News   Jul 25, 2024
 489     0 
News   Jul 25, 2024
 586     0 
News   Jul 25, 2024
 467     0 

Gap between the Rich and Poor

ahso

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Hi guys, Im currently doing a project on the gap between the rich and the poor generally and me and my group members are advocating this issue on the internet (primarily on facebook). As you may or may not know, this gap is continuously growing and the rich is getting richer and the poor is getting and so I was just wondering what are your thoughts and opinions on this issue.( what might be the cause? what are the effects? what sort of solutions may help counter the effects, if not the root of the issue? etc)

Any kind of knowledge and insights are greatly appreciated!

You can visit our group page Here
and feel free to leave commets and join our group :D
 
Where to start?

If you are poor, living off whatever savings or a fixed income earner, the value of your money is being stolen by government and redistributed to special interest groups through inflation. So how about competing currencies? A decentralized banking system?

Pose your question here and you will get a lot of feedback: http://mises.org/Community/forums/


Cheers :)
 
Government does not steal value of money on fixed income. Predictable inflation (which it is, in Canada) means that inflation is taken into account in nominal interest rates. That is, the real interest rate paid to bondholders is independent of inflation.
 
If you're poor, live simply. No credit card, no cable tv, no car, no home ownership, no alcohol. Eat healthy--no junk food, no sugar, very little red meat, no take out coffee unless it's sam james or pennylick's twice a month. (You'll out live that rich guy that eats poorly all his life.:)) And please use food banks, they are there to serve you! (But do not get their junk food they try to give you, like KD, peanut butter, canned pasta etc.) Shop at No Frills instead of Metro. Use your bicycle and two feet as much as possible, rather than the TTC. Avoid watching trashy Hollywood movies, unless you get them off the internet for free.

Fine with me. I can live on $500/month, so can you!

Oh, and use a condom, please! No need to have 3 kids when you're low income. Duh.

Edit: I find it ironic the original poster is discussing this via facebook, which is something many poorer folk have little access to--if unlike me, they don't know how to manage their resources. (For example, I'd rather have internet access than 3 packs of cigarettes a day, yet I know many urban poor folk who have it the other way around. Dumb.)
 
Last edited:
dreamer: none of that actually addresses the problem of income disparity.
 
This gap is quite simply the result of capitalism "working." It never was a sustainable way of doing things, and I think this now visibly growing gap is a sign that it's getting worse. Especially in an age where global corporations have evolved from the survival of the fittest form of free market capitalism, it means that the money is going to be funneled from the lower downs and all up into the people who are already rich and can either invest in or own capital that will generate them more money.
 
There's nothing that requires completely lassez-faire capitalism. Capitalism itself is not a goal, just a means to an end. We can harness capitalism to reach social welfare goals, which can include flattening income disparity.
 
And we do this via a system called taxation. I think if we want to reduce the gap between rich and poor we simply need to tax the super rich more. Wealthy people making over $150K a year use the tax system to avoid paying taxes. If we raise their income tax levels or remove the loopholes for those making more than $150k (e.g. RRSP's are not tax deductable if your income over $150K). You can then use the extra tax dollars to pay for better services, like transit, daycare, reduce tuition costs, etc..
 
And we do this via a system called taxation. I think if we want to reduce the gap between rich and poor we simply need to tax the super rich more. Wealthy people making over $150K a year use the tax system to avoid paying taxes. If we raise their income tax levels or remove the loopholes for those making more than $150k (e.g. RRSP's are not tax deductable if your income over $150K). You can then use the extra tax dollars to pay for better services, like transit, daycare, reduce tuition costs, etc..

Interesting point. When we raise taxes on the rich, are they the ones that necessarily feel the burden? Or is it the companies they work for? See banker bonuses in the UK. The government instituted a tax, and the banks grossed up their pay so their after-tax income was the same.

I don't think the answer is to knock down the rich, but rather to raise up the poor. Lowering tuition is a really inefficient way to do that. You end up transferring money to lots of well-to-do middle and upper income families, rather than targeting the low-income families that we're actually trying to help. Same goes for universal child-care.

Even minimum wage is not particularly effective at helping low-income families. Most low-income families earn above minimum wage, and a very large number of min. wage earners are children of middle class households. Better to let firms pay what people are worth, and give money to poor people.
 
