SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Donald Trump and Angela Merkel will join 2,500 world leaders, business executives and charity bosses at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, Switzerland which kicks off on 23 January. High on the agenda once again will be the topic of inequality, and how to reduce the widening gap between the rich and the rest around the world.
The WEF recently warned that the global economy is at risk of another crisis, and that automation and digitalisation are likely to suppress employment and wages for most while boosting wealth at the very top.
But what ideas should the great and good gathered in the Swiss Alps be putting into action? We'd like to know what single step you think governments should prioritise in order to best address the problem of rising inequality. Below we've outlined seven proposals that are most often championed as necessary to tackle the issue – but which of them is most important to you?
- Provide free and high quality education
- Raise the minimum wage
- Raise taxes on the rich
- Fight corruption
- Provide more social protection for the poor
- Stop the influence of the rich on politicians
- Provide jobs for the unemployed
Do you think these ideas are enough, or are there any better ideas to close this wealth gap ? You too can participate and vote for the idea that, you think, works best.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 21 2018, @08:26AM (4 children)
1. The US is paying more money, for worse results, than many other nations. The current system is patently less efficient than other implementations. Since the US, as a whole, seems to have decided that everyone should have access to medical care (the political disagreement in government is over how it should be paid for), should we not push for a system which overall requires less tax money?
2. You never know where the next great minds will come from. For example, Steven Hawking was not from a very wealthy family, and without support of socialised medicine, he would likely not have survived long enough to make some of his most important contributions.
3. People are disease reservoirs. If a large number of people are not able to afford medicine, the likelihood of an outbreak or epidemic of a serious disease is significantly raised, for the entire population.
4. High medical costs and uncertainty ("will my insurance cover this?") contribute to a reduction of the appeal of living in the US for valuable skilled workers. Guess who's left in the voting population as the wealthy, educated, people emigrate.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 21 2018, @08:56AM (2 children)
I think the government should pay to stop infectious disease. We should cure those that can be cured, and euthanize the rest.
I even think the government should pay when you can't possibly negotiate, for example when you are found unconscious.
For the rest though, you need to pay your own way in the world.
(Score: 2) by fritsd on Sunday January 21 2018, @01:55PM (1 child)
Well, your government didn't.
it reduced the budget of the CDC by 17% [businessinsider.com].
(that article I found was from 2017-05-23, I don't know if it has changed again in the meantime)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 21 2018, @05:05PM
The CDC does not pay to cure me if I have an infectious disease. They simply aren't involved. They aren't helping, so we should cut their budget.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday January 21 2018, @09:05PM
Three's a valid argument. You have my vote on subsidizing immunizations but only if such proves necessary.
One and four are solved by not subsidizing healthcare in any way.
Two would be far easier and more accurately applied to abortion. Are you sure you want to go that route?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.