|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Aug 12, 2013 17:42:30 GMT -5
Bob Marks
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2013 20:08:42 GMT -5
What is the definition of equality of wealth in this context?
|
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Aug 12, 2013 20:37:04 GMT -5
Economics is not my strong suit, but I am not aware of any credible people calling for equality of wealth.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Aug 12, 2013 22:37:52 GMT -5
What is the definition of equality of wealth in this context? Taking from people who have more money and giving it to people with less money. Bob |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Aug 12, 2013 22:39:58 GMT -5
Economics is not my strong suit, but I am not aware of any credible people calling for equality of wealth. But there are plenty of people (including politicians) who argue for taxing "the rich" even more and giving the money to "the poor." Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2013 23:40:41 GMT -5
Economics is not my strong suit, but I am not aware of any credible people calling for equality of wealth. But there are plenty of people (including politicians) who argue for taxing "the rich" even more and giving the money to "the poor." Bob Politics and taxes aside, how is taking some stuff from a real big pot and adding some of it to a much smaller pot, make each pot equal to each other? What definition of equality are you using? Even more so, what numbers system are you using? |
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Aug 13, 2013 8:51:15 GMT -5
But there are plenty of people (including politicians) who argue for taxing "the rich" even more and giving the money to "the poor." I am not one of them. But the extreme disparity between the so-called 1% and the rest of us is a real problem. If people at the top would take a little less - which they couldn't possibly notice - the people at the bottom could have a little more - which would be of enormous help to them. How can anyone defend a situation where a few have tremendous wealth while many have to watch every penny? |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Aug 13, 2013 17:33:24 GMT -5
But there are plenty of people (including politicians) who argue for taxing "the rich" even more and giving the money to "the poor." I am not one of them. But the extreme disparity between the so-called 1% and the rest of us is a real problem. If people at the top would take a little less - which they couldn't possibly notice - the people at the bottom could have a little more - which would be of enormous help to them. How can anyone defend a situation where a few have tremendous wealth while many have to watch every penny? If the 1% made all of their money by stealing, then yes, it has to be given back. But if they didn't, by what right can any of their wealth be taken? THAT would be stealing. As the article points out, the only way to redistribute the money is by using the power of government bureaucrats. Government bureaucrats would be a greater threat to personal freedoms than wealth disparities. Bob Marks |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Aug 13, 2013 17:37:01 GMT -5
But there are plenty of people (including politicians) who argue for taxing "the rich" even more and giving the money to "the poor." Bob Politics and taxes aside, how is taking some stuff from a real big pot and adding some of it to a much smaller pot, make each pot equal to each other? What definition of equality are you using? Even more so, what numbers system are you using? The pots are not fixed in size. If they were, then the small pot cannot hold too much. We are not dealing with pots here, but rather with incomes. Look at it this way. The small pot is flexible and can hold any amount. Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2013 18:49:26 GMT -5
I am not one of them. But the extreme disparity between the so-called 1% and the rest of us is a real problem. If people at the top would take a little less - which they couldn't possibly notice - the people at the bottom could have a little more - which would be of enormous help to them. How can anyone defend a situation where a few have tremendous wealth while many have to watch every penny? If the 1% made all of their money by stealing, then yes, it has to be given back. But if they didn't, by what right can any of their wealth be taken? THAT would be stealing. As the article points out, the only way to redistribute the money is by using the power of government bureaucrats. Government bureaucrats would be a greater threat to personal freedoms than wealth disparities. Bob Marks Bob, we already know that you believe that states and the Federal Government is stealing from you through taxation, so what else is new? My argument was your implication that all wealth would be redistributed so that each individual citizen would have the same income, because that's what literally that equality of wealth means. But you decided to pretend you didn't understand what I (and Raybar) was saying. Again, what else is new?  Carry on. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2013 19:55:09 GMT -5
Very weird. I'm trying to edit my post above, but it doesn't let me. In fact, it's letting me edit the very first post in This thread, which is Bob's (I was testing that because I was getting frustrated). Anyway, just want to change "is" to "are". |
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Aug 13, 2013 20:14:10 GMT -5
I am not one of them. But the extreme disparity between the so-called 1% and the rest of us is a real problem. If people at the top would take a little less - which they couldn't possibly notice - the people at the bottom could have a little more - which would be of enormous help to them. How can anyone defend a situation where a few have tremendous wealth while many have to watch every penny? If the 1% made all of their money by stealing, then yes, it has to be given back. But if they didn't, by what right can any of their wealth be taken? THAT would be stealing. As the article points out, the only way to redistribute the money is by using the power of government bureaucrats. Government bureaucrats would be a greater threat to personal freedoms than wealth disparities. Bob Marks I specifically said that "I am not one of them," one of those calling for the redistribution of money. So what are you talking about? What I would like to see is a true living wage paid to everyone who works. A full time worker, even at the bottom of the wage scale, should earn enough to provide for all of his needs - housing, food, clothing, medical, retirement, recreation - everything needed for a decent lifestyle, with no need for financial assistance. I find it absolutely revolting that that those in control of companies pay themselves so generously while at the same time barely paying subsistence wages to some of their workers. |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Aug 13, 2013 21:48:48 GMT -5
If the 1% made all of their money by stealing, then yes, it has to be given back. But if they didn't, by what right can any of their wealth be taken? THAT would be stealing. As the article points out, the only way to redistribute the money is by using the power of government bureaucrats. Government bureaucrats would be a greater threat to personal freedoms than wealth disparities. Bob Marks I specifically said that "I am not one of them," one of those calling for the redistribution of money. So what are you talking about? What I would like to see is a true living wage paid to everyone who works. A full time worker, even at the bottom of the wage scale, should earn enough to provide for all of his needs - housing, food, clothing, medical, retirement, recreation - everything needed for a decent lifestyle, with no need for financial assistance. I find it absolutely revolting that that those in control of companies pay themselves so generously while at the same time barely paying subsistence wages to some of their workers. Yes Ray, I know you are not one of them. My point here was that there there is no real problem if the rich people earned their money honestly. As far as a living wage being paid to everyone who works, the problem here is that some jobs are not worth that much. These are jobs that are taken by teenagers, recent graduates, and immigrants with few skills. After a few years, these people acquire experience and usually get paid more. Yes, you are right about heads of major corporations paying themselves outrageous amounts. This is a direct result of government policies. Corporations are now borrowing money to pay dividends and give bonuses to their top officers! David Stockman exposes the whole dirty business in "The Great Deformation." Bob Marks |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Aug 13, 2013 21:55:38 GMT -5
If the 1% made all of their money by stealing, then yes, it has to be given back. But if they didn't, by what right can any of their wealth be taken? THAT would be stealing. As the article points out, the only way to redistribute the money is by using the power of government bureaucrats. Government bureaucrats would be a greater threat to personal freedoms than wealth disparities. Bob Marks Bob, we already know that you believe that states and the Federal Government is stealing from you through taxation, so what else is new? My argument was your implication that all wealth would be redistributed so that each individual citizen would have the same income, because that's what literally that equality of wealth means. But you decided to pretend you didn't understand what I (and Raybar) was saying. Again, what else is new? Carry on. And that is exactly what redistribution of wealth will lead to. After all, at what point do politicians say "We have redistributed enough money"? Politicians make their living by creating "problems" that they pretend to solve. If there are no more problems, there is little for them left to do. They will be thrown out of office at the next election. So no matter how much money is redistributed, some politician will come along in the near future and say that more redistribution is necessary. Bob Marks |
|
Carry on.