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.