|
|
Post by alexandrvasilevski on Dec 2, 2021 19:59:22 GMT
But equality of opportunities to me sounds a bit off as it is impossible. I mean yes, everyone can be given the same chances to achieve something, but achieving something is always dependent on things you cannot affect. I'm not saying you're saying so, but I don't think "equality of opportunities" is an excuse to inequality, social, economical or any other kind. Well, a state-sponsored education including a high one is very achievable step in many countries. A child from a poor family and from a rich family couldn't ever reach equality of opportunities if there's a huge discrepancy in their education level. But this is often simply ignored. We just create this social gap right from the childhood and then try to convince the poor that at least they have the same rights before the law (a questionable statement too, since poor guys can't afford best lawyers anyway). So far I see only the attempts of the rich and powerful to cover the inequality with noise and empty talks about equality of rights. Equality of rights is a good start, but not an "aim in itself". We have to provide people with means to benefit from equal rights. I can smell some Marxism) (No offence. I agree with you;) ) |
|
|
|
Post by stoic on Dec 2, 2021 20:02:17 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by stoic on Dec 2, 2021 20:06:37 GMT
Well, a state-sponsored education including a high one is very achievable step in many countries. A child from a poor family and from a rich family couldn't ever reach equality of opportunities if there's a huge discrepancy in their education level. But this is often simply ignored. We just create this social gap right from the childhood and then try to convince the poor that at least they have the same rights before the law (a questionable statement too, since poor guys can't afford best lawyers anyway). So far I see only the attempts of the rich and powerful to cover the inequality with noise and empty talks about equality of rights. Equality of rights is a good start, but not an "aim in itself". We have to provide people with means to benefit from equal rights. I can smell some Marxism) (No offence. I agree with you;) ) Wer A gesagt hat, muss auch B sagen.  Requests for a social justice can easily be found outside Marxism or any other form of leftist thought as well. On the contrary, the rise of these theories were rooted in a simple fact that this request was denied for too long... |
|
|
|
Post by Gerd von Rundstedt on Dec 2, 2021 20:08:20 GMT
Yes, agree with that. A tax funded and high quality education for all is a must in order to achieve equality. Plus taxation that is socially just. The richest should carry a heavier burden since they profit from the current system most. I really like the subject of economic ideologies. I personally am almost completely self-taught, I have barely learned anything in school, and I am relatively poor in terms of Americans: median income with a six person household, so you really don't have to be that rich in order to get a quality education, at least in reference to developed countries. Personally, I think that while some industries are better under the government, many, like education, are better private. I firmly believe that the average person is better able to spend their money than the government. Case in point, American military spending. I do think that the rich should pay a higher tax than the poor, but they shouldn't pay ~ 90% of their money like they do in America. That's crazy! And in terms of profiting from the current system the most, I would actually say that the poor do. Most rich people are self-made, or their parents were. They either worked hard to earn money for themselves, or they had a parent who worked hard to earn money for their children, or both. I would say that despite the rich having more money, the poor often make more money from the government. i.e. cradle to grave, healthcare, education, &c. There is no need for state-sponsored education in order to match educational requirements. Private colleges are often very liberal with financial aid, and pretty much exclusively better than public colleges (i.e. Dartmouth vs. Berkeley, two of the most prestigious colleges in the western world, Berkeley being public and essentially strictly worse to the majority of employers.) What I mean to say is that even private universities are easily accessible, even for the poor, especially for the ones you want to enter into the economy. |
|
|
|
Post by stoic on Dec 2, 2021 20:15:59 GMT
Plus taxation that is socially just. The richest should carry a heavier burden since they profit from the current system most. I really like the subject of economic ideologies. I personally am almost completely self-taught, I have barely learned anything in school, and I am relatively poor in terms of Americans: median income with a six person household, so you really don't have to be that rich in order to get a quality education, at least in reference to developed countries. Personally, I think that while some industries are better under the government, many, like education, are better private. I firmly believe that the average person is better able to spend their money than the government. Case in point, American military spending. I do think that the rich should pay a higher tax than the poor, but they shouldn't pay ~ 90% of their money like they do in America. That's crazy! And in terms of profiting from the current system the