Jump to content

Making the poor better off


Should the goal be to reduce relative or absolute poverty?  

37 members have voted

  1. 1. Should the goal be to reduce relative or absolute poverty?

    • The goal should be to reduce absolute poverty
      21
    • The goal should be to reduce relative poverty
      7
    • I reject your premise as there can be no conflict between the above 2 options
      3
    • I'm not interested in helping the poor
      6


Recommended Posts

Like what?

Your only hint at what your new society might be like is a stated fondness for Marx.

You understand that all attempts at implementing a Marxist society have ended in despotic ruin surely.

 

Hey, that idea for a society which killed all those millions of people, shall we try that again?

The answer is clearly "no".

 

The soviet Union collapsed because of the weak leadership by Gorbachov. The economy was still growing in the 1980's.

 

Are you with the fatcats or normal people? You need to assess your priorities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The soviet Union collapsed because of the weak leadership by Gorbachov. The economy was still growing in the 1980's.

 

Are you with the fatcats or normal people? You need to assess your priorities.

 

You'll have to define "fatcats". I'm going to assume it's anybody on high income, say the top 10% unless you make a clear definition.

 

I reject the premise that I have to choose. Society is arranged so that the "fatcats" pay lots of tax (50% of all income tax revenue) which provides subsidies and services for everybody else.

You can't fund a modern society unless they're available to tax which they won't be when you've had them shot in your glorious revolution.

 

Your plan unavoidably reduces everybody to extreme poverty by current standards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You'll have to define "fatcats". I'm going to assume it's anybody on high income, say the top 10% unless you make a clear definition.

 

I reject the premise that I have to choose. Society is arranged so that the "fatcats" pay lots of tax (50% of all income tax revenue) which provides subsidies and services for everybody else.

You can't fund a modern society unless they're available to tax which they won't be when you've had them shot in your glorious revolution.

 

Your plan unavoidably reduces everybody to extreme poverty by current standards.

 

Do you really think they want to (and actually do) pay their fair share?

 

Why not just share out the wealth and end poverty?

 

Their wealth isn't actually all theirs you know, the workers created it and the owners of the means of production exploited it for their gain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you really think they want to (and actually do) pay their fair share?

 

Why not just share out the wealth and end poverty?

 

Their wealth isn't actually all theirs you know, the workers created it and the owners of the means of production exploited it for their gain.

 

Because sharing out the wealth doesn't end poverty.

It's been tried.

 

Not all that long ago, it was tried in Zimbabwe. Rich farm owners had their lands seized and divided amongst the common people.

The farms then failed. Nobody had any food.

 

Like it or not the best paid are generally amongst the most skilled in their particular area. Perhaps not the most worthy, but the most able. Remove them and their job won't be done well. If the most skilled jobs aren't done well, everything else falls apart.

 

Social justice can be drastically improved by education. If everybody, no matter what their start in life has the chance to learn the skills they need to do the most productive things in the economy, then these inequalities can be greatly reduced. There need not be just a few people in the country who can do the most skilled work, instead there could be many. In this way, wealth can be better spread out without wrecking everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because sharing out the wealth doesn't end poverty.

It's been tried.

 

Not all that long ago, it was tried in Zimbabwe. Rich farm owners had their lands seized and divided amongst the common people.

The farms then failed. Nobody had any food.

 

Like it or not the best paid are generally amongst the most skilled in their particular area. Perhaps not the most worthy, but the most able. Remove them and their job won't be done well. If the most skilled jobs aren't done well, everything else falls apart.

 

Social justice can be drastically improved by education. If everybody, no matter what their start in life has the chance to learn the skills they need to do the most productive things in the economy, then these inequalities can be greatly reduced. There need not be just a few people in the country who can do the most skilled work, instead there could be many. In this way, wealth can be better spread out without wrecking everything.

 

I remember an interview where tony Benn said much the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this thread the biggest wind up yet. Let's get rid of the fat cats, let's create work, let's cut the differentials on income I wonder how many jobs will be created when we cut the incentive to create jobs why is there so much jealousy aimed at people who create wealth? Anna B talks about poverty and people starving in Africa, in the last census in Nigeria the population was 140 million,

If it continues increasing at the current rate it will be 1 billion within a century,

Which is obviously unsustainable, Zimbabwe used to be called the bread basket of Africa now it's the basket case. As for poverty in this country that's a myth that's been created by the extreme left, we've got a welfare state that doesn't allow anyone to starve, a lot of the people said to be living in "extreme poverty"

Are simply not prioritising their spending.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I once read an article about wealth distribution, they predicted if it was possible to share the total wealth of the country equally ,within twelve months the distribution would be close to what is was before the share out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you really think they want to (and actually do) pay their fair share?

 

Why not just share out the wealth and end poverty?

 

Their wealth isn't actually all theirs you know, the workers created it and the owners of the means of production exploited it for their gain.

hahaha..great stuff, you are tying them in knots, they dont know how to answer....socialism works, you know it, i know it...stupid people will never know it lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We need to get rid of the Tories, the fatcats, (same thing as Tories almost) people that want to be Tories or fatcats and royalty.

 

Then...........when things get better we need another purge of society to stop more Tories and fatcats emerging.

. Somebody cross that the Tories won the election and spitting their dummy out. I think probably Russia would be a good place for you to buzz of to.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.