• 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!

Who benefits the most from the government? Rich or poor?

Who benefits the most?

  • Rich.

    Votes: 29 78.4%
  • Poor.

    Votes: 8 21.6%

  • Total voters
    37

U.S. Socialist.

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 15, 2011
Messages
913
Reaction score
400
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
One of the arguments I've seen from a few posters as to why the rich shouldn't pay more taxes is because they claim the poor benefit the most from the government. I disagree and here is why. The rich use the highway system to ship their goods, they use public airwaves to advertise their goods, they use the courts far more than the poor, if they ship goods by air they have to rely on government air traffic controllers, and I'm sure it costs a lot of money to keep shipping lanes clear and open., especially from troubled parts of the world. The government also gives the energy industry large subsidies.

However, you could ignore everything I listed above and the fact would remain the the rich depend on the government for their very existence as a social class. The system that allowed them to make their money, capitalism, could not exist without a government.

The government enforces contracts and protects private property. These two things are necessary for capitalism to exist and neither one of them benefits the poor. If you remove the government from the equation then capitalism will collapse. So if the government decides to tax the rich at 90%, then they should pay without complaining, because every penny they own was made possibly by state violence in favor against the poor. To clarify I should point out that protection of private property does not benefit the poor, because they have own no private property. In this case private property refers to the means of production.
 
Last edited:
The rich, because government provides for a stable enough society in which fortunes can be made and kept.

The poor benefit far less from that stability.
 
One of the arguments I've seen from a few posters as to why the rich shouldn't pay more taxes is because they claim the poor benefit the most from the government. I disagree and here is why. The rich use the highway system to ship their goods, they use public airwaves to advertise their goods, they use the courts far more than the poor, if they ship goods by air they have to rely on government air traffic controllers, and I'm sure it costs a lot of money to keep shipping lanes clear and open., especially from troubled parts of the world. The government also gives the energy industry large subsidies.

However, you could ignore everything I listed above and the fact would remain the the rich depend on the government for their very existence as a social class. The system that allowed them to make their money, capitalism, could not exist without a government.

The government enforces contracts and protects private property. These two things are necessary for capitalism to exist and neither one of them benefits the poor. If you remove the government from the equation then capitalism will collapse. So if the government decides to tax the rich at 90%, then they should pay without complaining, because every penny they own was made possibly by state violence in favor against the poor. To clarify I should point out that protection of private property does not benefit the poor, because they have own no private property. In this case private property refers to the means of production.

Could not agree more, we are a country that coddles the rich (intentionally or not).
 
Nobody benefits from big government. As long as there's a government that is hell bent on making more poor people, then poor people will never be able to improve their lives.
 
The rich are net tax payers. The poor are clothed, housed and fed by government. with less government the rich would be richer and the poor would starve. Its not even close.

In the last six months this board has been infected by an onslaught of "bash the rich" whinuses. Its getting to the point where it appears this board becomes a place where those who are envious and hateful of the rich come to complain
 
The rich, because government provides for a stable enough society in which fortunes can be made and kept.

The poor benefit far less from that stability.

from anarchy to a libertarian state perhaps. Once we get to welfare socialism as we have now its the poor who benefit.
 
from anarchy to a libertarian state perhaps. Once we get to welfare socialism as we have now its the poor who benefit.

Even in a libertarian state, desperate people who are overlooked by that system end up causing trouble due to their desire to eat. The early parts of this country were violent times.
 
Last edited:
Even in a libertarian state, desperate people who are overlooked by that system end up causing trouble due to their desire to eat. The early parts of this country were violent times.

Rich people have always been rather good at protecting what they have. In a libertarian society, the rich would be free to earn and earn while looters would be shot or hung
 
Rich people have always been rather good at protecting what they have. In a libertarian society, the rich would be free to earn and earn while looters would be shot or hung

Which would be an example of the problem I was referring to.
 
I could not find my answer. Both benefit. Neither should benefit; except that freedom should be guaranteed to all.
 
Which would be an example of the problem I was referring to.

The point is when we went from essentially a free market system to the welfare-socialist system that change completely benefited the poor not the rich.
 
The rich are net tax payers. The poor are clothed, housed and fed by government. with less government the rich would be richer and the poor would starve. Its not even close.

In the last six months this board has been infected by an onslaught of "bash the rich" whinuses. Its getting to the point where it appears this board becomes a place where those who are envious and hateful of the rich come to complain
Without the government the rich would not exist. Without protection of private property and enforcement of contract your entire system would collapse. The rich owe every penny they have to the government for providing those two essential services. Therefore if the government decides to tax the rich at 90% then the rich had better pay.
 
The point is when we went from essentially a free market system to the welfare-socialist system that change completely benefited the poor not the rich.

And my point is that it benefits both. The provided stability allows for use of things like national infrastructure such an electrical system, roads, a more organized population and educated (which produces workers), etc. Which is more utilized by business concerns (and thus the owners of those businesses) more than the regular guy, for the purposes of creating a better market.
 
Without the government the rich would not exist. Without protection of private property and enforcement of contract your entire system would collapse. The rich owe every penny they have to the government for providing those two essential services. Therefore if the government decides to tax the rich at 90% then the rich had better pay.


so before we had the modern welfare socialist state, there were no rich. Your rants are stupid as usual. The rich did fine before we had a constitutional republic. The rich did fine all over Europe with virtual anarchy. Your rant about taxing the rich is the pack mentality again. This board has become a place where the impotent and the non-mattering come to whine about the wealthy. Guess what? that is all they can do -whine
 
so before we had the modern welfare socialist state, there were no rich. Your rants are stupid as usual. The rich did fine before we had a constitutional republic. The rich did fine all over Europe with virtual anarchy. Your rant about taxing the rich is the pack mentality again. This board has become a place where the impotent and the non-mattering come to whine about the wealthy. Guess what? that is all they can do -whine

At the cost of basic human decency and rights.

But yes, in a feudal system, there will be an accumulation of wealth by the strong men who were willing to oppress and kill for what they wanted.
 
Last edited:
And my point is that it benefits both. The provided stability allows for use of things like national infrastructure such an electrical system, roads, a more organized population and educated (which produces workers), etc. Which is more utilized by business concerns (and thus the owners of those businesses) more than the regular guy, for the purposes of creating a better market.

I will try again

NO GOVERNMENT WHATSOEVER--the most ruthless and brutal do the best

A minimalist government-The most talented and resourceful do the best

a free market system that we essentially had for the first 130 or so years of our nation-the most talented and resourceful do the best

a welfare-socialist system. The uber wealthy benefit since a welfare-socialst system impedes talented people from becoming super rich while it benefits the untalented and the lazy the most
 
I will try again

NO GOVERNMENT WHATSOEVER--the most ruthless and brutal do the best

A minimalist government-The most talented and resourceful do the best

a free market system that we essentially had for the first 130 or so years of our nation-the most talented and resourceful do the best

a welfare-socialist system. The uber wealthy benefit since a welfare-socialst system impedes talented people from becoming super rich while it benefits the untalented and the lazy the most

You were the one referring to the state of the wealthy under an anarchistic society (which turned into rule by strong man or feudalism)

A minimalist government-The most talented and resourceful do the best

a free market system that we essentially had for the first 130 or so years of our nation-the most talented and resourceful do the best

There were cases where this was true.
 
I will try again

NO GOVERNMENT WHATSOEVER--the most ruthless and brutal do the best

A minimalist government-The most talented and resourceful do the best

a free market system that we essentially had for the first 130 or so years of our nation-the most talented and resourceful do the best

a welfare-socialist system. The uber wealthy benefit since a welfare-socialst system impedes talented people from becoming super rich while it benefits the untalented and the lazy the most

So what you're saying is that those who pay for campaigns chose people who chose welfare socialism.

So it would appear it was the uber-wealthy after all.
 
so before we had the modern welfare socialist state, there were no rich. Your rants are stupid as usual. The rich did fine before we had a constitutional republic. The rich did fine all over Europe with virtual anarchy. Your rant about taxing the rich is the pack mentality again. This board has become a place where the impotent and the non-mattering come to whine about the wealthy. Guess what? that is all they can do -whine
Virtual anarchy? What are you talking about? There was never anarchy in Europe. Do you mean the Feudal states ruled by lords and kings? Are you talking about the various democracies that eventually arose in the U.S. and Europe? The government still existed then and provided the services I listed. The fact remains you can't have capitalism without a government to protect private property and enforce contract rights. Give me an example anarchy in Europe. You won't find it, because it has never existed and it certainly hasn't existed during the same time as capitalism, because it is impossible. Capitalism requires the state.
 
I could not find my answer. Both benefit. Neither should benefit; except that freedom should be guaranteed to all.

I assume you are using the term freedom loosely?
 
So what you're saying is that those who pay for campaigns chose people who chose welfare socialism.

So it would appear it was the uber-wealthy after all.



a system where everyone can vote is going to result in a system where those who become rich by having public office create incentives to buy the votes of those who don't pay much if any taxes
 
Virtual anarchy? What are you talking about? There was never anarchy in Europe. Do you mean the Feudal states ruled by lords and kings? Are you talking about the various democracies that eventually arose in the U.S. and Europe? The government still existed then and provided the services I listed. The fact remains you can't have capitalism without a government to protect private property and enforce contract rights. Give me an example anarchy in Europe. You won't find it, because it has never existed and it certainly hasn't existed during the same time as capitalism, because it is impossible. Capitalism requires the state.

Where did I limit my discussion to Europe?
 
Where did I limit my discussion to Europe?
You did say the rich did fine all over Europe. However, if you want to expand it to different continents feel free too. There has never been anarchy, there has always been some form of government whether it was a tribal system or something else. Secondly, we are discussing the rich under our current economic system which is capitalism. Under capitalism the rich require the state to protect their private property and enforce contracts.
 
You did say the rich did fine all over Europe. However, if you want to expand it to different continents feel free too. There has never been anarchy, there has always been some form of government whether it was a tribal system or something else. Secondly, we are discussing the rich under our current economic system which is capitalism. Under capitalism the rich require the state to protect their private property and enforce contracts.

If you define government to mean the ability to protect one's assets even with private armies you might have a point
 
If you define government to mean the ability to protect one's assets even with private armies you might have a point


Rome did much more than that. Like bring sanitation to the cities. Roads for commerce.
 
Back
Top Bottom