Solve Income Inequality
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 03:19:24 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Economics (Moderator: Torie)
  Solve Income Inequality
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3
Author Topic: Solve Income Inequality  (Read 6696 times)
Frodo
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,509
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: January 07, 2016, 11:19:59 PM »
« edited: January 07, 2016, 11:24:59 PM by Frodo »

The guaranteed minimum income proposal might be worth considering.  

In fact, there's a case to be made for it from a conservative perspective:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

source

Of course, I am well aware of the likelihood that if a Democratic President endorses the idea, Republicans and conservatives will turn on a dime the way they did when Barack Obama adopted the Heritage Foundation health care reform plan....    
Logged
Hillary pays minimum wage
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 716
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: January 08, 2016, 09:56:55 PM »

Education for Homeless Children:

Ensure homeless children have transportation to school by bus.
Children living in emergency shelters.
Children awaiting foster care placement.
Children without a nighttime residence.
Children living in hotels, motels, and trailer parks.
Children sharing housing due to economic hardship.
Children living in parks, cars, public places, abandoned buildings, buses, and train stations.


Poverty Provisions:
 
Establish a Homelessness Council.
 
Use public resources and programs in a more coordinated manner to meet the critically urgent needs of the homeless of the nation.
 
Provide funds for programs to assist the homeless, with special emphasis on elderly persons, handicapped persons, families, children, Native Americans, and veterans.
 
Provide for Section 8 Housing vouchers.
 
Provide tax credits to promote home ownership in distressed areas.
 
Treat religious organizations equally for tax breaks.
 
Institute National Service as a new social invention.
 
 
Welfare Requirements:
 
Require one welfare parent to work at least 16 hours a week.
Require single parents to further their education.
Require teen parents to stay in high school to receive benefits.
Require welfare recipients to work 100 hours a month.
Maintain federal Social Services Block Grant funding.
Maintain flexibility and funding levels for TANF block grants.
Allow faith based initiatives for responsible fatherhood with funds and state involvement.
Promote marriage for TANF recipients, but no requirements.
Continue block grants for food stamps.
Allow state welfare waivers.
Maintain Welfare Reform Acts from the 80's and 90's.
Increase the earned income tax credit.
Logged
Meclazine for Israel
Meclazine
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,649
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: February 28, 2016, 07:56:59 AM »

Elect Bernie Sanders.

The fact that the USA does not have free education for University is an issue. Only the rich can afford it.

Look at countries which have very low income inequality.

Norway, Sweden, Finland.

Study their political system, and the answers you will find for the question you propose.
Logged
Mopsus
MOPolitico
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.71, S: -1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: February 28, 2016, 09:13:21 AM »

Step 1: First World countries return the billions (trillions) of dollars they've expropriated from Third World countries over the years (and affluent areas within the First and Third Worlds do the same to the impoverished ares within them).

Step 2: Keep most future wealth within the communities that produce them.

Problem solved.
Logged
James Bond 007
Rookie
**
Posts: 156
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: March 07, 2016, 12:17:24 AM »

Step 1: First World countries return the billions (trillions) of dollars they've expropriated from Third World countries over the years (and affluent areas within the First and Third Worlds do the same to the impoverished ares within them).

Step 2: Keep most future wealth within the communities that produce them.

Problem solved.

You mean the money provided for third world countries in foreign aid?

I'd start with repealing the 17th amendment and replacing the federal income tax with the VAT.  This would allow more money in the pockets of Americans.  Tax values added to products, materials, or services throughout manufacturing and distribution.  Manufacturers would remit the difference of the two amounts and retain the rest for themselves.  Differences remitted to the federal government will generate additional tax revenue.  Companies purchasing manufactured products to sell in stock may deduct VAT's. 

As for banks, I'd propose that they are to force sell or divest collateralized debt obligations backed by preferred securities.  It's very important that banks don't engage in propriety trading or invest in hedge funds of private equity.  Liabilities should be limited for the largest banks.  Any deposit taking institution is to be forbidden from engaging in risky behavior.  My administration would encourage banks to allow flexible mortgage rates in order to stabilize the housing market ensuring they get their money back to stabilize the housing market.

Free trade is essential for the consumer in increasing competition and enforcing ethical measurements. It's also good for foreign policy. The reason companies move overseas is higher wages, corporate taxes, and regulations.  In order to bring them back, the corporate tax would be lowered to 34%.  Our nation should be embarrassed by having the highest corporate tax in the world.  Those who lose their jobs due to outsourcing, I would propose an extremely lengthy and detailed bill to provide job training programs. 

Immigration would be encouraged to help our economy at a near open boarder stance.  Guest Worker programs increase competition. 

