Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In order to facilitate "giving to others" we the people have created a Jeffersonian government, and empowered it to "give to others" from a general fund established for that purpose, with the advice and consent of the governed.
In other words you take from one and give to another. I wonder how much you people actually give to charity from your own pockets. But if you are so hell bent against the rich and think that having more wealth is social injustice then why dont you put your money where your mouth is. Give all your excess to people who are in poverty.
Genetics and family??? We all know you would take everything from the rich if you could, nothing new there.
I would take everything from the rich if I could? I don't follow....
Quote:
Originally Posted by maschuette
But genetics are a form of social injustice too??? Yeah, i guess by your standard they are. Lebron James is better at basketball then i am, WHAT SOCIAL INJUSTICE!!!
A society should reward people that work hard and do other things that are within their control, a society should not create huge rewards for things that are largely out of people's control. In our society, a kid that is born into a wealthy family is likely to live a plush live and be wealthy himself. On the other hand a kid from a working-class family is likely to receive a sub-par education and end up a working class adult even if he works, etc significantly harder than the kid born into wealth. The wealthy kid starts the race with a significant lead. The same can be said for genetics, but family plays a bigger role. That is, a very smart working-class kids often don't find their way out of their working-class environment.,
Anyhow, a just society will try to make the starting point for all individuals as equal as possible. The only way to achieve this is some sort of redistribution of wealth and progressive taxes work wonderfully in this regard. Those with extreme talents are still motivated to achieve great things as they skill get a big chunk of their earnings while society as a whole benefits because the earnings are taxed heavily after they exceed what would be expected of a middle-class household.
I don't think it's quite so easy. I see opportunity all over the place, but I lack the three things you need to get ahead: skills, cash, and credit.
Skills;cash and crdit are thngs eran thru the life choice you make. Unless you inherit ;none are given by birth.Basically getting ahead is doig more than the mimimum to survive and involves alot of work one way or the other by choices.
I would take everything from the rich if I could? I don't follow....
A society should reward people that work hard and do other things that are within their control, a society should not create huge rewards for things that are largely out of people's control. In our society, a kid that is born into a wealthy family is likely to live a plush live and be wealthy himself. On the other hand a kid from a working-class family is likely to receive a sub-par education and end up a working class adult even if he works, etc significantly harder than the kid born into wealth. The wealthy kid starts the race with a significant lead. The same can be said for genetics, but family plays a bigger role. That is, a very smart working-class kids often don't find their way out of their working-class environment.,
Anyhow, a just society will try to make the starting point for all individuals as equal as possible. The only way to achieve this is some sort of redistribution of wealth and progressive taxes work wonderfully in this regard. Those with extreme talents are still motivated to achieve great things as they skill get a big chunk of their earnings while society as a whole benefits because the earnings are taxed heavily after they exceed what would be expected of a middle-class household.
Capitalism doesn't have to be heartless.
The problem is that instead of raising people up you bring others down.
The problem is that instead of raising people up you bring others down.
Huh? The whole point is to raise people up, but you can't raise people up while allocation the vast majority of wealth to the top 5~10% of society. You need a mechanism to redistribute wealth and progressive taxes provide an ideal way of doing that. Again, it both redistributes wealth, yet does not eliminate incentives for high achievement. Its the ideal system, its capitalism with a heart.
In your world the bottom ~80% is suppose to magically raise up while they pay for everything themselves despite the fact that the vast majority of the wealth is owned by the other 20%. Let's get real here, your ideological is one of mass poverty, its the same system that exists in 3rd world countries. There is not a single first-world nation that doesn't redistribute from the top 10~20% down to the other 90~80%, the mechanism to do this in capitalist societies is always progressive taxes.
You want pure cold-hearted capitalism, it was tried and failed.
Huh? The whole point is to raise people up, but you can't raise people up while allocation the vast majority of wealth to the top 5~10% of society. You need a mechanism to redistribute wealth and progressive taxes provide an ideal way of doing that. Again, it both redistributes wealth, yet does not eliminate incentives for high achievement. Its the ideal system, its capitalism with a heart.
In your world the bottom ~80% is suppose to magically raise up while they pay for everything themselves despite the fact that the vast majority of the wealth is owned by the other 20%. Let's get real here, your ideological is one of mass poverty, its the same system that exists in 3rd world countries. There is not a single first-world nation that doesn't redistribute from the top 10~20% down to the other 90~80%, the mechanism to do this in capitalist societies is always progressive taxes.
You want pure cold-hearted capitalism, it was tried and failed.
I am real, and in the real world people start with nothing are expected to build something. That is life. Your saying that just because i have something that others cant have it. Your assuming that wealth has to redistributed instead of created. "If they have more then i must have less." Thats not how it is. I guess i dont understand what you are fully suggesting. Are you suggesting that money be given to them outright? Education is already free so what else do you want. Give people an opportunity to learn and work and let them go. What else is there? How would you redistribute the wealth exactly?
