Do you agree with Ocasio-Cortez that a society which allows billionaires and poverty to coexist is immoral?


  • Yes
    Vote A
  • No
    Vote B
Select age and gender to cast your vote:
I'm a GirlI'm a Guy

0|1
848

Most Helpful Guys

  • I don't think the fact that some people have more money than others is immoral. Some people are smarter or work harder or do things that are more valuable to society and I think it's perfectly reasonable that those people should be rewarded for their greater than average contribution to society.

    What I do think is immoral though is when rich people take advantage of poor people and use the power their money gives them to make the system help the rich get richer and the poor stay poor. Unfortunately, there's a lot of that going on now and I certainly support eliminating that.

    3|6
    0|0
    • Do you think Bill Gates has taken advantage of poor people? What about Warren Buffet?

  • I believe that people have free will and the right to determine their own fate. Some people do not want success and they do not want money. 9 And we will always have poverty unless we go to a strict redistribution scheme in which everyone receives the same income.

    This lunatic wants to save people from themselves but she should rechannel her SJW energy and start addressing her own issues.

    2|9
    2|0

Most Helpful Girl

  • Especially when the rich get every tax break and can find and take advantage of every loop hole in the taxes that there are. They hire the best CPA's and probably pay less taxes than a homeless man. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

    1|1
    0|0
    • Hmm, yes, correct.

    • That is not true. Donald Trump pays millions of dollars in taxes every year. That was proven in the tax returns he released. In fact, the richest 1% pay 40% of all taxes. The top 50% pay 97% of all taxes. Poor people don't really pay any taxes. At least know the facts: taxfoundation.org/.../

    • @NewtoTheSouth Uh 1) No he doesn't, and 2) then why wouldn't he release his tax returns this whole time, and 3) why are you bringing him up at all?

Recommended Questions

Loading...

Have an opinion?

What Girls & Guys Said

746
  • No. Especially as capitalism is the system which has improved the livelihoods of billions of people around the world. It's lead to longer lifespans, lower infant mortality, better quality of life, etc. Her comment seems to fall flat on it's face as she's advocating taking other people's money just because you want it. That seems far more immoral to me than making and keeping your own money.

    0|6
    2|0
    • That's pretty black and white thinking I'd say. Just because capitalism has proved a beneficial economic system doesn't mean PURE capitalism with no regulations or safeguards is the way to go. The issue with capitalism as it is now is that it gives huge advantage to those who already have money and hugely disadvantages those who don't. The money billionares make isn't made through effort, it's made mostly through luck, being in the right place with the right resources at the right time. Basically- it's not as if they deserve to be that wealthy. I don't see a reason why anyone deserves to have more money than they could spend in 10 lifetimes, while other people who are working literally as hard as they can barely scrape by, and sometimes not even that.

    • Show All
    • @ladsin @rjroy3 apparently I need to reclarify that I'm not against capitalism as a whole, just against "pure" capitalism, which by my definition is capitalism unrestricted by government involvement, labor unions, and where corporations control the government more than the government controls corporations. That kind of capitalism results in massive wealth inequality and worker rights abuses, which I would think are pretty obviously undesirable outcomes. The kind of capitalism that I am okay with is the kind seen in scandanavia and many European countries, which is still capitalism, but with the government taking a strong role in creating a social safety net, setting high tax rates, and exerting a significant amount of influence over corporations.

    • @cipher42 "That kind of capitalism results in massive wealth inequality and worker rights abuses, which I would think are pretty obviously undesirable outcomes."

      I wasn't suggesting you were anti capitalism in any form, but rather looking for further clarification on what you meant by the "overall state of humanity". Because in your initial statement you said:

      "The issue with capitalism as it is now is that it gives huge advantage to those who already have money and hugely disadvantages those who don't. "

      In that I don't see how someone having innate advantages (in this case wealth) takes away from others who don't have said advantages. I'd argue that's not an issue, because one has no relevance in regards to the other. I COULD see an argument that someone born poor is at disadvantage within the current system. I just don't see that how that wouldn't be an issue regardless of the system. Because any society has their poor which comes with it's subset of issues. It's not an issue unique to a capitalist society. So to attribute this problem to capitalism I think would just be inaccurate.

