[Andy_B]

Just read this article over at Return Of Kings:

http://www.returnofkings.com/1977/france...ig-trouble

As someone who is mostly here for the business and economics talk, these contributions from Roosh are a very welcome addition. What do you guys think?

[painter]

It was a good post. I can't help but laugh at the whole argument that the rich have to pay their fair share, it's such a stupid, pandering, dishonest statement that anyone who says that instantly becomes an idiot in my mind. Life isn't fucking fair but our political overlords think they can legislate values and morality without even considering the lessons of the French Revolution which devolved into a class warfare bloodbath.

I said it in another thread on the fiscal cliff, a fair tax system is where everyone pays the same rate and if you make ten times more than another person you pay ten times as much. The only people paying taxes are the rich and the middle class and by gouging them everyone will suffer except politicians and government bureaucrats. History has already shown this many times but if politicians insist on going this course then it's going to be proven once again. Buckle your seat belts, we're in for a rough ride but the bright spot is that down the road we will eventually get back on the right track and everyone will prosper again.

That being said, Roosh is making a bottom line statement about how these policies are going to affect everyone's wallet. Less cash, less buying power, less opportunity and less fun. I think Roosh wisely keeps his political views to himself in order to let the forum exist on its' own. Political discussions here, like everywhere, devolve into a lot of useless acrimony dividing the members. Look at the gun control threads, the presidential election threads and the race threads. We wind up disagreeing about stuff we have little control over when at heart we're all on the side of game and personal growth which is the main focus of a very good and exclusive forum.

[Basil Ransom]

It's a 75% top rate, not 85%.

[WestIndianArchie]

This particular post isn't too bad, but I just don't like the right wing slant in this corner of the blogosphere. If any one knows even a little about French history, you can already understand the dangerous game being played.

In the French version of the story "Jean Galt" is beheaded.

It's funny how all these law and order/fiscal conservative right wingers don't see how the "hoard the resources" game has played out in the developed and the undeveloped countries in 2012 and throughout man's recorded history.

But as usual, I'm telling the Gospel to infidels.

WIA

[Hencredible Casanova]

Quote:

My interest in France is due to me currently living in Europe. A faltering Europe weakens the Euro and increases my purchasing power (I earn USD), but on the other hand, collapsing economies means less disposable income for 20-somethings, especially women. They go out less, party less, purchase less feminine clothing, and are less open to casual sex. While it’d be nice to save $150-200 a month from a 10% rise in the dollar, I rather have the poosy benefits of happy girls whose cash enables them to go and “have fun” instead of worrying about how they will make next month’s rent. This is why poorer countries can be harder to get easy sex in than rich ones (assuming you don’t resort to prostitutes).

Great analysis. A nuance that is rarely discussed.

[Hencredible Casanova]

(12-31-2012 10:39 AM)basilransom Wrote:  

It's a 75% top rate, not 85%.

Yes. Also, Depardieu's 145 million Euros in taxes comes out to about $190 million dollars. These payments were made over the course of four decades. Who honestly can blame him for wanting to leave France?

[Belgrano]

(12-31-2012 10:36 AM)painter Wrote:  

That being said, Roosh is making a bottom line statement about how these policies are going to affect everyone's wallet. Less cash, less buying power, less opportunity and less fun. I think Roosh wisely keeps his political views to himself in order to let the forum exist on its' own. Political discussions here, like everywhere, devolve into a lot of useless acrimony dividing the members. Look at the gun control threads, the presidential election threads and the race threads. We wind up disagreeing about stuff we have little control over when at heart we're all on the side of game and personal growth which is the main focus of a very good and exclusive forum.

[Roosh]

(12-31-2012 10:39 AM)basilransom Wrote:  

It's a 75% top rate, not 85%.

Fixed it.

(12-31-2012 10:48 AM)WestIndianArchie Wrote:  

This particular post isn't too bad, but I just don't like the right wing slant in this corner of the blogosphere.

I think it's more libertarian than right-wing, but when you realize the left is set out to marginalize men, it's hard not to make a right turn at some point.

I want my views to be in line with what benefits my gender the most, and liberalism does not offer this.

[tenderman100]

Now, I will preface my most important remarks with this concession.

The leftist strain in politics has done some very good things over the past 50 years. Civil rights. Tolerance of homosexuality. Some (though very very few) tenets of feminism. (For example, I think it is productive for the economy to have competent women working -- they add to the economic pie).