most, I would actually say that the poor do. Most rich people are self-made, or their parents were. They either worked hard to earn money for themselves, or they had a parent who worked hard to earn money for their children, or both. I would say that despite the rich having more money, the poor often make more money from the government. i.e. cradle to grave, healthcare, education, &c. There is no need for state-sponsored education in order to match educational requirements. Private colleges are often very liberal with financial aid, and pretty much exclusively better than public colleges (i.e. Dartmouth vs. Berkeley, two of the most prestigious colleges in the western world, Berkeley being public and essentially strictly worse to the majority of employers.) What I mean to say is that even private universities are easily accessible, even for the poor, especially for the ones you want to enter into the economy. In 2022, the income limits for all tax brackets and all filers will be adjusted for inflation and will be as follows (Table 1). There are seven federal income tax rates in 2022: 10 percent, 12 percent, 22 percent, 24 percent, 32 percent, 35 percent, and 37 percent. taxfoundation.org/publications/federal-tax-brackets/Moreover The richest don't pay even 37 percent. It is a well-known trick of hedge funds: While the 2% management fee charged by hedge fees is treated as ordinary income, the 20% fee is treated as capital gains because the returns are typically not paid out but are treated as if they were reinvested with the fund investors' monies. This "carried interest" in the fund enables high-income managers in hedge funds, venture capital and private equity to have this income stream taxed at the capital gains rate of 23.8%, instead of the top ordinary rate of 37% www.investopedia.com/terms/t/two_and_twenty.aspSo, I wouldn't call 23.8% tax rate a heavy burden. Not even near to 90%. And now to education... You say you are autodidact, so am I to a certain extent. But this proves my point, actually, that the current system favours the rich and the only one opportunity for most people to be a knowledgeable person is a self-education. And what is more - the poor can't get a decent basic education, so they automatically miss an opportunity they formally have. For example, they can't study at Sorbonne because their level of education is not sufficient enough, though they have a formal right. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2021 20:20:51 GMT
Die deutschen haben wenigstens einen Sozialstaat, während die Amis das nich haben und viele arme deswegen
Germans have a social state whereas Americans don't have it and therefore much poverty
|
|
|
|
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Dec 2, 2021 20:22:00 GMT
Well, a state-sponsored education including a high one is very achievable step in many countries. A child from a poor family and from a rich family couldn't ever reach equality of opportunities if there's a huge discrepancy in their education level. But this is often simply ignored. We just create this social gap right from the childhood and then try to convince the poor that at least they have the same rights before the law (a questionable statement too, since poor guys can't afford best lawyers anyway). So far I see only the attempts of the rich and powerful to cover the inequality with noise and empty talks about equality of rights. Equality of rights is a good start, but not an "aim in itself". We have to provide people with means to benefit from equal rights. I can smell some Marxism) (No offence. I agree with you;) ) You can smell Marxism in many members here. But I agree with stoic. Atleast in my country free education and healthcare is not a question, it's a norm and most of Finnish people are definitely not Marxists, there isn't even a communist party that really is a party. |
|
|
|
Post by alexandrvasilevski on Dec 2, 2021 20:30:38 GMT
I can smell some Marxism) (No offence. I agree with you;) ) Wer A gesagt hat, muss auch B sagen. Requests for a social justice can easily be found outside Marxism or any other form of leftist thought as well. On the contrary, the rise of these theories were rooted in a simple fact that this request was denied for too long... I don’t say that request for social justice is Marxist, I find that basing on economic theory is originally a Marxist feature. But actually, though being strongly anti-Communist, I find many of their ideas, like for example, economics as basic for all the other institutions pretty attractive and that they explain a lot. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2021 20:33:01 GMT
The future lies in a socialist state, not capitalistic
|
|
|
|
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Dec 2, 2021 20:34:44 GMT
