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.
I don't consider myself a Liberal (I can't stand the intolerant ones (which are the majority of liberals)) but the wealth gap is not a good thing as it causes envy, greed, and unbalanced distribution of resources. I advocate a myriad of fixes starting with higher taxes on the very wealthy, inheritance taxes on the very wealthy, higher minimum wage, better schools (destroy the closed minded liberal indoctrination) and vocational training, national healthcare.
Based on your definition, it sounds like the solution is to punish those who earn the wealth because of the failed morality of those who do not.
When a society provides an equal opportunity to all citizens to obtain the wealth they seek, the inability to do so by some should not result in punishing the few who have.
Higher minimum wage does not create wealth. Wealth redistribution does not increase wealth or remove the envy and greed of those who engage in either. National healthcare does not create wealth and does not remove the envy and greed from those who engage in either.
If the true solution to the wealth gap is providing equal opportunity to all citizens, then providing a voucher system that would allow kids to attend better schools is something we should support. Vocational training is also a valid solution to provide opportunity to work and perhaps attain wealth.
The truth is, if the government gave every citizen $1M dollars as a one time payment and ended all other forms of welfare, the majority of those who existed in poverty as a result of poor life choices would return to poverty within a few years and those who existed in poverty due to circumstances they could not control would either succeed or return to poverty and the wealthiest in society would merely become wealthier because they have the skills, understanding and attitude needed to earn and create wealth.
There will always be poverty in the world, regardless of how much wealth redistribution is instituted, but if the opportunity to reach the state of wealth is blocked for some of society, then that failure belongs to all of us to solve and guarantee to everyone!
I don't know if I count as a liberal. Not hugely in favor of taxing the rich. However, in favor of a more fair balanced tax rate like a flat rate. Now taking additional, money from the wealthy I do feel it is kind of a needs for the many issue. If we can take X amount of money from those making over a million like say 1% over three year's....In addition, to regular taxes we can generate if the 260,000 of the wealthy are making a million alone could be close to 80 Trillion dollar's, but more since more make than a million. Some make 50 Million. We could end the tax in two year's almost. It's a bit of a nationalist approach.
You wouldn't mind providing some verification for this would you?
Researchers have long documented that the most educated Americans were making the biggest gains in life expectancy, but now they say mortality data show that life spans for some of the least educated Americans are actually contracting. Four studies in recent years identified modest declines, but a new one that looks separately at Americans lacking a high school diploma found disturbingly sharp drops in life expectancy for whites in this group. Experts not involved in the new research said its findings were persuasive.
(snip)
The steepest declines were for white women without a high school diploma, who lost five years of life between 1990 and 2008, said S. Jay Olshansky, a public health professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago and the lead investigator on the study, published last month in Health Affairs.
Liberals keep parroting meaningless statistics like "The X richest people own Y% of the wealth". My question is, why do you consider this an issue?
Are you saying that you're poor because someone else is rich? Did you ever consider that all the extra wealth they have is wealth that was produced by them or their company? Them generating wealth doesn't somehow make you less wealthy.
Maybe it's time to get over your envy of others' success. It sounds like babies crying about how other children have more toys than them.
I'm not a liberal, but I do take issue with a company CEO making gads of money while his lowest level employee isn't making a living wage. Not everyone will do what Ben & Jerry did and incorporate ways to keep greed from happening into their bylaws and many companies are generous to their employees. But when a company like Walmart has employees on food stamps, there's a problem.
Absolutely. Walmart has saved millions of people billions of dollars and improved their standard of living.
Seriously? What sweatshops were their products made in? And do you realize that they rely on government handouts (leading collector of EBT money) for both their customers and their employees who stay part time so Walmart won't have to pay benefits?
I'm not a liberal, but I do take issue with a company CEO making gads of money while his lowest level employee isn't making a living wage. Not everyone will do what Ben & Jerry did and incorporate ways to keep greed from happening into their bylaws and many companies are generous to their employees. But when a company like Walmart has employees on food stamps, there's a problem.
How many CEO positions are there in the US compared to positions open to lowest level employees? In a free market, the value of the position dictates the wages paid.
Do you think a CEO would have the skill set to work at Walmart or some minimum wage job? Could a minimum wage earner have the skills to run a major company?
The reality is, low skill level jobs do not require unique skills that would garner a larger paycheck.
Also, if you work at McDonalds and lose your job, the chances that you can find another job using the same skills and making the same range of wages is much higher than if a CEO of a company loses his/her job.
If Ben & Jerry's shareholders support how the employees are compensated, then that is great, but it is not the role of Government to establish the value of a job in a privately owned/publicly traded business.
I'm not a liberal, but I do take issue with a company CEO making gads of money while his lowest level employee isn't making a living wage. Not everyone will do what Ben & Jerry did and incorporate ways to keep greed from happening into their bylaws and many companies are generous to their employees. But when a company like Walmart has employees on food stamps, there's a problem.
And the people who work at WalMart can't afford to buy Ben and Jerry's product on a regular basis.
Bylaws against 'greed' (whatever such gobbledygook is supposed to mean) add to the cost of doing business and price the product out of the reach of people of ordinary means.
Amazon, in contrast, puts a lot of fairly-exotic products (and more than a few "green" products, which local mom-and-pop stores can't afford to carry) within the reach of people with more-modest incomes.
And the people who work at Amazon facilities (I was one for three years, plus two Holiday peaks -- and while in my late fifties) make several dollars an hour over the minimum; same for the folks at FedEx and UPS -- but the jobs are disciplined and demanding.
What part of that can't the economic pre-schoolers here understand?
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 12-09-2015 at 05:49 PM..
Researchers have long documented that the most educated Americans were making the biggest gains in life expectancy, but now they say mortality data show that life spans for some of the least educated Americans are actually contracting. Four studies in recent years identified modest declines, but a new one that looks separately at Americans lacking a high school diploma found disturbingly sharp drops in life expectancy for whites in this group. Experts not involved in the new research said its findings were persuasive.
(snip)
The steepest declines were for white women without a high school diploma, who lost five years of life between 1990 and 2008, said S. Jay Olshansky, a public health professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago and the lead investigator on the study, published last month in Health Affairs.
(more recent studies suggest less educated white men are now sharing in the sharp decline in life expectancy)
I did this yesterday....take a group of 20/and three die. That same group now comprises of 10 but two die. That group now looks really bad when in reality the overall picture is better.
And the people who work at WalMart can't afford to buy Ben and Jerry's product on a regular basis.
How do you know? Maybe they prioritize their wages so that they CAN afford Ben & Jerry's. That is an absurd statement. How many fast food workers do you see who have the latest iPhone or latest Android? You make it sound like Walmart employees live in cardboard boxes when they leave work.
How do you know? Maybe they prioritize their wages so that they CAN afford Ben & Jerry's. That is an absurd statement. How many fast food workers do you see who have the latest iPhone or latest Android? You make it sound like Walmart employees live in cardboard boxes when they leave work.
They work at Walmart.....how exactly do you think they live? Well?
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.
