ForumsWEPRPoor people and Rich people.

143 23446
random_player_of_ag
offline
random_player_of_ag
2,636 posts
Nomad

I have seen in tv many shows ( news ) about poor people and rich people.
And i think to myself:"How come rich people get more rich and poor people get more poor?".
It is a situation a little bit strange.
I think that it should not be rich and poor people.
Everyone should be fine (relative to money).
People say that money does not bring health and other things.
It is true but it helps.
Tell me what you think about this.

  • 143 Replies
woody_7007
offline
woody_7007
2,662 posts
Peasant

Indeed. It seems we agree. One of the pitfalls of capitalism is that however many uber rich oligarchs there are it comes at the cost of millions of workers worldwide who have little way of bettering themselvesd. Although i am inclined to aree with capitalismn i will admit that this is one of its major major flaws.

tanstaafl28
offline
tanstaafl28
336 posts
Farmer

IMHO, there will always be rich people and poor people, no matter what we do. It may be that the best we can do is try to level the playing field just a little bit.

woody_7007
offline
woody_7007
2,662 posts
Peasant

At heart i am a bit of a lefty,not a communist/socialist i wold like to add, however i am more for helping the poorer sections of society. I belive this can be done in a meritocratic capitalist state, but there has to be more use of progressive taxation schemes which i am all for.

tanstaafl28
offline
tanstaafl28
336 posts
Farmer

At heart i am a bit of a lefty,not a communist/socialist i wold like to add, however i am more for helping the poorer sections of society. I belive this can be done in a meritocratic capitalist state, but there has to be more use of progressive taxation schemes which i am all for


I am against giving the poor government handouts just because they are poor. What happens is the rest of us are supporting these people to do nothing to improve their own conditions, that's just not right.

I am, however, willing to see government subsidies that provide a hand up, meaning that at some point, the people being helped will become self-sufficient, and then be in a position to put back into the system to help others. This assistance should be provided for a fixed amount of time, and have conditions that the people involved in it do not get money for taking up space, or making babies.

At the very least, those who are poor can help earn their keep by cleaning up their communities. There are plenty of existing non-profit organizations that can also use their help. Along with this there should be a plan to teach them a trade, be it carpentry, electrician, plumbing, or other area they show ability in, so they can begin to help themselves out of poverty.
woody_7007
offline
woody_7007
2,662 posts
Peasant

I am against giving the poor government handouts just because they are poor. What happens is the rest of us are supporting these people to do nothing to improve their own conditions, that's just not right.


I am against that too. Govt handouts and progressive taxation are totally differnet things progressive meaning that the richer you are the higher tax you have to pay in a nutshell and that money is distributed through welfare systems and redevelopment in poorer areas. Let me make it clear that i am for that, not handouts which are an extremely short term fix to a long term problem.

In many European states, (not britain sadly) welfare is handed out in return for community work and apprenticeships. As a result unemployment levels are uch lower as these people learn a trade and there is also a decrease in levels of crime as the work brings communities closer. I belive this is a much better system than the nanny state we have here in Britain where people can live off benefits indefinitel and not feel any urge to improve themselves.
Flipski
offline
Flipski
623 posts
Nomad

In a capitalist economy it generally takes money to make money. That is, if you want to make a lot of money without being payed for a specific skill, you need money to invest. So rich people are able to invest, whether it be businesses, stocks, etc. while poor people are not. Basically poor people live on a day to day basis, spending all or almost all of what they make. Rich people on the other hand can constantly reinvest their income and their wealth grows exponentially.

Drace
offline
Drace
3,880 posts
Nomad

Poverty is the result capitalism.

Therefore, to prevent it, you must prevent the system that runs on it, not government handouts. Which is quite silly since most of the world's poverty exists in areas where its government has no wealth, or is corrupt. And those of which that do surly won't give out any money as they are the ones who are exploiters.

Drace
offline
Drace
3,880 posts
Nomad

Poverty is the result capitalism.

Therefore, to prevent it, you must prevent the system that runs on it, not government handouts. Which is quite silly since most of the world's poverty exists in areas where its government has no wealth, or is corrupt. And those of which that do surly won't give out any money as they are the ones who are exploiters.


In a capitalist economy it generally takes money to make money.


In any system, it takes labor to create wealth.
woody_7007
offline
woody_7007
2,662 posts
Peasant

Yes but someone has to pay for that labour.

Drace
offline
Drace
3,880 posts
Nomad

Yes but someone has to pay for that labour.


Ehh in some understanding, yes.

Money is not wealth, it only represents it. So technically, the creation of wealth really involves no money.
woody_7007
offline
woody_7007
2,662 posts
Peasant

Money is not wealth, it only represents it. So technically, the creation of wealth really involves no money.


You are right, but wealth is not one of the basic economic resources. wealth can be counted as assets as well as capital. You cannot use wealth alone to run an entire society with no regards to money. This has been seen to work in very primitive tribal societies where money isnt needed but not on a larger scale than that and for good reason, with no true measure of value, how would things work.
Communist
offline
Communist
522 posts
Nomad

Communism would negate the effect of rich and poor people; which accurs in every other form of government. If the world were communist, there would be no need to have a 40 post arguement on why some are rich and others poor.

In truth, Communism is the only way to stop poverty and stop people from getting more than what they truely need. ( unless of course you have a country with robbin hood clones :P )

woody_7007
offline
woody_7007
2,662 posts
Peasant

unless of course you have a country with robbin hood clones


Or in other words a system of progressive taxation. It attempts to balance out the wealth divide whilst at the same time attaining free enterprise. The best of both worlds.

Worldwide communism would not mean everyone was equally well off but probably that everyone was equally poor. It is not natural for everyone to be equal. Even in the most primitive of societies there is some form of hierachy showing it is human nature. There is social hierachy among apes even showing that it is primal nature.
Drace
offline
Drace
3,880 posts
Nomad

Worldwide communism would not mean everyone was equally well off but probably that everyone was equally poor.


Most in the world are poor, and many starving while there being enough resources to feed and I believe shelter everyone.

It is not natural for everyone to be equal. Even in the most primitive of societies there is some form of hierachy showing it is human nature. There is social hierachy among apes even showing that it is primal nature.


A hierarchical society cannot be natural as it is not something of material. Hierarchy is a concept. There are no natural laws that would have us killed if we tried to alter it. >_>

And on the contrary, primitive societies have had the basic principles of communism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_communism

There are also a number of anarchist societies that functioned well.
kris1027
offline
kris1027
506 posts
Nomad

There are also a number of anarchist societies that functioned well.


Example? I'm not demanding proof or anything, I'm just curious as to the long term viability of an anarchist state and would be interested to some examples of such.
Showing 16-30 of 143