“Equality” is the holy grail of the left, the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow… before the rainbow is torn down and sewn into an exclusionary hate flag. Well, maybe the pot isn’t filled with gold so much as gold wands with which to spread the wealth. Maybe it’s a pot of brown rice, or birth control pills. Yeah, birth control pills. Liberals love those. And condoms. Okay, so “equality” is the pot of birth control pills and condoms at the end of the LGBT LGBTQ LGBTQAI flag.
With the rise of old-timer Bernie Sanders, “income inequality” is making its meme-ish comeback. Shared, liked, and tweeted by the young and gullible masses, Bernie’s striking a chord. No, at first I didn’t get it either. “Income inequality” was previously touted by John Edwards, who’s also known for spending hundreds of dollars on a haircut, while simultaneously removing designer tags from his uber-expensive suits and replacing them with fake “JC Penney” labels. John Edwards, he’s just like you. Given Bernie Sander’s white fly-aways, it’s probably safe to assume he’s using SuperCuts. No offense to SuperCuts. The mad-scientist look is so hot right now.
“Income Inequality” is the broad idea that it’s unfair for a nation to have a wide income gap–for rich people to be rich and poor people to be poor. The wider the gap between the rich and the poor, the more unequal it is. If this principle were applied to hair styles, Hugh Jackman would be on one end, Bernie Sanders on the other. That’s Hair Inequality, and the struggle is real. Check your privilege, Jackman. You cis-gender, ass.
Those who preach income inequality do so with the loftiest of intentions but the most misguided of assumptions, along with absolute ignorance of economics, public policy, and in general, the workings of the world. That, of course, isn’t supposed to matter. They pave their roads and bridges with good intentions, memes and rhyming chants at rallies. One favorite meme of the income inequalisists (new word), is this one:
Which puts the big bad USA at 93rd, after China, Iran and India. This meme says everything that the left believes about income inequality, so it’s convenient for me to tear it apart. If only I could find a way to monetize the tearing up of its parts…I’ll put a call into Cecile Richards over at Planned Parenthood. She’s got this down pat.
Pop quiz: What do China, Iran and India all have in common? If you answered: “Everyone there is poor,” step away from the computer, find a reflective surface, and praise yourself with affirmations. You’re smarter than everyone tweeting, sharing, and liking this meme all over the internet. Feels good, doesn’t it? Probably how Hugh Jackman feels knowing his hair is better than everyone everywhere all the time. Privileged jerk.
If you answered “China, Iran and India are great, fair nations and bastions of equality,” step away from the computer… and harm yourself. Physically harm yourself. You’re an idiot and a danger to others.
China, Iran and India are poor nations. China is communist, where if you’re conceived as a girl, you might be killed in the womb. For being a girl. No pink or yellow (gender neutral) balloons at that baby shower. Ironically and entirely predictably, communist countries, like China, boast the greatest gap in income inequality. So there’s that.
In Iran if you use satire and/or you’re a woman, you may get thrown in prison. Oh, and income inequality is pretty bad there, too. Also, gays get thrown off of buildings. So there’s that.
No, India isn’t boasting great wealth numbers either. They’re also a poor nation with a high income inequality gap. Sorry, meme-makers.
See in all of these countries, people equally live in squalor. People equally have their human rights trampled on a regular basis. People equally starve to death. People equally live hopelessly in misery, with the glimmering fantasy of freedom always beyond their grasp. You, on the other hand, have the same smartphone as Simon Cowell, and likely drive a 2008 or newer automobile to and from your air-conditioned home, equipped with internet and cable television.
Yes, all this in the United States even if you live below the “poverty line.”
All this to say that the real aim of people who champion income inequality, the real political motive is for everyone to be equally…poor. How do I know? Because nobody on the left has anything even close to resembling a plan that would guarantee equality in prosperity.
How is that so? Well, if you were to tax 100% of all income (that’s every single dime) over $1Million… you’d still only fund the United States government for about four months. And that’s only if they buttoned up and kept a tight budget.
Overtly socialist policies like the ones Bernie Sanders proposes are incapable of creating wealth. It’s not possible. The left can only promote policies that make everyone poorer. Because misery loves company. Hey, at least we have subsidized condoms…
Cronyism, the convoluted tax code, excessive regulations, excessive government spending, the national debt and the Federal Reserve are the major causes of the widening income inequality gap.
