United We Stand - uwsboard.com

Virginia Tech fans discussing politics, religion, and football
It is currently Sat Aug 19, 2017 5:14 am

Time zone: America/New_York [ DST ]


UWS DWF UWS Lunch UWS Sports UWS Help TSL Football TSL Lounge TSL MBB Acronyms Top 25 Topics


Forum rules


Please be civil.



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 208 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 9  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Jan 21, 2014 6:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:11 pm
Posts: 3249
Provided that wealth is created/obtained legally, where is the harm if one is super wealthy and another is not?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 21, 2014 6:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 3:10 pm
Posts: 29366
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Party: After 10
Hokie5150 wrote:
Provided that wealth is created/obtained legally, where is the harm if one is super wealthy and another is not?


Because some people decided a life of crime and keeping it real was more important than going to college and those people deserve the same income as the guy that decided a life of delayed gratification would make them rich.

_________________
You losers lost, take off the vagina suit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 21, 2014 6:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2013 8:26 am
Posts: 1282
from a government standpoint... i think wealth inequality is only important when deciding tax tables.

from a moral prospective, i think too much wealth is sin. but its not the government's place to legislate morality.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 21, 2014 6:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:35 pm
Posts: 9385
Location: Macedonian Hacking Campus
Alma Mater: Skopje Technical Hacking and Culinary Institute
Party: Independent
Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of capitalism government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

_________________
I only post using 100% recycled electrons.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 21, 2014 6:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2013 5:13 pm
Posts: 2912
Hokie5150 wrote:
Provided that wealth is created/obtained legally, where is the harm if one is super wealthy and another is not?

In a vacuum, you're right it's not a bad thing in and of itself. However, it points to an asymmetry in our social construct. It means that there may be structural biases that tend to favor the few over the many.

The bigger question is how one would structure a society from scratch? What is the end goal of a successful society? I think most of us would say that the most successful society is one in which everyone has their basic provisions met, and where certain inalienable rights are not restricted.

Clearly, our society does not meet the former criterion, and the work of policy is, in my opinion, to ensure it is met while safeguarding the latter.

_________________
Do justice, love mercy, walk humbly.


Last edited by VisorBoy on Tue Jan 21, 2014 6:10 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 21, 2014 6:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2013 2:21 pm
Posts: 2103
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: Every chance I get
Hokie5150 wrote:
Provided that wealth is created/obtained legally, where is the harm if one is super wealthy and another is not?


Wealth inequality in and of itself is not a bad thing. If everyone had enough wealth to live on... who cares? The issue comes when you have millions of people living below the poverty line. If trickle down economics really worked... and a rising tide raised all boats... you would never hear of income inequality.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 21, 2014 6:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 9:05 am
Posts: 3458
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: Like a Rock Star
Hokie5150 wrote:
Provided that wealth is created/obtained legally, where is the harm if one is super wealthy and another is not?


Actually, that you chose "harm" versus "fair" is interesting. One could argue that, while it is perfectly fair for someone to be super wealthy and another to not be super wealthy, harm can, in fact, result. Again, throw fairness out of the equation. If wealth is amassed by only a few, to the degree that amassed wealth does not create any benefit beyond the earnings of its owner, then it could, in fact, be harmful. Bill Gates applies a lot of his amassed wealth to global health missions (Polio eradication and education being among them.) Gates is able to do this because of his amassed wealth. For a non-Gates type, that hoards his/her wealth, and only creates benefit to himself/herself, then one could argue that harm results. When someone has an excess amount above and beyond even the most luxurious of needs, then that person is holding back a possible benefit for others.

Again, this is no argument that the hoarder should be compelled to do so. This is simply a matter of discussion around the word "harm." That someone would have the means to resolve the problem for others, but does not do so, for those that potentially could benefit, harm could result.

Now - sling your capitalist, individualist bows my friends.

Interesting question.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 21, 2014 6:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 3:10 pm
Posts: 29366
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Party: After 10
VisorBoy wrote:
Hokie5150 wrote:
Provided that wealth is created/obtained legally, where is the harm if one is super wealthy and another is not?

In a vacuum, you're right it's not a bad thing in and of itself. However, it points to an asymmetry in our social construct. It means that there may be structural biases that tend to favor the few over the many.

The bigger question is how one would structure a society from scratch? What is the end goal of a successful society? I think most of us would say that the most successful society is one in which everyone has their basic provisions met, and where certain inalienable rights are not restricted.

Clearly, our society does not meet the former criterion, and the work of policy is, in my opinion, to ensure it is met while safeguarding the latter.



ever consider that you have it all backwards and the responsibility of the individual to ensure their basic needs are met?

