RE: Bill Gate's Solution to Income Inequality
November 12, 2014 at 4:02 pm
(This post was last modified: November 12, 2014 at 4:06 pm by Brian37.)
(November 11, 2014 at 7:44 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:(November 11, 2014 at 4:51 pm)Heywood Wrote: It is just as valid to say that the Walton's are subsidizing the government.....who then subsidize the poor. The taxes paid by the Walton's go toward the benefit the workers they employ. Some think the Walton's are getting a break at the expense of the tax payer....but they forget that the Walton's are also tax payers.
Its not that I am unsympathetic to the plight of the poor. I have come to the realization that no matter what we do, there will always be people who can't or are simply unwilling to support themselves to a standard we deem reasonable for a human being. We can and should help these people and helping these people requires a transfer of wealth from the richer of society to the poorer of society. The one advantage of doing that transfer via a government programs is that it doesn't monkey with the labor markets like a minimum wage does. In my opinion a rag bag of government programs is better than a minimum wage....but what is even better than a rag bag of government programs....is a universal basic income.
This system is a sickness. We shouldn't be thanking the Walton's for the crumbs from their table. We shouldn't be allowing the obscenity of them having enough money to end world poverty. We should be limiting their earning potential to human levels. Ending their control of the media and politicians to further fatten their wallets. This is just obscene. What we're witnessing with some of the super rich gesturing at giving back the tiniest fraction of their wealth is them getting very worried that 7 billion people might want their fair share back.
I love your intent for the most part, much more so than our "screw the poor" friend Haywood. It isn't so much that we should limit pay as much as it is that the ratio should be closer that what Haywood has argued. Our pay gap hurts us, and I still would want workers worldwide to improve in pay and say regardless of boarders. The floor has to keep up with the top. Outside that I do agree that the climate of global corporatism is obscene. Haywood would have us believe that wealth never does anything wrong and we dont have a say because we are not rich.
The part he does not get is that all aspects of life are run by humans, be it political party, religion OR private sector, and all of those things require income to keep and maintain power, and as such ALL of those things are subject to abuse and monopolies. He stupidly thinks that right now because he sides with one POV that everyone outside that POV agrees with him, and we don't.
You'd make a great atheist FYI, any ABBA fan would make a great atheist.
Our global market does not lift up more people, it is a competition for cheap labor and a race to the bottom. We need a better climate where the gap is not as big where differences still exist and where wealth is more concerned about standard of living rather than a chase for the buck. Our casino global market is not investment, it is a casino.