There is no doubt that the rich get richer, it is a natural phenomenon like economies of scale even if the rich guy doesn't really make decisions that are good. I think however it is a bit much to suggest that the rich, or their interests such as business avoid taxation and deploy their capital to exploit or keep down the masses. Take a look at the taxation breakdown. You will find that most of the taxes are actually paid by the rich and very little comes from the half of the population that has less social-economic advantage. I personally am more concerned with economic mobiltiy, that is the ability of individuals to create and destroy wealth. A society with a wealth gap isn't necessarily broken, it just depends on how much of a gap society believes is acceptable. However, a society were mobility cannot occur is fundamentally broken.
 
Disparity will always exist. Why? Output/demand never equal input/resources.

But it's striking a good balance.

Best solution for the poor if you have 2 out of three, you'll be okay:
a) ambition & hard work
b) talent.
C) opportunity

Governments role is to create the opportunity for an individual to achieve success, not to substitute talent and hard word.
Pure capitalism is dangerous and destructive on it's own, but over taxation also limits innovation and growth.



Take a look at some of the social countries in europe. Switzerland, Norway etc. I think everyone can agree that both are 'socialist' country, but also some of the highest standards of living. But one thing people forget is that both economies are HEAVILY,heavily dependant on the 'capitalist' countries like china and U.S. to drive and sustain their economies (oil, foreign banking) respectively. Their socialist lifestyle is dependant on other countries capitalist lifestyle.



There is not a single model in this world that can really adress social/economic inequality except perhaps an institution like the military. Think about the liberties you would have to give up. Not many people are willing to be told when/what to eat/sleep/wear/die.
 
Read this...

The Conservative Nanny State



Chapter 1 — Doctors and Dishwashers: How the Nanny State Creates Good Jobs for Those at the Top
The first chapter deals with the most basic issue, how the nanny state ensures that doctors and other highly educated professionals are in short supply, and that the supply of less-skilled workers is relatively plentiful. A big part of this story is trade. The conservative nanny state makes it easy to import goods as a way to replace much of the work done by workers in manufacturing, such as autoworkers, steel workers, and textile workers. Twenty-five years ago, manufacturing was an important source of middle class jobs for workers without college degrees, typically offering health care and pension benefits, in addition to a middle class wage. If goods produced by workers in developing countries (who typically earn only a small fraction of the wages of U.S. workers) can be imported, then the demand for the manufacturing workers in the United States will be reduced, placing downward pressure on the wages and compensation not only of manufacturing workers, but of workers without college degrees in general.

Immigration is another part of the story. The conservative nanny state allows many less-skilled workers into the country to fill jobs at lower wages than employers would be forced to pay the native born population. While allowing immigrant workers into the country can be seen as part of the free market, like allowing imported goods into the country, this is only half of the picture. The conservative nanny state puts on strict controls to limit the extent to which doctors, lawyers, economists, journalists, and other highly paid professionals must face foreign competition. These restrictions take a variety of forms, which will be discussed more thoroughly in Chapter 1, but the key point is that not everyone’s labor is placed in international competition. Those at the top of the wage ladder get to enjoy protected labor markets. This both raises their wages and means that everyone else must pay more money for their services.

The conservative nanny state also involves itself in other ways to ensure that highly skilled workers are paid well, and the rest of us pay the taxes in the form of higher prices for the goods and services they produce. For example, licensing requirements, like admission to the bar for lawyers, often are designed more to restrict supply than to ensure quality for consumers.

On the other side, the conservative nanny state beats up on less skilled workers when they push too hard to restrict their supply in the same way. One way the nanny state hampers efforts by less-skilled workers to push up their wages is by outlawing many types of union activity. For example, secondary strikes are illegal. This means that one group of workers can’t stage a strike in support of a second group of workers (e.g. truck drivers can’t refuse to deliver food to a restaurant where the workers are on strike). In the case of a secondary strike, the conservative nanny state will fine or even imprison workers for being too aggressive in pushing for higher wages. Apparently, employers are too weak to be able to bargain with workers without help from the government.

Of course, this is all supposed to happen behind the scenes, no one is supposed to notice these forms of government intervention. The conservatives want the public to believe that the differences in pay between doctors and dishwashers result from nothing other than the natural workings of the market.
 

Back
Top