Posted on 02/13/2004 9:26:11 AM PST by PoliSciStudent
Greetings, all! I'm new here and hope that I will not offend anyone by confessing at the outset that my personal political leanings are probably farther to the left than is the norm in this forum, but I promise, I'm not here to be disruptive or disrespectful of anyone.
I am a graduate student in political science and would honestly like to hear the views of conservative thinkers on a point which has been troubling me with respect to the direction our country is heading, namely the widening gap between rich people and poor people.
According to the US Treasury Department, the richest 2% of the country own 80% of the wealth in the US. That's honestly not just some liberal's opinion, that's really true, you can check the statistics yourself if you don't belive me. Flip that around and that means that the remaining 98% of us have only 20% to go around amongst all the rest of us. In the last three years, the income of the wealthiest .001% has increased by 600%, in other words, for every $10 million/year they were making before, they're now making $60 million/year.
I read in another article that 5 of the 12 wealthiest individuals on earth are from the Walton family which owns Wal-Mart. At the same time, human resources staff for Wal-Mart, when they hire a new employee, will routinely complete paperwork for new hires to receive foodstamps, as the wages they pay their workers are so low that, even as full-time employees, they are assured of falling below the poverty level and qualifying for foodstamps, without which they wouldn't even be able to afford to feed their families.
Does this sort of thing not bother conservatives? I've read studies which suggest that Americans by and large don't mind extremes of personal wealth as, this being the land of opportunity, we harbor some hope of one day rising to those lofty summits of affluence ourselves, so don't feel we should judge others for achieving that to which we ourselves aspire. Does that sound about right to you all? Anyone have any thoughts?
I get really confused about the un-insured issue in this country. I know of a man, who was homeless, and got injured. He was rushed to our local county hospital, which is considered one of the best trauma hospitals in the state, and was treated for his injuries and after a stay in the hospital was released. Now my confusion comes when I am told this man has no insurance, yet he was treated and cured at a local hospital. How can that be? Do you believe he carries health insurance, but lives in a box? I see my taxes pay for this hospital, and yet I pay insurance for myself and all of my employees. So am I not paying for this man's health insurance too?
As far as the wealth issue, I own my own business. In order to secure funding for equipment for my company, I have to sign over everything to the bank. This includes my house, my cars, everything. So I take a heavy financial chance everytime I try to grow my company. Now, I came from very modest means, the youngest of 14 kids and I paid my way through night school to get a degree...took a long time. I pay my "fair share" and probably a lot more. Can you understand where I and most other hard working conservatives are coming from? And do you know the amounts given to all charitable organizations each year? You do know this money does not come from the 50% who do not pay any taxes. If you researched this number, you would probably find the majority of it comes from the 2% who pay 80% of the taxes already. And speaking for myself, it is not for the tax relief.
Hopefully you can understand another side.
TC
Hmmmmm, interesting. I'm not rich, but I own my own modest $150K home on one acre here in Central Texas. Paid cash for it when I moved here. Now, when I retire soon, I'll still need a pretty good income to keep that house. The property taxes, insurance, and minimum utilities (water, elec, sewer, trash collection, etc) cost me about $520 a month. And that's without a mortgage.
I consider myself lucky and pretty well prepared for retirement, but I'm still gonna need an income to maintain even a paid for home.
To Dems, a couple living in N.Y.C., who both work and have a combined income of $100,000 per year (that would a fireman married to a teacher, BTW )are the wealthy. They aren't;that couple isn't even in the upper middle class!
And no, the middle class does NOT pay the most taxes...the upper middle class ( and actually it's the upper most part of the upper middle class! ) and the wealthy are the ones who pay the majority of the taxes.
Why don't you think that the wealthy "requires a paycheck "? How else are they going to pay their bills......from spending their capital? That's a way, certain, to become poor awfully fast!
Take all the wealth in America and redistribute equally among all citizens.
How long would it take for 10% of the country to own 90% of the wealth?
a) Two years
b) Five years
c) Ten years
Previously, you mentioned that you are a poli sci grad student. My question is this: Why on earth are you going into so much debt? How much do you expect to earn? Do you know how many ridiculous people I've seen, going into huge amounts of debt for a degree which will do little to increase their earnings, who then cry and whine about how unfair!! life is?
Who else should be paying for YOUR education and YOUR health insurance, but you? Should I be responsible for it? I have two children to feed, clothe, house and pay medical bills for. You chose to go back to school. I'm sure you knew how much it would cost. I LOVE freedom of choice. Just don't make ME pay for your choices.
I also enjoyed the statement of fact relating to tax payments - 5% of the population pays 80% of the taxes. Is that "fair?"
Maintenance of a large population and society is complex. Laws need to account for human nature, or else the individuals that make up society will be slothful. That'd be bad for all of us.
All depends on how you define "wealthy". To me the middle class is the working class --- the ones who require a paycheck. The wealthy can live off their investment income or trustfunds. You might define "wealthy" as someone with just a good income but who still requires a paycheck, to me those would be upper middle class, they aren't wealthy enough to quit working.
I would wonder about that too --- $20,000 a year tuition if you have to go into debt for it is extravagant. That would mean you'd be $80,000 in debt in 4 years, unless the degree gets you $100,000 a year right off the bat, it would be better to look around for a more affordable university.
If instead of government work-programs you're into direct government grants for the poor, let’s say we’re really generous redistributionists who give a grant of $15,000 per year to each indigent person. That's the same as one would make at a $7.50 per hour job. Now many young people, who are--understandably--stupid, would rather not work and get paid than work and get paid. Indeed, some wouldn't accept an $8.50 per hour job, even though it pays more, because they like not working. But these are the very people who need the skills and work experience that an entry-level position provides--they can't start at manager, after all. The person who works for three years at a low wage is better off than the servile wretch who sponges off the government for those same three years. One has the opportunity for advancement, while the other's 'advancement' is getting the low-paying job he should have taken in the first place.
Government hand-outs create a culture of dependence along the borders-what Hilaire Belloc called the Servile State. Though the lazy welfare recipient I described is lazy towards job opportunities, he is likely not to be lazy if some politician promises to increase his handout. This brings me to my next argument, to which I am very committed.
Government control of tremendous wealth attracts more power-hungry men eager to enrich themselves and those like themselves. The petty tyrants go into politics, where they can do damage to everyone, rather than into business, where at most they can exploit only their workers, customers, and business partners. Instead of worrying only about those who get their kicks out of enforcing law and order, our polity now has to worry about more sycophants of power and more purloiners of federal revenue getting into the mix. Bad characters drive good characters out, and the result is a poorer political society. Upset that politics is so base? Angry that Bush and Kerry are your only electable options? Regretful that we can choose only politicians instead of statesmen? Then shrink the size and scope of the government.
This, of course, is only a negative argument for income inequality. The positive argument for income inequality is highly controversial--some would say it died with the Confederacy. Its reasoning runs as follows: those with a life of managing wealth and the large communities that accompany and produce wealth. Their position at the head of a large community gives such men expertise in organizing and directing men, while their income provides them leisure to study law, philosophy, economics--the liberal arts, studies fit for a free man. And from these men, who are by training best able to choose, society chooses its leaders. It’s a very Greek argument. Here’s a brief defense of one of its proponents, Pseudo-Xenophon or "The Old Oligarch." This is an aristocratic argument, of course, and its reasoning resulted in, for instance, laws restricting the suffrage to property-owners. Since the US was, in Orestes Brownson’s phrase, an “aristocratic republic,” I don’t see why this should be too troubling.
It’s late, so I shall give my answer to your question “does this bother you” tomorrow. Short answer: yes. Long answer: My proposed alternative.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.