• 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
It hasn't made my life any better or worse. In fact, looking at my tax returns from the time my wife and I got married in 2004 to now, we have increased our earnings by over 400%. From 2004-2008 liberal democrats would tell you this is impossible, because of the policies of GWB. From 2009-present conservative republicans would tell you this is impossible because of Obama's desire to ruin our economy.

Somehow we have made it through the strife put forth by tea-partiers, and survived the "greed" of the 1% by doing nothing more than getting our degrees and working hard.
OWS committed a serious error when they termed the "1%" to be the problem. Most of the upper one percen of income earners are still middle class. Like you. The real problem is more like the upper .001%, and not in annual income but net worth.

One percent makes a good chant but it isn't even close to accurate. What's really ironic is that middle class people like you endsidetracking the side of the super rich, even though you belong to the class that they are hurting the most (in terms of absolute dollars).
 
Last edited:
How serious a problem is the wealth gap between the wealthy and the rest of us?

it's a fairly serious problem but the fact is we have had this divide since we had civilization. The levels of it have changed but it's always been there. We have been told by the media we were closing the gap for the last 50 years, and we believed it is all. We bought into the hype of so-called middle class living. Everyone felt their new car, house, RV, and flat-screen TV gave them status, only to find they needed another new car and another house, and a bigger RV, and a flat-screen in every room to get that status,and even then it wasn't there. So now the economy and changes in medical care has forced us to wake up from the dream. Now we realize that the gap is still there and the middle class fairy tale has ended and we don't all live happily ever after.
 
How serious a problem is the wealth gap between the wealthy and the rest of us?

It depends on the origin of their wealth.

The "gap" between me and Baryshnikov, when it comes to getting paid for dancing, is not a problem at all. I cannot dance, he can - and how. The same goes for inventors, entrepreneurs, organizers, and all kinds of creators.

On the other end of the spectrum, the "gap" between a corrupt dictator of a minerals-rich third-world country and most every other citizen is definitely a "very serious" problem - not in itself, by because it is a result of the State being set up as a criminal syndicate.

We have to focus less on the "gap" (that's just envy talking, let's be honest), and more on the role of government and sources of enrichment / causes of impoverishment in a given society.
 
Jealousy is the only real issue. A spotlight shined upon it in the last election; some were against Mitt simply for being rich.
Five posts in and the Envy Card is already played! :lamo


I had nothing against Mitt for being rich or even how he got rich, which even more people had a problem with. Sharks and jackals are a natural part of the system whether it be the jungle or a capitalist business community. :shrug:
 
it's a fairly serious problem but the fact is we have had this divide since we had civilization. The levels of it have changed but it's always been there. We have been told by the media we were closing the gap for the last 50 years, and we believed it is all. We bought into the hype of so-called middle class living. Everyone felt their new car, house, RV, and flat-screen TV gave them status, only to find they needed another new car and another house, and a bigger RV, and a flat-screen in every room to get that status,and even then it wasn't there. So now the economy and changes in medical care has forced us to wake up from the dream. Now we realize that the gap is still there and the middle class fairy tale has ended and we don't all live happily ever after.

you are being lied to

A widening gap between rich and poor is reshaping the U.S. economy, leaving it more vulnerable to recurring financial crises and less likely to generate enduring expansions.

Left unchecked, the decades-long trend toward increasing inequality may condemn Wall Street to a generation of unimpressive returns and even shake social stability, economists and financial-industry executives say.

“Income inequality in this country is just getting worse and worse and worse,” James Chanos, president and founder of New York-based Kynikos Associates Ltd., told Bloomberg Radio this week. “And that is not a recipe for stable economic growth when the rich are getting richer and everybody else is being left behind.”

Since 1980, about 5 percent of annual national income has shifted from the middle class to the nation’s richest households. That means the wealthiest 5,934 households last year enjoyed an additional $650 billion -- about $109 million apiece -- beyond what they would have had if the economic pie had been divided as it was in 1980, according to Census Bureau data.

Disputes over what constitutes economic fairness are moving to center stage amid a near-stagnant U.S. economy saddled with 9.1 percent unemployment yet boasting record corporate profits. President Barack Obama last month targeted “the wealthiest taxpayers and biggest corporations” for higher taxes, saying they should pay “their fair share.” That drew charges of “class warfare” from House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio.

Growing Income Gap May Leave U.S. Vulnerable - Bloomberg

there are numerous sources that discuss this, and it has been well researched.

I can't believe americans don't know this.
 
5 of them were contractors that benefitted from the housing boom, a couple more of them are rental property guys, and the others just though real estate and other deals.

Land speculators are leeches. A truly freeD market would see the end of such parasitic behavior.
 
Except none of that is true. The rich aren't getting richer. They usually lose their wealth within 3 generations. Most of today's wealthy did not start off that way. IT is just the same old myth the democrats have been peddling since Andrew Jackson.
Then Romney's kids will piss it all away? LOL! Somehow I doubt that.
 
If you're intent on running a command and control economy, it's a fairly serious problem.
 
Then Romney's kids will piss it all away? LOL! Somehow I doubt that.

Probably not, as he appears to have done a pretty good job as a father.

However, Fisher is correct - the vast majority of America's millionaires are first-generation wealthy.
 
His grandkids will.
Didn't you know Mitt was a Silver Spoon - the son of the CEO of American Motors? His father was far from being poor. Mitt's grandkids will be the fourth generation, not third.
 
Yes, we do give too many hand outs, corporate welfare is out of hand these days. They benefit too much from tax payers, and are given too much leeway to hide away their fortunes or offshore production. Corporate Capitalism is choking out the economic freedom of the Republic and is one of the reasons we're seeing wealth aggregate into fewer and fewer hands.

then you aren't paying attention, many middle class citizens 10 years ago are multi-millionaires today
 
Look, I'm talking about objective terms. Ten million net worth is not upper class, it is the higher end of middle class. If you work your whole life as a doctor and retire on a ten million nest egg, it is not real wealth. Yes, you can invest that money in the market and make a hundred million, but what retiree is going to take that risk?

You're mixing up the petit-bourgeoisie and the bourgeoisie. Despite their similar sounding names, the petit bourgeoisie have more in common with the proletariat.

10 million is not middle class at all, that statement above means I am done with you on this as you have no idea what you are talking about.
 
Probably not, as he appears to have done a pretty good job as a father.

However, Fisher is correct - the vast majority of America's millionaires are first-generation wealthy.
Get some similar data on at least the $10M+ crowd and get back to me because I don't believe it.
 
In every society that has ever existed from the beginning of time, there have been three main levels (probably some sub-levels, but basically three); those at the top who do very well either through inherited wealth, hard work, taking chances, being clever or a combination of all of those things; those in the middle who work hard, save some and try to move up through the classes; and those at the bottom who, sometimes through no fault of their own and sometimes through their life choices, will always remain on the bottom of society. Those at the top do very well, those in the middle do ok and those on the bottom get screwed. From ancient Egypt through to modern society, that's the way society works and will always work and there is nothing that is going to change that. Governments go throw money into schemes designed to assist the poor and some of those poor will latch onto that money and still stay where they are for life. Some will see the value of an education and work damn hard to not have to depend on that money. Society needs those at the top; they hire people, pay wages which go into the economy (perhaps not enough wages, but that's life....don't like it then move on up through hard work). I am not an economist, I don't pretend to understand money matters except paying my bills etc. I do know that society really does need the top, the middle and the bottom layers.
Everyone has the right to equal opportunity, but everyone is simply not equal. One of the first lies we tell kids, is that they can be anything they want, they just have to want it bad enough. That is simply not true. For example, I was never going to be able to be a brain surgeon or a rocket scientist no matter how much I would want to....don't have the intelligence or ability.....I was never going to be a super model....sure as hell don't have the beauty or the body for it! People have to get real.
Top, middle and bottom, that's the way it works. Should those at the bottom be helped? Certainly, been there, done that and worked my way out of it. But you can only help so much, people really have to help themselves.

You left out the amorally greedy from your top group. History is replete with examples of the harm they do. There have been revolutions based on that alone.

But the real point you aren't taking into account is we are entering a post labor economy.

The machines ARE taking over. The labor part anyway.

So our thinking will have to change.

Not everybody was born with the tools to compete in this new economy. Not everybody can be a programmer or content creator, even if they study real hard and apply themselves completely.

The old "get a job" mindset is becoming more and more a fallacy.
 
then you aren't paying attention, many middle class citizens 10 years ago are multi-millionaires today

Give me the stats! It's really not that hard. I'm sure there are some who are now millionaires (true wealth starts when one gains a net worth of billions in today's world), never said there aren't. But how many? What percentage? What are the statistics?
 
It might be more informative to see your reasoning as to why this might be...

Globalization and technology have conferred significant advantages to those who are positioned to exploit them.

Owners of capital, and those who borrow capital from them, mostly.

Labor is at a significant disadvantage, and lacks the resources to counter this phenomenon.
 
true, but congress applies handouts the nanny state... to the masses, and unions, planned-parenthood, environmentalist, and other special interest groups besiege congress for favors and money also.

our government is bought by faction/special interest, because the checks and balances to stop that special interest are gone, removed by the government, allowing them more power, and more opportunity for corruption.

All done by the government.

Made up of people who are pre-selected by those benefitting in the "wealth primary".

Money decides who we get to choose from in elections.

Both sides.

Shifting government from the nations referee to the boogeyman responsible for all our s in the eyes of the people is the greatest PR coup ever pulled.

Even beats the Soviet scam.
 
Yet it is still better off then the Soviet Union. A few of us being unequally rich is better then all of us being equally poor.

There were rich people in the Soviet Union.

Who sold the promise of a workers paradise with no intention of coming through.
 
Upgrading? Or lack of time to enjoy same? With all the labor-saving devices we have available, why don't we have more free time? That has perplexed me for quite a while. :scared:

Technology was supposed to free man from labor.

So far, all it has done is free owners from labor COSTS.

So instead of everybody having more free time for leisure/personal development, owners get more profits instead.
 
In the U.S. this is not an issue, and is a sign of a free market. If it were an authoritarian government massively taxing and then enriching their party people that was creating the divide, that would be tragic. Note it would be tragic because of the lack of freedom though, and not in wealth disparity.

Technology was supposed to free man from labor. So far, all it has done is free owners from labor COSTS. So instead of everybody having more free time for leisure/personal development, owners get more profits instead.

That's false. That's absurd. That's out-****ing-rageous. Compare our quality of life to 200 years ago. If you live similar to them, your cost of living will be so low that you will have an enormous amount of liesure time compared to back then. You omit that fact for what reason? The fact is you trade that liesure for your modern quality of life. That's largely a voluntary choice. The masses apparently prefer to live in climate controlled environments with HD TV and ice makers and eat out, while having similar liesure time to say 50 years ago. That's a personal choice.

But generally the poor just died ages ago, and underclass worked sun up to sun down. That you think this has not improved is ridiculous. When's the last time you cut ice blocks for your fridge? When's the last time you had to ride your buggy into town for food stock? When's the last time you had to spend 80% of your life chopping firewood, hunting, and growing just to survive?

You should be sentenced to life without technology for a month for such nonsense...you'd reform! :) :)
 
Technology was supposed to free man from labor.

So you think. But think about this, who is mostly responsible for designing such technology? Wouldn't be the geeks would it? They wouldn't have anything against people who tortured and tormented them in life, would they? Is it really labor saving or is it geeks getting revenge for the torment they suffered?

Might explain why they can go to work when they know their work will hurt lots of people and then they don't feel guilty about putting a lot of "normals" out of work.
 
There were rich people in the Soviet Union.

Who sold the promise of a workers paradise with no intention of coming through.

They were rich because the government owned the wealth and they owned the government.

Thats what common ownership really means.
 
Technology was supposed to free man from labor.

So far, all it has done is free owners from labor COSTS.

So instead of everybody having more free time for leisure/personal development, owners get more profits instead.

Have you taken 30 seconds to consider all the highly paid jobs that revolve around technology?
 
Back
Top Bottom