Forum Post: Does everyone have a right to economic equality?
Posted 12 years ago on Oct. 7, 2011, 5:29 p.m. EST by anonizen
(36)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
The obvious answer is YES! But, currently the answer is not yet.
It sounds like a wonderful idea, but how can it be achieved? Maintained?
Yes, everyone has the right to economic equality, but many do not take advantage of that right (the other 99%) and see economic equality as an entitlement rather than something which requires hard work.
Regurgitating O'Reilly talking points, nice work.
Some of us have seen the level of economic equality our economic system creates around the world first hand as a sad reality, not an personal entitlement.
How can we fix this mentality? Through federal policies? Education?
A request to viewers here, Think and support practical solutions. Get real.
Thank you for this post. I am trying to foster a discussion about a perceived problem in our society.
Forget the "economy".
Everyone has the right to Equality, period.
Truth. Unfortunately humans can't always tell what the truth is and so we are easy to deceive. But any system where everyone knows the truth about what's going on is heading for success.
I'm not regurgitating anyone's points. Just my own. Get a job and stop complaining.
Follow the blog Sky of Stars. Read this post: The RIght to Better Government http://theskyofstars.blogspot.com/2011/05/right-to-better-government.html
http://www.thevenusproject.com/
This movement is a start. Taking your bothers/sisters need as your own is the mindset needed. Not staying in a state of apathy is paramount. I know, I have been a lazy whiner for some time. I fixing that now.
Well, it's a simple matter really. You stay in school, go to college, and find a job. If a job's tough to find, you keep looking. If the right job doesn't come along, you lower your standards.
After you have started your job you save some of your income. Don't spend it on silly zombie costumes, iphones, or expensive coffee (like I see everyone in NY drinking).
The longer you work, the more money you can save. Then you can reach economic equality with your rich masters.
One caveat! If you work for a corporation, that corporation is undoubtedly evil, so you need to stay on your toes. They will try to steal it all from you and invest it on Wall St, so watch out for that.
Now, if you are REALLY smart you will go to work for the government, or a union company controlled by Richard Trumpka. He'll make sure you never get fired and make lots of money. You may need to firebomb a few buildings in the process, but the union will help you beat the rap. What's a few felonies between union buddies?
This is the path to economic equality.
I believe everyone has the right to exist. This means we should all have the right to shelter, food, health transportation etc. THE NECESSITIES OF DAILY LIFE. But if someone is not prepared to work, and work hard, why should they deserve the same economic advantages that should be available to someone who has a good work ethic and takes pride in their chosen field of work?
People generally have no clue how much income the US produces each year.
If we had an economic system where you got equal pay for equal effort, EVERYONE would be WEALTHY.
If you just paid everyone an equal income, it would amount to $127,000 per year.
If you wanted to pay all the jobs that required greater physical or mental effort (which would be a job in science, computers, engineering, medicine, construction, mining, or farming) twice as much as all the other jobs, a regular job would pay $115,000 per year and a difficult job would pay $230,000 per year.
So in an equal system, 97% of all workers would get a pay raise.
And 50% of all workers would have their income TRIPLE.
No. They should have the right to access it if they choose to.
No. Next question.
Everyone deserve the right to ASPIRE to an economically secure future and it is the duty of a nation to facilitate this aspiration and empower its citizenry to do so.
No. Everyone has the right to Equal Economic OPPORTUNITY, but no one has the right to Equal OUTCOME/SUCCESS, that's called communism.
most people are motivated by greed
I am not promoting any one ideology. I simply want to foster ideas for solutions...
How would you go about creating equal economic opportunity? And sustain such an equality?
I would institute laws that punish people for irresponsible financing. Irresponsible capitalism is like physical assault. Both should be punished. Right now only the latter has laws against it.
I would also close ALL corporate loopholes. As it stands right now Ma & Pa's Appliance store pays 35% tax because they aren't big enough to get write-offs, while GE pays 0% taxes. I would close all loop holes for the rich.
Lastly I would pass a constitutional amendment making lobbyists illegal. There would be an independent agency created to judge what lobbying is. These employees would be paid pretty highly and they would be given a term for life until they quit, much like the supreme court that way they can't be corrupted. People, however, would have the right to order an impeachment by petition. Meeting with CEO's would have to be wire tapped, or else it would automatically implicate you in lobbying. you may say that this is anti-freedom, but when you commit too many crimes freedom is what you lose. The politicians have cheated us and betrayed us too many times, so to tell the truth I DON'T trust them and they shouldn't have freedom until I can trust them again. They no longer have the luxury of freedom, and if they don't like it then they can quit and let someone in who doesn't know CEO's on a first name basis. Their job is to serve us. they get personal freedom, but when on the job you get no freedom, you work for us, we oversee you and part of being your superior is knowing everything you do.
sorry for the soap box at the end.
wow! well expressed!
Why not hold Obama accountable for his mistakes... if he did his job remotely well, this would not even be an issue. He is learning on the job (having not run any political or private entity), and not fast enough. He has no new ideas, and is channeling your anger to redistribute wealth from those who worked hard to earn it. Is this the America we want? Punish the successful when the economy he can't jumpstart stalls? If you take entrepreneurial risk and succeed honorably, will you want to be a villan?
Every two years we elect representatives to congress. It's time that we collectively say goodbye to the party structure as it currently exists and move the protests to the offices of every congress member and find out if those members are going to support the movement, and if they are not, replace them. The social media that exists today give us all the method that we need to overcome the gridlock in DC. Once the people control the house, states can then remove Senators that are obstructing the will of the electorate. It's so obvious.
Equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.
How do we create equality of opportunity?
Maybe something like:
"everyone has a right of access to economic equality, but without predatory industrial economic practice and adverse governmental influence."
Sounds like a good start. How can we bring about this change? What steps do we take?
No. Lazy people for instance, have no right to the same as those who work for what they have. I don't pay taxes so people can live off welfare and post on these forums. Per say.
Then how do we get people off welfare?
And please I am trying to create an honest discussion so please do not attack people here. I happen to also have a job and pay taxes. I work in a grocery store and have to watch people with food stamps buy more food than I can. It can be aggravating, this is why we need to solve these problems.
People should be forced to pay back what welfare they are given. Like say you are given welfare, in two years you'll start receiving bills and payment plans.
That will be a loan not wellfare!
I'd think of it as a necessary investment. Soo many people exploit wellfare as it is. Less people would exploit it if they had to repay it.
Everyone should have the right to economic "opportunity". We will have a greater chance of that if we all have equal opportunity to participate in our democracy.
How do we not currently have equal opportunity to participate in our democracy? What can we do to fix this problem?
Because 1% of the population buys their representation. 99% are left with the crumbs.
You go to vote for your Representative, Congressman, or whomever. But do you feel that your elected official is taking into account your voice. Or is that elected official beholden to the monied influence who has bought and paid for his campaign into office? Of course, that elected official will throw out a few scraps now again, because he/she knows you will go to the polls again in four years. But is your vote or voice really coming through? Money speaks too loudly in our political process. 1% has unfair influence and money is their tool. This diminishes our democracy. 99% want fair and equal representation.
The solution is really quite simple. Separation of money and state. All politcal campaigns need to be publicly funded. This will help to achieve economic opportunity for everyone as well! A sound democracy will enhance economic opportunity.
I agree with publicly funded campaigns.I also feel that one vote is pointless withe the electoral votes in place.
Support and protest for publicly financed campaigns and change the political system by taking the money out. Separation of money and state is the answer. Then your voice can be heard in a debate about the electoral college system! And everything else you care about as well!
I posted a proposal for a simple step towards economic equality in this forum a few minutes ago--the 40X rule. Scroll down and check it out.
I have seen many variations of such a system. I do feel that is something that should be examined. It would be nice to see an actual company adopt this kind of a pay scale for its employees to see how well it works.
I dont' know anything about it, but did Ben and Jerry's try anything like this before they sold out?
Being from Vermont I probably should know the answer to this but unfortunately I do not. It could be worth looking into as a case study.
Seems like a subjective point. However, to answer it you need to define what you mean by economic equality. The key distinction between the two major political ideologies in this country is whether it is more important to have equality of opportunity or equality of outcome. The rest is trivia.
Finally! Thank you for asking this question. Though there are two ideologies is there a reason to have one or the other? Would both be possible?
Economic equality or economic opportunity? Opportunity yes but when we say everyone should have equality economically, people start believing this is communism. The key is to bring our economic system closer to what it used to be. We still had the poor. We will always have the poor. But we didnt denegrate the poor and we had many more avenues for them to get into the middle class. This cannot be achieved through less taxation, unless you believe that rich people are going to give employees a raise just because they got a tax break. I would wager this has never happened in the history of man.
After starting this discussion I have realized my wording is very misleading and I should have added the word opportunity. For that I apologize, I am not trying to promote communism. I simply wanted to create a discussion to foster ideas to fix our current situation.
How would you propose we create more avenues for the poor to rise to the middle class? What constitutes such an opportunity?