_________________
You losers lost, take off the vagina suit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 21, 2014 6:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2013 12:21 pm
Posts: 412
The "trickle down" strawman.

Please name me one politician or economist who advocated for trickle down economics.


VoiceOfReason wrote:
Hokie5150 wrote:
Provided that wealth is created/obtained legally, where is the harm if one is super wealthy and another is not?


Wealth inequality in and of itself is not a bad thing. If everyone had enough wealth to live on... who cares? The issue comes when you have millions of people living below the poverty line. If trickle down economics really worked... and a rising tide raised all boats... you would never hear of income inequality.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 21, 2014 7:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2013 5:13 pm
Posts: 2912
awesome guy wrote:
VisorBoy wrote:
Hokie5150 wrote:
Provided that wealth is created/obtained legally, where is the harm if one is super wealthy and another is not?

In a vacuum, you're right it's not a bad thing in and of itself. However, it points to an asymmetry in our social construct. It means that there may be structural biases that tend to favor the few over the many.

The bigger question is how one would structure a society from scratch? What is the end goal of a successful society? I think most of us would say that the most successful society is one in which everyone has their basic provisions met, and where certain inalienable rights are not restricted.

Clearly, our society does not meet the former criterion, and the work of policy is, in my opinion, to ensure it is met while safeguarding the latter.



ever consider that you have it all backwards and the responsibility of the individual to ensure their basic needs are met?

How does that have anything to do with what I wrote?

_________________
Do justice, love mercy, walk humbly.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 21, 2014 7:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 3:10 pm
Posts: 29366
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Party: After 10
VisorBoy wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
VisorBoy wrote:
Hokie5150 wrote:
Provided that wealth is created/obtained legally, where is the harm if one is super wealthy and another is not?

In a vacuum, you're right it's not a bad thing in and of itself. However, it points to an asymmetry in our social construct. It means that there may be structural biases that tend to favor the few over the many.

The bigger question is how one would structure a society from scratch? What is the end goal of a successful society? I think most of us would say that the most successful society is one in which everyone has their basic provisions met, and where certain inalienable rights are not restricted.

Clearly, our society does not meet the former criterion, and the work of policy is, in my opinion, to ensure it is met while safeguarding the latter.



ever consider that you have it all backwards and the responsibility of the individual to ensure their basic needs are met?

How does that have anything to do with what I wrote?


Quote:
I think most of us would say that the most successful society is one in which everyone has their basic provisions met


that wasn't you?

_________________
You losers lost, take off the vagina suit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 21, 2014 7:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2013 5:13 pm
Posts: 2912
awesome guy wrote:
VisorBoy wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
VisorBoy wrote:
Hokie5150 wrote:
Provided that wealth is created/obtained legally, where is the harm if one is super wealthy and another is not?

In a vacuum, you're right it's not a bad thing in and of itself. However, it points to an asymmetry in our social construct. It means that there may be structural biases that tend to favor the few over the many.

The bigger question is how one would structure a society from scratch? What is the end goal of a successful society? I think most of us would say that the most successful society is one in which everyone has their basic provisions met, and where certain inalienable rights are not restricted.

Clearly, our society does not meet the former criterion, and the work of policy is, in my opinion, to ensure it is met while safeguarding the latter.



ever consider that you have it all backwards and the responsibility of the individual to ensure their basic needs are met?

How does that have anything to do with what I wrote?


Quote:
I think most of us would say that the most successful society is one in which everyone has their basic provisions met


that wasn't you?

And where did I indicate how those are provided?

_________________
Do justice, love mercy, walk humbly.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 21, 2014 7:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 3:10 pm
Posts: 29366
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Party: After 10
VisorBoy wrote:
And where did I indicate how those are provided?


Quote:
how one would structure a society from scratch?


Society doesn't provide for the individual.

_________________
You losers lost, take off the vagina suit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 21, 2014 7:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2013 5:13 pm
Posts: 2912
awesome guy wrote:
VisorBoy wrote:
And where did I indicate how those are provided?


Quote:
how one would structure a society from scratch?


Society doesn't provide for the individual.

You're missing my point. If we were to build a society from scratch, the mark of success would be that all people have their basic provisions provided without trampling on others' rights. That says nothing about HOW the provisions are provided.

_________________
Do justice, love mercy, walk humbly.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 21, 2014 8:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 8:29 pm
Posts: 5175
Hokie5150 wrote:
Provided that wealth is created/obtained legally, where is the harm if one is super wealthy and another is not?
It's not -- wealth isn't a zero sum game


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 21, 2014 8:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 8:29 pm
Posts: 5175
VoiceOfReason wrote:
Hokie5150 wrote:
Provided that wealth is created/obtained legally, where is the harm if one is super wealthy and another is not?


