The rich have all the money - so what it doesn't make any difference to you.
Well maybe to be rich it should be annual income. To do that we can tax them 10% of their networth each year, Ya that will do it. What are you going to with your extra $150 this year.
All the rhetoric is for the welfare and single mom base. They shamelessly go to $40,000 a head fundraisers squealing against "The Rich" who are of course in on the joke. They unabashedly stage rallies screeching about Voter ID anti-fraud laws as "voter suppression"-rallies which require photo ID's to attend!
Quote: kenarmanOne of the pet peeves of the "it's not my fault I'm poor" crowd right now is that the rich are getting more than their share. Just for giggles I did the following math, see the post is relative to this site. The top 10 richest people of the US have net worth of $483 billion. The population of the US (2014) is 318.9 million. If we were nationalize the wealth of the top 10 and evenly distribute it among the population every man, woman and child would get $1,514 each as a one time payment. Wow that is sure life changing money and everyone would then be rich ;-).
Well maybe to be rich it should be annual income. To do that we can tax them 10% of their networth each year, Ya that will do it. What are you going to with your extra $150 this year.
Top 10 people really? There are literally over 500 billionaires. This is 600 people at a level of wealth that in terms of lifestyle serves no other purpose then keeping score. These people will never be in want of anything in life yet you arbitrarily cut it off at 10 people as though people are complaining about the obscene wealth of the top 10 richest Americans but once you get down to S. Robson Walton and his 36.1 billion well that is just necessary to get by so he should get to keep it all. Using less silly numbers if you take the top 400 people that is 2.29 trillion cannot find all American billionaires so lets just add 1 billion for each of the remaining 136 American billionaires this is over 2.4 trillion dollars. This is 1 more money then the entire African American population, but for yours it would be 7.5k for every man woman and child. That means for a family of 3 you'd get 22.5k which is enough for an entire year of education at a number of universities. Now no one actually suggest taking all this money but saying taking money from the top 10 richest people wouldn't solve any societal ills is just perhaps the stupidest argument I've heard for doing nothing I have ever seen.
To show a bit of the disparity the top 1% of people control 35.4% of the net worth in 2010, its gone up since then but that is the most recent number I could find concrete numbers on. But sure keep going on about your incredibly dumb little math exercise to show that wealth inequality isn't a significant problem.
Quote: TwirdmanTop 10 people really? There are literally over 500 billionaires. This is 600 people at a level of wealth that in terms of lifestyle serves no other purpose then keeping score. These people will never be in want of anything in life yet you arbitrarily cut it off at 10 people as though people are complaining about the obscene wealth of the top 10 richest Americans but once you get down to S. Robson Walton and his 36.1 billion well that is just necessary to get by so he should get to keep it all. Using less silly numbers if you take the top 400 people that is 2.29 trillion cannot find all American billionaires so lets just add 1 billion for each of the remaining 136 American billionaires this is over 2.4 trillion dollars. This is 1 more money then the entire African American population, but for yours it would be 7.5k for every man woman and child. That means for a family of 3 you'd get 22.5k which is enough for an entire year of education at a number of universities. Now no one actually suggest taking all this money but saying taking money from the top 10 richest people wouldn't solve any societal ills is just perhaps the stupidest argument I've heard for doing nothing I have ever seen.
To show a bit of the disparity the top 1% of people control 35.4% of the net worth in 2010, its gone up since then but that is the most recent number I could find concrete numbers on. But sure keep going on about your incredibly dumb little math exercise to show that wealth inequality isn't a significant problem.
You are missing the whole point. Even with your example a one time payment of $22K is essentially meaningless in the long term for somebody given that even most poor people will receive a $1,000,000 in their lifetime in the US.
To bring the poor in the 3rd world countries into it makes it much worse. The last time I did the math if you take the GDP of the world (which is not the same as income but higher) and divide it by the population of the world it comes to about $5K annually per person. This would be great for the poor of the world but not sure you want to live on your $5K share.