  • i think it becomes immoral when the billionaires use their wealth to corrupt and manipulate the system to keep themselves in power and catered to

    if it was a matter of billionaires maintaining their status entirely on their own then i'd say no big issue outside of the caveats of capitalism but when those billionaires use their wealth to manipulate and control the system it becomes highly immoral

    2|2
    0|0
    • I'd wonder how you determined when they were unduly influencing/ manipulating the system. One of the greatest recent examples I can think of is over the issue of illegal immigration. Big corporations love the cheap labor that illegal immigration brings over our borders, but democrats have been taking the stand that no person is illegal, and they should be allowed to come over here and work.

      Are the democrats catering to large corporations, or are they advocating more open borders/ free movement of peoples because of an ideological reason? I don't know that it's such an easy thing to parse out.

    • Show All
    • @ladsin those that believe in open borders are in the minority just like the nationalists on the right who want 100% closed borders with no immigration or refugee policy are in a minority. and those who are in favor of open borders tend to be those not indebted to anyone they just have radical ideas about reform

      but back to the point... the biggest issue is those politicians (which does tend to be many in the middle) who are backed by the biggest corporations, billionaire donors, etc. the wealthy elite who want the status quo maintained.

    • Cool, thanks

  • These privileged socialist millionaires all say the same thing. What they really mean, what it always boils down to at the end of the day, is "no-one should be allowed to have more money than ME, No-one should be allowed to be richer than ME, and I should have sole license to take away and 'fairly redistribute' everyone else's money (i. e, take it all for myself, and MAYBE let some of the moron plebs who support me have a few tiny bits as doggy treats, IF they beg and plead hard enough) until I'M the single richest person, and everyone else is beneath ME". It's all politics-of-envy, stemming from their own envy of others. And Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is no exception.

    Sure, she may have only had a net worth of $7000 in savings at the end of last year. But given that she attended Boston University, one of the most expensive, exclusive and elitist private schools in the country, with tuition fees of over $53,000, and she's paying off up to $50,000 per annum on her student debts? And given that she still had a net income of $26,600 last year, even after taking her student debts payments into account? Yep. Maybe if she'd given away some of that extra money she frittered away in the past year on philanthropy and charity causes, she'd have a leg to stand on- but she hasn't. Not even once. If you cared about those in poverty, you'd donate something to them, or do your best to offer them support. She's focusing solely on those with obscene wealth instead, though, because those are the only ones she really cares about.

    0|1
    0|0
  • The United States is about equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.

    If we guarantee equity of outcome, what is the incentive for the entepenurer to create a business and generate wealth of the outcome will be equalized with everyone else?

    0|9
    1|0
    • There sure as fuck ain't equality of opportunity under this system though.

    • If you are born poor in the USA, you end up poor because the system is insane. It rewards people who already have money with more money, but punishes poor people for not having any...

  • A healthy bit of advice: Never listen to anything Cortez says. She's utterly clueless and a clown at politics. She's made countless ridiculous claims about how the senate or the congress of the United States work which is way off.

    0|1
    0|0
    • I've heard that Sweden has highly socialist policies. Is this true? And how would those policies compare with what Cortez proposes?

    • Not true whatsoever. We have quite a liberal market and conservative social politics. We just happen to have a history of being big on welfare and with market regulations to a certain extent. Anyone claiming Sweden is socialist is heavily wrong.
      Her policies would stagnate economy, drive away business and destroy the famous Swedish model which has made us so prosperous and wealthy.

  • America was basically built for democracy, freedom, and capitalism. If you dont like any of that, just leave. It's not hard or very expensive, and you'll stop feeling the need to try and ruin things for everyone else.

    0|5
    2|0
    • American was founded on the dead bodies of Native Americans, then became wealthy off slavery. I'm going to guess you haven't studied much history...