Wealth inequality in and of itself is not a bad thing. If everyone had enough wealth to live on... who cares? The issue comes when you have millions of people living below the poverty line. If trickle down economics really worked... and a rising tide raised all boats... you would never hear of income inequality.
Trickle down has/does work. Those in poverty today are better off than a generation ago, and they are a better off than the generation before. No one, I repeat no one, goes hungry in the US if they are willing to accept the help/aid that is out there. No one, I repeat no one, doesn't have shelter if they are willing to accept the assistance that is out there. No one, i repeat no one, doesn't have access to medical care if they want it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 21, 2014 8:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 8:29 pm
Posts: 5175
Florida Hokie wrote:
Hokie5150 wrote:
Provided that wealth is created/obtained legally, where is the harm if one is super wealthy and another is not?


Actually, that you chose "harm" versus "fair" is interesting. One could argue that, while it is perfectly fair for someone to be super wealthy and another to not be super wealthy, harm can, in fact, result. Again, throw fairness out of the equation. If wealth is amassed by only a few, to the degree that amassed wealth does not create any benefit beyond the earnings of its owner, then it could, in fact, be harmful. Bill Gates applies a lot of his amassed wealth to global health missions (Polio eradication and education being among them.) Gates is able to do this because of his amassed wealth. For a non-Gates type, that hoards his/her wealth, and only creates benefit to himself/herself, then one could argue that harm results. When someone has an excess amount above and beyond even the most luxurious of needs, then that person is holding back a possible benefit for others.

Again, this is no argument that the hoarder should be compelled to do so. This is simply a matter of discussion around the word "harm." That someone would have the means to resolve the problem for others, but does not do so, for those that potentially could benefit, harm could result.

Now - sling your capitalist, individualist bows my friends.

Interesting question.

Not doing good does not create harm.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 21, 2014 8:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 9:05 am
Posts: 3458
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: Like a Rock Star
133743Hokie wrote:
Florida Hokie wrote:
Hokie5150 wrote:
Provided that wealth is created/obtained legally, where is the harm if one is super wealthy and another is not?


Actually, that you chose "harm" versus "fair" is interesting. One could argue that, while it is perfectly fair for someone to be super wealthy and another to not be super wealthy, harm can, in fact, result. Again, throw fairness out of the equation. If wealth is amassed by only a few, to the degree that amassed wealth does not create any benefit beyond the earnings of its owner, then it could, in fact, be harmful. Bill Gates applies a lot of his amassed wealth to global health missions (Polio eradication and education being among them.) Gates is able to do this because of his amassed wealth. For a non-Gates type, that hoards his/her wealth, and only creates benefit to himself/herself, then one could argue that harm results. When someone has an excess amount above and beyond even the most luxurious of needs, then that person is holding back a possible benefit for others.

Again, this is no argument that the hoarder should be compelled to do so. This is simply a matter of discussion around the word "harm." That someone would have the means to resolve the problem for others, but does not do so, for those that potentially could benefit, harm could result.

Now - sling your capitalist, individualist bows my friends.

Interesting question.

Not doing good does not create harm.


No, it doesn't "create" harm but it most certainly enables it. Apathy. Think bystander effect.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 21, 2014 8:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:58 pm
Posts: 17475
Location: Fake Dossier Writing Center
Party: Draintheswamp
Hokie5150 wrote:
Provided that wealth is created/obtained legally, where is the harm if one is super wealthy and another is not?


I would go so far as to say that wealth equality is a bad thing.

_________________
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 21, 2014 8:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2013 2:21 pm
Posts: 2103
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: Every chance I get
RoswellGAHokie wrote:
The "trickle down" strawman.

Please name me one politician or economist who advocated for trickle down economics.


VoiceOfReason wrote:
Hokie5150 wrote:
Provided that wealth is created/obtained legally, where is the harm if one is super wealthy and another is not?


Wealth inequality in and of itself is not a bad thing. If everyone had enough wealth to live on... who cares? The issue comes when you have millions of people living below the poverty line. If trickle down economics really worked... and a rising tide raised all boats... you would never hear of income inequality.


What is with conservatives? Google "trickle down economics" yourself... you will find lots of references to Reaganomics... do your own damn homework.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 21, 2014 8:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2013 2:21 pm
Posts: 2103
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: Every chance I get
Major Kong wrote:
Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of capitalism government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.