Quote: kenarmanOne of the pet peeves of the "it's not my fault I'm poor" crowd right now is that the rich are getting more than their share. Just for giggles I did the following math, see the post is relative to this site. The top 10 richest people of the US have net worth of $483 billion. The population of the US (2014) is 318.9 million. If we were nationalize the wealth of the top 10 and evenly distribute it among the population every man, woman and child would get $1,514 each as a one time payment. Wow that is sure life changing money and everyone would then be rich ;-).
Well maybe to be rich it should be annual income. To do that we can tax them 10% of their networth each year, Ya that will do it. What are you going to with your extra $150 this year.
I can see two problems off the top of my head.
First, why stop at the top 10 people? What if the combined wealth of all 300+ million people in the USA was distributed equally? What would everyone's amount be? For that matter, how long will it take for somebody to ask, "And then, how long would it take before the money ended up being distributed pretty much the way it is now?")
Second, why distribute it equally? Why not distribute it to just the poorest people, on a sliding scale (the more money you already make, the less you get)? Say, everybody who makes less than $60,000 gets half of the difference between $60,000 and what they currently make? (I am using $30,000 as a "base" as that is about what someone making $15/hour for 40 hours/week would make.)
Quote: kenarmanOne of the pet peeves of the "it's not my fault I'm poor" crowd right now is that the rich are getting more than their share. Just for giggles I did the following math, see the post is relative to this site. The top 10 richest people of the US have net worth of $483 billion. The population of the US (2014) is 318.9 million. If we were nationalize the wealth of the top 10 and evenly distribute it among the population every man, woman and child would get $1,514 each as a one time payment. Wow that is sure life changing money and everyone would then be rich ;-).
If we did that, we would still have the top 10 richest Americans with a combined net worth somewhere close to a half-trillion. The next year we could evenly distribute that among every one. If we did that, we could also cut way back on most welfare programs that support people who have very little money. Also, those 10 richest people can only drive one car at a time, only get their haircut a few times per year, only eat so many groceries, sleep in only one bed with one set of sheets each night, etc. By giving less affluent people more money, they would be buying more stuff that they wouldn't otherwise be able to afford.
So between the $1,514 payout, reduced tax burden, and a much larger and well off customer base to see my products, it would be life changing for me
This is obviously not the correct economic policy, but there would be a lot of other effects that would happen if we did go that route
Quote: kenarman. The population of the US (2014) is 318.9 million. If we were nationalize the wealth of the top 10 and evenly distribute it among the population every man, woman and child would get $1,514 each as a one time payment. Wow that is sure life changing money and everyone would then be rich ;-).
Whereas if everyone else in the US gave the top ten people just $1 they would each have around 31 million each. So, they don't need our help, they don't need tax cuts, they don't need anything from anyone else.
They definitely don't need anyone worrying about their welfare.
Quote: TomGIf we did that, we would still have the top 10 richest Americans with a combined net worth somewhere close to a half-trillion. The next year we could evenly distribute that among every one. If we did that, we could also cut way back on most welfare programs that support people who have very little money. Also, those 10 richest people can only drive one car at a time, only get their haircut a few times per year, only eat so many groceries, sleep in only one bed with one set of sheets each night, etc. By giving less affluent people more money, they would be buying more stuff that they wouldn't otherwise be able to afford.
So between the $1,514 payout, reduced tax burden, and a much larger and well off customer base to see my products, it would be life changing for me
This is obviously not the correct economic policy, but there would be a lot of other effects that would happen if we did go that route
Your statement hilights the fallacy behind the whole idea. The extremely rich do not have their wealth sitting as a cash in a bank it is invested in stocks and a variety of other investments that power the economy of the US. The money sitting in their hands and invested in the economy is providing just as much economic drive as you spending an extra $1200 for one year and it provides that drive every year. .
