• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Let's Debate Inequality

Koldo

Outstanding Member
One issue I see is that you're making an assertion but not showing anything to support your assertion; you're not presenting an argument, only a claim or conclusion without premises.

Tell me what your premises are and how you can arrive at this assertion from those premises; that's what I'm asking you for.

Sure.

  • Premise 1: Poverty, hunger, lack of shelter and access to basic necessities happen mostly due to the poorest having a lack of resources/money.
  • Premise 2: The rich people have many more resources/money than necessary to provide for their basic necessities and comfort.
  • Premise 3: If the government taxes the rich people, it has access to their resources/money.
  • Premise 4: If the government has access to their resources/money, the government distributes these resources/money to the poorest.
  • Premise 5: If the government distributes theese resources/money to the poorest, the lack of resources/money of the poorest will be reduced.
  • Conclusion: Therefore, if the government taxes the rich people, the lack of resources/money of the poorest will be reduced.

You're just essentially rephrasing the same assertion, not really adding anything.

When I was in college working on my engineering degree, I took courses in mechanics statics and dynamics. In these courses, students learn that statics analysis works for systems of bodies where there is no change in their mechanical motion. Some of the analysis methods for dynamics (where there is change in the mechanical motion of a system of bodies) are not needed in statics, because there's less involved. If you analyze a dynamic system of bodies using only static analysis, then you'll encounter a problem.

A simple way to think of this is if you were to take a still photo of a car on a stretch of flat, level street. This car might be moving or it might be stopped, but you essentially won't be able to tell from a still photo. You can if you do something like dangle a small weight from a string attached to this car; you'll be able to tell whether or not it's moving, and if it is moving, you can tell which direction it's moving in.

This is analogous to what you're doing. You're presenting an assertion based on something analogous to a "static" assessment but not a "dynamic" assessment. You're dealing with a situation that's analogous to being "dynamic", by which I mean that you're not taking into account what happens over time, including past and future.

In the short run, you'll be able to take money from wealthier people and give it to others, and they'll be able to use that money to buy food for the next day or week or so; then what happens? Do a thought experiment to explore what will happen next week, next month, next year, etc. I'll do a limited amount of hand-holding, but this is it; you need to figure out the answer for yourself, or at least try. If you at least try but give up, I'll explain, but for now I want you to try to figure this out on your own.

Ok, so your disagreement is that you presume that if we heavily tax the rich people, they will no longer produce the wealth that we are using (through taxation) to feed the poor, is this correct?

There are many ways to address this, but I would like to make sure we are on the same page before I continue.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
No, it's not. You have drunk the capitalist coolaid and so now you think it's some sort automatically self-correcting "free" market system. When in fact it seeks to trap us all in a monopoly so it can exploit everyone and everything for all it can get. It abhors "fair trade" and seeks to maximize exploitation, instead.

Well, one of us has and that's unfortunate.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
What does something being a part (or not) of capitalism has to do with the concept of earning some stuff?

What does earning stuff have to do with greed?
Unless you are changing the topic.


I don't think so. I am saying that you are using an arbitrary justification to evoke the existence of a right.

Ok, didn't see a counter argument offered. So I've nothing to add.

I am not talking about giving my money away to help people. I am talking about taxation.

Ok, I'm not talking about taxation. I'm talking about people keeping what they earn after taxes.
 

Kfox

Well-Known Member
How did you reach this conclusion?
Because slavery is morally wrong.
This is quite literally what a communist would say, by the way.
The Capitalist would say that alsol
I agree. Nobody is doing that though.
Actually they are. If I choose to live on the streets so I can spend what little bit of money I get to get high everyday, there are those who believe you have a moral obligation to make sure I have clothes, shelter and do not go hungry. Perhaps that is not your opinion, but it is the opinion of a lot of people.
 

Kfox

Well-Known Member
It failed in its justified objectives on large scale police reforms. Another example on how rich special interests create negative publicity and pressure to thwart public movements.
BLM was never about Police reform. If you look at the original guiding principles, nowhere did they ever say anything about Police reform. When they became mainstream and the special interests got involved, the special interests tried to make it about police reform in order for it to become acceptable in the public square. But make no mistake, BLM was never about police reform, it was just a racist organization started by some racist activists (IMO)
 

Kfox

Well-Known Member
I just did. The whole "the rich create wealth" is a big fat lie.
Nobody in this conversation said anything about the rich creating wealth. You said there is a limited amount of wealth that exist, and I asked you how much wealth exist. Care to answer THAT question? Or are you gonna continue to answer questions that I did not ask.
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
What does earning stuff have to do with greed?
Unless you are changing the topic.

You said it is not greed to keep stuff if I earned it.
Thus why we are talking about this...

Ok, didn't see a counter argument offered. So I've nothing to add.

The counter-argument is: You said that if I earned something that I have a right to it, but I don't grant that for I have no reason.

Ok, I'm not talking about taxation. I'm talking about people keeping what they earn after taxes.

Which can ammount to very little if taxation is increasingly bigger.
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
Because slavery is morally wrong.

Then capitalism is slavery.

Actually they are. If I choose to live on the streets so I can spend what little bit of money I get to get high everyday, there are those who believe you have a moral obligation to make sure I have clothes, shelter and do not go hungry. Perhaps that is not your opinion, but it is the opinion of a lot of people.

Do you have an actual example of anyone saying there is a right to demand others work harder in order to support their chosen lifestyle?
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Nobody in this conversation said anything about the rich creating wealth. You said there is a limited amount of wealth that exist, and I asked you how much wealth exist. Care to answer THAT question? Or are you gonna continue to answer questions that I did not ask.
As long as you continue to ask idiotic question, I will continue to ignore them.
 

Kfox

Well-Known Member
Then capitalism is slavery.
If I agree to sell my labor for $X per hr and at the end of the week I am paid $X for each hour I've worked, how is that slavery?
Do you have an actual example of anyone saying there is a right to demand others work harder in order to support their chosen lifestyle?
There are people who claim Health care to be a right, shelter to be a right, clothes and food, to be a right. In order to be a right, it means you should be able to have it without working for it. The only way in my country this happens (outside of charity) is via taxes. In my country, taxes operate by forcing people who DO work to pay them. If I am a tax payer, the only way for me to get the same pay post tax as I received pretax, is for me to work harder. Does this make sense to you? If not, tell me where I've gone wrong.
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
Sure.

  • Premise 1: Poverty, hunger, lack of shelter and access to basic necessities happen mostly due to the poorest having a lack of resources/money.
  • Premise 2: The rich people have many more resources/money than necessary to provide for their basic necessities and comfort.
  • Premise 3: If the government taxes the rich people, it has access to their resources/money.
  • Premise 4: If the government has access to their resources/money, the government distributes these resources/money to the poorest.
  • Premise 5: If the government distributes theese resources/money to the poorest, the lack of resources/money of the poorest will be reduced.
  • Conclusion: Therefore, if the government taxes the rich people, the lack of resources/money of the poorest will be reduced.



Ok, so your disagreement is that you presume that if we heavily tax the rich people, they will no longer produce the wealth that we are using (through taxation) to feed the poor, is this correct?

There are many ways to address this, but I would like to make sure we are on the same page before I continue.
Premise 1 assumes some people are doing little or anything for their own upkeep. Other people, who are require to take care of their own upkeep; pay taxes, have to work and do not have the luxury of perpetual vacation. If the workers have to support those who do not work, they get a pay cut. That is not fair. Charity may be a better way, so you can meet those you help and feel good.

Social Welfare used to be called the social safety net, designed to help people who had a setback such as loss of jobs, work injury, medical needs, etc. Starting in the 1970's it morphed into social safety hammock, where people over many generations never left. They knew all the loopholes to get the most, such as having lots of children, and not getting married. Married was penalized. Marriage is often a path out of poverty. Married in poverty is 5% and the total in poverty is 11.5%. It makes sense, husband and wife can both work and step above easier.

If you look in America, the DNC has waged the War Against Poverty, for almost 60 years and the rate of poverty has not changed, even with spending exceeding $10 trillion. It is a money pit that does not solve the problem. It perpetuates the problem. Another 50 years will not change anything. One reason is if one is given a choice of working a minimum wage job to get by, or staying home and collecting; have others pay for you, common senses say why struggle, when I get the same staying home lounging in the safety hammock. It was not originally that way. It changed with union government jobs and government job growth; justifies these jobs.

Under President Trump, just before COVID, he got the poverty rate to the lowest level in 50 years. This was not due to a free ride approach. Trump increased employment among the poorest demographics; women, blacks, hispanics, and build up a sense of hope and personal responsibility, due to the opportunities to be self reliant. People want to work if there are good jobs. This is why sending factory jobs overseas was a mistake and impoverish too many people, A union factornworker was a good job and could support a family and own a home. Now many are casualties of the war of poverty due to friendly fire from their own government.

Under Biden and Harris; during the wind down of COVID; people were getting paid not to work. If you had a low to medium paying job, it made more economic sense to collect, and not work for the same money. That free ride messed up the system; supply bottlenecks, which then led to the persistent inflation.

There is an old saying, you can give a man a fish and he is full today but hungry tomorrow. Or you can teach them to fish they can feed themselves, forever.