But when it comes to economics, the left has at root incredibly flawed and incredibly destructive ideas. The main rotten notion the left has is what I would call the "Zero-Sum Static Pizza Pie Concept." Namely, that the economy is one static pie that doesn't grow, and that rich people take bigger slices than less rich people. The left would have the government get out the knife, and re-slice the pie according to their idea of "fairness."

Of course, to sustain "fairness" -- always a moving target --government HAS to grow, and it can only do so by borrowing more and more money -- either directly by issuing debt or indirectly through disruptive balance of payments deficits.

This particular notion is so wrong-headed, and so hideous, that it has destroyed certain European societies, and it will inexorably rot the United States from within.

[OGNorCal707]

I've vowed to stop following political threads on this forum and fortunately this blog/forum and dangerandplay are the sites in the manosphere I frequent.

[painter]

Good point Tenderman. The left does seem to act like they know nothing about economics, although both sides spend like drunken sailors. People don't seem to realize how broke the US is right now, here's some simple facts: First, we need to pay $16 TRILLION to have zero dollars in the bank. And the government still wants to raise the debt limit and borrow more money? The interest on that $16 TRILLION is about $355 BILLION. We're going to spend $355 BILLION and have absolutely nothing to show for it and after making that giant payment we still owe $16 TRILLION. When interest rates go up that $355 BILLION interest payment is going to look like chump change and will usher in a doomsday scenario of financial meltdown because our politicians just refuse to address the real problem which is spending more than you take in. You can't run your house like that, you can't run a business like that, and you can't run a government like that but they sure keep trying.

This didn't happen overnight, it's not one persons' fault, it's what happens when all the politicians spend twenty years kicking the can down the road. And when doomsday comes, guess who'll be in the best position to ride it out? The same politicians who made it all happen!

[speakeasy]

In the 1950s the USA's top tax rate was over 90%...just to put things in perspective. As much as people complain about taxes, by historical standards, they're damn low. At least marginal income tax.

Tenderman Wrote:

But when it comes to economics, the left has at root incredibly flawed and incredibly destructive ideas. The main rotten notion the left has is what I would call the "Zero-Sum Static Pizza Pie Concept." Namely, that the economy is one static pie that doesn't grow, and that rich people take bigger slices than less rich people. The left would have the government get out the knife, and re-slice the pie according to their idea of "fairness."

Of course the pie can grow for everyone. Problem is, the pie may grow rapidly for one demographic and hardly at all for another. We don't have just one economy. We don't all suffer equally when the shit hits the fan. Nor does the rising tide lift all boats. Incomes for normal people in America haven't changed in 30 years relative to inflation. Incomes at the top echelons have exploded in the same time-frame.

Think about something like the GM bailout. The stocks our government bought have been at a loss. But the rich will eventually pay for it. This will allow lower and middle class people to keep working. When you step back and look, it's a great example of an indirect transfer of wealth. And probably about the most benign type you can have. Rather than paying people welfare to sit at home, you are paying people to do something productive. If the rich have the money, then it's money well spent in my opinion.

[tenderman100]

(12-31-2012 03:38 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

In the 1950s the USA's top tax rate was over 90%...just to put things in perspective. As much as people complain about taxes, by historical standards, they're damn low. At least marginal income tax.

Of course, there were other factors at play too. The USA was the only economy in the developed world that WASN'T a pile of bombed out rubble. The dollar was incredibly strong. And the rich never really were hurt much by the high marginal rates because they had tax lawyers and tax shelters galore.

So we have to be very careful about these analogies. There's more than meet's the eye.

Oh, by the way -- take a look at the stats about tax revenue as percentage of GDP. Marginal rates really don't mean that much. The percentage has been pretty constant over the years. Why? Because in the end, people have just SOOO much tolerance for taxes. Raise marginal rates enough, and people go underground, or leave. See Gerard Depardieu.

(12-31-2012 03:38 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

Of course the pie can grow for everyone. Problem is, the pie may grow rapidly for one demographic and hardly at all for another. We don't have just one economy. We don't all suffer equally when the shit hits the fan. Nor does the rising tide lift all boats. Incomes for normal people in America haven't changed in 30 years relative to inflation. Incomes at the top echelons have exploded in the same time-frame.

Think about something like the GM bailout. The stocks our government bought have been at a loss. But the rich will eventually pay for it. This will allow lower and middle class people to keep working. When you step back and look, it's a great example of an indirect transfer of wealth. And probably about the most benign type you can have. Rather than paying people welfare to sit at home, you are paying people to do something productive. If the rich have the money, then it's money well spent in my opinion.

