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.
This is a sort of ad hominem attack, in the sense that it assumes anyone who is against wealth inequality must necessarily be poor. Warren Buffett and Bill Gates are the #1 and #2 richest men in America, and they understand the problems with wealth inequality, which is why they're giving all their money away rather than creating some kind of intergenerational dynasty.
anyway, to answer your question -- wealth inequality is partly a problem because money is speech, and it allows certain people to buy more political speech than others. This is inherently undemocratic. For me that's the #1 reason, but not the only reason.
I don't mind unequal outcomes, but I think the government should work to ensure that people have similar opportunities in life.
The rich and the poor all have one vote...there are far more poor people than rich. If you continue to vote against your best interest that is no ones fault but your own.
Rich people buy influence. This isn't a condemnation of them speficifally... it's just human nature.
Money=power. They are one and the same.
So if you support massive income inequality, then you support concentrating all the power among a lucky/ruthless few.
History shows very clearly that that's no way to grow a society. When money and power concentrate... eventually HORRIBLE revolutions happen. Like the French revolution. Or the Bolsheviks. Or the blacks in Rhodesia. Would you prefer to avoid that fate? I would. Therefore I'm willing to consider socialism as a viable alternative.
Rich people buy influence. This isn't a condemnation of them speficifally... it's just human nature.
Money=power. They are one and the same.
So if you support massive income inequality, then you support concentrating all the power among a lucky/ruthless few.
History shows very clearly that that's no way to grow a society. When money and power concentrate... eventually HORRIBLE revolutions happen. Like the French revolution. Or the Bolsheviks. Or the blacks in Rhodesia. Would you prefer to avoid that fate? I would. Therefore I'm willing to consider socialism as a viable alternative.
YMMV
The lower classes have far more votes than the upper classes. If you continue to vote for wealth redistribution to the top, that is what you are going to get.
anyway, to answer your question -- wealth inequality is partly a problem because money is speech, and it allows certain people to buy more political speech than others. This is inherently undemocratic. For me that's the #1 reason, but not the only reason.
Everything is unequal. Intelligence is unequal. Nothing the government can do will make outcomes equal. And it has nothing to do with being democratic.
Quote:
I don't mind unequal outcomes, but I think the government should work to ensure that people have similar opportunities in life.
Yes you do. It's in the first part of your post above.
The government can never make opportunities equal. How can the government make opportunities equal when we have huge differences in mental and physical attributes? It's not possible.
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.