Solutions:
Abolish the tax code,16th Amendment and IRS.
Enact the Fair Tax.
Minimize regulations to only what is absolutely necessary.
Balance the budget.
Start decreasing the national debt.
Abolish the Federal Reserve, the FDIC and all bank regulations except one; require full disclosure on full or fractional reserve backing of deposits.
Treat gold, silver and cryptocurrencies as legal tender (not as an asset) for tax purposes.
The income inequality problem is counterintuitive. Big government equals more income inequality. Smaller government equals less income inequality.
The middle class is the byproduct of a free market economy; it is not manufactured by a politician’s tax gimmicks, minimum wage laws, or government redistribution of wealth.
There is no such thing as a living wage; there is only a wage that someone can afford to pay. You have to tailor your living around your wage, not have government tailor your wage around your living.
Any increase in the minimum wage would only be a temporary relief to some as jobs, other wages and prices rebalance around the increase. Also it will hurt unskilled workers looking for their first job.
It is about supply and demand. If you have an easy time filling your employee needs, you offer lower wages, if you have a hard time filling your employee needs, you offer higher wages; because if you do not your competition will and you will be out of business.
It is not about what people deserve or what is fair or what is just; it is about what the market will bear. Blame the consumer for shopping for the lowest price and blame the voter for voting for government to fix their problems.
If you feel workers should get better benefits and higher wages, then go start a business and offer these things to your workers. Lead by example and out compete those who pay less, instead of dictating to people who are actually providing jobs.
What is wrong with these politicians? Everything is not an issue in need of a law or statute. Waving the magic government wand / middle finger at businesses does not magically fix everything.
What is WRONG with you?
Using FACTS and common sense?
(end sarcasm)
Well, son,you’re preaching to the choir, and G-d bless you for that.
I agree wholeheartedly.
Now, how do we get this message to the LIV and get them to UNDERSTAND what you have said?
If I was from the US I would be wondering how to stop the deterioration in international influence, domestic wealth, innovation, creativity, investment, productivity, corporate management and the unbelievable rise in selfishness, greed and general stupidness …. because brother all your constant navel gazing is doing no good whatsoever. In essence as a power you are stuffed … you just dont realise it yet and wont get it until its too late. And the Tea Party aint gonna save ya!!! America you aint the biggest or the best anymore. So whatcha gonna do about it? More of the same I bet. How to shoot ya self …. in the foot!! Or anybody else for that matter.
Wow, that was just. .mean. Not so helpful or constructive and filled with hate for millions of people you don’t even know. How is that justified?
I agree that cronyism has corrupted our government. I also agree that most Americans are richer than most Indians/Chinese/etc. However the only fact or stat that I found in this article was this one, “if you were to tax 100% of all income (that’s every single dime) over $1Million… you’d still only fund the United States government for about four months.” That may very well be true, but it fails to address the difference between wealth and income. Income is the money your employer gives you to keep working. Wealth is the all the money your have and your assets and anything else you own. If we were to tax wealth through the estate tax, we’d have a lot more money to balance the budget. Also, this guy’s logic says basically that because Indians/Chinese are on average poorer than Americans that their inequality is greater. This is illogical because the way economists measure inequality is internal to a nation. In other words they are comparing the poorest Americans to the richest Americans and the poorest Indians to the richest Indians. By that measure, we are supremely unequal.
I don’t know why liberals/leftists CANNOT get this. Maybe it’s my “functioning brain cells” privilege. They can’t be expected to understand the most basic and simple concepts of math and economics because they’re “brain cell challenged.” Yeah, that HAS to be it. There is no other explanation for the willful stupidity, is there?
I read an article like this, and in my mind I see and hear the libtards sticking their fingers in their ears and singing, “Lalalalalala.” Facts and figures, facts and figures, common sense, NOOOOO!
The simple explanation of the difference between conservatives and liberals is: Conservatives want everyone equal at the STARTING LINE. Liberals want everyone equal at the FINISH, and that almost always means equally POOR. The elitists, like Shrillary and her cronies will still have their fancy homes, cars and security teams, because they’ll be the ones in charge of distribution. Remember the way Ernie used to dole out cookies to Bert on Sesame Street? One for you, one for me. One for you, two for me. One for you, three for me…. Yeah, that’s exactly how it’ll go, only we’ll be LUCKY to keep that ONE..
