Since I am not an economist, like probably everyone on this thread, my views have very limited real world applications, again like many of the people in this thread who argue about economy as if it is something that can be changed overnight.
I tend to agree with the camp that defends that as long as living standards are increasing across the board redistribution of wealth is not the main problem. But, and this is a big but, while wealth is not finite and is created constantly, the problem occurs when wealth generation cannot keep up with "consumption" (not in a wealth destroyed sense of the word). And the difference between wealth generated and wealth obtained/spent/used tends to hurt the poor more than the rich, simply because the rich have the money to cushion the blow.
As long as the living standards can improve for everyone in a uniform manner despite rising costs of living, it is not wealth distribution that causes issues.
[QUOTE=BLOODGA$M;40094124]Okay, so poor people these days can generally afford a miniature refrigerator instead of having to store all their stuff in a bin of ice and find ice for it every morning, and therefore I shouldn't be complaining because poor people today have it better than they did earlier in history? Or do you mean that I shouldn't be complaining because people in other countries get benefits that I don't (such as free healthcare) and therefore wealth inequality doesn't matter because it doesn't affect you as much as it does other people?
Regardless, my point wasn't really that "some people have more money than others and that's not fair because I want a gold plated swimming pool too, we should all be equal!". My point was more that (at least here in the US) money almost directly equals things like political influence, and because of that anyone who isn't a millionaire that can fund a lobbying campaign gets little or no say in what happens to their life or their country. What do we do, write a strongly worded letter to our local senator threatening to not vote for them when we see some looming money-backed threat to our personal freedoms or safety? They're not gonna fucking care if they miss a few votes from the teeming masses, they're still gonna get their $1,000,000 cheque from the CEO of MegaCorp Inc. provided they vote yes on the "Make Not Buying Our MacGuffin Insurance a Felony" bill.
So, when I say that wealth inequality is a problem, doesn't necessarily just mean a minority of people having more wealth than the majority, but also that said minority also gets to have a big influence over the majority.[/QUOTE]
I'm saying that living standards are continually improving, therefore the "poor" are becoming wealthier in terms of disposable income, life expectancy etc. but not relative to the "rich" in society. Why should wealth be re-distributed, is it not possible for everyone to become more wealthy?
Surely what your saying is not dictated by the distribution of wealth, but the corruption of politics by big business. If big business really were manipulating politicians, would capital gains tax and taxes for higher earners increased this year?
[QUOTE=butt2089;40094230]I'm saying that living standards are continually improving, therefore the "poor" are becoming wealthier in terms of disposable income, life expectancy etc. but not relative to the "rich" in society. Why should wealth be re-distributed, is it not possible for everyone to become more wealthy?
Surely what your saying is not dictated by the distribution of wealth, but the corruption of politics by big business. If big business really were manipulating politicians, would capital gains tax and taxes for higher earners increased this year?[/QUOTE]
The high earners are not paying as much tax as they should.
Even though they might increase the tax a little bit as a "feel good" measure for the poor minority.
Also money equals power, and when a small group has a lot of power, they're not gonna give it up freely if that's required to increase the living standards for those less well off.
In short: rich people being dicks are a bigger problem then poor people being dicks.
Or said in another way: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_social_responsibility[/url]
[QUOTE=ravenhurst;40091520]As long as your credit is good the banks make it a little too easy to go to college.[/QUOTE]
You realize that debt excludes you from being rich right
Of course it's easy to take out massive loans that even declaring bankruptcy doesn't get rid of, student loans are more or less free from risk (for them)
And you also realise that no, not anyone can be rich you idiot. Only 1% can become totally wealthy. THAT's what wealth inequality is!
If anyone could be rich, the distribution would be much more like the ideal in that video,
Or phrase it another way - if anyone can become wealthy, why aren't more people becoming wealthy? The argument that "Oh, because no one tries" become utter horseshit when you realise that you're tarring (Using America as an example here, peeps) 90% of the national population with the "Can't be arsed" brush. That's why wealth inequality is a bad thing, because it makes the idea that anyone can become wealthy with enough work into a lie, and just pushes the poor further into poverty and the rich further into their swimming pools of money.
[QUOTE=SCopE5000;40092872]I think a better distribution of wealth would result from capping individuals at a bank balance of £250 million, with uncapped income potential, and exceptions/allowances in some cases (for planned purchases of companies or w/e).
