[philiphos]

I truely believe Income inequality matters nowadays more then ever we've seen why economies driven by 1% interests are constantly on "Crisis" and why more egalitarian societes like the Nordic do not protest for the "99% cause"...
So I'm asking, the conservative people, if you think there is such a thing as income inequality or not, and if you do believe how would you in a conservative point of view tackle that issue?

[quetzalcoatl]

I truely believe Income inequality matters nowadays more then ever we've seen why economies driven by 1% interests are constantly on "Crisis" and why more egalitarian societes like the Nordic do not protest for the "99% cause"...
So I'm asking, the conservative people, if you think there is such a thing as income inequality or not, and if you do believe how would you in a conservative point of view tackle that issue? :?: :?: :?:

Most capitalists simply assert that whatever distribution a 'free' market comes up with is, by definition, the most efficient, and should therefore be accepted by society. Since they control the police and legislative apparatus, they are able to make that assertion stick. If you do not fight that assumption, then that is what you will get. You do not 'deserve' anything and you will not be 'given' anything, except that for which you fight tooth and nail. Things that we assume in the US are part of our heritage, like Social Security, will eventually be taken away and 'privatized.' Nothing is off the table with these guys, including public education.

There is no crisis. The 1% are doing just fine, why are you complaining? If you want something different, then you will have to physically take it. The electoral process will not respond to you at all, unless you inspire naked fear. You are so far from inspiring fear, that their plans for intensifying and accelerating income inequality will continue unabated.

[philiphos]

Most capitalists simply assert that whatever distribution a 'free' market comes up with is, by definition, the most efficient, and should therefore be accepted by society. Since they control the police and legislative apparatus, they are able to make that assertion stick. If you do not fight that assumption, then that is what you will get. You do not 'deserve' anything and you will not be 'given' anything, except that for which you fight tooth and nail. Things that we assume in the US are part of our heritage, like Social Security, will eventually be taken away and 'privatized.' Nothing is off the table with these guys, including public education.

There is no crisis. The 1% are doing just fine, why are you complaining? If you want something different, then you will have to physically take it. The electoral process will not respond to you at all, unless you inspire naked fear. You are so far from inspiring fear, that their plans for intensifying and accelerating income inequality will continue unabated.

I guess that's a no

[koby-p]

Yes, income inequality is real, but it is necessary for free countries. When the inequality is created by a free market, there is naturally a low, middle, and high income. The beautiful, but scary, but necessary thing about it is a single person can move up or down the ladder. Using the market and very smart planning, and even sometimes a little luck a person in the low can rise to the top. There must be high income people to nourish the market with HIGH outcome. The rules of economics does not allow everyone to move up, but instead everyone must move down in order to be "EQUAL." So yes, we conservatives believe in the necessity on income inequality.

[Godstud]

Income equality is not "necessary" for a free country. It's not simply black or white. Socialism, in the US, is seen as the great evil by most conservatives, but is part of most societies on earth, that are successful, and it even contributes to that success.

The US doesn't rank as the best country to live in, as a result of this. Countries like Switzerland, Norway, Canada, Sweden, and Australia are often seen as better places to live, and most of these have socialism in the form of Universal healthcare, very low poverty rates, public education, low unemployment rates, etc.

The US does have the rather dubious honour of having the largest wealth gap in the world, with the top 20% earning around 800% more than the bottom 5th.

[quetzalcoatl]

Yes, income inequality is real, but it is necessary for free countries. When the inequality is created by a free market, there is naturally a low, middle, and high income. The beautiful, but scary, but necessary thing about it is a single person can move up or down the ladder. Using the market and very smart planning, and even sometimes a little luck a person in the low can rise to the top. There must be high income people to nourish the market with HIGH outcome. The rules of economics does not allow everyone to move up, but instead everyone must move down in order to be "EQUAL." So yes, we conservatives believe in the necessity on income inequality.