This article is a lot of anacdotal evidence and opinion. In fact there isnt one figure or data set here. Not saying that means it is wrong. Just that your characterization is completely wrong.
So . . . I cant speak to for all liberals. As there are a wide variety of beliefs. But i think it would serve you well to understand the basic difference between equal and fair. What is fair is not necessarily equal, and what is equal is not necessary fair . . For example giving more money towards kids living in poverty might not be equal. But it is more fair. Affirmative action is the same deal. Minorities receive unequal treatment in order to try and make systems more fair (that might be a bad example as affirmative action is actually a quiet complex discussion. But at its core it exemplifies the difference between fair and equal).
A progressive tax code is an example of fair vs equal. And i think even republicans agree to a progressive tax code for the most part (although they would never call it that).
I think one of the biggest differences between liberals and republicans is the personification of what it means to live in poverty. Republicans still seem to be stuck in the “welfare queen” point of view. Liberals seem to personify it as the struggling single mother. The data definitely suggests the truth is far closer to the struggling single mother than it is towards the welfare queen . . . But i definitely understand the sentiment that we should not be subsidizing peoples poor choices. On the other hand we should be trying to offer the most opportunity for people to succeed, and we cannot do that as a society if we do not offer people assistance when they are in need . . .
Actually, what I hear is “Let them eat cake”….
To Leslie: “Conservatives want everyone equal at the STARTING LINE.”
That may be the most asanine statement I’ve ever read! Aside from the fact that our society has made it IMPOSSIBLE for everyone to start off equal, you just don’t “get it”–giving everyone the chance to be in a situation so they can even START their lives off on an equal footing (and then either succeed or fail in their life adventures) is at the VERY HEART of the liberal mind-set!!! Smh…
By the way, this Crowder guy may be the most rotten racist/bigoted/sexist pig on the planet–vile to his very core.
My biggest problem is how the same people who whine about income inequality ignore that the places with the biggest income gaps are controlled by leftists like California, New York, Massachusetts and Detroit. Leftist economics do exactly what Marx wanted them to do take money from the middle class and give it to the rich oligarchs and the lower class that support them.
Equality is impossible, because there is no equality of ability. Now if you and 4 others are doing the exact same job at the exact same pace, you will probably be getting near the same benefit (age, education, and time with company changes the base)But, and African American Dr, a white mechanic, a Latino chef, and a gay social worker are not taking home the same paycheck, period. America is about the freedom to educate yourself to the best of your ability, to seek out employment in the field you are trained for, to apply for as many positions in said field and then to work your hardest to achieve in your said field. No one succeeds just because they feel they deserve to be rich. Hard work and years of suffering bring success.
Hittin’ the nail on the head again, Crowder! Tell ’em! This “Equality” mantra is nasty stuff and needs to get rubbed out. The Founders’ posited “freedom” and “opportunity” as high values, and now we got our Progressive friends ignoring those concepts and pushing “equality” as the be-all and end all.
A long time ago I read somebody’s comment on this, and I’ve stolen it fast away. And that is, “There is equality in dungeons.” There’s equality in graveyards, too. Is that valuable? And as you note, there’s equality in universal poverty.
Terrific. But can’t we agree that there are values high above “equality?” Howz about Excellence, Loyalty, Integrity? Maybe something or three from the Bible?
Equality is a red herring. (And most probably red cause he’s a commie!)
Great article. Kudos.
Great take on income inequality! It is all about what you put into it meaning life that is. If you want something go out and work for it. If you are not qualified, then get the next best job or the best you can get and go to school at night online and earn it. Holy cow it is not that hard!
Contrary to your title, you don’t actually debunk anything. You don’t even mention a single quantitative measure of wealth inequality. Instead of facts, your argument seems to rest mostly on personal attacks against people you disagree with.
“You, on the other hand, have the same smartphone as Simon Cowell, and likely drive a 2008 or newer automobile to and from your air-conditioned home, equipped with internet and cable television. Yes, all this in the United States even if you live below the ‘poverty line.'”
