Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Wealth Distribution in the USA

1…1112141617…24

Comments

  • #392
    clairefontaine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭clairefontaine


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    Well, it doesn't have to be caps, but something to curtail the income inequality - the more and more that worsens, the wider the negative societal effects for the less well off, and the wider the gulf in equal treatment between the lower/middle classes and the powerful.

    Salary caps (or tying salaries to a multiple of lowest wage in a company) just seem to be one of the more direct/workable ways of trying to prevent this getting worse, while also going some way to keeping money in companies going to productive purposes, rather than exec pockets.

    I don't believe myself, that companies should be vehicles for extracting personal wealth from the economy - that wealth should be truly earned (rather than overinflated beyond real efforts), and in a lot of cases it's not proportionate to what the person really contributes to society.

    Why is this discussion solely of the salaries of the private sector? Should we not also look at the costs of the public sector? Why for example, do we even have a national zoo? Why is the pentagon spending $900 on toilet seats for another example? And many other wasteful expenditures covered by the tax payer.

    I live in a state that has one of the highest minimum wage salaries in the country. It also has no state personal income tax. But guess what? Because that means more money in the pocket, it also means more sales tax, more small business tax, more tobacco and liquor tax, etc.

    And it can also mean higher prices for goods and services.

    You might also consider how our taxes work. A good friend of mine is an accountant for the music industry. She has incredibly wealthy clients. Clients who have no idea how to spend their money. She saves them money by spending their money. The more they donate to various private charities, schools, hospitals, wide range of recipients, the more they save on their tax bill. I'd call that contributing to society, wouldn't you?

    It's swings and roundabouts sometimes.


  • #393
    Sleevoo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 54 ✭✭Sleevoo


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    The issue is the potential power over society, that excessively large amounts of money and income inequality in general, can provide a class of people.


    I agree on the regulations, though I think the cap is justifiable for other reasons.

    What power in particular? A side from legal.


  • #394
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    clairefontaine wrote: »
    Why is this discussion solely of the salaries of the private sector? Should we not also look at the costs of the public sector? Why for example, do we even have a national zoo? Why is the pentagon spending $900 on toilet seats for another example? And many other wasteful expenditures covered by the tax payer.

    I live in a state that has one of the highest minimum wage salaries in the country. It also has no state personal income tax. But guess what? Because that means more money in the pocket, it also means more sales tax, more small business tax, more tobacco and liquor tax, etc.

    And it can also mean higher prices for goods and services.

    It's swings and roundabouts sometimes.
    Why does discussion of excessive private sector CEO salaries need to be qualified by also discussing public sector salaries though? (it seems a bit like the way critics of the US foreign policy, get asked "why don't you criticize Russia/China instead?" - it approaches whataboutery)

    I agree that excessive salaries in the public sector are also bad, but they can't approach anywhere near that of excessive CEO salaries in the private sector - thus aren't going to contribute a significant amount to the wealth distribution/income-inequality problem.


  • #395
    Ugo Monye spacecraft experience
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,221 ✭✭✭Ugo Monye spacecraft experience


    ulinbac wrote: »
    Ahhhh NO.

    The majority of the top 10%, probably only contribute to less than 5% of the tax generated.

    Nearly all countries follow a "Pen Parade", developed by Jan Pen. The majority of the higher earning people do not pay income tax. The reason being is that they are unlikely to work a full time job and using tax avoidance.

    These people would own properties, investments etc. and you don't pay income tax on that. They also dispurse their income through shelf (umbrella companies) which are legal.

    Before you say I am talking crap, my thesis was based on this exact point! During the Boom years the poor get poorer in relative terms and richer in recessionary times.

    Tax revenue is mainly generated between the 3rd to 7th deciles in society. This is why middle income families tend to get hit hardest in budgets!!

    If you p*ss off the top 10% its easy for them to relocate and spend money elsewhere.


    You're completely raving there, Irelands top earners pay a higher percentage tax than those on smaller incomes. This is a fact, as is it fact that 60% of our income tax is paid by the top 10% of earners

    The more you earn the higher you pay

    Jesus it's actually amazing you wrong you are


  • #396
    clairefontaine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭clairefontaine


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    Why does discussion of excessive private sector CEO salaries need to be qualified by also discussing public sector salaries though? (it seems a bit like the way critics of the US foreign policy, get asked "why don't you criticize Russia/China instead?" - it approaches whataboutery)

    I agree that excessive salaries in the public sector are also bad, but they can't approach anywhere near that of excessive CEO salaries in the private sector - thus aren't going to contribute a significant amount to the wealth distribution/income-inequality problem.

