| fmc83 said:
After that some basic thoughts: - The best way for a society is a healthy mix between capitalism and social (NOT Socialist! Big difference there) elements. One example: Poor people tend to start riots and produce all sort of common crimes. So the rich try to protect themselves, so they need more money.
As we all should know since the crisis the world is facing now, money is not coming from nowhere. At one point grwoth stops: Let's assume there's 1000 $ in a model-world for 1000 people. 10 percent owe 600 $, while another 20 percent owe 300 dollars and the rest (70 percent) owe 100 $. The poorest are not really happy with having 1/7 $ while some others have 6 $. But the richest are quite happy with it.
And naturally they don't want to loose it and wouldn't 7 $ not even be better? So they start to build hurdles: Education, social circles etc. You doubt that? Strange, because it's exactly the same thought that brought them here and drives capitalism: MORE MONEY FOR ME! So the poorest start revolting, because they're hopeless. Well they don't revolt to hard, because the richest aren't too stupid, so they give them some sugars. Like low basic health care and just enough food and TV to keep them busy. But still they need protection from being robbed etc. So again they need more money to do this "favours". So The richest now 5% have 600, while the next 15 have 300 and the rest (80%) have 100.
Off course, some of the poorest class got up from the lowest to the middle class and so on, but still less people will have more money.
So how can you prevent that? Taxes. The more you earn, the more you pay. Because without the lowest class, struggling with every day live, working there butts off and still struggle, the richest class wouldn't be where they're now. Same goes for reliable infrastructure, laws you can rely on etc. Most important: what did an heir do except for being a heir? We are living in world, where you have to be a fool, when you lose 4m$ made by your daddy. Just the interests bring you a fairly good living standard, so why not tax it higher. Again, if society wouldn't provide you all the basics, your money wouldn't be save.
So it's not bad, if 10% own 200$ , 40% have 400$ and the rest 50% share 400$. Isn't it better, if generation after generation get a more balanced starting level (off course people should still be able to give a upper living standard to their children. So they don't get frustrated and want to work hard).
Just as a closement argument before, as I hope, we start a great debate: Capitalism doesn't care about poor people, because it's founded upon people being poor to do cheap work and make other people rich!
Fire free!
|
thank you, if people actually read my posts, they would know that the above is essentially my position as well