"Income Inequality" is a useless metric.

Suppose in Year 1 we have one guy who makes $100k, and another guy who makes $30k. Next year, the first guy makes $200K, and the second guy makes $60k. Both guys have doubled their income, but income inequality is TWICE as great as in the previous year.

Which situation would YOU want?

In other words, if the pie gets bigger, my proportional slice ALSO gets bigger, even as the relative difference may INCREASE.

This basic understanding of rates of change is beyond most leftists. It's why so few take calculus.

[Therapsid]

(12-31-2012 04:26 PM)tenderman100 Wrote:  

"Income Inequality" is a useless metric.

Suppose in Year 1 we have one guy who makes $100k, and another guy who makes $30k. Next year, the first guy makes $200K, and the second guy makes $60k. Both guys have doubled their income, but income inequality is TWICE as great as in the previous year.

Which situation would YOU want?

In other words, if the pie gets bigger, my proportional slice ALSO gets bigger, even as the relative difference may INCREASE.

This basic understanding of rates of change is beyond most leftists. It's why so few take calculus.

The problem is that inequality has risen in precisely a period of time in which the majority have seen slower income growth than in the previous periods, including the relatively equal post-war era.

If it were like the 1920's when inequality was about as great as today but incomes were rising across the board, it'd be different. Instead we have rising inequality combined with a stagnant economy and stagnant wages. This is why the 20's were a period of conservatism (arguably the *last* period of real conservatism in America) while today you have rising demands to tax the wealthy - because when the economy is roaring, people don't need to suck off the government teat.

[durangotang]

(12-31-2012 03:38 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

In the 1950s the USA's top tax rate was over 90%...just to put things in perspective. As much as people complain about taxes, by historical standards, they're damn low. At least marginal income tax.

Tenderman Wrote:

But when it comes to economics, the left has at root incredibly flawed and incredibly destructive ideas. The main rotten notion the left has is what I would call the "Zero-Sum Static Pizza Pie Concept." Namely, that the economy is one static pie that doesn't grow, and that rich people take bigger slices than less rich people. The left would have the government get out the knife, and re-slice the pie according to their idea of "fairness."

Of course the pie can grow for everyone. Problem is, the pie may grow rapidly for one demographic and hardly at all for another. We don't have just one economy. We don't all suffer equally when the shit hits the fan. Nor does the rising tide lift all boats. Incomes for normal people in America haven't changed in 30 years relative to inflation. Incomes at the top echelons have exploded in the same time-frame.

Think about something like the GM bailout. The stocks our government bought have been at a loss. But the rich will eventually pay for it. This will allow lower and middle class people to keep working. When you step back and look, it's a great example of an indirect transfer of wealth. And probably about the most benign type you can have. Rather than paying people welfare to sit at home, you are paying people to do something productive. If the rich have the money, then it's money well spent in my opinion.

The reason the wealth of the top echelon of society has increased at a faster clip is due to globalization, as wealthy people can move capital overseas where as most people are stuck trading their labor domestically. Don't forget, the Soviet Union collapsed and China opened up adding billions of people to the global labor market who were excluded due to their governments.

Only 10,000 Americans were subject to over an 81% tax rate in 1958 (figures available are for 81% and above). Ten thousand out of 45.6 million tax filers, that's all, and there were a lot of deductions that existed then that do not exist today - so people weren't paying the full rate.

See this Wall Street Journal op-ed by Peter Schiff.

Let's not pretend that these so-called "progressive" (marxist) income taxes with a top rate of 91% actually helped our economy back then. They didn't. In fact, the tax burden of the wealthiest Americans has gone up, and the average or poor Americans tax burden has been reduced from 1958 to present.

No, if we want to return to 1958 level prosperity then we should start World War III overseas, destroy the productive capacity of the rest of the world until we are 70% of the industrial base with 5% of the population of the planet. Of course we need to make sure that we don't suffer any infrastructure losses domestically, and stay the world reserve currency with the U.S. dollar. Raising the top income tax rates to 91% isn't going to help, quite the opposite actually. See France.

[speakeasy]

(12-31-2012 04:26 PM)tenderman100 Wrote:  

"Income Inequality" is a useless metric.

Suppose in Year 1 we have one guy who makes $100k, and another guy who makes $30k. Next year, the first guy makes $200K, and the second guy makes $60k. Both guys have doubled their income, but income inequality is TWICE as great as in the previous year.

Which situation would YOU want?

