MovieChat Forums > The One Percent (2006) Discussion > What is the problem and why is it a prob...

What is the problem and why is it a problem?

posted 15 years ago by calbruin2
38 replies | jump to latest

(If any one can direct me to another more appropriate web site to have a full discussion on the topic of this film with mixed-minded people, then please post a reply with the web site address.)

After watching the documentary, I am under the impression that Jamie Johnson thinks the apparent gap between the very wealthy "1%" and the poor is growing too large.

Why is this a problem?
Fact of Life, nature, and humanity is inequality. A false premise has been introduced that all people are created equal and that all people can be equal. I shall save the detailed argument for those interested, but suffice I posit, there is a fundamental difference between a surgical physician and a lettuce-picker which is ignored under the guise of "progressive reforms" and wanting to establish equality in society.

Preemptive rebuttal:
If every one was rich, then who will pick-up the garbage? In other words, in order for any society to function well, there must be a division of labor and some people are going to be smart enough and work hard enough to earn top dollar with their skills verses those who do/did not (by choice or by circumstances) who must clean the toilets after the 1% used the leu.

Just one final comment. Jamie Johnson fails to make the distinction between those who inherited wealth and those who were born poor but achieved the becoming a member of the 1% club. One of the hallmarks that makes America America is the possibility for some one to raise out of poverty to a status of wealth. Afterall, that is how many of today's 1% first achieved their wealth (leaving aside the legal vs illegal means e.g. Johnson & Johnson moonshine days).
A prime example is Oprah Winfrey, a black woman is currently 2nd wealthiest person in the US and 3rd or 4th in the world.

[–] tcuhornedfrog 15 years ago

just a few things to consider:

One: you mention that society hinges on toilet cleaners doing their job and heart surgeons doing their job. The heart surgeon can not be bothered to clean his toilet because he is too busy doing other things yet the cleaning of toilets is a good that is vital to the society as a whole so by your own logic you have elevated the toilet cleaner to a high status in society.

that being said it is also true that if we payed toilet cleaners the same as heart surgeons we would have less heart surgeons because they do not go through the years of hard work studying and interning and all the rest to make the same salary as a toilet cleaner who doesn't have to put in the hard work to learn their trade. So we are really paying heart surgeons to put in the time and effort to better themselves for our own good. And they do not put in the time and work for our good they put in the time and work for the pay.

Two: The problem isn't that there is a gap the problem is that the poor have a harder and harder time reaching the one percent club. the gap isn't the problem the problem is overcoming the gap.

[–] calbruin2 14 years ago

Albeit I mention the "division of labour" concept, do not apply Marxist misinterpretation. I never claimed nor can it be implied or concluded that being a heart surgeon is equal to be a toilet cleaner. They do not clean their own toilet by choice; the toilet cleaner cleans because that is all they are (best) able to do, or allow, to do.
Wealth offers choice, which education supposedly is designed to offer.

Two: The problem isn't that there is a gap; the problem is that the poor have a harder and harder time reaching the one percent club. The gap isn't the problem the problem is overcoming the gap.

A restatement of the premise, I cited: "the apparent gap between the very wealthy "1%" and the poor is growing too large".

That to me is not much of a problem, because those that manage to achieve success by advancing above the socioeconomic status to which they were born will manage regardless of the size of the gap.
The gap exist is a part of reality. How large a gap is irrelevant to those who aim to achieve and especially to those that do.

(I do need to re-read my emails more.)

[–] snoop1123 13 years ago

"That to me is not much of a problem, because those that manage to achieve success by advancing above the socioeconomic status to which they were born will manage regardless of the size of the gap.
The gap exist is a part of reality. How large a gap is irrelevant to those who aim to achieve and especially to those that do."

This is just idiotic. Those people who are trying to "achieve success by advancing above the socioeconomic status to which they were born" should not have to try harder as time goes by all the while it gets easier for younger '1%' generations to become more and more wealthy.

You're living in a fantasy world that you can put up a good argument about, but here in reality it's borderline implausible. Do you honestly believe that out of 290 million people only a handful, a few 'Oprahs', put forth an effort to get into that top 1%?

