The much talked about Redistributor in Chief took place in 1981 when Reagan took the progressive tax structure on the wealthy from 70% down to 28%, the inevitable consequence of which simply brought into reality the adage the rich got richer and the poor got poorer. The additional bonus was the rise in numerous tax shelters to the point that true earnings were distorted. and to rub it in, investors looked to cheap foreign labor to enrich themselves further. Meanwhile in Washington union busting prevailed and living wages began to tank, roiling redistribution even more .
"In Soviet Russia television watches YOU!"
Unfortunately true.
"I disagree, minimum wage can prevent exploitation with pretty well no negative impact on unemployment or inflation. It's only if you set the minimum wage too high that you get real problems."
Is your support really so fickle steven?
In england too, and soon in the USA.
In America you can always find a party.
In Soviet Union the Party can always find you!
The jokes are Jakov Smirnoff's, for those who didn't know.
They really put things in perspective.
Here are a few more:
"You have such nice things in the U.S.—like warning shots!"
"We have no gay people in Russia—there are homosexuals but they are not allowed to be gay about it. The punishment is seven years locked in prison with other men and there is a three-year waiting list for that."
Seriously, most of things Americans complain about are things that many other people can only dream about.
Don't throw it all away!
Complaining isn't inherantly bad... I mean ... complaining about things like the DMCA and the Patriot act is a good way to attract politicians to your cause, and help protect those very same civil liberties those aweful laws gutted.
He is one of the best!
heh, not gays... they have homosexuals in russia, but they are depressed drunks like everyone else
well, they would not longer be "gay" (happy) if we do... but the only effect only their sexuality is that they will have a lot more of it.
its not going straight / gay if you were too drunk to register the gender of the partner.
The rich got richer and the poor got richer too.
ANY SYSTEM of independent units that is unregulated will, over time, show increasing differences between the min and max.
If you have 2 people running and one is faster than the other, over time, there will be a huge gulf.
Calling tax cuts redistribution is offensive beyond belief. Our earnings are not property of the government in which the government decides how much we keep. We are not ruled by kings and emperors. It has no inherent right to what we produce.
ANY SYSTEM of independent units that is unregulated will, over time, show increasing differences between the min and max.If you have 2 people running and one is faster than the other, over time, there will be a huge gulf. I agree; so why not some rational regulation?
If you have 2 people running and one is faster than the other, over time, there will be a huge gulf
Only in absolute/nominal terms, not in proportionate terms. You would expect the $ gap between the top 25% and bottom 25% to widen, for example, but not for the % of income or wealth held by the two to always change in one direction. Hence if you have increasing inequality (by say the rich benefittnig from pretty well all the proceeds of growth, and the poor showing little real change) then it's something you (as a government) will want to look at.
Take your runners example - if person A can run 1 meter in the time that B can run 2 meters, then after A has run 100 meters you'd expect B to have covered 100% more than that (200 meters). The gap has widened by 99 meters, but proportionately is still the same, hence the 'inequality' in their speeds is unchanged - B is still twice as fast as A.
I agree; so why not some rational regulation?
What is rational about it? any type of regulation can only hurt both, at BEST it will only hurt the faster runner and not the slower runner, and for what? their absolute status will not change or will change for the worst, just to make the gap smaller? you call this rational?
What is the virtue of making the gap smaller?
A belief of fairness
Why is that particular interpretation of fairness good?
YOu did not ask for reality, just what they saw as the virtue of it.
Many people like to point to the last episode of Star Wars as a condemnation of Bush. However, for anyone that is actually thinking, it is a condemnation of people with good intentions. That is what the emperor and Anakin had, but to make their intentions real, they had to obtain absolute power, and of course in the end, it corrupted them.
So it is with the modern day do-gooder. They dont care how they make things "fair" only that it is so (in their view). And go to any lengths to achieve their ends.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
