• 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!

Distributions of wealth in this country

jbander said:
You can't give all the new wealth of a country to just a few golden few. Capitalism dies when the incentive of the possibility to get ahead is taken away. Which it has been the case since 1981. I would like the greatest most powerful richest country in the world, to stay capitalistic and a Republic. Not caring about the fact that the golden few get it all and in no way deserve it all is selling out my country.
Click to expand...

Only the socialists and tinfoil hat crowd really believe it is impossible to get ahead because of income inequality. The fact is that the huge majority of the wealthy in this country are first generation wealthy and a generous plurality started with pretty much nothing when they began what would become their financial empires. Talent, ability, and work ethic is far more important than starting out with material advantage.

And with a few exceptions here and there, the only truly poor people in this country are those who refused to do what most people do to be unpoor, i.e. educate themselves, forego welfare in favor of McJobs that got their foot in the door and enabled them to develop work ethic and get experience and references to move up and onward, and who refrained from illegal substances and activities in order to possess a positive image and reputation.

It is mostly government regulation and micromanagement that creates most of the income inequaity in a democratic free market system. But those of us who were born with pretty much nothing have no barriers to accomplishing a comfortable living in such a system. And those who think poorer people would be more rich if other people were just less rich indicate they have absolutely no clue in how such a system works.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Hmm... if capitalism died in 1981 then how are we (still?) the greatest, most powerful, richest country in the world?
Click to expand...

The first two are the result of massive tax income expentitures on the military.

The last, while true, doesn't say how few people make up that "richest" part .
 
Kreton said:
They benefit from them - however - the majority of their money comes from transactions. Take the Walton family. Walmart brings in billions of dollars a year. People literally line up to hand them money and then complain that they have too much money. It is incredible. Some things are unavoidable like utilities but almost everything else you have a choice. The choices consumers make determine where that money goes. Consumers, more than any other factor, choose to increase the wealth gap.
Click to expand...

This is another area where basic needs leverage wealth and power.

Walmart is the only game in town in some areas. And most of the money a community pays into it leaves and never returns.

It used to trickle up to the top tier, contributing to local economies. Now its a waterfall going up.
 
What if...? said:
This is another area where basic needs leverage wealth and power.

Walmart is the only game in town in some areas. And most of the money a community pays into it leaves and never returns.

It used to trickle up to the top tier, contributing to local economies. Now its a waterfall going up.
Click to expand...

I don't know that to be true. If it has devolved to the point where Walmart is literally the only store in a town then drive to the next town if it is that important to you. And Walmart didn't just appear in a place where no business was being done prior. Consumers chose Walmart. Now don't get me wrong. I don't like Walmart. I strongly prefer smaller business. However I also support choice. Consumers in those areas shut down those mom and pop stores out of greed.
 
It has been clearly demonstrated why so many leftists are so poor. They think someone is going around 'distributing wealth'.

Silly people.
 
As I understand things, part of the reason for the imbalanced wealth distribution is that we subsidize large corporations both directly and indirectly.

And that we allow them to get so large - we aren't applying anti-monopoly laws like we used to, and the result is near-monopolies in many sectors.
 
Kreton said:
Everything is wrong with this. First you are taking money from people for no reason. You are giving money to people for no reason. Then you are assuming that people will spend the money on "good corporations". Good business fail every day because they cannot compete with the bad ones. People will shop where it is cheap. All your plan does is give people free stuff from large corporations.
Click to expand...

Something needs to be done as a species to address addiction to wealth/power (same thing from an evolutionary perspective.).

We are repeating the pattern of history.

Every societal collapse or revolution in history was the result of the few who never can get enough getting so much that life becomes untenable for the rest of society.

The flaw isn't capitalism.

It is that assholes set the "tone". In capitalism, government, everything.

The first guy who sent his work overseas was an asshole. So were the guys who jumped at the idea. Everybody else followed suit to keep the first guys from using that advantage to take THEIR market share.

The assholes set the tone.
 
The Mark said:
As I understand things, part of the reason for the imbalanced wealth distribution is that we subsidize large corporations both directly and indirectly.

