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.
Sure poverty is bad, but let's say you eliminate it. Then what? People will never be content when they see someone else with more, so they get jealous.
Give everyone food and shelter, they want a bigger roof and lobster instead. So why is a gap bad if the people who can afford it do so?
Or is it only an issue because you try to compare yourself with a rich person and not be mindful of what you have yourself?
It is amazing how many malcontents there are in this country, and they don't even realize how good they have it.
For example, no one wants to be poor in any country, but most of the worlds poor would kill to be live like the poor in our country. Plus for those with ambition and internal drive, they would love to come to America with all the opportunities afforded to our citizens. Whether it be free education, healthcare, food, housing, transportation, phones, internet access, utilities, etc., etc., etc.
Many people in this country have come from poverty, and become successful without a dime of government assistance. Yet for those who need it, they live like kings and queens compared to those starving to death, dragging around club feet, cleft lips, debilitating diseases, etc.
I am not rich, nor do I envy the rich. I still continue to try and improve my economic status, and hope to have enough to retire on in comfort. If everyone realized just how wonderful this country is, and all the opportunities it affords to them, they would live more content lives.
Only in terms of absolute income, but relative to the cost of living your poor man's income in the US won't help you because you don't have to pay Afghan prices
I would rather be poor in Germany than in the US.
During the shutdown they said that 60% of those employees do not have a single month's income to fall back on, despite having worked for years.
What would happen if all the handouts such as food stamps were stopped?
Wishful thinking...
In America the poor spend as much on average on gambling, booze and cigarettes as the rest of us.
Americans in general don't save enough and live WELL beyond their means. Their poor decisions are just that. It's not up to the wealthy to cover their asses because they choose to spend their money rather than save. In fact it's much worse than that. Not only do they not save, they have huge debt. All these people crying poor mouth are driving around in nice, newer cars that they lease. They eat out all the time buy nice clothes have big screen TV's all on credit. They they wonder why they don't have a single months income to fall back on, despite having worked for years.
Oh and try being poor in China. You'll be begging to come back to America and it's handouts.
If one really wanted to close the gap then a couple steps would have to be taken:
Higher taxes on the rich
Higher minimum wage
Protection of domestic manufacturing to create or keep jobs outside of bustling cities
Less government - a lot less government
I know a number of educated people who love banana republic income curves. We also have two million government bureaucrats who are often reminded how essential the rich are. How did we ever carry on sixty years ago?
Short answer is not to think there will ever be a day when we don't have poor people and/or rich people, but there is what can be done to help limit the disparities of opportunity between those born disadvantaged vs those born with advantage.
A quick peek at another thread about Warren's proposed free child care immediately caused me to think people will either be for or against depending on whether they believe this effort to limit the above referenced disparities is appropriate for any society to work toward. .....
Perhaps if we worked on how all of these children came to be born into poverty and lack of parenting.
I mean...a monopolized currency, regulation, taxation, no freedom of movement, no freedom of association...it all spells pre-determined winners and losers.
the percentage of poor in america has remained the same percentage, around 16% of the population, since president johnson's "war on poverty" legislation tried to improve that statistic in the 60s. billions and billions of taxpayer dollars distributed by goverment haven't changed a damn thing.
Last edited by texan2yankee; 02-21-2019 at 04:35 PM..
the percentage of poor has remained around 16% of the population since president johnson's "war on poverty" in the 60s when the country's taxpayers threw billions at this problem.
some people will always be poor. Money doesn't change their issues.
During the shutdown they said that 60% of those employees do not have a single month's income to fall back on, despite having worked for years.
Then that's their own fault for trying to satisfy every infantile urge imaginable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
And those mediocre people deserve a decent life as well as long as they work and give their best.
They have to earn it. It's not handed out like candy on Halloween.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mascoma
Someone making millions should not be paying the 15% rate.
You're right...they should be paying 9%-10%.
Your own government says that. The CBO, the Congressional Research Service, the GAO, the NBRE, and the IRS have all proven that lower capital gains tax rates result in an increase in capital gains revenues, while higher capital gains tax rates result in a loss of revenues.