    If you talking about redistribution of wealth, then you can't get around taxes. And mentioning whataboutery is just an attempt to slam down and silence the topic.

    Most of the solution seeking here is looking to tackle the private sector, ah they make too much money while others are struggling.

    I fail to see how a salary cap on the wealthy will help the poor.

    I don't fail to see how not funding a national zoo or $800 toilet seats in the pentagon might be used more fruitfully by putting more money in the hands of the middle class and dropping the %30 they pay in social security, federal taxes, state taxes, municipal taxes, and FICA. That's right, on your pay check you will see all of that taken away to fund things like the panda cam at the national zoo and the $900 toilet seats at the pentagon.


  • Advertisement
  • #397
    ulinbac
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 707 ✭✭✭ulinbac


    Ugo Monye spacecraft experience wrote: »
    You're completely raving there, Irelands top earners pay a higher percentage tax than those on smaller incomes. This is a fact, as is it fact that 60% of our income tax is paid by the top 10% of earners

    The more you earn the higher you pay

    Jesus it's actually amazing you wrong you are


    It amazes me how pig headed and naive you are.

    If you read my post you would see that my thesis was about this. Google anything by Prof. David Madden on it!!

    Why do you think so many people register their taxes in Ireland!!!

    Its similar to a Lorenz curve. There are people earning more than 100k in Ireland.

    So before you start raving on about what you know or in this case don't have a clue about, EDUCATE YOURSELF!

    As said before, the wealthiest of people DO NOT WORK, so DO NOT PAY INCOME TAX! They generate wealth from rent, investments etc. which ARE NOT ALWAYS classified as Income Tax.

    Goole an umbrella company (shelf company). It is legal and called tax avoidance!!!!!

    All contractors I work with here and at home are registered this way, earn >€150k and pay less than 30% tax. They pay themselves a basic salasry and then pay themseleves dividends at the end of the year. So they will pay the lower tax rate on their wages (salary) then pay a for of CGT tax 12% on the rest!!! Thats amounts to a little less than 60%.

    I worked in another company where they legally paid income to employees through the parent company which was registered off-shore. Again, tax was a lot less than 60%. This is legal!!!!

    If you even bothered to read my post properly you might actually have learnt how the world really works!!


  • #398
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Sleevoo wrote: »
    What power in particular? A side from legal.
    There are a lot of different kinds of power it can allow, depending on how much money is at hand; a lot of it centers around advantageous treatment in the legal system though (so is hard to separate that out), influence over politics (including influencing the legal system through politics), influencing news and media in general, influencing education - including through the political system (economic education itself has arguably been corrupted - a lot of it bears little resemblance to how economies function in reality), and a lot more I just can't really think of offhand (more out of a lack of imagination, as the list of things is pretty endless).


  • #399
    Ugo Monye spacecraft experience
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,221 ✭✭✭Ugo Monye spacecraft experience


    ulinbac wrote: »
    It amazes me how pig headed and naive you are.

    If you read my post you would see that my thesis was about this. Google anything by Prof. David Madden on it!!

    Why do you think so many people register their taxes in Ireland!!!

    Its similar to a Lorenz curve. There are people earning more than 100k in Ireland.

    So before you start raving on about what you know or in this case don't have a clue about, EDUCATE YOURSELF!

    As said before, the wealthiest of people DO NOT WORK, so DO NOT PAY INCOME TAX! They generate wealth from rent, investments etc. which ARE NOT ALWAYS classified as Income Tax.

    Goole an umbrella company (shelf company). It is legal and called tax avoidance!!!!!

    All contractors I work with here and at home are registered this way, earn >€150k and pay less than 30% tax. They pay themselves a basic salasry and then pay themseleves dividends at the end of the year. So they will pay the lower tax rate on their wages (salary) then pay a for of CGT tax 12% on the rest!!! Thats amounts to a little less than 60%.

