• 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 Economist - "Inequality or middle incomes: which matters more?"

Lafayette said:
And since when was the "Socialist Left" (whatever the hell that means) judge-and-jury of any particular Individual?

Besides, nowadays, given the demise of "socialism" in Russia and China, and the adoption of "capitalism" in both countries, the debate devolves directly to Income Disparity. Which is better, a country hooked on Plutocrat Theft of mineral-resources as in Russia or the same-but-different theft of High Officials of the Chinese Communist Party?

Or one such as the US where Upper-income Taxation is so low that most becomes Wealth - which is stored and inherited by generations thereafter who never have to work a day in their lives to earn it.

As Bernie tried to drive home in a country not great at understanding subtleties, "Socialism is Dead" whilst "Social Democracy" is alive and well in the EU:


But what does that above mean? That the US is the most unfair developed nation on earth in terms of Income Disparity:
screen_shot_2013-11-027.jpg
Click to expand...

Yeah.. I don't think you've appreciated the context of my response to another poster.
I wasn't slagging Gabbard at all.
 
Nap said:
Where you start the race does not determine where you finish. His statement is true, your statement is also true but doesn't discredit his.
Click to expand...

I was not speaking to "determination", but the sad fact of the matter is that where you are born statistically also decides your lifespan. See here.

Note that the variation from longest to shortest lifespan is 6.1 years. (Note also that the Lifespan in general for Europe is three years longer than the US.)

Finally, from here: Income Gap, Meet the Longevity Gap
Excerpt:
“Poverty is a thief,” said Michael Reisch, a professor of social justice at the University of Maryland, testifying before a Senate panel on the issue. “Poverty not only diminishes a person’s life chances, it steals years from one’s life.”

That reality is playing out across the country. For the upper half of the income spectrum, men who reach the age of 65 are living about six years longer than they did in the late 1970s. Men in the lower half are living just 1.3 years longer.
Click to expand...

My Point: By refusing to increase the minimum wage to at least Poverty Threshold levels we are effectively condemning some people to an earlier-than-need-be death ...
 
Lafayette said:
And since when was the "Socialist Left" (whatever the hell that means) judge-and-jury of any particular Individual?

Besides, nowadays, given the demise of "socialism" in Russia and China, and the adoption of "capitalism" in both countries, the debate devolves directly to Income Disparity. Which is better, a country hooked on Plutocrat Theft of mineral-resources as in Russia or the same-but-different theft of High Officials of the Chinese Communist Party?

Or one such as the US where Upper-income Taxation is so low that most becomes Wealth - which is stored and inherited by generations thereafter who never have to work a day in their lives to earn it.

As Bernie tried to drive home in a country not great at understanding subtleties, "Socialism is Dead" whilst "Social Democracy" is alive and well in the EU:


But what does that above mean? That the US is the most unfair developed nation on earth in terms of Income Disparity:
screen_shot_2013-11-027.jpg
Click to expand...

Why isn't Brazil on that list?
 
Lafayette said:
Lack of reliable data?

Go ask the authors ...
Click to expand...

It's not on the list because it doesn't conform to the idea that the authors want the data to show.
 
Lafayette said:
When a taxation system perversely and continuously benefits only the upper classes.
Click to expand...

so when the top 1% pay 44% of all federal income tax and the bottom 45% pay none that perversely benefits the upper class??? Is that insane reasoning or what???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom