When Will Enough Be Enough

Its a good thing too, because they donate billions more to causes than all the poor put together.

Why don't we just give the richest person in the world all the money and the rest of us can live in the dirt. Then this person can be the most charitable person on earth.

You act like there is a limit on currency and if one person has it all no one else can have any. Economies don't work that way, sorry.

I understand well enough how economics works. Governments and or private banks who do so on their behalf can print as much money as they like. But the more of it floating around out there the less of a perceived value it has. I also understand banks can lend monies they don't have and if you don't pay them completely back they can take real tangible assets. In short yes income inequality makes a huge difference impacting peoples lives to the point of homelessness and dying early.

You're concern is valid, but homelessness is rooted more in mental health, substance abuse, medical catastrophe and education. Its not the fault of the likes of Zuckerburg, Gates or Buffet. What is your definition of income equality? Should your income be raised to Bill Gates? Or his Income be lowered to yours. How large of a percentage of your income are you willing to give up?

I do appreciate you are willing to have a civil discussion I do applaud you for that. That said there are normal people on the streets. In fact once considered noble professionals are now having to resort to prostitution or sleeping in their cars because they can't afford rent anymore. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/sep/28/adjunct-professors-homeless-sex-work-academia-poverty

There are many professors still in the classroom that would serve humanity better by hooking. (Sorry, I couldn't resist.) I did however read the story you linked, sad but in most cases these were choices. Sometimes you have to cut your losses and face reality and seek to make a living another way. There is nothing in ANY society that says you get to do whatever you want for a living, and make as much money as anyone else. People (society) places value on the work being done, not the 3 richest people in the country. The fact is different jobs produce a different value, or involve a higher risk, require higher levels of training. There will never be "income equality", the concept to me is silly. By the way, if you really want to see how silly it is, do what I did a few years back, add up the top 100 wealthiest people's assets, then see how long you can keep the impoverished above the poverty line with those funds, I think the answer will surprise you.

Your question of what level of income equality there should be that is a great question. I'm not advocating a misconception about communism that everyone should have the same. I do believe in incentive. At the same time I believe in the basics rights as defined by FDR. Simplified they can be understood as the right to a job, the right to necessities (i.e. food & water), the right to medical care, the right to trade freely without the effects of unfair monopolies, the right to adequate housing, and the right to a funded retirement. If these rights were instituted we wouldn't all have to be as rich as bill gates. In fact if the incredible bloated military budget were cut down to size most of these could be funded without need for one more dime in taxes. There's plenty of money, it's just being misspent enriching the rich further. The problem is endemic as only the rich have adequate amounts of time and money to strongly influence government. The effect has been parabolic until we are seeing the most malevolent manifestation of such inequality today.

As for the military, and "overfunding" all of that money filters right back into the economy. They also offer just about all of your FDR pillars to even the lowest of entry level workers. I would maintain that the military is exactly the type of society you have propose.

That is untrue. Much to most of the money going to these large monetary interests are hoarded, often in off shore accounts.

Check again, many of those companies are starting to bring that money back now that it isn't taxed at an absurd rate. Companies are sharing the wealth too, paying bonuses to low level workers and beginning to reinvest in new building projects and r&d. I'm not going to argue right/wrong about these accounts but I will argue that defense contractors are among the lower participants (https://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/06/us-companies-holding-21-trillion-offshore-profits.html ) . Most of these funds are also from sales and production done overseas and the US taxes on bringing overseas profits into the country were absurd. Personally I don't think overseas earnings should be taxed at all, let that money flow back here and create jobs and higher pay.

You're right, the poor abused defense contractors. They really don't control the show.

Be specific, what defense contractors is it that you hate so deeply? Boeing, Johnson Controls, Chevrolet, Carrier AC, 3m, I could go on. You paint with such a broad brush statements like that are impossible to take seriously.
With that being said some doctors scam the medicare/Medicaid system, that doesn't mean you have to hold all doctors in contempt.
I also know enough about government and military bidding to also know that some items for the government require different materials different sizing and other specs that force manufacturers to retool an entire factory to create, because those specs are useless for civilian use, That costs money. The companies I worked for, by the time you followed all the red tape Uncle Sam attached to the order it was minimal profit.
Again that being said I'm not naïve enough to believe there aren't those getting over on the system, but I would say its not as many as you think and probably more on par with the number of doctors scamming gov. healthcare.

My argument is both. We're inn way too much $hit and we're being raped as the American taxpayer. And even if you just want to focus on being "properly equipped" part there is a whole lot of grossing going on and plain old unaccounted for funds being used. In short corruption is rampant.

You really want to bark up this tree? We spent more in defense than the next 7 countries down on the list, Combined! And then Trump turned around and added over 70 billion to that figure. Whatever! I'm not going to chase you down every rabbit hole and argue every stitch about every company. Sure, I've seen plenty of stats. But if you can't even see what's obvious as day I might as well just go talk to a wall.

If your argument is that we are in to much shit around the world, I'll agree. But if you're going to deploy them everywhere they need to be paid and properly equipped.

I don't disagree in theory with the concepts. Concepts are easy. Its the applications where the system fails. The problem with FDR was he had good sounding concepts, but everyone has a difference of opinion on how to apply them. Below is my take on them.
the right to a job - who is responsible for paying those who consistently underperform, or choose not to perform on the job, if having a job is a fundamental "right"?
the right to necessities - I'm good with this, for those who cannot physically or mentally provide these for themselves. The line gets muddied when we try to determine who these people really are.
the right to medical care - I lump that in with the above. We addressed this at great sacrifice by Obamacare, and I still think time will show that we degraded healthcare for the vast majority to include the few, and that there was a better way. A different discussion though.
the right to trade freely without the effects of unfair monopolies - We do a relatively good job in preventing this.
the right to adequate housing - too subjective
the right to a funded retirement - should read the right to PARTICIPATE

You've brought up much with many good questions and points. It's too much for me to address at the moment so I'll just concentrate on one of your points for now. Concerning jobs it would be the government providing jobs to those who cannot find them in the private sector. The jobs they would do would be like helping to build and maintain the infrastructure, cleaning city streets, removing invasive species from our nature parks, etc, etc. As far as how to deal with under-performance I think the best was would also to give anyone without a job basic. In my ideal system basic income would provide the bare minimum without luxury. A guaranteed government job would pay more than basic and afford people some luxturies like travel, fancy clothes, paid entertainment etc. Then the private sector would pay people the most, possible for the hardest most skilled jobs. In short if you don't perform in the private sector and or there isn't enough jobs you revert to the government sector, if you don't perform in the government sector you go to basic.

I understand the hesitance to chase down all the rabbit holes I mapped, and truthfully I was hoping you wouldn't :) I can't even begin to entertain thinking about your perfect world situation, because it is so far from would, could happen, at least in my lifetime. The problem with perfect world situations is that the don't factor in important elements such as laziness, corruption, and just plain old bad judgement at all levels. The greatest thing about capitalism is, that the imperfections are factored in, and come with their own punishments and corrections when the system is allowed to do so. For all the imperfections in the system, it still has the most room for self correction.

In some ways this might be true but in many others it is the opposite. Plenty of people are rewarded for their greed including great wealth, special status, and lesser punishments if punished at all.

You have to get beyond there ever being a perfect society. Its never happened and never will. I said nothing about everyone being punished for misdeeds. I said imperfections are factored in. Greed wealth and status are not crimes, and therefore do not warrant punishment. Your premise is faulty as it assumes the poor are incapable of greed. I propose to you that the parent who buys a new car when the children haven't seen a doctor or dentist in years, or the welfare recipient who owns the latest IPhone or Xbox is just a greedy, their issue is acquisition.

Upvoted:)

It's less about printing money and more about it's allocation. We can print it all day long, but if 95% of it goes into the hands of the 1% income inequality/suffering will only get worse.