In the United States, more than half a million people are homeless. The rate of homelessness is particularly high among the mentally ill (including veterans with PTSD), who often cannot afford treatment. Homelessness is also prevalent among children — more than 1 in 50 American children is homeless, which has a dramatic impact on their performance in school, and thus their ability to escape poverty.
Unlike China, India, and Iran, the USA is a wealthy, developed, non-totalitarian nation. More appropriate parallels would be Germany, Sweden, and other European nations. These countries show us that it’s possible to have a strong social safety net AND a strong economy.
Charles, you have it so right about Crowder. “If we were to tax all income over a milion 100%” Is he talking about personal income and leaving out the corporations. This fact, like the rest of his diatribe is not clear. He’s ignoring the fact that this kind of taxation DID occur in US history. President Ike Eisenhower taxed the wealthy like this and what did we get? Economic BOOM.
How do I love thee, Steve Crowder? You, have such insight into the brains of people. The way they work and why. The agendas of the left. Your ability to be consice and erudite is admirable. The above people are the same. I am not for a myriad of health reasons. I sure feel as all of you do. My anger is at a 10! Thanks for listening.. BTW. I love BACON, PORKCHOPS and N.Y. STRIPS..
As an economist, this is a rant and not a very good case for debunking myths. I do not fully support the liberal position on income inequality, but rants such as this are demonstrating the lack of intelligence on the other side as well. No serious backing of figures, no mention of the use of the Gini coefficient and as well, no explanation on the outcomes of longitudinal data on this subject. This article supports the same rhetoric on the right as the left puts out. I would suggest a different approach and have someone who actually knows what they are talking about write an article such as this instead of pseudo-commentators who can’t get past excessive use of normative statements loaded with all kinds of argumentative fallacies.
Agreed, the wealth inequality has grown and he acts like we’re not supposed to care. There’s history that proves what happens when we continue down this path.
“All this to say that the real aim of people who champion income inequality, the real political motive is for everyone to be equally…poor. How do I know? Because nobody on the left has anything even close to resembling a plan that would guarantee equality in prosperity.”
Does anyone on the right have a plan that would guarantee prosperity for every American? No, because that’s not possible.
The arguments in these articles are ignorant of the truths of our limited global resources and the enormous over-consumption of the american people. Studies have concluded that happiness doesn’t really increase above incomes of $75,000 a year. We could arguably live comfortably and happily with a lot less than that, as many other humans across the world do – despite their regional disadvantages. Capitalism has been trying to overtake democracy in this country for a long time. This economy is effective but is lacking a social measure for capitalism to work for the people. Currently it is only serving the corporations at the cost of our society.
I believe Bernie is the only politician that is conscious of this and ready to balance the economy and restore the power of a united american people.
““Income Inequality” is the broad idea that it’s unfair for a nation to have a wide income gap–for rich people to be rich and poor people to be poor.”
I’ll stop you right there. Income inequality is not a fucking “idea”– it’s a god damned fact. And the fact is that the rich continue to grow richer, the poor grow poorer, and the middle class is, thus, disappearing.
Congrats, Crowder, in proving one point not even mentioned in your verbose lap dance:
Those who know least know it loudest. Those nodding their heads and giving lip service to your daisy chain of verbal hopscotch and finger snapping while gum flapping are complicit in your ignorance.
You’re one ignorant tool who thinks that your straw man tactics are fact substitutes,
China, Iran and India are great examples… of countries with no middle class, which is exactly where this country is heading if we continue on the same path we are now heading.
Bottom line is this…there should be a minimum livable standard for all people in this country and should be adjusted somehow by the differences in relative cost of living amongst states, which varies very widely. Perhaps the term income inequality should not be used.
How about minimum livable income allowance
You are talking about BIG (Basic Income Guarantee) With is the next logical step in the technological evolution of the world. When robots take more and more jobs for people what are they suppose to do? Eventually, money itself will be irrelevant. The entire social structure must then be altered in order to accommodate these new realities.Personally I believe that money is an antiquated system for resource distribution anyway. The sooner we, humans, realize this the better off we will be in the long run.
