That's so unfair! We better start to implement gommunism :DDDD

It almost certainly wouldn't improve anything. "Everyday" people aren't really any nicer than rich people on average, or at least not nicer enough to make any difference. The revolution led by everyday people would be very likely to just put a different set of corrupt elites in charge.

It would work... until a few years later, when the US stopped being a rich country.

It's extremely telling that this
>That's so unfair! We better start to implement gommunism :D
is the first strawman you build when you are given evidence of extreme wealth inequality

Russia was in the top 5 richest countries by 1900. Stop peddling that commie lie.

It's a reverse false flag.
First layer: a meme about anarcho capitalists
Second layer: a spelling error discredits the validity of the author
Third layer: the point proposed is still valid, but you don't trust neither the leftist side of it nor the ancom said. You discard both schools of thoughts as immature.
Fourth layer: this picture was actually posted in a pro-capitalist thread. The reader who has not questioned this image won't learn anything about neither of these school of thoughts, but will still sympathize with capitalism-based ideologies, valuing them as the ''most reasonable''

Jfc holy shit

Why do "poor" Americans die?
Is it because of starvation? No, its because of diabetes, pill addiction, and suicide. In America, if you want to live a life of sloth, as long as you have no dependents or health problems, its extremely easy.

I see no reason why the pareto distribution problem cannot be overcome.

Read the book "The Great Leveler". It just came out this year and it is an in depth look at income inequality throughout history.

Here's a summary of what it is about: Certain kinds of violent shocks lead to income equality and peaceful times lead to income inequality.

Well that's great dude, but America's present economic inequality problems are due to the average person being brainwashed into thinking that any sort of re-distributive economic policy is the equivalent of gulags and death camps.

Or alternatively they have moral qualms about theft.

>but America's present economic inequality problems are due to the average person being brainwashed into thinking that any sort of re-distributive economic policy is the equivalent of gulags and death camps.
The book refutes that argument. The income inequality in America currently is just now reaching the levels it was at in 1929 before the Great Depression. The real reason for inequality being at this height again is that we haven't a violent shock in a while. WW2 was one of the great levers in history and America has hasn't experienced anything like it since.

not a single person has ever thought that ever in a legitamite sense, pls die

Neither has most of Western Europe, but they don't have the laissez faire Anglo autism that the US has

I'm not sure what your point is

That it's inaccurate to imply that economic trends in the United States aren't influenced by political ideology.

care to elaborate?

I didn't imply that economic trends in the US aren't influenced by political ideology. I implied that the income inequality trends aren't simply a product of political ideology. I gather that you brought up Western Europe to argue that since they don't have the same politics as America they have different income inequality trends. However, this isn't true. The effects of WW2 lasted longer in Europe than in the US for obvious reasons. Their great levelling that came as a result of that has stopped in much the same way as it has in the US.

How in the fuck does it refute that? You redistribute money from the wealthy to those who are not wealthy in order combat the economic inequality. If the average person actually understood where their actual economic self-interest lay we wouldn't have such a massive wealth disparity in this country.

Dude free shit lmao

Countries with major redistribution policies aren't able to combat the growing inequality prior to taxation. This means that it is necessary to keep increasing the rate of redistribution to maintain a steady income inequality level. How long can that go on for?

Taxes aren't theft.

Yes free shit. Free shit for the average and below average people to make their lives better and said free shit will be taken from those who have the most, A.K.A the wealthy because they will not be significantly harmed by the loss.

This is impossible to avoid and the people are too stupid and/or weak to do anything about it. Best to do is weight for this failed state to get crushed under its own weight. Happens to all of them.

You do realise the common person isn't very intelligent? The country is responsible for the well being of the people. People are obese because it's cheaper to buy shitty food. People are addicted to pills because they're told to go on them. Also, slothdom isn't limited to the poor.

>I didn't imply that economic trends in the US aren't influenced by political ideology.

>>but America's present economic inequality problems are due to the average person being brainwashed into thinking that any sort of re-distributive economic policy is the equivalent of gulags and death camps.
>The book refutes that argument.

You did, actually.

>>How long can that go on for?
Pretty much indefinitely so long as you have the wealthy continuing to get wealthier at the expense of people lower then them. If the wealthy stop getting wealthier, you may run into trouble though.

if it was so rich then why commies took over.

Bring better wages to the working class

most productivity comes from machines.

those that own the machines get most of the spoils

except Ford didn't let his employees spend any money. you only got higher wages if you save your money. he would even have people go to his employee's houses and make sure they weren't frivolously spending their pay.

I don't see how that bottom greentext is in contradiction with the top one.