I remember a few years ago I did a calculation. In the state of Connecticut which has a generous welfare program, a single mother of two would get up to about $45,000 of value per year, in that expensive state; housing, food, medical, phone, utilities, etc. If she was given that money directly, she would be able to leave poverty. She would be called the middle class. But the way it is done, is the bureaucracy takes enough of a cut, she technically stays in poverty, and stays counted as poor. This is why things do not change. There are too many middlemen leaching off the poor, and thereby keeping them poor, so they can leach. Until that is fixed, it is waste to add money to the money pit approach.

What I thought would be a good idea, would be to build cities for the poor, while having the poor help to build each others houses. The idea is to lower costs by having those who stand to benefit, donate their time and learn useful skills; trades. It is not about Government hiring a large corporation to build the houses, so they can move it, doing nothing. The idea is to cut out the middleman, as much as possible, so they can get more of the middleman's share, to help themselves. Teaching the man to fish with real life experience that they benefit from.

As far a taxing the rich to give to the poor, money giving to the government gets a -20% rate of return; interesting on national debt. Twenty cents to the dollar goes down the toilet for each dollar taken.. Wouldn't it be better if the poor also got that? A better way would for corporation to directly help the poor and cut out wasteful Government. Instead of paying taxes, they pay the equivalent to the poor through goods and services, allowing their ingenuity and economy of scale to make it worthwhile for both the poor and company.

Grocery stores instead of paying taxes, feed the poor that value. If Washington touches it, 20% is gone. The business buys wholesale and can give the poor, half way between retail and wholesale, which is like $1.10 value per $1.00, while also making their own profit. This is better than $0.80. This is good for their community and is good for business.
 
Last edited:

Koldo

Outstanding Member
If I agree to sell my labor for $X per hr and at the end of the week I am paid $X for each hour I've worked, how is that slavery?

Because you say that being denied the fruits of your labor entails slavery, right? Wages are not fruit of your labor. The fruit of your labor is the full value that you create through your labor.

There are people who claim Health care to be a right, shelter to be a right, clothes and food, to be a right. In order to be a right, it means you should be able to have it without working for it. The only way in my country this happens (outside of charity) is via taxes. In my country, taxes operate by forcing people who DO work to pay them. If I am a tax payer, the only way for me to get the same pay post tax as I received pretax, is for me to work harder. Does this make sense to you? If not, tell me where I've gone wrong.

But nobody is forcing nor demanding you to worker harder to receive the same pay post tax as you received pretax. You are doing it out of your own volition. You could be satisfied with whatever ammount of money you receive post taxes and that would be it.
 

muhammad_isa

Veteran Member
How is my question idiotic?

A study by the World Institute for Development Economics Research at United Nations University reported that the richest 1% of adults alone owned 40% of global assets in the year 2000. The three richest people in the world possess more financial assets than the lowest 48 nations combined. The combined wealth of the "10 million dollar millionaires" grew to nearly $41 trillion in 2008.
- Wikipedia -

This is the result of the usurious global financial system, and not smart entrepreneurs.

Controlling inflation to 2% by raising interest rates is usurious policy that increases the wealth of the wealthy and oppresses the poor.

You don't really think that that is the only way of controlling inflation, do you??
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
Premise 1 assumes some people are doing little or anything for their own upkeep.

Incorrect. It is not presuming that. There is a multitude of factors involved.

Other people, who are require to take care of their own upkeep; pay taxes, have to work and do not have the luxury of perpetual vacation. If the workers have to support those who do not work, they get a pay cut. That is not fair. Charity may be a better way, so you can meet those you help and feel good.

If charity was sufficient, there wouldn't be poor people by now.

Social Welfare used to be called the social safety net, designed to help people who had a setback such as loss of jobs, work injury, medical needs, etc. Starting in the 1970's it morphed into social safety hammock, where people over many generations never left. They knew all the loopholes to get the most, such as having lots of children, and not getting married. Married was penalized. Marriage is often a path out of poverty. Married in poverty is 5% and the total in poverty is 11.5%. It makes sense, husband and wife can both work and step above easier.

If you look in America, the DNC has waged the War Against Poverty, for almost 60 years and the rate of poverty has not changed, even with spending exceeding $10 trillion. It is a money pit that does not solve the problem. It perpetuates the problem. Another 50 years will not change anything. One reason is if one is given a choice of working a minimum wage job to get by, or staying home and collecting; have others pay for you, common senses say why struggle, when I get the same staying home lounging in the safety hammock. It was not originally that way. It changed with union government jobs and government job growth; justifies these jobs.

