Income Inequality

[Danoff]

I think you misunderstood. I am not against wealth inequality and not for handouts you are describing. In our current system there is social subsidized affordable housing and subsidies to help people with lower income to be able to afford housing. Healthcare is not free but subsidized for the lower incomes.

"Subsidized" is a good substitute for "handout from the rich". The rich pay the majority of taxes in most systems (including all "progressive" income tax systems, but also flat tax systems). So if you "subsidize" housing and medicine for the poor, it is a handout from the rich.

One should never rely on charity. How is it immoral? Is it moral to have a person have extreme wealth and pay little tax and at the same time have people not able to afford lifesaving healthcare?

Why does one person's property state render another person's property state immoral? These are individuals, I have no idea why you'd compare them to each other, or why one person's need would render another person's lack of need immoral. So yes, it is moral. If you gave me more information, such as that the person with extreme wealth stole it from the person without it, then the answer could change. But without knowing more, there is no immoral act.

Or when a person gets in an accident, we should just let him die, because he cant afford food, healthcare etc?

When did I say that? No, you shouldn't let him die. You should save him. YOU should save him. YOU PERSONALLY. Not you telling your neighbor that they have to. You. But if you refuse, I'm not calling you immoral. There are literally too many people that require saving to possibly save them all, so not saving someone cannot possibly be immoral or morality ceases to exist.

I am describing a society where a person that works fulltime can actually afford education, food, housing and healthcare.

Doing what? Works full-time doing what? Digging a ditch and filling it up? Breaking windows and fixing them? Video game testing? Monitoring the quality of online porn? It's not enough to work, or even be employed. You have to create wealth... for yourself.

And when a person cant work at least isnt left to suffer and die.

YOU don't leave them to suffer and die. Don't tell your neighbor what they have to do, if this is your goal, YOU do it.

Voluntary charity doesnt work, because people can be very selfish.

...and yet it does. I gave you an infographic in another thread.

I meant houses at cost or subsidized to make it more affordable (not free).

Makes little difference. Not zero difference, but little difference.

 

[mustafur]

What do you call it when Wealthy companies get Welfare in the form of Bailouts when they can't operate their businesses properly.

It's made even worse when alot of their business isn't even in the country they are receiving the money, it's like they're(The Tax Payer) paying welfare for citizens in another country.

But of course this happens because these companies can pay politicians to make sure this happens, life is in easy mode.

 

[Danoff]

What do you call it when Wealthy companies get Welfare in the form of Bailouts when they can't operate their businesses properly.

Crony capitalism.

It's also known as privatizing the upside and socializing the downside.

 

[mustafur]

Crony capitalism.

It's also known as privatizing the upside and socializing the downside.

and how do you stop it?

 

[Danoff]

and how do you stop it?

Reduce the size of government. Crony capitalism stems from the ability to get laws to benefit your company. The moment you start regulating and controlling, the moment those laws will benefit one company over another - this creates lobbying and cronyism.

 

[mustafur]

Reduce the size of government. Crony capitalism stems from the ability to get laws to benefit your company. The moment you start regulating and controlling, the moment those laws will benefit one company over another - this creates lobbying and cronyism.

But how do you do it when they already have control?
Also What stops a Small Government from expanding Via the same route?

 

[Danoff]

But how do you do it when they already have control?

Repeal laws and deregulate via constitutional controls.

Also What stops a Small Government from expanding Via the same route?

A constitution that limits the scope of government.

 

[PocketZeven]

"Subsidized" is a good substitute for "handout from the rich". The rich pay the majority of taxes in most systems (including all "progressive" income tax systems, but also flat tax systems). So if you "subsidize" housing and medicine for the poor, it is a handout from the rich.



Why does one person's property state render another person's property state immoral? These are individuals, I have no idea why you'd compare them to each other, or why one person's need would render another person's lack of need immoral. So yes, it is moral. If you gave me more information, such as that the person with extreme wealth stole it from the person without it, then the answer could change. But without knowing more, there is no immoral act.