If you've heard of it, it's already too mainstream for me. -Commander Shepard

[–] calbruin2 13 years ago

Not everyone deserves or needs to be in the top 1%.
"A few Oprahs" is exact extent of the raising 1%.
If everyone were in the top 1%, then there is no meaning in 'the top 1%'.

The value everyone places on the top is in the rarity not how common.

[–] smoko 14 years ago

Why is this a problem?
Fact of Life, nature, and humanity is inequality. A false premise has been introduced that all people are created equal and that all people can be equal. I shall save the detailed argument for those interested, but suffice I posit, there is a fundamental difference between a surgical physician and a lettuce-picker which is ignored under the guise of "progressive reforms" and wanting to establish equality in society.

I think this might be a bigger problem in America, which still sees itself as a meritocracy. They still think that if someone's rich, it's because they're talented and worked very hard. In England, where there is an aristocracy, it's easier to see that there are plenty of rich people in the world who did nothing to deserve their wealth other than choosing the right parents.

[–] wildhippychik 14 years ago

Not only that - in a democracy the few will take away from the wealthy - which is why they have to constantly fool and propagandize the majority of the population and buy elections etc. Plato and Madison both recognized this problem - Plato thought that you deal with it by having more equality by way of social policy and Madison thought you had to give the wealth of the nation voting rights and scum like blacks, women etc. should not vote. The more democracy you have the more there will be reforms to spread the wealth, especially since a lot of it is created by community effort. Milton Friedman was so wrong - it's public policy programs out of the Pentagon etc. that give us modern electronics, computers, the internet, non of that came out of private R&D, nor could it. It's only later that the technology is transfered to people who already have money to exploit. For the first 30 years almost all computer R&D was tax payer funded - but do all the profits that resulted from that go back to the tax payer? No. The whole system is a big scam - socialism for the rich even, nothing like free markets exists - just look at the last bail-out - those banks should have all been destroyed if they believed in Free markets. It's just free markets for everyone else.

[–] AtheistRevolution 14 years ago

I think the main problem is supply side economics also known as trickle down economic. It created this massive income inequality.And with this recession and bailouts,lower estate tax and Bush tax cuts. US is close to having third world income inequality. Is this just a cycle that will be corrected? Or is it what Marx and other people said would ultimately be the end result of capitalism?

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.

[–] calbruin2 14 years ago

I read rhetorical comments based upon a false premise and conflating facts.

I recommend parsing your thinking and argument to pinpoint a non-rhetorical thesis and avoid the political polemical platitudes.

[–] AtheistRevolution 14 years ago

There are plenty of problems. Usually there is a revolution when the wealth gap becomes too insane. There will always be poor people. The main problem is the government helping push them up further.

I think the only reason that stops Americans from running up to gated communities and chopping off heads.Is the illusion that they can eventually be one of the wealthy.You won't see the explosion of rich people like the baby boomers had because the government tilted towards propping up the wealthy. People seem to forget how many government programs helped the baby boomers.

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.

[–] calbruin2 14 years ago

<i>There will always be poor people. The main problem is the government helping push them up further.</i>

Uhm . . . how is this a problem exactly and for whom?

According to Reagan, "[the United States] government is the problem".
According to JF Kennedy, people should not think how the government can help them but instead how they can help the government.

Sounds rather Jeffersonian to me.

[–] AtheistRevolution 14 years ago

Let me correct that. I meant the government pushing up wealthy people.I'm a real capitalist not one of those people that claim capitalism until their company fails.

They want capitalist profits but government backed profit loss and risk.If my company failed tomorrow then I would just be screwed. Now how many of these automakers,investment banks,etc would fail? We can't have that kind of economy.

Americans should be running on Washington,investment banks,etc after that massive bailout.And not only did these *beep* walk away with millions after destroying these companies. They actually had the nerve to bitch about being taxed and questioned on paying themselves massive bonuses.

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.

[–] calbruin2 14 years ago

Careful here.
All banks were required to accept TARP/bailout money least the government did not want the rumour of particular banks were failing. To conceal which banks were actually failing, all banks both in good standing and those failing were required to accept government bailout. The purpose is to avoid having a run on the failing banks like what happened leading to the Great Depression.

