This week’s Economist cover story. Discuss. 
I scanned the article briefly, but I’m too busy trying to make money to lose any sleep over inequality…
When I’m rich, I’ll take a deep breath and then look into inequality!
Hello, Gadarene, long time no see…
I think it’s rather nice that The Economist is addressing the subject of inequality. But this isn’t the first time I’ve heard them taking the position that the new wealthy had best be more philanthropic.
Perhaps they should, but philanthropy will do very little to reduce the inordinate difference between the power of the rich and the poor; in fact, if relied upon too much it will increase it. Which is precisely why I think “charitable choice” is one of the most retrograde of ideas in our retrograde times.
I also don’t believe that “draconian taxes” on wealth are bad for the economy. I’ve never seen one single statistic to prove it.
According to The Economist, “If the rich get poorer thanks to high taxation, some people may feel pleased but few are better off.”
According to a recent analysis The Nation, (unavailable online), “The $58 billion a year” just handed over to the wealthiest one percent by the recent tax cuts could have been “used to lift another 2 million children out of poverty, provide health insurance to 5.1 million uninsured children, fund universal preschool and expand childcare services to more than 9 million children-and two-thirds of those eligible” - “Tax Cut Madness,” June 4,2001
I’ll take that over charity any day of the week.
The problem isn’t that rich people are making way more money than poor people, the problem is that poor people are poor.
Having the government take money away from wealthy people just because you think it’s not fair that they have so much is wrong, plain and simple.
So? The money spent on the Apollo missions could also have been used to help the poor, as well as the money you spent on the computer you’re using to read this. Do you feel that we should all cut back to bare necessities and give the rest to charity?
The right thing to do is to do what we can to help poor people improve their situation and ultimately become self reliant, and to get the money we need in the fairest way possible. Perhaps it’s okay to tax the rich at a somewhat higher rate, but nothing extreme.
**RoboDude **
- The right thing to do is to do what we can to help poor people improve their situation and ultimately become self reliant, and to get the money we need in the fairest way possible.*
This may shock you Dude, but I entirely agree. However, I’d like you to tell me how you could possibly infer that providing adequate food, childcare and health insurance to the children of the very poor is going to impede their maturity. And I’d like you to tell me how likely it is that kids growing up without those things are going to be stellar economic performers.
- Perhaps it’s okay to tax the rich at a somewhat higher rate, but nothing extreme. *
There was nothing “extreme” about the present tax code. Bear in mind that what I cited was an account of what might have been done with the tax cut just recently allocated to the wealthiest 1%. Also, in fairness to Gadarene, perhaps we should stay closer to the question of whether or not inequality matters. I’m sure there’s already been many a taxation thread (I recall a superb one in which kimstu provided many useful citations late last year). Yes, I brought it up, so perhaps that seems hypocritical, but I was offering a direct reply to the magazine’s pitting of charity vs. taxation.
Nowhere did I say that we should just let them go hungry. I have no problem with welfare as a way to keep people from starving to death while they look for a job or try to make themselves more employable. I just feel that we have an obligation to encourage poor people, including those with children, to do what they can to get good jobs.
Someone once said, I can’t recall the author or context, “If you were to distribute all the riches and resources of the world equally among men and nations, there would be once again poor men and poor countries within ten years because of the inherent inequalities of men and nations. Some would use the windfall ingeniously and others would squander it.” It isn’t an exact quote, and I’m probably fudging it to fit this thread more neatly, but the statement is essentially true.
I don’t believe that inequality could ever truly be erased. It matters not. Much of the talk about the easement of inequality seems mostly cosmetic, making the rich and middle class feel conscientious, and providing token payments to the poor. Smoke and mirrors.