SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 17 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
Wealth inequality stands at its highest since the turn of the 20th century - the so-called 'Gilded Age' - as the proportion of capital held by the world's 1,542 dollar billionaires swells yet higher. The report, undertaken by Swiss banking giant UBS and UK accounting company PwC, discusses the roles technology and globalization play in the status quo, and appears two weeks after the IMF recommended that the rich should pay more tax to address the enormous disparity.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
The last time I saw him he was walking down Lover's Lane holding his own hand.
-- Fred Allen
(Score: 5, Insightful) by fyngyrz on Sunday October 29 2017, @04:34PM (3 children)
No. The poor don't keep any significant amount of the the money that goes to medical care – or for anything else, either. Think.
That money goes directly into the pockets of the insurance companies, to the medical care establishment, and in the case of non-medically related social spending, it goes to grocers, landlords, etc. as well as some of it eventually getting collected at various levels, again, as taxes. Not to the poor. It merely goes through the poor's hands. Quickly. Very quickly. Sometimes, as with insurance, it never even sees their hands.
Almost all of the actual money that social spending consists of lands primarily in the hands of the middle and upper class. In so doing, it significantly drives large sectors of the economy.
There's no question that all of this sort of thing is straight-up redistribution, and you can certainly construct a fact-based gripe out of that, but the idea that social spending is "given to the poor" represents an extremely poor understanding of what is actually going on.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday October 29 2017, @05:06PM (2 children)
That's what I meant by corporate boondoggle, yes. Good to see you understood.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 30 2017, @04:27PM
One guess as to which group required changes to the ACA which turned it into the current shitshow. Obviously it didn't go far enough into the shit spectrum and thus why we have the worst proposals trying to be forced through now. Sadly for the evil stains on humanity the regular people have a limit to how much wool can be pulled over their eyes.
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Monday October 30 2017, @05:02PM
Boondoggle. Well. That's an interesting epithet to throw at funding medical facilities and services. I see military adventurism that way (not capacity, just the absurd uses to which it's often put), but not medical services, or most social services in general, unless they proactively interfere with an individual's personal liberties – offering assistance is almost always fine, using force is usually not.
When less money goes into the pockets of the medical establishment, its economy slows down, and such a consequence is a Very Bad Thing. And the subsidies provided by the ACA represent a significant portion of that income now, income that has been used to expand and bolster medical facilities and services. You understand both these issues, right?
Just a couple posts upthread, you were indicating a perception that this movement of money "destroys the economy rather than helping it." The fact is, you had it backwards: It helps the economy at large – the medical sector of the economy is a very significant one. This costs money. The money is redistributed from the taxpayer into the medical establishment, while benefiting those who need healthcare. This certainly produces pain in the pocketbook of taxpayers, but that's not even close to the same as "destroys" the economy."
Someday, when you need the medical establishment, you may come to appreciate how robust it is. Or perhaps instead you may regret how robust it isn't if the current crop of anti-social services naysayers have their way long-term. Or – heaven forfend – you find yourself in the lower ranks of income earners and you need health care, and your favorite politicians have decided you don't "deserve" it.