The Divide between the Poor and the Rich

[Grenartia]

Wealth is a relative concept. For instance, if you moved to Somalia with $1000 (USD), I would not be surprised if you were among the richest people there, if not, the single richest person. However, here in the States, $1000 is barely even a drop in the bucket.

So is it not better for everybody to have the same amount of wealth?

Wealth is relative to some extent, but standard of living is not. Even the poorest in the United States enjoy a better standard of living than the middle-class (if there is one) in Somalia. That said, it is better if everyone enjoys an increase in standard of living, even if some get a larger increase than other.

No, it is not because some people deserve more wealth through their merits than others.

I see no problem with people gaining a little more wealth through their own merits that don't involve screwing other people over, but nothing overly excessive.

[Caninope]

If the poor got richer and their living standard increased, even if the rich got richer, would that be okay with you?

OR

Would you rather the difference between the poor and the rich was less, even if the living standard of the poor didn't increase?

It would not bother me if a rising tide did indeed lift all boats.

But this is not what we have seen happen. Inflation-adjusted median income has been stagnant since Reagan was elected. Debt-to-income has increased. There is no trickle-down effect, there is no lifting all boats, unless you provide an adequate social safety net and the tools - particularly public education - necessary to insure future mobility. And the only way to pay for it without keeping the poor poor is by taxing the rich.

Benefits for the average worker have increased since Reagan though.

[Dyakovo]

It would not bother me if a rising tide did indeed lift all boats.

But this is not what we have seen happen. Inflation-adjusted median income has been stagnant since Reagan was elected. Debt-to-income has increased. There is no trickle-down effect, there is no lifting all boats, unless you provide an adequate social safety net and the tools - particularly public education - necessary to insure future mobility. And the only way to pay for it without keeping the poor poor is by taxing the rich.

Benefits for the average worker have increased since Reagan though.

[citation needed]

[Free Soviets]

It would not bother me if a rising tide did indeed lift all boats.

But this is not what we have seen happen. Inflation-adjusted median income has been stagnant since Reagan was elected. Debt-to-income has increased. There is no trickle-down effect, there is no lifting all boats, unless you provide an adequate social safety net and the tools - particularly public education - necessary to insure future mobility. And the only way to pay for it without keeping the poor poor is by taxing the rich.

Benefits for the average worker have increased since Reagan though.

the cost of healthcare has increased, sure.

[Pope Joan]

With the rich getting bailouts, tax cuts and other gifts, wages have remained stagnant for three decades. So somebody is getting happier- the 1%- and the rest of us are screwed.

It is clear that in order to have real improvement for the middle class we need to ignore the whining of the privileged few.

[The UK in Exile]

Clever, but wrong. Oh, sure, it started that way, but once the nobles were dead or locked up, the mob turned on itself and the leaders of the revolution broke up into warring factions.

Lets shed the sports metaphors, they aren't going anywhere and they make me sad. I'm not advocating murder as a means of human advancement. I'm not a proponent of eugenics. If anything, I argue that in the absence of an absolute moral authority, the only logical law is pragmatic laissez-faire individualism, that each person should act in a way that suits their best interests, and by doing so, society at large is improved through self-reliance. Obviously, in order to have a society, there must be a few basic rules, I'm not an anarchist. But comprehensive altruism enforced by law does nothing to improve either the individual OR society; rather it enslaves the productive individual to a machine that cares for neither the individual or personal self-improvement, but concerns itself with an arbitrary baseline of "fairness". I do not ask for, nor do I receive welfare, despite my poverty, and see no reason why the fruits of my labor, such as they are, should be shared among those who labor not at all. As for the wealthiest members of society, I don't care how they got there because, whether it be by honest or nefarious means, they are doing what they can to take care of themselves. That's fine, just as long as they don't complain when someone else uses their methods against them.

then I don't see how you can object to "comprehensive altruism enforced by law" if the majority of people believe it is in their best interests and are prepared to enforce it through means nefarious or otherwise. after all, they are doing what they can to take care of themselves, and they even managed to help out a couple of other people into the bargain. if it fucks you over, well thats life, right?