There's an all-or-nothing syndrome at work in free-market justification of income inequality. Most conservatives cannot envision the difference between a normal income distribution, to which koby-p alludes, and an extreme income inequality. The problem is that a reasonable income inequality (which produces all the desirable effects you mention) is not stable, and tends to evolve into a more extreme and politically unstable form. We have been trending strongly to that latter state, in which upward mobility is severely curtailed and class differences become ossified.

[SilasWegg]

Income equality is not "necessary" for a free country. It's not simply black or white. Socialism, in the US, is seen as the great evil by most conservatives, but is part of most societies on earth, that are successful, and it even contributes to that success.

The US doesn't rank as the best country to live in, as a result of this. Countries like Switzerland, Norway, Canada, Sweden, and Australia are often seen as better places to live, and most of these have socialism in the form of Universal healthcare, very low poverty rates, public education, low unemployment rates, etc.

The US does have the rather dubious honour of having the largest wealth gap in the world, with the top 20% earning around 800% more than the bottom 5th.

The wealth gap is meaningless. The quality of living in the US is not easily captured by aggregate comparisons of money. I live in a state that has one of the wealthiest and the poorest income county/cities in the country, and I have lived in both the wealthiest and the poorest city-counties within this state. My quality of living by my measure is higher in the poorer area than it was in the wealthiest area. The reason is the cost of living is so much cheaper in the poorer area than the wealthiest area and my income in relation to others is higher in the poor area than in the wealthier area even though it is markedly lower than when I lived in the latter. In other words, it is highly relative.

NOw the healthcare issue drives me bonkers. Yes we need universal healthcare instead of this messed up PPACA system that will break the backs of small business owners in the end, but the reason we had and have so many uninsured is because if given the choice, a great many people will always elect to spend their money on something more tangible like an iphone or a car or $200 sneakers than inner peace coming from knowing you are insured. That is not a problem with capitalism, but with materialism.

[Godstud]

Capitalism is the ideology of materialism. They are both one and the same.

My quality of living by my measure is higher in the poorer area than it was in the wealthiest area.

If I make $500,000 a year it doesn't matter where I live, my quality of life will be the same. You're not making sense. How much you MAKE determines your quality of life, not where you live when you make it.

[SilasWegg]

If I make $500,000 a year it doesn't matter where I live, my quality of life will be the same. You're not making sense. How much you MAKE determines your quality of life, not where you live when you make it.

On that you are wrong. One can buy a house in my area for 1/10th of what the comparable sized house would cost in the wealthiest area. You have a house either way, and enjoy the quality of living that comes with owning a house, and need a lot less money to do it on.

[Rich]

Kill the 1%!

Who are they? That's everyone above $34,000 a year.

Oh hang on! On second thoughts.

[Godstud]

You have a house either way, and enjoy the quality of living that comes with owning a house, and need a lot less money to do it on.

If all houses were equal that might be the case. Sadly, it is not. You're talking nonsense. 1/10th the price, too? Exaggerate much? Please tell me where this is, or show some source to support this statement.

Kill the 1%!

Who are they? That's everyone above $34,000 a year.

Don't be asinine... The top 1% make more than 10x that amount.

[Rich]

Don't be asinine... The top 1% make more than 10x that amount.

No I think you'll find that's about the right figure, although that is at current exchange rates, while purchasing power parities, gives a higher and more appropriate figure for westerners. Any way the mean per capita income per person is just ten thousand dollars a year. That includes public services. I suspect the overwhelming majority of this forum are part of the world's privileged.

[SilasWegg]

If all houses were equal that might be the case. Sadly, it is not. You're talking nonsense. 1/10th the price, too? Exaggerate much? Please tell me where this is, or show some source to support this statement.

You know everything already don't you, well everything except how the cost of living works at least. Live in NYC on $500K and then live in Frog Pond, Montana on $500K and tell me how your quality of life is exactly the same because you make $500K.

