr1]

The Republican Party, now 159 years of age, shows all of the signs of decline and possible death.

This may be true, but those of us who still support the freedom of the individual over the intrusiveness of big government, it's the only viable party we have.

I did not leave the Democratic party, it left me. :cool2:

[snali]

the main problem is not income inequality but the misbalance of opportunism

[simpsonofpg]

Wealth and income inequality are not intractable problems. But the answer is not in an activist government. There are some niches for government to help but their scope is very, very limited.

How do you reduce wealth and income inequality? Help poor and middle-oncome people develop a mindset of saving. Of being cheap. You know, Suze Ortman stuff.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/03/how-to-fix-americas-wealth-inequality-teach-americans-to-be-cheap/273940/

Basically four things determine your wealth.
1. How much you started out with
2. Your income
3. Your consumption
4. Returns of your investments.


Some people on this board fixate on item 1, but in the link it is pointed out that items 1 and 2 are dwarfed by Items 3 and 4. Even modest-income people who start out with nothing can amass considerable fortunes, but they have to be cheap-Charlie about it.

Most people used to be that way. Indeed the day doesn’t go by that you hear of some old coot who lived like a pauper died a millionaire. The habits of being cheap transcend actual wealth and poverty.

It ain’t about government. Government just gets in the way. It’s all about the thousands of petty decisions individuals make every day.

I disagree it is about how hard you work. It take iniative and hard work to get ahead. My father taught me that if I wanted it bad enough I could find a way to buy it.