Any money that goes over this amount is reinvested into startup companies, which can either be at the choice of the investor, or tasked to a team of angel investors, and a fair % is given to the investor in exchange for their capital.
The game for people with £250million+ then, would be making it so their balance never dips, regardless of what they purchase.
The savings limit would slowly be raised for contentious investors and people who embrace the system.
Why £250 million? Because that amount would allow a person to spend [b]£6844 per day for 100 years.[/b] Which is excessive by anyone's standards. Also this should only apply to an individual's shared bank balances. Corporate bank accounts would be separate to these limits.[/QUOTE]
Imagine what innovative geniuses we'd miss out on when the entirety of someone's effort is taken away from them. The act of acquiring a billion dollars produces sooooooo much good for society. Also income inequality is not a problem because the money doesn't just sit there. It gets invested in capital whether rich people want to or not because they generally put their money in banks. Do you know what banks do? Well they store money for safekeeping and they also allow two people to share the same dollar by giving out loans. l2economics people dont have to pay taxes to do good for society you dolt. our quality of life has nothing to do taxes and everything to do with people trading their goods and skills.
[QUOTE=butt2089;40094230]I'm saying that living standards are continually improving, therefore the "poor" are becoming wealthier in terms of disposable income, life expectancy etc. but not relative to the "rich" in society. Why should wealth be re-distributed, is it not possible for everyone to become more wealthy?
Surely what your saying is not dictated by the distribution of wealth, but the corruption of politics by big business. If big business really were manipulating politicians, would capital gains tax and taxes for higher earners increased this year?[/QUOTE]
Capital gains and higher earner taxes increased because the US government literally had no choice. They are broke, and the poor and middle classes have nothing left to give.
The only way to increase all wealth while allowing some wealth inequality is to mark out a bare minimum that all people must have, and increasing it every year. This is what the rest of the developed world does already, it's time for America to catch up.
[QUOTE=ravenhurst;40095436]Imagine what innovative geniuses we'd miss out on when the entirety of someone's effort is taken away from them. The act of acquiring a billion dollars produces sooooooo much good for society. Also income inequality is not a problem because the money doesn't just sit there. It gets invested in capital whether rich people want to or not because they generally put their money in banks. Do you know what banks do? Well they store money for safekeeping and they also allow two people to share the same dollar by giving out loans. l2economics people dont have to pay taxes to do good for society you dolt. our quality of life has nothing to do taxes and everything to do with people trading their goods and skills.[/QUOTE]
Clearly you know so much about economics, so I'm going to ask you something: how does a Bank win by offering to invest in a business when that business intends to compete with companies that bank already has investments with? Do you honestly think they will willingly increase the risk on all of their other investments?
We had exactly this happen in Canada in our mobile/wireless market. 4 large companies owned virtually everything: Bell, Rogers, Telus, and Videotron. And they all sucked each other's dicks, colluding with each other to create one of the most expensive mobile markets in the world. Canadian government opens up the mobile spectrum for bidding and several foreign investors get interested. They immediately run into trouble securing Canadian investors because BRTV owes so much money to so many people that most people could not risk challenging them. It took some very brave investors, both foreign and domestic, a large initial community who accounced they would be willing to switch as soon as service was offered, and intervention from the Prime Minister himself to allow these new companies to operate. That is how hard it can be to break into a market now, and so much of that weight came from bankers and investors who were not interested in increasing their risk.
Today, it is standard operating procedure to not pay back your principal, because why bother? The entire stock market is driven by growth, not by how much everyone owes. And when it inevitably bubbles up and crashes due to all the "wealth generators" owing more than they can generate, all of those unpaid debts get shifted to the average consumer, every single time. If they're not losing their jobs, they're paying more even for everyday products they need. In the last 10 years a loaf of bread went from about $1.20 to $3, thanks largely to rising oil prices (driven almost entirely by speculation), monopolies (large companies buying out the little ones every time the economy hits a speed bump), and inflation (thanks to wealthy Americans and bankers who bet on the bubble).
The economy is far more complicated than "rich put money in bank, bank hands money back out". It's a giant balancing act with the money always favouring the money. All of it is built to support incumbent businesses. If you feel that is wrong, you probably just haven't followed the money far enough to see that it just runs loops, always ending up in the same hands. Wealth is created yes, but by those who already have wealth.
[QUOTE=Van-man;40094634]The high earners are not paying as much tax as they should.
Even though they might increase the tax a little bit as a "feel good" measure for the poor minority.