Plus taxation that is socially just. The richest should carry a heavier burden since they profit from the current system most. I really like the subject of economic ideologies. I personally am almost completely self-taught, I have barely learned anything in school, and I am relatively poor in terms of Americans: median income with a six person household, so you really don't have to be that rich in order to get a quality education, at least in reference to developed countries. Personally, I think that while some industries are better under the government, many, like education, are better private. I firmly believe that the average person is better able to spend their money than the government. Case in point, American military spending. I do think that the rich should pay a higher tax than the poor, but they shouldn't pay ~ 90% of their money like they do in America. That's crazy! And in terms of profiting from the current system the most, I would actually say that the poor do. Most rich people are self-made, or their parents were. They either worked hard to earn money for themselves, or they had a parent who worked hard to earn money for their children, or both. I would say that despite the rich having more money, the poor often make more money from the government. i.e. cradle to grave, healthcare, education, &c. There is no need for state-sponsored education in order to match educational requirements. Private colleges are often very liberal with financial aid, and pretty much exclusively better than public colleges (i.e. Dartmouth vs. Berkeley, two of the most prestigious colleges in the western world, Berkeley being public and essentially strictly worse to the majority of employers.) What I mean to say is that even private universities are easily accessible, even for the poor, especially for the ones you want to enter into the economy. Of course the poor benefit more from taxes. That's what taxes are for, to serve the poor. I really think free education is a must for any sort of equality. First of all getting rich isn't about working hard. It's about the conditions, the society etc. The ones who work the hardest are the east Asian workers working 14 hours a day in a hot factory. They're definitely not rich. Even if you believe that richness is available by only "working hard", it's not you whose working, it's your parents. How is it fair that your quality of education is dependent on what kind of family you're born to. Working yourself is also a bit impossible, atleast compared to having rich parents. To the examples, I can give you one too. Compare the American private education system to the Nordic free education system. The Nordic one wins on all measures, quality and equality. |
|
|
|
Post by Gerd von Rundstedt on Dec 2, 2021 20:37:04 GMT
Die deutschen haben wenigstens einen Sozialstaat, während die Amis das nich haben und viele arme deswegen Germans have a social state whereas Americans don't have it and therefore much poverty Poverty? On just the list of OECD countries, the US does have the highest poverty rate, but the poverty line for it is higher than the median income of 11 OECD countries! As for stoic, sorry, I messed up my statistics, the rich, those in the top income tax bracket, account for over 90% of US income tax revenue. Please, let me hear education. |
|
|
|
Post by stoic on Dec 2, 2021 20:45:16 GMT
I really like the subject of economic ideologies. I personally am almost completely self-taught, I have barely learned anything in school, and I am relatively poor in terms of Americans: median income with a six person household, so you really don't have to be that rich in order to get a quality education, at least in reference to developed countries. Personally, I think that while some industries are better under the government, many, like education, are better private. I firmly believe that the average person is better able to spend their money than the government. Case in point, American military spending. I do think that the rich should pay a higher tax than the poor, but they shouldn't pay ~ 90% of their money like they do in America. That's crazy! And in terms of profiting from the current system the most, I would actually say that the poor do. Most rich people are self-made, or their parents were. They either worked hard to earn money for themselves, or they had a parent who worked hard to earn money for their children, or both. I would say that despite the rich having more money, the poor often make more money from the government. i.e. cradle to grave, healthcare, education, &c. There is no need for state-sponsored education in order to match educational requirements. Private colleges are often very liberal with financial aid, and pretty much exclusively better than public colleges (i.e. Dartmouth vs. Berkeley, two of the most prestigious colleges in the western world, Berkeley being public and essentially strictly worse to the majority of employers.) What I mean to say is that even private universities are easily accessible, even for the poor, especially for the ones you want to enter into the economy. Of course the poor benefit more from taxes. That's what taxes are for, to serve the poor. I really think free education is a must for any sort of equality. First of all getting rich isn't about working hard. It's about the conditions, the society etc. The ones who work the hardest are the east Asian workers working 14 hours a day in a hot factory. They're definitely not rich. Even if you believe that richness is available by only "working hard", it's not you whose working, it's your parents. How is it fair that your quality of education is dependent on what kind of family you're born to. Working yourself is also a bit impossible, atleast compared to having rich parents. To the examples, I can give you one too. Compare the American private education system to the Nordic free education system. The Nordic one wins on all measures, quality and equality. Actually, that is what is called a "Scandinavian socialism". A common sense to me. If you have a poor neighbor you can oppress and rob him, or you can help him. A second choice is the safest way in the long run. |
|
|
|
Post by Gerd von Rundstedt on Dec 2, 2021 20:51:46 GMT
