Forums → WEPR → [spam necro] Rich/Poor divide?
| 139 | 66019 |
Essentially how do the rich keep on getting richer whilst the poor keep on getting poorer. Surely in a civilised society the rich should sacrifice a few of their fast cars and big houses so that the people who slave 12 hours a day in their sweat shops can eat.
Discuss.
- 139 Replies
if the consumers start consuming more.
We cannot start consuming more, resources are becoming scarce. The world population is raising fast and will soon outgrow our ability to
The ways in which we help the poor may or may not close the gap, but whether the gap closes or not is not important.
Thats a fair point and yes, with the current system, we cannot expect taking money and re-distributing it will work like a robin hood typa thing.
That has always been the high tone and ''moral'' argument the people at the back have always used.
Telling someone they are taking a high tone because they see injustice is sidelining the point they are making.
The current living situation means most dont have even a chance of getting out of the poor trap. Is that not wrong? I can see no moral nor logical reason to dismiss the argument as me pointing my nose in the air. We humans have set these logical and moral values for ourselves and we should expect those with power to uphold it. Especially those with power.
I read all your posts too Nemo but I have to get the dinner ready for the wee one and will have more time later unless DIA3LO sucks my will to post away later tonight.
oops!
*We cannot start consuming more, resources are becoming scarce. The world population is raising fast and will soon outgrow our ability to* produce them.
The rich got rich based on their businesses and companies. Which are operated by the poor. So....jobs or no jobs? The poor in America are poor because of the lack of competitiveness, and the loss of the country's comparative advantage, especially in many manufactured products, which has seen an outsourcing of jobs to developing nations.
Unless we want the work force of these outsourced jobs to work for far less than what they need to support themselves the problem with outsourcing isn't going away. Basically by this basis unless America wants to function like a 3rd world country there is no way to compete for these outsourced jobs.
Just to note, I'm not totally against outsourcing jobs, in a global economy as we have it makes sense that this would naturally happen.
so by taxing the rich people these people will simply move more money to itself as cio of the company leaving less money behind for them to pay the workers from.
if you would lower the company taxes however then there will be more money left in the company that can be spend of wich 1 could be higher loans. (for the cio or the workers thats the choise the company itself makes and not the government)
However when they were given extra money to work with the rich just pocketed it.
but if the consumers do not consume then the companys do not have to make alot wich results in less jobs.
This however would require putting money in the hands of the consumer, our "oor". It would seem to be a rather vicious circle.
Also AnaLoGMunKy makes a good point about the basic resources.
well a lot of people who think thier poor just because they dont have a lot of stuff have it easy the real poor people are in the lesser devopled countries sudan macadoneia burundi just to name a few
We cannot start consuming more, resources are becoming scarce. The world population is raising fast and will soon outgrow our ability to
thats the topic of overpopulation/ not sure thats on-topic in this case.
what i said is a basic explenation. it ecplains the down-spiral and up-spiral in the economy.
*We cannot start consuming more, resources are becoming scarce. The world population is raising fast and will soon outgrow our ability to* produce them.
also the overpopulation creates jobs in the form of indoor urban agriculture.
However when they were given extra money to work with the rich just pocketed it.
thats th choise of the company the only way to get rid of those companys is to boycot them. wich will most likely not happen.
It would seem to be a rather vicious circle.
it is and it's hard to turn the circle to the positive one. but it will happen.
well a lot of people who think thier poor just because they dont have a lot of stuff have it easy the real poor people are in the lesser devopled countries sudan macadoneia burundi just to name a few
Just because you're not in a less developed country doesn't mean you have it easy. There are plenty of people who have been forced to live on the streets in America.
Telling someone they are taking a high tone because they see injustice is sidelining the point they are making.
The current living situation means most dont have even a chance of getting out of the poor trap. Is that not wrong? I can see no moral nor logical reason to dismiss the argument as me pointing my nose in the air. We humans have set these logical and moral values for ourselves and we should expect those with power to uphold it. Especially those with power.
It's a realist world. Everyone more or less puts himself in front in some way or another. I have no qualms with doing what we can to help the poor, but your suggestion to cap and restrain the rich in general is ridiculous.
Basically by this basis unless America wants to function like a 3rd world country there is no way to compete for these outsourced jobs.
Given that many of the poor are jobless because they don't have the education qualifications to get higher forms of employment, then it can be often said to be the fault of people themselves.
Essentially the same reason communism will fail even if implemented correctly.
If we set limits on the wealthy then we're killing society's motivation to compete.
Competition is necessary for improvement. Hence why most technological advancements took place in times of war or for the purpose of war.
