• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The divide between the rich and the rest

How serious a problem is the divide between the wealthy and the rest of us?

  • This divide does not exist.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    109
The serfs were not living in a society where they have mass opportunity to seek their way in life.

I am not saying that what we have is just as bad. In fact, I think we have generally progressed in the right direction as a civilization. But, there are still a lot of things that need to be fixed. Before we blame the impoverished perhaps we should question the system itself.


Yeah... graduated taxation is a real privilege.

A graduated income tax is just smoke to make it appear the State is addressing the poverty issue. In order to truly tackle the rich/poor gap we must get to the root of the problem. Benjamin Tucker identified 4 monopolies that the elite benefit from through the State: Land Monopoly, Money Monopoly, Tariff Monopoly, and the Patent Monopoly. They are as much a factor today as they were when he wrote about them 100 years ago.
http://www.gonzotimes.com/2011/06/benjamin-tuckers-four-monopolies/


Individuals have control, have the power, even in this socialist society.

Which is much like saying a goldfish in a fishbowl has control/power over itself. Sure, it can swim, eat, etc. But nevertheless it is restricted.


When government penalizes wealth

I am opposed to penalizing the fruits of labor. Any legitimately earned wealth should go untaxed.

and pours on regulation the poor have a more difficult time with upward mobility.

You're right there. Over-regulation leads to fewer opportunities for the common man to get a job, start a business, and acquire wealth. This actually supports my point that we are not simply free to do whatever we want.

When government doesn't try to level things out, when it allows people to be as wealthy as they like there are more jobs and that fuller employment raises wages.

When government removes the barriers/privileges I mentioned, then we can see a wealthier society in general.
 
Define social justice.



the unequal distribution of income

and so working hard like animals and being treated like animals



.......................





What is Social Justice?

In Australia, we have a pretty good understanding of what justice is. You know, justice is that thing that involves courts and lawyers, which makes sure that the bad guys get punished, the good guys get compensated, and that everyone gets a fair go...

But what happens when society itself is the 'bad guy'? What happens to justice when our spending habits keep people enslaved? When the law or national policy victimises the poor and marginalised? When community attitudes stop people from receiving the support and assistance they desperately need?

The answer? When society is the perpetrator of injustice, unfairness is tolerated, accepted, even regarded as 'necessary'.

And social injustice won't end until someone stands up for those who don't have the ability to stand up for themselves.

That's really what we're on about when we talk about social justice - it's the pursuit of justice purely for someone else's sake. It's the pursuit of justice even if we don't get any benefit from the outcome. It's the pursuit of justice even if we ourselves need to make sacrifices in order to ensure everyone receives the same fair go.

What is Social Justice? » salvos.org.au/more/
 
Jealousy is the only real issue. A spotlight shined upon it in the last election; some were against Mitt simply for being rich.

Nonsense. It's "jealousy" in the way that the owner of stolen property is "jealous" of the thief who took it. The wealth divide is caused by corruption, and the plutocrats on top are thieves, nothing more. They do not deserve their wealth because they only have it due to the corrupt relationship the rich have with government.
 
Last edited:
It's not the wealth gap per se, it's the legislation behind it.

Well, ok, a fair point. But that's kind of a chicken or the egg question. What is the problem, the corrupt government or the plutocrats who corrupted it?
 
I can't believe out of $16 trillion dollars in debt they couldn't find a measly $1 million for me.
 
the unequal distribution of income

and so working hard like animals and being treated like animals



.......................





What is Social Justice?

In Australia, we have a pretty good understanding of what justice is. You know, justice is that thing that involves courts and lawyers, which makes sure that the bad guys get punished, the good guys get compensated, and that everyone gets a fair go...

But what happens when society itself is the 'bad guy'? What happens to justice when our spending habits keep people enslaved? When the law or national policy victimises the poor and marginalised? When community attitudes stop people from receiving the support and assistance they desperately need?

The answer? When society is the perpetrator of injustice, unfairness is tolerated, accepted, even regarded as 'necessary'.

And social injustice won't end until someone stands up for those who don't have the ability to stand up for themselves.