In other words, if the pie gets bigger, my proportional slice ALSO gets bigger, even as the relative difference may INCREASE.

This basic understanding of rates of change is beyond most leftists. It's why so few take calculus.

As I stated prior, this scenario isn't what's happening. Yes, it may happen at the individual level, but at the aggregate level, middle income people are not doubling their incomes relative to inflation. So your point may make sense in theory, but in reality that's just the what's happening out there.

[polymath]

(12-31-2012 04:26 PM)tenderman100 Wrote:  

"Income Inequality" is a useless metric.

Suppose in Year 1 we have one guy who makes $100k, and another guy who makes $30k. Next year, the first guy makes $200K, and the second guy makes $60k. Both guys have doubled their income, but income inequality is TWICE as great as in the previous year.

Which situation would YOU want?

In other words, if the pie gets bigger, my proportional slice ALSO gets bigger, even as the relative difference may INCREASE.

This basic understanding of rates of change is beyond most leftists. It's why so few take calculus.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Inequality, as measured by research economists, is a question of statistical dispersion. In both of your scenarios Year 1 and Year 2, the dispersion is equal. The first guy earns ten thirteenths of all the income and the second guy earns three thirteenths.

I suggest you gain at least a cursory understanding of statistics before you preach that too few of these imaginary "leftists" are taking calculus.

If you want to learn more about income disparity, look up "Gini coefficient."

[ElJefe]

Inequality is obviously bad for social order because perception of inequality breeds discontent. You notice if your neighbor is much better off than you, and this pisses you off. What your income is in absolute terms makes far less difference than its size in relative terms. It's the status monster all over again.

The US has a ridiculous tax-system where income from capital is taxed at lower rates than labor income. Since only the very rich get most of their income from accrued capital, the effective tax-rate as a percentage of total income falls for the highest earners in the US (when looking at all forms of income combined). In addition there is a fat gross-tax on labor income called the Pay-roll tax which used to be about 13 percent but has been temporarily reduced - probably the dumbest idea ever, but that is characteristic of this administration's policies (even dumber than Bush, which is saying something). But the pay-roll tax as a share of income DECREASES the more you earn (above USD110,000 or so). How fucked up is that? All it does is make labor more expensive - same as you issued bonds at a price below par.

This is sub-optimal, because the US has very high marginal rates on labor income already. 35%, when added to state and local taxes, is a very HIGH marginal tax rate and is paid mostly by small businesses, the main job creators, who also have to waste 50bn a year on tax-lawyers to navigate the hellish tax-code our leaders, least of all the current administration, are unwilling to fundamentally reform. So the ones who can least afford to dabble with the bureaucracy are the ones who have to pay the most - congrats my friend, this is what more regulation means in practice. We're setting up a game where the rulebook is so complicated you have to pay someone to understand what's going on, instead of using that money to create more value. In that system, only the biggest banks come out on top.

In effect, the US tax system is not very progressive - even if the marginal rates are among the most progressive in the world. In practice, our tax-system is in fact REGRESSIVE. Not even fucking flat. But Obama the idiot can't stop yapping about the top marginal rates. What a fucktard.

You could lower US taxes to gross tax rates on all income at levels of 12, 18 and 28 percent financed by removing tax-breaks and deductions, and generate MORE revenue than you're doing today while increasing every worker's after-tax income.

[All or Nothing]

(12-31-2012 10:36 AM)painter Wrote:  

It was a good post. I can't help but laugh at the whole argument that the rich have to pay their fair share, it's such a stupid, pandering, dishonest statement that anyone who says that instantly becomes an idiot in my mind. Life isn't fucking fair but our political overlords think they can legislate values and morality without even considering the lessons of the French Revolution which devolved into a class warfare bloodbath.

I said it in another thread on the fiscal cliff, a fair tax system is where everyone pays the same rate and if you make ten times more than another person you pay ten times as much. The only people paying taxes are the rich and the middle class and by gouging them everyone will suffer except politicians and government bureaucrats. History has already shown this many times but if politicians insist on going this course then it's going to be proven once again. Buckle your seat belts, we're in for a rough ride but the bright spot is that down the road we will eventually get back on the right track and everyone will prosper again.

I think your argument is pretty base, and it ignores sensibility. 

The fair tax system you are proposing is not even truly fair. The difference between 15% and 25% on someone who makes 40,000$'s a year is HUGE. It can literally be the difference between being able to afford something basic like a car or not having one at all. Whereas for someone who makes 10 million$'s a year, the difference between 15% and 25% can go practically unnoticed because they are still well within their means to afford all the basic necessities in life, AND be able to afford a lot of things beyond the basic necessities.

