Community votes are collected from you and other visitors to Ask500People. Independent votes are collected from visitors to hundreds of other websites around the world.
Sign Up or Login
Sorry, this data is only available to users with an account.
A little bit of inequality is good I assume. Working hard and exploring new ideas should be rewarded. On the other hand massive inequality as I have seen in some developping countries is harmfull, especially to the many have-nots nof course.
I agree. A functioning and happy society without inequality is utopic. On the other hand, total inequality will lead to anarchy in the long run, because the have-nots will stand up sooner or later. So from my point of view the goal must be to find the point where there's enough incentives for people to work hard and be creative for their own good but still enough redistribution (through taxes mainly) so that the poorest will not be left behind.
I think while in Europe too much is being redistributed (leading to a slowdown of growth and wrong incentives), in the US too little is being redistributed (leading to a divergence of society).
[3 points]21 days ago by FewReplyEdited 21 days ago by Few
If this means that I should work hard while you sit on your ass and I give you my money, forget it. And, I suspect that in the U.S. we wouldn't have so much inequity if we didn't have so many illegal immigrants with no skills and a welfare mentality.
It made Bill Gates fantastically wealthy, same goes for Michael Dell, Steve Jobs, Sergey Brin, Larry Page, and many others who put in many hours of work before they gained a dime.
[2 points]20 days ago by ChipmonkReplyEdited 20 days ago by Chipmonk
While they may have worked plenty hard it's my guess they didn't come up with a billion dollar idea and lacked insufficient delegating skills. People with such capability are one in a million.
It seems to me that wealth inequality can only be a negative if the rate is a marker for opportunity for wealth.
Economic growth requires economic opportunity. If ways to wealth become more limited, (as they have become in the US since the 1960s) it stands to reason that the wealthy will slowly increase their wealth while less people will become wealthy for the first time.
If that is true, then the very wealthy will become a smaller and smaller percentage of the population. The way I see it is that wealth inequality is not the problem. It is a by-product of lack of opportunity for wealth.
If I am right, then taxing the rich will decrease economic opportunity and actually produce more inequality. It will, however, put more economic power in the hands of the government. That, in turn, also decreases the opportunity for wealth.
I'm sure that's sometimes true. My experience is that those that are first generation rich have a high risk tolerance. Most of the people I know are not really interested in living the life required to become rich. Most people want more security, not more money. The valuable ones want to feel good about the jobs they do and be paid a decent amount for their efforts.
This comment was deleted.
[2 points] 21 days ago by deleted user ReplyA little bit of inequality is good I assume. Working hard and exploring new ideas should be rewarded. On the other hand massive inequality as I have seen in some developping countries is harmfull, especially to the many have-nots nof course.
I agree. A functioning and happy society without inequality is utopic. On the other hand, total inequality will lead to anarchy in the long run, because the have-nots will stand up sooner or later. So from my point of view the goal must be to find the point where there's enough incentives for people to work hard and be creative for their own good but still enough redistribution (through taxes mainly) so that the poorest will not be left behind.
I think while in Europe too much is being redistributed (leading to a slowdown of growth and wrong incentives), in the US too little is being redistributed (leading to a divergence of society).
If this means that I should work hard while you sit on your ass and I give you my money, forget it. And, I suspect that in the U.S. we wouldn't have so much inequity if we didn't have so many illegal immigrants with no skills and a welfare mentality.
This comment was deleted.
[2 points] 21 days ago by deleted user ReplyWatch out she may report you to ICE as an illegal immigrant.
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 21 days ago by deleted user ReplyTo still believe that hard work makes a person wealthy is like believing in the tooth fairy and Santa Claus.
This comment was deleted.
[2 points] 21 days ago by deleted user ReplyIt made Bill Gates fantastically wealthy, same goes for Michael Dell, Steve Jobs, Sergey Brin, Larry Page, and many others who put in many hours of work before they gained a dime.
And for each one of those, there are literally thousands who do not make it. Are they guilty of not having worked hard enough?
While they may have worked plenty hard it's my guess they didn't come up with a billion dollar idea and lacked insufficient delegating skills. People with such capability are one in a million.
This comment was deleted.
[2 points] 20 days ago by deleted user ReplyHave a Happy Halloween!!!!!
There has never been a society without wealth inequality, Which suggests to me that its just a pipe dream.
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 20 days ago by deleted user ReplyIt seems to me that wealth inequality can only be a negative if the rate is a marker for opportunity for wealth.
Economic growth requires economic opportunity. If ways to wealth become more limited, (as they have become in the US since the 1960s) it stands to reason that the wealthy will slowly increase their wealth while less people will become wealthy for the first time.
If that is true, then the very wealthy will become a smaller and smaller percentage of the population. The way I see it is that wealth inequality is not the problem. It is a by-product of lack of opportunity for wealth.
If I am right, then taxing the rich will decrease economic opportunity and actually produce more inequality. It will, however, put more economic power in the hands of the government. That, in turn, also decreases the opportunity for wealth.
Or maybe it's that most people do not know how to put their ideas in motion, perhaps not even realizing they have million dollar ideas.
I'm sure that's sometimes true. My experience is that those that are first generation rich have a high risk tolerance. Most of the people I know are not really interested in living the life required to become rich. Most people want more security, not more money. The valuable ones want to feel good about the jobs they do and be paid a decent amount for their efforts.