What this country needs is a constitutional amendment guaranteeing an annual minimum wage increase based on the cost of living.  Initially, I'd call on congress to raise it to $8.00/hour or slightly higher.  States should be running this on their own as well.  However, a base pay is necessary for the sustenance of the less fortunate. 

I'm not sure if welfare fits into the economy, but I'm going to since I've included the private sector.  Our goal is to maintain the welfare reform levels and policies from the 80's and 90's.  One welfare parent would be required to work at least 16 hours a week.  Single parents would be required to further their education if unemployed.  Teen parents would be required to stay in high school to receive benefits.  All welfare recipients would be required by law to work at least 100 hours in a month.  Unemployment benefits would be maintained at their current levels. States struggling to meet these requirements would receive Block Grants in order to provide flexibility and the same goes for TANF.  Block grants for food stamps would continue in their current form but of course could be adjusted based on the economy.

Regarding social security, I propose Al Gore's idea of a lock box where congress isn't allowed to touch this portion of our budget.  We owe it to our seniors.  The retirement age would be set at 62.  Younger workers in the workforce is important for a continuing nation of prosperity from sea to shining sea.  Medicare for seniors would be maintained as a fundamental of our nation's compassion. 

On another thread I proposed my medicaid/healthcare plan.  Those making under roughly $30,000 would be eligible for medicaid and couples making under $50,000 as long as their employer doesn't offer benefits.  There wouldn't be a requirement as in Obamacare.  Insurance companies still can't deny for pre-existing conditions and parents could keep their kids on their insurance until the age of 25. Illegal immigrants would be welcome to apply for medicaid if qualified.  The fact of the matter is that if they go to the emergency room, they can't be denied treatment.  Therefore, we'd be paying for it anyways after the fact.  This way it's paid for up front.
Logged
Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck
HockeyDude
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,376
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: April 04, 2016, 12:04:17 PM »

It's not complicated but it IS messy. 
Logged
RFayette
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,951
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: April 04, 2016, 01:45:49 PM »

Basically, it would have to involve something like this:
-Strongly progressive income tax and high minimum wage, effectively creating a "maximum wage" of something like 10 to 15 times minimum wage, perhaps tied to cost-of-living in areas.
-Find a way to heavily restrict schemes like stock options and have high taxes on capital gains/inheritance
-Heavily restrict future immigration
-Perhaps pursue some kind of wealth tax to limit excessive accumulation within individuals/families?

This is very radical, but if one wanted to "solve income inequality," these would probably make a big dent.
Logged
Derpist
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 997
Political Matrix
E: -5.29, S: -2.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: April 04, 2016, 03:11:40 PM »

Higher tax rates for the wealthy
Less administrative regulation on most industries (fewer lawyer and bureaucrat jobs)
Taxing financial gains like income
Clamp down on illegal immigration
Stop corporate-written "deals" like the TPP
Logged
Kingpoleon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,144
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: April 06, 2016, 10:53:36 PM »

Make me Emperor of the Universe
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: April 13, 2016, 04:30:08 AM »

Step 1: First World countries return the billions (trillions) of dollars they've expropriated from Third World countries over the years (and affluent areas within the First and Third Worlds do the same to the impoverished ares within them).

Step 2: Keep most future wealth within the communities that produce them.

Problem solved.

I'm sorry but a) that is nonsense and b) Step 2 doesn't actually work. You'd have to be completely ignorant of the history of economic development and macroeconomics to think that would be a solution. Reforming institutions in 3rd world countries would help though.


Elect Bernie Sanders.

The fact that the USA does not have free education for University is an issue. Only the rich can afford it.

Look at countries which have very low income inequality.

Norway, Sweden, Finland.

Study their political system, and the answers you will find for the question you propose.

University tuition certainly plays a part, not sure if it's the biggest issue for inequality though. I'd agree it can be important to solve a real problem, namely lack of opportunity for the poor.
Logged
Mopsus
MOPolitico
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.71, S: -1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: April 13, 2016, 05:24:40 PM »

Step 1: First World countries return the billions (trillions) of dollars they've expropriated from Third World countries over the years (and affluent areas within the First and Third Worlds do the same to the impoverished ares within them).

Step 2: Keep most future wealth within the communities that produce them.

Problem solved.

I'm sorry but a) that is nonsense and b) Step 2 doesn't actually work. You'd have to be completely ignorant of the history of economic development and macroeconomics to think that would be a solution.

...or is that just what you WANT us to think?
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: April 18, 2016, 08:49:53 PM »

Step 1: First World countries return the billions (trillions) of dollars they've expropriated from Third World countries over the years (and affluent areas within the First and Third Worlds do the same to the impoverished ares within them).

Step 2: Keep most future wealth within the communities that produce them.

Problem solved.

I'm sorry but a) that is nonsense and b) Step 2 doesn't actually work. You'd have to be completely ignorant of the history of economic development and macroeconomics to think that would be a solution.