Look what happens when someone cashes out big time on a company they created. They don't put the money in savings accounts they almost invariably start a new business hoping to do it again. They almost always become a source of start up capital for others. This start up capital is what drives the innovation that any healthy economy requires. Many of these business' don't make it but the ones that survive and advance the economy are invaluable. Think of the owner of Tesla, he is taking a substantial piece of his fortune to start up the battery company and push it as far as it will go. If he is right, which is a different debate, it could be a major player in carbon reduction. Probably a better outcome for society than the corner liquor store owner getting richer.
Let us now take the bottom up drive of putting more money into the poorest peoples hands. Yes they will spend it and that creates economic activity but until enough of it gathers in one place (oh oh that will create another rich person) it can not be used for any kind of innovation. The economy then actually stagnates in the long term and the country loses it's competive edge.
For all it's failings (and there are plenty) capitalism is the best system going. Period. There is no reasonable debate on this.
Quote: kenarmanYour statement hilights the fallacy behind the whole idea. The extremely rich do not have their wealth sitting as a cash in a bank it is invested in stocks and a variety of other investments that power the economy of the US. The money sitting in their hands and invested in the economy is providing just as much economic drive as you spending an extra $1200 for one year and it provides that drive every year. .
According to "trickle down" theories, this must always be correct. The more success the rich have, the better off the rest of us will be.
Others believe instead in a "middle out," that the more success that goes the middle of the economic spectrum, the better it will be for the entire economy
It's easy to envision a scenario where the rich do well and most of the rest of us struggle. It's very hard to envision a scenario where the middle class does well and the rich are screwed because of it
the money on earth among all the people
on earth, within 5 years the same people that
had the most originally would have it again.
Some people are just good money makers
and most others are not.
Quote: TomGAccording to "trickle down" theories, this must always be correct. The more success the rich have, the better off the rest of us will be.
Others believe instead in a "middle out," that the more success that goes the middle of the economic spectrum, the better it will be for the entire economy
It's easy to envision a scenario where the rich do well and most of the rest of us struggle. It's very hard to envision a scenario where the middle class does well and the rich are screwed because of it
The problem is you are being a greedy person if you believe you should get something from "the rich" just because they have it!
Quote: AZDuffmanThe problem is you are being a greedy person if you believe you should get something from "the rich" just because they have it!
In other words, a Democrat.
Quote: RSThere's a reason why the rich are rich and the poor are poor, and very little has to do with how much money they currently have, but has much more to do with how they use their money.
I agree with you to a point. Inherited wealth is one problem i have with our current status quo. These people are just born into wealth. I suppose its what every wealthy person hopes to do with their money when they die is to leave it with their next of kin.
Societal advantages for the well off make it easier for the wealthy family to get ahead and stay ahead, but i still believe this country to be the best in terms of mobility. Many people started with nothing and became wealthy. As much as i like to see the poor taken care of, we cant start demanding a bigger piece of the pie from the rich, which will stifle job creation and the economy.
I agree, it worked for over 80 years and, Bill Clinton should never have gotten rid of it.Quote: beachbumbabsBring back Glass-Steagall!
Quote: mcallister3200Excuse me while I bitch about the poor as I'm parking by boat inside my yacht that I bought with my grandfather's money.
OMG you are poor don't you have hired help to take care of such trivial things?
Quote: djatcI agree with you to a point. Inherited wealth is one problem i have with our current status quo. These people are just born into wealth. I suppose its what every wealthy person hopes to do with their money when they die is to leave it with their next of kin.
Societal advantages for the well off make it easier for the wealthy family to get ahead and stay ahead, but i still believe this country to be the best in terms of mobility. Many people started with nothing and became wealthy. As much as i like to see the poor taken care of, we cant start demanding a bigger piece of the pie from the rich, which will stifle job creation and the economy.
