Income Inequality? What are your thoughts?

You are absolutely correct Sir.

SPC Christopher Smith , I agree with the idea that we should not subsidize corporations, or bail them out when they act irresponsibly or fail to adjust to changing market decisions. It sends the wrong signal that failure should be rewarded.

For the converse reason it makes me wonder why you wish to punish those who made the right decisions and became wealthy by adjusting to changing market conditions, or who provide a service or product that people are willing to freely pay for.

So, First, one could argue that even under a flat tax the wealthy WOULD pay more because they make more., and under our graduated tax system the top 50% of taxpayers already pay well over 95% of all income taxes.

Second, given this information, how much more would you require the wealthy to pay? What percentage of their earnings should they be forced to pay?

Also, though you say you believe the market should be EO, the fact that you want to punish those who succeed by making them pay more means you wish to make the market less EO by taking away from the successful the capital they can use to create more wealth, and yet more jobs. Using the government to take away from the wealthy does not make the poor any richer, history has proven as much.

SGT Jim Z. , You make a great point. The minimum wage is NOT a goal anybody should seek to obtain. And the very argument you make, that it is a motivation to better oneself, to learn the responsibility of working hard, showing up on time, relating well with customers, co-workers, and management in order to earn more responsibility, competency, and pay. The same argument can be made AGAINST the minimum wage, for the minimum wage excludes from the workforce those with even lower skills, or those with a checkered past who would wish to prove themselves again in the marketplace of jobs.

Also, regarding Representative McClintock, there's no reason to allege anything... here's what he said.....

Only [raise the minimum wage] if you want to rip the first rung in the ladder of opportunity for teenagers, for minorities, for people who are trying to get into the job market for their first job.
"The minimum wage doesn't support a family. We all know that. It’s not supposed to support a family. The minimum wage is that first job when you have no skills, no experience, no working history. That’s how you get into the job market, that’s how you develop that experience, develop that work record, get your first raise, then your next raise, then your promotion. That's the first rung of opportunity.

If your labor as an unskilled person just entering the workforce is worth say $7 an hour at a job and the minimum wage is $10, you have just been made permanently unemployable. That first rung of the economic ladder has been ripped out and you can’t get on it. That is a tragedy."

So, he didn't call anybody worthless, but he did, correctly state that some, inexperienced, or lesser educated ARE worth less (pay) in the marketplace of jobs than someone more experienced as described above. Regarding minorities, unfortunately, it IS in many cases, inner-city minorities who have been dismally failed by their education systems, and who are sadly a step or two behind many others, educationally speaking. That is the tragedy to which he is referring.

So, Economically speaking the Representative is on solid ground, factually.

Reason I used allege was that I did not find non-special interest group website i.e. CNN, Foxnews, local newspapers, etc... His statement can be and probably being taken out of context like most sound bytes. I agree minimum wage normally is for entry level or lower skilled workers but if we did have minimum wage we would be no better than the sweatshops of Southeast Asia.

LTC (Join to see) Hello Neighbor! You make some excellent points, but I'm a little fuzzy on the methods that should be used to create this wonderful society you describe. First of all, I agree, the fringe "bottom feeders" don't merit concern. The problem, though with social programs is that they have repeatedly proven that they don't work. We've pumped TRILLIONS into social programs and have kept poverty levels steady since LBJ's "Great society" programs began. I often hear that education is the answer.... We've had the Federal government (Unconstitutionally) involved in education since Carter was in office, and we already spend more than ALMOST any other country per capita on education with dismal results. The problem with social programs is that they have the unfortunate, though consistent and predictable effect of de-motivating productiveness. FAR too many people are content to take less for "free" than to work hard for more. This is proven by the numbers which show an ever increasing number of people on Federal and State programs, even when unemployment rates are low. A while back, Great Britain required EVERYBODY receiving governmental disability payments to report for a medical disability update physical in order to keep their benefits. Just over 50% didn't even show up and lost their benefits. I'll leave it up to you to fill in the blanks.

I don't think social programs are necessarily bad, but I do know that the Constitution does not allow for the Federal government's involvement in any such programs. So, any such programs belong to State and local governments, or more appropriately to private charities. That being said, we should move away from the idea of perpetual assistance more in the direction of job training to allow for a future of self-sustainment.

Simply pumping money into low income areas en-masse has been the modus operandi for decades and has proven itself a failure. And as so many poor areas are minority inner city areas, much of the focus on promoting social programs have been in these areas. Unfortunately these programs have literally destroyed the families in these areas, most notably the black family where more than half of all black children grow up in a home with no father. (growing up in a home with no father, by the way is the number one common denominator among EVERY population group in our prisons) What is needed is investment in individuals to promote needed skills, jobs and esteem.

Until we start treating people as individuals instead of groups or classes; until we start putting education above politics or teacher's unions; Until we stop requiring social engineering classes over math, science, reading, and technical skills, we will continue to fail.

That being said, I would argue that the American dream IS still available for those who WANT it. Dr. Ben Carson's story is a wonderful telling of how strong parenting, lead him to WANT to do well. He came from a poor family, and his mother worked multiple jobs to pay the bills, and he became one of the most respected pediatric brain surgeons in the nation without a perpetual ride on social programs. The problem with many of our social programs is that they become generational, they become a way of life, that is passed on from parent to children. To far too many, these programs become the way of life, not the way out of poverty.