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?
... because it violates people's deeply engrained sense of fairness. Extreme inequality is never tolerated for long. It precipitates revolution.
Even if people win multi millions on the Lottery a vast majority end up in deep debt and broke statically.. It is not about wealth but rather wealth management.
As far as knowing you’re correct, you never truly know 100% that your thinking is mistake-free. You can be extremely confident in it, but there’s always a chance you missed something, as you said.
I guess the bottom line is that you let the best argument win over time. There were a lot of people arguing against popular beliefs, the church, or against slavery, or wars, etc. going very far back in history. Their ideas were rejected, but for whatever reason a time came where people were willing to listen. The time was right, and the ideas gained traction. I think that’ll happen as long as people exist.
You touch upon another important distinction between philosophy, opinion and truth...
With some beliefs, like in the case of religion, science can be applied to determine what beliefs are sound from an empirical evidence standpoint. Beliefs about slavery or wars involve a different evaluation of facts that will not necessarily determine the truth or the same belief in the same way. Complicated, but I think it is pretty obvious how some subjects or areas of debate require a different manner of evaluating truth, right vs wrong, better vs worse.
Sound reason and logic in any case does require some sort of broader consideration, by a group or committee, like a jury, rather than what one person seems to think vs another. That's how the best argument will win over time, but not necessarily at any given time. Sometimes it takes time as you rightfully point out. So indeed, how can we ever really know if we're ahead of our time or the opposite at any given time? Unequivocal proof tends to win the day, usually. In other cases we put it to a vote.
No more welfare or Section 8. Single mothers can have food stamps for their children. And genetic testing to find those deadbeat fathers. And mandatory birth control while getting those "freebies".
Finally! All our problems of poverty solved! Thank you.
I believe many of those posters are not actually Americans and are here to divide people .
Some are of course real, but here only to service their egos, they think they have grabbed the moral high ground and that their words mean more. But it is just noise.
To solve our wealth gap is simple.
1 raise progressive taxes and reduce our regressive taxes
2 provide strong social safety nets that reduce the employers leverage over employees.
3 partial delinkage of healthcare insurance from employment.
That is the answer, everyone knows it, but nobody wants to do it because it will result in some mild tax increases on those earning 250k plus and big increases on the 500k plus folk...
sure we can argue some details but it is obvious ..
Part of the answer in any case. I think helping more people to become better educated must also be part of the answer. Of course there is the strong correlation between higher levels of education and higher levels of income after all, but quite frankly...
As the bottom of the economic pyramid continues to grow and the distance between rich and poor continues to spread, if there is a way to bring better chances of prosperity to more poor people, more opportunity for more Americans in general, to better balance the scales a bit, the way is not simple or easy. That's for sure.
No doubt whatever the strategy, it's going to require a bit more from the upper echelon in terms of tax contributions as well. Not only to assist those in need but even more so to afford all that "we the people" seem to want from our government; from a strong military to border security to a better health care system and so on. For the most wealthy at the top of the heap, a broader base (more people) at the bottom tends to provide even more opportunity and wealth flowing to the top. This is at least part of the reason the rich keep getting richer while those at the bottom tread water as usual.
Barring a complete tax system overhaul, a more effective progressive tax code becomes all the more NECESSARY as America continues it's spending ways. "You can't squeeze blood from a rock," (the poor). There is no choice but to turn to where all the money is flowing, to the top. Adjust the progressive rates not to keep people from being wealthy or to lessen the incentive for people to work for more money, but to better address the difficult-to-justify extraordinary amount of wealth amassing into the hands of so few, year after year after year, decade after decade. You CAN both tax progressively and still maintain more than adequate incentive for all concerned to make more money!
I believe many of those posters are not actually Americans and are here to divide people .
Some are of course real, but here only to service their egos, they think they have grabbed the moral high ground and that their words mean more. But it is just noise.
To solve our wealth gap is simple.
1 raise progressive taxes and reduce our regressive taxes
2 provide strong social safety nets that reduce the employers leverage over employees.
3 partial delinkage of healthcare insurance from employment.
That is the answer, everyone knows it, but nobody wants to do it because it will result in some mild tax increases on those earning 250k plus and big increases on the 500k plus folk...
sure we can argue some details but it is obvious ..
LOL! The communists have done far better than your idea of eliminating wealth gap.
They just slaughtered everyone that has any kind of wealth.
After tens of millions dead bodies, everyone is equally poor but at least there’s no wealth gap.
If teachers have to be babysitters, drug interventionists, police, and victims of violence, you don't need a higher quality of education, you need better students.
Yet another way to look at it, but how?
Smaller classrooms and better teachers for starters maybe?
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.