Yeah look at the Forbes 400 and realize 3 of the 10 richest people in the US right now are members of the Walton family. They really did very little to get their wealth other then popping out of the right womb. Another 2, the Koch brothers, inherited money that they used to grow and change the company.
This is not counting the advantages conferred by better school systems for the rich, both public and private schools. Also the ability to pay for private tutors and special programs to train for the SAT and other super important college exams allow them to get into better universities and better graduate schools.
As for being the most socially mobile that is just not objectively true. We are better then countries like Chile or Slovenia or even the UK but we lag behind most other countries. http://www.epi.org/publication/usa-lags-peer-countries-mobility/ . So while there are many cases of rags to riches stories, though discounting athletes arguably less then we saw before, the truth is the US has relatively poor social mobility. There are a lot of reasons for these like school access and certain other complex factors.
Quote: TomGAccording to "trickle down" theories, this must always be correct. The more success the rich have, the better off the rest of us will be.
Others believe instead in a "middle out," that the more success that goes the middle of the economic spectrum, the better it will be for the entire economy
It's easy to envision a scenario where the rich do well and most of the rest of us struggle. It's very hard to envision a scenario where the middle class does well and the rich are screwed because of it
The rich are screwed right at the beginning of your scenerio because you want to tax the s**t out of them to make everyone middle class. Of course once that happens the income level of being lower class moves up so now if middle class is better than lower class you need even more money to be middle class.
If you look at the "middle class income" thread that has legs right now the conscensus seem to be that middle class is low 6 figures, give me a break that is at least high middle class, peoples expectations now are way to high for the work they want to put into making a living.
Look at how good the asian immigrants to North America do. They come with nothing and are often refugees. They take a low paying job that the average North American turns their nose up at but keep there expenses at the level they are used to. In a few years they buy a business and still work long hours and live cheap. They have the money to put their kids through university and retire pretty well off once they sell the business and they started with absolutely nothing. But those born here want the government to tax the successfull and give them the money because they don't want to work.
Quote: TwirdmanYeah look at the Forbes 400 and realize 3 of the 10 richest people in the US right now are members of the Walton family. They really did very little to get their wealth other then popping out of the right womb. Another 2, the Koch brothers, inherited money that they used to grow and change the company.
This is not counting the advantages conferred by better school systems for the rich, both public and private schools. Also the ability to pay for private tutors and special programs to train for the SAT and other super important college exams allow them to get into better universities and better graduate schools.
As for being the most socially mobile that is just not objectively true. We are better then countries like Chile or Slovenia or even the UK but we lag behind most other countries. http://www.epi.org/publication/usa-lags-peer-countries-mobility/ . So while there are many cases of rags to riches stories, though discounting athletes arguably less then we saw before, the truth is the US has relatively poor social mobility. There are a lot of reasons for these like school access and certain other complex factors.
You are still missing the point of my original post. Even taking all their money and redistributing it would have no long term affect on the level of the poor or middle class.
Take the $1200 and have the poor spend it as per your earlier post and what happens. WalMart gets richer, big friggin change to your world.
Quote: kenarmanYou are still missing the point of my original post. Even taking all their money and redistributing it would have no long term affect on the level of the poor or middle class.
Take the $1200 and have the poor spend it as per your earlier post and what happens. WalMart gets richer, big friggin change to your world.
That is why people who aren't idiots or GOP strawmen don't suggest a straight redistribution of wealth especially not something super stupid like taking the wealth of the top 10 people and giving it to everyone. I mean have you legit heard anyone suggest that or is it just some random stupid thing you created to "prove" your point.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/06/millionaires-taxes-survey_n_5272647.html
Quote: TwirdmanThat is why people who aren't idiots or GOP strawmen don't suggest a straight redistribution of wealth especially not something super stupid like taking the wealth of the top 10 people and giving it to everyone. I mean have you legit heard anyone suggest that or is it just some random stupid thing you created to "prove" your point.