...or is that just what you WANT us to think?

No, it's what is clear from observing reality. Differences in capital endowment or resources isn't a great predictor of national wealth.
Logged
Mopsus
MOPolitico
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.71, S: -1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: April 19, 2016, 10:22:32 AM »

Differences in capital endowment or resources isn't a great predictor of national wealth.

But isn't that because of the exploitation I mentioned?
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: April 20, 2016, 03:20:24 PM »

Differences in capital endowment or resources isn't a great predictor of national wealth.

But isn't that because of the exploitation I mentioned?

Huh? You wanted to redistribute things to rectify poverty. I pointed out that since the current distribution isn't the main driver of the inequality it'd not be the best solution to the problem.
Logged
Mopsus
MOPolitico
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.71, S: -1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: April 20, 2016, 03:48:45 PM »

Huh? You wanted to redistribute things to rectify poverty. I pointed out that since the current distribution isn't the main driver of the inequality it'd not be the best solution to the problem.

The unequal distribution of wealth isn't the main driver of poverty?
Logged
RFayette
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,951
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: April 20, 2016, 05:28:47 PM »

Huh? You wanted to redistribute things to rectify poverty. I pointed out that since the current distribution isn't the main driver of the inequality it'd not be the best solution to the problem.

The unequal distribution of wealth isn't the main driver of poverty?

Considering how much worldwide poverty has dropped over the past few decades, I think it's safe to say that increasing the size of the worldwide economic pie is far more important than redistributing it, at least with respect to third world countries. 
Logged
Mopsus
MOPolitico
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.71, S: -1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: April 20, 2016, 05:47:05 PM »

Considering how much worldwide poverty has dropped over the past few decades, I think it's safe to say that increasing the size of the worldwide economic pie is far more important than redistributing it, at least with respect to third world countries. 

We've never tried redistributing it, so we wouldn't know.
Logged
RFayette
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,951
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: April 20, 2016, 06:00:31 PM »

Considering how much worldwide poverty has dropped over the past few decades, I think it's safe to say that increasing the size of the worldwide economic pie is far more important than redistributing it, at least with respect to third world countries. 

We've never tried redistributing it, so we wouldn't know.

  Oh really?
Logged
Mopsus
MOPolitico
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.71, S: -1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: April 20, 2016, 06:11:12 PM »
« Edited: April 20, 2016, 06:14:52 PM by Violet Socialist »

Considering how much worldwide poverty has dropped over the past few decades, I think it's safe to say that increasing the size of the worldwide economic pie is far more important than redistributing it, at least with respect to third world countries.  

We've never tried redistributing it, so we wouldn't know.

 Oh really?

Even if we accept that every one of those countries made a good faith effort to democratize their economies (which... umm...), none of them falls under the category of "rich country compensating poor countries for decades of exploitation, plus giving them a fair shake in the future".
Logged
RFayette
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,951
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: April 20, 2016, 07:12:14 PM »

Considering how much worldwide poverty has dropped over the past few decades, I think it's safe to say that increasing the size of the worldwide economic pie is far more important than redistributing it, at least with respect to third world countries.  

We've never tried redistributing it, so we wouldn't know.

 Oh really?

Even if we accept that every one of those countries made a good faith effort to democratize their economies (which... umm...), none of them falls under the category of "rich country compensating poor countries for decades of exploitation, plus giving them a fair shake in the future".

We've given trillions of dollars in foreign aid to those poor countries over the decades.  The real issue is that there aren't sufficient incentives to invest in those areas due to a lack of human capital.  You seem to act as if prosperity is the natural state and poverty is caused solely/mainly by exploitation, whereas in reality, poverty is the natural condition and only through a combination of capitalism and human capital development can a nation be lifted out of development.   The West has already made this leap, and East Asia is well on its way.  Here's the thing: why do you think companies are investing so much to build factories in China/India (and we see them as taking jobs) but not Africa?  Because a lot of the continent doesn't have the necessary skilled workforce, infrastructure, etc. to attract capital and investment.  That's the thing that really needs to be changed, which involves some foreign aid but also major structural reform in African states.
Logged
Mopsus
MOPolitico
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.71, S: -1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: April 20, 2016, 07:35:44 PM »
« Edited: April 23, 2016, 09:51:06 AM by Violet Socialist »

We've given trillions of dollars in foreign aid to those poor countries over the decades.

...which, I'm sure you would agree, has not always been spent in the wisest of ways.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
 

It's true that poverty is the natural state of mankind. It's also true that many more people inhabit that state than need to.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.


Of course, some places in the West seem to be slowly leaping backwards...

