We are all "people who think they know better than others and seek to impose those thoughts on others". The moment you criticize what someone says, or even make a suggestion to someone, you automatically become one of these people. By saying, "but that's just my opinion" merely reduces the conviction of your claim, it doesn't negate it.

The truth is, there actually are people who know better than others about different things. If you doubt this, ask yourself if you'd rather have a certified pilot with 10 years of experience fly your next plane or Justin Bieber. The problem doesn't come with just people who claim to know better, but people who claim to know better when they actually don't. I think it's fine (though maybe a bit haughty) if the certified pilot convinced everyone that he was the better choice to fly your next plane. The problem comes when it's Justin Bieber who starts to convince people he's the better choice.

Unfortunately, the best approach to morals, politics, and the general management of civilization is not so apparent, but it doesn't mean people don't have better or worse approaches. The most hardcore communists understand the benefits of free markets (ie. Kim Jong-Il in 2002) and Randian libertarians will never seriously talk about privatizing the entire US military. I think most people don't really know what would be best for our civilization, but at the same time I think people at least know what would be really bad.

Getting back on topic, I hate taxes as much as anyone else, but that's a really really big income gap. Unless these CEOs are working 380 times harder than their average office worker, it looks like something's broken with the system.

@svart, I care because I feel so. Empathy for less fortunate is a human emotion that I hope should need no rationalization. I think how things should be because I want things to be better. Most likely I am not a very smart thinker, but I'd still like to think about and offer views on the subject... Nothing hypocritical in that, is there?

I'll try to explain what my current views are based on, in very simple form. Please tell which following points, if any, are in your opinion incorrect and why that is so.

1. humans are born on this planet as a result of some force that is greater than humans themselves

2. humanity is given, by that same greater force, finite planetary resources on which to survive

3. each human life is worthy of living without suffering

4. if at all possible, each human being should be provided with such share of planet's resources that their basic needs are satisfied and there is no suffering that could be avoided

5. basic needs of each single human for sustenance, shelter, healthcare and education are limited and fairly easily defined

Now look at that distribution of wealth again, both in wealthy countries as well as developing ones, and then at, for example, Nordic model as well as other welfare models in the world. Would redistribution of wealth to those who really need it really hurt the few who have control of resources (and because of that, wealth well beyond their needs)?

Here's a far-out analysis, which personally I am not sure of, but to which some signs seem to point: humanity is already beyond the point where our technological control of resources is such that we could provide for everyone's needs mentioned in point 5, for entire life of each individual. The problems of today's world are pains of transition into next stage of development of humanity. Old models of economy and social structures do not serve their purpose well anymore, which will slowly but surely be made more evident by increasing automation of industry, global population growth and difficulties with energy supplies in coming decades. It's a change as big as industrial revolution, but with different goal.

Here's some realistic but increasingly far-out suggestions: we start by implementing clear redistribution of wealth, in essence revoking rights to be super-rich. Then continue by redefining how global resources should be shared. Then, transform national military forces into global peacekeeping force (with intention of minimizing the amount of resources used for warfare). Slowly, nonviolently, small changes decade by decade, generation by generation.

Remember, many things we take for granted today seemed very utopian or even unimaginable just a few generations ago. What if we are really just a few major adjustments away? And somebody, please think of the children - that is, what would it feel like to say to them "when I was young, we had to work for food" ;)

Wow, so having some initiative and pulling yourself up from poverty is likened to becoming a dictator? So having drive to have something better in life means that you are a sociopath? You guys are trying to prove a moot point by using fringe cases as fact, when they aren't fact, they are opinion. I don't see those dictator types as being anything like me, or the majority of people who actually want to make something better for themselves. When you use desperate examples of this, it only reeks of sour grapes, not of actually attempting a reasonable conversation..

And I'm not advocating any form of gain from the backs of others, what I've done, I've done myself and take great efforts in NOT stepping on anyone to get where i want to go. So do many many other people. Because of this, I find it highly offensive that those around can use simple generalities about "rich" people only being rich by exploiting others, because it's just not true. If you believe this, you have been bamboozled by the rich media who sell their product by inflating their stories and pointing out specific persons within some random group. The end result is that, yes, that person is rightfully demonized, but the rest of the group is now stigmatized unfairly.

On the topic of redistribution of wealth, I've thought about it at length and just can't see how it can work. Humans are nothing more than animals that seek to be top of pack. Every animal wants more and better, just look at their food supplies and housing, they are always seeking better. Humans are no different, but as we've gotten better at supplying food and housing, we've also created a layer of psychological wants and needs as well. The "status symbol" if you will. Bigger houses, better cars, jewelry, etc. The monetary system is just a way to facilitate this process by providing a universal "worth" system. From there, we just use money to fulfill the animal instinct to rise to the top of our class by using money to buy materialistic things.

This creates competition for money, also known as WORK. When you simply give people money, they have no incentive to work. The US welfare system is a good example of this. It's an unfortunate and shameful truth that nobody wants to admit. The government doesn't want people to know that it's failing these people, those people aren't going to ruin a good thing, and the rest of us just want to look the other way and pretend it doesn't happen, because admitting as much would mean that the social structure that makes them feel comfortable is completely broken.

It's just not as simple as moving money around or giving people jobs. The whole social structure AND the social mindset is BROKEN. You have to fix society first before you can attempt fixing monetary problems. The problem is that nobody wants to admit that society is broken to begin with and then HOW do you fix society? As we've seen here in this thread, when you get a bunch of opinions together, you get nothing done. How do you change the thought process of a welfare recipient that has received free money, to now work for that money when they could do nothing for that same money? How do you convince a "rich" person to give away their money that they've spent their lives working on making?

It's impossible.

@JRD to do something like that, you'd have to first define "rich", which is also impossible. Everyone has a different opinion. Is "rich" simply making more than the poverty line, or is it the top 1% of income? For everyone, it's different. My opinion is that people with "rich" parents are almost 100% likely to be "rich" unless the parents deprive them of money (which has happened) or they completely blow their money (which has also happened). The ideal that money is important is ingrained from birth and is now part of the person's identity. Blame shifting is also likely to be a big part of this identity. Big Government/entitlements/taxes are siphoning off hard earned money and it should be hoarded as much as possible.

The absolute poorest will also be close to 100% likely to stay poor. They can't afford education, and they are highly likely to involve themselves in criminal activity (drugs, robbery, etc) to either escape from their situation or simply because there is no other option. Blame shifting is usually also included in this identity as well. The idea that The Man/racism/society is keeping them down is also ingrained from birth.

Whether or not these things are real isn't important. What's important is that these people blindly believe them to be true because they can't come to grips with the reality that they are exactly where they allow themselves to be.

However, as with ANY sample size, the larger the sample range, the more of a bell curve you will see and you'll see that the middle class is predominate. Those to 25% of either side have an equal chance to either fail or make themselves in life but it's easier for them to move in the direction in which they are biased. Those smack in the middle have a 50% chance of doing either.

@svart

I fully understand your POV, but suggest to add charts and numbers to your posts. So discussion will stay on point and not go to set of personal preferences.

The absolute poorest will also be close to 100% likely to stay poor. They can't afford education, and they are highly likely to involve themselves in criminal activity (drugs, robbery, etc) to either escape from their situation or simply because there is no other option.

In fact other option exists :-) Make free and good education and fight with foundation of criminal activity. Issue is that it is not in the interests of rich people :-)

However, as with ANY sample size, the larger the sample range, the more of a bell curve you will see and you'll see that the middle class is predominate. Those to 25% of either side have an equal chance to either fail or make themselves in life but it's easier for them to move in the direction in which they are biased. Those smack in the middle have a 50% chance of doing either.

What bell curve you mean here? Income distribution?

Those to 25% of either side have an equal chance to either fail or make themselves in life

All have equal chance to meet dinosaur, you either meet him or not :-)

That is why government's should provide support to people who are on the poorer end of the spectrum so that they can live the quality of life that everyone is entitled to.

• This means free health care of the same standard provided to the rich,
• free education of the same standard as provided to the rich,
• discounted services such as public transport, power, phone, etc
• cash assistance for rent and government assistance for buying a property
• food and clothing allowances
• free child care
• allowance per dependent (such as per child)
• government covering income after an accident or loss of work

@disordinary You used the work "entitled". Nobody is entitled to anything any more than a cat is entitled to win the World Series. That's my point. You either work for it, or you don't. You have nobody to blame but yourself if you don't achieve something. As I pointed out, the excuses of someone/something else holding you back is fallacy created by those who would rather blame others than accept that they have failed.

I am entitled to your life savings. When can I come get it? Cash only please.

Oh, I can't have it? Why not? I think I am entitled to it, therefor I am, right?

You have to remember, when the government gives someone money, that money was taken from someone else by force. Welfare comes from tax revenue. Tax revenue comes from those who pay taxes and if those citizens don't pay taxes then the government puts you in jail. That's fear and force.

I think it would be a lot better to give the poor jobs rather than giving them money without responsibility, although I don't think giving them jobs is the best option either.

@neokoo Competing animals? Of course humans are. Either it's the criminal "rich" who are selling junk mortgages so they can make millions while those people lose their houses or it's the thugs in the street shooting someone to death over a pair of popular shoes.. Or its the middle class job hunters that lie on their resumes so they can get jobs that pay better, or on lesser extents we simply buy newer and cooler gadgets so that we feel relevant to those around us.

We are competing animals.

Tax the 1%

@svart

What's important is that these people blindly believe them to be true because they can't come to grips with the reality that they are exactly where they allow themselves to be.

The "reality" you're insisting on here is your original premise, that people are poor because they deserve to be poor or want to be poor, for which you've still not provided any evidence. (I won't ask how it is you know what "these people" believe.)

If you want to assert that social welfare programs create dependency and promote poverty, and that citizens of rich industrial democracies would be better off without guaranteed social services, fine. I don't agree, but that position is at least arguable. But no debate is possible when you're conclusion is the same as your premise -- namely, that the reality is what you say it is, period.

We have to play by the rules, and most of us are guaranteed to lose.

@bwhitz And here I thought we were civilised. Some people are simply selfish.

I mean that if you live in a society then you sign a contract to work if you are able and pay a portion of your proceeds to a pool that is then used to help those in society that can not support themselves properly to a reasonable standard of living, or cannot work. I am in a high income bracket and contribute to society more than I take from it, other people take more than they earn. It's the price and reward of living in a civilised society.

Obviously you can't force people into jobs, that is a ridiculous sentiment and not something that I alluded to at all. What I was saying is that certain people have a high income, and they subsidise the poorer people. I don't necessarily work harder than a laborer but I earn more and have a longer potential career.

Society = Socialism.

Your analogy for nature doesn't really work as in tribes and family groups strong members support the weak. Its called humanity.

Ultimately everyone deserves the same opportunities, I don't care if there is a survival of the fittest attitude, or if you think it doesn't have a basis in nature - it is called progress.

@bwhitz Without resources there could be no wealth at all. As for invention and intelligence, they were given to humans as well. It's a fact that we did not build our brains nor gather the particles of our starsystem into order they are in.

At the bottom of this is the question of whether we value human life in itself, whether the weaker ones should be supported by stronger ones because of how we value life.

Future will tell whether welfare systems are sustainable. My experience is that they work quite well in some countries and AFAIK they do not leech off other countries to make it possible. This is actually something that could be proven with statistics, but honestly I do not have the time to dig them up. If you find proof of how Finland or Sweden, for example, are leeching off others to finance welfare systems, I sure would like to know. Other than that, disordinary pretty much said what I think as well. We're close to opinion deadlock as it is usual in threads like these…

Let's keep it simple.

Tax the 1%. That's the first step. Let'em pay the top tax bracket rate that is 39.6%. Plus no limit on social security tax wages.

@svart

In Europe, people still have strong social structures and therefor strong morals.

If you're talking about northern Europe, they have a far more comprehensive and generous social welfare systems than we do, and of course higher taxes for those at the top -- though in the case of medical costs, they spend much less than we do, unburdened as they are by the health insurance industry, the for-profit fee-for service model and big pharma.

What if it's the high U.S. poverty levels which are perpetuating the behaviors you don't approve of? How are you going to determine which factor -- poverty or morals -- is prior?

Again, like I said eariler, the social structure of the USA is broken. Unless we fix that first, nothing else will work.

What if it's the "free" market and lack of comprehensive social insurance which broke the social structure in the first place (assuming it is broken)? You're the one, after all, who's citing Europe, which has a far more generous and comprehensive social welfare system than we do, as an example....