ULTIMATE RED PILL EDITION

Defend the level of wealth inequality that has developed over the last century.

Life is unfair, friend. Nothing between 2 men is equal.

>The Golden Rule
Those with the gold make the rules.

The weak should fear the strong, faggot.

so dont try? that seems like laziness. perfect equality is impossible but hasnt it gotten out of hand?

should we not try to redress the balance a little?

>Focusing your entire political ideology on wealth inequality is the ultimate red pill.

It sounds like the pill leads to communism or socialism. The kind of gateway drug that fucks up this country regardless.

>try to redress the balance a little?
Trying to intervene/interfere with the natural order of things never tends to works out well for the provoking party.

I never said it was, I just want to understand why it is necessary for it to be this way?

so...things would be worse?

raising taxes on the rich 5-10% and reducing military spending and a few of the other no brainers.

that would collapse society?

is it not collapsed already?

You can try but to bring everything to whats average, people above it will be damaged and i dont think theyll enjoy that very much.
In all reality alot of people earn more money than they need no matter how luxurious of a life they desire. But if they are not already trying to help ones that are less fortunate, theyre going to be unhappy about you trying to force them to do it.
The issue is that if they are really that high on the ladder when it comes to money, they are just as much higher on the ladder when it comes to influence.
Think of it as a company, you complain youre fired and replaced, you go to another company. But what if every company refuses to hire you?
I feel like never is too hard of a word. In fact in a specific area of our primitive instincts, trying to oppose anyone expressing them will turn out well for you.

Our own fault really

>raising taxes on the rich 5-10%
They could handle it, but in a globalized economy they'd just move their capital unless given incentive to remain.

>reducing military spending and a few of the other no brainers
Sounds like a "no brainer" right there

>is it not collapsed already?
If it were, you'd not be able to be posting.

Wealth inequality is fine, user. The problem lies in the wealthy purchasing politicians hand having regulations and laws passed that preclude any competition. The problem is actually the lack of social/economic mobility, and crony capitalism, which is what we have now, stifles that mobility. The problem is that many of today's rich wouldn't be rich if they didn't own the government.

>developed over the last century
why was wealth inequality not a thing for thousand of years before last century when everybody was a serf?
Do goober 14 year old Sup Forums browsers think they would be better off as a 19th century factory worker and get conscripted to die for the emperor?
Even poor westerners are wealthy compared to the rest of the planet.

The rise of the welfare state directly correlates with the rise of wealth inequality, the only way to reverse this cycle is to cut-off the gibs to all able bodied people.

No, obviously it can't be done on a national level, it would have to be some sort of .....and I hate to say this ... international pact, devised amongst many countries to allow business to take a loss so poverty can be further redressed.

Nobody wants old people to be choosing between food and heat.

this is just the developed world im talking about.

whats the point in it all if we dont provide for everyone as well as we can?

massive wealth inequality is unavoidable given , among many factors, the stratification of the work force.

But isnt it right to try to do what is possible?

why do we need so much military spending?

people with high intelligence and work ethic should be rewarded instead of penalized.
there should be a clear line between poor and rich in our society, poor families should be made to feel guilt about raising children without being able to properly provide for them.
poor people should stop complaining and lift themselves out of the gutter instead of blaming wealthy people for their problems.

SOME KIDS LEARN EARLY TO AVOID COMPETITION AT ALL COSTS. THEN THEY GET OLD AND COMPLAIN BECAUSE THEY'RE POOR OLD LOSERS.

A lot of very wealthy people are extremely stupid, and just happened to inherit hundreds of millions of dollars?

when you are hard working or intelligent enough you can make enough money to pass on to your children.
that is considered normal by rich people, meanwhile poorslimes blow every welfare check down the drain and never consider their childrens inheritance.

>obviously it can't be done on a national level, it would have to be some sort of .....and I hate to say this ... international pact, devised amongst many countries to allow business to take a loss so poverty can be further redressed
...Internationale Clique...

>Nobody wants old people to be choosing between food and heat.
Meh

>whats the point in it all if we dont provide for everyone as well as we can?
Survival of the fittest

>But isnt it right to try to do what is possible?
What is right?

>why do we need so much military spending?
The weak fear the strong

Quite simply people dont care about each other.
You dont care about me, i dont care about you, its simple, we share no bond.
You are more likely to help your friend than a stranger on the street. Imagine the difference between seeing someone random physically and then not. If caring is a number and a 100 are your friends ( you dont care that much about your friends either ) then a random on the street is maybe 20, and some foreigner is probably around 5. And id consider a person that thinks like this to be far too compassionate compared to others.
You consider it penalisation and i consider it helping others. See the difference?
Also most people that do scientific research are piss poor compared to some retard who owns a big chain of stores.
There is a saying in my country, "to the rich for the status, to the poor for the glory" rough translation, but what it means is that the poor will always offer you more than the rich, and i see this in my life all the time. I go to my mothers friend, fix his pc in a minute, i get offered unlimited coffee,cigarettes, juice and cookies, on top of that he gives me some money and a pack of cigarettes after that. He lives with his parents and his income is close to nonexistant. My godmother that has 4 apartments and lives off of renting them, has about 20 more times than my other friend, bought me a bag of chips for fixing her pc and her phone multiple times. Also this woman has only elementary school and has about 10 times higher pay, than my mother who has been the best student in elementary, highschool and college graduating in mathematics.

IQ work ethic are a meme. Being a coffee and cleaning lady in this company in my town ( russian now) pays you 2 times more than being an IT technician in other companies.

My father is a plumber and he works about 4 times faster than the norm, raising other peoples norm, making people complain to the boss man for higher pays, my father gets fired. Boss man literally told my father " you are working too fast." What does that even mean? Is there such a thing as too good? Is there such thing as too much work ethic?

i disagree i think that people, for the most part would choose to provide a basic standard of care for all people to the degree they have the chance to work their way to the top... i think that the world is unfair, nature is unfair, life is unfair, but we have the capacity to do that in spite of it all.

Yes but its much easier to rise to the top if you are born into privilage and status, the over generations the most wealthy people are predominantly and relatively the less able, as people of superior talent cant rise to top so freely, and there are many many people who are completely stopped from participating in society due to inherited poverty and social defeat.

For the sake of us all , should we not ensure the best people truly have can come to power.

Hillary and trump cannot be the best we have.

>What does that even mean? Is there such a thing as too good? Is there such thing as too much work ethic?
If they pay you $10 per hour, they expect around $10 worth of labor.

Being more efficient, while useful and fulfilling, makes the others who actually have to "work" to achieve that $10 of labor feel bad, when they see someone easily do $40 worth of labor in the same time.

>the nail that sticks out, gets hammered

In higher levels of work this is less the case, but for employed labor this seems to be the case. The crab in the bucket mentality is very real

See thats where you are wrong in thinking that every human wants to help every human. Even charity companies take a ridiculous % of the money donated to themselves. If everyone just wanted to do nothing but help the fellow man everytime the opportunity arises and not take too much from another there would be no need for money, but weve had money for a very long time. Quite simply this is not the case. I am the first one who would abuse this free system and do nothing but take if i werent forced to give back. And i assure you that i am not anywhere close to a minority in my way of thinking.
When it comes to high levels of work you have the factor of not being easily replaceable which keeps you there, usually through how well you work. However obviously in my dads case, the boss would rather have a shittier worker than a better one.

The easy part is what i agree with, however what my father does is about 50 times more technical, harder and important, than using glue and placing tiles on the floor or carrying a bath tub through a door. If they were to get paid the same amount, thatd be injustice.