Page 1 of 9

So, tell me. Why is wealth inequality a bad thing?

Posted: Tue Jan 21, 2014 11:01 pm
by Hokie5150
Provided that wealth is created/obtained legally, where is the harm if one is super wealthy and another is not?

Re: So, tell me. Why is wealth inequality a bad thing?

Posted: Tue Jan 21, 2014 11:04 pm
by awesome guy
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.

Re: So, tell me. Why is wealth inequality a bad thing?

Posted: Tue Jan 21, 2014 11:06 pm
by HvilleHokie
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.

Re: So, tell me. Why is wealth inequality a bad thing?

Posted: Tue Jan 21, 2014 11:08 pm
by Major Kong
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.

Re: So, tell me. Why is wealth inequality a bad thing?

Posted: Tue Jan 21, 2014 11:09 pm
by VisorBoy
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.

Re: So, tell me. Why is wealth inequality a bad thing?

Posted: Tue Jan 21, 2014 11:10 pm
by VoiceOfReason
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.

Re: So, tell me. Why is wealth inequality a bad thing?

Posted: Tue Jan 21, 2014 11:11 pm
by Florida Hokie
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.

Re: So, tell me. Why is wealth inequality a bad thing?

Posted: Tue Jan 21, 2014 11:42 pm
by awesome guy
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?

Re: So, tell me. Why is wealth inequality a bad thing?

Posted: Tue Jan 21, 2014 11:58 pm
by RoswellGAHokie
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.

Re: So, tell me. Why is wealth inequality a bad thing?

Posted: Wed Jan 22, 2014 12:07 am
by VisorBoy
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?

Re: So, tell me. Why is wealth inequality a bad thing?

Posted: Wed Jan 22, 2014 12:16 am
by awesome guy
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?
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?

Re: So, tell me. Why is wealth inequality a bad thing?

Posted: Wed Jan 22, 2014 12:16 am
by VisorBoy
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?
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?

Re: So, tell me. Why is wealth inequality a bad thing?

Posted: Wed Jan 22, 2014 12:19 am
by awesome guy
VisorBoy wrote:And where did I indicate how those are provided?
how one would structure a society from scratch?
Society doesn't provide for the individual.

Re: So, tell me. Why is wealth inequality a bad thing?

Posted: Wed Jan 22, 2014 12:31 am
by VisorBoy
awesome guy wrote:
VisorBoy wrote:And where did I indicate how those are provided?
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.

Re: So, tell me. Why is wealth inequality a bad thing?

Posted: Wed Jan 22, 2014 1:07 am
by 133743Hokie
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

Re: So, tell me. Why is wealth inequality a bad thing?

Posted: Wed Jan 22, 2014 1:10 am
by 133743Hokie
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.

Re: So, tell me. Why is wealth inequality a bad thing?

Posted: Wed Jan 22, 2014 1:11 am
by 133743Hokie
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.

Re: So, tell me. Why is wealth inequality a bad thing?

Posted: Wed Jan 22, 2014 1:18 am
by Florida Hokie
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.

Re: So, tell me. Why is wealth inequality a bad thing?

Posted: Wed Jan 22, 2014 1:29 am
by USN_Hokie
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.

Re: So, tell me. Why is wealth inequality a bad thing?

Posted: Wed Jan 22, 2014 1:32 am
by VoiceOfReason
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.

Re: So, tell me. Why is wealth inequality a bad thing?

Posted: Wed Jan 22, 2014 1:32 am
by VoiceOfReason
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:

Re: So, tell me. Why is wealth inequality a bad thing?

Posted: Wed Jan 22, 2014 1:33 am
by VisorBoy
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

Re: So, tell me. Why is wealth inequality a bad thing?

Posted: Wed Jan 22, 2014 1:34 am
by Hokie CPA
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.

Re: So, tell me. Why is wealth inequality a bad thing?

Posted: Wed Jan 22, 2014 1:35 am
by VoiceOfReason
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?

Re: So, tell me. Why is wealth inequality a bad thing?

Posted: Wed Jan 22, 2014 1:37 am
by Jack Galt
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.