Why Have We Allowed Ourselves To Mistakenly Believe That 'Income Inequality' Is Supposedly A Problem?

[Billlewis]

I thought this was America, not France, Germany or the old Soviet Union. There are people in this world who have more than me and people who have less, and I don't give a damn about either group.

[WindAtMyBack]

Income inequality doesn't bother me. Not even a tiny bit. People act like there is something inherently wrong with it. People are just envious.

The uber rich are a good thing. They pay our taxes so we don't have to pay nearly as much. If not for them we'd either have to pay MUCH higher taxes, or have far fewer services.

[Billlewis]

Ding, ding, ding... here's someone who gets it...

[DonaldDarko]

Those who think it's a problem think that a lazy drug addict should make the same money as a business manager. You never saw such blind stupidity.

[Anpu23]

Its this: it reduces Economic Growth:
High levels of inequality can suppress consumption and investment, leading to slower economic growth and increased reliance on debt and asset bubbles.

Or as Ford pointed out, if you don't pay people how can they afford my products?

Further it can lead to social unrest hunger and poverty are a key trigger for revolution.

[Lliam]

Exactly.

[Billlewis]

But we're not talking about anyone not getting paid; we're talking about what I believe is yet another largely exaggerated problem highlighed by progressives as being much worse than it actually is, like racism, climate change alarmism, etc: make the supposed problem sound awful enough, in an attempt to garner more support from the young and impressionable. This is my opinion only.

[Anpu23]

We are talking about the same thing, as goods and services are priced out of the majorities budget it shrinks the economy. If people can't afford something they simply won't buy it, reducing demand and reducing jobs, creating a cycle. It's not that they aren't getting paid, it's that the wages aren't keeping up with the cost of living. Take housing for example in 1950 an average home costs just over 2 years average income (home cost $7,354, average yearly salary $3,300) compare that to today where an average home is $410,800 and average income is $62,088 or roughly 6 years income. We see the same pattern for rent, groceries, utilities, etc.

It's not that some people have more, some less, it's that a person working full time should be able to cover their basic expenses; food, utilities, rent, transportation (even if it's the cities mass transit), medical, etc. Not frills, that comes with higher paying jobs, but the working poor must be able to survive without government handouts and that is not the case today. So our taxes go up to support them, I'd rather just pay a bit more for goods.

[Billlewis]

I didn't let that stop me, and I've been working minimum wage jobs for 8-9 years now. It's very simple: people who don't save money (unless they have a very lucrative career) cannot expect to have nice things. That was true a hundred years ago and will still be true a hundred years from now.

[nothingtosee]

I don't know, and I think it's a horrible way to think. This is America. You have the freedom to make as much, or little money as you want. No one, from the government will stop you. In my opinion, it's not right that the government will punish those who make a whole lot of money. Our politicians need to overhaul our tax system so that it's a fair tax. Where you only pay taxes on what you purchase.

[Billlewis]

It all started, in this country, at least, with Obama. During the 2008 campaign, a reporter reminded him that JFK pioneered the idea that lower taxes creater higher tax revenues, but when Obama responded that 'It's a question of fairness', the media, who were at the time going bonkers over the idea of a far left Black president, glossed over that Fidel Castro like nod to Communism.

[Snakeyes7]

Communism is a very tempting ideology for the economically illiterate. Destroying poverty forever sounds attractive but people always forget that humans are tribal and hierarchical by nature. If you somehow get rid of economic poverty, there will always be a hierarchy where there exists people who are on the bottom rung.

The communists themselves require one to even operate, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, but they don't care if they are hypocrites, even if you call them out on it. The KGB knew this well.

[Aliceouyang]

In some ways, inequality has always existed in every society. Maybe the real issue is whether people have opportunities to improve their lives, rather than whether some people have more than others.

[Sal_Monella]

Most of us do not believe that. Income equality. Is an idea created to cause division among people so as to usher in socialist or communist rule. That is what the societal victim mentality is all about. Before you know it, we are going to become victimized By the brand of underwear we buy.

[JesseP1nk]

Americans do not understand how privileged they are. Just to give you some facts

If you rank everyone globally by income, an average American is in the top 10–15% of earners worldwide.
In simpler terms: over 85–90% of the world earns less than the average American.

[Melanie01]

Income inequality itself isn't a problem, but when it becomes so large that it impacts social mobility, it becomes a problem.

The real discussion isn't about "inequality" but "whether there are opportunities to change one's destiny."

[Lliam]

Nobody ever thought that income inequality was a problem. But poverty is a problem.

[Cidknee]

As God says, " What is it to you if I decide to bless this man?"

[Billlewis]

But that's just it -- very few people are 'blessed'; most of us work our asses off to get anything, only to be made to feel guilty by others for doing so.

[Dargil]

Well, there IS that.

[Cidknee]

What others think doesn't concern me, Bill. That's the devil's playground.

[Billlewis]

I agree with you -- right up until we start electing maniacs like Bernie Sanders, we honeymooned in the Soviet Union in 1988, or Mamdani in NYC (whose election is likely) or Brandon Johnson in Chicago.

[Cidknee]

New York-
We could have war.

[Billlewis]

No, no -- we need to cheer loudly for 'Madmani' to win in NYC, because everyone who has money there, as well as many businesses, will flee, thus hurting the Dems even more.

[Cidknee]

Hah, devious! I like it!!

[Anonymous]

Because everybody would like to be rich, and they are not.