This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
The disparity between rich and poor
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Atik
The chief was no more than his subjects. He went out with the other men and hunted and put his own life in just as much danger. Other than the symbols of his position, he owned no more than anyone else.
And I am talking about the entire species under one communist rule.
Heh, you are kidding right? The Chief would have all the best things; best blankets, clothes, tepee, women, first choice at the food that was brought in. Yeah, that's real communism at work; and communism itself is a failed system on a global scale.
Where are you getting your information?
The chief lived in the same houses and used all the same objects. He might of had the first pick of women, but that would have been for the same reasons as celebraties in our society.
Post by
Patty
The native americans had it pretty good before the old world showed up. And guess what government structure they had...
A tribal one, led by a chief who ruled over all? And they warred with the other tribes quite often, taking slaves and servants from their rivals.
The chief was no more than his subjects. He went out with the other men and hunted and put his own life in just as much danger. Other than the symbols of his position, he owned no more than anyone else.
And I am talking about the entire species under one communist rule.
So... hold on a minute. You're a Social Darwinist who's in favour of Communism?
A political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is
paid according to their
abilities and
needs
.
Post by
Atik
Yes,
People are all treated equally as long as they are productive.
Unproductive people recieve no help; left to either get themselves back up, or die.
Post by
Adamsm
Where are you getting your information?
The chief lived in the same houses and used all the same objects. He might of had the first pick of women, but that would have been for the same reasons as celebraties in our society.
History books? As well as living in an area that has a large number of reservations around at this point. Where did you read that the Native tribes were some type of communist lifestyle? Yes, some tribes had a longhouse per family, but just as it is now, some were larger then others, had more things within them, and again, depending on the tribe, had a large number of slaves and servants.
So unless communism allows for the purchase and selling of others.....
Post by
Atik
Any history book I have used that dealed with native americans has always mentioned each member living equally. Several of my history teachers took the time to compare them to Communists under Marx. I went ahead and looked it up and realized they had life pretty good before their entire culture was destroyed.
Post by
Adamsm
Which tribes?
Post by
Atik
Iroquois were always a big one, but usually it was just 'native americans'
Post by
Adamsm
Heh, just 'native americans' which could refer to any of the several dozen tribes all across Canada and the USA.......
Post by
pezz
So you read sources which didn't even bother to differentiate between, much less even
mention
different tribes?
Between this and your 'I heard somewhere that gays get more benefits or something' in the homosexuality thread, you're the front runner for most interesting sources on the forum, I think.
Post by
533681
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
I also did a little refresher on the Iroquois....and they weren't a communal tribe either; each family had their own particular loghouse, but each one was different, and trading was a large source of how they received their goods.
Post by
Magician22773
Speaking from a purely American point of view, as much of this will not apply to other countries.....
First, there is a system of wealth redistribution....Carl Marx...anyone? "from each according to his ablility, to each according to his need". If you really like this type of system, there are plenty of 3rd world Communist countries that you can gladly move to. Im sure they could use the help in a labor camp somewhere.
America offers everyone the ablility to succeed, limited only by their desire and willingness to work. Now, not everyone can be Bill Gates. Only so many people are ever going to have all the stars align just right to become super-wealthy. But anyone, and I mean anyone, can earn a comfortable living in America if they set their mind to it. The country provides an education to anyone who wants one. Anyone who wants to go to college can. Between grants, loans, and the military, no one in the US is "not able" to go to college.
Now, the issue is, you likely will have to make sacrifices to succeed. You may have to move to a different part of the country to find work in your field. You may have to live on Raman noodles and water for 4 years to get through college. You may have to walk or bike to school because you can't afford a car. And you may have to work some really crappy jobs along the way to support yourself. But in the end, you have the ability to succeed. It makes no difference wether you come from a private school in Silicon Valley, or the ghetto on New York. The path may be different, and more difficult, but its not "impossible"
As for taxes...yes, our system is screwed...beyond screwed. But the issue is not to take more from the wealthy. Just look at the numbers. The top 10% of all income earners pay 70% of all taxes, and the bottom 50% of earners pay no taxes at all. On average, a "wealthy" person (no Bill Gates super-rich, but someone like Doctor or Lawyer wealthy), pays around 50% of their income in some form of taxes. THATS HALF. Regardless of how "rich" they are, the government is not entitled to HALF of anyones income.
IMHO, the answer to this is one of 2 plans...the Flat Tax, or the Fair Tax.
The Flat tax is simple...everyone pays the same percentage. No exemptions, no loopholes. You earn income, you pay a percentage. I believe the last attempt at this was around 10-12% from everyone would be about what it would take to keep revenue at current levels.
The Fair Tax is a consumption tax...essentially a Federal Sales Tax. The idea behind this tax, is that the richer you are, the more you spend. Want to buy a $250,000 watch...fine...thats your tax. The Fair Tax has a lot more to it, such as exemptions for basic necessities like food and clothing (normal food and clothing.....Armani suits and Lobster tails not included), but in theory, should result in everyone paying "their fair share".
Post by
ElhonnaDS
The poor in the United States live better the poor in most other countries. I have traveled abroad, and the difference in living conditions between someone who is poor in China or Mexico, and someone who is poor in the United States, is astounding. In our country, the government will give you healthcare, housing, food and spending money if you can't afford to support yourself. Our higher education systems have millions of dollars in academic grants and scholarships for people who can't afford college. And a lot of that is funded by the income taxes of the upper class.
If people who went out of their way to build companies that were hugely successful weren't free to benefit significantly from the profits, and to pass those benefits on to their children, they wouldn't do it. If I can make just as much money working in middle management as I can working 80 hours a week to keep my multi-million dollar corporation afloat, why would I bother. And without those companies, how many people would be unemployed? How much tax revenue would be lost, that is now funding social programs for the poor?
The truth that most people don't want to face is that the biggest limiting factor in how successful you are in life (at least in the United States) is how hard you're willing to work, and how many times you get back up after you are defeated. Some of the most successful men in the world didn't ever go to college. Many successful people come from impoverished and disadvantaged backgrounds. The difference between them and someone who never made it, is the amount of work they were willing to put in, and the determination that they had.
So, yes, it is fair that if someone can build enough of a economic empire to earn them millions, that they keep a fair chunk of it, because the amount of income they're generating for people they employ, people whose good they buy, the government through taxes, etc. is irreplacable.
I find that people who are really quick to say redistribute the wealth to everyone, and raise minimum wage to $15/hour, aren't all that well-versed in economics. If you ask the average person who supports these ideas what effect that wage hike will have on small buisinesses being able to stay afloat, the price of goods and services that rely on that labor, and the buying power of the dollar in relation to the goods we need, they'll look at you and say "huh?" If you ask someone who wants to take the majority of wealth from people who have it and give it to people who have no training in finance, economics or business managment, how they plan to compensate for the lost tax revenue, the unemployment stemming from large company bankruptcies and the price hikes resulting from scarcity of goods as the industrial machine loses more and more of it's working capital and slows down, they won't have an answer.
I'm not saying that the credit and mortgage industries who way over-extended credit to people who couldn't afford or handle it didn't do anything wrong. They did. And when they were about to go under because of this, we should have let them, because it would have left a gap to be filled by smarter and more cautious businessmen. But blanket statements about taking all the wealth from the industrial captains of this country- which most of the time they re-invest into the economy creating more growth and a better quality of life all he way around- is short sighted and would hurt the lower class and impoverished much more than it helped them, as the long term effects of this kind of system set in. The reason people with money have SO much money, is that they got really good at making it. And to do that, they have invested it again and again into the companies where the rest of us make our paychecks and buy our goods. If we cripple their ability to do so- no more paycheck, no more goods.
Post by
207044
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Smart business people don't sit on their money- they re-invest it. These people that you talk about, that are pulling in a quarter of a billion dollars- they're turning around and putting most of that back into the economy in the form of investments, which creates jobs. If they took a lot of that money,and put it back in the hands of the general populace, they wouldn't use it to create economic growth. They'd use it on goods, or put it away and sit on it. And many people would use it as an excuse to stop working, or working as hard. It would be an across the board welfare state, and the amount people gained in an occasional bonus check or extra government program would be much less than they amount they lost as people stopped re-investing their money, because any profit from their investments would be taken. If you put on a cap, you effectively say "At this point, you should stop trying to build more businesses and investing in new endeavors."
I'm sorry you had it tough growing up. My mother was a foster child who hit 18 and was on her own. My dad never went to college. When I was younger, we didn't have a lot either- there were a lot of hand-me-down clothes and grilled cheese dinners. The difference is that my dad worked 80 hours a week and picked up side jobs to make sure the bills were paid. My mother went to night school, and worked during the day, and got her nursing degree. And since they couldn't afford to pay for college for 6 kids, we all got scholarships and took out our own loans to make it work. I know what it's like to have nothing. I also know it's not a permanent condition. If you want to have more, you work for it. If you're not willing to work for it, you don't get it.