Well anything we each say on this topic is in the realm of speculation since something like this hasn't been done long term before. I understand your optimism for this but I'm not entirely convinced it is a long term solution.

>allowing your workers to drink away the wealth they might pass on to their children
>good

*revisionism intensifies*
t. someone whose family fled from the Tzar's Russia.

read about Ford's town he tried to build in Brazil.

he needed rubber for tires. so he figured he would just build a town in brazil and have them run a rubber plantation.

I assume he means in terms of national GDP not per capita. In that case he's right but I wouldn't really agree that it's the best metric for determining which nation is the richest.

I know about Fordlandia. But we are talking about America here.

People with zero knowledge call for wealth """equality"""

Fucking retards.

drop some knowledge for us user

>dictating how free individuals spend their money

Tyrannical desu

First of all, not everyone is equal, so the thought that everyone should have a equal wealth is itself a paradox.

Secondly, even if it was possible to somehow distribute the wealth, what happens after that? Does it just magically stay like that forever and ever? What comes after? It's just such a stupid standpoint to begin with, I really do not understand people who seriously call for "wealth equality" and I do think it is because they don't even understand what they are talking about in the first place.

Would you allow your schoolchildren to binge eat ice cream?
Would you allow your workers to binge drink beer?

>First of all, not everyone is equal, so the thought that everyone should have a equal wealth is itself a paradox.
lmao what. that's like saying everyone has a different race so they shouldn't all be treated with the same amount of respect. it doesn't make any sense at all. how did you get from "people are (biologically?) unequal to they should not have the same amount of wealth?

>sowell
oh, you're a memer nvm

Bannon pls go, no one wants to talk about The Fourth Turning.

>Secondly, even if it was possible to somehow distribute the wealth, what happens after that? Does it just magically stay like that forever and ever? What comes after?

I'm sorry, but are you retarded? The entire point is that you have money flowing throughout the economy and it doesn't get super-concentrated in a few people's bank accounts.

Why would everyone have the same amount of wealth? People earn different amounts of money, some people earn nothing and inherit their wealth, not everyone is equal.

If you want more money, work towards getting more money, don't call for the state to steal other peoples money and give it to you in the name of "equality".

So, no freedom at all then? Everything is controlled by a big government that decides who gets what and when?

>First of all, not everyone is equal, so the thought that everyone should have a equal wealth is itself a paradox.
>sowellfags in charge of logic

>Would you allow your workers to binge drink beer?

Why the fuck does it matter what workers do on their own time?

If everyone held the exact same job, worked the exact same hours at the exact same time then sure, everyone should have equal pay. Other than that, no.

>So, no freedom at all then?

According to who?

>Everything is controlled by a big government that decides who gets what and when?

Definitely not. Again, are you retarded? You seem to be stuck in a mode where you can't conceive that there is any way to have an economic system in between soviet communism and totally unregulated capitalism. As it turns out, it is actually quite possible to have capitalism but also regulate it in such a way that you don't have all the money going to a tiny group of people.

>Why would everyone have the same amount of wealth? People earn different amounts of money, some people earn nothing and inherit their wealth, not everyone is equal.
So your argument is that people should only have money that they earn and that there is no way to make income equal without giving people money they didn't earn? Well guess what, not everyone agrees with you that people should only have money that they earn. That isn't a set in stone hard law of economics that you're espousing.

>freedom not to be taxed is a civil right

Who controls all the money? Who controls all the people? You need a system in place for what you are advocating and someone has to be in charge of that system.

If you don't understand why there will be no freedom that really says it all.

How exactly will you regulate so that people can't save their money? That sounds absurd.

No, my argument is that you should leave people alone. Doesn't matter if someone earns $30k a month or $30mil a month, you have no right to that persons money nor does anyone else. Go earn your own money if money is what you want, don't ask for the government to steal money some only to redistribute it as they see fit to others.

>and someone has to be in charge of that system.

It's called a representative democracy, and we already have one of those to deal with taxes.

Oh boy, we have another idiot who thinks taxation is stealing.

Because he owned an auto plant, not a brewery.

Rich countries tend to be educated, being uneducated is a prerequisite to being a communist.

So you want an increase in taxes, on who exactly? To give that money people to others, in the name of equality?

wtf are you talking about, it's literally just using a different model of taxation and allocation of revenue. It could easily be done in any country with a government that collects taxes you mongoloid.

>you have no right to
Spooks.
The government enforcing private property is as much an enforcement of a certain distribution of wealth as a populist redistribution is. There are no natural rights, people distribute wealth how they want or can given the power they have.

>No, my argument is that you shou...
>Go earn your own money if money is what you want....
So When you said no you were just kidding then. You think people should only have money they earn because you consider having money you didn't earn to be wrong because "you have no right to that persons money".

