• 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 science of inequality: Why people prefer unequal societies

Too much inequality breaks societies, everything else is just conversation.
 
Lafayette said:
Then maybe the Dems have finally got it right?

Meaning this: I am getting at least one email a day from various Dems running for office all around the US, and all they ask for is 5 /10 /20$ contribution. I'm wondering how well this works for politicians; but frankly, to be sure, I like very much the maximum amount limit per person as a law.

Treating a candidacy as if were a loaf-of-bread, or washing powder is NOT acceptable. Their campaign platform is best articulated on TV videos, rather than a TV commercial. (Where they all "wash whiter than white"!)

In Europe your social-security number is also your "identity number". So, when you donate to any politician's campaign beyond the specified amount, you are come up on a "radar screen" ...
Click to expand...

There has to be transparency which you do not have at the moment.

But your system still makes it a popularity contest rather than a political debate. The one who sucks more money out business or the public wins because they are the ones who can afford to publicise themselves more. '
You seem to have a system that looks more to personality than political acumen.
 
Goshin said:
I will grant you it sometimes seems a bit absurd, that George Soros is worth multiple billions while people on my street work hard and can't afford decent healthcare.

However, there's the question of motivation. To resort to an extreme, few would go through what it takes to become a doctor, if they were then paid the same as the garbageman and the janitor.

Ok; you acknowledge full equality isn't feasible and focus on big disparities... like say the disparity between us and a George Soros or Bill Gates.

But one wonders if flattening that curve too much would stifle innovation and progress? The Bill Gates and Elon Musks of the world work hard to get where they are, and in the process MANY people benefit to some degree from their actions. If we took away most of their financial reward, how many would take that enterpreneurial, innovative, inventive path?

Bill Gates is reputedly giving most of his bajillions to Charity; Musk is trying to build a better tomorrow. None of that would be happening if they were limited to earning say 10x the national average with the rest taken in taxes.

Free societies produce like none other.
Click to expand...

While I am not as learned on the subject as other notable and exceptional posters on this thread, I would like to share an anecdote a Nigerian guest once told me.
She said there will always be the rich and there will always be the poor.
The best measure of a society is to be seen by how comfortable its MIDDLE CLASS is doing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom