4 ms·

But the poor are getting exorbitantly richer too. The so-called poor in our society pay $100+ a month for cable, have cell phones with data plans for all their

by jtc331 15y ago

But the poor are getting exorbitantly richer too. The so-called poor in our society pay $100+ a month for cable, have cell phones with data plans for all their 10+-year-old kids etc. And these are the people that get welfare for food and live in subsidized housing. They are not poor. The fact that the rich are richer is not a problem when the entire population is getting richer.

Zimahl 15y ago
The poor have an increasing standard of living but that hardly means they are getting 'richer'. The poor may have a roof over their heads, three square meals a day, and maybe even a vehicle, but they don't have health insurance and are typically locked in jobs and locations. Meanwhile, services that help the poor generally get cut - like public transportation, education, etc. But at least we'll always fund the jails. The rich getting richer is definitely a problem when that wealth is never converted into something that benefits society and just sits around generation after generation. In the US we've completely removed the so-called 'death tax' which was actually a great thing. It forced wealth to be used instead of horded. Currently there's no incentive in the US to build a company to pass on to your kids, it's better just to keep it all in cash and hand that over. Minimal investment happens with such a system. Sure some is in stocks and bonds but generally in super-safe stuff so you just pay low capital gains and not real income tax. There's just no excuse for CEO wages currently. The new CEO of JCPenny just got $53 million in stock for 4 months work. The stock is down since he joined. How many employees could've gotten even a little better wage instead of it going to 1 man?
- dageshi 15y ago
  I think the modern financial system is pretty efficient at using that cash while it's "sitting around", if it's in the bank it's being lent out to somebody, if it's in bonds it's financing either government or corporate activity and if it's in stocks then it's in a partial ownership of a company that helps capitalise that company. Just because that money is concentrated in a particular place doesn't mean it's not doing society some good. I don't think people get rich or stay rich without putting in an incredible amount of work and I truly don't understand why you would penalise people for being successful.
- jtc331 15y ago
  The situation I described (have a house, car, smartphones, cable TV, etc.) could hardly be described as poor IMHO. And compared to the truly poor (either around the world or in our country in previous centuries) I'd argue they do indeed qualify as rich. And sure, CEO wages are ridiculously high. But the government has generally shown that it's inept at managing things like that. Is the solution to force the wages lower? Hardly. It's to allow companies like that to fail (rather than propping them up with stimulus) so that management is actually both vulnerable and accountable.

by jtc331 15y ago

Zimahl 15y ago

The poor have an increasing standard of living but that hardly means they are getting 'richer'. The poor may have a roof over their heads, three square meals a day, and maybe even a vehicle, but they don't have health insurance and are typically locked in jobs and locations. Meanwhile, services that help the poor generally get cut - like public transportation, education, etc. But at least we'll always fund the jails. The rich getting richer is definitely a problem when that wealth is never converted into something that benefits society and just sits around generation after generation. In the US we've completely removed the so-called 'death tax' which was actually a great thing. It forced wealth to be used instead of horded. Currently there's no incentive in the US to build a company to pass on to your kids, it's better just to keep it all in cash and hand that over. Minimal investment happens with such a system. Sure some is in stocks and bonds but generally in super-safe stuff so you just pay low capital gains and not real income tax. There's just no excuse for CEO wages currently. The new CEO of JCPenny just got $53 million in stock for 4 months work. The stock is down since he joined. How many employees could've gotten even a little better wage instead of it going to 1 man?

dageshi 15y ago
I think the modern financial system is pretty efficient at using that cash while it's "sitting around", if it's in the bank it's being lent out to somebody, if it's in bonds it's financing either government or corporate activity and if it's in stocks then it's in a partial ownership of a company that helps capitalise that company. Just because that money is concentrated in a particular place doesn't mean it's not doing society some good. I don't think people get rich or stay rich without putting in an incredible amount of work and I truly don't understand why you would penalise people for being successful.
jtc331 15y ago
The situation I described (have a house, car, smartphones, cable TV, etc.) could hardly be described as poor IMHO. And compared to the truly poor (either around the world or in our country in previous centuries) I'd argue they do indeed qualify as rich. And sure, CEO wages are ridiculously high. But the government has generally shown that it's inept at managing things like that. Is the solution to force the wages lower? Hardly. It's to allow companies like that to fail (rather than propping them up with stimulus) so that management is actually both vulnerable and accountable.