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Africa's social problems may have prevented corporations from building factories there, but they haven't prevented them from extracting natural resources from that continent. How evenly distributed have the profits from that enterprise been?
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: April 22, 2016, 06:18:28 AM »

Yes, differences in capital endowment explain only a tiny fraction of GDP per capita differences. We can also look at things like development aid having pretty much zero correlation with economic growth for poor countries.

We also observe that access to natural resources tends to have a negative impact on growth in developing countries.

What we do know is that institutions matter a lot. Countries that embraced capitalism, like South Korea or West Germany saw tremendous growth and became essentially Western countries while those that chose paths closer to your preferred system, like East Germany or North Korea remained in abject poverty.

Note that among people who study these things the above facts are fairly elementary. And taken together they strongly indicate that just dumping a pile of money into some African dictatorship would do basically nothing to improve the situation for the people of that country.
Logged
Mopsus
MOPolitico
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.71, S: -1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: April 22, 2016, 09:39:14 AM »
« Edited: April 23, 2016, 09:50:15 AM by Violet Socialist »

Yes, differences in capital endowment explain only a tiny fraction of GDP per capita differences. We can also look at things like development aid having pretty much zero correlation with economic growth for poor countries.

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.


Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.


lol

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

It might, if it were used to empower the people of those countries to take control of their economic destinies.
Logged
TheDeadFlagBlues
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,990
Canada
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: April 23, 2016, 05:47:37 AM »

Considering that "conditional cash transfers" have proven to be stunning successes throughout the developing world and there have been a number of very intriguing studies on the wide-ranging benefits of a "universal basic income", I don't understand what would be such a terrible idea about redistributing income from the developed world to the developing world. If anything, this idea is very much in-line with the existing literature on this subject. No, this would not solve inequality or come anywhere close to it but it's hard to argue that it wouldn't be the most effective tool at eliminating extreme poverty. Is it a plausible policy solution? No, of course not but it's unlikely nature is not an excuse for sneering at other posters and referencing macroeconomics.

Long-run growth theory is very underwhelming. It's really telling that two of the most important innovations in this field have come from "institutionalists" and "endogenous growth theory". Did economics really need to be told from afar that technological processes and institutional structures play a large role in spurring growth? The models are quite good/interesting and I have nothing against either Romer or Acemoglu but it's quite strange when economists tell laymen that the chief determinants of growth are related to capital accumulation, technological diffusion and institutions. These facts are things that a precocious 7 year old could understand.
Logged
TheDeadFlagBlues
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,990
Canada
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: April 23, 2016, 05:55:53 AM »
« Edited: April 23, 2016, 06:01:53 AM by TheDeadFlagBlues »

Yes, differences in capital endowment explain only a tiny fraction of GDP per capita differences. We can also look at things like development aid having pretty much zero correlation with economic growth for poor countries.

We also observe that access to natural resources tends to have a negative impact on growth in developing countries.

What we do know is that institutions matter a lot. Countries that embraced capitalism, like South Korea or West Germany saw tremendous growth and became essentially Western countries while those that chose paths closer to your preferred system, like East Germany or North Korea remained in abject poverty.

Note that among people who study these things the above facts are fairly elementary. And taken together they strongly indicate that just dumping a pile of money into some African dictatorship would do basically nothing to improve the situation for the people of that country.

The issue here is that you're presenting these "fairly elementary" facts as if it is commonly agreed upon that development aid has little effect on both human and economic development. That's an incredibly contentious claim. There is no consensus among development economists on this question. It's the equivalent to stating that "it's a consensus among politicians that abortion should be a personal choice". No, there are loads of prominent development economists who are avid proponents of increasing foreign aid flows, whether it's through a model that's more focused on industrial development or whether it's through the standard "human development" model that's rooted in Sen's reframing of the ends of development economics.

This is preposterous stuff Gustaf. I don't agree with MOP but there's no need to make stuff up to refute his claims. You could actually be nuanced instead of a sneering/pompous dick. I'm assuming that you will write a very good response to my post that is nuanced and that will reveal that, indeed, you are a trained academic economist but, that said, it would be nice if you used this knowledge to present an argument that wasn't facile and that didn't treat posters like they were children. In my view, this is a very major problem of the field: economists are prone to telling laymen and the public that economists, without question, believe that free trade is wonderful or that markets are fantastic without revealing the pesky facts and nuances that define the field and its structure. What makes economics so interesting is not "comparative advantage" or "the price system" but, rather, the particulars relating to these concepts: what is the magnitude of the gains of trade? What are the distributive effects of trade? When do prices misallocate resources? When do externalities come into existence?

If economists stop acting like they'd be opening pandora's box if they told the public that, actually, trade can have very underwhelming effects on growth, maybe we could have a more honest dialogue about trade in which the words of the profession weren't taken with a heap of salt. No one trusts what economists have to say because economists say things that are, as a point of fact, facetious.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.071 seconds with 12 queries.