Equality

[Spidey]

Except for the rich?

[Vander]

Yes, believing wealth inequality is too great is basically the same as believing teachers and librarians are predators grooming children for sexual abuse.

There's a difference between opponent and enemy.

[Tunnelcat]

An example. Why hasn't Congress raised the social security revenue pay cap? It may rise next year from the current $168,000 earned, but I can wager your bottom dollar you won't see it raised for incomes over 1 million. Why is this the case? My knee-jerk reaction is that the wealthy don't want it raised, but especially conservatives, and they've been lobbying Congress to keep it that way. The poor and middle class certainly can't lobby Congress like the wealthy can. If Trump gets elected, you may even see S.S. gotten rid of, as he's promised, because conservatives call it a "socialist program". I'm too old to go back to work at nearly 70 and I depend on it, so go suck eggs all you greedy wealthy pricks.

[vision]

Except for the rich?

Saying rich people shouldn't exist is simply pointing out that a system which allows for such gross inequality does not make for a healthy society, especially since the rich exploit the poor. They always have, but that doesn't mean we should just accept it because we can change it. After all, things like money (and ultimately "value") is something humans arbitrarily made up.

[Spidey]

Anybody that thinks getting rid of rich people will get rid of the poor as well is a fool.

[Vander]

No more foolish than creating such a straw man in the first place.

[Spidey]

No worse than creating Boogeymen to blame everything on.

[Krom]

Like Migrants and LGBTQ+ people?

[Vander]

Spidey, when I complain about the power and influence wealth has on our system, it's an actual real thing. It's observable. We can actually discuss our different opinions about it.

How do you have such a discussion with someone that says teachers everywhere are giving little boys blow job lessons? Or that Haitian immigrants are stealing pet cats and eating them. Or that illegal immigrants are fraudulently voting in elections at scale? And that all those things are specifically Democrat's fault? These are the types of things you do violence over.

[Spidey]

Spidey, when I complain about the power and influence wealth has on our system, it's an actual real thing. It's observable. We can actually discuss our different opinions about it.

How do you have such a discussion with someone that says teachers everywhere are giving little boys blow job lessons? Or that Haitian immigrants are stealing pet cats and eating them. Or that illegal immigrants are fraudulently voting in elections at scale? And that all those things are specifically Democrat's fault? These are the types of things you do violence over.

Why are you asking me that question, I don't support demonizing those groups any more than the rich.

[Vander]

You've insinuated that the media I consume treats "the rich" like an enemy in a comparable way to how a media outlet like Breitbart treats their targets like an enemy.

[Tunnelcat]

Spidey, when I complain about the power and influence wealth has on our system, it's an actual real thing. It's observable. We can actually discuss our different opinions about it.

How do you have such a discussion with someone that says teachers everywhere are giving little boys blow job lessons? Or that Haitian immigrants are stealing pet cats and eating them. Or that illegal immigrants are fraudulently voting in elections at scale? And that all those things are specifically Democrat's fault? These are the types of things you do violence over.

Trump actually spouted that lie, that Haitian immigrants were eating people's dogs, during the national presidential debate. It's been proven to be a lie, yet, he sat there on the national stage trying to promote it and stir up hate. What kind of party has the Republican Party turned into?

[Spidey]

Maybe it's all that Democrat DNA that came into the party during the southern strategy.

[Tunnelcat]

Good riddance to bad rubbish. And Republicans didn't have to embrace a bunch of racist white guys back during the Crooked Dick days, but they did.

You know, conservatism isn't necessarily a bad ideal. Fiscal prudence, personal responsibility, strong military, defend our allies, keep dictators in their place and small government that works for all. But it's mutated into a racist, homophobic, white nationalist, paternalistic, guns for all, Christians only, presidents can do no wrong and the state must monitor every pregancy "club". Dump all that crap and they might get actual votes, instead of trying desperately to steal a win, then hope to keep it through some sort of sick, unconstitutional King making takeover by supporting a disgraceful, angry old man who spews lies and hate.

[vision]

Anybody that thinks getting rid of rich people will get rid of the poor as well is a fool.

I don't know a single person who thinks that. Where did you come up with that idea? Reducing wealth inequality serves as a way to balance power dynamics so people aren't exploited. Rich and poor are relative, but the distance between them causes harm scaling with the gap.

[Spidey]

OMG, I've been hearing that story my entire life.

The poor don't have anything because the rich have it all.

The "pie" theory has been around for a very long time.

[Vander]

What even is "rich?" 10 million dollars in wealth? 100 million? A billion?

What benefits to society are achieved by allowing an individual to accumulate 1 billion dollars in wealth as opposed to, say, 100 million dollars? It's an honest question, because I can't think of any.

[Spidey]

Right off hand, how about creating the industrial might to defeat the Nazis.

Then leaving millions in endowments that support the arts, science and education.

But personally, I don't see the need to be a benefit to society.

And using the term "allowing" is quite disturbing.

Maybe lots of things should not be allowed because they don't benefit society.

[Krom]

And there it is still rearing is ugly head: Trickle down economics. The vampire of economic policies.

The ultra wealthy are black holes that drain the larger economy of capital causing much of it never to be circulated again. Any benefit they contribute is massively outweighed by the drain of creating and supporting them in the first place.

The industrial might to defeat the Nazis came from the top? All the money in the world is no better than toilet paper if you don't have the workforce to actually physically construct your war machine.

[Spidey]

The big lie that wealthy people sit on piles of gold coins under their bed like Scrooge McDuck.

The wealth is held in banks that help people buy houses, cars and start businesses.
The wealth is invested in the stock market used to create new technologies and drugs.
The wealth is spent in the businesses of the wealthy on labor and the myriads of other businesses that also provide jobs.
The wealth is directly spent on good jobs providing the lifestyles on these people.

The industrial might used to defeat the Nazis came from people who had the gumption to create those industries...and yes of course labor is an important component, that goes without saying.

[Vander]

Right off hand, how about creating the industrial might to defeat the Nazis.

I think Russian winters, millions of Soviets, and Hitler's warped view of reality that didn't match actual reality did more to break the Nazis than our ownership class, who weren't always without Nazi sympathies. Without the massive influx of public spending, centralized coordination, and workers at all levels, our "industrial might" wouldn't have been nearly as impressive. Massive natural resources and two oceans separating us from the fighting also helped. I don't mean to discount real industrial innovation, I just don't think all the credit should go to the guy with his name on the building like so much of the value does.

Anyways, compensation for top earners wasn't nearly as extreme in the 1940's, and income tax on the highest earners was close to 90%.

Then leaving millions in endowments that support the arts, science and education.

It's debatable whether philanthropy (at large scale) is a benefit compared to alternatives. Much of it is individual power projection. Public funding for these things is a proven viable alternative.

But personally, I don't see the need to be a benefit to society.

Then consider how it harms society. How is the power and influence of concentrated wealth checked and balanced? We basically have legal bribery specifically because "rich people" want to be able to buy corruption without consequence. They've even funded the effort to enshrine it as a constitutional principle.

And using the term "allowing" is quite disturbing.

I used that term specifically because that's exactly what we already do. The government picks winners and losers all the time, we just don't notice it much because it's usually the winners buying government representation to entrench themselves.

To be clear, I don't want to chop Jeff Bezos' head off. I don't have a problem someone working hard for success, getting lucky with success, or whatever, and attaining a good amount of wealth. I just think it's unreasonable for a single person to have the resources equivalent to that of a nation state. It's just too much power without enough checks.