That's really what we're on about when we talk about social justice - it's the pursuit of justice purely for someone else's sake. It's the pursuit of justice even if we don't get any benefit from the outcome. It's the pursuit of justice even if we ourselves need to make sacrifices in order to ensure everyone receives the same fair go.

What is Social Justice? » salvos.org.au/more/

If income is distributed based upon the need for a worker, the workers skill, the ease of replacing said worker and the amount such a worker should earn in a competitive labor market, then those who work like animals and are treated like animals pretty much have chosen that life style for themselves, not society. At least here in America, there are still lots of opportunity for people to better themselves and earn more. The only reason for so many people to be qualified only to scrub toilets is because they haven't taken the opportunities available and done something with those opportunities. There are some, the functional mentally disabled who might never reach above that level even if they tried, but we also have aide to such people and they like having a job.

Perhaps you could give us some example of this "social injustice" of unequal distribution of income. If someone wants to earn CEO pay, then they do what is necessary to become a CEO, otherwise, tough donuts. If someone doesn't like their pay, then they can go elsewhere or make themselves more valuable. They don't show they are willing to work hard and improve themselves, then why should others give a damned about them.
 
Nonsense. It's "jealous" in the way that the owns of stolen property is "jealous" of the thief who took it. The wealth divide is caused by corruption, and the plutocrats on top are thieves, nothing more. They do not deserve their wealth because they only have it due to the corrupt relationship the rich have with government.

Well said. I will support any policy that reduces the amount that the government OR PRIVILEGED PARTIES may initiate (NOTICE THE WORD INITIATE) aggression (where aggression is defined as acting to uninvitedly change the physical integrity of any person's body or property).
 
If income is distributed based upon the need for a worker, the workers skill, the ease of replacing said worker and the amount such a worker should earn in a competitive labor market, then those who work like animals and are treated like animals pretty much have chosen that life style for themselves, not society. At least here in America, there are still lots of opportunity for people to better themselves and earn more. The only reason for so many people to be qualified only to scrub toilets is because they haven't taken the opportunities available and done something with those opportunities. There are some, the functional mentally disabled who might never reach above that level even if they tried, but we also have aide to such people and they like having a job.

Perhaps you could give us some example of this "social injustice"
of unequal distribution of income. If someone wants to earn CEO pay, then they do what is necessary to become a CEO, otherwise, tough donuts. If someone doesn't like their pay, then they can go elsewhere or make themselves more valuable. They don't show they are willing to work hard and improve themselves, then why should others give a damned about them.

l think we are speaking different languages
 
Define real socialism.

Socialism derives from Marx and he defined it as the process/method of moving from capitalism to communism. Some now wish to remain at socialism or part socialism without moving to communism. While an authoritarian government is not a requirement of socialism, any government pursuing socialistic agendas must be, in part, authoritarian in nature, whether they are democratically elected or are outright dictators. Socialism is not a form of government, but can be actions taken by the government acting in the "best interests" of "society" by forcing compliance with social and economic desires of the socialist. Any government that pursues elimination of class or reduction in class differences, whether based upon social or economic measures, is socialistic in nature. Since they are socialistic, they are socialist.

Some pursue protecting classes based also based upon different measures. Class will always exist, but a persons class, imo, is based upon the individuals own merits. Any government that does not protect class based upon artificial structures or does not attempt to end class, but instead bases it upon individual merit/achievement can be said to be a Meritocracy. Something that like true Communism, does not currently exist.

I fully support Meritocracy, not unlimited Democracy, not corporatism, not socialism, not dictatorships nor any form of government that hinders the individuals right to achieve or stops people from experiencing the negative affects of their own choices.

even if these social classes will exist , their basic needs should be met by the governments

again it comes to social justice................
 
Nonsense. It's "jealousy" in the way that the owner of stolen property is "jealous" of the thief who took it. The wealth divide is caused by corruption, and the plutocrats on top are thieves, nothing more. They do not deserve their wealth because they only have it due to the corrupt relationship the rich have with government.

Yeah, the reason why cardiologists make more than high school drop outs stocking shelves in the Piggly Wiggly is because the former are corrupt.