Also money equals power, and when a small group has a lot of power, they're not gonna give it up freely if that's required to increase the living standards for those less well off.
In short: rich people being dicks are a bigger problem then poor people being dicks.
Or said in another way: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_social_responsibility[/url][/QUOTE]
High earners pay a much greater percentage of the tax income than they have the country's wealth.
Except living standards have been [B]improving[/B] - they don't need to give up wealth for that to happen.
Rich people and poor people being dicks? What - also CSR has nothing to do with wealth re-distribution..
[QUOTE=Craigewan;40094909]And you also realise that no, not anyone can be rich you idiot. Only 1% can become totally wealthy. THAT's what wealth inequality is!
If anyone could be rich, the distribution would be much more like the ideal in that video,
Or phrase it another way - if anyone can become wealthy, why aren't more people becoming wealthy? The argument that "Oh, because no one tries" become utter horseshit when you realise that you're tarring (Using America as an example here, peeps) 90% of the national population with the "Can't be arsed" brush. That's why wealth inequality is a bad thing, because it makes the idea that anyone can become wealthy with enough work into a lie, and just pushes the poor further into poverty and the rich further into their swimming pools of money.[/QUOTE]
Yes anyone can become rich, and no shit only 1% of people can be in the top 1% of earners..
People aren't becoming wealthy, not because they can't be arsed, but because they might not be business minded, they may not want to, they might not even be smart enough to run a business. You're making it out as if only people who start of rich can remain rich, now [I]that[/I] is utter horse shit.
Again, wealth inequality is bad because it perpetuates, what you conceive, to be a [I]lie[/I]? Is that it? The poor aren't being pushed further into "poverty", firstly because living standards are increasing and secondly because poverty is defined relative to the average wealth per person in the country.
[QUOTE=butt2089;40098994]High earners pay a much greater percentage of the tax income than they have the country's wealth.
Except living standards have been [B]improving[/B] - they don't need to give up wealth for that to happen.
Rich people and poor people being dicks? What - also CSR has nothing to do with wealth re-distribution..
Yes anyone can become rich, and no shit only 1% of people can be in the top 1% of earners..
People aren't becoming wealthy, not because they can't be arsed, but because they might not be business minded, they may not want to, they might not even be smart enough to run a business. You're making it out as if only people who start of rich can remain rich, now [I]that[/I] is utter horse shit.
Again, wealth inequality is bad because it perpetuates, what you conceive, to be a [I]lie[/I]? Is that it? The poor aren't being pushed further into "poverty", firstly because living standards are increasing and secondly because poverty is defined relative to the average wealth per person in the country.[/QUOTE]
You're like a broken record player, repeating the same debunked rhetoric over and over again.
You might as well get out before you're making a even bigger fool out of yourself than you already have.
[QUOTE=butt2089;40098994]High earners pay a much greater percentage of the tax income than they have the country's wealth.
Except living standards have been [B]improving[/B] - they don't need to give up wealth for that to happen.
Rich people and poor people being dicks? What - also CSR has nothing to do with wealth re-distribution..
Yes anyone can become rich, and no shit only 1% of people can be in the top 1% of earners..
People aren't becoming wealthy, not because they can't be arsed, but because they might not be business minded, they may not want to, they might not even be smart enough to run a business. You're making it out as if only people who start of rich can remain rich, now [I]that[/I] is utter horse shit.
Again, wealth inequality is bad because it perpetuates, what you conceive, to be a [I]lie[/I]? Is that it? The poor aren't being pushed further into "poverty", firstly because living standards are increasing and secondly because poverty is defined relative to the average wealth per person in the country.[/QUOTE]
god damn you really don't get why this isn't true for most people you're trying to apply this to
you're really that dense
[QUOTE=Van-man;40099293]You're like a broken record player, repeating the same debunked rhetoric over and over again.
You might as well get out before you're making a even bigger fool out of yourself than you already have.[/QUOTE]
I gave responses to what you said and you're refusing to address them.
[quote]The high earners are not paying as much tax as they should.
Even though they might increase the tax a little bit as a "feel good" measure for the poor minority.[/quote]
The richest part of society pays a huge part of the tax bill, a larger percentage than they own of wealth (e.g they pay 30% of tax but own 20% of wealth)
[quote]Also money equals power, and when a small group has a lot of power, they're not gonna give it up freely if that's required to increase the living standards for those less well off.[/quote]
Living standards have increased without the "small group" losing any power.
