you have completely misunderstood what I was saying.
I meant we need to increase Social Security benefits. That is a bare minimum.Lift the caps and raise the rate of payout so that people do not live below poverty levels.
Wealth & Income Inequality
- Thread starter Eboue
- Start date
you have completely misunderstood what I was saying.
I meant we need to increase Social Security benefits. That is a bare minimum.Lift the caps and raise the rate of payout so that people do not live below poverty levels.
I also said it is evil that we give huge tax cuts to people who do not deserve it by increasing the national debt.
What?
I'm all for income redistribution even if it means I lose a little bit of my wealth as long as it provides lasting income for my family and my future generation so that I can do what I love, even if it's just farming in a small village. I am not intelligent enough to design that utopia however.
The reason I think its unfair to ask the elite rich to part with their money to fund the poor is because on a level its hypocritical. You and I for instance, assuming we are middle class average earners, are probably as rich as 10 or even more very poor people in Africa. Now, if we take away our luxuries like cars, smartphones, laptops etc and instead redirected a chunk of our salaries to providing food and healthcare for those poor folk, they and us both would survive. After all we don't need a smartphone or a car to survive, these are luxuries we use to make our life easier because we can afford them. Now we wouldn't want to lose these basic luxuries because we'll say there are people far richer than us earning far more, using more exorbitant luxuries and that they should be forced to part with their money first. We pass the buck onto people richer than us to help those poorer than us and it keeps going on until you reach the richest who have no one to pass the buck onto. Everyone is doing the same, the only difference is they can't pass the baton to someone else and they come under the world's eye.
The main reason the West is for the more part more prosperous compared to Africa or parts of Asia is colonization. No matter how small or big, the benefits of colonization are still being reaped today. Some are reaping them bigger than the others but the principle is the same. If for instance the British government decided to return all the money they took from their colonies, would you participate in that? I'm guessing most won't because it would lead to a massive decrease in their standard of living. It would for sure help the poor since the wealth was stolen from their countries but how many people will agree to it? Again you could probably lose 50% of your wealth and still survive with 3 meals a day but would you want that kind of a lifestyle? Its the same situation with the mighty rich. Could they part with large portions of their wealth? Yes they could. But will they? I highly doubt that.
Hence why I say if you adopt an insular view, you are practically more likely to make your life better. But again that's just my view and i'm sure there are many who'll have great plans for wealth redistribution but until they are able to actually enact those plans successfully, i'll remain skeptical.
1. Yes the rich are responsible for emissions and I agree that is something that needs to be improved all over the planet. But here's another stat for you, in the US, 71% of research funding is provided by private corporations. Now I'm sure you'll agree that scientific research is essential for progress of all humankind. And who owns these private corporations? I'd wager most of them belong to those richest 700 million people. Now I'm sure they are in it purely for the profit they make but you cannot deny the effects of research are benefiting all of us. As long as they keep reaping profits they will keep funding and they'll keep getting richer. Its a cycle that if you break, you instantly risk halting the progress of scientific research. Its the same reason countries keep pumping money into their defense R&D programs. Its not just to build weapons but this research leads to many inventions and discoveries that are necessary for the capitalist machine to keep on grinding.1.
1.
The richest 10% (~700 million) contribute to 50% of emissions, as much as the ~ 6.3 billion people. So i population the main issue, or lifestyle?
2. The rural poor in India historically have had more kids because their kids die and their kids work on farms, so they need the labour. They have more kids because of poverty.
Also the Indian fertility rate is now 2.2 (replacement rate is 2.1). Further, historically, the state with the lowest fertility is Kerala which has never been the richest state, but had the highest literacy rate and better healthcare than most other states.
So your poverty-fertility correlation needs a little more work.
3. The rich have power over society, by virtue of being rich they can influence politicians, etc. There are studies showing how laws that are passed reflect the desires of the rich rather than the population as a whole.
The "they" is the superstructure of the state, the media, both of which are directly or indirectly owned by the rich and so often reflect their interests.
2. Kerala has the second lowest poverty rate in India. Also it has a flourishing tourist industry in addition to being a big producer of expensive spices and tea. Its not a poor state by any means. On the other hand states like Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal and Bihar are amongst the states with a high poverty rate and you'll find these states are all having an extremely high population density. I mention these states specifically because they are all located in the fertile Gangetic plains of India and hence are geographically blessed compared to some other poor states of India which are treacherous mountainous regions like Arunachal Pradesh or having large forested areas inhabited by tribal folk such as Chhattisgarh. The poverty- population density correlation is quite evident. Also what you say about rural India may have been true historically but in recent years the Government has launched massive campaigns to educate against high child rearing but to no avail. On the other child vaccination campaigns have been a success and child mortality has gone down. There's still a long way to go to reach western levels but progress is being made. What you say may have been true historically about needing labour, but now its the opposite, especially in cities where the poor have more kids because they feel this will supplement the household income when they grow up, but it causes a whole plethora of problems until they reach of age further inflating poverty numbers.
3. On this point I agree with you that the rich viciously guard their assets. But I don't think their control of media is what prevents a poor person from becoming richer.
Good questions. Now, I believe it’s difficult to answer hypothetical questions and they can’t REALLY be answered unless you are in the situation there and then.
1) It depends on the deed I guess? I certainly would’t steal from neighbours or randoms. As far as asking where to draw the line, that’s sort of the point of laws and rules!
2) I see where you are going with constructing this question in relation to Saudi Arabia and human rights. Well, I’m not in Saudi Arabia and I most likely will never be there! The obvious answer is that you, naturally, fall in line with your local jurisdiction but that answer would play into your hands
I’m based in Norway and I can’t really think of many terrible things you could do legally.
Discussing isn't a competition. Why do people think that?
Certain questions are looking for certain answers. Also as the emoji indicated, it was slightly tongue in cheek.
Sure, but it reads like "I'm not gonna reply honestly because that'll show he was on to something. We can't have that."
By the way, I'm not thinking specifically of you, it seems to be a general tendency. People think discussions are about winning (see Ben Shapiro and the likes) when in fact the best possible outcome of a discussion is that people arrive at a consensus. Or one person is convinced by the other. Of course that can never be achieved if everyone discusses from a point of view where they cannot possibly be wrong. Or don't want to concede any ground.
Yes, I agree with that. Although, I *did* answer it - I justed noted that I knew what was up.
Good questions. Now, I believe it’s difficult to answer hypothetical questions and they can’t REALLY be answered unless you are in the situation there and then.
1) It depends on the deed I guess? I certainly would’t steal from neighbours or randoms. As far as asking where to draw the line, that’s sort of the point of laws and rules!
2) I see where you are going with constructing this question in relation to Saudi Arabia and human rights. Well, I’m not in Saudi Arabia and I most likely will never be there! The obvious answer is that you, naturally, fall in line with your local jurisdiction but that answer would play into your hands
I’m based in Norway and I can’t really think of many terrible things you could do legally.
Well surely you see some of the problems with just defaulting to if its legal its okay yes? Laws can be made for completely unfair, selfish or even more nefarious reasons. Other acts can intentionally be made legal just so a select few can exploit that legality. The US has had tonnes of laws in the past that were explicitly discriminatory such as the Greaser Act in California which had some very odd conditions under which Native Americans and those with hispanic blood could be imprisoned for "vagrancy". Or the Fugitive Slave Act.
Even if Norway has some of the most sane laws, you still have all sorts of actions that aren't illegal but aren't really respectable. For instance its usually not illegal to intensely verbally abuse someone random (barring any local hate insult laws) but generally that is a shitty thing to do and should be avoided even if its legal.
I just have a hard time truly relating to people that live under the mantra "if its legal its okay" or the reverse "if its illegal its automatically a bad, horrible thing". From my experience a lot of injustice and bad things have happened using those two maxims as an excuse.
Can't argue with any of this.
Look, it’s obviously not 100% black or white. My original response was in relation to @Raoul’s
That was the basis for this side-discussion and that I stand by 100%.
Well turning it back to the original point personally I don't see the Clintons choices to steadfastly pursue personal power and wealth as respectable in any way irrespective of their legality whereas Carters personal choices are very respectable. Just came across something related to this point I will post in one of the political threads re: Biden
It also smells a little bit of not believing in changing laws over time because they're already grand.
Yeah it definitely reinforces the status quo (intentional or unintentionally).
I respect that 100%. They have both dedicated their careers to public service (I know some will scoff at this notion!) and they are free to pursue their own greedy, but legal, ambitions as far as I’m concerned.
What should they have done instead?
Sure they are 'free' to do that.
But then at the same time, don't try to run for President as a Democrat and just expect progressives to line up and vote for you when your entire career has been spent pursuing personal power and profit.
That’s fair.
Not everyone wants to be a farmer.
Clinton and CO2 emissions? Talk about thread derail!
@theblackpearl
Better fit for this thread...
There is a default misconception that if we tax the rich, the poor will automatically get more money/benefits. Which is nonsense. The world is full of Robin Hood wannabes.
Tax rich more and end up spending that money on the stupid wall is what's going to happen.
Poor should be satisfied with the $1.50 per week gain tax break Paul Ryan threw their way.
There is a default misconception that if we tax the rich, the poor will automatically get more money/benefits. Which is nonsense. The world is full of Robin Hood wannabes.
Tax rich more and end up spending that money on the stupid wall is what's going to happen.
Poor should be satisfied with the $1.50 per week gain tax break Paul Ryan threw their way.
quit trolling the CE forum
Seems like a pretty good way to raise the required funds for healthcare and education programs. Do you disagree ?
Everyone who doesn't fit your myopic world is a troll, eh?
its not even a good troll. you're just pathetic
Is there any guarantee that funds would go for those programs? What about spending less on defence?
Or simply improve your healthcare system. A system that charges many hundreds of dollars for a simple health check needs some looking into imo. Throwing more money isn't really a efficient solution.
Wasn't Obamacare supposed to be the miracle solution?
You just can't seem to grasp that with inefficienct policies, just dumping more money won't solve any thing. But hey, it's someone else's money. Let's just grab it is as populist as Trump.
go away troll
so now even having 2 sides to an even an economic argument is trolling?there are smart people i disagree with. you arent one of them
Online polls as support for economic policies, ffs
Carry on.
Carry on.
The defense budget is too small to address the sort of healthcare and education Sanders (for example) are advocating. It will take trillions. Warren's plan is a good way to raise the funds given that it only affects the .01 percent of top earners
Online polls as support for economic policies, ffs
Carry on.
if you ever got out of your bubble you would understand what normal people think.