What do each of US feel about Wealth Inequality.

[Rock Hopper Steve]

It’s up to us to help the following generations to come through. We need to take a leaf out of how Asians do it. Multiple generations in the same home working together to cut costs and set the young ones up. Strategies need to adapt.
Property worldwide has gone through the roof since Covid. That isn’t a coincidence. It’s all about control.

Think that's already started in Australia with parents helping their children with house purchases.

As for property prices and soaring financial markets reaching record highs all the signs are we're headed for a bubble, a big correction could be imminent.

When the oracle of Omaha starts selling his shares for the safe haven of cash beware, Buffett has a sixth sense for this stuff.

 

[Tucker]

If anyone is really interested in the topic of inequality, I suggest reading the work of a modern day Australian philosopher who will go down in history as a thought provocateur.

PETER SINGER

www.petersinger.info

That guy has his head firmly up his backside.
Animal lives over human,- especially the disabled and even middle class people should give away a significant portion of their income to charity…..
Wonder how much he gives away considering his success?

 

[BZN]

It has always been favourable to the rich and powerful. They run things. The political parties do what they are told.
All this protest nonsense you spoke about means nothing at all.

All what protest nonsense is that?

 

[BZN]

That guy has his head firmly up his backside.
Animal lives over human,- especially the disabled and even middle class people should give away a significant portion of their income to charity…..
Wonder how much he gives away considering his success?

Singer has said in interviews he donates 20-30% of his income to effective charities aligning with the principles he promotes.

 

[Tucker]

Singer has said in interviews he donates 20-30% of his income to effective charities aligning with the principles he promotes.

Is that what he considers significant?
Has he ever proven it?
“Effective charities” Is a laugh btw….he is telling people who are struggling - the middle class - who are the packhorses already doing far more than their fare share of carrying the load, to give more.
The bloke is a clown.

 

[Tucker]

All what protest nonsense is that?

There was a tax extreme wealth rally on 25th March outside HM Treasury just down the road from Big Ben and the Houses of Parliament.
The rally included groups like War on Want, Greenpeace and Oxfam.

^^^ This nonsense

 

[crazycat]

I’m a bit more concerned about it than an investment bubble and people doing their money … anyone working in an office building in the city like I used too won’t have a job … maybe sooner than 10:years!

Be a little less worried, but not by much.

Ok what AI is and best at is a work enhancer. You could use it to pick your footy tips for example, but you really want a human to vet the results.

We will loose jobs to this. It's going to be 10/20% not 60-70%... But were loosing a lot of jobs already on top of this.

 

[crazycat]

Is that what he considers significant?
Has he ever proven it?
“Effective charities” Is a laugh btw….he is telling people who are struggling - the middle class - who are the packhorses already doing far more than their fare share of carrying the load, to give more.
The bloke is a clown.

Most people are clowns. This is not the clownshow you are looking for.
^other ideas from Peter Singer, OH YEA they are pretty clownish/strange.

So first off he does donate a fair bit. Enough for us to go "he does a bit of what he say he does".

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2021/09/29/1039417879/why-peter-singer-the-drowning-child-ethicist-is-giving-away-his-1-million-prize

The Life You Can Save - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The basic premise:

1. First premise: Suffering and death from lack of food, shelter and medical care are bad.
2. Second premise: If it is in your power to prevent something bad from happening, without sacrificing anything nearly as important, it is wrong not to do so.
3. Third premise: By donating to aid agencies, you can prevent suffering and death from lack of food, shelter and medical care, without sacrificing anything nearly as important.
4. Conclusion: Therefore, if you do not donate to aid agencies, you are doing something wrong.

That's pretty logical. Lets work an example:
You have spare change. People like Fred Hollows go to the third world and preform eye saving surgery. For the cost to of $5 a week, you could sponsor Fred's team for ~$20 per month.
aka deblinding 1 person a year if I remember their figures.


You may go "stuff it, I want my coffee". Sure fine. Yet if your Christian*/Muslim/Hindu/Bahai/Buddist/believe most religions you are oblidged to 'not do wrong'. Also if you are "Humanist" or Atheist with a societial moral outlook then you are also oblidged.

You do You! That said the logic is sound.

*some Christian denominations believe it's between you and god only. My view is this was a hard stick the Catholics used to whack Luther with and it's a poor argument not to be charitable.

 

[Tucker]

Most people are clowns. This is not the clownshow you are looking for.
^other ideas from Peter Singer, OH YEA they are pretty clownish/strange.

So first off he does donate a fair bit. Enough for us to go "he does a bit of what he say he does".

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2021/09/29/1039417879/why-peter-singer-the-drowning-child-ethicist-is-giving-away-his-1-million-prize

The Life You Can Save - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The basic premise:

1. First premise: Suffering and death from lack of food, shelter and medical care are bad.
2. Second premise: If it is in your power to prevent something bad from happening, without sacrificing anything nearly as important, it is wrong not to do so.
3. Third premise: By donating to aid agencies, you can prevent suffering and death from lack of food, shelter and medical care, without sacrificing anything nearly as important.
4. Conclusion: Therefore, if you do not donate to aid agencies, you are doing something wrong.

That's pretty logical. Lets work an example:
You have spare change. People like Fred Hollows go to the third world and preform eye saving surgery. For the cost to of $5 a week, you could sponsor Fred's team for ~$20 per month.
aka deblinding 1 person a year if I remember their figures.


You may go "stuff it, I want my coffee". Sure fine. Yet if your Christian*/Muslim/Hindu/Bahai/Buddist/believe most religions you are oblidged to 'not do wrong'. Also if you are "Humanist" or Atheist with a societial moral outlook then you are also oblidged.

You do You! That said the logic is sound.

*some Christian denominations believe it's between you and god only. My view is this was a hard stick the Catholics used to whack Luther with and it's a poor argument not to be charitable.

So I assume you give a lot of your spare income away to charities who make that money disappear in their administration?
I’m the most successful individual in my family and as such I do what I can to help the rest of them out with work opportunities, bartering services, networking recommendations and the like. I have also given small loans.
Professional charities though? No never. I don’t trust them one bit.

 

[Tucker]

Be a little less worried, but not by much.

Ok what AI is and best at is a work enhancer. You could use it to pick your footy tips for example, but you really want a human to vet the results.

We will loose jobs to this. It's going to be 10/20% not 60-70%... But were loosing a lot of jobs already on top of this.

I remember everyone being concerned with the rise of robotics and computers…the workforce adapts.
I saw a 3d printed house given as an example of how the workforce will be affected. Would any of us really live in one? They look like garbage.
Humans will always be required to provide individuality and nuanced solutions because we are artistic and imaginative. We have souls and feelings. AI is unlikely to capture that to a similar extent.

 

[crazycat]

So I assume you give a lot of your spare income away to charities who make that money disappear in their administration?
I’m the most successful individual in my family and as such I do what I can to help the rest of them out with work opportunities, bartering services, networking recommendations and the like. I have also given small loans.
Professional charities though? No never. I don’t trust them one bit.

Look, I give some of my money. I used to give a fair bit. Now I give less with a family.


Peter Singer is fairly weird, but on Giving I think he has it right.
Does he donate 30% or 15%? I used to donate around 10%-15% when I was single, far less with family now.
Flip it. Fredrick Ozanam one of the founders of St Vincent de Paul donated 80% of his income at the time.

Professional Charities used to have huge administrations and some still do. Most though aim within 10-15% administration fee and that's reasonable. I can't speak for every 3rd world country but from the few I have been too, it's crazy hard to do anything. Just travelling from the equivalent of Bankstown to Parramatta can be Days of travel. You go to bank to "billboard" basically wait from opening to closing and if lucky get served at 5pm.

TLDR: it's usually not the administration so much as Charities dumping mosquito nets in city areas/barely leaving capital cities.

I will vouch for Save the Children. In spite of the name, they were one of the few on the ground in PNG. by ground they actually funded people who travelled the 3 days to do basic healthcare inspections. Cleaning ears, diagnosing eye problems, etc. absolutely critical work.

If you want to do the bare minimum, eat at Zambrero. They basically fund what the crew I knew did in PNG , here in Australia.

 

[Tucker]

Look, I give some of my money. I used to give a fair bit. Now I give less with a family.


Peter Singer is fairly weird, but on Giving I think he has it right.
Does he donate 30% or 15%? I used to donate around 10%-15% when I was single, far less with family now.
Flip it. Fredrick Ozanam one of the founders of St Vincent de Paul donated 80% of his income at the time.

Professional Charities used to have huge administrations and some still do. Most though aim within 10-15% administration fee and that's reasonable. I can't speak for every 3rd world country but from the few I have been too, it's crazy hard to do anything. Just travelling from the equivalent of Bankstown to Parramatta can be Days of travel. You go to bank to "billboard" basically wait from opening to closing and if lucky get served at 5pm.

TLDR: it's usually not the administration so much as Charities dumping mosquito nets in city areas/barely leaving capital cities.

I will vouch for Save the Children. In spite of the name, they were one of the few on the ground in PNG. by ground they actually funded people who travelled the 3 days to do basic healthcare inspections. Cleaning ears, diagnosing eye problems, etc. absolutely critical work.

If you want to do the bare minimum, eat at Zambrero. They basically fund what the crew I knew did in PNG , here in Australia.

My problem with organised charities lies in the logistics of running them. There are roughly 64 thousand in Australia whereas larger countries like America have 1.8 million and India reportedly 3 million. I’d like to know the combined operating costs of them all.
The Charity Aid Foundations annual report claims that 64% of the world’s population gave to charity last year. It’s not making any difference.
I think a more personal approach is required. Look after and support your own area. For instance, I regularly donate trucks and excavators for a couple of days everytime an ND hits our region to aid cleanup and I give to the surf lifesaving club. They are sporadic, yet practical contributions with measurable outcomes and I’ll tell you now, plenty of others do so as well.

We are off topic though…wealth distribution is a problem above our place in the chain. Governments and the special interest groups that run them would prefer to spend trillions on war. Keeping the masses under control is far more in their plans than providing equality. Shaming people who can barely afford to give money to do so on moral grounds is nasty and that’s why I’m no fan of this Singer prick.

 

[BZN]

Is that what he considers significant?
Has he ever proven it?
“Effective charities” Is a laugh btw….he is telling people who are struggling - the middle class - who are the packhorses already doing far more than their fare share of carrying the load, to give more.
The bloke is a clown.

In my book donating up to 30% of your income is very significant.
"Has he ever proven it"...I don't know.
Can you prove he doesn't?

 

[BZN]

There was a tax extreme wealth rally on 25th March outside HM Treasury just down the road from Big Ben and the Houses of Parliament.
The rally included groups like War on Want, Greenpeace and Oxfam.

^^^ This nonsense

Tell us why this is nonsense Tucker?

 

[Leck]

That guy has his head firmly up his backside.
Animal lives over human,- especially the disabled and even middle class people should give away a significant portion of their income to charity…..
Wonder how much he gives away considering his success?

You've misunderstood his philosophy. Singer’s work focuses on global inequality, our responsibilities toward others, and the challenge of balancing human needs and wants without destroying the environment we all depend on.

 

[Tucker]

Tell us why this is nonsense Tucker?

Because you will never get the wealthy, and I mean the truly wealthy to pay their share. They have other concerns they are working on that do not involve the fate of the vast majority.
Taxing the bejesus out of those worth 10 million also captures people running medium enterprise businesses.
If it is to work, you target the uber wealthy who own mega conglomerates…but they won’t be the target as they’ll literally tell governments to get stuffed.

 

[Tucker]

You've misunderstood his philosophy. Singer’s work focuses on global inequality, our responsibilities toward others, and the challenge of balancing human needs and wants without destroying the environment we all depend on.

Part of it is yes, but part of it is as I described it as well.
People earning $100-120k/annum earn every cent of their pay. They should be free to decide if they give.
Most of them work long hours and sacrifice family time and holidays etc to bring home this dough. Him placing moral or ethical pressure on them to sacrifice further is nasty shit in my book.
The plight of people in developing and third world countries is not their problem. Go after the evil POS’s who are responsible.

 

[BZN]

Is that what he considers significant?
Has he ever proven it?
“Effective charities” Is a laugh btw….he is telling people who are struggling - the middle class - who are the packhorses already doing far more than their fare share of carrying the load, to give more.
The bloke is a clown.

But the number of "middle class" donating is subjective, isn't it?
Various surveys may have established how many middle class donate.
Maybe it's a very small number, so can we please double it.
Edit...I'm not asking for that...I'm suggesting Singer is asking that.

Also, the amount the middle class donate may have been shown to be small according to surveys, so let's double that from $1.00 per week to $2.00 per week.

 

[The Chad]

Perhaps going off topic, but in my opinion 'real change' can only happen from actual structural policy change at a Federal government level. What we see almost every election is a reshuffle of the same ideas with fancy new names & a % here moved to a % over there & a promise that they will achieve some socially acceptable ideal with no basis on how to do it.

Much like I believe the only way the Tigers can achieve any kind of dominance over the Big 5 or 6 clubs of recent times is by changing how the game plays (ie- Tim Sheens-Ball in 2005 changed how teams were playing), the only way we can shift the inadequacy of current society is through outside-the-box thinking.

Not sure how exited any of you are for a bit of outside-the-box thinking, but in 1910, the Danish government did just that....& they have a quite unique & effective way of dealing with housing in their country.

Housing for Everyone, the Danish Way

Over the last 100 years, Denmark has taken structural and local policy implementation approaches to housing that have much to teach the Bay Area. We got to meet leaders in government, architecture, housing and sustainability who shared their insights and fielded our group’s many questions about...

www.spur.org

It's this kind of thinking (not necessarily copying this plan) that can actually change any kind of social failing we experience.

 

[BZN]

Because you will never get the wealthy, and I mean the truly wealthy to pay their share. They have other concerns they are working on that do not involve the fate of the vast majority.
Taxing the bejesus out of those worth 10 million also captures people running medium enterprise businesses.
If it is to work, you target the uber wealthy who own mega conglomerates…but they won’t be the target as they’ll literally tell governments to get stuffed.

Ok, so how do the "truly wealthy" avoid paying "their share" and isn't it as simple as lifting their tax rate.

Why aren't the truly wealthy upper class prepared to pay their fair share?

Sounds pretty mean and nasty to me like they care about their money more than they care about the people that teach their kids or the people that look after them when they are too sick to look after themselves.

Tell us about the "other concerns they are working on" etc.

I don't understand the point you are making when you say "taxing the bejesus out of those worth 10 million" etc.

And finally, you're positive in saying "if it is to work, you target the uber wealthy" but then go on to say the uber wealthy won't be the target as the govt. is afraid they'll be told to "get stuffed".

If that's the case, it sounds to me like "the rich and powerful want more riches and therefore more power and everyone else can "get stuffed".

There has to be a better way and that's why the "tax extreme wealth" demonstration in London recently is NOT a load of nonsense, Imo.