[quote]In short: rich people being dicks are a bigger problem then poor people being dicks.
Or said in another way: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpora...responsibility[/url][/quote]
CSR isn't re-distribution of wealth.
Try harder than calling me a 'fool'. I'm putting forward my side of the argument, if you give me good reason and explanation, I'm more than happy to accept that I'm wrong. But you haven't, so I'm not.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;40099593]god damn you really don't get why this isn't true for most people you're trying to apply this to
you're really that dense[/QUOTE]
Saying 'you really don't get this!' - doesn't help anyone in understanding. If you can prove me wrong, by all means do - I'm all ears.
[QUOTE=butt2089;40098994]
People aren't becoming wealthy, not because they can't be arsed, but because they might not be business minded, they may not want to, they might not even be smart enough to run a business. You're making it out as if only people who start of rich can remain rich, now [I]that[/I] is utter horse shit. [/QUOTE]
So why are you not rich?
[QUOTE=ravenhurst;40087279]He's kind of right. Being rich isn't that tough. Go to college to get a job with a good salary, spend less than someone below the poverty line, bank the majority of your salary, l2invest.
Congratulations you are now a millionaire. People don't usually do this though because they have damn no self control and spend all of their money instead of save like they should.[/QUOTE]
Holy shit, spend less than someone below the poverty line? You'd be fucking starving and have like 3 shirts and a pair of sweatpants.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;40099772]So why are you not rich?[/QUOTE]
Define rich
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;40087185]Do none of you realize this is satire
I thought the painful obviousness would give it away but apparently not[/QUOTE]
believe it or not I can count enough people on two hands that will actually say shit like this seriously
[editline]31st March 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=ravenhurst;40087279]He's kind of right. Being rich isn't that tough. Go to college to get a job with a good salary, spend less than someone below the poverty line, bank the majority of your salary, l2invest.
Congratulations you are now a millionaire. People don't usually do this though because they have damn no self control and spend all of their money instead of save like they should.[/QUOTE]
you probably don't know shit about taxes yet
It really does pain me that people are so fucking stupid that they think this is sincere, christ.
[QUOTE=butt2089;40099820]Define rich[/QUOTE]
You're not getting out of the mess you've caused [I]THAT[/I] easily.
Are you rich or not?
It's simply Yes or No.
If yes, then you're an arse with a superiority complex.
If no, then all you've spewed out is pure bullshit.
[QUOTE=butt2089;40099820]Define rich[/QUOTE]
You've used the term "wealthy" several times so define what you consider wealthy, and assume that's what I mean by "rich".
[QUOTE=Van-man;40100452]You're not getting out of the mess you've caused [I]THAT[/I] easily.
Are you rich or not?
It's simply Yes or No.
If yes, then you're an arse with a superiority complex.
If no, then all you've spewed out is pure bullshit.[/QUOTE]
It's not simply yes or no, hence 'define rich'.
But for the sake of what people here are defining rich.. Personally, asset wise, No. For the reason that I'm still a teenager and have been in full time employment for less than a year. I would however consider myself wealthy in that I have a high standard of living, have had full education up to the age of 18, and full healthcare provided for free.
Answering yes would not necessary be a 'superiority complex' nor would answering no mean it was 'pure bullshit' - you would just use that as an excuse against my arguments without actually providing any reasoning.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;40100470]You've used the term "wealthy" several times so define what you consider wealthy, and assume that's what I mean by "rich".[/QUOTE]
I have been using the word 'wealthy' in response to the material wealth that was referred to on the first page
[QUOTE=butt2089;40100583]It's not simply yes or no, hence 'define rich'.
But for the sake of what people here are defining rich.. Personally, asset wise, No. [B]For the reason that I'm still a teenager and have been in full time employment for less than a year. I would however consider myself wealthy in that I have a high standard of living, have had full education up to the age of 18, and full healthcare provided for free.
[/B]
Answering yes would not necessary be a 'superiority complex' nor would answering no mean it was 'pure bullshit' - you would just use that as an excuse against my arguments without actually providing any reasoning.
I have been using the word 'wealthy' in response to the material wealth that was referred to on the first page[/QUOTE]
so you're in no position to tell anyone how much money they should have get over yourself ok
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40090435]Tbh wealth inequality doesn't really matter as long as living standards are rising at a fairly decent rate and people aren't allowed to be treated like shit.[/QUOTE]
Actually, income inequality is one of the biggest factors in things like violent crime.
