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

Your Virginia Tech Politics and Religion source
Forum rules
Be Civil. Go Hokies.
Post Reply
User avatar
Hokie5150
Posts: 3343
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:11 pm

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

Post by Hokie5150 »

Provided that wealth is created/obtained legally, where is the harm if one is super wealthy and another is not?
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

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

Post 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.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
HvilleHokie
Posts: 3074
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2013 12:26 pm

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

Post 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.
User avatar
Major Kong
Posts: 15727
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:35 pm
Alma Mater: Ferrum VT ASU
Party: Independent
Location: Somewhere between Marion and Seven Mile Ford

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

Post 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.
I only post using 100% recycled electrons.

Image
VisorBoy
Posts: 4404
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2013 9:13 pm

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

Post 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.
Last edited by VisorBoy on Tue Jan 21, 2014 11:10 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Do justice, love mercy, walk humbly.
VoiceOfReason
Posts: 2182
Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2013 6:21 pm
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: Every chance I get

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

Post 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.
Florida Hokie
Posts: 3676
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:05 pm
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: Like a Rock Star

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

Post 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.
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

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

Post 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?
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
RoswellGAHokie
Posts: 412
Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2013 4:21 pm

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

Post 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.
VisorBoy
Posts: 4404
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2013 9:13 pm

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

Post 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?
Do justice, love mercy, walk humbly.
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

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

Post 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?
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
VisorBoy
Posts: 4404
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2013 9:13 pm

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

Post 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?
Do justice, love mercy, walk humbly.
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

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

Post 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.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
VisorBoy
Posts: 4404
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2013 9:13 pm

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

Post 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.
Do justice, love mercy, walk humbly.
133743Hokie
Posts: 11220
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 12:29 am

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

Post 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
133743Hokie
Posts: 11220
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 12:29 am

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

Post 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.
133743Hokie
Posts: 11220
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 12:29 am

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

Post 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.
Florida Hokie
Posts: 3676
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:05 pm
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: Like a Rock Star

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

Post 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.
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

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

Post 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.
VoiceOfReason
Posts: 2182
Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2013 6:21 pm
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: Every chance I get

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

Post 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.
VoiceOfReason
Posts: 2182
Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2013 6:21 pm
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: Every chance I get

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

Post 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:
VisorBoy
Posts: 4404
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2013 9:13 pm

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

Post 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
Do justice, love mercy, walk humbly.
User avatar
Hokie CPA
Posts: 2634
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 2:50 am
Alma Mater: Norfolk Academy to Virginia Tech
Party: I reject your party
Location: Virginia Beach, VA

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

Post 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.
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
VoiceOfReason
Posts: 2182
Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2013 6:21 pm
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: Every chance I get

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

Post 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?
User avatar
Jack Galt
Posts: 381
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2013 12:55 am
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: none of the above
Location: Secret hideout in Colorado

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

Post 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.
"Russia? The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.” - B. Obama

Image
Post Reply