My point is that redistribution of the wealth of the rich makes very little real difference to the living standard of the poor. You do the math on your scenerio and tell me how much of the money you want from the rich and who and how much you want to give them. I will be very suprised if you can create a real life scenerio using real numbers that makes any meaningfull change for the poor. Steal from the rich and give to the poor has a nice ring but the numbers don't work.
I haven't heard your answer yet to whether you are ready to live on $5k / year so we can also bring the third world into the scenerio as per by earlier post.
Quote: rxwineWell, also just for kicks, this is a poll of 514 people with investable assets of 1 million or more.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/06/millionaires-taxes-survey_n_5272647.html
Lets have a look at the items in the poll.
The top 2 on the list are aimed at the encouraging the poor to help themselves, although higher education is much less of guarantee than it used to be.
The 3rd item is no suprise, most of the wealthy donate major portions of their wealth already. Howerver the tax amount envisioned by people in the poll and the amount expected to be raised by the poor are probably far apart.
Increasing the minimum wage will hammer the middle class and have little affect on the rich as businesses such as McDonalds and WalMart raise their prices to cover the increase.
The last program we had to allow the poor to purchase a house didn't work out so well for the economy.
Quote: kenarmanMy point is that redistribution of the wealth of the rich makes very little real difference to the living standard of the poor. You do the math on your scenerio and tell me how much of the money you want from the rich and who and how much you want to give them. I will be very suprised if you can create a real life scenerio using real numbers that makes any meaningfull change for the poor. Steal from the rich and give to the poor has a nice ring but the numbers don't work.
I haven't heard your answer yet to whether you are ready to live on $5k / year so we can also bring the third world into the scenerio as per by earlier post.
The issue is a lot more complex then just take from the rich and give to the poor. I'm sorry actual policy doesn't fit on a bumper sticker some of us prefer nuances and complex solutions. As for the 5k per year the is stupid for oh so many reasons. One it is this stupid black or white answer that is favored by children and not actual people, two it ignores PPP to give a small amount of money to everyone with no consideration for how that affects anything. Seriously these arguments are comically dumb.
Quote: AZDuffmanThe problem is you are being a greedy person if you believe you should get something from "the rich" just because they have it!
If I didn't believe that would the problem be solved?
Quote: kenarmanThe rich are screwed right at the beginning of your scenerio because you want to tax the s**t out of them to make everyone middle class.
Actually I don't. But even if I did, my wants would not be something that screws the rich. No matter what my desires are, most of them will be ok
Quote: rxwineWell, also just for kicks, this is a poll of 514 people with investable assets of 1 million or more.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/06/millionaires-taxes-survey_n_5272647.html
For me the best way is the first choice. The redistribution of wealth should occur in the form of education, with the students of well off parents and the government subsidizing free or severely reduced college education.
Also stop jewing us in textbooks, seriously why cant i use the 8th edition of business 101 if the 9th edition came out with the only difference being an additional chapter and software?
Quote: TwirdmanThe issue is a lot more complex then just take from the rich and give to the poor. I'm sorry actual policy doesn't fit on a bumper sticker some of us prefer nuances and complex solutions. As for the 5k per year the is stupid for oh so many reasons. One it is this stupid black or white answer that is favored by children and not actual people, two it ignores PPP to give a small amount of money to everyone with no consideration for how that affects anything. Seriously these arguments are comically dumb.
You are the one that wants to redistribute wealth. The $5k / person amount is a real amount based on real numbers for the world economy and world population. This is where the redistribution policy ultimately takes us. The simplistic answer is that everyone can be rich if we redistribute the limited amount of wealth in the world.
I have no issue with finding funds for people that want to get ahead. The microbanks in the third world countries are an excellant example of this when by enabling someone to make a loan of a few hundred dollars allows them to create a business where they can support themselves. What I don't agree with is that the average person in developed countries needs more government help because the rich taking all the money has put them in a spot where they can't have everything they think they should be entitled to.