The good banks payback the money. The failing banks, as par routine, were subsumed under the good standing banks.

With regards to CEO pay an bonuses, that is something the company board of directors choose to award such CEOs. Odd as this may seem, even if a company looses a lot of money, if the elected (by the governing board of directors of the company) CEO achieves the objective, of why they were hired in the first place e.g. increase overall profit, being charge of scaling back production, firing and re-organizing as in shifting to overseas, or shutting down the company.
The bonuses are a bribery, in one sense, in hiring these CEOs who are best suited to achieve the desired objective including crashing or shutting down a company.

[–] AtheistRevolution 14 years ago

Of course i didn't leave the government out when it comes to blame. They pretty much shutdown,secured deposits and sold the small banks. But they didn't do anything for the larger banks. When they should have at least broken the banks down after the bailout. Yea, i know the board decided on this pay but the arrogance was just ridiculous. And the bs excuses that if they didn't pay these failures at the bank millions. They would quit and go work for someone else. Like who? The other failed banks?Of course if the government didn't repeal almost everything put into place after the great depression. We wouldn't even be in this mess. I guess we can thank Reagan for starting the nail in the coffin. And Clinton and Bush for driving the rest of the nail into the coffin.

Do you remember who the senator was in 1999 that said if we repeal the Glass–Steagall Act? We would regret it 10 years down the road. I think he was the only senator that read a history book.

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.

[–] Avocadess-641-957327 14 years ago

I think it is clearly unfair for so much of the wealth to go to so few of the people and then for those people to "rule the world." But that is what has been happening.

And the fact is, I wouldn't even care about money at all that much -- or even care who had a whole lot of it or how few have a whole lot of it -- if it were not for the fact they keep taxing ME to pay the RICH more. Just leave me alone. Live in your gold lined ivory towers if you want to. You can eat the money for all I care. Just leave me alone -- and don't expect me to clean up YOUR messes and YOUR garbage.

Just because you were born with wealth does not make you better than anyone else.

[–] Jerry-137 14 years ago

Even under Communist governments there is still the 1 percenters. As someone said, "That's life". No matter the form of government or societies there will always be folks who are better off than others and a few who are much better off. some by chance, some by smartness, and some by cruelty.

When Jefferson stated, "all men are created equal" he didn't mean guaranteed equality for life with no effort, he meant to begin as an equal—to have an equal opportunity under the law. To fix the contest so everyone finishes equal is to deny human nature. To deny nature is to insure our doom.

*******************************************
My favorite: "Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb"

[–] salimy3k 14 years ago

"After watching the documentary, I am under the impression that Jamie Johnson thinks the apparent gap between the very wealthy "1%" and the poor is growing too large.

Why is this a problem?"

In a proper functioning capitalist society, there should NOT be such a huge income disparity - competition from rival companies (the lifeblood of capitalism as it fosters creativity, keeps pricing competitive, creates incentives for companies to keep both customers satisfied and their workers happy and breeds innovation) should take care of that - and any imbalance would be taken care of by government taxation.

The problem is that the rich in the US DON'T pay equitable taxes and there is practically NO competition - five or six corporations own most of the big businesses in the US. This is HUGE problem, especially in the long term as such huge corporations grow fat and lazy due to the lack of competition (remember how great all the innovations Microsoft comes out with? Without Apple to give Bill Gates sleepless nights, they'd only come out with HALF the goodies at double the price - and with double the glitches. Oh, and you'd have to pay for all those upgrades you get for free now. You'd probably still have to PAY a monthly rental to maintain an e-mail account that you get for free now.

Why should rich people pay taxes?

Look at your roads, schools and transport - all these things cost MONEY. They're NOT free. I'm not even factoring stuff that you take for granted or ignore daily - the street lights that don't conk out at night, the policeman who stands by at those dark corners or the train that comes on time which enables you to get to not miss that important meeting. If the rich don't pay their share (this goes double if it's a capitalist society) all these things suffer and standards of living drop. In short, you stop being a first-world country.

