Jebus said:
cratchety ol joe said:
you work your ass off for 10 months in a year for nothing.
Not for nothing. I work my ass off 10 months a year for one of the best social systems in the world.
I never said I oppose the social system per se. It's rather comforting to know that if I, one day, lose my job, get cancer or get hooked on crack or something I will be able to reap the benefits of those 10 months a year I worked my ass off.
What I object to is the fact that this social system is disproportionally paid for by those who can least afford it. If 'rich' people were to be taxed at the exact same level as I am, I'm pretty damn sure I would only have to work 8 months a year or less for the state. And that would make all the difference in the world.
should not what we work for be ours?
It is. Governments are, obviously, non-profit organisations, so you get back what you put in it - albeit indirectly. The problem is, however, that some people have to put a whole lot less in it to get the same back.
10 months? I work 12. Everyone else I know works at least 11 (most vaca anyone I know has is 4 weeks).
I'm not really surprised at how people are ignoring much of the cause of homelessness. Many homeless around here have schizophrenia or other severe mental ailments. They are harmless to other people, but are unable to hold a job for any length of time or even to stay in a home; they simply wander off. It isn't through any real concious choice unless you consider a concious choice of "Do I stay and face the wrath of dingusdoogus the evil pingpong ball, or run and hide from his prying eyes in the alleyways of magicland?"
Many of these guys are veterans. They don't receive aid because most veterans programs require a physical address to receive benefits. Oh the irony. The guys who need it the most can't get it because they don't have a home (which, if they had a home, clearly wouldn't need the benefits as much).
Nonetheless, I never give money to homeless people. Never. I DO however give food and sometimes old clothing. Instead of giving a homeless guy a dollar or two, I'll stop at a fast food place and give him a couple double cheeseburgers. Sometimes I'll go through old clothes and instead of throwing them away, I'll drive to where some homeless folks hang out and give them some clothes. I don't put them in clothes drive bins because I've seen several occasions where people will pull up in an SUV and open up the bin and rummage through it taking stuff. Scumbags.
As for the "redistribution of wealth", the healthiest economies and happiest, most prosperous societies have a more linear distribution of wealth. We currently have a Poisson distribution. Historically, such distributions of wealth are indicators of imminent, if not currently ongoing societal collapse and civil war.
If anyone tries to bring up "but rich people worked hard for that money" they are full of it. People are not rewarded for hard work. They aren't even rewarded for the value of their work. They are rewarded for the PEOPLE THEY KNOW. Those in power will always stay in power. Ever notice how when some billionaire destroys a business and goes into massive massive debt, they somehow always wind up rich again immediately afterwards with barely a hiccup? It's because of who they know. Once at the top, you can never fall. The reason Ivy league schools yield the most successful people is because the sons and daughters of the most successful people go there. So if you go to an Ivy League school, you are either the child of a rich family (and thus will inherit both wealth and a no-show high paying job) OR you meet such people, make friends with them, and thus get a no-show high paying job because of that connection.
Yes, I exaggerate. Not all jobs received in such a manner are no-show. Most aren't. But they are high paying nonetheless, and in reality do NOT require the skillset those who hold them like to claim. We do NOT live in a meritocracy; where those with the highest qualifications are rewarded the most. We live in the world of the old boys network.
With SOME hard work and a whole lot more sociopathy, the low can rise up to a higher level. Otherwise, the low stay low or drop lower, and the rich consolidate more wealth while adding fewer new members to their ranks than the number who die.
The reason for the trend is due to the nature of spending in society. The rich have a tendency to save, not spend, because beyond a certain threshold, quality of life does not increase with wealth. When money is saved or invested, it stays put. When money is spent, it is redistributed elsewhere. Economies are made strong via constant spending. The strongest economies are ones with the highest rates of movement of money. As a result, those who contribute the most to economic health are the middle class. While the lower class spend the highest percentage of their income, they do so invariably on necessities, like food and shelter. The middle class however spend a great deal on low level luxuries: satellite/cable TV, upgraded internet, movie rentals, video games, new cars, etc. The more they buy, the greater the demand for these items. The greater the demand, the more production needed. The more production needed, the more jobs needed to generate that level of production. The more jobs create, the more people employed. The more people employed and the more jobs available, the higher the salaries have to be in order to keep people due to job competitions. The higher the salaries and benefits, the more money people have. The more money they have, the more they spend.
