Hmmm. I think he was saying that you cannot raise one by lowering another. I still do not see the "blame" you are referring to.

The blame is ascribed to the one who wants to bring the rich down in order to help the poor. Those who are seen as sowing class hatred are not the rich. It is always the poorer classes, the workers and the unions who argue for greater equality and better rights, higher wages and greater levels of fairness who are accused of sowing class hatred. It is not the business owner, nor is it the wealthy who are accused of such things.


The rich have benefited themselves at the expense of the poor for a thousand years and more. But they are not accused of class hatred.

Wealth is not a pie to be divided up and when it's gone it's gone. Wealth is mostly creation of things that were not there previously. The wealthy don't get wealthy because they managed to sneak themselves a bigger piece of pie. Most wealthy get wealthy because they find or build a bigger pie.

Maybe this is easier to see in a young culture, where 120 years ago there was fuck-all and now there's awesome wealth. If we were all still arguing about the pie of 1900 we'd all still be poor.

There was huge wealth in America 120 years ago. It was held in the hands of a relatively small group of people. There is now even greater wealth in America. It is still held in the hands of a relatively small group of people.

The richest person in 1900 would give all his wealth to experience what the middle class can experience today.

Well, relatively speaking, you may be correct about the amount of wealth that there was in America a hundred years ago, then again there really wasn't even much of an America to speak of.

However, The distribution of wealth will never be equal in a free society. Additionally, to simply view "the wealth" as a stagnant amount and to then conclude from that, that some must be taken from one in order for it to be given to another is also false.

One cannot be raised by lowering another. That doesn't work. :headshake

*Smiles* I don't see it as a single pie. I am not an eighteenth-century economist; I do not see it in zero-sum terms.

The comment about the wealth of America 120 years ago was simply in response to UT's comment.

If the wealthiest are taxed at a higher level and those taxes used to 'raise' the condition of the poorest then that has changed the picture.That is not a case of redistributing a fixed and immutable sum. If a minimum wage prevents the more unscrupulous employers from undervaluing their workforce, then that has changed the picture. As with unions, it has reduced the 'power' of the wage-payer, and raised the status of the wage-earner.

There will never be total economic, or indeed social equality. But the balance can (and should in my opinion) be altered. The gap will never be closed, but it can be narrowed. In order for the working-classes to increase their power and standing, it is, in my opinion, necessary to reduce the power and standing of the employers.

If it was easy, everyone would do it.

And if you don't think the poor the poor/employee have benefited from the rich/employer - think about what UT said some more.

A fair point. But I was talking about the working-class, not the middle class.

Over here, the middle class works for a living..... so I don't understand the distinction.

Bu there's another point; I would like to have the same academic degrees that you do, but I've been busy with other things. I feel it would really benefit my future though - so could you give me some of yours? You could just go back and re-do some of your work...

I've a better idea: let's see if we can find someone who inherited several thousand academic degrees and see if they can dob you one of theirs that they will never in five lifetimes have the time to use. Or better still, let's find someone who has many degrees but which were primarily earned by someone else's labour and let the people who did the work have the degrees.

This isn't about taking away from the middle-class. It's not even about taking from the rich. It's about denying the extremely wealthy the opportunity to exploit those who have few choices but to be exploited.

But you want to tax people higher based on income they are making now. And I want a nice fresh degree.

Well, how bout I pay a higher rate of tax when my degree allows me to get a graduate job and that money goes to ensure someone else who wants to go to university can have their funding?

Personally I am in favour of a graduate tax.

The two are not comparable. Money is necessary to put food on your table and a roof over your head. That's why people who have fuck all are so easily exploited by those who have much. Other than a certificate I have gained nothing tangible through my education. Bread is pretty tangible, as is hearth and home.

How about those of us who don't have the level of degree that you have get to decide, since we outnumber you?

Personally, I'm in favor of a flat tax, or tax based on consumption. Anything else is really just unfair, and reduces incentive to try and better yourself and your progeny.

You worked hard for your degree and you should be proud of it and all that it stands for for you - and I really don't think anyone should be able to take that away from you just because they think it would benefit them. That's my point. If you think it was a waste of time getting it because you can't pay the rent with it - why did you?

:yelgreedy