|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Giant Pool Of Money. Implications | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Taq writes:
That's the attitude that got us into this situation: The other guy should pay. It would appear to me that it is the top 1% that need to contribute to the working class, not the middle class. It doesn't work. The 1% have more resources to avoid paying their share. And one of their main tactics is to turn the working class and the middle class against each other. They pay the politicians to "create good jobs" and at the same time to keep wages low and working conditions poor. Personally, I would rather pay the taxes myself and let the 1% keep all they can grasp.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
There's no such thing as "financial security". People making payments on a million-dollar house are as close to being on the street as people paying $500 rent. My salary has increased substantially but I kept my bills the same - I'm financially secure. You don't have to live at the edge of your means...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
New cat's Eye writes:
What if you got sick and couldn't work?
My salary has increased substantially but I kept my bills the same - I'm financially secure.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
What if you got sick and couldn't work? Savings and disability. That'd last until my inheritance.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
New cat's Eye writes:
We don't all have an inheritance.
Savings and disability. That'd last until my inheritance.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
And we don't all get sick and can't work.
People can be financially secure.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
New Cat's Eye writes:
But most people aren't. I'll rephrase: There is no such thing as financial security for most people.
People can be financially secure.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9972 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5
|
ringo writes: That's the attitude that got us into this situation: The other guy should pay. How does that attitude result in the largest economic inequality seen in decades?
Personally, I would rather pay the taxes myself and let the 1% keep all they can grasp. Why?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Taq writes:
Never mind how large the economic inequity is. There has always been economic inequity and the attitude has always been: let the people with the most money pay. Instead, why not give the money to the people who work for it so they can afford to pay?
How does that attitude result in the largest economic inequality seen in decades? Taq writes:
Because I'm a responsible citizen. I'll gladly pay for the services I use - and I could pay more if I was paid fairly for what I contribute. Why would I want to be beholden to some rich goober?
ringo writes:
Why? Personally, I would rather pay the taxes myself and let the 1% keep all they can grasp.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9972 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
ringo writes: Never mind how large the economic inequity is. There has always been economic inequity and the attitude has always been: let the people with the most money pay. Instead, why not give the money to the people who work for it so they can afford to pay? That doesn't really address the question I was asking. Previously, you said: "That's the attitude that got us into this situation: The other guy should pay." How does pushing for more economic equality result in more inequity? If we pursue peace with a foreign country, will that attitude cause war? If we have the attitude that we should feed hungry people, would more people go hungry?
There has always been economic inequity and the attitude has always been: let the people with the most money pay. Instead, why not give the money to the people who work for it so they can afford to pay? There used to be a lot less inequality, and there was a thriving middle and working class during those years. Why not return to a time with strong unions that aren't continually busted by the mega-rich backed by their conservative Republican lackey's? Why not raise the minimum wage so that people can actually live off of it? Why not increase subsidies for health care so that the working class isn't pouring such a large percentage of their income into health care? According to you, pushing for these things will only make economically inequality worse. Why?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
CatSci quite likely has an inheritance because his parents were part of the middle class that was able to save and invest so as to leave something for their children...provided they didnt need it for their own retirement/health care. What I'm complaining about is that you could care less about a middle class similar to how my parents were but would rather pay everyone below middle class enough to get off government assistance---not realizing that they still wont be able to leave anything to their heirs. What kind of American Dream is that???
Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith "as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Riggamortis Member (Idle past 2390 days) Posts: 167 From: Australia Joined:
|
Here's a post I made on Facebook not long after my son was born.
Rigga writes: I used to think that the ultimate purpose in life was to acquire as much wealth as possible so that I could leave it to my children thus giving them an advantage in life and given the system we live under, it's a fairly reasonable goal. The more I learn about the system though, the more I realise how wasteful and inhumane it is and I now see the ultimate purpose in life as being a part of the change that needs to occur to move away from a system that deifies money and puts profit at the top of the priority list. I don't want our future generations to inherit a world/system where a child dies from starvation every 5 seconds just because there is no profit to be made in feeding them. Are we really so selfish that we will continue to ignore the injustice in the world because we have the best of it? I hope not.. After much consideration I don't believe there needs to be any losers during the process of providing a decent living standard for everyone. The inequality is fundamentally built in and should we remove the systemic inequality to the extent possible then everyone would ultimately benefit. Rather than profiting from a predatory financial system the wealthy would profit from all the increased investment required to build the future and supply the demand created by having more people with more money to spend.
Progressive populism is the answer in my opinion.
NotMe writes:
In my view, the Sanders option remains the only principled and winning strategy in the era of Trump. To those who are now mobilizing under the banner of resistance, I suggest the counter-project of course correction. Whereas the first suggests a doubling down on progressive-neoliberalism’s definition of us (progressives) versus them (Trump’s deplorable supporters), the second means redrawing the political mapby forging common cause among all whom his administration is set to betray: not just the immigrants, feminists, and people of color who voted against him, but also the rust-belt and Southern working-class strata who voted for him. Contra Brenner, the point is not to dissolve identity politics into class politics. It is to clearly identify the shared roots of class and status injustices in financialized capitalism, and to build alliances among those who must join together to fight against both of them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Taq writes:
But you're not pushing for more economic equality. Your pushing, it seems, a version of trickle-down economics where you inject money at the middle instead of at the top. You seem to be touting the status quo, which has escape from the working class as the only option for the working class.
How does pushing for more economic equality result in more inequity? Taq writes:
That's what I'm saying.
Why not raise the minimum wage so that people can actually live off of it? Why not increase subsidies for health care so that the working class isn't pouring such a large percentage of their income into health care? Taq writes:
I'm saying that propping up the middle class makes the working class worse off - because those things are not being done for the working class.
According to you, pushing for these things will only make economically inequality worse. Why?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
That's true. I couldn't care less if anybody can leave anything to their heirs. I'd rather leave their heirs a world in which they can make their own way.
What I'm complaining about is that you could care less about a middle class similar to how my parents were but would rather pay everyone below middle class enough to get off government assistance---not realizing that they still wont be able to leave anything to their heirs. Phat writes:
A sustainable one.
What kind of American Dream is that???
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I couldn't care less if anybody can leave anything to their heirs. I'd rather leave their heirs a world in which they can make their own way. And if their own way is the ability to leave something to their heirs?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024