Read on Twitter
THREAD:
Class Warefare:
Class Warefare:
"We are all in this together!" is a lie.
The interests of the rich and the interests of the poor are not perfectly aligned.
Indeed, they are often in direct zero sum conflict.
The interests of the rich and the interests of the poor are not perfectly aligned.
Indeed, they are often in direct zero sum conflict.
If nothing else, it is in the best interest of the poor for wages to be as high as possible; to them wages represent income.
On the other hand, it is in the best interest of the rich for wages to be as low as possible; to them wages represent labor costs.
On the other hand, it is in the best interest of the rich for wages to be as low as possible; to them wages represent labor costs.
It is in the best interest of the poor for there to be generous wealth redistribution, and for it to be funded by taxes on the rich.
It is in the best interest of the rich for there to be zero wealth redistribution (so they don't have to pay taxes to fund it).
It is in the best interest of the rich for there to be zero wealth redistribution (so they don't have to pay taxes to fund it).
'Wealth Redistribution'
'Socialism'
'Free Stuff'
It's all the same thing, just different terms.
'Socialism'
'Free Stuff'
It's all the same thing, just different terms.
Singapore:
Zero Wealth Redistribution
No Welfare State
No minimum Wage
Gini Coefficient: 46%
Zero Wealth Redistribution
No Welfare State
No minimum Wage
Gini Coefficient: 46%
America:
Very little Wealth Redistribution
Small Welfare State
Low minimum wage
Gini Coefficeint: 45%
Very little Wealth Redistribution
Small Welfare State
Low minimum wage
Gini Coefficeint: 45%
Canada, United Kingdom:
Significant Wealth Redistribution
Medium Sized Welfare State.
Decent Minimum Wage
Gini Coefficients: 32%
Significant Wealth Redistribution
Medium Sized Welfare State.
Decent Minimum Wage
Gini Coefficients: 32%
Denmark:
Generous Wealth Redistribution
Big Welfare State
High Minimum Wage
Gini Coefficient: 29%
Generous Wealth Redistribution
Big Welfare State
High Minimum Wage
Gini Coefficient: 29%
Canada, The United Kingdom, and Denmark all have a middle class.
In Singapore and America, there is no middle class.
If you are a rich person, you'd be best off in Singapore or America.
If you are a poor person, you'd be best off in Denmark.
In Singapore and America, there is no middle class.
If you are a rich person, you'd be best off in Singapore or America.
If you are a poor person, you'd be best off in Denmark.
Generally speaking, the Leftwing represents the interests of the poor while the Rightwing represents the interests of the rich.
Leftwing Economic Policies:
-High Taxes on The Rich
-Generous Wealth Redistribution
-Have a minimum wage and make it high
-High Taxes on The Rich
-Generous Wealth Redistribution
-Have a minimum wage and make it high
Rightwing Economic Policies:
-Low Taxes
-Little to no wealth redistribution
-No minimum wage, or a low minimum wage
-Low Taxes
-Little to no wealth redistribution
-No minimum wage, or a low minimum wage
By this description it sounds like the Leftwing is 'Good' and the Rightwing is 'Evil'.
Keep in mind, if the Leftwing gets too much power it will demand an infinite amount of wealth redistribution (socialism, free stuff), fund it via the government engaging in deficit spending...
...and sooner or later make the country go bankrupt (or have the government print money to pay off its debts and thereby wreck the country with hyperinflation).
In either case (government bankruptcy OR hyperinflation) there will be economic catastrophe; everyone will suffer, but none moreso than the poor.
Historical Example: Venezuela (1990 - 2020)
Historical Example: Venezuela (1990 - 2020)
Wealth Redistribution / Socialism that is funded by placing taxes on rich people can be functional.
Example: Denmark (1990 - 2020)
Example: Denmark (1990 - 2020)
Wealth Redistribution / Socialism that is funded by Government Deficit Spending will lead to economic catastrophe.
Example: Venezuela (1990 - 2020)
Example: Venezuela (1990 - 2020)
If you are an American in the bottom 90% of the income distribution...
You would be better off living in Denmark.
At least then you could access medical care and buy a college degree without being charged extortionate prices.
You would be better off living in Denmark.
At least then you could access medical care and buy a college degree without being charged extortionate prices.
If you are an American in the top 10% of the income distribution...
You would be best off staying in America.
America will give you lower tax rates than any other 1st world country (besides perhaps Singapore).
You would be best off staying in America.
America will give you lower tax rates than any other 1st world country (besides perhaps Singapore).