Wealthy people should pay higher tax rates than impoverished people because the fact remains is that wealthy people do not even need nor do they even spend a very large amount of the money they accrue on a yearly basis. But hey, have fun in your "fair" world inspired by Reaganomics because the trickle down theory has been so successful. Oh wait, it hasn't because our economy is floundering under the pressure that the rapidly growing national debt has placed on it.

[painter]

So you want to argue that having everyone pay the same percentage in taxes isn't fair because rich people don't need or spend very much money?

Reagan eliminated taxes on the bottom, so did Clinton and Bush, poor people don't pay income taxes and many of them get paid for not making enough money to pay taxes. When the country was riding high financially this was fine, we could afford to have a bizarre and highly complicated tax code but when we have to borrow a trillion dollars above what we take in then the math no longer works. The solution is to cut spending but that doesn't seem to be registering with our politicians.

I totally understand your viewpoint that taking more money from rich people is a good thing for whatever reasons you want to give to justify it. But for that argument to be valid you need to call it what is (socialism, communism, marxism) not use 1984 type doublespeak and say some people aren't paying their fair share when your argument is the exact opposite.

[All or Nothing]

(01-01-2013 12:02 PM)painter Wrote:  

I totally understand your viewpoint that taking more money from rich people is a good thing for whatever reasons you want to give to justify it. But for that argument to be valid you need to call it what is (socialism, communism, marxism) not use 1984 type doublespeak and say some people aren't paying their fair share when your argument is the exact opposite.

It sounds like you like to watch Glenn Beck a lot. Here's a solid video that ridicules the idea that something like a progressive tax system is equal to communism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebexx89yohE (it's actually pretty funny).

On top of this, your claims of a progressive tax system being communist is extremely ironic. The income tax during the 1950's was highly progressive where the top earners had to pay out 92% of their incomes in taxes (http://taxfoundation.org/article/us-fede...brackets). This would make 1950's America communist by your definition, which is funny because during that time America was in a cold war with communist Russia.

What you are saying not only ignores history, but you also make wild claims that I am somehow un-American for wanting to have a proper progressive tax system.

(12-31-2012 10:36 AM)painter Wrote:  

It was a good post. I can't help but laugh at the whole argument that the rich have to pay their fair share, it's such a stupid, pandering, dishonest statement that anyone who says that instantly becomes an idiot in my mind.

Also, the way you approach something like politics is at its root flawed. Just because someone does not see things the same way you do, does not automatically make them an idiot. It means they have different perspective than you. If you are unwilling to open your mind to different perspectives on life and the world at large, how you ever going to grow as a person and gain a deeper understanding of the world. I will admit to being an extremely stubborn person, but at the end of the day, I can at least sit down and reflect on what another person has said, and weigh in on the validity of their argument/teachings.

This is the last I will say. I am not going to continue arguing this because for some reason political discussions make me feel pretty heated, and I personally do not want to get enraged discussing something that, at the end of the day, I have very very little control over. On top of this, arguing from a place of anger (which is what I have done) leads to name calling and insults, rather than in-depth discussion.

[Karupt]

(12-31-2012 12:10 PM)tenderman100 Wrote:  

The leftist strain in politics has done some very good things over the past 50 years. Civil rights. Tolerance of homosexuality. Some (though very very few) tenets of feminism. (For example, I think it is productive for the economy to have competent women working -- they add to the economic pie).

How is the first thing a good thing?

And women worked before feminism.

All and everything from feminism was bad.

[KorbenDallas]

" It means they have different perspective than you. If you are unwilling to open your mind to different perspectives on life and the world at large, how you ever going to grow as a person and gain a deeper understanding of the world. "

A tax is taking something that someone earned via threat of force and giving it to someone else. People who are anti-tax aren't hostile because they are opposed to the idea, they are hostile to the pro tax arguer because they are having the funds taken from them. Oftentime after a lifetime of work with NO GUARANTEE they would succeed. Often, also, successful businesses may be profitable for a decade and then bust, sending the owner into a lower quality of life. He gets nothing back from the government who sucked at his teat while he was successful.

ALL OR NOTHING-someone who is pro-tax is essentially anti-male. The men, by and large, are the producers in society. Through forceful taxation women are able to live off the labor of men without giving back anything to a lot of male producers preferring to just ride the alpha cock.