You've lost close to $2 TRILLION in capital gains revenues, because the rates were too high.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoByFour
Revolutions happen over wealth disparity.
No, they don't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
Wealth inequality is good. Up to a point.
Wealth inequality is irrelevant.
You still can't tell the difference between cash and assets.
That is not what I have observed. People don't care about others' wealth as long as they are doing fine themselves, which does not at all mean they need to be wealthy. When people feel, though, that they are being exploited, they indeed start to wonder what on earth justifies rampant inequality. Most rich people simply benefit from a head start:
despite coming from biased sources (Inequality.org and United for a Fair Economy), let's look at the crux of your link. For now, I won't even dispute UFE's proclamation that 95% of the US starts at "home plate":
Quote:
In its just-released new report, United for a Fair Economy extends this baseball analogy to last year’s Forbes 400. UFE defines as “born in the batter’s box” those Forbes 400 rich who hail from poor to middle-class circumstances. ...
About 95 percent of Americans, overall, currently live in these “batter’s box” situations. Just over a third, 35 percent, of the Forbes 400 come from these backgrounds.
Those “born on first base” — in upper-class families, with inheritances up to $1 million — make up 22 percent of the 400.
On “second base,” households wealthy enough to run a business big enough to generate inheritances over $1 million, the new UFE study found another 11.5 percent.
On “third base,” with inherited wealth over $50 million, sit 7 percent of America’s 400 richest. Last but not least, the “born on home plate” crowd. These high-rollers, 21.25 percent of the total Forbes list, all inherited enough to “earn” their way into top 400 status.
So by their own acknowledgement, a full 1/3 of richest 400 indeed started out with little or nothing. And THAT is the largest category that make up the 400.
The next largest, what they call UPPER-CLASS only had UP TO $1MM inherited. I'm sure that some folks think that's a LOT of money, although we don't know if it's $100K or $999K. You would burn $100K in most businesses in 6 months. But remember, to get from 999K to the $1B needed to make the list requires you to multiply your investment by ONE THOUSAND TIMES.
The 3rd largest group were already there.....but let's reverse that - of the 400 richest, ONLY 21.25% had that wealth handed to them.
The 4th largest had over $1MM, but less than $50MM. Again, we don't even know the average of this group. But even if they ALL had 50MM, then they had to multiply that wealth by TWENTY TIMES.
Now, that's a lot of serious math, and thinking beyond what's been given to the issue so far. And there are definitely things we can do to increase the opportunity and quit over-compensating some folks.
But at the end of the day, the slanted article and study linked still said that well over half of the richest people didn't start out ANYWHERE near that rich.
Last edited by BoBromhal; 02-21-2019 at 04:40 PM..
Reason: forgot to put the article material in quotes
A lot of it comes down to drive and desire. Opportunities are there through the right education and will to succeed. But people are wired differently. I work with a ton of young adults and it is pretty easy to tell if they are going to be successful or not. Some always want to play the victim like the world is out to get them. They usually end up making bad decisions that tend to snowball. They fall hard unless their parents prop them up (which doesn't address any root problems), but sometimes falling hard enough is what it takes. The hard lesson that a lot of these young adults don't like learning is that the real-world really doesn't care about them. The everyone gets a trophy mentality ends in the bubble of college (and yes, I actually work in academia). The transition from the "difficulties" of college to the real difficulties of the real-world is a harsh reality for many.
Sure some are born with silver spoons and ride the coattails of their parents, but more times than not it comes down to working hard and making prudent life choices in order to get ahead in life. I do feel badly for the students sold a false bill of goods with worthless academic programs out there, who then get riddled with student debt. That is why I try to warn every student I come into contact with about the reality of student loan debt and the importance of picking a field of study that has strong hiring demand.
Welfare reform trapped many single mothers in student loan debt. They were encouraged and pressured to go to college and better themselves by government workers. They had to get student loans in addition to the regular financial aid to make ends meet. Then they either bombed out (because a lot of them weren't smart enough for college) or they graduated. Even those I knew who graduated still struggle in low wage jobs and will probably never manage to pay off the student loans.
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.