Oh, well it is very easy. In the western world, we have positively the worst social welfare program. Now welfare has been made a dirty word but what if.....if mind you, we had jobs for people who were out of work instead of welfare. This gives people the dignity of work instead of the ghetto. What if we paid people $10 an hour to do a service for the community. This is a small step, but an important one because it interupts a cycle. And you really have to get less money and fewer jobs offshore. On top of that, we need to find a way to get companies to begin thinking of streamlined profit margins which benefits the consumer and the worker. It actually benefits the business long term because the economy they work in is more stable. The profit taking is often extreme in the current system, but this is no accident. Profit is not bad but we need to have more of a connection to it. If profit is good, then everyone should be doing good. What we have now is when profit is bad, everyone does bad and when profit is good, everyone does bad. That is the kind of third world profit taking that needs to stop. Most importantly, we need to get money out of politics or none of this will happen at all.
What about connecting an amount of "community service" to the welfare people receive. This "community service" could be for the town/area the recipient lives or for a local business.
Another change to add on top of this one would be to remove "welfare" taxes from employees and transfer that tax to the companies who would be receiving labor from this "community service"
What are possible pros and cons of a system like this for welfare?
The one thing I dont like is this: If we keep giving people food stamps and stipends instead of a real paycheck, they sort of dont feel they are really working. In addition, if we are paying the money anyway, why not do something like this. It just makes sense. There may be some people who really cannot get out in the workforce but I have never understood why, if we pay anyway, unemployment and welfare has to be "idle time" instead of time spent planting trees or directing traffic or.....I dont know, counting yellow lines on the highway.....just something but the point is it gives people the idea that they still have the dignity of work, no matter what. Even if if paid minimum wage, and I recommend more than that, people would make a check instead of being "on the dole".
I agree, I only meant my idea as a stepping stone to lead into yours. As a gradual change.
Everyone (should) have a right to take their shot at making money via hard work. You don't have a right to economic equality if you aren't going to work for it. You are born with a need to eat... You are born with the skills to feed yourself (sort of). You actually have to work to accomplish the task.
Indeed, well said! It is not a right but a privilege. However the country should facilitate its citizens to "take their shot" inter alia by empowering them with a good, free education and an opportunity to a career.
Also, I think we should be demanding regime change in Washington. Specifically, a ban on all lobbyists on Capitol Hill, and the immediate dismissal of any appointee to a federal agency that has, in the past ten years, worked for a Wall Street firm.
How is it that we can find money to maintain two stupid wars but we don't have enough money for health care? If we had different priorities as a nation we might have more success in gaining economic equality.
Why should free "anything" be a right? What's wrong will working to support yourself?
We don't have to earn our life (earn a living).
Well using your logic then why not protect yourself (police), put out fires on your property yourself, provide education for your children yourself, build your own roads and bridges. What's wrong with doing this yourself. I rent and have insurance for my possessions...so why do I have to support a fire department? It comes down to what we think is a legitimate tax expenditure.
I currently pay people to do all those things for me, and it certainly isn't free. The fire insurance you pay for does not protect your life. All of those areas you mentioned protect everyone in their respective areas. Healthcare is individual, like eating is. There is no "right" to it.
Unless of course I get the flu and pass it onto to everyone else. I don't have children in school,,,why should I pay for someone's kid to go to school? We could argue this all day...you have your priorities and I have mine.
Your flu argument is valid, I agree with subsidizing inoculations, paying for public education benefits everyone. Healthcare is a private, not public, concern.
Public education doesn't do a damn thing for me. And why should I have to pay for roads that I don't drive on? Again this is a pointless argument. You have your priorities and I have mine. But I'll let you have the last word...go ahead and respond if you want and I will not respond back...its just not worth the effort.
Interesting, how are our nations priorities currently aligned and what policies changes would need to be made to rearrange them into a more beneficial alignment?
1) Liberalize the bankruptcy laws (allows people to reset their lives, and encourages lenders to be more discriminating in who, and in what they should be lending).
2) Increase the tax rate on the upper income earners. (They have the right to organize society's resources for their own benefit. The exchange is that they must give a portion of their earnings back to the people--the people who grant them the right to reorg. societies resources in the first place.
3) Take a chunk of the money being spent on "defense" spending and reinvest it by leveraging technology to make education more effective, efficient, and affordable.
For your first point I feel this would be dangerous at first and abused. Reset buttons should be handled with care. That being said there should be a way to implement something like this safely. The question is what benefits would arise from such a system?
As I have said on another post I know very little about today's tax law other then the 1040EZ form as that is my extent of interaction with the tax system. Though I am spending some time on the IRS website to learn more about its structure. Until then I can not comfortably provide an opinion on taxes other than I agree there needs to be a change to our current tax system.
I strongly empathize with your third point about improving education. People need to be educated so that they may defend themselves from others that would exploit them for gain.
As far as where the money should come from your suggestion is one place but are there other sources of money that could be redirected?
Agreed.
As you say, [defense] is one place, but I do think there are others. Details to be worked out . . .
