Zone1 What is Wrong with Inequality?

[Zincwarrior]

What's wrong with inequality?

where there is great inequality, there is constant civil war. That is the essential enlightened self interest answer.

 

[justoffal]

Yeah, except it’s not just poor people who’d need this “charity”

Middle class Americans could never, ever pay out of pocket for their healthcare. Never in a million years

no argument there

 

[MarathonMike]

As long as the wealthy have wealth there will always be someone who thinks that they shouldn't. I think the last time I looked 87 percent of the taxes are paid by the top 20 percent of the wage earners. I mean...what else do they want to see?

I guess Democrats demand tax cuts for their base who don't pay Federal tax.

 

[hadit]

A view that hasn’t been relative in over 80 years.

A Government “of the people, by the people and FOR the people” makes sure We the People do not suffer.

Every man for himself hasn’t been a strategy since Caveman Days

Suffering is part of the human condition. What you are advocating is the ultimate slippery slope, because as soon as you assign the government responsibility to erase one kind of suffering, a brand new one pops into being.

1. "The government has to give us healthcare because being sick is suffering". Okay, that means the government now can force people to become doctors and nurses because without them there is no healthcare. The government decides who can do what specialty and how many can be in any given field. Also, the government can now compel people to become builders, architects and bricklayers, because without hospitals there is no healthcare. Also, the government can now compel people to become janitors and orderlies, because without them the hospital quickly becomes a breeding ground for disease and there is no healthcare. Hillary tried that approach in her (thankfully) failed attempt to take over the healthcare industry.

2. "The government has to feed us because being hungry is suffering". Okay, that means the government can now force people to become farmers and work the land because without them there is no food. The government decides who can grow what crops and raise what kind of livestock. Also, the government decides what you can eat and how much because there is not enough for everyone to have everything.

3. "The government has to protect us from danger because risk is suffering". Okay, that means vast swaths of national parks are off limits because wild animals can attack humans who carelessly get too close or provoke confrontations. Skydiving? Forget it, too dangerous. Storm coming? Forced evacuations, can't have anyone risking their lives riding out a summer rainstorm, there might be a tornado in there.

Every single time the government steps in to erase suffering, the bar moves and something else becomes so bad government has to step in again. Ultimately, the government ends up owning and controlling everything because erasing suffering means it has to compel people to act in certain ways and prevent them from acting in others. Freedom is gone.

Consider a pet bird. It has protection from the weather. It can watch rain, snow, heat and cold come and go without fear of freezing or being too hot. It doesn't have to fear predators; it can watch them come and go from behind the window. If it gets sick, it gets taken to the vet and is not simply left to survive or die. It has your government sponsored utopia, suffering erased. But leave the cage and the window open, go out for a while and what do you find when you come back? The bird actually prefers its natural life with its suffering because of freedom. People do too. So, what are you, a wild bird living with suffering or a pet bird in a gilded cage, singing for your master and watching the world go by outside the window?

Finally, freedom is messy, dangerous, chaotic and requires adults to act responsibility to maintain it. It's also preferable to the alternatives.

 

[rightwinger]

Suffering is part of the human condition.

 

[rightwinger]

Finally, freedom is messy, dangerous, chaotic and requires adults to act responsibility to maintain it. It's also preferable to the alternatives.

Freedoms just another word for nothing left to lose

 

[dblack]

Freedoms just another word for nothing left to lose

Yep. Once you lose that, you have nothing left at all.

 

[martybegan]

where there is great inequality, there is constant civil war. That is the essential enlightened self interest answer.

Where forced equality is implemented, there are people who put the work in that feel like suckers for following the rules and watching those who don't profit from the labor of those said people following the rules.

 

[dblack]

Suffering is part of the human condition. What you are advocating is the ultimate slippery slope, because as soon as you assign the government responsibility to erase one kind of suffering, a brand new one pops into being.

1. "The government has to give us healthcare because being sick is suffering". Okay, that means the government now can force people to become doctors and nurses because without them there is no healthcare. The government decides who can do what specialty and how many can be in any given field. Also, the government can now compel people to become builders, architects and bricklayers, because without hospitals there is no healthcare. Also, the government can now compel people to become janitors and orderlies, because without them the hospital quickly becomes a breeding ground for disease and there is no healthcare. Hillary tried that approach in her (thankfully) failed attempt to take over the healthcare industry.

2. "The government has to feed us because being hungry is suffering". Okay, that means the government can now force people to become farmers and work the land because without them there is no food. The government decides who can grow what crops and raise what kind of livestock. Also, the government decides what you can eat and how much because there is not enough for everyone to have everything.

3. "The government has to protect us from danger because risk is suffering". Okay, that means vast swaths of national parks are off limits because wild animals can attack humans who carelessly get too close or provoke confrontations. Skydiving? Forget it, too dangerous. Storm coming? Forced evacuations, can't have anyone risking their lives riding out a summer rainstorm, there might be a tornado in there.

Every single time the government steps in to erase suffering, the bar moves and something else becomes so bad government has to step in again. Ultimately, the government ends up owning and controlling everything because erasing suffering means it has to compel people to act in certain ways and prevent them from acting in others. Freedom is gone.

Consider a pet bird. It has protection from the weather. It can watch rain, snow, heat and cold come and go without fear of freezing or being too hot. It doesn't have to fear predators; it can watch them come and go from behind the window. If it gets sick, it gets taken to the vet and is not simply left to survive or die. It has your government sponsored utopia, suffering erased. But leave the cage and the window open, go out for a while and what do you find when you come back? The bird actually prefers its natural life with its suffering because of freedom. People do too. So, what are you, a wild bird living with suffering or a pet bird in a gilded cage, singing for your master and watching the world go by outside the window?

Finally, freedom is messy, dangerous, chaotic and requires adults to act responsibility to maintain it. It's also preferable to the alternatives.

This is an excellent post that the socialists will avoid like the plague.

 

[rightwinger]

Yep. Once you lose that, you have nothing left at all.

Nothin', don't mean nothin', honey, if it ain't free, no no

Good enough for me and my Bobby McGee

 

[dblack]

Nothin', don't mean nothin', honey, if it ain't free, no no

Good enough for me and my Bobby McGee

LOL - and I'm guessing you interpret that as "free shit".

 

[Unkotare]

Freedoms just another word for nothing left to lose

 

[hadit]

Nothin', don't mean nothin', honey, if it ain't free, no no

Good enough for me and my Bobby McGee

We have broken him.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Let em die

They can go home or get a job.

 

[hadit]

So, do you accept freedom with its potential suffering or do you long for the gilded cage where you're protected from harm and get fed all the time, but you can't fly where you want and see what you want? Speak up, you have the freedom to say what you think, for now.

"Government has to give us all internet access". Great, now government can kick you off the internet for saying things it doesn't like.

 

[rightwinger]

So, do you accept freedom with its potential suffering or do you long for the gilded cage where you're protected from harm and get fed all the time, but you can't fly where you want and see what you want? Speak up, you have the freedom to say what you think, for now.

"Government has to give us all internet access". Great, now government can kick you off the internet for saying things it doesn't like.

I long for a government that does more for the well being of the people over pandering to the wealthy.
A government that cares as much for the welfare of workers as they do for business
A government that cares more about long term environmental than short term profits

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I long for a government that does more for the well being of the people over pandering to the wealthy.
A government that cares as much for the welfare of workers as they do for business
A government that cares more about long term environmental than short term profits

So where are these so-called tax cuts for the rich in this tax bill? No liberal can seem to point them out, but claim they are there!

 

[dblack]

I long for a government that does more for the well being of the people over pandering to the wealthy.

Neither.

A government that cares as much for the welfare of workers as they do for business

Neither

A government that cares more about long term environmental than short term profits

The government should protect the environment - the commons. The government doesn't turn a profit, so that's irrelevant.

 

[dblack]

"Government has to give us all internet access". Great, now government can kick you off the internet for saying things it doesn't like.

They never listen to this. In one ear, out the other. They seem to think the government can do no wrong and only their nominees will ever win elections.

 

[rightwinger]

So where are these so-called tax cuts for the rich in this tax bill? No liberal can seem to point them out, but claim they are there!

Major Tax Breaks for the Wealthy & Well-Off

Permanent Extension of 2017 Trump Tax Cuts

• The OBBBA makes the 2017 top rates permanent: 37% maximum individual tax rate, benefiting high earners

Expanded SALT Deduction

• Raises the SALT cap to $40,000 for incomes under $500K (from $10K), heavily benefiting homeowners in high-tax states .

Estate Tax Exemption Increased

• Exemption raised to $15M per individual ($30M per couple), shielding massive inheritances from taxation .

Enhanced Pass‑Through Deduction

• Deduction for income from businesses like partnerships/S-corps increased to 23%, favoring wealthy small-business owners and investors .

Corporate Tax & Business Incentives

• Maintains the 21% corporate tax rate, extends full expensing for business investment, and eases deductions for R&D and interest—directly benefiting corporations and their wealthy shareholders .

Opportunity Zone Loopholes Remain

• Laws allowing wealthy investors to shelter capital gains via Opportunity Zones are preserved, benefiting high-net-worth individuals

Disproportionately Heavy Gains at the Top

• Top 1%: Average benefit of $66K–$70K in the first year .
• Top 20%: Receive 60–72% of total tax benefits .
• Bottom 20%: Facing net income losses averaging $700–$800 annually due to safety net cuts .
• The CBPP projects millionaires could receive over $100K annually in tax savings