NationStates

REVOLUTION!!! DOWN WITH THE PATRIARCHY!!!

Left Liberal Hypocrites wrote:REVOLUTION!!! DOWN WITH THE PATRIARCHY!!!

You try much too hard.

Jumhuriyah Hindustan wrote:

Minzerland wrote:Your OP doesn't mention marriage, you've only brought it into the conversation after my question.

It's because you're derailing this thread. Why are we talking about marriage?

You mentioned marriage, not me. The topic of your thread is 'Income inequality and decadence', you also mentioned that the rich are decadent in your OP. This is discussing the substance of your argument, it is hardly 'derailing'.

Inequality is not caused by decadence nor is decadence a cause of inequality. I should know. I'm relatively middle class and I engage in plenty of vices, most notably, wild sex.

Radiatia wrote:I think they're two separate issues to be honest. Painting all rich people as decadent is no less dishonest an argument than saying all poor people deserve to be there.

I'm as disgusted as anyone at the fact that people who contribute nothing to society, like those reality stars, are given a free pass by society, but that's got nothing to do with income inequality - call me old fashioned, but it has more to do with the tears in the moral fabric of society.

I'm a believer in Noblesse Oblige, which is a concept that appears to have been lost in our increasingly self-centred society.

Those people have always existed and always will. Noblesse oblige only exists if you work to make it happen and act according to your personal beliefs.

Kelinfort wrote: Inequality is not caused by decadence nor is decadence a cause of inequality.

True, but inequality makes displays of decadence more extreme and more visible.

Syfenq wrote:

Kelinfort wrote: Inequality is not caused by decadence nor is decadence a cause of inequality.

True, but inequality makes displays of decadence more extreme and more visible.

Not necessarily more extreme nor more visible. Inequality magnifies the struggles of the poor.

I'm hardly a fan of the 1%, but this seems to be a hasty and lazy generalization.

Jumhuriyah Hindustan wrote:...They are decadent, corrupt and are oppressive.

Income inequality is the root of the countless things wrong with our world.

Wrong. Income inequality is an effect, not the cause. Mehrwert exploitation through the capitalist system is the root of a lot of wrongs in our current society.
Then again, it's not like we haven't had a hell of a lot of examples of exploitation and income divides between classes in other economic systems, including the self-styled socialist countries.

Well, the rich have worked for their wealth, and inequality is always there, and we shouldn't delude ourselves into thinking that it can be eliminated. Also, I believe one reason the poor are poor is because of themselves being undercut by immigrants and not having the skills, and also due to government's wrong priorities in welfare.

Welfare should be finding the poor jobs to get themselves on their feet, but abolishing minimum wage as this disadvantages the poor due to the fact that sometimes companies use this as an excuse to keep the poor at the minimum wage level. Instead, have a guideline set by the government for companies to use as a standard, but not follow strictly, as some SMEs might not be able to afford that.

Give grants for the poor to retrain and increase their skills, and also, tax everybody lesser, as then more money will be in the pockets of the working class. The rich have a larger base and are being taxed more, and they will benefit more from tax cuts, but that is because they have a larger amount of money to start with, so saying that it is rich getting richer sometimes does not show the whole picture.

We should be focussed on getting the poor into middle income groups and making them able to own homes of their own. But firstly, taxes must come down, minimum wages changed, welfare must be redesigned, and most of all, companies must stop hiring cheap immigrants, and the government can tax consumption instead of income, and the rich will pay more in the end, as they will spend more than the poor, but don't tax the basic food items and household items like oil, rice, toilet paper, tissue paper etc.

But the free market should be allowed as competition will bring better living standards and products for the consumers at large, and should not be overly restricted.

The Intergalactic Universe Corporation wrote:Well, the rich have worked for their wealth

eheh, nice one.

...


Oh wait you're serious!

Risottia wrote:

The Intergalactic Universe Corporation wrote:Well, the rich have worked for their wealth

eheh, nice one.

...


Oh wait you're serious!

Everybody has worked for their money in some way or another.

You cannot deny that, of course unless you are inheriting wealth from your parents, but you need to work to sustain it...

its definitely obscene what some people get paid especially if they play the right sport well.

The Foxes Swamp wrote:its definitely obscene what some people get paid especially if they play the right sport well.

Well, it is all subjective right? And actually, the free market will be the best to decide on such matters

The Intergalactic Universe Corporation wrote:

The Foxes Swamp wrote:its definitely obscene what some people get paid especially if they play the right sport well.

Well, it is all subjective right? And actually, the free market will be the best to decide on such matters

no-one is worth what they get paid

The Foxes Swamp wrote:its definitely obscene what some people get paid especially if they play the right sport well.

Of if they coach a sports team. Doesn't even matter if they win.

On the one hand, income inequality is a serious problem that needs to be aggressively addressed by domestic policies.


On the other hand, decadence is pretty fun.

The Foxes Swamp wrote:

The Intergalactic Universe Corporation wrote:Well, it is all subjective right? And actually, the free market will be the best to decide on such matters

no-one is worth what they get paid

That again is very subjective. But I respect your viewpoint

The Foxes Swamp wrote:

The Intergalactic Universe Corporation wrote:Well, it is all subjective right? And actually, the free market will be the best to decide on such matters

no-one is worth what they get paid

Clearly they are, or else they wouldn't be getting paid that amount now would they?

Senkaku wrote:On the one hand, income inequality is a serious problem that needs to be aggressively addressed by domestic policies.


On the other hand, decadence is pretty fun.

Agreed on your last point.

But what governments can do is to make incomes rise, not to just reduce the income gap.

The reason why rich incomes grow faster is because their initial incomes were already larger, and will grow at a faster rate. The important thing is to make the poor enter the middle class.

But NOT to make the rich poorer, as that is the wrong way of creating wealth.

Great Nepal wrote:

The Foxes Swamp wrote:

no-one is worth what they get paid

Clearly they are, or else they wouldn't be getting paid that amount now would they?

just because they get paid doesnt mean that they are worth it

The Foxes Swamp wrote:

Great Nepal wrote:Clearly they are, or else they wouldn't be getting paid that amount now would they?

just because they get paid doesnt mean that they are worth it

By definition it does, value is determined by what the highest price someone is willing to pay and seller is willing to agree to. Their time is worth, by definition their salary.

The Intergalactic Universe Corporation wrote:You cannot deny that, of course unless you are inheriting wealth from your parents, but you need to work to sustain it...

Not at all. I live in a city where trust fund kids are a dime a dozen, though I obviously don't live in the same neighborhood or move in the same circles. Sure, a number of them manage to actually do real work, or at least invest the money wisely, but far too many either live off of the interest of funds previously invested on their behalf, or at best they "work" at jobs set up by the family that involves them showing up for an hour or two each week, shaking a few hands, and then taking off to the clubs.

I totally agree with the OP. There is a reason I hate reality T.V more than anything, and it is because pretty much all of it is rich housewives bitching about each other and trying on clothes - they don't deserve the attention nor the wealth they pretty much inherent by marrying rich people. Let us not mention that many people live like this while never working a day in their lives, while other people are scrounging to feed themselves day-by-day. I agree with the concept of anarcho-communism, because it allows absolute greed in the ways of social wealth, allows equal opportunity, and allows the pursuit of desire. That, and classes ranked by wealth would be non-existent.