Why is the wealth gap disturbing?

First off, it's the wealthy 1% - yes, that's right, ONE PERCENT - that's BAD. It means that there's too little wealth creation. It should be the wealthy 6 to 10% for a healthy analysis. That means that the market is stagnant. The wealthy, especially when they've grown into bloated dinosaurs try to prolong their gravy train by stifling competition - the best way to do this is to dumb down education. Less smart people means less competition. Or make it too expensive for the common man. So ONLY the rich can apply. You then stop being a meritocracy and descend towards a Sound familiar?

The problem with this scenario is that a cheaper and more efficient competition (and there's ALWAYS going to be competition) is more likely to usurp the dinosaur's market. The more bloated and older the corporation, the less likely it is to identify and adapt to the rival - it's too busy chugging along at it's own pace to realize that it's obsolete. Which is scant relief for all the people who will lose their jobs come the crash - those smaller rivals are less likely to absorb so many new workers!

There's nothing inherently wrong about inequality (especially in a competitive market - capitalist or not) - it's the fact that the rich are getting a free pass and that the inequality is based on unfair or artificial (non-market chain demand and supply based) fundamentals that the problem arises.

[–] calbruin2 14 years ago

In a proper functioning capitalist society, there should NOT be such a huge income disparity...

An opinion with which I disagree.
Note #1: 'should' implies some premise not explicitly stated but I assume you have some idealized notion of what and how a capitalist society should function, I quote: 'a proper functioning capitalist society'.
Note #2: A capitalism is an economic system which by definition means private ownership (over the means of production and distribution) and does not address nor concern itself with other concepts as equality or taxation. In other words, capitalism is a system not a bases for forming a society.

The problem is that the rich in the US DON'T pay equitable taxes...

1. What do you mean by "equitable"?
2. Why is 'equitability' a concern? To be specific, answer: why equality? Nothing requires equality and we all know Life is not equitable.
Disclaimer: I am against equality, whatever that means; I do not agree on the current forms of inequality. (I share this disclaimer by way of advertising my blog where I address the concept of equality that I am willing to share to anyone interested.)
Again, the root question is why strive for equality?

Why should rich people pay taxes?
Look at your roads, schools and transport - all these things cost MONEY. They're NOT free...

You did not make an argument as to why "the rich" should pay taxes. You recite partial facts that address how everyone may be effected positively or negatively by the assumed proper application of government taxation.

Why is the wealth gap disturbing?
First off, it's the wealthy 1% - yes, that's right, ONE PERCENT - that's BAD.

Given a fine enough gradation, there is always a top 1%, whether the top 1% NFL teams, top 1% grossing summer blockbuster movies, or the top 1% of the socio-economic class.
That is just numbers. That is neither good nor bad.
(Fact: To date, one of the top 1% wealthiest person in the world -- in the world, mind you, is Oprah, a Black woman.)

It means that there's too little wealth creation.

Invalid implicature.

It should be the wealthy 6 to 10% for a healthy analysis.

According to whom? By what 'analysis'? Why are they supposedly correct? Based upon what premises and theories?

the best way to do this is to dumb down education. Less smart people means less competition.

Actually, the modern Liberals (at least in the US) and Democratic politicians (in the US) are the biggest contributors to the downgrading of American education.
A bold claim which proof for argument is beyond the scope and space alloted on this message board. Suffice I offer the following citations of sources: read Dinesh D'Sousa, Harold Bloom, or Shelby Steele (and for good measure, Charles Murrary and Lyndon LaRouge), their books and essays on public education in the last few generations.

[the wealthy] make it too expensive for the common man. So ONLY the rich can apply.

I assume you are referring to college and university admission and not K-12 education?
If not, then you do include K-12 education. It is impossible to prove the counterfactual i.e. prove that there [u]does not[/u]exist a Wealthy Elite Conspiracy, but I can cite how many Liberal minded Democrats, including the great Black Hope, the current US president Obama have repeatedly struck down, terminated, and most do opposed voucher programs that effects children in the K-12 system; programs whereby poor children may use money to attend the same schools where the wealthy elite send their children.
As for the collegiate level, in recent generations there has been an overwhelming increase in college/university admissions including among the socio-economic minorities. The shear numbers of the economic minorities has placed a huge strain on the federal financial aid system to the breaking point. In other words, there are currently so many poor people attending college that there is not sufficient federal tax dollars to supply financial aid to everyone in need.
The Gates Foundation, as in Bill Gates of Microsoft, are attempting to re-address the financial inequity in public education. A rich person helping the poor, a prime counterexample that rebuts your claim.

<i>...it's the fact that the rich are getting a free pass...[/I]

Opinion not fact.

... inequality is based on unfair or artificial (non-market chain demand and supply based) fundamentals that the problem arises.

There are numerous problems independent of economic or market forces that have produced inequity and inequality throughout the world. For example geography: there are some people who were born or moved to where the soil was fertile leading them to establish an agrarian society, affording more leisure time for innovation both practical (plow or cotton gin) and creative (arts & literature) versus others who lived where the soil was inhospitable to farming and there the people remain either nomadic or just as hunters & gatherers never evolving to the point which they may produce machinery or creative arts.
You do not need discussions on market forces, supply & demand, or surplus labour.
Independent of either economics or even race/ethnicity there are factors that affected inequality in any society.
Religion anyone?

[–] wozser666 13 years ago

It is impossible to prove the counterfactual i.e. prove that there [u]does not exist a Wealthy Elite Conspiracy

It's not a conspiracy. It's in plain sight. The wealthy elite are controlling policy to their own benefit. You will probably ask for sources. Well I can give many but as we're on this films board how about the sugar cane prices mentioned in the film being distorted unfairly to triple the normal rate or the american corn industry that again has had it's prices distorted. Look at things like the Bilderberg group or lobbyists.

It's farcical to call it a democracy when you get the choice of two very similar parties both backed by big business. They gave universal suffrage and yet I somehow think Warren Buffet's vote counts for slightly more than your average Joe Bloggs.

You did not make an argument as to why "the rich" should pay taxes.

I'm hijacking the other users thread and responding to this. Whether the rich should pay taxes or not depends on what sort of society you want.

My personal belief is that the best society is one where everyone feels they are being treated fairly. I think the well being and happiness of people as a whole should be what is focused on.

To create a vision for a society you need a clear idea of the overall goal. My goal would be to increase the overall happiness of the people in my society. Another persons goal may be to be the most powerful society at any cost.

So in response to your question of why the rich should pay taxes, I would say it is because it will contribute to the happiness of the vast majority of people at little discomfort to the minority.

I would say that someone who has a few billion dollars could quite happily lead a life of total luxury on a few million dollars. Those extra dollars could pay for better schools, healthcare and create better paid jobs for everyone else.

The issue for me at the moment is the amassing of wealth for no real reason when others could really benefit from it a lot more.
In the end we're only on earth a short time and many people would argue that it's in our nature to have a goal and to progress in life. I assume most people would say if they were asked that they believe that hard work and natural aptitudes should reward you financially and I would agree to a certain extent.

What I disagree with is the level of disparity in what people can do in there lives. I'm not talking about money here. If someone had 5 quadsquillion dollars and another guy had 100 dollars but holidays were paid for, clothes, bills, mortgage, beers, cars and internet and any other of lifes necessities and little pleasures then that would be fine. They would both enjoy the basic same comforts. Maybe the super rich guy could sit on a gold plated toilet seat whilst the other guy would have to sit on plastic but overall they would both have a similar standard of life.

That is not the case. A lot of people now are being exploited and leading miserable lives where they're constantly worried about the bills and working long hours in hard jobs.

So if you want a society that would be in general much happier then you should heavily tax the rich and put that back in to the lower levels of society.

[–] djballz1200 13 years ago

Why is income disparity a problem?

As wealth consolidates towards the top, then the poverty level increases. Increased poverty means increased crime, and crime is bad for the economy as a whole. In sucks resources into combating it as well as decreasing the efficiency and productivity of the workforce. In addition poverty decreases the health quality of the lower end of the work force, also reducing productivity and efficiency.

Obviously there are always going to be poor people, but ideally you want your poorest people to still have enough to eat, basic health care, and adequate housing and reliable transportation. This is not the case in our country, and that is a problem.

What is the solution? I personally don't like the idea of the government simply taking wealthy peoples money and giving it to poor people. It would be much better if those who ran the business could shift their mindset to stop focusing on short term profits and instead focus more on long term growth. Doing so, I believe, would actually help to curb a lot of the practices that help maintain the wealth gap that we currently have.

[–] calbruin2 13 years ago

As wealth consolidates towards the top, then the poverty level increases.

This assumes a binary paradigm which is not necessarily so.

Increased poverty means increased crime, and crime is bad for the economy as a whole.

1. You need to demonstrate how and why the crime should necessarily increase.
2. How and why is crime necessarily bad for "the" economy?

Cannot make claims without subsequent support.

Enough said for now.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] calbruin2 13 years ago

the problem is - are you part of a society, or do you live in a vacuum? . . .

People circulate among their own kind, usually by default their own socio-economic sphere. By example, a poor hick from the Ozarks is not going to be rubbing proverbial elbows with the New England prep school boys at Andover.
What that means in terms of what is argued is people are usually only effected by their insular socio-economic sphere and rarely influenced or concerned with people or events outside their immediate world. Classic general example are American indifference concerning Middle Eastern affairs and most notably the lack of concern about the suffering Africans e.g. Sudan, Chad, or Angola.

I believe we have common concerns, and common responsibilities.

An opinion that is neither correct nor incorrect just a premise with what some may or may not agree.

Every single person who becomes successful in this country . . . by taking at least a bit of the resources of everyone else. That is touched on briefly in the movie

A fallacy based upon a weak generalisation. Even with Johnson's advocacy journalistic presentation with selective facts only at best supports such a flawed interpretation.

If people are suffering, and you can help, wouldn't you?
Kicking in a few more bucks to help us have safe, usable infrastructure, clean food, water and air, and to help defend the country - is there something wrong with that? Making sure that poor kids eat, making sure everyone has access to healthcare, doing your part to help ALL of us be productive members of society - are you against that?

I never made any claims against nor advocated such.

I'm sorry, calbruin2, but your comments strike me as those of someone who is incredibly selfish, and who lacks even the minimal amount of empathy and decency to be a non-sociopath.

Another opinion, like all opinions is neither correct nor incorrect, just is.

At the risk of reading like some Ayn Randian, there is nothing provably (morally, economically, or practically) wrong about being selfish.
A philosophical position wants to preserve individuals' liberty to exercise their freedom to choose to act (in)directly for the benefit of others outside their socio-economic sphere.

Point of fact, all charities are founded and predominantly funded by the wealthy sector. It is impossible for any poor to produce a charitable organization while they are poor.
Of course, freedom, liberty is a charitable gift and institution that can be given always by both rich and poor, i.e. Tubman.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] fireyhope 13 years ago

If you say so bro. it's okay you can go hide with your 1 billions of dollars.

A choice for charity's? yeah only some of them do. Charity efforts only can help so much.

Redistribution wealth is the way to go and in fact partially Socialist society's do in fact work.

[–] calbruin2 13 years ago

A choice for charity's? yeah only some of them do. Charity efforts only can help so much.

[–] drew1116 13 years ago

Cal, interesting post. My guess is you are British and now live here in the States. I doubt you are American by birth. Not an insult, just a guess. You have that educated British "attitude".

At what point is it too much? How about if the top 1% were responsible for 90% of the wealth? Is that too much?

Everyone has their opinion on what they think our society should look like. I can make an argument that it is prefectly fine that the top 1% control 99% of the wealth. I don't agree with it and feel that our society would be much healthier if income distribution would be more in line with our own past, specifally the late 60's. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient

I highly doubt anyone on this board is going to convince you that there is a problem with the current situation. How could they? Most of the responses are based on perception and opinion. There simply isn't a handbook on American capitalism specifying wealth levels and income distribution.

BTW, the quote is "Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country." By substituting government for country, the meaning is distorted somewhat.

[–] calbruin2 13 years ago

'drew1116', a satisfactory argument may be easily made. Consider:
The gap between the top 1% and the poor is a problem because fewer and fewer, if any at all, can make the transition from poor to rich.
This is bad because (a) it is unfair and (b) once realized that escape from poverty is not possible then a disponded populace is an unproductive populace which will adversely effect the country as a whole and perhaps consequently the top 1% as well.

That's an argument without appealing to remote statistics, outrageous claims, or polemical rhetoric.

Now turning the proverbial tables, what are the flaws in this argument?

By the way, my paraphrase of JFK was deliberate. The ways in which country and government differ are not sufficiently relevant to distinguish between 'the country helping' v. 'the government helping'. In other words, the money, say, for Food Stamps for example, come from the government which is the country because the government is composed, supposedly, by the people who are the constituents of the country: money for Food Stamps comes from the people who make up the country going to the government which is of and by the people.
In no way am I claiming government = country, only paraphrasing Kennedy's famous line to stress the functioning agency that performs the helping.

Now I imagine some may be confused by the wording. Let me attempt explanation. I wish I could post a Venn diagram but be as that may.
A film by James Cameron does not mean that he only produced the film. Cameron is the identifying tag used to describe that film produced by him AND a whole bunch of other people. Cameron as the film's director is the leading figure that makes the film possible but not solely the film maker himself.

[–] drew1116 13 years ago

The argument you made is basically a compilation of the previous posters' arguments. I dislike speaking for others but finding flaws in it from your point of view would be simple.

Why is it unfair? What is your definition of unfair? No one said our system was fair. Why does is have to be fair? etc.

I do agree with the argument though and find it disturbing that we are going in that direction.

The wages for the middle class simply aren't keeping up with the cost of living. Is this due to companies paying out dividends and exorbitant pay to CEO's and not funneling more as employee wage increases? BTW, if CEO compensation has skyrocketed over the last 40 years, hasn't COO's and CFO's and executive pay as well? Is it the stiff competition not only from domestic companies but foreign?

I like to make a sports comparison to illustrate a point. Some people bemoan the bloated salaries of our top athletes. And I agree that they are way out of line. But.... the market supports those salaries. The money to pay these salaries doesn't come from the ether, it comes from people who are willing to create the market in the first place. We, collectively, have total control of the future of any team or sports organization. Were we to simply not pay, it's over. As you know, we pay and things continue as they were. And this goes for any of the companies who employ the CEO's we deride. We have alternatives in most cases but tow the line far too often.

So ultimately many of the problems we face can be solved collectively. Unfortunately, we seem to be split definitively along party lines so the bickering and infighting continue and we are divided and as a result, WEAK.

[–] fireyhope 13 years ago

Yes. People should for themselves rather than depend (or leech) from others.

Sure, occasionally, some people fall off and fail. The great thing about the USA, there is always another chance.

In the end, I shall hope we respect and honor those who earned their "fortune" through their efforts and not from hand-outs.
That does not negate the benefit of help e.g. mentors, school guidance counselors, but in the end, it is up to the individual to succeed or fail. To blame others or some system is crying the priverbial sour grapes.
______________________________________

Sorry there is always no other chance in America if you don't have money and need health care.

Handouts?

Blaming others? Well the reason they are suppose to get tax breaks is to provide for the economy and providing jobs and so forth, recently they have done none nor have contributed to U.S. society when needed most. The Gaps are getting bigger and the rich are getting richer while the poor are getting poorer. This isn't because they aren't working hard, it is due to all the prices in America raising, and poor economy.

a part socialist society does work.

It isn't handouts especially if it is health care.

[–] calbruin2 13 years ago

fireyhope, you are conflating flawed application with idealistic theory. In other words, you are claiming because of evidence of corruption in capitalism, applying some alternative is better.

Albeit the cronyism capitalism that is in practice now is not pure capitalism, that is not a refutation of capitalist itself.

People are flawed thus any schema that requires people to apply will yield flaw results. Any good is accidental.

[–] calbruin2 13 years ago

drew1116 wrote

wages for the middle class simply aren't keeping up with the cost of living. Is this due to companies paying out dividends and exorbitant pay to CEO's and not funneling more as ...

You are diverging.

Your line

Why is it unfair? What is your definition of unfair? No one said our system was fair. Why does is have to be fair?

addresses the issue at point.

I have given an example of argument that addresses and answers my question.

You, drew1116, had started off citing the flaws.

Anyone may continue to identify the flaws in the argument and create a defense against these flaws, then they are working toward answering my question.

Mind you, I am asked a question. Thus I am seeking an answer not some iron-clad proof.
For example, "why is the sky blue? People are giving me factual arguments about the sky being blue everywhere else and so, the sky being blue is just so." Factually true, but not an answer. Some reply with arguments issuing obligational modals and dictums giving me political arguments as to why how things should be and cite examples of corruption as proof.
A simple and complete answer is, the sky is blue because light from the sun interacts with earth's atmosphere and the reflected light we see as a blue sky is the result of that interaction. That answer is detailed enough but without going into the scientific details of wavelengths or quantum energy absorption, etc.. An answer simple enough a child can understand.
Some attempt to show off their knowledge or have a throw-everything-in-the-bag approach to answering.
No one needs all that.

Simply answer the question.

I gave an example. Some may attempt to patchwork fix the flaws in the argument or construct a new argument.

Do I want an argument with proof or an answer?
By 'argument', I mean an explanation as to why the answer to my question is so. Follow the blue sky example or the model I gave.
Avoid facts because facts are contingent not provably true. For example, 2+2=4 is provably true (borrowing Russell's and Whitehead's aborted attempts at such) versus the number of planets in our solar system is greater than three is mere fact. Although a fact about the number of planets in our solar system, but not necessarily true. Meaning it is not necessary that the number of planets in our solar system is greater than three, that fact is contingent.
A good answer is simple, clear, and does not depend upon either statistics or contingency.

Despite the quantification e.g. 1%, we are not dealing with the concrete but with the abstract, ideas.

[–] bjt141 13 years ago

Well I can't take reading any more of these terrible comments with big fancy words in them so here you go.

One reason why it is a problem is because if you continue to have all of the wealth concentrated in the top one percent, you will continue to see decreases in certain programs such as social security. You only pay taxes on social security up until a certain income level. After you reach that threshold you no longer pay into it. So for instance, if you have someone that makes 300,000 and has 10 people working under there at 50,000 a piece. He chooses to get rid of 5 of those people who get paid 50,000 to increase his own personal profits. All 5 of those people would have paid a certain percentage into social security, the person who will now make 550,000 will not pay any more taxes on social security. Now I know there are other taxes and stuff to take into account but this is just a basic example.

I am sick of the term redistribution of wealth. Taxes do not cause redistribution of wealth. It causes people to not be greedy aholes. In the 50's the tax rate was high for the elite. I personally believe that this was done so that if you were that greedy, then you were going to pay, otherwise be a human and give people jobs/take less pay. By raising taxes on the one percent you are basically saying, start giving people jobs and putting the money back into the business or we're going to take it. I have no problem with that because unlike most people, I don't believe the richest one percent "worked hard" to get what they have. Some yes, but most no.

Like some others mentioned before, it is not about the money, it is about quality of life. This argument would not be happening if there weren't people in poverty everywhere. We are the richest country in the world with poor people everywhere. It makes absolutely no sense. Everyone should have some basic level of happiness in life. Food, water, shelter being the most important components. The problem is a lot of people don't have this, a lot of people fight for these things every single day and go without while others plan on how many boats they want or where they are going to "summer" this year. If you don't see the problem with that, then you are the problem.

Honestly, and I have no problem saying this, if you do not see the problem with the gap in income in this country they you are a animalistic human being. You are the definition of greed and I have no hope for you as a person. If you really want to prove that everyone is wrong and that the inequality in income is fine. They give up everything you have, give up your clothes, home, food, money, empty your bank account, cut off all connections and networks, move to a place where nobody knows you, and begin from scratch. Let's see how you do. I'm guessing if you did this, in five years you would still be in the same place, homeless looking for work or working at minimum wage....prove me wrong.