And that we allow them to get so large - we aren't applying anti-monopoly laws like we used to, and the result is near-monopolies in many sectors.
Click to expand...

Reagan changed the sherman anti- trust act to allow for all these monopolies to emerge.

just like his tax cuts for the rich and borrow the money to pay for it trickle down economic theory has brought us to the huge income disparity between the middle/working class and the 1% and this huge federal debt.
 
rickc said:
Reagan changed the sherman anti- trust act to allow for all these monopolies to emerge.

just like his tax cuts for the rich and borrow the money to pay for it trickle down economic theory has brought us to the huge income disparity between the middle/working class and the 1% and this huge federal debt.
Click to expand...
Neo-liberalism didn't help though.
 
What if...? said:
You should look at longer time period graphs.

They cut them at 1975 for a reason.

Didn't look like it does now from 1945-1975.
Click to expand...

Were the demorats not ever in charge since 1975? The claim, to which I replied, was that it was that one party (republicants in charge?) caused this trend to occur and that the other party would fix it (make it go in the right direction?). That one party is not likely to have caused the same trend in many other countries or when they are not holding majority power in the US.
 
jbander said:
You can't give all the new wealth of a country to just a few golden few. Capitalism dies when the incentive of the possibility to get ahead is taken away. Which it has been the case since 1981. I would like the greatest most powerful richest country in the world, to stay capitalistic and a Republic. Not caring about the fact that the golden few get it all and in no way deserve it all is selling out my country.
Click to expand...

And when it's easier to get wealthy just by collecting interest or making good investments rather than creating something new or working especially hard, then you're going to get a stagnating economy where wealth is increasingly concentrated. It's not a good thing, and I wish that people would get off of their obsession with all things freedom and realize that unearned income isn't good for society.
 
jbander said:
You can't give all the new wealth of a country to just a few golden few. Capitalism dies when the incentive of the possibility to get ahead is taken away. Which it has been the case since 1981. I would like the greatest most powerful richest country in the world, to stay capitalistic and a Republic. Not caring about the fact that the golden few get it all and in no way deserve it all is selling out my country.
Click to expand...
Wealth isn't "given", it's created and earned as a result of capitalism. Invent something people need or want, sell it for a fair price, leather, rinse, repeat. That's how you acquire wealth.
 
Kreton said:
I am all for more people getting more wealth, I really am. I do think the rich have too much money. However I do not support taking money from one person to give it to another. If you want to see wealth distributed more evenly then stop giving money to the uber wealthy. The poor and middle class of this country line up in droves to give money freely to those at the top.
Click to expand...
Yeah, by purchasing food, clothing, shelter, etc.
 
jbander said:
I'm for every company and every owner earning everything they deserve but all the new wealth of this country is in no way reasonable and in fact is not in the best interest of this country. They are getting it all because of tax laws and tax rates, we have 100% control of that. Who do you think in this country made those tax laws and rates as they are.
Click to expand...
So, your for free enterprise, before you're against it?
 
jbander said:
Who in the hell said that capitalism died in 1981 if you keep on lying you will get a route out of here. Stupid questions get no answer in my world
Click to expand...
Dude, you're not being very clear, he was just asking a question. Chill.
 
Kreton said:
They benefit from them - however - the majority of their money comes from transactions. Take the Walton family. Walmart brings in billions of dollars a year. People literally line up to hand them money and then complain that they have too much money. It is incredible. Some things are unavoidable like utilities but almost everything else you have a choice. The choices consumers make determine where that money goes. Consumers, more than any other factor, choose to increase the wealth gap.
Click to expand...
There you go being logical! A simple concept - the wealthy get that way ONLY WHEN people are willing to purchase their goods and services and when those goods and services are superior to the ones others sell.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Hmm... if capitalism died in 1981 then how are we (still?) the greatest, most powerful, richest country in the world?
Click to expand...

Indeed we are all that.

The only one I know that died in 1981 was my dear mother.