When did I say that? No, you shouldn't let him die. You should save him. YOU should save him. YOU PERSONALLY. Not you telling your neighbor that they have to. You. But if you refuse, I'm not calling you immoral. There are literally too many people that require saving to possibly save them all, so not saving someone cannot possibly be immoral or morality ceases to exist.



Doing what? Works full-time doing what? Digging a ditch and filling it up? Breaking windows and fixing them? Video game testing? Monitoring the quality of online porn? It's not enough to work, or even be employed. You have to create wealth... for yourself.



YOU don't leave them to suffer and die. Don't tell your neighbor what they have to do, if this is your goal, YOU do it.



...and yet it does. I gave you an infographic in another thread.




Makes little difference. Not zero difference, but little difference.

I know much sounds foreign, because Americans have always been tought that socialism or anything in that range is bad. There are many examples of people in the US having honest work in the service industry or other groundlevel lower paying jobs that just dont make enough to pay for healthcare and an education for their children. Every country has its flaws, but you really should examine how countries in europe view healthcare, education and wealth inequality (which does not mean everyone should make the same).

You have a good heart sir, but I dont think all wealthy people have that good heart to donate. I mean Trump is the best example.

 

[Danoff]

I know much sounds foreign, because Americans have always been tought that socialism or anything in that range is bad. There are many examples of people in the US having honest work in the service industry or other groundlevel lower paying jobs that just dont make enough to pay for healthcare and an education for their children.

You shouldn't have children if you can't provide for them. If you have children and you neglect them by not providing food, clothing, shelter, or education, your children should be removed. Your job as a parent, when you have children, is to provide at least that basic level of care for them.

That being said, of course there are people that don't make enough to... what... have their own place that they do not share? Provide for an arbitrary high level of healthcare? Provide for an arbitrarily high level of education? That's basically true by definition.

Every country has its flaws, but you really should examine how countries in europe view healthcare, education and wealth inequality (which does not mean everyone should make the same).

I think I'm familiar.

You have a good heart sir, but I dont think all wealthy people have that good heart to donate. I mean Trump is the best example.

Enough people do. The Bill and Melinda Gates foundation to address healthcare and poverty has assets of $50B.

 

[Daz555]

Deleted.

 

[PocketZeven]

You shouldn't have children if you can't provide for them. If you have children and you neglect them by not providing food, clothing, shelter, or education, your children should be removed. Your job as a parent, when you have children, is to provide at least that basic level of care for them.

That being said, of course there are people that don't make enough to... what... have their own place that they do not share? Provide for an arbitrary high level of healthcare? Provide for an arbitrarily high level of education? That's basically true by definition.



I think I'm familiar.



Enough people do. The Bill and Melinda Gates foundation to address healthcare and poverty has assets of $50B.

I think you have a postive worldview if you really think charity should be enough to genuine help people in need. As said before your commander of chief is already a prime example of "charity". Also looking at the graph you posted, seeing 32% to "religion"always makes me cringe. Looking under the hood, however I am convinced that charity will never be sufficient as a replacement to social security, medicare etc.
Also I have heard the argument of "you shouldnt have children if you cant provide for them" before, but it just isnt as simple as that. People lose jobs or can be hit by an economic crisis etc.

As for education, I am mostly referring to higher education. In the US it can be very expensive and not accessible to low incomre families, where in Europe it is basically accesible to the majority of people even if the people are financially challenged. I think education is the key for people from a lower income background to let future generation secure a more succesfull future.

 

[Danoff]

I think you have a postive worldview if you really think charity should be enough to genuine help people in need. As said before your commander of chief is already a prime example of "charity". Also looking at the graph you posted, seeing 32% to "religion"always makes me cringe. Looking under the hood, however I am convinced that charity will never be sufficient as a replacement to social security, medicare etc.

If that's the case, then how does it become ok to force the issue? If people won't give to people in need voluntarily, why does that make it ok to force them?

Also I have heard the argument of "you shouldnt have children if you cant provide for them" before, but it just isnt as simple as that. People lose jobs or can be hit by an economic crisis etc.

I'm aware of that. You should still not have children if you can't provide for them. I'd rather let someone else raise my children than watch them starve in front of me. And by the way, that's also the law.

As for education, I am mostly referring to higher education.

Which is not a requirement. But I managed to get a master's degree with no assistance from my parents, no scholarships, no handouts, and making near minimum wage.

 

[PocketZeven]

If that's the case, then how does it become ok to force the issue? If people won't give to people in need voluntarily, why does that make it ok to force them?



I'm aware of that. You should still not have children if you can't provide for them. I'd rather let someone else raise my children than watch them starve in front of me. And by the way, that's also the law.



Which is not a requirement. But I managed to get a master's degree with no assistance from my parents, no scholarships, no handouts, and making near minimum wage.

I have always viewed it as contibuting to ultimately reap the benefits. The government provides infrastructure, subsidies, safety nets, upholds laws etc. In every communal society people also need to contribute for the better good. Either monetary or other contributions (work, fruits of labor etc.). Do you think a voluntary system would actually work? In a world where the richest try everything to avoid paying any taxes at all? And where most charity contributions are for their own benefit or tax reasons? There are exceptions like bill and Melinda gates, but those are exactly that, exceptions.

Also people who do not want to pay that tax have the option (and actually do) to move to countries with more favorable taxes. It’s the cost of living in a certain country. If you live in the city with high living costs, you do have the option to move to other regions where the living costs are lower.

Even then my belief is that people are inherently greedy and selfish. Less government will ultimately lead to an oligarchie were the 1% will essentially have the power and normal folk being dependent on their charity.

Ironically it is notoriously difficult in the US to prevent having children when people are irresponsible and have children by accident. I understand your argument but not all people perhaps have rich family members that can raise your children with a proper financial safety net. Also to nuance it, lower income people can perfectly feed and raise their children, but just can’t afford expensive medical bills or college.

Kudos for you! Did you manage that without a loan?

 

[Danoff]

Do you think a voluntary system would actually work?

Do we have a (moral) choice? Yes I do btw.

In a world where the richest try everything to avoid paying any taxes at all? And where most charity contributions are for their own benefit or tax reasons?

You can't benefit from charity contributions. Here's how charitable deductions work. You donate to charity (one recognized by the IRS as a charity), and you save your marginal tax rate on that money. So for example, you donate $100 and you save $40 on your taxes if your marginal rate is 40%.

I try to avoid paying extra tax, and I contribute to charity. I don't see that as contradictory.

There are exceptions like bill and Melinda gates, but those are exactly that, exceptions.

Giant, $50B exceptions? I don't see them as exceptions, I see a myriad of charitable foundations and hundreds of billions in charitable contributions.

Also people who do not want to pay that tax have the option (and actually do) to move to countries with more favorable taxes.

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything.

Even then my belief is that people are inherently greedy and selfish. Less government will ultimately lead to an oligarchie were the 1% will essentially have the power and normal folk being dependent on their charity.

That's what the bill of rights is for, to protect people from oppressing each other, no matter how much money they have. It levels the force playing field.

Ironically it is notoriously difficult in the US to prevent having children when people are irresponsible and have children by accident. I understand your argument but not all people perhaps have rich family members that can raise your children with a proper financial safety net. Also to nuance it, lower income people can perfectly feed and raise their children, but just can’t afford expensive medical bills or college.

College is not a right. College is also not a parental responsibility. Healthcare is an obligation to children that they can demand from their parents - just like food, clothing, shelter, and even love. And if their parents are not capable of providing that, then they are not capable of fulfilling their moral and legal obligations to their children and do not legitimately qualify for custody.

Kudos for you! Did you manage that without a loan?

I worked all the way through undergrad and grad school. Grad school work paid for grad school tuition. Undergrad left me with some debt that I paid off quickly.

 

[PocketZeven]

Do we have a (moral) choice? Yes I do btw.



You can't benefit from charity contributions. Here's how charitable deductions work. You donate to charity (one recognized by the IRS as a charity), and you save your marginal tax rate on that money. So for example, you donate $100 and you save $40 on your taxes if your marginal rate is 40%.

I try to avoid paying extra tax, and I contribute to charity. I don't see that as contradictory.



Giant, $50B exceptions? I don't see them as exceptions, I see a myriad of charitable foundations and hundreds of billions in charitable contributions.



I'm not sure what this has to do with anything.



That's what the bill of rights is for, to protect people from oppressing each other, no matter how much money they have. It levels the force playing field.



College is not a right. College is also not a parental responsibility. Healthcare is an obligation to children that they can demand from their parents - just like food, clothing, shelter, and even love. And if their parents are not capable of providing that, then they are not capable of fulfilling their moral and legal obligations to their children and do not legitimately qualify for custody.



I worked all the way through undergrad and grad school. Grad school work paid for grad school tuition. Undergrad left me with some debt that I paid off quickly.

Voluntary systems do not work. History has often proven that the rich are often interested in enriching themselves.

I didn’t mean profit through deductibles.
The rich use non-profit foundations to divert certain income taxfree and use those funds for self interest donations or other means. That could be either marketing/PR purposes, buy influences, “bribes” or even worse. The best example is the trump foundation.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_J._Trump_Foundation


50 billion spread over causes worldwide is a drop of water when compared what is needed. Especially when you replace Medicare and social security. Imagine if there was a higher marginal tax rate for the rich? Philantropy wouldn’t be needed and everyone could vote to make sure where that money would go to.

How do the bill of rights protect people from oppressing each other?

I wasn’t trying to refer higher education as a right. I was merely referring that every parents wish there child a better future and development. You are stating without nuance. If a family with a low income that used to afford to pay for food, housing etc. get into financial problems because of a financial crisis with no fault of their own, I don’t think they should give their care of the children to someone else.

 

[Danoff]

Voluntary systems do not work. History has often proven that the rich are often interested in enriching themselves.

I didn’t mean profit through deductibles.
The rich use non-profit foundations to divert certain income taxfree and use those funds for self interest donations or other means. That could be either marketing/PR purposes, buy influences, “bribes” or even worse. The best example is the trump foundation.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_J._Trump_Foundation

Pretty sure that the DJT Foundation has some legal issues.

50 billion spread over causes worldwide is a drop of water when compared what is needed. Especially when you replace Medicare and social security. Imagine if there was a higher marginal tax rate for the rich? Philantropy wouldn’t be needed and everyone could vote to make sure where that money would go to.

How do the bill of rights protect people from oppressing each other?

By preventing people from using force against each other.

I wasn’t trying to refer higher education as a right. I was merely referring that every parents wish there child a better future and development. You are stating without nuance. If a family with a low income that used to afford to pay for food, housing etc. get into financial problems because of a financial crisis with no fault of their own, I don’t think they should give their care of the children to someone else.

I don't think we should allow parents to abuse their children.

 

[PocketZeven]

Pretty sure that the DJT Foundation has some legal issues.








By preventing people from using force against each other.




I don't think we should allow parents to abuse their children.

I meant philantropy wouldn’t be needed for national issues. Charity in Europe are much more spread among various causes where the less fortunate are more or less taken care of and not dependent on charity.

Abuse is kind of a stretch.

 

[Danoff]

I meant philantropy wouldn’t be needed for national issues. Charity in Europe are much more spread among various causes where the less fortunate are more or less taken care of and not dependent on charity.

View attachment 819753

Yea that's part of the problem of too much government. It stifles the (more efficient) private version.

Abuse is kind of a stretch.

I'm pretty sure not feeding your kids is abuse.

 

[TheGeologist]

Disclamer: I have read zero posts of this topic, but I would like to give my input on pay equality.

Manny Machado makes 30 million dollars to play 162 games of baseball a year.

That averages out to 185,185.18 a game in USD.

If he has four at bats in one game, that's roughly 46,000 dollars.

Manny Machado can swing at the first pitch he sees, pop out, and still make more money than you do in an entire year...

Everytime I think of this, I get rather angry.

🤬

 

[Dotini]

Manny Machado makes 30 million dollars to play 162 games of baseball a year.

That averages out to 185,185.18 a game in USD.

If he has four at bats in one game, that's roughly 46,000 dollars.

Manny Machado can swing at the first pitch he sees, pop out, and still make more money than you do in an entire year.

🤬

Ancient Rome had its gladiators. Is it in the nature of man to be attracted to exceptional performers and shower them with attention, accolades and inevitably wealth? Or is it decadent?

 

[Danoff]

Disclamer: I have read zero posts of this topic, but I would like to give my input on pay equality.

Manny Machado makes 30 million dollars to play 162 games of baseball a year.

That averages out to 185,185.18 a game in USD.

If he has four at bats in one game, that's roughly 46,000 dollars.

Manny Machado can swing at the first pitch he sees, pop out, and still make more money than you do in an entire year...

Everytime I think of this, I get rather angry.

🤬

You shouldn't.

Manny Machado (I don't know who this is really), manages to entertain millions by swinging at a pitch. I don't mean he tricked people into being entertained by it, he literally entertains them. They very much enjoy watching him do it, and their entertainment is worth millions of dollars, because there are millions of them. When you can bring that kind of value, your paycheck will reflect it. You need to understand that it's not some fabrication, Manny Machado is creating millions of dollars of entertainment by doing it. He gets paid for what he produces, and it has nothing to do with you.

 

[Joey D]

Manny Machado (I don't know who this is really), manages to entertain millions by swinging at a pitch.

All six of the San Diego Padre fans disagree

 

[Danoff]

All six of the San Diego Padre fans disagree

Every time I hear about major league baseball I have a similar thought go through my head.... "wait? they still do that baseball thing? I just assumed that died off."

 

[PocketZeven]

Yea that's part of the problem of too much government. It stifles the (more efficient) private version.



I'm pretty sure not feeding your kids is abuse.

The flipside is that private version does not need to be transparant and the people will not have any say in it.

I didnt refer to not feeding your children. The USA does have programs to make sure people can still afford food?
Adding a bit more nuance I meant that people will have trouble with not expected bills like a broken washer, hospital bill or not being able to afford toys etc.

 

[Danoff]

I didnt refer to not feeding your children. The USA does have programs to make sure people can still afford food?
Adding a bit more nuance I meant that people will have trouble with not expected bills like a broken washer, hospital bill or not being able to afford toys etc.

I understand.

I'm picturing a parent of a child who has unexpected bills, lost their job, etc. and is on the brink. That parent turns to charity to help out, and despite the outflow of charitable offerings, for some reason none of them are available to this parent. Canned food drives, soup kitchens, and every other program in existence to help this person for some reason aren't available. And so our hypothetical parent is watching their child go malnourished and uneducated.

That hypothetical parent is abusing their child by not caring for it, and that hypothetical parent should be happy to find a home for their child so that they can be successfully raised to adulthood. Losing your job is not a reason to abuse your child. When you have a child, you're agreeing to provide for that child until they can provide for themselves. It's a weighty responsibility.

 

[PocketZeven]

I understand.

I'm picturing a parent of a child who has unexpected bills, lost their job, etc. and is on the brink. That parent turns to charity to help out, and despite the outflow of charitable offerings, for some reason none of them are available to this parent. Canned food drives, soup kitchens, and every other program in existence to help this person for some reason aren't available. And so our hypothetical parent is watching their child go malnourished and uneducated.

That hypothetical parent is abusing their child by not caring for it, and that hypothetical parent should be happy to find a home for their child so that they can be successfully raised to adulthood. Losing your job is not a reason to abuse your child. When you have a child, you're agreeing to provide for that child until they can provide for themselves. It's a weighty responsibility.

In some parts of the world maybe. But that charity is much less available if you are of a certain ethnicity, live in a certain region etc.

You are correct, but then i need to add more nuance, that the hypothetical family can afford food, but cant help the teen/adolescent to apply for higher education and likely needs to help out the family financially in stead. You are a bit harsh in your statement. During less favorable economic times many families all needed to chip in to put food on the table, I would still dont call that child abuse.

If I lost my income here in europe and have trouble finding work after a lenghty period (1 year+), I would still have a safetynet provided by the government, that will protect me from spiralling into immense debt, because I cant afford the mortgage etc. I wouldnt need to struggle for food, still be able to provide (higher) education to my children, no luxuries though, but at least my children will be with me.
If the same happened to me in the USA is the risk higher that my children would be taken away? Are social security, medicare and foodstamps not enough during a lenghty transition period?

edit: I am a father of 2.

 

[Danoff]

You are correct, but then i need to add more nuance, that the hypothetical family can afford food, but cant help the teen/adolescent to apply for higher education and likely needs to help out the family financially in stead.

Higher education is for adults. It's not a child abuse issue.

You are a bit harsh in your statement. During less favorable economic times many families all needed to chip in to put food on the table, I would still dont call that child abuse.

In the US, forcing your children to work for food is considered abuse.

If I lost my income here in europe and have trouble finding work after a lenghty period (1 year+), I would still have a safetynet provided by the government, that will protect me from spiralling into immense debt, because I cant afford the mortgage etc. I wouldnt need to struggle for food, still be able to provide (higher) education to my children, no luxuries though, but at least my children will be with me.
If the same happened to me in the USA is the risk higher that my children would be taken away? Are social security, medicare and foodstamps not enough during a lenghty transition period?

edit: I am a father of 2.

Social security is for retirement. Welfare is the program you're looking for, and yes welfare/foodstamps help out poor families in the US. Regardless of the presence of those programs or not, or the presence of charity or not, it is your responsibility (not your neighbor's) to provide for your children. If you can't, find someone who will. That's it! Your neighbor doesn't suddenly become obligated to provide for your kids just because you created them.

 

[PocketZeven]

Higher education is for adults. It's not a child abuse issue.



In the US, forcing your children to work for food is considered abuse.



Social security is for retirement. Welfare is the program you're looking for, and yes welfare/foodstamps help out poor families in the US. Regardless of the presence of those programs or not, or the presence of charity or not, it is your responsibility (not your neighbor's) to provide for your children. If you can't, find someone who will. That's it! Your neighbor doesn't suddenly become obligated to provide for your kids just because you created them.

Sorry I was referring to kids as offspring in general. I didnt mean 8 year olds working in sweatshops, but 16 year olds helping out with the finances.
Do you have children? You make it sound very simple, but in most instances parents raising their own children under most circumstances is always in the best interest of the child. Perhaps you are assuming I am speaking of people trailerpark people who refuse to work and take advantage of welfare? I am referring to people that actually end up in poverty through no fault of their own. Like a multinational closing a factory or a mine, economic crisis etc. And even then is the current system in the USA to foster system in the best interest of the smaller children?

 

[McLaren]

College is not a right. College is also not a parental responsibility. Healthcare is an obligation to children that they can demand from their parents - just like food, clothing, shelter, and even love. And if their parents are not capable of providing that, then they are not capable of fulfilling their moral and legal obligations to their children and do not legitimately qualify for custody.

One could argue college isn’t even a necessity these days unless there’s a specific field you’re interested in as a career, that college greatly benefits. Otherwise, there’s always trade schools and other means of finding work and becoming successful at it.


Instead of the govt. simply paying for everyone’s college education bc many can’t afford it, why doesn’t the govt. address these rising tuition costs? College textbooks written and required by the professors? Textbooks only good for 1-2 years? Education supplies on college stores grossly overpriced (chalk supplies a $1 in Target, yet $10 in a college supply store)?

And yet, the quality of education feels unchanged for the money people go into debt for.

 

[PocketZeven]

One could argue college isn’t even a necessity these days unless there’s a specific field you’re interested in as a career, that college greatly benefits. Otherwise, there’s always trade schools and other means of finding work and becoming successful at it.


Instead of the govt. simply paying for everyone’s college education bc many can’t afford it, why doesn’t the govt. address these rising tuition costs? College textbooks written and required by the professors? Textbooks only good for 1-2 years? Education supplies on college stores grossly overpriced (chalk supplies a $1 in Target, yet $10 in a college supply store)?

And yet, the quality of education feels unchanged for the money people go into debt for.

The US career politicians (mainly conservatives) seem to be unwilling to meddle with such prices (education and healthcare), because the adversity to anything that seems like socialism. Thats why college tuitions and medicin in the USA are among the highest in the world. Capitalists always believe prices should be left to the free market.