Wealth & Income Inequality

Silva said:
there's no reason for 3 of these people to have as much wealth as the next 135 million Americans
Click to expand...

Depends on what the other 135m are earning. The problem is to get those to an acceptable level.

The fact you have 3 mega rich people should not be a problem if by letting them be so everyone's lot in life improves.

Cutting them down will not solve anything. Generally the poor don't get richer by the rich getting poorer.
 
Honest John said:
Depends on what the other 135m are earning. The problem is to get those to an acceptable level.

The fact you have 3 mega rich people should not be a problem if by letting them be so everyone's lot in life improves.

Cutting them down will not solve anything. Generally the poor don't get richer by the rich getting poorer.
Click to expand...
Wages for everyone outside the very wealthy have been stagnant since Thatcher and Reagan's economics were implemented while the mega wealthy got wealthier. This is not an improvement John.
 
Silva said:
there's no reason for 3 of these people to have as much wealth as the next 135 million Americans
Click to expand...

Take that to its logical conclusion and there is no need for around 60 Million of those Americans to be on the top 1% of world wide wage earners... presumably your going to implement the 100% tax on all wages at $37K?

https://wallethacks.com/average-median-income-in-america/

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/050615/are-you-top-one-percent-world.asp
 
VorZakone said:
The elephant in the room (thread) is tax avoidance.
Click to expand...

The only country that has a chance is the US - it's a massive market and has the political power to force tax havens to agree to any deal. If the US cracks down, it will become much much easier for everyone else to do the same.
 
There’s nothing wrong with being rich. There is a massive issue with hoarding wealth to the point you are literally having a negative impact on the world around you.

To be on the top of the rich list you’re an immoral cnut.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
Because I have a moral compass that tells me I don’t need a mansion and private plane while myriad of others suffer?
Click to expand...
For me, if you're being taxed 50-60%, you can live in a mansion and own a plane if you want. Using these rates and actually accounting for it should be of astronomical value in helping redue income inequality.
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
And having a car and a house is OK when kids suffer in Africa? Are you arbitrarily deciding on who should have what?
Click to expand...
Already been discussed. Us regular joes owning a car and a modest house is not what causes other people to suffer around the world. There is a difference between what you try to argue here and others who buy multiple mansions and vast amounts of land.
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
And having a car and a house is OK when kids suffer in Africa? Are you arbitrarily deciding on who should have what?
Click to expand...

I don’t have a car and a house, by choice.

I also accept that there’s a basic level of comfort everybody aspire to in the current economic system, and the onus is not on those without power in said system to change that.
Florida Man said:
For me, if you're being taxed 50-60%, you can live in a mansion and own a plane if you want. Using these rates and actually accounting for it should be of astronomical value in helping redue income inequality.
Click to expand...

Imo you can pursue a perfectly good life without the trappings we are accustomed to or taught to think of as desirable, especially when there are so many pressing issues remain that endanger our survival as a species.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
Because I have a moral compass that tells me I don’t need a mansion and private plane while myriad of others suffer?
Click to expand...

Newsflash: Others would suffer irrespective of whether you had a mansion or a plane. There's nothing your personal actions will ever do to tangibly affect that.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
Imo you can pursue a perfectly good life without the trappings we are accustomed to or taught to think of as desirable, especially when there are so many pressing issues remain that endanger our survival as a species.
Click to expand...
I agree but that is a mentality that will take generations to accomplish, barring something like another world war destroying most of us. In the mean time, good effective policy around the world can be done sooner.
 
Florida Man said:
Already been discussed. Us regular joes owning a car and a modest house is not what causes other people to suffer around the world. There is a difference between what you try to argue here and others who buy multiple mansions and vast amounts of land.
Click to expand...

It's easier to make some generic argument based on feelings with no facts. Sadly, they are quite useless practically.

I'm more than happy to discuss on specific laws... for example enhancing antitrust and fair competition laws. Amazon's wealth is a outcome of potentially inefficient laws. If any such law needs to be fixed, so be it.

