Last edited:
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Wealth Inequality in America: Viral Video
- Thread starter Apex
- Start date
Alceste
Vagabond
dust1n
Zindīq
Not all of them. Just enough that they have begun to cast negative influences of the whole of society. I'm down for case-by-case populist trial.
That would be a stretch.
Oh well. We have their assets now, so we can import and thus export as the natural economy falls into place.
I don't see that money received with effort necessarily implies efficiency in its usage. And plus, I'm not talking about permanently taking the fruits of success. I propose seizing assets for anyone who can be found guilty of any financial misconduct or misuse of power.
So, I know productive people who get no money. I know unproductive people who get money. I know productive people who do get money. I know productive people who do not get money.
The government? Psh... I decide.
True, but poor people don't actively seek to economically destroy the nation neither, so...
dust1n
Zindīq
Yea, but when you use "distribution" it makes me think of the kind of "distribution" that Commie's did. And that makes me uncomfortable. Forget that "distribution" is a legitimate (and, in this case, appropriately used) statistical term.
Alceste
Vagabond
I know, right?
dust1n
Zindīq
I knew it would happen eventually.
You are on a roll with missing points, Rev. I was talking about the graph, not Obama. I specifically said I wasn't talking about Obama.
An ironic accusation there, bub.
Your world might inspire me to join the violent revolt.
And I can be very very revolting.
It's how your incentives would affect me.
I'd expect others to be similarly disinclined to work hard or take risks with money.
Time to kick back live off my gubmint check!
It's not a sustainable model, since productivity would decline without entrepreneurs to meet new challenges.
This idea of policing for profit has a corrupting effect.
The definition of "financial misconduct" would expand to fill the state's coffers.
You run with a strange crowd. Of all the multi-millionaires I personally know, all got there by smarts, hard work & risk taking.
Get ready for a coup.
Geeze...you really believe the wealthy seek to destroy the country in which their wealth resides?
But the poor, they just suck at taxpayer's teat while complaining about the quantity of milk. Who needs'm?
But in all seriousness, this will not be reconciled. You're a socialist (since you post in the Socialist DIR).
And I'm a capitalist. We have very different goals for society.
Mr Spinkles
Mr
The people on the Right don't seem to understand something very basic about game theory here. If we play a winner-takes-all game, then it isn't unfair for the winner to take all. It was the game itself that was unfair to begin with. No one is saying we should take people's deserved winnings. We are saying the rules of the game should be changed so that more people can win.
This is as American as apple pie, by the way. Thomas Paine proposed a (relatively modest) tax on all inheritances. The tax would go to a fund, so that a certain sum (I think it was $200?) would go to each citizen who turns a certain age (like 24). Each person could then use that money to get an education, or vocational training, start a business or buy a farm, etc. In other words, we play a game where everyone gets a reasonable chance to win. "Libertarian" objections that such measures amount to rewarding laziness and disincentivizing the entrepreneurial spirit are pure nonsense.
By the way, how much would Bill Gates' net worth, or the inheritance he leaves to his children, have to go down before it would begin to affect his motivation as a teenager to start Microsoft? Do you think when he dropped out of Harvard, he was thinking, "I'm only going to do this if I can be worth $6 billion someday ... but if the reward was only $2 billion, I would give up my dream of starting a computer company."
This is as American as apple pie, by the way. Thomas Paine proposed a (relatively modest) tax on all inheritances. The tax would go to a fund, so that a certain sum (I think it was $200?) would go to each citizen who turns a certain age (like 24). Each person could then use that money to get an education, or vocational training, start a business or buy a farm, etc. In other words, we play a game where everyone gets a reasonable chance to win. "Libertarian" objections that such measures amount to rewarding laziness and disincentivizing the entrepreneurial spirit are pure nonsense.
By the way, how much would Bill Gates' net worth, or the inheritance he leaves to his children, have to go down before it would begin to affect his motivation as a teenager to start Microsoft? Do you think when he dropped out of Harvard, he was thinking, "I'm only going to do this if I can be worth $6 billion someday ... but if the reward was only $2 billion, I would give up my dream of starting a computer company."
Last edited:
You needlessly make this a right v left thingie. It appears that many on the
right (depending upon how "right" is defined) have been saying this all along.
(You lefties always be try'n to provoke, eh?)
Reptillian
Hamburgler Extraordinaire
In addition to violating their most sacred constitutional rights, it wouldn't really solve the problem. It would just create a void where new people rise up to become the mega rich or ultra poor. What's needed is changing the shape of the distribution curve through policy change and cultural shift. I still advocate a kind of Gaussian distribution of wealth with a large middle class and with poor and rich people being outliers. This may require somewhat abandoning the feudal economic system of capitalism that we worship. Some things work well with capitalism, and some things (such as medical care) might work better using a socialist model. This is one way of distributing wealth in a way that doesn't involve knocking down the rich peoples' doors and pulling a Robin Hood. Also recall that wealth isn't a conserved quantity. True it's finite, but more wealth can be generated. No need to redistribute what we have, just change how future generated wealth is distributed.
It won't come to that, they're smart enough to take as much as they can while placating the populous and keeping the slaves in line.
Apex
Somewhere Around Nothing
Your point was that minimum wage is for unskilled or entry level positions. My point is that you are wrong. There are many skilled, non-entry, positions out there that pay minimum wage, or little more.
And there is virtually no difference if you are working for minimum wage, or a dollar over minimum wage. Neither is a livable amount.
Your wife and I ought to get together for a drink sometime. There's an assumption that dance is an unskilled profession and that it's perfectly reasonable to have professional dancers living below the poverty line for the entirety of their careers.
Wait...I thought the direction of conversation was predicated on non-constitutional actions (deporting rich folk).
Not really. The permanently poor lack drive & skills to bootstrap themselves into productive membership in a highly technological society.
They would be survived by the non-poor, ie, useful citizens. But of course, there would be a continuous influx of useless people, so the
deportation would be an ongoing program.
Feudal? Hah! No, we must abandon socialism which encourages sloth & reliance on government largess.
There is merit in that. But we see many governmental barriers to poor folk entering the business world, eg, regulatory barriers to entry,
incomprehensible regulation, subsidies which punish them for boosting their income. Tis as though bureaucrats & politicians want people
to be either an employee or on the dole. The poor need more opportunity & less punishment by government.
Nah....Dance is generally viewed as a highly skilled profession, even by knuckle dragging lunkheads (like me).
But just as with pro sports, few make the big time, so it's reasonable to expect that those who can't make a living
at what they love to do should augment their income with a regular job. No one has a right to choose any profession
& then expect that their labor of love will pay the bills.
Apex
Somewhere Around Nothing
But people should have the right to earn a livable wage when working full time. Especially at a job that requires an education.
Those rare few make a six figure income. I'm talking about principal dancers of major companies who finally can command about $120,000 a year. Not the multi millions of sports stars.
Professional athletes can afford to go to the doctor, at the very least. The vast majority of professional dancers can't afford three meals in a day, they typically sublet apartments with 6 other dancers at a time to afford a place to live, and are uninsured because they can't afford health insurance premiums. Highly skilled workers that have studied and worked at their craft for decades, and they can't afford clothes that didn't come off a second hand store rack.
If some choose jobs which simply don't pay that well, when they could've chosen a better one, then I see no obligation to
support them. There just isn't a lot of demand for live dance performances, & dancers know this when entering the field.
If I decide my life's calling is to be a street mime trapped in an invisible box,
should you be forced to cover my income-v-expense shortfall?