Is income inequality 'morally wrong'?

[Larry T. Spider]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Mr. Deez]

Bronco,

I'm totally familiar with the distinction between how short-term and long-term capital gains are treated and with the policy reasons why many support a lower rate for LTCG. I favor taxing all income regardless of how it's earned at the same rate. (How high that rate should be should depend on how much much Congress decides to spend.) The government should not be in the business of promoting investment. How and the degree to which people should invest should be driven by the merits of the investments at issue, not how the government chooses to treat the investment. I'm sure that if the government stopped forcing individual and corporate taxpayers to subsidize the tax bills of investors that it would impact the markets at least in the short term. I'm totally OK with that.

Nevertheless, I didn't get into all that, because my purpose was to discuss the political implications of the LTCG rate, not the policy merits of it.

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Uninformed]

We don't have a flat tax. Our current tax code has plenty of incentives and disincentives for businesses and individuals. In that context, I see nothing wrong with incentivizing activities that are in the best interest of our country.

 

[texas_ex2000]

So is it easier for an Andover kid to have a 4.5 and a perfect SAT, or for a kid from Seguin to get a 3.5 and a middling SAT? I submit that it is easier for the Andover kid. But regardless, getting into Yale isn’t the be-all, end-all. Success is a continuum of intermediate positions, and the Andover kid gets slotted in higher in almost every situation.

NJ do you remember this thread? I came across the article yesterday, and it brought back flashbacks:

http://blogs.wsj.com/experts/2015/09/16/the-most-important-factor-in-a-college-students-success/

The new analysis found that “mind-set”—a student’s sense of social belonging or grit, for example—is a stronger predictor of whether a student is likely to graduate than previously believed. So powerful, in fact, that it counts even more than external factors like standardized tests scores, income levels and whether the student’s parents are college graduates

This is practically exactly what I said below:

NJ,

I've just posted what I've seen. You can take it or leave it. And my post have been analyzing an extreme scenario, a trailer park kid in South Texas going to Yale then on to Bain Capital. I'm just arguing that isn't as difficult as many think it is and that despite the challenges, the most difficult one is simply the attitude that it's near impossible to make it happen.

 

[NJlonghorn]

This is practically exactly what I said below:

Interesting article, but it falls way short of saying what you said.

(1). The article looks at success in college, not getting into college like we were mostly discussing. I would fully expect a kid from Seguin who gets into Yale to be filled to the brim with grit.

(2). On a related note, the article is comparing kids who got into the same college against each other. It doesn't compare average Andover kids to average Seguin kids.

(3). Our thread was mostly discussing the difficulty of achieving high-flying success. The article looks at factors that impact a student's ability to scrape by. The relative importance of background vs grit are not necessarily equivalent in these very different contexts.

(4). The article's definition of "grit" seems very warped. It implicitly admits that many of the kids from poor communities lack the type of internal motivation that you and I call grit. However, the article goes on to say, these kids can still get through college if someone goes out of their way to provide external motivation. This seems to support the need for social engineering to level the playing field.

 

[texas_ex2000]

Interesting article, but it falls way short of saying what you said.

Trees/forest.

Any kid can achieve academic success at the absolute pinnacle of higher-education through dedication and work ethic. One's economic background is not a limiting factor.

The biggest obstacle which snuffs out a kid's ambition and puts them in a box, is the lie that academic success at the highest level is not possible because of one's socio-economic background.

 

[NJlonghorn]

the lie that academic success at the highest level is not possible because of one's socio-economic background.

That statement would be a lie, if anyone was saying it. Nobody is.

 

[Joe Fan]

This could be read as income inequality for US Senators

 

[Seattle Husker]

This could be read as income inequality for US Senators

$174k a year isn't enough? I'll give Sanders the benefit of the doubt and assume his Twitter handler didn't intend to say that US Senators aren't making enough $$$.

 

[Horn6721]

I think Bern is referring to staff, not the Senators. IIRC there was a story not long ago how many Senate staffers also get SNAP etc. The story was supposed to tug at heart strings
No one is forcing these people to stay as employees of senators.

 

[Seattle Husker]

I think Bern is referring to staff, not the Senators. IIRC there was a story not long ago how many Senate staffers also get SNAP etc. The story was supposed to tug at heart strings
No one is forcing these people to stay as employees of senators.

There is a documented path from the Fed Gov. to highly paid lobbying roles so I don't have much sympathy for the politicians or their staffers. Not that all of these staffers intend to stay on the political sphere but most non-medical/engineering occupations have career paths where you need to cut your teeth before getting to the payday.

 

[Horn6721]

Ok Husker
This is outside of enough.
Agreeing with you twice. The humanity!

 

[Horn6721]

This site SimplyHired.com reports the average alary for a Congressional staffer is 65k with interns making the least and senior aides well over 100k.
sounds about right

 

[zork]

http://www.parentingscience.com/theory-of-intelligence.html

 

[Bronco1]

Kind of fun to read this old thread.

The problem with the min wage is that it doesn't do what people think it will. News flash- in the economic system we have in the US, the bottom 10% or so of wage earners will NEVER earn a living wage. It is impossible. Inflation wins every single time. Unless we change laws and change the system where we put govt caps on earnings for certain businesses, this will never ever work. All raising the min wage does is make the US less competitive in a global market by arbitrarily raising costs for american firms. It is a total fools game and is nothing more than an attempt to garner votes.

 

[Joe Fan]

 

[Phil Elliott]

Perhaps if you would stop taxing half their money away from them...