OK, so that is your real issue.
In that post you are referring to, I found it difficult to believe that you did not understand the use of the term "income inequality" despite it being a widespread concern in the last election. Wikipedia sums it up well and reflects my understanding of the term:
Wealth inequality in the United States - Wikipedia
You suggested I was just parroting an election phrase and didn't really understand what it meant, despite that I have tried repeatedly in the past to address the issue on this site with no real input from anyone then, including you ( I guess only sound bites get real attention though, which hinders discussion). In the last election, this was a major issue and in the last line of the Wikipedia definition, it states:
A September 2014 study by
Harvard Business School declared that the growing disparity between the very wealthy and the lower and middle classes is no longer sustainable.
[17]
Specifically, you said:
I was pointing out that while it sounds really good in a sound bite, that historically, socially, anthropology and common sense tells you "income inequality " has existed since the dawn of man and "income equality" is a ludicrous concept unless you have a totally authoritarian/slave society where all labor is on equal footing and the individual is subjugated. It is an incompatible concept with a free society.
Your view of the term "income inequality" seemed detached from the reality that exists today, and you called it a "ludicrous concept"
So you wanted to know how to address the issue since it "has existed since the dawn of man".
My honest reaction is how do I even communicate with you when you take this idealistic view of reality and feel their is no reasonable or responsible solution in a free society. Can you understand that your comment engenders disbelief? Maybe not, I don't know. But I will spend some time trying to answer your question even though I doubt it will be useful on this site or worth my time. Maybe I am wrong.
Our Democracy is dependent on the respect for the individual, and fairness to all. Is it OK with you that the wealth distribution in the country today is as lopsided as it is? It seems you believe that only survival of the fittest is the only real determinant in this world and nothing can change it. That seems overly narrow in trying to create a society that actually works on this planet.
I don't want to make this a lengthy discussion, and would offer up that the solutions mentioned in the last election involve the banking industry following the laws, our Congress not having lobbyists who pay for their campaigns that get special treatment as payback, and that taxes be proportional to income (without a lot of loopholes to escape paying them).
One of the proposed steps would be to increase the tax rates for the top incomes. You seem to suggest that this would stifle initiative, creativity and economic development in our country. But my past discussion of this included a historical overview of tax rates in the country when it was at its peak in terms of economic development after the last world war. Under President Eisenhower, when he was president from 1953 - 1961, the top tax rate was 91% and economic development was booming, and it continued to be relatively high in the Kennedy/Johnson administration and continued high even through the Nixon administration. It wasn't until the Reagan administration that his party's "trickle down" theory took hold and things began to unravel when he introduced the top tax rate of some 28%:
Bernie Sanders recommended increasing taxes for the wealthy and corporations again to stem "income inequality" and was labeled as communist or socialist, and too many dismissed his suggestions without a historical basis. Here is at least one such article that puts things into context:
Under Eisenhower, the Top Tax Rate Was 91 Percent. Was He a Socialist?
Now the Republicans and Trump want to introduce more "trickle down" with further largest tax breaks for the wealthy and corporations when our national debt is already staggering and higher education is unaffordable except for the levels above the upper middle class, our infrastructure remains untended, healthcare is a mess, etc. So how do we emulate the Chinese values of thrift, savings, emphasis on education, etc. when middle class lives paycheck to paycheck by and large and the corporations will continue to export jobs overseas and use their windfalls to pay their CEOs even more as well as their shareholders, who already are well off.
Do you really expect our society to regain our position of the world's leader when we are not acting wisely or fairly? The likely outcome of the current path we are on is to be owned fully by the Chinese. You seemed to suggest in the current thread that only by pursuing the Chinese Communist policies and actions would we be able to achieve greatness again - it was really hard to tell what you were saying, hence my questions. We were great in the past generation, so why can't we regain that again by wise democratic actions rather than Chinese communist policies? Is that what you are really suggesting? I couldn't tell and I wonder if anyone else knew what you were saying either except for MarPar I guess.
But in light of the implications of these realities, you asked a question that suggests it is inappropriate to discuss "wealth inequality" or find a solution to the reality that exists today and call steps to improve our situation "a ludicrous concept"?
I find your suggestions very frustrating, hence my comments at the time.
But I do apologize for my other comments, as that is not my usual nature. But I really wonder how we regain our place in the world when the public is uninformed regarding history, pursuing policies that will further erode our current place and we have a president who seems incapable of delivering on what he promised in the election after almost a year in office now?
Honestly, your view of the world seems overly detached and unrealistic to me, and that is what caused me to recoil and act like others on this site, which does no one any good. That I agree with, and will refrain from similar behavior.
Peace