[tenderman100]

(12-31-2012 09:18 PM)polymath Wrote:  

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Inequality, as measured by research economists, is a question of statistical dispersion. In both of your scenarios Year 1 and Year 2, the dispersion is equal. The first guy earns ten thirteenths of all the income and the second guy earns three thirteenths.

I suggest you gain at least a cursory understanding of statistics before you preach that too few of these imaginary "leftists" are taking calculus.

If you want to learn more about income disparity, look up "Gini coefficient."

That's right -- when your average leftist politician and activist is talking about income inequality, he/she has in mind the Gini coefficient. They all have a deep deep understanding of statistical methods applied macroeconomically.

Yeah, right, sure. Of course.

The Gini coefficient provides a mathematical orgasm to macroeconomists. It's various mathematical permutations work with just one variable. Its use is equivalent to saying "I'm going to compare apples to oranges, but I am going to pretend that everything is apples." It's classic.

Its use in measuring income dispersion doesn't account for many many other factors -- most specifically the nominal levels of income at either end of the scale. Poor countries can have a much lower Gini coefficient that rich countries, though anybody in their right mind would much rather live in a rich country. It doesn't take into account net worth (again, it can only deal with one variable) or pricing differences for goods, or even goods availability.

[polymath]

(01-02-2013 10:39 AM)tenderman100 Wrote:  

That's right -- when your average leftist politician and activist is talking about income inequality, he/she has in mind the Gini coefficient. They all have a deep deep understanding of statistical methods applied macroeconomically.

Yeah, right, sure. Of course.

The Gini coefficient provides a mathematical orgasm to macroeconomists. It's various mathematical permutations work with just one variable. Its use is equivalent to saying "I'm going to compare apples to oranges, but I am going to pretend that everything is apples." It's classic.

Its use in measuring income dispersion doesn't account for many many other factors -- most specifically the nominal levels of income at either end of the scale. Poor countries can have a much lower Gini coefficient that rich countries, though anybody in their right mind would much rather live in a rich country. It doesn't take into account net worth (again, it can only deal with one variable) or pricing differences for goods, or even goods availability.

My man, you're inventing a strawman "leftist" who doesn't exist in this thread or conversation, and you're directing your arguments at this imaginary fellow. This alone is cause for disagreement, since you immediately frame your argument against a nonexistent opponent.

According to the World Bank [link], the Gini coefficient is in fact the most commonly used measure of inequality. Let that sink in...ok.

It doesn't take a deep understanding. Hell, I learned about this type of measurement in an introductory econ class in college. You seem to understand it just fine. So let's not pretend that this is a fancy concept. If you want to say that you're right because only an educated person would disagree with you, be my guest, but you'd be appealing to ignorance.

Whether or not the Gini coefficient is accurate or useful in all cases is irrelevant, since that's a different argument entirely. As I see it, you cooked up some imaginary leftists who use a totally bogus method for measuring inequality, then chided them for a lack of basic mathematical knowledge.

Do you know who the "leftists" even are? Many of them are scholars and professors, some have won the Nobel prize (Paul Krugman for example is a self-described liberal who argues that inequality is bad for society). That doesn't make them right, certainly, but it means they're probably not morons. You're dismissing their ideas based on a made-up version of what you think they may be saying.

In any case, Machiavelli wrote precisely about oppression and inequitable society in the part of The Prince where he wrote about civil principalities, from which we can draw some parallels to our own society.

In that chapter, he talked about two energies in politics. One energy comes from the people, normal folks who don't sit at the top of the heap in terms of money and influence. The other energy comes from the nobles, whom we might consider to be CEOs who try to buy elections, or Congresspeople who sometimes sell votes to the lobbyist with the fattest checks, etc.

Machiavelli's basic idea was that the nobles want to gain advantages in society, like money and power, and will oppress the people if necessary (for example, by sending young people to war in oil-rich countries, or allowing big businesses to sell questionable goods to unsuspecting paying customers, etc). On the other hand, the people are fighting simply to resist oppression. They do not want to oppress the nobles, they just want to be treated fairly.

This links directly to our argument. If there is a bigger divide between rich folks and poor folks, then the poor folks will have less strength to resist oppression, and as a result the rich folks will have more leeway to manipulate government such that they are treated favorably even if it means that the poor folks get the shaft.

This is why inequality matters. In a more equal society, all groups of people have a fighting chance to protect their freedoms and pocketbooks. In an unequal society, the folks at the bottom can't do much. Perhaps they should hope that some rich powerful person will take up the mantle for them.