By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
SciFiBoy on 14 September 2009
Edit Thread
TheRealMafoo said:
ManusJustus said:
TheRealMafoo said:
ManusJustus said:

you are arguing over a factor that fluctuates around 40, and claim that something big has happened because we actually dropped instead having a continued increase in inequality.

 

Sorry, but this line struck me.

 

You think the delta between the poor and the rich are due to inequality?

 

You think that somehow people are less "equal" today then they were in 1969?

 

You have a very strange view of equality. Also, I want to point out that each year, we get less capitalistic, and more socialists, and the delta between the poor and the rich keeps growing. Shouldn't that indicates something?

 

It is my theory, that the more you give to someone, the less willing they are to work, and a working man will always prosper past one who does not.

 

So ya, put a few million on government assistance, watch them learn to live within those means while the rest of the US prospers, and then watch the gap grow.

 

If then your solution is to take more from the rich and give to the poor, your crazy. That's the problem, not the solution.


America, as well as most of the world (except maybe Venezuela or something), has become more and more capitalist.  In America, since 1969 the minimum wage has decreased, the gap between rich and poor continues to widen, and all the while scientific achievement has grinded to a halt as the free market focuses on business and entertainment technology.  As I said before, scientific advancement in the last 40 years is nothing compared to the scientific advancement 40 years prior to that.

Economically speaking, I dont understand how you can argue that people are more equal today than they were in 1969.  I thought that your argument was the the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting richer more slowly.  As I said before, stating that the poor in 2009 are better off than the poor in 1969 is no better an observation than stating that the poor in 2009 are better off than the poor in 1069.

Sorry, I had a hard time reading the rest of this after laughing so hard at your first line.

In 1967, my father could not eat in some places. There were schools he could not attend. My mother was not allowed to hold some jobs, or go to some schools. There were places it was unthinkable, for my family to live in 1969.

Jews today don't even think about any of that stuff. Today, we are far more equal then we were 40 years ago.

And to my point. If when I turned 18, the government had given me 20K to live off of, and said I would get this for the rest of my life, today I would be living off of 20K a year, and not the 4X I make now.

If your solution is to somehow take from the rich, the poor will be worse off in 50 years. Not better.

so far as I know, no-one would advocate such an idea, not least because there is no way, even with highly punitive taxation that any goverment could afford to give people 20k a year for life

welfare is designed to make sure people have a basic standard of life imo, not to make sure they have a salary for nothing, I would never advocate such a system

im in favour of the idea of welfare being done with products and vouchers rather than money, as money can be misspent much easier, so for instance, rather than giving someone who is unemployed £300 a month, you give them £250 a month in food vouchers and £50 a month in vouchers for other things they need, like clothing and hair cuts, etc. this way you make sure they are in the position to get a job as they are healthy (NHS), educated (state schools), well fed (food vouchers) and well clothed (clothing vouchers) as well as neat hair, etc (vouchers), in all this though, they get £0 in actual money, as the temptation for anyone with money, is to spend it on things they dont need

this way, people want to work, because if they want luxuries, like a tv or games console, they have to work for them, as for travel, give them special passes for any/all public transport, this way, not only can they get around for free, but they also dont use a car, thus helping reduce pollution.