Forums:

Society & Lifestyles

Should the rich help to look after the poor ?

Subscription

Search Topic

Author

Message

Pages: 1 2 3 ...5 6 7 · >>

papaumau

, United Kingdom

Oct 08, 2005 @ 14:50:22

There are two major standpoints here:

One is that if I have earned it it is mine, I should get to keep it all and the poor should just work harder and try to get where I am.

The other is that the rich have a moral imperative to give some of their wealth to help people who are worse off than they are.

Without getting too bogged down in the Communistic as opposed to Capitalistic standpoints here do you think that maybe the wealth of the world SHOULD or SHOULD NOT be spread around a bit better.

A popular quote that is going around just now is that seventy percent of the world's wealth is in the hands of five percent of its population and the remaining thirty percent of this wealth has to be shared around the ninety-five percent at the bottom.

Is this right, and should it continue ?

vladimirm

Darlington, United Kingdom

Oct 08, 2005 @ 14:54:07

The rich should be kille dor have all of their property removed from them and given to the people

jonnythan

Bringer of rad mirth

Deleted

Here and there,

Oct 08, 2005 @ 14:54:56

Of course it's not right, but I don't expect it to change.

There are a ton of good books out there showing how, basically, wealth begets wealth and poverty begets poverty.

This trend is one of the major reasons that socialism was created.

In America, the richer segment of society keeps getting farther and farther away from the poorer segments. This is obviously bad and IMO something ultimately needs to be done. One of the most destructive influences in human society is the concept of private property to begin with (the other is religion, but that's another argument).

(hey bstumbo, does that sound like something Bush would say? :lol

jonnythan

Bringer of rad mirth

Deleted

Here and there,

Oct 08, 2005 @ 14:55:20

@vladimirm Said
The rich should be kille dor have all of their property removed from them and given to the people

Actually, screw what I just said.

This dude knows what's going on.

crumpets

Newcastle, Australia

Oct 08, 2005 @ 14:55:37

on the one hand i think that the worlds wealth should be spread a lot more evenly but on the other i would be cautious of equating poverty with spirituality and wealth with selfishness. I don't think there's anything wrong with being wealthy and i think that some people have a poverty consciousness.
i think what i'm trying to say is that we create our own realities, thos i don't think that philosophy would be much help to a starving women in sudan. I think want she needs more than anything would be compassion and financial aid.so maybe that philosophy's a load of crap... what do you think? is it the poor person's fault for being poor? do we create our own reality's?

jonnythan

Bringer of rad mirth

Deleted

Here and there,

Oct 08, 2005 @ 15:00:08

Quote:
Without getting too bogged down in the Communistic as opposed to Capitalistic standpoints here do you think that maybe the wealth of the world SHOULD or SHOULD NOT be spread around a bit better.

This is a false dilemma... ideally, IMO, there would be no "wealth" to spread around.

However, in our current situation, I believe it should be spread around more.

vladimirm

Darlington, United Kingdom

Oct 08, 2005 @ 15:01:23

The poor can never become rich. those in poverty will remain in poverty. Occasionally you will get the odd change in power and wealth but that is all.
The ruch have all the power, and htey use that power ot keep those below them below them.
And dont give me any of this democracy crap, it isnt a real democracy, we just vote for whichever bloke has th ebigest budget to spend on advertising and then our beloved leaders make all the descions with out us, that is not a democracy

catatonic_chey

utica, Indiana

Oct 08, 2005 @ 15:11:12

If there weren't people 'below' the wealthy then there'd be no one to work at a gas station, or put roofs over heads. So until we design robots to do all the crap jobs, and everything is free it would be hard to have an equal society.
But back to the general question. I think people should do what they want with their money. Ideas of money being earned and that being personal property isn't really going to change. It is nice when people want to help others, and people should want to, but it's a choice.

jonnythan

Bringer of rad mirth

Deleted

Here and there,

Oct 08, 2005 @ 15:13:29

@catatonic_chey Said
If there weren't people 'below' the wealthy then there'd be no one to work at a gas station, or put roofs over heads. So until we design robots to do all the crap jobs, and everything is free it would be hard to have an equal society.

I love your posts chey

papaumau

, United Kingdom

#10

Oct 08, 2005 @ 15:14:01

I am sure that in our modern society it is taxation that is supposed to even out the bumps and it is the redistribution of this tax that is supposed to narrow the gap between the richest and the poorest. The trouble seems to be that the people who set and collect the taxes don't seems to know what needs to be done so that this ever-widening gap IS narrowed.

At the moment the top level of tax in Britain is 40% and even this can often be laid against clever handling of comings and goings so that some of the top earners finish up legally paying very little or no tax at all and the people in the middle and at the bottom who work still have to pay their PAYE rates even although their wages are in fact very poor against the cost of living.

This technique is called "tax-avoidance" and unlike "tax-evasion" is not illegal and it allows for the rich to keep their riches and it forces the ones at the middle and bottom to pay for the upkeep of the rest of the country.

Mybe it is time for these loopholes to be closed and for the rich to be taxed at fifty or sixty percent as even if they are taxed so heavily they will STILL be rich and maybe, just maybe, the poor will be a little less poor afterwards and then only fifty percent of the wealth of the world will be in the hands of five percent of the population instead of seventy percent .

vladimirm

Darlington, United Kingdom

#11

Oct 08, 2005 @ 15:15:22

that is based on the attitude that somebody performing surgery in a hospital is more important than the person who cleans the blood up

catatonic_chey

utica, Indiana

#12

Oct 08, 2005 @ 15:16:42

@papaumau Said
I am sure that in our modern society it is taxation that is supposed to even out the bumps and it is the redistribution of this tax that is supposed to narrow the gap between the richest and the poorest. The trouble seems to be that the people who set and collect the taxes don't seems to know what needs to be done so that this ever-widening gap IS narrowed.

At the moment the top level of tax in Britain is 40% and even this can often be laid against clever handling of comings and goings so that some of the top earners finish up legally paying very little or no tax at all and the people in the middle and at the bottom who work still have to pay their PAYE rates even although their wages are in fact very poor against the cost of living.

This technique is called "tax-avoidance" and unlike "tax-evasion" is not illegal and it allows for the rich to keep their riches and it forces the ones at the middle and bottom to pay for the upkeep of the rest of the country.

Mybe it is time for these loopholes to be closed and for the rich to be taxed at fifty or sixty percent as even if they are taxed so heavily they will STILL be rich and maybe, just maybe, the poor will be a little less poor afterwards and then only fifty percent of the wealth of the world will be in the hands of five percent of the population instead of seventy percent .

Now that sounds like a plan.

catatonic_chey

utica, Indiana

#13

Oct 08, 2005 @ 15:18:57

@vladimirm Said
that is based on the attitude that somebody performing surgery in a hospital is more important than the person who cleans the blood up

No it's not. It's based on the attitude that performing surgery requires more skill than cleaning up blood. Not that cleaning up blood doesn't require skill. That stuff stains.

jonnythan

Bringer of rad mirth

Deleted

Here and there,

#14

Oct 08, 2005 @ 15:19:16

Taxing the rich more isn't the answer.. the richest 20% of the population (in the US at least, where the rich/poor gap is quite a bit larger than the UK) pay around 85% of the taxes.

been_3369

Deleted

#15

Oct 08, 2005 @ 15:20:44

i disagree i think. i think the rich need to be taxed more. they have more money, and actually pay the same in taxes as those of us who dont have any. i dont think its their responsibility to take care of us, but i think that the poor need help too. i dont know, im very torn on this one

<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>

Pages: 1 2 3 ...5 6 7 · >>

1 browsing (0 members - 1 guest)

Similar Topics
	Forum	Topic	Last Post	Replies	Views
	US Election 2012	Hey, Mitt, why start with the 47 percent?	Fri Sep 21, 2012 @ 13:35	14	819
	Random	Wealth destroyers v's Wealth Creators	Sun Dec 11, 2011 @ 16:27	4	572
	Relationships	10 Time-Tested, 100 Percent True Dating Theories	Mon Nov 22, 2010 @ 02:35	39	3958
	Politics	Hispanic worker deaths up 76 percent since 1992	Sun Jul 26, 2009 @ 03:13	27	2546
	Politics	149 percent rise in bad loans	Wed Mar 18, 2009 @ 13:06	5	708