You realize the point of anyone saying America is doing worse than those countries in income inequality (or anything) is to show that we’re worse than countries that are awful, right? No one is saying that they have great income inequality; in fact, they’re saying the exact opposite. And….how does this debunk the “myth” that there’s income inequality in the US? I can show you several peer-reviewed studies on how bad income inequality is in this country. Here’s a good news article linking to a lot of studies (and look, in a *real* news website! not some trolly online publication where people with english degrees from community colleges go because they can’t write for anyone else). http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/the-fight-over-inequality/?hp&_r=0
I don’t understand at all how this debunk’s income inequality in any way? Yes India, China and Iran are far worse countries to live in…. no shit. This entire article is just a rant about how terrible those countries are to live in, but does not actually present any information arguing that income inequality isn’t a serious problem. Rather then presenting an alternative solution to solving our problems you just try to convince people that they are not actually problems.
For someone who criticizes the left for making weak arguments not supported by fact, it’s hilarious to see you do the exact same thing coming from the right.
That entire article worked only debunk a bad meme. Income inequality exists and it has decimated the middle class. Only a millionaire should be correct in voting for a Republican since they serve only wall street.
Why are the largest indivual donors to political campaigns democrats then? Thomas Steyer contributed 75 million dollars to democratic candidates in 2014. The closests republican donor was Paul Singer at 11M. The Koch brother boogeymen donated 5M. In terms of SuperPacs in 2014, the highest three were all Liberal, and together donated more than the next ten conservatives ones combined. The rich vote fairly evenly down party lines, but the politically active rich donate democrat.
https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/superpacs.php?cycle=2014
https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topindivs.php
In full disclosure, Conservative SuperPacs are currently domininating liberal ones for the 2016 elections. Most of these PACs were created for particular candidates and are currently fighting other candidates PACs, but most of these will go away after the primaries like they did in 2011.
Oh that’s excellent! You just shredded a meme. Guess that settles everything.
Given that our political discourse has become largely nothing but meme-sharing on Facebook, this is actually important work.
Wow. Have you ever been to India? Clearly not. I can’t even begin on the rest of your uneducated assumptions and attempts to equate haircuts with economics because I just don’t have time. Happily, Kevin, Ben, Craig, and Ryan are all over it and Margolies is just deliciously insulting. I spent some time in India and I’ll just note a few things: many people there have nicer cellphones than you, flat screen tv’s, and faster internet, MS campus in Hyderabad is beautiful, Jet Airways is much nicer than the last sad little puddle hop you took on Southwest, then there is the Hard Rock cafe, Starbucks, Pizza Hut and Bath and Body Works. Just a few popular places. No people in India don’t “equally live in squalor” or “hopelessly in misery, with the glimmering fantasy of freedom always beyond their grasp”. Throw away the 1970’s back issues of National Geographic and get out a little bit. You might learn something about the rest of the world.
What a waste of time. You could have at least quoted some Reganomics, as bullshit as the trickle down economic theory is, it is genius compared to this. You start off by talking down to liberals for lack of economic knowledge, yet you show none. Alll you did was unsuccessfully try to divert attention away from the actual issue with some insults.
(The following is fact, got nothing to do with politics)
The problem with income inequality is that its very damaging for the economy. Take two examples.
A) 1 billion earned by a hedge fund manager in 2015. He will spend absolute max lets say 100 million (thats around 300,000 a day). In other words, 10% of this billion is stimulating the economy through spending.
B) 1 billion earned amongst 1,000 people. Thats 1 million each. In this case, each person will spend closer to 700,000 each (richer you are, the lower your propensity to consume). This means 70% of the billion is being spent.
Simplified example, but the point is simple. The more wealth is invested in a small group of people, the less the economy is stimulated. Can’t argue against it
He didn’t debunk the concept of pervasive and pernicious income inequality, he debunked a single meme. And the rest is the sort of comedy that got him fired from a network that thinks Greg Gutfield is hilarious. And he will likely respond “I have more followers than you!” and yet he will know, deep in his heart, that whatever he says, he was not funny enough … for Fox News.
Ouch!
That stings!
Your ‘facts’ are crazy. China is not a country of poor. It is a country of poor and rich at an ever increasing rate. I can’t believe people think you are anything other than an inciter for the Rich status quo. Just keep sucking in those that don’t take time to look up facts for their own good and disguising your hate-mongering as some form of truth.
Crowder, you are a moron. You don’t debunk one damn thing. You just spew rhetoric into one huge republican circle jerk in order to win over more fans.