How Wealth Inequality Spiraled Out of Control

I gave you the courtesy of watching the last video on the subject and it was nothing more than him saying it was wrong. In the end, he did not donate his profits to the government, but wants others to give up their money. We already have countless examples of the "rules for thee, but not for me".

Your solution was taking more of their money in the form of taxes for the purpose of closing the gap. Results show the opposite. Meanwhile, we are producing obese lambs and are wondering why they don't do more for themselves. Rich and poor is not a dollar amount. If we evenly distributed all of the wealth, it wouldn't be long before the rich and poor are back where they started. 70% of lottery winners end up broke.

Habits determine finances. While most Americans consume products until they are broke, and then use revolving debt, others know how to profit from such habits.

The solution involves teaching financial IQ at an early age. Unfortunately, we are moving in the opposite direction and will continue to produce obese borrowers for generations to come.

 

Exactly my point. Welfare Statists all over the Western World have been working in cahoots with Big Business for two decades, to dismantle the working and middle classes. The goal is a massive underclass - highly dependent upon the hand that feeds it. Ever consuming ... where every last activity of daily life must be 'purchased', and no one owns property.

Meantime, whatever you think the good old days were, they were never 'equitable' (thank god - because equity is an abomination). They were 'equal' - an entirely different thing.

 

As per the plan. When you keep them urban, fat, renting, and dependent - you keep them buying, buying, buying. They will never do you wrong.

 

The major factors on income differences are the amount of hours worked and the amount of education. You're probably not willing to pay the parking lot attendant extra so he can have the same income as someone w/ a PhD in physics who's team-leading at Apple --or pay the kid who rakes your leaves for 2 hours the same wage as a doctor who just put in a 12-hour shift.

 

No one is suggesting absolute equality. Only to shrink the ever widening gap, and the phenomenon of capitalism where by capital and power is flowing to fewer hands, over time, as fewer people become ever more powerful, which, in my view, is a national security issue. .

 

And a sector of our societies are CHOOSING to give away all their power. With each entreaty for 'rescue' from these types, a little more self-determination is handed to the elites they claim to despise. That's what a Welfare State is ... a framework for a massive underclass of dependents, designed to preserve the elites and their power/wealth.

Either you're for people power, or you're for all the power being held by the elites. Make up your mind.

 

I made up my mind, a long time ago, here:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/politics-of-the-center-what-is-it.585857/

 

Yes, a lot of people don't have wealth, but the poorest among them get welfare.

 

I'm talking about massive wealth, the kind where some individuals have as much as small nations.

Your dynamics of localism do not apply.

As far as solutions, Some Robert Reich, Some Nick Hanauer, a combo of both, for starters.

 

"Dont apply" simply means "Ignore results" If you want massive wealth, get a government contract. BIg pharma, food giants, school text books, etc. The biggest expense for the poor is taxes. In addition to their own taxes, they pay taxes for the rich.

Rich and poor is not a dollar amount; it is a set of habits. The rich don't eat loses; they pass them along to the consumer. CA is your party's petri dish and results show that what you propose only makes things worse for the poor and middle. I wish I was wrong and our high taxes created a healthy, thriving society.

 

Yes it is.

 

Those are the very people behind your beloved Welfare State. They're the ones who want a permanent underclass of consumers. Reliant on purchasing every last facet of their day to day existence. Rent, utilities, food, services, etc etc.

You're not a stupid man, Pato - open your eyes. THINK.

 

And yet they can't see the connection between 'social programs' and the destruction of the working and middle classes - even when that petri dish shows them in neon bright evidence.

 

Sure it is .. if you happen to live in a place or time where everyone behaves predictably, and are obliged by culture to be responsible and answerable.

If you're talking about a deconstructed society - every man for himself, zero answerability - it's 100% a matter of behaviours.

 

None are so blind as those who will not see!

 

Nope it still is.

 

So, who/whom are the good guys in your world? What can the regular joe/jane do to stop this "welfare state" onslaught you've gone on about ad-nauseum?

 

You're talking about something other than what I'm talking about.

I'm not talking about 'how to get rich'.

That is another subject, altogether and utterly irrelevant to the point I was raising.

 

I used to spend a lot of (futile) time trying to fight religious ideology with logic. When I say it's exactly the same mechanisms at play here, I'm calling that from a diagnostic POV.

Ideology makes us blind and deaf. Religion doesn't, necessarily .. and neither does politics. It's when we become ideologues about our faith or politics, that we shut down critical faculties.

 

Actually it's VERY relevant. When you know that wealth is a choice, you cannot complain when others choose it.

 

Dude, I'm not six. I don't work in cartoonish binaries - good guys/bad guys.

It's about personal interests and motivations. I'm for people power and collectivism - so I champion that which supports same. I decry that which doesn't - and the Welfare State does the polar opposite of support people power and collectivism. It's an isolationist method of disempowerment, with the goal of decreasing the collective strength of family/community/village.

It's a logical approach to the end goal of retention of absolute power by the elite. In many ways I admire the cleverness of it - but I still reject it personally. So should you, if you have any interest in returning personal power to the people, by supporting the framework of collectivism that we in the First World so hubristically and blithely ditched. We ditched it on the promise of lifelong security via a paternal Govt - whose interests are not our support, but our service. They need us to remain lifelong consumers, without recourse to any other option.

 

Refuse to participate, obviously. Start as you mean to go on. Do you want to retain your collective strength, and plan for a lifetime of self-reliance? Then do it. Set those balls in motion the minute you graduate high school.

 

I am simply pointing out that your proposed solution of taking more from the wealthy in the form of taxes already shows to have the opposite effect.

 

I'm not complaining about wealth.

Each time you comment on this, you, inescapably prove to me you do not know what I'm talking about.

 

In the 50s, a man, on an average income, was able to support a wife, make mortgage and car payment, and support one child.

today, a man cannot do that and taxes today are regressive, whereas they were progressive in the 50s.

It seems to support what I'm saying.