All Hail King Arthur! :mrgreen:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 21, 2014 8:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2013 5:13 pm
Posts: 2912
133743Hokie wrote:
VoiceOfReason wrote:
Hokie5150 wrote:
Provided that wealth is created/obtained legally, where is the harm if one is super wealthy and another is not?


Wealth inequality in and of itself is not a bad thing. If everyone had enough wealth to live on... who cares? The issue comes when you have millions of people living below the poverty line. If trickle down economics really worked... and a rising tide raised all boats... you would never hear of income inequality.
Trickle down has/does work. Those in poverty today are better off than a generation ago, and they are a better off than the generation before. No one, I repeat no one, goes hungry in the US if they are willing to accept the help/aid that is out there. No one, I repeat no one, doesn't have shelter if they are willing to accept the assistance that is out there. No one, i repeat no one, doesn't have access to medical care if they want it.

How can you possibly make such a conclusion?

Many would love to receive assistance but can't either because they don't know how to or can't do it themselves.

The numbers are telling...

http://feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-ame ... stics.aspx

_________________
Do justice, love mercy, walk humbly.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 21, 2014 8:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 10:50 pm
Posts: 2285
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Alma Mater: Norfolk Academy to Virginia Tech
Party: I reject your party
VoiceOfReason wrote:
Hokie5150 wrote:
Provided that wealth is created/obtained legally, where is the harm if one is super wealthy and another is not?


Wealth inequality in and of itself is not a bad thing. If everyone had enough wealth to live on... who cares? The issue comes when you have millions of people living below the poverty line. If trickle down economics really worked... and a rising tide raised all boats... you would never hear of income inequality.


When you consider that even the poorest of the poor in the USA would be considered among the wealthiest people in the land if the visited a third world nation, I would argue that the rising tide DOES raise all boats. Everyone in this country does, indeed, have their needs met and they still manage to get trivial wants, like that new X-Box One and cable television. Most Americans have a microwave oven. They have hot water, indoor plumbing, a FLOOR. These things are all considered the luxuries of wealth in many (most?) countries.

_________________
I don't care if you're a Democrat or a Republican... if you refuse to consider alternatives to the two parties, you support the Status Quo and you are a major part of the problem.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 21, 2014 8:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2013 2:21 pm
Posts: 2103
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: Every chance I get
133743Hokie wrote:
VoiceOfReason wrote:
Hokie5150 wrote:
Provided that wealth is created/obtained legally, where is the harm if one is super wealthy and another is not?


Wealth inequality in and of itself is not a bad thing. If everyone had enough wealth to live on... who cares? The issue comes when you have millions of people living below the poverty line. If trickle down economics really worked... and a rising tide raised all boats... you would never hear of income inequality.
Trickle down has/does work. Those in poverty today are better off than a generation ago, and they are a better off than the generation before. No one, I repeat no one, goes hungry in the US if they are willing to accept the help/aid that is out there. No one, I repeat no one, doesn't have shelter if they are willing to accept the assistance that is out there. No one, i repeat no one, doesn't have access to medical care if they want it.


OK... and which party wants to take away this safety net again?

Is that safety net that does all the things you mention there because of trickle down economics? Or is it there because of policies enacted by Democrats?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 21, 2014 8:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2013 7:55 pm
Posts: 271
Location: Secret hideout in Colorado
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: none of the above
VisorBoy wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:
VoiceOfReason wrote:
Hokie5150 wrote:
Provided that wealth is created/obtained legally, where is the harm if one is super wealthy and another is not?


Wealth inequality in and of itself is not a bad thing. If everyone had enough wealth to live on... who cares? The issue comes when you have millions of people living below the poverty line. If trickle down economics really worked... and a rising tide raised all boats... you would never hear of income inequality.
Trickle down has/does work. Those in poverty today are better off than a generation ago, and they are a better off than the generation before. No one, I repeat no one, goes hungry in the US if they are willing to accept the help/aid that is out there. No one, I repeat no one, doesn't have shelter if they are willing to accept the assistance that is out there. No one, i repeat no one, doesn't have access to medical care if they want it.

How can you possibly make such a conclusion?

Many would love to receive assistance but can't either because they don't know how to or can't do it themselves.

The numbers are telling...

http://feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-ame ... stics.aspx


Not to be argumentative, pretty much every church is in contact with assistance agencies to help the poor if they don't do that type of work directly.

_________________
"I'm feeling magnanimous." - Hoofighter

Imagevia Imgflip Meme Generator


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 208 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 9  Next

Time zone: America/New_York [ DST ]


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group Color scheme by ColorizeIt!