Should we allow the rich to get richer?

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.


In that example I completely agree, if people are not willing to take advantage of opportunities to further themselves then they are responsible for their own problems. The company you work or worked for sounds like a very legitimate honest business. I am talking about leveraged buyouts however, that is what Bain specialized in. By the way leveraged buyouts do not target downtrodden businesses, they target health companies with low debt.
 


They started off in venture capital for a while. Later moved to include leveraged buy outs. What's wrong with that? Please provide a company they leveraged and bankrupted? I asked for specifics and I get a broad answer that really doesn't further your argument.
 


That's a pipe dream, I only want a balance of both freedoms and equality. Too much of either and we will be in trouble.
 


Answer the question...

WHAT DO YOU PROPOSE TO DO?

Very simply question and requires a simple answer...no more evasion tactics.

What kind of equality and what freedoms specifically.
 


Now you opened up a whole new issue. What defines equality?

If you allow freedom: to each their own.

Everyone is equal. Unless you start looking at money, then you have inequality because you allowed freedom. Socialism and Communism do not allow freedom because it would break equality. With freedom, equality shouldn't matter because you can do what you want and what you do determines everything.

Maybe some simpletons do require equality at the cost of freedom because they don't know what to do or can't make decisions. Should the entirity of a nation suffer for them by reduced freedom?

The freedoms allowed in many countries today is their defining factors. Bring in Church and everyone is equal, hence a significant reason to keep a religious aspect in many things. It appears to me that you judge equality by the amount of money in the bank account.
 


Ampad and Armco. You do understand what they do when they have leveraged buy outs right? How they pay themselves fat sums of money by taking out debt against the company and charge exorbitant management fees? You don't see anything wrong with this do you? Might as well put a gun to someone's head and take their wallet.
 


Equality in society. Legalize marriage for all people. Remove church from everything, it does not make people equal, give me a break (you were kidding right?). Fix the tax code so the rich pay more because they make more. Make sure that everyone can get an education, so they have a chance to rise up within our society. Oh and one really big thing that constantly pisses me off, get rid of the damn electoral college, and do a straight up popular vote. That way a few states don't decide every election. Make everyone get health insurance so we quit having to pay for those uninsured dopes. Just to name a few....

Freedoms in society. Freedom to own a gun. Freedom to do whatever you want with your body as long as it doesn't affect anyone else. Freedom to own land and build whatever you want on it. Just to name a few.....
 


Think it sends the message that when you start a business you better take into the account the cost of actually starting the business.
 


Maybe some of them would of died off anyways, who knows? However, taking out debt just to give yourself a paycheck is messed up.
 


How about the governments get out the business of marriage completely, instead of creating a law on it? Leave that to religious institutes to determine and allow the church to operate without government interference. It was in fact the gov't that stepped in to the church, not the church stepping into the gov't. In Church, you are God's child and therefore equal to all others. That's a religious teaching but doesn't mean everyone follows it. God fearing people who don't follow those heavenly rules sure as hell aren't to go follow man-made laws, right?
The rich already pay more dollar-wise. Why does money matter when we are discussing equality? I believe in the freedom for each to make their own amount of money and having a flat tax would be the best way to go about this. Everyone pays 18% across the board. That's true equality as you so desire, as opposed to your skewered thought that the rich have to pay more than the poor? That is no way is equality.
Everyone can get an education. Our country provides free schooling through high school and plenty of libraries. If you want higher education the government offers loans and grants, institutions offer scholarships, etc. Those are nearly equal to all unless you're a white male. Equality in the liberal arts institutions would be nice to see, but then you take away from the freedoms of other institutes being not so equal. You breed mediocracy when everything is equal, why achieve more when everyone has the same? There are plenty of stories of poor people raising up from the steets; In Pursuit of Happiness is a good movie covering a real black male and his life. It was targeted to all audiences, yet the message was lost.
Electoral college is required so all states have an equal share in the federal government. While not perfect, it is far better than letting popular vote win. States like California and New York would have too much influence on all other states, thus the EC is required to create equality.
Health insurance? How about the gov't gets out of the health insurance business and creates equality that it aides no one, instead of trying to get everyone? It would be much more equal there.

I'm finding it interesting that you what perceive as equality, I perceive as the complete opposite of equality. I believe if everyone has freedom, and has access to the same options, then you are both free and equal to make your own decisions. From what I see of your viewpoint, you believe equality is enforcing a viewpoint - eduction to everyone, healthcare to everyone, legalize marriage for everyone, as opposed to not recognizing, remove the church from everyone instead of including it (you want to include marriage, but not church? so why not include marriage and church, or exclude marriage and church?)
 
If you read what in his mind equality is, it is the exact opposite. He's preaching the very basics of socialism or communism.

His concern is on social order equality by dictacting that everyone follows the same enforced mandate under the guise of equality and freedom.
 


Equality to the state governments, not the individual. We are talking about the individual here, think my vote counts for anything when I live in a red state and vote blue? Get it?
 


k......thanks for the input it was truly insightful!
 


Then move to a blue state. If you continue the train of thought, why do we even have states then? If you don't like it, move.
 
I know you're going to reply to me with some BS stuff, so I'll throw this out at you in anticipation.

If everyone at the age of 18 was stripped of everything they had and were provided the same education. They were then given $10,000. They are all true equals at this time.
In one year, will they all still be equal? In 10 years?

The answer is no because they have freedom to do as the wish. Since you state the rich will need to pay more in taxes, I would suspect some to become rich, others poor, some to maintain. Therefore no longer equal and your own idea of equality fails.
 


Very basics of socialism? You completely missed my point about the relation of equality and freedoms. Yes with complete equality you have little freedom because your freedom can overtake someones equality and vice versa. Therefore you need to have a give and take between the two, the examples I provided were merely my own opinions about which ones should be considered under a freedom standpoint and which ones should be based on equality.

You argument about the electoral college is a tried a true bullshit explanation for keeping the EC. The individual has no say in the vote unless they live in a battleground state or vote whichever way their state votes. Its sad that the greatest republic the world has ever seen can have a president who got less votes be president because of an obsolete election system. You can take marriage out of the union between two people if you want. But you need something to represent the union of two people for tax purposes among others, you can call it whatever you want since it seems to disturb your faith. Removing religion would be more of a freedom, you are right about that. The freedom to believe whatever you want and not be judged or predisposed to reprisals for it. Also all religions should be equal, saying that the USA is christian would be a no-no in my book.

The taxes is the only one that truely is dicey considering that it depends how you view equality. I view equality in taxes as everyone paying what is fair based on their income. You can view this as unfair because wealthier people pay a higher tax but my counter to that is they can pay a higher tax and still thrive, tax the middle class more and they will wither.

Education is better than it has been I agree, especially with the online classes starting to emerge.

Healthcare to everyone so everyone pays for what they use, instead of some of us paying more for others who use services without paying. EQUAL cost to everyone. If government got out of health insurance what would happen? They would only take young people in good health because that is where the most money is, you are naive to think otherwise.
 


You completely miss the point over and over again.
 


Wow, the insight in that comment was legendary. We are a republic, that is why we have states. If you don't like it, move? Yup, good one, you must be getting agitated to say nonsense like that, maybe we should start up again tomorrow?
 


So a majority of states should override a majority of the actual voters?
 
John, I will say this one more time
One president said that the contitution limits what the government does for you,
Another president said, ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.
Obama likens himself publicly at least, to Kennedy.
Its actually the exact opposite.

I know this is your ideal, Obamas ideal, but dont claim Kennedy then.
Youd have to completely rewrite history, and when Obama says the old ways arent working, hes including Kennedy, and his ideals.
To me, this is dangerous, discarding the old such as this.
Our government made several provisions in the constitution to prevent the very thing you and Obama want.
Why did they do this?
Maybe because theyd seen it elsewheres?
Maybe the "new" way isnt so new?
And look how our country did, as more and more countries fell in line with our ideals.

I understnad youre getting hit from all sides here, but the things being said here are tried and true.
This "new" way is again, the exact opposite of what this country wass founded upon, as people came here to get away from the "new" methods, which eventually crumbled to an extent, but none achieved what we had, as we started fresh, and new that "new" wasnt better, but better left elsewheres
 


What exactly am I rewriting? I thought our country was founded on freedom and equality? Human society is changing rapidly with technology, sometimes change is inevitable, but I can understand why you would want to stay with what has worked so far. In the end this is only my opinion though, so its not like you have to take it seriously, you can think about what ifs in this scenario.
 


You misinterpreted the constitution then. You freedom and you have equality. By equality it meant equal opportunity. It is your FREEDOM to do what you like with opportunity.

Its not difficult to understand the basics of the U.S constitution and what it was meant to do. My 9 year old nephew understand it clearly and he was explained this one simple time.

Why is this a difficult concept to grasp for you?