The working poor and middle class are usually just waiting for a free seat, as money buys influence.
I guess you could say their money earns them all that as well. No need to view access as lopsided.
Quote: rxwineIt may be a small thing, but I'd much rather the wealthy (and I'm not picking sides) pay into a general tax fund, than use all that wealth for multiple $10,000 a plate dinners with our elected leaders, or hiring professional lobbyist, or junkets to their golf course or casino.
The working poor and middle class are usually just waiting for a free seat, as money buys influence.
I guess you could say their money earns them all that as well. No need to view access as lopsided.
The wealthy support both sides depending on who is in power. The unions always support the left. Those with more time than money spend their time on the street protesting and getting their point across very stongly this way. Those with the time and the understanding use social media to strong advantage. Everyone has a means of getting their message across.
Ultimately it is the voter that determines who gets elected and thus the direction of government not the lobbyists. What is usually forgotten is that the split between sides is usually close to 50/50 so 50% of the people are pissed off and feel disenfranchised at any given time because they are not getting what they want.
Quote: kenarmanThe wealthy support both sides depending on who is in power. The unions always support the left. Those with more time than money spend their time on the street protesting and getting their point across very stongly this way. Those with the time and the understanding use social media to strong advantage. Everyone has a means of getting their message across.
Ultimately it is the voter that determines who gets elected and thus the direction of government not the lobbyists. What is usually forgotten is that the split between sides is usually close to 50/50 so 50% of the people are pissed off and feel disenfranchised at any given time because they are not getting what they want.
Well if protesting in the street is just as effective, the rich must be stupid spending so much money. In other words, no I don't buy that at all.
Quote: kenarmanInteresting list of top political donators. Unions top the list and close to 100% of their donations to the democrats. Whoops another urban myth about big bad business buying the politicians bites the dust. Donations
Your link is for "organazations", little wonder unions are among top contributors.
List of top political donors; http://mercatus.org/publication/top-25-political-donations-1989-2014
This article states, "top 100 donors donate as much as 4.75 million small donors" http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/top-political-donors-113833.html
And the top all time contributors; http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-07-14/presenting-all-time-top-100-political-donors, notice those that can afford to buy both sides
Quote: petroglyphnotice those that can afford to buy both sides
Buying both sides is probably unprincipled. It's not even supporting a viewpoint, so much as hoping to buy influence from whichever side wins.
Yup. That's exactly why renunciations of U.S. citizenship are at an all-time record high.Quote: TomGActually I don't. But even if I did, my wants would not be something that screws the rich. No matter what my desires are, most of them will be ok
Quote: rxwineBuying both sides is probably unprincipled. It's not even supporting a viewpoint, so much as hoping to buy influence from whichever side wins.
It's nothing personal, it's just business.
Quote: TomGIf I didn't believe that would the problem be solved?
First, why is "inequality" a "problem" in the first place?
I do not see it as a problem. Rich people bring opportunity to me. They run businesses which hire me. Several have hired me to work at their parties dealing craps or blackjack, once bringing me almost $200 for the night. The Walton Family, which some on this board seem to hate for some reason, are the largest employers in the USA via Wal-Mart.
I have to be honest, all this "redistribute talk" is not better than the thugs in Baltimore. All redistribution means it theft at the point of a gun, taking people's possessions because they have them and you want them.
If a person wants wealth they should go out and build wealth.
Quote: AZDuffmanFirst, why is "inequality" a "problem" in the first place?
I don't know? Why did you insist there was a problem?
Quote:I have to be honest, all this "redistribute talk" is not better than the thugs in Baltimore.
So why can't you be better than Baltimore thugs?
Quote: kenarmanOne of the pet peeves of the "it's not my fault I'm poor" crowd right now is that the rich are getting more than their share. Just for giggles I did the following math, see the post is relative to this site. The top 10 richest people of the US have net worth of $483 billion.