I am real, and in the real world people start with nothing are expected to build something. That is life.
In the real world people rarely start with nothing and build something, instead they start with nothing and end with nothing. Social mobility in the US is low.
Quote:
Originally Posted by maschuette
Your assuming that wealth has to redistributed instead of created. "If they have more then i must have less." Thats not how it is. I guess i dont understand what you are fully suggesting. Are you suggesting that money be given to them outright? Education is already free so what else do you want. Give people an opportunity to learn and work and let them go. What else is there? How would you redistribute the wealth exactly?
I've mentioned the mechanism numerous times now so I'm not sure why you don't get what I'm suggesting. No, you don't give people money outright, instead you investment in social services that help people "raise up". Those services have to be funded and the funding can't come from the people that are being helped, after all, if they had the money they wouldn't need the help. Progressive taxes allow one to redistribute wealth from the top to the bottom, the money goes to fund investment.
In terms of education, though free, our education is in no sense equal. For example here in the Conejo Valley most schools are 9~10 stars, yet if I drive 15 minutes into LA the schools are 1~4 stars. The kids here receive a significantly better education because they were born into more affluent families. Rather than flatten social inequalities our education system is magnifying them, after all the kids here not only get better schools but they have wealthy and educated parents as well.
People will rise to their potential if given the opportunity. Many people born into blue collar families have went on to achive great ammounts of success. Many people born to poor families have left that lifestyle and went on to become very wealthy. For the most part people become what they are accustomed to. Those that are poor may not learn how to leave that culture. Those that are wealthy may have been given an education on becoming wealthy. The middle class may stay as such. Still many do leave the lot that they were given and move on to a better life. The truth is that no one keeps you bound by tradition in this country accept for yourself. This also works both ways. Many that were born into wealth end up spending the money that there parents acquired.
As far as eduaction, schools are open to all that put the effort into it. There is no requirement that only a wealthy person can get into Harvard or Yale. It is open to all that qualify and are accepted, oh and a lot of those that are accepted also have financial aid.
Is it better to be wealthy? Why sure. Is it a requirement for success? Heck no. Plenty have become very wealthy and grew up very poor. Their is just no need to seperate people from their money by having them pay more in taxes. That is about as stupid an idea as i have ever heard. The truth is that the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes and then some. Creating a progressive tax system that strips the wealthy of their money would be foolish. I say get rid of taxation and allow the wealthy to do what they do best, create jobs for those that are not wealthy. You see job creation doesn't come from the government, it comes from those that have money. They want to build wealth and invest that money into businesses that make them money. The wealthy created the middle class. Tasx them and they will take their wealth somewhere else.
People will rise to their potential if given the opportunity.
Sure and kids in this country face very different sets of opportunities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SOON2BNSURPRISE
As far as eduaction, schools are open to all that put the effort into it. There is no requirement that only a wealthy person can get into Harvard or Yale. It is open to all that qualify and are accepted, oh and a lot of those that are accepted also have financial aid.
You're ignoring the fact that our primary and secondary schools in no sense provide equal quality educations. The teachers at poor quality schools are on average significantly less knowledgeable, the schools have less money,etc than high quality schools. This is not to mention the best schools are actually private and out of reach of around 90% of society.
In terms of universities, although someone from a poor family can go to Harvard, that again ignores the poor education, advice, social influences, etc they are subjected to for the first 18 years of their life. Kids from poor/uneducated families are very underrepresented at schools like Harvard despite the fact that Harvard would give them a free ride.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SOON2BNSURPRISE
That is about as stupid an idea as i have ever heard. The truth is that the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes and then some.
And yet...every first-world country does it, including the US. But the US is moving away from a progressive model, its taxing its working and middle classes more and more and cutting important services so it can offer tax breaks to the top 5~10% of society.
I'm still amazed at the fact that the people that advocate the strongest for oppressive tax policy are the ones that benefit the most from it. Tax cuts on the wealthy don't hurt me.....
In the real world people rarely start with nothing and build something, instead they start with nothing and end with nothing. Social mobility in the US is low.
I've mentioned the mechanism numerous times now so I'm not sure why you don't get what I'm suggesting. No, you don't give people money outright, instead you investment in social services that help people "raise up". Those services have to be funded and the funding can't come from the people that are being helped, after all, if they had the money they wouldn't need the help. Progressive taxes allow one to redistribute wealth from the top to the bottom, the money goes to fund investment.
In terms of education, though free, our education is in no sense equal. For example here in the Conejo Valley most schools are 9~10 stars, yet if I drive 15 minutes into LA the schools are 1~4 stars. The kids here receive a significantly better education because they were born into more affluent families. Rather than flatten social inequalities our education system is magnifying them, after all the kids here not only get better schools but they have wealthy and educated parents as well.
We have tried pumping money into low income school districts. It doesnt have the desired effect. People must be responsible for themselves at some point. Blaming the rich kids because the poor kids dont give a sh1t doesnt do any good.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
