Zone1 What is Wrong with Inequality?

[dblack]

The working class and the poor might want to spend less of their pay on shiny things and entertainment. That's how the rich get rich.

Nah. Most of them get rich by investing their money in useful endeavors.

 

[Mac-7]

One last thing. A person can create the greatest gadget of all time, but if he/she can't make the numbers to meet the demand for that gadget, it's a loser. So then the people producing the gadget are just as important as the person who had the idea. This alone supports the argument for equal pay for everyone.

If the key man had not invented the gizmo the workers would have no job

 

[Woodznutz]

Nah. Most of them get rich by investing their money in useful endeavors.

Useful endeavors: Shiny things and entertainment.

 

[alang1216]

Wealthy people actually spend that much, which flows to the workers that make the goods and provide the services. That's the real 'trickle down' economic effect.

We're talking about the children of wealthy people. If you can't live on $500K a year they can get a job and earn the rest of what they need. I don't feel sorry for them and the wealth will be circulated for that 'trickle down', just not by them.

 

[alang1216]

Their name alone will open doors.

Another non-monetary advantage the children of super-wealthy have. They could probably live comfortably on that alone.

 

[alang1216]

That principle applies today as well. The poor are wearing us out. In fact, the new meme is 'fatigue' from this or that.

Right, the poor don't suffer from fatigue, they enjoy having two jobs and raising kids. It's the rest of us that suffer.

 

[rightwinger]

The working class and the poor might want to spend less of their pay on shiny things and entertainment.

Exactly what the wealthy expect
Let the working class and poor get by with less. Luxuries and entertainment are becoming less available to working families
Meanwhile any attempt to get the wealthy and corporations to have less is met with outrage.

 

[rightwinger]

Another non-monetary advantage the children of super-wealthy have. They could probably live comfortably on that alone.

If all else fails, write a tell all book about Daddy

 

[Woodznutz]

We're talking about the children of wealthy people. If you can't live on $500K a year they can get a job and earn the rest of what they need. I don't feel sorry for them and the wealth will be circulated for that 'trickle down', just not by them.

What if, like the Kardashians, they use that money to make more money?

 

[Woodznutz]

Right, the poor don't suffer from fatigue, they enjoy having two jobs and raising kids. It's the rest of us that suffer.

By fatigue I mean "sick and tired" of someone. We're sick and tired of the poor, blacks, Muslims, Israel, Iran, Russia, Ukraine, the government, etc. They're wearing us out financially and mentally.

 

[alang1216]

What if, like the Kardashians, they use that money to make more money?

More power to them.

 

[alang1216]

By fatigue I mean "sick and tired" of someone. We're sick and tired of the poor, blacks, Muslims, Israel, Iran, Russia, Ukraine, the government, etc. They're wearing us out financially and mentally.

I'm sure they feel terrible that their pain is causing you such distress.

 

[Correll]

It’s the degree. I assume you think that it is wrong for 1 person to have everything and everyone else to have nothing. Not only is that not fair it is inefficient in an economy based on consumption.

Economic activity drives the world and consolidating wealth into a few hands plummets economic activity.

So its about fairness AND efficiency.

The US has moved too far toward consolidating wealth into a few super-wealthy and the rest into the hands of the wealthy which is inefficient.

Finally a too unbalanced distribution in wealth leads to revolution and violence which isn’t good for economic activity.

That's a lot more nuanced argument and position than most of what we get from the commie left.

If you want to have a discussion about changing the environment to make it easier for the working poor to survive or even thrive, without demonizing the rich or middle class, that could be a constructive discussion.

Most lefties aren't interested in anything like that.

 

[Correll]

Absolutely, it is exactly what I intend to do. However, what is good for my family may not be good for our society.

Healthy individuals and families are the building block of a healthy society.

If you think otherwise, it is on you to explain how that works.

 

[citygator]

That's a lot more nuanced argument and position than most of what we get from the commie left.

If you want to have a discussion about changing the environment to make it easier for the working poor to survive or even thrive, without demonizing the rich or middle class, that could be a constructive discussion.

Most lefties aren't interested in anything like that.

Look. I am wealthy but certainly no billionaire. I am in the top 0.5% of earners. I worry zero percent about going broke from taxes. I worry much more about the working class getting pissed about the inequity in this nation and eventually deciding that if the government wont fix it the mob will.

The current imbalance is unsustainable. Karl Marx was right about the inevitability of captialism’s downfall. He was not correct about the fix. It isn’t communism. The answer is regulating capitalism so that enough money gets down to the masses or it falls apart. IMHO.

 

[OODA_Loop]

You can do anything you want with your money, EXCEPT give more than a maximum to your kids. Bill Gates' kids grew up with every advantage, if they can't make their own billions, that is on them.

This is so wrong.

 

[Captain Caveman]

There is nothing wrong with people making money.
Lots of money.

But our tax code is written to favor the very wealthy.
Thousands of pages of tax advantages for the wealthy only a few lines for working Americans

Why give more money to those who do not need it while working Americans pay more and more for healthcare, education, living expenses?

A US president once said -

I asked my friend's little girl what she wanted to be when she grows up. She said she wanted to be the President of the United States. Both of her parents Liberal Democrats were standing there. So I asked her, "If you were president what would be the first thing you would do?"
"Well", she replied, "I'd give food and houses to all the homeless people", her parents beamed.
"Wow what a worthy goal", I told her. "But you don't have to wait until you're President to do that. You see, you can come over to my house right now and you can mow the lawn, pull weeds, and sweep the driveway and I'll pay you $50. Then I'll take you over to the grocery store where that homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him that $50 towards food and a new house".
She thought that over for a few seconds, then she looked at me straight in the eye and asked, "Why doesn't the homeless guy come over, do the work and you can just pay him the $50?".
I said, "Welcome to the republican party".
Her parents are still not speaking to me.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Look. I am wealthy but certainly no billionaire. I am in the top 0.5% of earners.

You constantly have these proclamations.

What and who you say you are is immaterial in a cyber debate where you can profess to be anything.

 

[alang1216]

Healthy individuals and families are the building block of a healthy society.

If you think otherwise, it is on you to explain how that works.

It depends on how you define a 'healthy' society. If you think ancient Rome is an example of a healthy society, we'll have to disagree. The vast majority of the wealth was held by the elite families, the nobility, from which the rulers were chosen. The vast majority of the people were poor serfs or slaves with very little to their names. There were different laws for the nobility and little sympathy for the poor. How many geniuses never got to go to school and show their genius. Not the world I want to live in.

 

[alang1216]

This is so wrong.

How so?