Under President Trump, just before COVID, he got the poverty rate to the lowest level in 50 years. This was not due to a free ride approach. Trump increased employment among the poorest demographics; women, blacks, hispanics, and build up a sense of hope and personal responsibility, due to the opportunities to be self reliant. People want to work if there are good jobs. This is why sending factory jobs overseas was a mistake and impoverish too many people, A union factornworker was a good job and could support a family and own a home. Now many are casualties of the war of poverty due to friendly fire from their own government.

Guess who actually opposes high employment rates? Capitalists (as in capital owners).

Under Biden and Harris; during the wind down of COVID; people were getting paid not to work. If you had a low to medium paying job, it made more economic sense to collect, and not work for the same money. That free ride messed up the system; supply bottlenecks, which then led to the persistent inflation.

Ah, so you are one of those that thought it was great idea to get everyone out of their houses in the middle of a pandemic...

There is an old saying, you can give a man a fish and he is full today but hungry tomorrow. Or you can teach them to fish they can feed themselves, forever.

I remember a few years ago I did a calculation. In the state of Connecticut which has a generous welfare program, a single mother of two would get up to about $45,000 of value per year, in that expensive state; housing, food, medical, phone, utilities, etc. If she was given that money directly, she would be able to leave poverty. She would be called the middle class. But the way it is done, is the bureaucracy takes enough of a cut, she technically stays in poverty, and stays counted as poor. This is why things do not change. There are too many middlemen leaching off the poor, and thereby keeping them poor, so they can leach. Until that is fixed, it is waste to add money to the money pit approach.

Then support it being fixed, rather than throwing the baby out with the bath water.

What I thought would be a good idea, would be to build cities for the poor, while having the poor help to build each others houses. The idea is to lower costs by having those who stand to benefit, donate their time and learn useful skills; trades. It is not about Government hiring a large corporation to build the houses, so they can move it, doing nothing. The idea is to cut out the middleman, as much as possible, so they can get more of the middleman's share, to help themselves. Teaching the man to fish with real life experience that they benefit from.

Building an entire city from scratch is complicated because it involves massive problems. But I would support your idea if applied to current cities.

As far a taxing the rich to give to the poor, money giving to the government gets a -20% rate of return; interesting on national debt. Twenty cents to the dollar goes down the toilet for each dollar taken.. Wouldn't it be better if the poor also got that? A better way would for corporation to directly help the poor and cut out wasteful Government. Instead of paying taxes, they pay the equivalent to the poor through goods and services, allowing their ingenuity and economy of scale to make it worthwhile for both the poor and company.

I am fine with that. It might not work for every company, but in many it might.

Grocery stores instead of paying taxes, feed the poor that value. If Washington touches it, 20% is gone. The business buys wholesale and can give the poor, half way between retail and wholesale, which is like $1.10 value per $1.00, while also making their own profit. This is better than $0.80. This is good for their community and is good for business.

I am fine with that, but they need to have some money too to buy that.
 

Kfox

Well-Known Member
Because you say that being denied the fruits of your labor entails slavery, right? Wages are not fruit of your labor.
I disagree! If I agree to sell my labor for $X per hr, as long as I am paid $X for each hour I've worked, I am getting the fruits of my labor
The fruit of your labor is the full value that you create through your labor.
Labors create nothing! If somebody gives me a bunch of wood, bricks, and cement, to construct a house, did I create that house? No; I've built/assembled it; I've used pre-made materials to assembly that house. When that house is sold, don't cha think the people who provided me the pre-made materials is entitled to some of the money that house sold for? Otherwise, why on Earth would someone pay me to construct a house, if I am gonna turn around and take all of the money once the house is sold?
But nobody is forcing nor demanding you to worker harder to receive the same pay post tax as you received pretax. You are doing it out of your own volition. You could be satisfied with whatever ammount of money you receive post taxes and that would be it.
So I have the option of being satisfied with less? You call that an option? Going by that logic, slaves are not forced to work, they could always choose the option of being beaten or killed for refusing.
 
Last edited:

Kfox

Well-Known Member
A study by the World Institute for Development Economics Research at United Nations University reported that the richest 1% of adults alone owned 40% of global assets in the year 2000. The three richest people in the world possess more financial assets than the lowest 48 nations combined. The combined wealth of the "10 million dollar millionaires" grew to nearly $41 trillion in 2008.
- Wikipedia -

This is the result of the usurious global financial system, and not smart entrepreneurs.

Controlling inflation to 2% by raising interest rates is usurious policy that increases the wealth of the wealthy and oppresses the poor.

You don't really think that that is the only way of controlling inflation, do you??
Interesting. But what on Earth does any of this have to do with the question I've asked?
 
Top