It seems some people want the rich to have all the advantages in our society and for the working poor to have none. I'm not saying the working poor should have most of the advantages but there should be at least a couple (healthcare, welfare, education). 50 Percent Of U.S. Workers Earned Less Than $26,364 Last Year - Careers Articles
Incentivizing the poor to stay poor is silly. So is inefficiently using the wealth of the rich. Combining the two ideas is silly^2.
There have always been poor people and there will always be poor people (someone needs to take the shitty jobs). I'm not saying give advantages exclusively to poor. Rather basic social programs that are available for everyone including the poor (free healthcare, free education). Welfare would be exclusively for the destitute but those people still wouldn't be able to afford much which keeps most people financially ambitious to some degree.
No, society should have a focus on equal opportunities for everyone. Many rich people have rightfully earned their wealth and worked hard for it, but rich people want to stay rich. Money is power, the more you have the more you realize this. The super-rich care more about keeping their power than doing their part in making sure other people get a chance to obtain what they have, even if it's a fraction of it. Healthcare, education, and a fair justice system are all essential, and if it means the haves have to have a little less to make that happen, so be it. A lot of large companies and their key people are responsible for bribing, intimidation, embezzlement, illegal dumping of toxic substances, generally fucking up the world. And yet they hardly ever see any repercussions for it. They have money. Someone caught with a pound of weed goes to jail 99% of the time (though it helps if you're a black or latino male). Money isn't the root of all evil, power is. The chance of attaining money can be manipulated. People say wealthy people create jobs, but what do they do? They move production to 3rd world countries to save money. The point is all people are selfish. I think of myself as righteous (lol) but I like money as much as the next guy. Everybody is corruptible. I think society will always favor the rich because everybody wants to be the alpha male/woman. Today more than ever it depends on money, not on strength. I'm sorry it turned into a philosophical screed, hope it was worth reading
In the society you live in Socialism is a swear word. People have been brainwashed to idolize wealth and the wealthy. Rich people are on a pedestal. If the average American earning $500 a week had any sense he would vote for Socialist candidates, but no he keeps on punching himself in the balls.
Argumentation:Welfare State - MisesWiki tl;dr The state perverts the incentives and behaviors of human action through coercion, whose measures end up hurting those they are intended to help, and only reward the persons in charge of overseeing the program(s). The DEA doesn't want legal drugs because they'd lose their funding (not to mention their jobs), same goes with every other agency. The funding becomes a conflict of interest, which creates an incentive to perpetuate (make worse) said problems the agencies were created to solve.
If we want our governments to use our money to help the poor then wouldn't we also want to help the poor with our money without the government? Why does this job need to be taken up by the government?
If only there were a way to funnel our resources to help the least fortunate and we could even control those resources by voting for people to represent our interest. Why hasn't anyone tried to establish such a thing... oh wait.
I realize everybody is entitled to there own opinion but do you really think voting for Socialist candidates will change anything? See, I don't know all the answers but what I do know is that a group of powerful people already have our future planned out for us. my point is that voting is worthless because we are all FUCKED no matter what
Well voting for a Democrat or Republican is a waste of time. There is no difference between the two parties. They are both NeoCon MIC parties. A Socialist would have no part in this and offer a different path.
Voting? What does that have to do with anything? This is about money. If we want to use our money to help the poor when we have a government why wouldn't we want to use our money to help the poor without a government? Have the people of our society suddenly changed because we lost our government? Or would our values be the same but the money be used much more efficiently?
Society shouldn't be "geared" towards any group. The question itself is totalitarian in nature, and these threads are played out.
Well monetary based societies are hierarchical in nature so good luck stopping the rich from getting richer and the poor from getting poorer. Eventually the rich will acquire so much wealth that the poor will be unable to live any kind of life, social unrest will occur, and things will reset into some other system.
It's not any thing close to totalitarian. I'm simply saying society shouldn't only benefit those with wealth. Suggesting the opposite is a true totalitarian concept. Oh I forgot, you libertarians don't believe a corporate sponsored plutocracy can be totalitarian. lmao.
Using voting, taxes and government to benefit the least fortunate and ultimately the most fortunate is not a flawed concept, it's simply flawed in execution to some extent.
The wealthy elite have played this game since the dawn of civilization. Any "mistakes" they make at this point are simply a well-planned illusion.