    I worked in another company where they legally paid income to employees through the parent company which was registered off-shore. Again, tax was a lot less than 60%. This is legal!!!!

    If you even bothered to read my post properly you might actually have learnt how the world really works!!

    I don't think you know what a thesis is.

    Hint: Not a post on boards


  • #400
    ulinbac
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 707 ✭✭✭ulinbac


    Ugo Monye spacecraft experience wrote: »
    I don't think you know what a thesis is.

    Hint: Not a post on boards


    Glad to see you are willing to have an open discussion about it.


  • #401
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    clairefontaine wrote: »
    If you talking about redistribution of wealth, then you can't get around taxes. And mentioning whataboutery is just an attempt to slam down and silence the topic.
    The problem is wealth distribution being disproportionately in the hands of a few - I don't see what public inefficiency has to do with that? (the wages pale in comparison to top CEO wages)

    The reason it seemed like whataboutery, is it is being used to distract from that problem I put forward, without addressing that problem.

    It focuses on the private sector, because that's where the income inequality is. Sure, public sector inefficiency, should see funds redistributed to more needy areas, but that's not got a lot to do with income inequality.
    clairefontaine wrote: »
    I fail to see how a salary cap on the wealthy will help the poor.
    It's not about helping the poor, it's about lessening income inequality, so that disproportionate power over the rest of society, doesn't end up in the hands of a few, and so that the less well off have a more even playing field (because the negative effects of worsening income inequality affect them in huge ways).
    clairefontaine wrote: »
    I don't fail to see how not funding a national zoo or $800 toilet seats in the pentagon might be used more fruitfully by putting more money in the hands of the middle class and dropping the %30 they pay in social security, federal taxes, state taxes, municipal taxes, and FICA. That's right, on your pay check you will see all of that taken away to fund things like the panda cam at the national zoo and the $900 toilet seats at the pentagon.
    See this is why it's whataboutery: The issue of income inequality and wealth being distributed disproprtionately to a few, has been distracted from here, with an anti-government argument which is barely relevant to those issues.

    Sorry but, it just strikes me as a big distraction to get away from the bigger issue.


  • Advertisement
  • #402
    Ugo Monye spacecraft experience
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,221 ✭✭✭Ugo Monye spacecraft experience


    ulinbac wrote: »
    Glad to see you are willing to have an open discussion about it.

    I have a rule of thumb about refusing to read posts where a poster resorts to CAPITALISING RANDOM PARTS OF SENTENCES


  • #403
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Ugo Monye spacecraft experience wrote: »
    I have a rule of thumb about refusing to read posts where a poster resorts to CAPITALISING RANDOM PARTS OF SENTENCES
    It's called emphasis, EMPHASIS!!!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQNBunz_oyQ


  • #404
    ressem
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,427 ✭✭✭ressem


    clairefontaine wrote: »
    Why is this discussion solely of the salaries of the private sector? Should we not also look at the costs of the public sector? Why for example, do we even have a national zoo? Why is the pentagon spending $900 on toilet seats for another example? And many other wasteful expenditures covered by the tax payer.

    54 @ $640 for a fiber-glass cover that covered the entire toilet on a P3 Orion plane, produced in very low volume in a custom shape.
    Even without having to meet military spec, $34,000 to recreate a custom mold and tested parts isn't a rip off, despite Reagan's slogans.

    Unlikely that anyone here is qualified to gainsay the need for the part, nor the toilet, nor the plane.
    Clients who have no idea how to spend their money. She saves them money by spending their money. The more they donate to various private charities, schools, hospitals, wide range of recipients, the more they save on their tax bill. I'd call that contributing to society, wouldn't you?

    It's swings and roundabouts sometimes.

    An unpredictable manner in which to fund services which can be essential for americans in crisis situations.
    Unpredictable funding compromises the ability of organisations to plan for the future, run services efficiently, and increases management costs. Not to mention that these organisations will have to then spend money advertising for mindshare.


  • #405
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,689 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    ressem wrote: »
    54 @ $640 for a fiber-glass cover that covered the entire toilet on a P3 Orion plane, produced in very low volume in a custom shape.
    Even without having to meet military spec, $34,000 to recreate a custom mold and tested parts isn't a rip off, despite Reagan's slogans.

    Ever hear of bubble wrap?