To say that someone who works hard, works smart, and constantly takes their money and uses it to create new companies, more jobs and more economic growth should have a cap on what they can make, with the excess paying for the lives of people who don't want to work as many hours as they do, don't feel like going to night school and don't work hard enough to get noticed by their bosses and earn a promotion is at best an idea not grounded in the realities of how economics work, and at worst an unfounded sense of entitlement that people feel to share in something they don't work for.
Post by
Magician22773
Theres a difference between significant and just ridiculous amounts. I mean yes a person should be able to profit from success I have never disagreed. But I think caps ect should be put in place. So if you are a ceo you can only make 10,000 times more than you lowest paid or average employee.
Is it right...no. But saying they "shouldn't" be allowed is wrong. I agree, many CEO type salaries are just stupid. No one needs 250 million a year...for anything. But that is a decision that the company has to make, not a government agency.
As for wealth redistribution no it probably is bad idea. Leaves no motivation for anyone to do anything. But I also dont think a ceo should pull in close to quarter billion after stock options. When 1/4 of there employees in stores are on welfare.
Again, I agree on principle, but you have to look at the economic impact as a whole. As Elhonna said, if the minimum wage were increased to $15 an hour, all we would see is the price of a BigMac go up to $7, instead of $3.50. So, in your example, a company that has a CEO making 250 mil a year, probably has tens of thousands of employees. Raising all their salaries would just inflate the price of whatever that company sells to compensate. Sure, there is room to improve at the bottom, without having to increase overall costs, but not as much as some might think.
As for healthcare, grants for education ect. They are really biased I mean I grew up occasionally putting water and flour together to make flat pancakes and our power would be off 2-3 days before dad got paycheck. And when we got sick/ got old enough for college there was pretty much nothing for use cause we didnt fall into any of the right categories. We made just enough not to qualify for anything and not enough to actually live well on.
Its EASY for many people to get education funding, and more difficult for some. The bracket you speak of is exactly where I fell after I graduated. My familiy made too much money for me to qualify for a grant, but not enough to pay my way. Thats where loans come in. Loans are avaliable to nearly anyone, especially middle-class. And If you happen to fall in the very small group that doesnt, or some other issues (credit perhaps) keep you from a loan, the military will always pay for college. Again...sacrifice.
AS for aboves poster yes there are alot of people who do make it big from poverty but when poor are the larger part of the country. But compared everyone wants to be rich. SO wouldnt it make sense that people that made there own millions. Normally would be divided half from rich familys while half from poor. Unless us poor people got the lazy gene and dont make it cause we dont try hard.
Post by
Orranis
The disparity between rich and poor should not be bridged by arbitrarily limiting the amount of profit of a rich man, but by requiring each man have enough that no man would go hungry or homeless. Sure, it might hurt the first one, but the idea is not to lower the higher class but to boost the lower class.
Post by
207044
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
pezz
IMHO, the answer to this is one of 2 plans...the Flat Tax, or the Fair Tax.
The Flat tax is simple...everyone pays the same percentage. No exemptions, no loopholes. You earn income, you pay a percentage. I believe the last attempt at this was around 10-12% from everyone would be about what it would take to keep revenue at current levels.
The Fair Tax is a consumption tax...essentially a Federal Sales Tax. The idea behind this tax, is that the richer you are, the more you spend. Want to buy a $250,000 watch...fine...thats your tax. The Fair Tax has a lot more to it, such as exemptions for basic necessities like food and clothing (normal food and clothing.....Armani suits and Lobster tails not included), but in theory, should result in everyone paying "their fair share".
The Fair Tax is not remotely fair. It's just some multiplier on the percentage of money you spend, rather than save. If you spend a higher percentage of your income (as you do when you're poor and living hand-to-mouth), you pay a higher tax rate than someone who can afford to save 75% of his money in some brokerage account somewhere.
I'd like to point out, as a general comment, that no one gets compensated for the amount of work they do. They get compensated for the amount of value they produce. If you get 9 bucks an hour from making things, it's not because you do nine dollars' worth of 'good honest hard work' in an hour, it's because someone thinks the things you make are worth nine dollars.
I'm not big on wealth distribution, being a big fan of capitalism, but I do think there should be a huge tax rate on the ridiculously, unbelievable wealthy. There's a point at which you can't even
conceive
of the amount of wealth you have, much less spend it. There's no reason not to take a lot of that in the form of taxes. But I'm talking, like, Forbes top 100 people here, and nobody else.
Post by
292559
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.