Guess what? Not everyone agrees with the concept of "rights" or any of that. It isn't an economic position or anything it's just a philosophical concept carried down from the enlightenment. Because people don't have that right in your view doesn't mean a damn thing.

"middle class" is too broad.

working class are "middle class", but one fuckup, accident, unforeseen major expense, injury, sickness, or economic downturn and you're likely to end up in poverty, often permanently,

>You need a system in place for what you are advocating and someone has to be in charge of that system.

That system is already in place. The government taxes people and then redistributes it throughout the economy. So basically, imagine the current system except the upper tax brackets are higher and the lower tax brackets are lower.

>If you don't understand why there will be no freedom that really says it all.

Why would freedom disappear from simply increasing the upper tax brackets and lowering the lower tax brackets? The US had a 90% tax bracket during the Eisenhower era, did freedom disappear then?

>How exactly will you regulate so that people can't save their money?

I wouldn't because that definitely would be absurd.

On the wealthiest people who hoard billions of dollars in untaxable income in offshore accounts and who often are able to pay for expensive legal assistance to avoid paying even their meager tax burden at all.

Because a healthy, well educated workforce is more effective at contributing to society, and I want to live in a nice country.

Thus, it would be reasonable to take people making a million dollars or more a year and tax them at 50% rather than the ~20% they actually pay.

Taxes are the rent that you pay to live in a nice country. If you honestly believe you'd be better off without them, then move somewhere with lower taxes. Nobody is forcing you to stay here.

That picture is retarded. The effective tax rate was much lower than whatever tax rate was in law when it was that high in the pat.

>The US had a 90% tax bracket during the Eisenhower era, did freedom disappear then?
The effective tax rate was much loser.

>pat
past*
>loser
lower*

That changes literally nothing about the sentiment. Just make all the numbers a little lower, and it still is an accurate portrait of how idiots in this country view taxation.

>So you want an increase in taxes, on who exactly?

People who make a million dollars per year or more.

>To give that money people to others, in the name of equality?

To pay down the national debt because the experiment that lowering taxes magically increases revenue has been thoroughly disproven at this point. Republicans will always blame spending, but the real problem is that whenever the government gets close to operating on a balanced budget, they suddenly lower taxes and explode the deficit.

this

Deductions are always huge

>That changes literally nothing about the sentiment. Just make all the numbers a little lower, and it still is an accurate portrait of how idiots in this country view taxation.
"changes nothing"

see

So the government would cut spending in certain areas and hand that money out to people instead? Or would taxation increase (on who?) only to give it to others?

Theft, you mean?

I think people that have earned their money legally should have the right to keep their money, after all, it is theirs, and have the right to spend that money as they see fit.

You'd rather have peoples money confiscated by the state only for the state to then decide who gets how much.

So basically earning more pays off even less than it does today, further reducing the incentive to earn money, work in any country that practices this retarded system since all you do is work hard, earn less only for the state to give that money to others. It's theft, no more and no less. If people want to earn money, they should go earn more money themselves, not have the state take money from some and give it to others.

So a world government then that imposes a world tax?

>then move somewhere with lower taxes. Nobody is forcing you to stay here.

What exactly do you think will happen when someone sees 50% of their income go into taxes?

It is not reasonable to expect some people to pay for others, only in your retarded head is that reasonable.

>I think people that have earned their money legally should have the right to keep their money, after all, it is theirs, and have the right to spend that money as they see fit.
muh rights. I'm not going to repeat myself on that point

>You'd rather have peoples money confiscated by the state only for the state to then decide who gets how much.
And you'd rather have inequality grow and be protected by the state with the pretence of "protecting the rights" of the wealthy

So essentially you want the government to take money from some only to redistribute it to others. Not very wise economically, as we all (I hope) know.

As for the U.S. national debt, it is only going higher from here. It's impossible to reverse at this point, it's gotten out of hand a long time ago.

Deductions are a reward for good behavior, so I honestly don't see the problem. If a person or business goes through all the motions required to earn those deductions, then they're doing a good job and it isn't a problem.

>If we don't give rich people tax breaks they won't want more money!

A wise man once said: “A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both.”

If you think you will somehow magically solve "inequality" by having the government redistribute other peoples money you ought to study history, after all you're on Veeky Forums.

>What exactly do you think will happen when someone sees 50% of their income go into taxes?

What happened before the Reagan administration, when exactly that thing happened.

>It is not reasonable to expect some people to pay for others

Spoilers: you don't find many people who became billionaires living out in the woods in a unabomber shack.

Everyone in this country depends on some level of government assistance to make their living, through infrastructure, through education, through health care.