Just calling to break up or nationalize Amazon without fixing the root cause which led to this situation is stupid.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
Imo you can pursue a perfectly good life without the trappings we are accustomed to or taught to think of as desirable, especially when there are so many pressing issues remain that endanger our survival as a species.
Click to expand...

Says a man, using a computer, to post stuff on the internet...

Who gets to decide exactly how much “trappings” we’re allowed to accumulate? I take it from the fact you’re online that you’re setting the bar well above living a subsistence lifestyle, right?
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
It's easier to make some generic argument based on feelings with no facts. Sadly, they are quite useless practically.

I'm more than happy to discuss on specific laws... for example enhancing antitrust and fair competition laws. Amazon's wealth is a outcome of potentially inefficient laws. If any such law needs to be fixed, so be it.

Just calling to break up or nationalize Amazon without fixing the root cause which led to this situation is stupid.
Click to expand...
That's just Eboue saying that and we (including fellow socialists/leftists) all know he's extreme.
 
Raoul said:
Newsflash: Others would suffer irrespective of whether you had a mansion or a plane. There's nothing your personal actions will ever do to tangibly affect that.
Click to expand...

How do you define ‘tangible’?

My inheritance can provide housing and schools for thousands of orphans. In the grand scheme of things, yes, it’s a drop in the ocean, but I’ll sleep better knowing one less person have to suffer if I can affect it, but that’s just me.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Says a man, using a computer, to post stuff on the internet...

Who gets to decide exactly how much “trappings” we’re allowed to accumulate?
Click to expand...
Billion dollar question there (pun somewhat intended)

Things like computers/phones are pretty useful and needed to function in a modern society. On the other hand, we probably don't need a gold statue of ourselves to live happy.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Says a man, using a computer, to post stuff on the internet...

Who gets to decide exactly how much “trappings” we’re allowed to accumulate? I take it from the fact you’re online that you’re setting the bar well above living a subsistence lifestyle, right?
Click to expand...
It’s a phone.

I never said I’m Jesus.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
My inheritance can provide housing and schools for thousands of orphans.
Click to expand...

Die they become suffering orphans because you have a inheritance? What you are proposing is some kind of forced charity obligations.

What you need to tackle is that every person has the ability to earn enough for basic necessities plus more. The world will never get better on charity and handouts.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
How do you define ‘tangible’?

My inheritance can provide housing and schools for thousands of orphans. In the grand scheme of things, yes, it’s a drop in the ocean, but I’ll sleep better knowing one less person have to suffer if I can affect it, but that’s just me.
Click to expand...

It can't because you don't get to decide how the government appropriates the money you give it. For instance in the US, if one were to pay more taxes thinking it would help the poor, you still wouldn't be able to guarantee that the government wouldn't instead appropriate the money towards buying new aircraft carriers, a new squadron of F35s, the establishment of a space force, or an Air Force One golf trip to Mar a lago. So unless there is a broad consensus as to how money should be spent (which is then operationalized by way of electing only politicians committed to spending as you would like it to be spent) then there is no way to guarantee that what little you contribute will make a difference in a way you would like it to.
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
Die they become suffering orphans because you have a inheritance? What you are proposing is some kind of forced charity obligations.

What you need to tackle is that every person has the ability to earn enough for basic necessities plus more. The world will never get better on charity and handouts.
Click to expand...
And the way to tackle that is letting the people like my father to accumulate far more wealth than he and his offsprings can possibly spend in generations?

Maybe they wouldn’t be orphans that need a helping hand from private donors to begin with if our economic system have a strong safety net that can provide for anyone not lucky enough to be born with a golden spoon in their mouth.
 
Raoul said:
It can't because you don't get to decide how the government appropriates the money you give it. For instance in the US, if one were to pay more taxes thinking it would help the poor, you still wouldn't be able to guarantee that the government wouldn't instead appropriate their tax revenues towards buying new aircraft carriers, a new squadron of F35s, the establishment of a space force, or an Air Force One golf trip to Mar a lago. So unless there is a broad consensus as to how money should be spent (which is then operationalized by way of electing only politicians committed to spending as you would like it to be spent) then there is no way to guarantee that what little you contribute will make a difference in a way you would like it to.
Click to expand...