  • #406
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    clairfontaine wrote:
    Clients who have no idea how to spend their money. She saves them money by spending their money. The more they donate to various private charities, schools, hospitals, wide range of recipients, the more they save on their tax bill. I'd call that contributing to society, wouldn't you?

    It's swings and roundabouts sometimes.
    I think I missed this bit in the original post (edited in after): Charities that can be used as a place to put tax deductions, are the perfect example of the wealthy setting up their own 'charities', which they then funnel their taxes into, and then use those charities for political lobbying (that's even supposed to be illegal in US law, but I believe there are loopholes to get away with it).

    Great example of exercising political power with money, while evading the spirit of the law at the same time, and while also evading tax liabilities in the process; the Koch's in particular, use this for contributing funding to their Libertarian think-tanks.


    Also, don't mistake CEO's extracting money from a company, far in advance of what their contribution really is worth (there are CEO's who do genuinely take in proportion to what they give, and this doesn't apply to them), and then putting a fraction of that in charity - don't mistake that as contributing to society, when they take a disproportionate share from society first (and even worse again, when that charity is a front group).

    It's very easy for someone to award himself a lot of money, far beyond what they contribute to society, and then try to say after the fact, that they contribute to society by putting some of that money into charity - that doesn't suddenly mean their excessive compensation is (after the fact) proportionate to their contribution to society.


  • #407
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Anyone remember these?
    http://thefutureofthings.com/pod/243/microsoft-surface-computing.html

    Microsoft had 'tablet' touch technology back in 2007 but never pushed it or marketed it properly to the consumer. It was mainly an R&D gadget for them to show 'look we are cool too'!'. Maybe they were afraid of people buying these instead of traditional Windows Laptops/desktops where they earn a few $$ for each OEM license sold. They were too conservative and competitors bypassed them. Plenty of analysis on the internet about this.

    Anyway, three years later Apple brought out the iPad and the rest is history as they say.

    We have two CEO's to mention here, Steve Jobs and Steve Ballmer. When Steve Jobs announced his retirement in 2011 to a letter the shareholders the company stock fell 5% in after hours trading. When Steve Jobs announced a leave of absence in 2004 due to his illness the stock fell by more than 8%. Meanwhile when Steve Ballmer announced that he was stepping aside from Microsoft the stock jumped 7%. What does that show us? Exceptional talent is rewarded by the market.

    When the time comes that Warren Buffet and his number two Charlie Munger step aside (they are both octogenarians) you can expect the stock of Berkshire Hathaway to fall quite substantially (hey, might be a good time to buy BRK.B!).

    Anyone who thinks the average worker has the same role and influence as a CEO in a large fortune 500 company is deluded and can't see passed their own ideology. There is a term for people like this. A fanatic.

    EDIT:
    By the way, all the men mentioned here came from either working or middle class backgrounds. Two of the men are known to be giving away most of their billion dollar fortune and collect modest salary's. Yet they are all multi billionaires.


  • #408
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Charlie Rock wrote: »

    Many people have no idea (myself included until relatively recently) that they've paid MS for their OS each time they buy a device with it preloaded. Retailers should be forced to have a 'before MS price' and 'after MS price' on any device they buy so that consumers realise just how many times they've paid MS to use their OS (about 4 ****ing times myself and never again on a matter or principle).

    Have you ever heard of Linux? Say OpenSUSE, CentOS, Fedora flavours as well as dozens more of this OS?
    One is free to order the hardware online from a suitable retailer without any Microsoft Operating System pre installed and instead install their own version of Linux which is FREE to download. Lots of people do this, but most could not be arsed because when they buy a product they want it to work when you hit the power button and want to have the support network on top of that. I find that post highly naive to be honest.


  • #409
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Watch out for aliens.



  • #410
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,689 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    jank wrote: »
    I find that post highly naive to be honest.

    You know what Jank? Someone like you calling me naive only makes me more confident in my own knowledge.


  • #411
    Sleevoo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 54 ✭✭Sleevoo


    Charlie Rock wrote: »
    You know what Jank? Someone like you calling me naive only makes me more confident in my own knowledge.

    :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • #412
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Charlie Rock wrote: »
    You know what Jank? Someone like you calling me naive only makes me more confident in my own knowledge.

