Income inequality explained in a cartoon

[winnipegjets]

https://getpocket.com/explore/item/this-cartoon-explains-how-the-rich-got-rich-and-the-poor-got-poor

 

[Leongsam]

Typical socialist crap.

The poor will always be poor because they have inferior genes. Hand over money to the poor and they'll blow it all in six months no matter how much they get.

 

[mojito]

Silly man Winnie. So complicate things. Look at Long, then look at the mirror. That is income equality.

 

[syed putra]

China was like US where the rich were filthy rich, owned huge swath of land and wealth before communism but thanks to mao's tinkering, the poor had a chance to progress and be prosperous,

 

[winnipegjets]

Typical socialist crap.

The poor will always be poor because they have inferior genes. Hand over money to the poor and they'll blow it all in six months no matter how much they get.

80 percent of the people will dictate to the top 20 percent. Everyone wants to live decently. If the top 20 percent continues to take, it is inevitable that the 80 percent will fight back.

 

[Leongsam]

80 percent of the people will dictate to the top 20 percent. Everyone wants to live decently. If the top 20 percent continues to take, it is inevitable that the 80 percent will fight back.

Those who want a decent living should strive to achieve it and not have it handed to them on a platter.

 

[Asterix]

80 percent of the people will dictate to the top 20 percent. Everyone wants to live decently. If the top 20 percent continues to take, it is inevitable that the 80 percent will fight back.

So Winnie would rather the poor be poorer as long as the rich are less rich? This is what happens when you focus on the gap between the rich and the poor. The pie is not stagnant, it is growing. So the "poor" of today, even though they own only 3.8% or whatever of total wealth can afford to have 2 50inch LCD TVs at home, change to a new smartphone every 12 months and eat until they look like a mini Godzilla. Whereas, the poor of yesteryear, even though they own 8% or whatever of total wealth never had any of these luxuries. Margaret Thatcher was right about socialism:

 

[Leongsam]

So Winnie would rather the poor be poorer as long as the rich are less rich? This is what happens when you focus on the gap between the rich and the poor. The pie is not stagnant, it is growing. So the "poor" of today, even though they own only 3.8% or whatever of total wealth can afford to have 2 50inch LCD TVs at home, change to a new smartphone every 12 months and eat until they look like a mini Godzilla. Whereas, the poor of yesteryear, even though they own 8% or whatever of total wealth never had any of these luxuries. Margaret Thatcher was right about socialism:

The commies have not disappeared. They've just rebranded themselves. I once thought this gibberish about equality would go away once the Berlin wall fell. Sadly this crap is still floating around under a different guise.

 

[Asterix]

Those who want a decent living should strive to achieve it and not have it handed to them on a platter.

Well said!

 

[winnipegjets]

Those who want a decent living should strive to achieve it and not have it handed to them on a platter.

It is not a level playing field ...and that is the problem.

Everyone is entitled to government helping them to get healthcare, education and pension. We pay our taxes to facilitate that and it is the role of government to provide a baseline of services that allows people to achieve middle class lifestyle.

There is nothing stopping those who want more in life to work till they drop but the baseline of services is necessary to ensure a civil society.

That is fundamental in the building of a civil society.

 

[winnipegjets]

So Winnie would rather the poor be poorer as long as the rich are less rich? This is what happens when you focus on the gap between the rich and the poor. The pie is not stagnant, it is growing. So the "poor" of today, even though they own only 3.8% or whatever of total wealth can afford to have 2 50inch LCD TVs at home, change to a new smartphone every 12 months and eat until they look like a mini Godzilla. Whereas, the poor of yesteryear, even though they own 8% or whatever of total wealth never had any of these luxuries. Margaret Thatcher was right about socialism:

The pie is growing ...but is everyone's shares growing? The trend in the last few decades has seen the masses getting peanuts while the top 20 percent grabbing the rest.
Populism is growing because people are just fed up of this ...but they blame it on the government because most of the governments have followed the lunatic thinking of Thatcher.
The rich do NOT share ...they will take whatever they can get their hands on. The 80 percent have to fight back and be ruthless as the rich. And that's why populist leaders have positioned themselves and pretend to heed the cries of the masses but really they serve their rich master.
The class wars will happen. Mark my words.

All is not lost yet ...there is a model that is working - social democracy.

 

[mojito]

The commies have not disappeared. They've just rebranded themselves. I once thought this gibberish about equality would go away once the Berlin wall fell. Sadly this crap is still floating around under a different guise.

Those who want a decent living should strive to achieve it and not have it handed to them on a platter.

Revolution of the proletariats?

 

[winnipegjets]

The commies have not disappeared. They've just rebranded themselves. I once thought this gibberish about equality would go away once the Berlin wall fell. Sadly this crap is still floating around under a different guise.

This isn't communism ...it is common sense.
Right-wingers, when under threat, like to label their critics as communists. Right-wingers need to wake up the reality that they can't have it all ...if want it all, you will lose it all, unless you plan to subdue the masses with violence.

History has shown that the masses will always rise again when the balance it tilt too much in favour of the rich.

 

[Rogue Trader]

Liberal crybaby explained in a cartoon

(thanks for letting me have a chance to post this. I had saved this a few months ago)

 

[winnipegjets]

Liberal crybaby explained in a cartoon

View attachment 50981

(thanks for letting me have a chance to post this. I had saved this a few months ago)

If not for the progressives in this world, you would have been lynched when you visit the West.
The world is a better place for all thanks to progressives.

You can only con and subdue the masses up to a point. All hell will break lose eventually when the masses see themselves stagnating or falling behind while the 20 percent live so well and treat the others like scums.

 

[Asterix]

It is not a level playing field ...and that is the problem.

Everyone is entitled to government helping them to get healthcare, education and pension. We pay our taxes to facilitate that and it is the role of government to provide a baseline of services that allows people to achieve middle class lifestyle.

There is nothing stopping those who want more in life to work till they drop but the baseline of services is necessary to ensure a civil society.

That is fundamental in the building of a civil society.

Nobody is entitled to anything. If the stupid and lazy are given a middle class lifestyle that they don't earn through their own efforts then those who worked smart and/or hard are taxed excessively to subsidise the unworthy souls. Taxes should be for essential services like defence, police, street lightning, prevention and relief of natural and other disasters, etc. Taxes should not be levied to make transfer payments aka subsidise the sick care of those who don't take care of their health eg smokers, gluttons and the like. Transfer payments are nothing but state confiscation of personal property. It is my hard earned money and I have the right to give it to a charity of my choice or save it for the rainy days my family may encounter in future or splurge it on luxuries. It is MY hard earned money. The gahrament should not be allowed to force me to help people that I don't feel like helping just because these people sell their votes in order to get subsidies for sick care, housing, pensions, etc which they cannot or will not earn through their own efforts. Giving the undeserving all these benefits will only disincentivise them from earning those things for themselves. It will also make it harder for me to achieve retirement, afford first class healthcare, etc for my family if I have to work from Jan to Apr to pay taxes to support the lifestyle of these Jiak Liao Bee STRANGERS.

All that is required for a "civil society" is good education and that I am willing to subsidise - up to GCE "A" levels. Those who cannot afford uni can take out student loans and repay them from future salaries. It will be easier for these hardworking students to repay their student loans if their future salaries are not taxed at high rates to subsidise transfer payments to their primary and secondary school classmates who are too lazy and stupid to make it to uni and too inflexible to become middle class without uni - Li Ka Shing was born dirt poor and did not go to uni.

The "level playing field" only requires equality of opportunities and not equality of results.

 

[winnipegjets]

https://www.scmp.com/magazines/styl...chest-families-world-ranked-uss-koch-brothers

How many of these families give a damn about the welfare of others?
Read more about Koch brothers in Jane Meyer's Dark Money.

 

[mojito]

If not for the progressives in this world, you would have been lynched when you visit the West.
The world is a better place for all thanks to progressives.

You can only con and subdue the masses up to a point. All hell will break lose eventually when the masses see themselves stagnating or falling behind while the 20 percent live so well and treat the others like scums.

You just like the PAP, all day talk about having brought SG from Third World to First. Move on with the times, bro!

 

[Asterix]

The pie is growing ...but is everyone's shares growing? The trend in the last few decades has seen the masses getting peanuts while the top 20 percent grabbing the rest.
Populism is growing because people are just fed up of this ...but they blame it on the government because most of the governments have followed the lunatic thinking of Thatcher.
The rich do NOT share ...they will take whatever they can get their hands on. The 80 percent have to fight back and be ruthless as the rich. And that's why populist leaders have positioned themselves and pretend to heed the cries of the masses but really they serve their rich master.
The class wars will happen. Mark my words.

All is not lost yet ...there is a model that is working - social democracy.

The upper middle class mostly earned their money the old fashioned way - work hard, save and invest. They do not take anything from anybody. On the other hand, the "poor" are takers since they receive more transfer payments than they pay in taxes. Hell, most of them don't even pay any taxes! The other type of takers are those who inherit vast wealth from their families. This can be solved by imposing high rates of inheritance tax aka estate duty. And who voted for the party that abolished estate duty in SG? Yes, the ignorant and stupid "poor" aka the 69.9%.

Sharing is for family members and friends only. Strangers are not entitled to ask me to share anything with them, even if they happen to be born in the same country as me which by the way is purely accidental.

 

[Asterix]

https://www.scmp.com/magazines/styl...chest-families-world-ranked-uss-koch-brothers

How many of these families give a damn about the welfare of others?
Read more about Koch brothers in Jane Meyer's Dark Money.

Why should they give a damn about making transfer payments to subsidise the lifestyle of unworthy STRANGERS?