Capitalism is alive and well.
Some people should just admit that they have oodles of class envy, feel entitled to take the wealth of other's and call it a day.
 
jbander said:
I'm one of them complaining about any of this wealth accumulation that is totally made up by tax law and tax rate. They don't earn it , work harder for it or deserve it.
Click to expand...
Wrong, wrong, wrong.


jbander said:
Not in a Capitalistic country that wants to continue to exist. No one deserve all the new wealth of any country as has been the case in this country since 1981. You sitting on the sidelines while we lose this countries middle class and increase of the poor because all the new wealth going to the top is against the best interest of your country. Do you get this, no one deserves it all.
Click to expand...
I don't think you have the foggiest idea about capitalism. And please explain what the heck happened in 1981 that you think was so earth-shattering.
 
dirtpoorchris said:
Its really simple. You take 5% of all corporation profits and deposit it into every single Americans bank account at the end of each month. Americans turn around and put that 5% right back into the best corporations that are worth shopping at. This becomes a tax for bad corporations and a boon for good corporations. Eventually all the bad corporations die. The better the economy the more Americans get paid and can turn around and spend it right back into the economy. This can make it so that even the homeless become members of the economy!
Click to expand...
Competition amongst companies all ready happens.

dirtpoorchis said:
This might turn the ultra rich into putting their money into investments only but eventually they have to get on board the corporate froth train or the world will move on without um.

5% peoples tax on corporations. Paid DIRECTLY to the people's pesonal bank account each month. No political skimming. No reroute of funds for "emergencies". Its THE PEOPLE's. Period.

I mean they are able to build their own personal froth funds on us by demanding mandatory health insurance and mandatory car insurance, inflating the prices for much less work. So why dont we do it to them?
Click to expand...
Turn in your libertarian creds. You've definitely gone over to the dark side.
 
What if...? said:
This is another area where basic needs leverage wealth and power.

Walmart is the only game in town in some areas. And most of the money a community pays into it leaves and never returns.

It used to trickle up to the top tier, contributing to local economies. Now its a waterfall going up.
Click to expand...
Except, of course for the amount paid in wages and benefits to employees. Not to mention sales tax.
 
The Mark said:
As I understand things, part of the reason for the imbalanced wealth distribution is that we subsidize large corporations both directly and indirectly.

And that we allow them to get so large - we aren't applying anti-monopoly laws like we used to, and the result is near-monopolies in many sectors.
Click to expand...
Not really true. Big companies are big because they consistently deliver quality goods and services at prices lower than their competitors.
 
What if...? said:
Something needs to be done as a species to address addiction to wealth/power (same thing from an evolutionary perspective.).

We are repeating the pattern of history.

Every societal collapse or revolution in history was the result of the few who never can get enough getting so much that life becomes untenable for the rest of society.

The flaw isn't capitalism.

It is that assholes set the "tone". In capitalism, government, everything.

The first guy who sent his work overseas was an asshole. So were the guys who jumped at the idea. Everybody else followed suit to keep the first guys from using that advantage to take THEIR market share.

The assholes set the tone.
Click to expand...
Nonsense. Those "assholes" you rant about are the ones providing the goods and services that make life TENABLE for the rest of society. There's no addiction to wealth, just a goal of providing quality products people will by.
 
rickc said:
Reagan changed the sherman anti- trust act to allow for all these monopolies to emerge.
Click to expand...
You mean "Reagan SIGNED the bill where CONGRESS changed the Sherman Anti-Trust Act". Check your Constitution.

rickc said:
just like his tax cuts for the rich and borrow the money to pay for it trickle down economic theory has brought us to the huge income disparity between the middle/working class and the 1% and this huge federal debt.
Click to expand...
LOL, you guys ought to get together and come up with a list of LW mantras and talking points so you could save time typing the same thing over and over; you could just respond "#2, #135, #7, #7"
 
Kreton said:
I am all for more people getting more wealth, I really am. I do think the rich have too much money. However I do not support taking money from one person to give it to another. If you want to see wealth distributed more evenly then stop giving money to the uber wealthy. The poor and middle class of this country line up in droves to give money freely to those at the top.
Click to expand...

God gives a beggar a bowl of soup and the beggar either thanks God or complains that God did not give him the jaguar and the house of a rich fellow he saw.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom