Quote: (01-25-2016 12:21 PM)zatara Wrote:
When someone is poor, they should vote for economically left-wing parties. When they're wealthy, they should vote for economically right-wing parties.
You do know how a democracy works, right?
So the number of poor and wealthy people is always in equilibrium, always hovering around 50:50?
Of course not. One of those groups has a majority.
Always. Naturally.
And once you manage to convince them that this is inherently wrong, there's a logical outcome.
You, and all other smart, hard working, successful, honest people won't like that. Promise.
Quote: (01-25-2016 12:33 PM)zatara Wrote:
My point is that a large amount of Americans seem to have a problem recognising that statistically they're in the bottom 90% of income and are likely to remain so. If they could put aside dogmatic ideology and vote logically they could drastically improve their lives.
The top 10% should absolutely be voting in favour of the current American system.
What happens when the lower 90% of the income bracket refuse, as you suggest, to think further than the next day, and vote strictly for what's good for them, redistributing wealth? Strictly rational?
Then the top 10% can vote for whatever they want, it doesn't matter anymore.
And, in this case, what incentive would outstanding individuals have to contribute outstanding feats to society, if moving up the income latter just means that inevitably the majority of the less outstanding individuals will take their rewards from them to redistribute it amongst themselves?
Why would anybody do more than the absolutely necessary minimum then?
And what would that mean for a society?
This is real life, with real human beings acting according to their nature.
Keep that in mind.