We are not talking about the government, and if we do get a government that tax the rich appropriately then F35s and Air Force 1 wouldn’t be a thing.

What I can do, in my personal capacity, in this current economic and political system, to lessen the suffering of others is a separate and distinct issue to the more theoretical one we’ve been discussing in this thread, which is what sort of system we need in order to prevent the disproportionate concentration of wealth on a minuscule number of the population.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
We are not talking about the government, and if we do get a government that tax the rich appropriately then F35s and Air Force 1 wouldn’t be a thing.

What I can do, in my personal capacity, in this current economic and political system, to lessen the suffering of others is a separate and distinct issue to the more theoretical one we’ve been discussing in this thread, which is what sort of system we need in order to prevent the disproportionate concentration of wealth on a minuscule number of the population.
Click to expand...

What you do as a private citizen is a completely different topic. You could contribute your own time, money, resources etc to directly help the cause as a private citizen, but that has no bearing on your taxes or your government.
 
MJJ said:
Why? You are punishing people who did well based on their hardwork and intellect.
Click to expand...

They did well because of intellect, hardworking and, crucially, luck.

People always underestimate the importance of luck in success - and that's why we need far stronger redistributive policies.
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
"Oh, I can't get rich, so let me stop others from getting rich too" - What a backwards mentality!
Click to expand...

No one's really suggesting that though. Just that when there's extreme wealth inequality those richest should be expected to give huge contributions back to society while still being rich. Bezos, as an example, could give away a significant portion of his wealth to those who need it and still be one of the world's richest people, generally speaking.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Have you heard how they get the chemicals to make your phone’s battery?

To be clear, I’m not judging you. I have a smartphone and a PC. It’s just interesting that people who judge others for accumulating too much wealth always set the bar at right about where they happen to be right now.
Click to expand...
My bar could be higher ;)

And yes, there’s always a degree of hypocrisy when you are advocating for social/economical change. I’m still eating meat, for instance, while I can be a vegan, but then I again I don’t find spending on A5 Kobe is justifiable when I can make do with the cheap cut I get off work (the hospitality industry, btw, is also an enormously wasteful one).

Raoul said:
What you do as a private citizen is a completely different topic. You could contribute your own time, money, resources etc to directly help the cause as a private citizen, but that has no bearing on your taxes or your government.
Click to expand...

So what’s your point?

The current system weighs heavily in favor of the wealthy and powerful, and they have a disproportionate influence on getting laws to work in their favor in contrast with the popular will, we know that, water is wet. However, maybe, just maybe, if we can prevent the concentration of wealth on a ruling class, the government would actually carry out what the people want, since no one can stand to privately benefit off the misery of others?
 
Cheesy said:
No one's really suggesting that though. Just that when there's extreme wealth inequality those richest should be expected to give huge contributions back to society while still being rich. Bezos, as an example, could give away a significant portion of his wealth to those who need it and still be one of the world's richest people, generally speaking.
Click to expand...

How much of Bezos' wealth is physical cash and how much of it is linked to Amazon's worth? (Not being an arse, don't actually know).
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
And the way to tackle that is letting the people like my father to accumulate far more wealth than he and his offsprings can possibly spend in generations?

Maybe they wouldn’t be orphans that need a helping hand from private donors to begin with if our economic system have a strong safety net that can provide for anyone not lucky enough to be born with a golden spoon in their mouth.
Click to expand...

Wealth is not a finite resource. It's not like one people is unable to earn because someone else has taken that money!

There are enough examples of people becoming billionaires without needing to be born with a silver spoon. Oprah is worth nearly $3 billion ffs!
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
Wealth is not a finite resource. It's not like one people is unable to earn because someone else has taken that money!

There are enough examples of people becoming billionaires without needing to be born with a silver spoon. Oprah is worth nearly $3 billion ffs!
Click to expand...

Tell that to the Amazon worker who has to piss in a bottle while Bezos rolls around in his billions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.