[QUOTE=BrainDeath;40100605]so you're in no position to tell anyone how much money they should have go fuck yourself[/QUOTE]
Except I'm not - I've just been challenging how people would re-distribute wealth and why, I'm still awaiting answers.
[QUOTE=butt2089;40100583]It's not simply yes or no, hence 'define rich'.
But for the sake of what people here are defining rich.. Personally, asset wise, No. For the reason that I'm still a teenager and have been in full time employment for less than a year. I would however consider myself wealthy in that I have a high standard of living, have had full education up to the age of 18, and full healthcare provided for free.
Answering yes would not necessary be a 'superiority complex' nor would answering no mean it was 'pure bullshit' - you would just use that as an excuse against my arguments without actually providing any reasoning.
I have been using the word 'wealthy' in response to the material wealth that was referred to on the first page[/QUOTE]
I can't wait until you receive your first reality check.
You're in dire need for it.
Have fun filling out tax returns kiddo...
[QUOTE=butt2089;40100626]Then no one is, in that case[/QUOTE]
You certainly don't
[QUOTE=butt2089;40100626]Except I'm not - I've just been challenging how people would re-distribute wealth and why, I'm still awaiting answers.[/QUOTE]
You've gotten your answers, you're just ignoring them because they don't fit in your imaginary world.
[QUOTE=butt2089;40100583]It's not simply yes or no, hence 'define rich'.
But for the sake of what people here are defining rich.. Personally, asset wise, No. For the reason that I'm still a teenager and have been in full time employment for less than a year. I would however consider myself wealthy in that I have a high standard of living, have had full education up to the age of 18, and full healthcare provided for free.
Answering yes would not necessary be a 'superiority complex' nor would answering no mean it was 'pure bullshit' - you would just use that as an excuse against my arguments without actually providing any reasoning.
I have been using the word 'wealthy' in response to the material wealth that was referred to on the first page[/QUOTE]
so, here's where you're clearly not getting it and what you're clearly missing
you have those things
And a lot of people do not have that foundation to start from to build up from, however you want to put it. You have opportunities due to your current economic status that lets you get higher. Wealth builds wealth. A poor person who does not have the education you have, the chances at employment and the base standard of living you have provided for you by someone else
see, it's fucking ridiculous and short sighted and endlessly stupid to not see that you have a wealth of advantages that allow you a easier path to wealth than other, less lucky, less fortunate people. Something you've ignored entirely in this is luck and just how big of a factor that is.
[editline]30th March 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=butt2089;40100626]Except I'm not - I've just been challenging how people would re-distribute wealth and why, I'm still awaiting answers.[/QUOTE]
no, you're actually not pal. you're stating your opinion as fact without giving any facts and then ignoring what people say when it doesn't conform to your narrow view of reality
you are not in a position right now to know what life is going to be like for many, many people.
[QUOTE=Van-man;40100630]I can't wait until you receive your first reality check.
You're in dire need for it.
Have fun filling out tax returns kiddo...
You certainly don't
You've gotten your answers, you're just ignoring them because they don't fit in your imaginary world.[/QUOTE]
No, the only answer I got was that wealth inequality leads to political corruption, which I challenged and got nothing back. You yourself have given nothing, with every question you try and change subject.
I will make it easy for you, here are two questions that I wish to have answers for:
1. Why is wealth inequality a bad thing if living standards are improving?
2. How would you address wealth inequality.
[QUOTE=butt2089;40100692]No, the only answer I got was that wealth inequality leads to political corruption, which I challenged and got nothing back. You yourself have given nothing, with every question you try and change subject.
I will make it easy for you, here are two questions that I wish to have answers for:
1. Why is wealth inequality a bad thing if living standards are improving?
2. How would you address wealth inequality.[/QUOTE]
Just because living standards go up, doesn't mean things are unilatterally better. This is a horrible argument. This is like when Fox News said "can we really consider the poor poor when they have fridges?" poor is relative. Because of this, standards of living going up mean squat when affording that standard of living is harder and harder for poor people and costs more of their funds.
there is no simple way to deal with wealth inequality. It's an issue that will now haunt us for many, many years. A way to not deal with it, is ignoring it and claiming it's not a bad thing
[QUOTE=butt2089;40100583]I would however consider myself wealthy in that I have a high standard of living, have had full education up to the age of 18, and full healthcare provided for free.[/QUOTE]
All of which are because of the situation you were born into and not "hard work"
gg
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;40100663]so, here's where you're clearly not getting it and what you're clearly missing
you have those things
And a lot of people do not have that foundation to start from to build up from, however you want to put it. You have opportunities due to your current economic status that lets you get higher. Wealth builds wealth. A poor person who does not have the education you have, the chances at employment and the base standard of living you have provided for you by someone else
see, it's fucking ridiculous and short sighted and endlessly stupid to not see that you have a wealth of advantages that allow you a easier path to wealth than other, less lucky, less fortunate people. Something you've ignored entirely in this is luck and just how big of a factor that is.