[quetzalcoatl]

You guys are being tendentious to the point of idiocy. If you are making $500K, then you will have a nice standard of living. If you are making $28K, not so much. Yes there are many factors that enter in to quality of life. Whether you have access to healthcare on a regular basis, and have a secure access to housing and food. Personally I don't give a damn how much money the elite have. What I do have an objection to is the political power the elite have, and their absolute insistence on doing whatever they like without interference. If the elite give up their campaigns to privatize Social Security, to destroy unions, to deny the reality of climate and environmental degradation, to control trade relations in secret, and to endlessly bail out big banks...then I am fine with them acquiring as much money as they want. But the reality is the hyper-rich believe they are endowed by the creator with the unalienable right to rule over everyone else.

The 1% metaphor really sucks, it's more like the .001%. The worst thing about the 1% metaphor is that it allows the evil-minded to throw dirt in everyone's face with simplistic arguments about how well off the poor really are.

[Decky]

Personally I don't give a damn how much money the elite have. What I do have an objection to is the political power the elite have, and their absolute insistence on doing whatever they like without interference. If the elite give up their campaigns to privatize Social Security, to destroy unions, to deny the reality of climate and environmental degradation, to control trade relations in secret, and to endlessly bail out big banks...then I am fine with them acquiring as much money as they want. But the reality is the hyper-rich believe they are endowed by the creator with the unalienable right to rule over everyone else.

The idea of them being filthy rich but not interfering in politics is a pipe dream. By definition the people with the money are the ones with political power anyway. Economic power always precedes and dominates political power, it is an eternal truth.

[Godstud]

You know everything already don't you, well everything except how the cost of living works at least. Live in NYC on $500K and then live in Frog Pond, Montana on $500K and tell me how your quality of life is exactly the same because you make $500K.

Where is the source showing the real estate prices of houses available for $50,000? Are you also not taking into consideration that there's a reason for those low prices, like work availability? You were talking about in a city, in a rich area compared to a poor area, not the middle of nowhere.

I can get a cheap house in Bladworth, Saskatchewan(a friend lives there), but there's not any work available near the town, and you don't have most of the major conveniences that you would in a more expensive house, somewhere else. In short, the reason the real estate is so cheap(1/5 what you'd get in a city) is because it's so far from everything.

Rich:
U.S. real (inflation adjusted) median household income was $51,939 in 2013 versus $51,759 in 2012, essentially unchanged. However, it has trended down since 2007, falling 8% from the pre-recession peak of $56,436. It remains below the 1999 record of $56,895. Household income is affected by a variety of factors, such as population aging and household composition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_ ... ted_States

also:

http://www.mybudget360.com/how-much-do- ... us-income/

[Ahovking]

Do conservatives believe in Income Inequality? Yes ofcuase.

The problem is how to solve Income Inequality, with people on the left want wealth distribution (does seem like a great long term solution), while the right think social mobility make Income Inequality not important.

For example 12% of all americans will reach the top 1%, 39% will reach the top 5%, 56% will reach the top 10%, 73% will reach the top 20% within their life time, the thursy and greed to have more, drives Amariacns to learn more and work harder to achive a better life, this was why so many mingrated to America dispite the fact compared to Europe, it had little to no social net.... people were able to move up between class easly.. in recent years however social mobility has declind, however that is for another discussion.

The issue for us was, Income Inequality was a huge issue for Communist states, and the result was impressive, there was more equality in 1900 America than there was in any day communist state...

[SilasWegg]

I am sure poor people have always been jealous of the rich people. The internet just gives them the opportunity to herd together from the comfort of their own homes. "It isn't fair that Kim Kardashian can get her ass bleached when I am so poor I am forced to drive a 4 year year old car and have to share my Man Cave with the Kid Cavers."

[Godstud]

SilasWegg, all you demonstrate there is your complete ignorance. Good job.

[SilasWegg]

SilasWegg, all you demonstrate there is your complete ignorance. Good job.

Complete ignorance is thinking you can take money from the rich, give it to the poor, and it will not end up in the hands of the rich again just as fast as you take it from them. Local script is the only thing that plugs the holes in the leaky bucket that is local commerce in a globalized world.