Perhaps seizing the assets of corporations that took bailout money and gave it to CEOs and other criminals in the form of bonuses.
Isn’t it funny how capitalist believe in capitalism when it benefits them. Is it capitalism when one company pays politicians to make laws to block a competitor’s product because it threatens their product? For example: the airlines trying to block products like Go To Meeting because companies could save money by not flying to meetings. Capitalism, right, okay, whatever. http://sites.google.com/site/onecompanyatatime
The only problem I see with this approach is we not only hurt the companies we hurt the employees of those companies. I feel the lowest paid employees would see their jobs cut back to make up for the loss revenue from a boycott.
I do appreciate that they are trying to facilitate change. I just cant help feeling there must be a better way with out harming the 99% along with the 1%.
That’s why it’s one company at a time and only for one qtr. Companies won’t lay-off because business will be slow for 3 months. After three months, we move to another company. This is simply to remind them where there wealth comes from, US. But to be honest, with any great change will come a little suffering. http://sites.google.com/site/onecompanyatatime
actually i say NO! not everyone will be equally successfully, thats life, some win and some lose, but everybody deserves a fair chance! Thats the difference, when we have a system thats being rigged by wealthy to keep the rich rich and the poor poor, then that takes away the equality.
So you would like to see the right to equal opportunities? How could we insure equal opportunities for all? Or how do we "un-rigg" the system?
by removing the influence of the market out of our politics, removing any all influences from our politics. The market has no business in our government and our government has no business in our market
This sounds very similar to ThinkHuman's comments further down this page pertaining to conflicts of interest in our politicians.
Nobody is looking to take all of the rich person’s money away, just enough to ensure that the social safety net is maintained, and that we can all find a decent paying job, with benefits. We could do that and still leave enough for the snobs to burn. http://sibob.org/wordpress/
Well, I'm glad you don't want to take ALL their money. But I guess they do deserve it since they are "snobs". I propose we take all the money from people named "Bob", since it rhymes with snob.
You can't get blood from a stone. And, how about if we are going to give taxes a hike, we start with Mike?
I like the use of "just enough" you cant fight greed with greed.
What would need to be done to define "just enough" and how should we address the creation of enough decent paying jobs with benefits?
Enough to pay the bills, with a little left over, and maybe a little leisure time for personal growth and development, and maybe some vacation time. Is that so radical?
Radical? No. I feel most people aspire to this level of wealth.
Thank you, one person actually agreed with me.
No, everyone has a right to an equal opportunity for economic advancement, and also the right to work in order to earn a portion of the wealth of society ... check out http://subsidizedlabor.org
It sounds like an interesting solution, it also sounds like there needs to be more thought, as the author stated "the devil is in the details." Also I am not sure how a shift from our current system to the system of "subsidized labor" would take place.
Can you think of any steps that could be taken to facilitate such a transition?
Yeah.. the first step is to present it as a possible solution and get people talking about it... as far as I know nobody even knows about it. Just an idea, but the transition could be by starting out with a single small city and seeing how it goes.
Yes, everyone has a right to economic equality...some just have more rights to it than others:)
Handouts are not the intent.
The intent is to more evenly distribute the opportunities to gain instead of being forced to play by the rules/laws purchased by corps.
Purchased by corps? How about Monsanto and the FDA..
http://warincontext.org/2011/01/03/wikileaks-us-government-acting-on-behalf-of-monsanto-targeted-eu-over-gm-crops/
I honestly do not know where the idea of handouts came from. I do not think handouts to the 99% will help the situation. I feel the handouts in that case would eventually end up in the hands of the 1% with the current system in place.
How do we evenly distribute the opportunities to gain?
My 'handouts' statement was just a clarification, not a direct reply to you. I apologize for not making that clearer :)
To distribute evenly, elected officials should never be able to profit outside their own salaries while holding office.
Candidates should be disqualified for any office that represents a conflict of interest with a past, current, or future employer or organization. For example, no more Monsanto people running the FDA like we currently have.
We should be able to remove officials from office at any time if they don't stick to their platforms or if they make decisions motivated by something other than the well-being of the people and environment.
Perhaps these kinds of changes to the current system will remove temptation from elected officials to pursue profit and other self-serving needs and force them to focus on the people and our country.
I have to agree about elected officials and conflicts of interest. I would like to see the impact of such a change.
There should always be a lookout for conflicts of interest. I learned about then when I was in high school in drivers education. The teacher of the class failed some students and then handed them a business card for her private drivers ed classes that the students could pay for. Some parents were outraged and needless to say that teacher could no longer accept students that she taught at the school in to her private class.
It would seem this would be an easy policy to implement, as long as it had enough support in legislation. I would think the only ones who would not like to see this implemented are the ones whom stand to loose their elected positions to such a policy.