I really like the subject of economic ideologies. I personally am almost completely self-taught, I have barely learned anything in school, and I am relatively poor in terms of Americans: median income with a six person household, so you really don't have to be that rich in order to get a quality education, at least in reference to developed countries. Personally, I think that while some industries are better under the government, many, like education, are better private. I firmly believe that the average person is better able to spend their money than the government. Case in point, American military spending. I do think that the rich should pay a higher tax than the poor, but they shouldn't pay ~ 90% of their money like they do in America. That's crazy! And in terms of profiting from the current system the most, I would actually say that the poor do. Most rich people are self-made, or their parents were. They either worked hard to earn money for themselves, or they had a parent who worked hard to earn money for their children, or both. I would say that despite the rich having more money, the poor often make more money from the government. i.e. cradle to grave, healthcare, education, &c. There is no need for state-sponsored education in order to match educational requirements. Private colleges are often very liberal with financial aid, and pretty much exclusively better than public colleges (i.e. Dartmouth vs. Berkeley, two of the most prestigious colleges in the western world, Berkeley being public and essentially strictly worse to the majority of employers.) What I mean to say is that even private universities are easily accessible, even for the poor, especially for the ones you want to enter into the economy. Of course the poor benefit more from taxes. That's what taxes are for, to serve the poor. I really think free education is a must for any sort of equality. First of all getting rich isn't about working hard. It's about the conditions, the society etc. The ones who work the hardest are the east Asian workers working 14 hours a day in a hot factory. They're definitely not rich. Even if you believe that richness is available by only "working hard", it's not you whose working, it's your parents. How is it fair that your quality of education is dependent on what kind of family you're born to. Working yourself is also a bit impossible, atleast compared to having rich parents. To the examples, I can give you one too. Compare the American private education system to the Nordic free education system. The Nordic one wins on all measures, quality and equality. 1. Agreed. 2a. How so? 2b. Fair enough, but even so, the rich are rich because they provide something that people want and they can't easily be replaced by someone else. E.G. if nobody else was willing to be a slave in east Asia, wages would rise for those workers because they are irreplaceable. This is a horrific human rights violation that the UN should be doing far more about. 3. On that note, those Americans in the middle class often get a far larger percentage of their money from their parents than upper class folks. 4. That's incredibly reasonable. The reason I compared Americans to Americans was because Americans are idiots. It would be like comparing Messe's output versus Guderian's. While I believe that privatized university is better, I think that European public university is way better than American. However, I still think that Lomonsov is a better university that Helsinki. |
|
|
|
Post by Gerd von Rundstedt on Dec 2, 2021 20:52:53 GMT
Of course the poor benefit more from taxes. That's what taxes are for, to serve the poor. I really think free education is a must for any sort of equality. First of all getting rich isn't about working hard. It's about the conditions, the society etc. The ones who work the hardest are the east Asian workers working 14 hours a day in a hot factory. They're definitely not rich. Even if you believe that richness is available by only "working hard", it's not you whose working, it's your parents. How is it fair that your quality of education is dependent on what kind of family you're born to. Working yourself is also a bit impossible, atleast compared to having rich parents. To the examples, I can give you one too. Compare the American private education system to the Nordic free education system. The Nordic one wins on all measures, quality and equality. Actually, that is what is called a "Scandinavian socialism". A common sense to me. If you have a poor neighbor you can oppress and rob him, or you can help him. A second choice is the safest way in the long run. There is always the option to leave your neighbor alone, to live and let live. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2021 21:00:14 GMT
Die deutschen haben wenigstens einen Sozialstaat, während die Amis das nich haben und viele arme deswegen Germans have a social state whereas Americans don't have it and therefore much poverty Poverty? On just the list of OECD countries, the US does have the highest poverty rate, but the poverty line for it is higher than the median income of 11 OECD countries! As for stoic , sorry, I messed up my statistics, the rich, those in the top income tax bracket, account for over 90% of US income tax revenue. Please, let me hear education. Well.. The capitalistic system of the USA won't work in the near future either, like the communistic systems deesgablished in eastern Europe and Russia. So next goal would be then socialism? I think sooo... |
|
