Income inequality explained in a cartoon

[winnipegjets]

So we tax the rich, and pay the rich to run the country.

We tax the lower 80 percent and pay the rich to run the country.

 

[Asterix]

We tax the lower 80 percent and pay the rich to run the country.

It is immoral to tax the rich just because they can afford to pay. Will these "co-operative" poor think it is fine to get a free lunch from their rich neighbour just because the neighbour can afford it? They might just think so, but that's because they are mostly lazy and stupid anyway and not because it is moral. It is immoral to tax the rich just because they can afford to pay and for services that they are not going to use that lousy Class C wards filled with low SES shithole patients the sight of which alone will make me feel ill:

 

[winnipegjets]

It is immoral to tax the rich just because they can afford to pay. Will these "co-operative" poor think it is fine to get a free lunch from their rich neighbour just because the neighbour can afford it? They might just think so, but that's because they are mostly lazy and stupid anyway and not because it is moral. It is immoral to tax the rich just because they can afford to pay and for services that they are not going to use that lousy Class C wards filled with low SES shithole patients the sight of which alone will make me feel ill:

That's the price to pay to be part of a community. Look at the facts ...people are happiest when the income gap is narrow. In those communities, the middle class forms the majority as the government provides services that would have been a financial challenge if people had to buy it themselves.

If you think that people are lazy by nature, your perspective is valid. The question then is what do you want to do with them?

I think most people are rich because the environment supported their ambitions. So, asking them to pay more is paying back. Call it charity or whatever ...there is less stress and tension in societies when most of the people are able to cope with the financial stresses in life. A country that takes care of the major expenses of life allows people to live happily. It is not communism ...it is socialism. People who are ambitious and want more can go on doing what they want. Yes, they won't reap 100 percent of the rewards but they are still making more. It is up to them to decide if that is the community that they want to be. There are lots of rich people in the social democratic countries but not to the extent that is found in countries like UK and US where the rich controls the wheels of power.

I just don't think people are evil by nature. They learn from their environment. That's why in China, people are ruthless in their pursuit of wealth, having no consideration how their actions would hurt masses, including babies.

I hear you and thank you for the informative exchange. If there is something new that you would like to add, I will be glad to hear you.

 

[Asterix]

You can't achieve social mobility with only high school qualifications.

Those who aspire to move upwards socially should be prepared to pay for the qualifications that will enable them to do that (not instantly as they can always take out student loans) or get lost:

 

[Asterix]

That's the price to pay to be part of a community. Look at the facts ...people are happiest when the income gap is narrow. In those communities, the middle class forms the majority as the government provides services that would have been a financial challenge if people had to buy it themselves.

People are "happiest" when the income gap is narrow? Is that so - even when everybody is poor which is why the income gap is narrow? And even if that is true then why - because humans are by nature jealous and since everybody is poor there is nothing to be jealous about?

If you think that people are lazy by nature, your perspective is valid. The question then is what do you want to do with them?

Easy question to answer. Avoid the people that do not meet my standards whether it is laziness or stupidity or loudness or lack of hygiene and most importantly do not subsidise sub-standard people for anything! Surround myself with people who meet my standards regardless of whether they are from the same background as me or not. So poor people who meet my standards are fine to socialise with, but still have to be wary. Rich people who don't meet my standards must also avoid but sometimes these sub-standard rich people can be potential clients or can open up other opportunities even though it sucks to be around them, so thread carefully and don't blanket avoid or worse insult and lead to loss of opportunity. Keep an open mind but beware of trends and tendencies even if other people accuse you of being judgemental. Exercising judgement is a basic skill and necessity in life - to maneuver and navigate around life's many many many obstacles.

I think most people are rich because the environment supported their ambitions. So, asking them to pay more is paying back.

Though I am only comfortable and not rich, Iooking back I can conclude that the environment did not support my ambition. If I had not exercised discipline, I surely would have be ruined by that kind of toxic environment. So not all rich ahem comfortable people should be tarred with the same brush. Therefore, I do not feel the need to pay back anything - my two years of NS when my monthly pay was at least 75% less than the fair market rate for an A level graduate at that time is enough to pay back whatever it is that I am deemed to have benefited from being born in Singapore as opposed to Africa though I did not ask to be born in Singapore and if I know that they are going to lock up my CPF forever I would have asked to be born in New England or some other developed country but definitely not Denmark (60% tax is too much to bear).

Call it charity or whatever ...there is less stress and tension in societies when most of the people are able to cope with the financial stresses in life.A country that takes care of the major expenses of life allows people to live happily. It is not communism ...it is socialism. People who are ambitious and want more can go on doing what they want. Yes, they won't reap 100 percent of the rewards but they are still making more. It is up to them to decide if that is the community that they want to be. There are lots of rich people in the social democratic countries but not to the extent that is found in countries like UK and US where the rich controls the wheels of power.

There is good stress and bad stress. Life without stress is not living but simply existing. Those who can't stand the stress of living in developed countries should move to Third World countries. People who are ambitious will be greatly hindered in their efforts if they have to pay 60% of every month's paycheck to subsidise those people who cannot tahan stress and want the State (aka taxpayers) to take care of their major life expenses. Regardless of whether you call it communism or socialism or free lunch -ism, it is still the same. It can only be attained by legalised theft of A's income or property to pay for B's free lunch. Thereby inducing most people in B's position to expect yet more free lunches. The Scandinavian countries tax 60% of salaries but corporate taxes are kept low so as not to kill off the economy. So in the end it is the middle class (those whose work is actually worth middle class salaries) who pay for the system.

I just don't think people are evil by nature. They learn from their environment. That's why in China, people are ruthless in their pursuit of wealth, having no consideration how their actions would hurt masses, including babies.

People may not be evil by nature but they are most definitely FLAWED, whatever the environment though in some places they are worse than in others, but they remain FLAWED and any kind of social policy that does not take into account FLAWED human nature and accept the fact that there is no solution only TRADE-OFFS is doomed to fail. If it was only the selfish and evil nature of Chinese people, then why did Communism also failed in Russia, East Europe and all the other places that tried it?

 

[Leongsam]

People are "happiest" when the income gap is narrow? Is that so - even when everybody is poor which is why the income gap is narrow? And even if that is true then why - because humans are by nature jealous and since everybody is poor there is nothing to be jealous about?



Easy question to answer. Avoid the people that do not meet my standards whether it is laziness or stupidity or loudness or lack of hygiene and most importantly do not subsidise sub-standard people for anything! Surround myself with people who meet my standards regardless of whether they are from the same background as me or not. So poor people who meet my standards are fine to socialise with, but still have to be wary. Rich people who don't meet my standards must also avoid but sometimes these sub-standard rich people can be potential clients or can open up other opportunities even though it sucks to be around them, so thread carefully and don't blanket avoid or worse insult and lead to loss of opportunity. Keep an open mind but beware of trends and tendencies even if other people accuse you of being judgemental. Exercising judgement is a basic skill and necessity in life - to maneuver and navigate around life's many many many obstacles.



Though I am only comfortable and not rich, Iooking back I can conclude that the environment did not support my ambition. If I had not exercised discipline, I surely would have be ruined by that kind of toxic environment. So not all rich ahem comfortable people should be tarred with the same brush. Therefore, I do not feel the need to pay back anything - my two years of NS when my monthly pay was at least 75% less than the fair market rate for an A level graduate at that time is enough to pay back whatever it is that I am deemed to have benefited from being born in Singapore as opposed to Africa though I did not ask to be born in Singapore and if I know that they are going to lock up my CPF forever I would have asked to be born in New England or some other developed country but definitely not Denmark (60% tax is too much to bear).



There is good stress and bad stress. Life without stress is not living but simply existing. Those who can't stand the stress of living in developed countries should move to Third World countries. People who are ambitious will be greatly hindered in their efforts if they have to pay 60% of every month's paycheck to subsidise those people who cannot tahan stress and want the State (aka taxpayers) to take care of their major life expenses. Regardless of whether you call it communism or socialism or free lunch -ism, it is still the same. It can only be attained by legalised theft of A's income or property to pay for B's free lunch. Thereby inducing most people in B's position to expect yet more free lunches. The Scandinavian countries tax 60% of salaries but corporate taxes are kept low so as not to kill off the economy. So in the end it is the middle class (those whose work is actually worth middle class salaries) who pay for the system.





People may not be evil by nature but they are most definitely FLAWED, whatever the environment though in some places they are worse than in others, but they remain FLAWED and any kind of social policy that does not take into account FLAWED human nature and accept the fact that there is no solution only TRADE-OFFS is doomed to fail. If it was only the selfish and evil nature of Chinese people, then why did Communism also failed in Russia, East Europe and all the other places that tried it?

I have long since realised that the liberal left don't approach economic and social issues from a logical standpoint. They are dogmatic in their approach in that they believe that the best way of "helping the poor" is to give them handouts derived from the hard work of others.

This approach has never worked, If it was Africa would be one of the richest continents on the face of this earth considering the amount of aid money they have devoured over the last 50 years.

However trying to change the mindsets of the lefties is like trying to explain to a Christian why Jesus does not love him. It won't work no matter how sound your argument is because Christianity is faith based and not logical. The same applies to the socialists. They have faith in their system despite the overwhelming evidence that it does not work.

 

[Leongsam]

http://www.spiegel.de/international...-choking-on-aid-money-in-africa-a-363604.html


Too Much of a Good Thing Choking on Aid Money in Africa
Ahead of this week's G8 conference in Scotland, the world's richest nations forgave billions in debt to the world's poorest. Great news, right? Not necessarily. Decades of Western aid have done little to ease suffering in Africa -- indeed the situation is worse than ever. Is it time for the West to rethink its aid strategy?
By Erich Wiedemann and Thilo Thielke


July 04, 2005 12:00 AM

• Print
• Feedback

AP
Ethiopia is often a victim of severe draught.
The aid workers are thirsty and the beer is flowing: There is a party mood in Rumbak, the city of tents which at one time almost became the capital of Southern Sudan. It's is a bit like the end of the day atmosphere at a trade fair: The stands have closed down and people have knocked off work.

All over the place people in sandals and washed-out T-shirts emblazoned with meaningful slogans ("no cattle plague -- more milk") and where they are stationed ("Somalia, Uganda, Sudan"), dart down side streets. The aid organizations' colored pennants flutter in the hot evening wind.
Several times a day local people heave heavy crates out of the rickety old planes which have just landed. Obscure airlines use these planes, before they are sent to the scrap yard, to turn a fast buck. Rumbak, which until recently was a God-forsaken hole, is now booming.

After over 20 years of civil war between the North and the South in Sudan, a peace agreement has now been reached. In April it was decided in Oslo that Sudan would be granted $4.5 billion in reconstruction aid. A decision which, although greeted joyfully by many people, is viewed with skepticism by Norway's minister for development aid, Hilde Frafjord Johnson: "Much more aid has been agreed on than I think we actually need."
This sudden wealth is a cause for concern even among the aid workers themselves. "If we carry on like this," says Lammart Zwaagstra, who comes from the Netherlands and works for the EU's department for humanitarian aid, "then people will never stand on their own two feet."

Creating more "need" with generous aid
Rambak threatens to become a bitter example of how development aid doesn't really help. Again and again finance is hurriedly provided for one project after another, without any evidence of a convincing overall concept. The money is just thrown at projects as quickly as possible. In this case, Norway has made $500,000 available for just 500 refugees in the camps. The windfall immediately sparked off further need and a second camp, this time home to 345 people, has sprung up. It is the Italians who are footing the bill for the new camp.


DER SPIEGEL
The flow of money to Africa.
Money is, for the Europeans, the solution to all of Africa's problems. But despite yearly payments of, at last count, some $26 billion, the majority of the continent resembles something approaching one big emergency military hospital.

Already today there are increasing numbers of Africans who call for an end to this sort of support. They believe that it simply benefits a paternalistic economy, supports corruption, weakens trade and places Africans into the degrading position of having to accept charity. "Just stop this terrible aid," says the Kenyan economic expert James Shikwati.