Is government involvement required to address US wealth inequity?

Asked by: JuliaD
  • Normally it wouldn't, but...

    The thing is, government involvement, bailouts, and malinvestment created the wealth inequity in the first place. Therefore, the free market simply isn't powerful enough to solve this problem. One of the unspeakable things that many don't know about is the fascist plot to take over the U.S that happened during FDR's presidency. Essentially, businessmen such as the Rockefellers and corporations such as G.E wanted to convince a general to lead an army of 100,000 veterans to take over the capital. The general became the whistleblower and the plot was foiled. What followed was disgraceful. The congress had the evidence laid out in front of them and never prosecuted.

    What needs to happen is not a congressional solution, subject to lobbying, but a temporary committee of the nations top economists, appointed not by the president, or Congress, but by the legislatures of each individual state, one economist each. That is the least corruptable way to do this. Any inheritance over a set amount (say, a million dollars), should be ceased by the government and put to public use, preferably allowing tax cuts to be made on the middle class. Every banker should be prosecuted and jailed.

    The reasoning behind the inheritance limit is that without it, businesses will create the Capitalist equivalent of the royal bloodline. Nobody deserves to be an elite simply because their Dad was. Everyone should have a fair shot at the American dream. A problem of this magnitude needs to solved by the entity that created it, with modifications.

    If we outlawed lobbying and limited donations to politicians, then Congressmen and Congresswomen would have nobody to answer to but the voters.

  • That is the only way it will be changed.

    Capitalism is a broken system that creates wealth inequity.

    The Government needs to tax the wealthy and redistribute most of their wealth, especially the trillions horded in trusts and estates.

    The minimum wage needs to be at least $20 per hour everywhere in the United States regardless of the size of the business,e.G., if only one employee.

    Corporations that have outsourced over 20 millions jobs to need to bring those jobs back immediately or be taken over by the government. All companies need to be employee owned. The stock market needs to be shut down, along with Wall Street and all banks too big to fail. It should be made illegal to outsource any job; and work visas should only be issued if there are no unemployed workers in America that can do those jobs.

    But, our government is controlled by the wealthy; so this will never happened. Millions need to be protesting in every major city and shutting down all businesses for weeks, until they are forced to meet the workers needs.

    America needs to be returned to the workers who make it possible. The Plutocracy in America and the world needs to be taken down, especially in countries that have monarchs like the UK. The Royal families need to have all their wealth taken away and redistributed to the people. And, that new GD baby in England won't have a silver spoon in its mouth and it won't be king of anything, just pure nonsense. The Queen of England and all the lords and princes need to work in factories and live in simple apartments. And, American love that crap.

    So, the government is not going to help in this fight; it will take a violent revolution.

  • Unfortunately, the answer is yes.

    And there are many arguements against allowing the plutocrats to have their way; not the least of which is that economic inequality inevitably becomes political inequality, which in turn leads directly to slave labour. The end result of the current trend will be a plantation economy with very weak aggregate demand and severely stunted economic growth.

    For an economy to function efficiently, profits must be derived from higher sales, which require higher wages. The record corporate profits we have seen are the result of neither; but rather from rent-seeking political bribery.

    In closing, i should remind the audience that inequality of any sort is an end to itself, not a means or a price.

  • No, It Shouldn't

    No, quite simply, and I see nothing on the other side that would even merit a rebuttal. Take this 'yes' vote which is amazingly convoluted - opens with a plot of a few individuals to overthrow FDR, which has absolutely no relevance to the topic and some how they make the illogical jump to the appointment of "top economists" even though there's much debate with people in the field of economics and sounds more like a suggestion that we need a planned economy. And then the next great leap is the confiscation of "inheritance" by the state. This issue boils down to psychological envy and a demand for legalized plunder.

  • No inherent moral issue

    There is no inherently immoral problem with having a large wealth inequality as a result of a free market. It is an inevitable part of a society with people of different aspirations, goals and skill sets. Furthermore in the free market system where people compete, a person's wealth doesn't equate to another person's lack of wealth. Assuming we create a fair marketplace system, people who accumulate wealth play a great role in creating it, so people with less wealth have no moral entitlement to it. Wealth inequality only becomes a problem in two situations:
    1) If a person's absolute wealth is too low to sustain basic necessities, then it is acceptable for government to intervene (using other people's money via tax) to rescue them from starvation or economic redundancy.
    2) If government involvement played a role in creating that wealth inequality in the first place by running deficits that cause inflation (hurting the poor and middle class), running inefficient government entitlement programs that create dependency and not addressing discrimination in enforcement of laws (against minorities and poor people) in situations like the drug war. In this case, the government should instead reduce involvement.

    Supporting a strong and efficient public school system is arguably the best indirect way to address this goal, but the US government evidently has failed to do that.

  • People are free

    This country was born out of the need to be free. That grew into a freedom to pursue a brighter future, for a individual and if so a family. People all over the world came here for these very reasons. The idea to be both successful and obtaining wealth became a part of and a driving force behind our great economy. People born here and came to this country because it gave them the opportunity to be rich.

  • Government should not redistribute the wealth.

    Wealth inequality is a result of a free market economy. Not everybody has the same goals, abilities or desires. Society, on the whole, will become wealthier if everybody is allowed to assess the risks and rewards of pursuing their dreams and suffering the consequences or enjoying the fruits of the decision as the case may be. Our poor would be considered wealthy in many places on the planet. A free market has made us the wealthiest people in the world. Compare us to societies where equality is a government edict such as Soviet Russia or China under Mao. Government enforced equality lowers everybody to the lowest common denominator except for government officials who seem to end up more equal than others.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.