Sorry for double post, one more point:
There is a system in place to help make for a more equitable society in the US - progressive tax.
Progressive taxation basically requires high-earning households to pay a higher rate of tax (recently upped to 39.6% by Obama, I believe?). While this doesn't directly benefit low and middle income households, the government can use the money for public services that would benefit the society as a whole*.
*Benefits are mainly aimed at low-income households, as the wealthy are self-sufficient and generally don't need public services to live their daily lives.
I wrote a whole load of stuff, its now gone.
It's a realist world. Everyone more or less puts himself in front in some way or another. I have no qualms with doing what we can to help the poor, but your suggestion to cap and restrain the rich in general is ridiculous.
Perhaps it is ridiculous but like I said, I dont really offer solutions. One thing Id like you to remember is that we do, in fact, cap earnings for the poor as well. When average joe earns a bit more he risks going into the next tax bracket and for someone with such low wages in the first place it can actually leave them with less than before, even tho they are earning more! So someone is doing a very bad job of organising finances and Ill bet they are not doing so bad at organising their own along with their buddies bonuses too.
Nemo, I would say you are correct in a large amount of what you say but I feel it really applies only if we keep the current system intact. While the gap is obvious its one piece of a huge puzzle and trying to cram so much content into one part of a subject is difficult. I think the term "the rich get richer while the poor get poorer" is, literally speaking, a false thing to say. But... I do feel that it holds true when looked at like this. The rich really ARE getting richer, that much is plain to see (and when you remember we have limited resources, that is actually a scary thing in itself), but the poor generally have always been poor, there is only a certain level of poorness you can drop to and people from all countries are in this situation, regardless of reletive amounts i.e. less people in USA are poor compared to the amount of poor in Africa. But being poor has never been so plainly obvious and wrong in this world of communication and media coverage.
Given that many of the poor are jobless because they don't have the education qualifications to get higher forms of employment, then it can be often said to be the fault of people themselves.
Thats a very unfair way of looking at it. Iv also never understood rgis human fascination that everyone must work. Its not possible anyway. You say they dont have the education but there are plenty with the education that still cannot get a job. The jobs are going faster than they are created. We dont actually have enough jobs! So how are these educated people meant to find work? While I agree fully that it puts you in a better circumstance and so education is a key part of someone doing well in life, its no guarantee and so its quite unfair to say its the fault of the uneducated when the educated cant find jobs either.
Ill say again. There is literally not enough jobs to go around. The population grows. Scarcity is caused in food supplies when there are plenty of supplies to be had. Its once again hard to not scorn the rich (remember, the really rich) when I see this reality they have created for many who had absolutly no choice in the matter. And to top it all off...
However when they were given extra money to work with the rich just pocketed it.
...we have seen this happening left right and center. Nope, Im not a happy chappy.
The jobs are going faster than they are created. We dont actually have enough jobs!
I actually have a good example of this. About a year or two back this icecream shop opened near me. There were so many qualified applicants the owner had to hold a lottery drawing in order to pick who he hired out of those applicants. This is a minimum wage job as well.
Another example of this is my Gf's brother. he went through college to become an engineer. The only reason he managed to get a job after he graduated was from basically a friends friend. Many of his other friends who graduated with the same qualifications he did were unable to find any work. In short their education only put them into a massive debt instead of getting them work.
I think the term "the rich get richer while the poor get poorer" is, literally speaking, a false thing to say.
I'm not sure if I would call it a false thing to say exactly.
I'm not sure if I would call it a false thing to say exactly.
Perhaps to say its misleading would be more accurate
The rich get richer and the poor stay poor is probably more apt in my view.
And the saddest thing is that it's not the tax system per se, or anything like that, which is causing the rich/poor divide, I think it's a lack of responsibility (or whatever you may call that). It's apparently common known fact that if everyone paid the taxes he/she should pay, there would be no crisis in the world.
The rich get richer and the poor stay poor is probably more apt in my view.
The rich are getting higher incomes (becoming richer). The poor however in most cases maintain the same income while simultaneously having to deal with rising costs of living. So in this sense the rich do get richer while the poor do get poorer.
It's apparently common known fact that if everyone paid the taxes he/she should pay, there would be no crisis in the world.
thats not true.
the crisis started whit the banks that set it all rolling.
it was a economical crisis not created by the governments. but banks who wanted to make to much profit of their clients by spending their money on the stock market.
also if every1 would pay their taxes then their still would be debts in the world. the usa total national assets fall 35 trillion short on the total national unfunded liabilities.
the 15 trillion of the usa you hear about is only the governments debt and not the peoples debts. those debts are in total way higher then the governments debt.
Thread is locked!