[editline]30th March 2013[/editline]
no, you're actually not pal. you're stating your opinion as fact without giving any facts and then ignoring what people say when it doesn't conform to your narrow view of reality
you are not in a position right now to know what life is going to be like for many, many people.[/QUOTE]
What I stated gave me wealth are things that are available to every person in the UK - in my view that makes the UK relatively equal. I'm sure it's different in the US and that's fine, but I would prefer reasonable explanation about it.
You accusing me of 'stating my opinion as fact' is pretty rich, there are a handful of things that could be viewed as me stating 'facts' but consider that no-one here has given solid facts either. Nor am I ignoring what people say, look at my posts - most of my posts are questions, the rest are all suppositions.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;40100723]Just because living standards go up, doesn't mean things are unilatterally better. This is a horrible argument. This is like when Fox News said "can we really consider the poor poor when they have fridges?" poor is relative. Because of this, standards of living going up mean squat when affording that standard of living is harder and harder for poor people and costs more of their funds.
there is no simple way to deal with wealth inequality. It's an issue that will now haunt us for many, many years. A way to not deal with it, is ignoring it and claiming it's not a bad thing[/QUOTE]
Could you define how things are not 'unilaterally better' if living standards go up? Given that the UK has greater wealth equality than the US, and I understand that things like education and healthcare are not 'free' in the US - would you agree, as someone posted earlier, that wealth equality would come about by ensuring the minimum that someone should have?
Also I wouldn't suggest ignoring it, nor am I claiming it [I]isn't[/I] a bad thing - I've just challenged people on why they state that as fact in order to get some sort of explanation
[QUOTE=Zeke129;40100827]All of which are because of the situation you were born into and not "hard work"
gg[/QUOTE]
Yes that is true, the same for everyone born in the UK
[QUOTE=Zeke129;40100827]All of which are because of the situation you were born into and not "hard work"
gg[/QUOTE]
The sperm that gave rise to his embryo in his mother's womb won the race. That has to count for something?
[QUOTE=butt2089;40100849]What I stated gave me wealth are things that are available to every person in the UK - in my view that makes the UK relatively equal. I'm sure it's different in the US and that's fine, but I would prefer reasonable explanation about it.
[B]No they're not, you can't even get this part right. Do you live in some version of the world where people don't live below the poverty line? That there aren't people who struggle to pay for the basic amenities? Jesus christ how out of touch are you? US, UK, Canada, whatever, it's all the same and you're STILL missing that. [/B]
You accusing me of 'stating my opinion as fact' is pretty rich, there are a handful of things that could be viewed as me stating 'facts' but consider that no-one here has given solid facts either. Nor am I ignoring what people say, look at my posts - most of my posts are questions, the rest are all suppositions.
[B]What else have you done? You've asked questions that only the answer you want will do for you[/B]
Could you define how things are not 'unilaterally better' if living standards go up? Given that the UK has greater wealth equality than the US, and I understand that things like education and healthcare are 'free' in the UK - would you agree, as someone posted earlier, that wealth equality would come about by ensuring the minimum that someone should have?
[B]Because even if the standard of living goes up, do you not see the problem? With an increased standard of living, comes with an increased upkeep of living to keep that standard. Standard of living also doesn't deal with the people who are poorest and missing the most. There are people below the average.
[/B]
Also I wouldn't suggest ignoring it, nor am I claiming it [I]isn't[/I] a bad thing - I've just challenged people on why they state that as fact in order to get some sort of explanation
[B]Wealth inequality breeds a lot of social unrest. It breeds economic unrest and creates economic turmoil as a working class isn't able to support the richest of the country due to their economic disadvantage and lack of market buying power.[/B] [/QUOTE]
[editline]30th March 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=butt2089;40100849]
Yes that is true, the same for everyone born in the UK[/QUOTE]
it must hurt to just be so fucking wrong about something
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