    That knowledge being that you never heard of Linux being free to download and install on a PC? Never heard of OEM licensing. Did you ever see that Microsoft sticker on the PC? Some knowledge alright. As a matter of interest what do you use now? Apple ?:P


  • #413
    Allyall
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,381 ✭✭✭✭Allyall


    jank wrote: »
    Have you ever heard of Linux? Say OpenSUSE, CentOS, Fedora flavours as well as dozens more of this OS?
    One is free to order the hardware online from a suitable retailer without any Microsoft Operating System pre installed and instead install their own version of Linux which is FREE to download. Lots of people do this, but most could not be arsed because when they buy a product they want it to work when you hit the power button and want to have the support network on top of that. I find that post highly naive to be honest.
    Speaking of Naive..

    Not all versions of Linux are free.
    Most bricks and mortar stores sell PC's with no other option then windows.
    most could not be arsed because when they buy a product they want it to work when you hit the power button and want to have the support network on top of that.

    Or.... Maybe, when they buy the product (PC/Laptop), it already comes installed with Windows (Which they have paid for), and they don't see any reason to install another OS.

    Add to that, I'd say most people have never even heard of linux. It can be a great OS, but isn't natively compatible with a lot of software.
    (Which may be about to change, IBM is investing $1billion into linux to help topple Microsoft.)

    In short, your post is far more naive than the post by Charlie Rock.


  • #414
    Christy42
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,106 ✭✭✭Christy42


    jank wrote: »
    Anyone remember these?
    http://thefutureofthings.com/pod/243/microsoft-surface-computing.html

    Microsoft had 'tablet' touch technology back in 2007 but never pushed it or marketed it properly to the consumer. It was mainly an R&D gadget for them to show 'look we are cool too'!'. Maybe they were afraid of people buying these instead of traditional Windows Laptops/desktops where they earn a few $$ for each OEM license sold. They were too conservative and competitors bypassed them. Plenty of analysis on the internet about this.

    Anyway, three years later Apple brought out the iPad and the rest is history as they say.

    We have two CEO's to mention here, Steve Jobs and Steve Ballmer. When Steve Jobs announced his retirement in 2011 to a letter the shareholders the company stock fell 5% in after hours trading. When Steve Jobs announced a leave of absence in 2004 due to his illness the stock fell by more than 8%. Meanwhile when Steve Ballmer announced that he was stepping aside from Microsoft the stock jumped 7%. What does that show us? Exceptional talent is rewarded by the market.

    When the time comes that Warren Buffet and his number two Charlie Munger step aside (they are both octogenarians) you can expect the stock of Berkshire Hathaway to fall quite substantially (hey, might be a good time to buy BRK.B!).

    Anyone who thinks the average worker has the same role and influence as a CEO in a large fortune 500 company is deluded and can't see passed their own ideology. There is a term for people like this. A fanatic.

    EDIT:
    By the way, all the men mentioned here came from either working or middle class backgrounds. Two of the men are known to be giving away most of their billion dollar fortune and collect modest salary's. Yet they are all multi billionaires.

    Stock prices rise and fall based on the market perception. It doesn't indicate accurately the effect Steve Jobs had on apple. In fact Apple still seems to be doing very well despite the loss of Steve Jobs.

    Yes the CEO of a fortune 500 company has a more important role than the average worker. The fact that this should imply that the worker gets substandard health services is beyond crazy. How much more important the CEO is is also up for discussion.

    As you say both men were self made men, however the plural of anecdote is not data. Also you mention that they are collecting modest salaries, how did they become multi billionaires then? Once you are multi billionaire I doubt you really care about your salary.


  • #415
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    The problem with Windows being preinstalled on computers, is typically the lack of an option not to buy it along with the computer (because of deals Microsoft do with OEM's), not that you can't install another OS.

    Also, Apple are well known for locking down their devices and supporting government imposed Digital Rights Management laws which they use to back this, that effectively erode consumers ownership of their devices (by limiting what they can do with them) - and in addition to that, Apple also have setup 'walled garden' markets, which heavily restrict apps that are allowed to be published (and installed on devices - I believe installation is restricted to app store apps, unless you hack the DRM, which is illegal in many countries), while forcing developers to use this market if they want to release apps.

    Odd company to support, for those who are against government granted monopolies, or against government granted erosion of peoples Freedoms, or who support free markets themselves (since the app market is anything but free), or for people against regulations (again - the app market is very heavily regulated).


  • #416
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,689 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    jank wrote: »
    That knowledge being that you never heard of Linux being free to download and install on a PC?

    Wrong.
    Never heard of OEM licensing.

    Wrong.
    Did you ever see that Microsoft sticker on the PC?

    Did you read what I wrote?


  • #417
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,689 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    for those who are against government granted monopolies, or against government granted erosion of peoples Freedoms, or who support free markets themselves (since the app market is anything but free), or for people against regulations (again - the app market is very heavily regulated).

    Their poor understanding of how the market is rigged in favour of these companies exposes their understanding of free market ideas for what it is i.e. pretty much non-existent.


  • #418
    donegal__road
    Closed Accounts Posts: 953 ✭✭✭donegal__road


    Could the advent of the derivative market and the credit default swap be the cause for the massive imbalance of wealth in the US today?


  • #419
    clairefontaine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭clairefontaine


    Apple enjoys two major bonuses, the US military contract an also low taxes from places such as Ireland.

    Ireland is not so mind to its small business owner I. Little towns across the nation.

    Personally I don't like their products. I find them petty, I don't know how else to put it. Saying that I have great admiration for Jobs and I don't begrudge him his wealth or any of their stockholders.

    However, I remember a day when WORD was free on PCs. It came with the PC but it got challenged on antitrust monopoly laws and forced not have it come automatically with the PC. Now you have to spend $150 to get it.


  • #420
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    I think the biggest problem I have with right wing thinking is the double standard often displayed.

    I have no problem with people living or being born into poverty as long as they have the opportunity to work hard and come out of their poverty. That to me is the spirit of capitalism and that's no bad thing IMO. The "right wing" thinkers often talk about how everyone should work hard and no one should have a free ride and they're absolutely right there. I really respect people who work hard to make something of themselves. I don't think there will ever be an equal society and maybe that's how it should be. Some people naturally work harder than other and that should be rewarded.

    The the thing is you'll often find right wingers defending or denying the fact there are things in place that ensure that the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor.

    For instance for all the talk "right wing" people have about working for everything and not getting anything for nothing they often defend private paradoxically schools. Unless you won a scholarship you didn't earn the right to be privately educated. This is one way the relatively well off (I didn't say rich) keep their kids better off relative to those born into poorer families. The same people who defend this practice will also criticize those who are poor for not having worked hard enough. The same people will say that anyone can do it irregardless of school while maintaining that we need private schools. Why would we need private schools if anyone can do it is beyond me.

    I'm not having a go at those who went to private schools by the way as some of my best friends did. I'm having a go at the system that allows it and those who defend it while criticizing others for getting free rides in life.


  • Advertisement
  • #421
    Sleevoo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 54 ✭✭Sleevoo


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    I think the biggest problem I have with right wing thinking is the double standard often displayed.

    I have no problem with people living or being born into poverty as long as they have the opportunity to work hard and come out of their poverty. That to me is the spirit of capitalism and that's no bad thing IMO. The "right wing" thinkers often talk about how everyone should work hard and no one should have a free ride and they're absolutely right there. I really respect people who work hard to make something of themselves. I don't think there will ever be an equal society and maybe that's how it should be. Some people naturally work harder than other and that should be rewarded.

    The the thing is you'll often find right wingers defending or denying the fact there are things in place that ensure that the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor.

    For instance for all the talk "right wing" people have about working for everything and not getting anything for nothing they often defend private paradoxically schools. Unless you won a scholarship you didn't earn the right to be privately educated. This is one way the relatively well off (I didn't say rich) keep their kids better off relative to those born into poorer families. The same people who defend this practice will also criticize those who are poor for not having worked hard enough. The same people will say that anyone can do it irregardless of school while maintaining that we need private schools. Why would we need private schools if anyone can do it is beyond me.

    I'm not having a go at those who went to private schools by the way as some of my best friends did. I'm having a go at the system that allows it and those who defend it while criticizing others for getting free rides in life.

    No one is entitled to private schooling so you shouldn't be complaining if no one pays for private schooling for you. If you want to learn badly enough public schooling is good enough.


Advertisement