You don't see a lot of billionaire CEO's in Somalia, because there are no government services, and large scale enterprise can't function without public services.

No, it isn't theft. It's taxation. Two separate things. I don't know why you're hung up on this fantasy you have where soviet agents come to everyone's house and literally take the dollar bills hidden in their mattress and throw them to the unwashed masses in the streets. It's a simple as increasing income taxes on the wealthiest citizens and corporations and allocating that revenue to social services that help lower income citizens.

I'm not saying anyone should receive tax breaks, everyone should be taxed an equal percentage (we're talking equality after all :^).

>basing your economics on ideology rather than evidence

Literally the right wing's answer to communism.

cringe

>Deductions are a reward for good behavior, so I honestly don't see the problem. If a person or business goes through all the motions required to earn those deductions, then they're doing a good job and it isn't a problem.
A fair point. But it does require intelligence to construct a decent system of deductions.

I agree with you.

In fact ironically the real problem is not the rich people, but the poor people, the modern "precariat", as Guy Standing calls it - people who live with modest means. Globalism has turned the precariat of the western countries, on a global scale, in a lumpenproletariat imbued with ideals of inequality and bent on defending the capitalist system because they fear and hate other ethnic groups, and benefit from their exploitation, exclusion and discrimination. This explains to a large degree the surge of right-wing parties with an economically heterogeneous voter base, including both middle-class and working-class voters. If it were only for the rich, or even all those who do not belong to the precariat and comprise slightly less than half of the population, the current capitalist system would have been replaced or overhauled already; socialist parties would have been democratically elected and they would have reformed or replaced the current capitalist system.

Since we are in a history forum, we can trace an analogy with the late republican times. The Gracchus and the popular party in general wanted to introduce reforms to help the roman plebs, the italics, and the equestrian class. But the aristocracy or nobilitas, organized around the optimate party, managed to keep itself in power by playing the equites, the roman plebeians and the italics against each other -more specifically, Roman plebeians opposed the popular party's plans to grant Roman citizenship to all italics, and the optimates took advantage of that to draw the Roman plebs to their side. The plight of slaves and foreigners, who were even below the italics, was ignored even by the popular party.

So Roman plebeians are a perfect example of a social class that alligned with an oligarchy that exploited them because they benefitted in turn from the exploitation of other people below them, just like the contemporary precariat of current-day developed countries.

Everyone should just be taxed $50 (out of an equal income of $100)

>It's impossible to reverse at this point

It's actually quite easy to reverse. We just have to raise the upper tax brackets enough to produce a surplus, and then manage the government responsibly to maintain that surplus. It isn't even that hard. We had a surplus when Clinton was president. If America had simply maintained Clinton's surplus, we'd be in pretty good shape.

That's not how equality works you ignoramus. A flat tax would place a disproportionate burden on those who have less total income available. It's just like sales tax. Everyone in a given area will pay the same sales tax rate, but it places a disproportionate burden on low income families and households because a larger percentage of their income goes toward purchases every month/day/week/etc.

Indeed, what happened before? Perhaps you should look that up.

Now you're talking about government services rather than about the notion of redistribution of wealth, which has been disproved many a times.

No rather in the Soviet union the government came to your farm and forced you to give up all your food in the name of "equality". We all know how that worked out.

Welfare is nothing but a poverty trap.

But I am basing it on evidence.

We've tried marxism, we've tried socialism, heck we've even tried communism. Neither of them work, theoretically nor in reality.

>the economic success of america in the 90s is due to clinton's economic policy
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

It is a nice thought, but no, it is at this point in time impossible, you would know this if you knew how the monetary system worked.

Yes, I agree that sales tax is stupid since everyone, regardless of income, buys to a large extent the same amount of food.

An equal percentage tax rate places the same burden on everyone. Why punish those who are successful? Way to go if you want to remove the incentive to earn more money.

>everyone should be taxed an equal percentage

No, we should increase the upper tax brackets and reduce the lower tax brackets that same time. I support a system where the lowest bracket is just 7% and the highest bracket goes all the way up to 70%.

Nope, just create a surplus and maintain it until the debt is gone. Arguing "we can't do anything about it" is lazy and unethical.

>Welfare is nothing but a poverty trap

This is such a bullshit cop out answer. There's no actual statistics that support this anyway, but it also ignores the fact that there are literally COUNTLESS forms of social investment that can assist the needy and the poor aside from direct cash payments. In fact, most leftists would argue that other, more meaningful forms of assistance are necessary to allow the working class to take care of themselves you gibbering anus. Tell me more about how letting poor people starve or become homeless is the way to lift them out of poverty.