Income inequality poses a threat, even in Minnesota

  • Article by: Editorial Board , Star Tribune
  • Updated: October 20, 2013 - 5:57 PM

Even in above-average Minnesota, inequality is threat.

  • 62
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
basia2186Oct. 18, 13 7:38 PM

Socialism is not the answer. Stop the unearned entitlements, and perhaps people will get married before they have children that are currently being supported by taxpayers. I don't want to support anyone but my family.

81
67
jchilman12Oct. 20, 13 4:04 PM

The current trend is government is going to continue to make this a reality. There is no incentive to work hard. We continue to increase he incentive to do less and less and disguise it under "equality". In reality, we are weakening a nation because we are afraid to fail. As the richest 1% in our country how many times they fail. I bet it is a lot.

65
59
vlombardyOct. 20, 13 4:55 PM

It's all about inequality, and wealth is even more skewed than income. The richest 1% own 2/3 of all income producing assets. The bottom 80% of the people own 15% of all financial (non home) wealth. The bottom 40% own 0.3%. These are numbers of a failing economy. The difference between "conservatives" and "liberals" is how best to treat the huge number of people falling behind. The real solution is to change the system so that 90% of the people share in the profits, not 1%. If people are self-sufficient there is no need for social support.

65
45
naseth12Oct. 20, 13 6:21 PM

Sometimes, a number's true meaning can be disguised by the abstraction of the symbol itself. I encourage everyone to google "YouTube income inequality" and watch the first video in the list. It's a graphic representation that paints a much clearer picture.

20
12
lorentjdOct. 20, 13 6:29 PM

The only solution offered by the Democrats is to increase income taxes on the rich. But, according the the Congressional Budget Office, the top 1% is already paying 30% of ALL federal taxes that are collected (and that includes income taxes, capital gains taxes, excise taxes, Social Security taxes, and Medicare taxes). Back in 1980, that percentage was only 14.2%. Yet, despite the significant increase in the tax rates on the top 1%, income disparity continues to grow. The problem isn't that tax rates on the rich aren't high enough. The problem is that free trade has moved most of the jobs that only required a high school diploma (or less) overseas. Knowledge workers (many, but not all) are reaping most of the economic benefits. THAT is the fundamental cause of growing income disparity. Raising tax rates will not change that. Yet, that is the only solution that Democrats seem to offer. That's not going to fix anything.

62
44
Herman MunsterOct. 20, 13 6:39 PM

The income inequality over time myth, what a lovely yarn. The studies are generally created using taxpaying household data. This is a stupid methodology to use as it makes the assumption that households of today look exactly the same demographically as they did in the past. The data also makes use of adjusted gross income. This also is stupid as it does not take into account all of the income support programs that are making people's lives better but are tax exempt and did not exist in the past. The data is manipulated, I ask that you look yourself before blindly looking at what interest groups have to say.

37
43
naseth12Oct. 20, 13 6:43 PM

lorentjd - the solution is not to tax a wealthy persons income, but rather taxing business in such a way that encourages investment and development rather than pocketing profits. As the President said on the day after this latest crisis passed, close corporate tax loopholes. The fact that 1% of the population is paying 30% of federal taxes is a symptom of the true problem: most people simply don't make enough money to pay taxes much in taxes, even though tax rates are historically low. I agree that that it's bad the wealthiest 1% pay so much in taxes, it should never have gotten to this point.

52
16
dewarfOct. 20, 13 7:18 PM

Soss is absolutely correct. Hubert H. Humphrey's War of Poverty (now almost 50 years old) has actually created income inequality throughout the United States and is still growing. Putting people back to work so they can be INDIVIDUALLY RESPONSIBLE (NOT government dependent) is the only answer. And please notice that Minnesota's heavy influx of immigrants over the past decade was never mentioned as one of the reasons why our income inequality increased while our economy actually performed better than most of the country. Keep your head in the sand, liberals, and this will only get worse. We need to start providing (and emphasizing) opportunity, not handouts. Even FDR (remember the WPA?) figured that out. But it took Pearl Harbor to put an end to the great depression. We need to learn to solve economic and societal issues without having to revert to military action and spending. Leadership is the obvious weakness at both the State and Federal levels.

62
26
rshacklefordOct. 20, 13 7:20 PM

(lorentjd wrote): "The only solution offered by the Democrats is to increase income taxes on the rich. But, according the the Congressional Budget Office, the top 1% is already paying 30% of ALL federal taxes that are collected (and that includes income taxes, capital gains taxes, excise taxes, Social Security taxes, and Medicare taxes)." ---- OK. Here is a solution for you: pay EVERYONE $3 million a year. Each will then be FORCED to pay in around $1 million a year (approx 30%). We can ALL then share in that horrific pain, right? Do you now understand why, when the wealthy cry and whine, everyone else laughs at their ignorance? BTW, when the wealthy can make a profit by doing nothing other than sitting around, why is it then wrong when the poor do the same? Does a wealthy person actually think a poor person does not understand that working minimum wage with no benefits is LESS THAN the current entitlement programs? Here is laughing at you and why fast food workers are rightfully demanding at minimum $15/hour plus benefits. What do people like you expect when "trickle down" was a joke? If a wealthy person can sit on his/her butt and do nothing, so can a poor person. Until that oh so minor fact changes, nothing will change.

37
51
savagedruidsOct. 20, 13 7:30 PM

I'll counter all the arguments: it is good. Next up wealth inequality, come on MarkD cough some up.

12
29

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

  • about opinion

  • The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.

  • Submit a letter or commentary
Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT