What do each of US feel about Wealth Inequality.

[tigerballs]

Sorry Tucker, but again I don't agree.

Protesting is not sulking.
Dismissing collective action trivializes the history of every major social change.
From civil rights to worker's rights, protest has always been the spark that forces entrenched power to listen.
It's not about whining, it's about refusing to be silent.



HOW.
By building networks that don't just make a noise but organise.
A "tax extreme wealth" movement could start locally, with communities demanding transparency, fairer redistribution and accountability.
When enough people link arms, the rules CAN change.
History shows governments bend when movements grow too large to ignore.

The Rich and powerful are not too far entrenched, not yet.

Imo, if we don't take positive strong action... like yesterday, they damn well may be too far entrenched, and things can only get worse.
If that then becomes the norm, your grandchildren may be living in 1984 land, and I don't think you would want to have that imposed on them.
I don't have kids, so these things probably won't affect me directly, but I am prepared to fight for your grandchildren.

Page 10 has been excellent so far. It's not often this forum can debate a single topic so civilly for so long....Well done gentlemen!

 

[tigerballs]

Hahahahaha, that's so funny, and nearly pissed myself laughing when I got to the fishing bit. You would get thrown off their trawlers if you tried to pretend that Brexit has done any good for them.

Is that all you got from that?

 

[Tim Sheens]

Is that all you got from that?

No.

 

[Kelce68]

This is not what I am doing though. I'm in a very fortunate position that in with a combination of luck and hard work I have built a lovely little life for myself. I don't care for extremes of politics and I am off social media. I genuinely think the scales are tipped or at least tipping against common people beyond what is reasonable, and that is bad for society. We can disagree there, that is fine.


But why be happy with the fact a inequality is increasing (it is increasing by most measures). Meaning it is more difficult for people to pull themselves out of said shitty situations than before? That is a net bad for society.

This is where the balance thing comes in. It would be a BAD thing to completely remove any possible barrier for people, but there has to be a point where it is bad for society that the barriers have become too great?

People make mistakes. Modern society means there are safety nets to help people turn it around and that single parent deserves a shot at a decent life even after some mistakes. There is currently a system in which it is getting harder for these people to turn their lives around, plus a middle-lower class worse off than the one that came before. Being uncomfortable with that happening while extreme wealth grows exponentially is a fairly moderate position to take IMO

That's the very point though.

The extreme wealth has no impact on anyone's ability to make it themselves. People pretend like it is.

It's not a zero sum game.

 

[Kelce68]

Hahahahaha, that's so funny, and nearly pissed myself laughing when I got to the fishing bit. You would get thrown off their trawlers if you tried to pretend that Brexit has done any good for them.

Can't read, eh?

 

[Betterdays22]

That's the very point though.

The extreme wealth has no impact on anyone's ability to make it themselves. People pretend like it is.

It's not a zero sum game.

Ever played monopoly?

There are plenty of examples: When large companies dominate a field - they can charge customers and pay workers what they want, they can bully smaller businesses and make it less competitive.

Or when individuals or groups buy up vast sums of property, commercial or residential, or shares they inflate the price pricing out regular people.

They also can buy political influence to ensure the game is titled in their favour e.g Tax breaks leaving Australians out of pocket. Maybe those tax breaks could be used to provide additional social housing?

While none of these stop a person from trying, they absolutely reduce a regular persons ability to make it themselves. How far would the concentration of wealth have to go before it became concerning to you?

Anyway, clearly not going to agree on this one. The club have been left unsupervised and are trying to self imolate again - hatred of HBG should unite.

 

[Tucker]

Sorry Tucker, but again I don't agree.

Protesting is not sulking.
Dismissing collective action trivializes the history of every major social change.
From civil rights to worker's rights, protest has always been the spark that forces entrenched power to listen.
It's not about whining, it's about refusing to be silent.



HOW.
By building networks that don't just make a noise but organise.
A "tax extreme wealth" movement could start locally, with communities demanding transparency, fairer redistribution and accountability.
When enough people link arms, the rules CAN change.
History shows governments bend when movements grow too large to ignore.

The Rich and powerful are not too far entrenched, not yet.

Imo, if we don't take positive strong action... like yesterday, they damn well may be too far entrenched, and things can only get worse.
If that then becomes the norm, your grandchildren may be living in 1984 land, and I don't think you would want to have that imposed on them.
I don't have kids, so these things probably won't affect me directly, but I am prepared to fight for your grandchildren.

Good luck with that.

 

[BZN]

The idea that the system is keeping everyone down and that a simple bit of hard work and making good choices in your life doesn't give you all the opportunities you want is just disconnected with reality.

People will side with anything that gives them some alleviation of their responsibilities.


Of course.

The issue is- that is not the discussion from the envious redistributors. There's no nuance whatsoever. It's the have-nots attacking the haves. It's a tale as old as time. Most haves are there because of a combination of circumstance, decisions-made and wherewithal, most have nots are there because of a combination of circumstance, decisions-made and wherewithal.


Incorrect.

Wealth is relative. It doesn't matter the context, there will be relatively wealthy people in that context versus others who are less wealthy in the same context.

The modern, Western world has simply allowed those not particularly good at obtaining wealth to still thrive by all, historical metrics.


False equivalencies aside, because that wasn't your best effort, what 'balance'?

I don't care what others have. It doesn't concern me. I have managed to accumulate modest wealth in my own, simple, pretty straightforward, run of the mill way. Work hard at school, get good grades, pay my own way through uni, start fulltime work, go back to uni and pay my own way for a second degree, work both a full time gig and a business after hours for the last 12 years to get our family going, by a house in a suburb we could afford, continue to work hard, salary sacrifice as much extra super as I can afford, etc.

People have forgotten how to sacrifice. What is to stop ANYONE, right now, from up and moving to a country town in NSW, living at a caravan park temporarily whilst they work at Coles or Woolies stacking shelves 60 hours a week, maybe study something on the side, free/supported TAFE, part-time uni, whilst they build up a deposit, then look at a small, modest apartment? Or, work a bit longer and look for a small 2/3 bedroom home. Then reassess and go from there.

Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Everybody is so quick to blame the system, but people have forgotten how much sacrifice there was in our society even 20/30 years ago. We grew up on 2 minute noodles, HomeBrand and Savings fish fingers and maybe $11 of fish and chips once a month as a treat.

How other people have chosen to live their life is none of my concern. If they want to chase the big career title, the big pay cheque, the 80 hour weeks, good on them- it's not for me. If they want to risk it all on a business they believe can work, and does, good on them, I'm more risk averse and it's not for me. If they want to put aside building a family to chase individual or coupled wealth without kids, good on them, once again, it's not for me.

But none of their decisions affect me, nor do mine, them.

Only once others' decisions affect me, does it become an issue, and, right now, the most people who do shit that affect my life are poor, excuse-riddled jackasses that would rather break into my next door neighbour's home again than actually pull their finger out and do the work; make the sacrifices.

No one is stopping ANYONE from beginning to build wealth, people have just forgotten how long it takes and are unwilling to put themselves aside to do so.

It's so much easier to shout 'tax the rich!' when the 'rich' are there for a reason.

There is nuance to this conversation, a lot, but the nuance generally doesn't come from those complaining about the system...

I'm saying what I feel with no disrespect to you intentionally or otherwise.
My eldest brothers partner many years ago was adopted as a child.
When she married, she had two children to the same father.
The 1st born turned out to be tall and slim, with plenty of intelligence and get up and go. The 2nd was a complete opposite with no self-confidence, no get up and go and very hard to motivate.

It's not as easy as saying "it's the have nots attacking the haves".
Many of today's rich may 'have' because they were lucky enough to have had riches passed down to them from early in Australia's settlement via gifts of large plots of land. Then admittedly they had to work hard to keep and improve their land, and as free settlers they would not have come here if they were not hard workers.
So not only does the wealth get handed down, but the hard work ethic is also handed down.

But on the other hand, the convicts were sent here for punishment. So, they mostly started off with a very bad attitude and were made to do all the dirty and worst jobs with very little pay which would have probably made their attitude even worse.
So that negative attitude is passed down from one generation to the next.

We've now arrived at today with a great work ethic and plenty of money with the haves, as compared to people that have been inflicted with a poor attitude and no money handed down being todays have nots.

A lot of these people need govts. to step in and help in various meaningful ways, as they were not given the psychological strength and/or a strong work ethic from their ancestors. And that will continue to get worse if our various govts. don't care enough to do what must be done.

PLUS...We have to correct the dreadful way our 1st Nations People have been treated.

And the end result if they don't care will again be...the rich are getting richer and everyone else can get stuffed.

 

[Snidest 0]

I'm saying what I feel with no disrespect to you intentionally or otherwise.
My eldest brothers partner many years ago was adopted as a child.
When she married, she had two children to the same father.
The 1st born turned out to be tall and slim, with plenty of intelligence and get up and go. The 2nd was a complete opposite with no self-confidence, no get up and go and very hard to motivate.

It's not as easy as saying "it's the have nots attacking the haves".
Many of today's rich may 'have' because they were lucky enough to have had riches passed down to them from early in Australia's settlement via gifts of large plots of land. Then admittedly they had to work hard to keep and improve their land, and as free settlers they would not have come here if they were not hard workers.
So not only does the wealth get handed down, but the hard work ethic is also handed down.

But on the other hand, the convicts were sent here for punishment. So, they mostly started off with a very bad attitude and were made to do all the dirty and worst jobs with very little pay which would have probably made their attitude even worse.
So that negative attitude is passed down from one generation to the next.

We've now arrived at today with a great work ethic and plenty of money with the haves, as compared to people that have been inflicted with a poor attitude and no money handed down being todays have nots.

A lot of these people need govts. to step in and help in various meaningful ways, as they were not given the psychological strength and/or a strong work ethic from their ancestors. And that will continue to get worse if our various govts. don't care enough to do what must be done.

PLUS...We have to correct the dreadful way our 1st Nations People have been treated.

And the end result if they don't care will again be...the rich are getting richer and everyone else can get stuffed.

Poker machine palaces funding egos who paid $100 seven decades ago to buy in to a privileged non-meritocratous Board role is positive though - if it suits YOUR agenda.

Hypocrite!