:roll:
 
Yeah, the reason why cardiologists make more than high school drop outs stocking shelves in the Piggly Wiggly is because the former are corrupt.

:roll:

I agree with your sentiment. Not everyone who is well off got there because of corruption. But that is not a proof that the government is not corrupt.
 
Yeah, the reason why cardiologists make more than high school drop outs stocking shelves in the Piggly Wiggly is because the former are corrupt.

:roll:

Ah, here is the source of the confusion. You misunderstand what true wealth is. Cardiologists are not rich. Doctors and lawyers and accountants are not truly wealthy, except if they have family wealth or some other source.

A cardiologist is middle class. True wealth dwarfs a cardiologist's income, and such wealth can only be acquired by corruption.
 
Apparently the problem is not serious enough since the Obama government has to import poor anti-Americans from around the world to make the situation a million times worse.

ditto
 
its not a problem for people willing to go out and make their own way, for those with less work ethic, it is a biggier crisis for them
 
its not a problem for people willing to go out and make their own way, for those with less work ethic, it is a biggier crisis for them

Wealth is not about work ethic in our system. It is about lobbyists, corruption, and nepotism.

With a little bit of luck hard work can take you all the way to the top of the middle class; maybe six or seven figures. But hard work can never bring true wealth.
 
Last edited:
Wealth is not about work ethic in our system. It is about lobbyists, corruption, and nepotism.

With a little bit of luck hard work can take you all the way to the top of the middle class; maybe six or seven figures. But hard work can never bring true wealth.

Really? neither Jobs or Gates were wealthy in the beginning

In 1982, Cuban moved to Dallas, Texas. Cuban first found work as a bartender,[19][20] then as a salesperson for Your Business Software, one of the first PC software retailers in Dallas. He was terminated less than a year later, after meeting with a client to procure new business instead of opening the store.[21]

Mark Cuban - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Really? neither Jobs or Gates were wealthy in the beginning

In 1982, Cuban moved to Dallas, Texas. Cuban first found work as a bartender,[19][20] then as a salesperson for Your Business Software, one of the first PC software retailers in Dallas. He was terminated less than a year later, after meeting with a client to procure new business instead of opening the store.[21]

Mark Cuban - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have 3 out of how many people? You do realize the only thing you have shown here is that coming from middle class or less to become truly wealthy is an outside chance at best.
 
Really? neither Jobs or Gates were wealthy in the beginning

In 1982, Cuban moved to Dallas, Texas. Cuban first found work as a bartender,[19][20] then as a salesperson for Your Business Software, one of the first PC software retailers in Dallas. He was terminated less than a year later, after meeting with a client to procure new business instead of opening the store.[21]

Mark Cuban - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And you think those guys got rich through a staunch devotion to fair play and fee markets? You think a corporate plutocrat who makes his money off of Asian slave labor is earning his money honestly?
 
You have 3 out of how many people? You do realize the only thing you have shown here is that coming from middle class or less to become truly wealthy is an outside chance at best.

It happens all the time, I know at least 10 millionaires that were dirt poor as kids, some of you must live in box or under a rock
 
And you think those guys got rich through a staunch devotion to fair play and fee markets?

Absolutely, the successful start with an idea, many that complain are not dedicated enough to pursue those kind of rewards, hell I'm not. I want to work my 60 hour week draw may pay, play and spend time with the family. It comes down to drive and dedication to meeting your goals and objectives.
 
It happens all the time, I know at least 10 millionaires that were dirt poor as kids, some of you must live in box or under a rock

You "know" at least 10 millionaires that were dirt poor huh? Who, how? Also, care to supply actual statistics? How many in the top 1% started out poor? How many in the top 0.1% (where the TRUE wealth lies) started out poor?

Stats, not personal testimony. Personal testimony only counts if someone made an absolute statement such as "no poor person, regardless of hard word, dedication or luck, could ever rise to the ranks for the rich", but no one said that.
 
It happens all the time, I know at least 10 millionaires that were dirt poor as kids, some of you must live in box or under a rock

The person living under a rock is the guy who thinks being a millionaire is wealthy!
 
Back
Top Bottom