So, tell me. Why is wealth inequality a bad thing?
Forum rules
Be Civil. Go Hokies.
Be Civil. Go Hokies.
So, tell me. Why is wealth inequality a bad thing?
Provided that wealth is created/obtained legally, where is the harm if one is super wealthy and another is not?
- 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?
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.Hokie5150 wrote:Provided that wealth is created/obtained legally, where is the harm if one is super wealthy and another is not?
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
-
- Posts: 3074
- Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2013 12:26 pm
Re: So, tell me. Why is wealth inequality a bad thing?
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.
from a moral prospective, i think too much wealth is sin. but its not the government's place to legislate morality.
- Major Kong
- Posts: 15752
- 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?
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.
Re: So, tell me. Why is wealth inequality a bad thing?
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.Hokie5150 wrote:Provided that wealth is created/obtained legally, where is the harm if one is super wealthy and another is not?
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.
-
- 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?
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.Hokie5150 wrote:Provided that wealth is created/obtained legally, where is the harm if one is super wealthy and another is not?
-
- 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?
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.Hokie5150 wrote:Provided that wealth is created/obtained legally, where is the harm if one is super wealthy and another is not?
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.
- 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?
VisorBoy wrote: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.Hokie5150 wrote:Provided that wealth is created/obtained legally, where is the harm if one is super wealthy and another is not?
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.
-
- Posts: 412
- Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2013 4:21 pm
Re: So, tell me. Why is wealth inequality a bad thing?
The "trickle down" strawman.
Please name me one politician or economist who advocated for trickle down economics.
Please name me one politician or economist who advocated for trickle down economics.
VoiceOfReason wrote: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.Hokie5150 wrote: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?
How does that have anything to do with what I wrote?awesome guy wrote:VisorBoy wrote: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.Hokie5150 wrote:Provided that wealth is created/obtained legally, where is the harm if one is super wealthy and another is not?
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?
Do justice, love mercy, walk humbly.
- 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?
VisorBoy wrote:How does that have anything to do with what I wrote?awesome guy wrote:VisorBoy wrote: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.Hokie5150 wrote:Provided that wealth is created/obtained legally, where is the harm if one is super wealthy and another is not?
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?
that wasn't you?I think most of us would say that the most successful society is one in which everyone has their basic provisions met
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
Re: So, tell me. Why is wealth inequality a bad thing?
And where did I indicate how those are provided?awesome guy wrote:VisorBoy wrote:How does that have anything to do with what I wrote?awesome guy wrote:VisorBoy wrote: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.Hokie5150 wrote:Provided that wealth is created/obtained legally, where is the harm if one is super wealthy and another is not?
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?that wasn't you?I think most of us would say that the most successful society is one in which everyone has their basic provisions met
Do justice, love mercy, walk humbly.
- 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?
VisorBoy wrote:And where did I indicate how those are provided?
Society doesn't provide for the individual.how one would structure a society from scratch?
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
Re: So, tell me. Why is wealth inequality a bad thing?
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.awesome guy wrote:VisorBoy wrote:And where did I indicate how those are provided?Society doesn't provide for the individual.how one would structure a society from scratch?
Do justice, love mercy, walk humbly.
-
- Posts: 11220
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 12:29 am
Re: So, tell me. Why is wealth inequality a bad thing?
It's not -- wealth isn't a zero sum gameHokie5150 wrote:Provided that wealth is created/obtained legally, where is the harm if one is super wealthy and another is not?
-
- Posts: 11220
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 12:29 am
Re: So, tell me. Why is wealth inequality a bad thing?
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.VoiceOfReason wrote: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.Hokie5150 wrote:Provided that wealth is created/obtained legally, where is the harm if one is super wealthy and another is not?
-
- Posts: 11220
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 12:29 am
Re: So, tell me. Why is wealth inequality a bad thing?
Not doing good does not create harm.Florida Hokie wrote: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.Hokie5150 wrote:Provided that wealth is created/obtained legally, where is the harm if one is super wealthy and another is not?
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.
-
- 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?
No, it doesn't "create" harm but it most certainly enables it. Apathy. Think bystander effect.133743Hokie wrote:Not doing good does not create harm.Florida Hokie wrote: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.Hokie5150 wrote:Provided that wealth is created/obtained legally, where is the harm if one is super wealthy and another is not?
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?
I would go so far as to say that wealth equality is a bad thing.Hokie5150 wrote:Provided that wealth is created/obtained legally, where is the harm if one is super wealthy and another is not?
-
- 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?
What is with conservatives? Google "trickle down economics" yourself... you will find lots of references to Reaganomics... do your own damn homework.RoswellGAHokie wrote:The "trickle down" strawman.
Please name me one politician or economist who advocated for trickle down economics.
VoiceOfReason wrote: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.Hokie5150 wrote:Provided that wealth is created/obtained legally, where is the harm if one is super wealthy and another is not?
-
- 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?
All Hail King Arthur!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.
Re: So, tell me. Why is wealth inequality a bad thing?
How can you possibly make such a conclusion?133743Hokie wrote: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.VoiceOfReason wrote: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.Hokie5150 wrote:Provided that wealth is created/obtained legally, where is the harm if one is super wealthy and another is not?
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.
- 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?
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.VoiceOfReason wrote: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.Hokie5150 wrote:Provided that wealth is created/obtained legally, where is the harm if one is super wealthy and another is not?
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.
-
- 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?
OK... and which party wants to take away this safety net again?133743Hokie wrote: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.VoiceOfReason wrote: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.Hokie5150 wrote:Provided that wealth is created/obtained legally, where is the harm if one is super wealthy and another is not?
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?
- 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?
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.VisorBoy wrote:How can you possibly make such a conclusion?133743Hokie wrote: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.VoiceOfReason wrote: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.Hokie5150 wrote:Provided that wealth is created/obtained legally, where is the harm if one is super wealthy and another is not?
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
"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