High net worth isn't "getting more than their share".
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2014/10/02/349863761/40-years-of-income-inequality-in-america-in-graphs
Looking at a graph like that, one sees that the rich have been getting richer, while the poor have not. The rising tide has not lifted all boats.
That would seem to be why people have been getting pissed off.
I would be less pissed off if the high income types were paying a similar percentage of their incomes as taxes as poor little me.
Quote: DieterHigh net worth isn't "getting more than their share".
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2014/10/02/349863761/40-years-of-income-inequality-in-america-in-graphs
Looking at a graph like that, one sees that the rich have been getting richer, while the poor have not. The rising tide has not lifted all boats.
That would seem to be why people have been getting pissed off.
I would be less pissed off if the high income types were paying a similar percentage of their incomes as taxes as poor little me.
So the proper question you have to ask yourself is this. Does economic redistribution really bring the poor up? The money spent on the war on poverty in this country exceeds the amount spent on every war in American History, yet it doesn't have any real tangible results. I have zero problem helping people out who are unable to work, due to some sort of physical or mental handicap. They deserve a place to stay, food to eat, lights on and all that stuff. The people that I don't like helping are the people who have the ability to help themselves that refuse to because either they are A) too lazy or B) there isn't enough economic incentive to get a job paying $15/hour when unemployment will give them most of that for not doing anything. Having to subsidize that type of laziness or apathy really offends me to the core.
That being said, I am not going to begrudge someone for having a lot of money because they actually earned it. In excess of 70% of the billionaires in this country are self made. Yes, there are people living off of the Rockerfeller fortune or Carnegie fortune or whatever, but the vast majority of big money in this country is self made, and we should not do anything to dissuade it.
Quote: Gabes22
The people that I don't like helping are the people who have the ability to help themselves that refuse to because either they are A) too lazy or B) there isn't enough economic incentive to get a job paying $15/hour when unemployment will give them most of that for not doing anything. Having to subsidize that type of laziness or apathy really offends me to the core.
You make the mistake of assuming physical disability is the only thing that can keep people from working. There are sometimes personality factors that can cause people to be unemployable. Some people don't have the "people skills" to get through the interview. Some people have a history of getting fired for interpersonal conflicts and no one will hire them.
What should be done with those people?
Basically, the rent is too damn high in many parts of the country, not just for the poor but for the average person (50th percentile) and we're left with a paradox. The average resident of San Francisco can't afford to live in San Francisco without severely negatively impacting his financial future. This is not the way things should or have to be and not the case in the majority of the US. There are many places such as in Iowa and Minnesota with both high median income and low rents. These places also tend to have the highest income and wealth equality in the US.
Quote: TomGI don't know? Why did you insist there was a problem?
I didn't, other folks have.
Quote:So why can't you be better than Baltimore thugs?
You have me confused with someone else. Others are the ones saying that they deserve something just because "the rich" have it, I have been arguing against it. Those that argue for higher tax rates and such on "the rich" to "pay their fair share" are the thugs.
Quote: darthxaosYou make the mistake of assuming physical disability is the only thing that can keep people from working. There are sometimes personality factors that can cause people to be unemployable. Some people don't have the "people skills" to get through the interview. Some people have a history of getting fired for interpersonal conflicts and no one will hire them.
What should be done with those people?
So people who screwed up their careers based upon their own actions? Why should I subsidize that? I have no sympathy for someone who has burned so many bridges they aren't able to be hired. I would suggest those people get jobs where they don't have to deal with people for large chunks of the day, like driving a truck or something like that
Quote: Gabes22Does economic redistribution really bring the poor up?
If it's done right, it does.
The way to do it right is not to take money from the rich and give a tiny windfall to millions of poor people.
The way to do it right is to take money from the rich and make a serious investment in public infrastructure.
Spending that $1500 per person on broadband backhaul and making a quality affordable healthcare system would be a good start.
It worked with rural electrification.