    • Lol I actually taught college history, but if you're going to change the context to fit your political view then facts won't matter anyway

  • No. Wealth gaps and morality are not mutually exclusive by any stretch of the imagination.

    It's depressing that Cortez gets as much attention as she does. She's an idiot, yet I bet she gets reelected again and again and will probably even throw in a presidential bid as soon as she's old enough. She'll probably claim she's entitled to the position too.

    1|1
    0|0
  • By that standard, isn't her lifestyle immoral? She's literally richer than 99% of people on the planet. Does she feel no guilt for being so wealthy while people are starving to death in Africa?

    0|7
    1|0
  • Billionaires literally have more money than they can spend. That money isn't benefiting society at all. And let's not forget that the rich control the financial system for their own benefit. That's not even healthy for the economy. We have an economic slowdown in the West because the "middle classes" are maxed out on their credit cards.

    3|1
    0|0
  • I think things like this as an evolution of running water. what it means to people and the ability to have basic needs covered to put more effort for the advancement towards a better future. As time goes on we have the ability to increase our lowest standard of living. A chain is only as strong as the weakest link even for country's or capitalist economy.

    I don't want to say it's immoral to have a poverty with billionaires. It's still the best moral solution for everyone to solve poverty and no one is better suited to tackle the problem then the rich. It's nothing short of the greatest investment one can make for the future.

    The thing is pure capitalism by nature is immoral. It's an impossible strong tool for advancement but the cost of humanity is too much for our human soul or society. Imagine negotiating with fire fighters a price as your home was burning down. From a point we push the line of standards of living farther as time goes on.

    That's the point of regulation and government intervention on things. to controlling that tool of destruction to make growth when you can. Be it increase the standard of living for everyone.

    0|0
    0|1
    • Down vote me all you i still want a detailed rebuttal all the same. So go for it.

  • I believe that capitalist systems are responsible for most of the suffering in the world, yes.

    People should not be allowed to amass personal wealth to the extent they are currently allowed.
    The only way to get rich, is to make back more than you contributed to society, and a system that allows that to happen is certainly flawed.

    0|0
    0|6
    • @Kuraj If you read enough history, especially economics, you’ll come to understand that while Capitalism isn’t perfect, it’s simply the best we humans have invented so far, and it also works for the most part.

    • @Inbox
      Except it isn't.
      The only thing preventing the US from coming at the end of the list in every OECD statistic imaginable, is the fact that Mexico, Chile and Turkey are also included in it.

      The US has the highest relative poverty rate, highest income inequality, highest crime, lowest literacy rate and availability of education and higher homelessness than other OECD countries, which by the way includes countries of the former Eastern Bloc such as Romania, Hungary, Poland, Czechoslovakia and Latvia.

      While, unsurprisingly, the countries that rank as the most prominent welfare states such as Finland and Denmark, also top most of the lists within OECD.

  • I think it's fundamentally flawed to advocate tearing down the successful, rather than raising everyone up. Rising tides lift all ships... unless you're Ocasio-Cortez. In her world, kicking someone off their pedestal is the way to feel better about your position in life. In other areas in life we call these people haters/trolls/losers.

    1|1
    0|0
  • She's an idiot. Marxist communist idiot.

    So let's play along with her argument for a minute...
    I heard the 'helicopter pads and homeless can't exist together' crap and the response is that if you take the money or the helicopter away from the rich guy, how does that benefit the homeless? And what about the guys that build those copters, and their families, their earnings, and payment of taxes? Next, what about all the people the rich guy employs? Just have them find different jobs? What if there are no jobs?

    No, this is communism at it's best. We hope she goes down in a pile of burning dog shit.

    0|7
    2|1
  • Wealth is not finite. Wealth is created. Forced altruism is immoral. Especially at gunpoint.

    0|7
    1|0
  • No but sort of yes, but no.

    I might concur that a society that has billionaires while others die of poverty is immoral.

    However her definition of poverty is quite a bit higher then that. I don't think it's immoral that some people are living paycheck to paycheck (which sucks) while others are billionaires.

    0|0
    0|0
    • that is not her definition of poverty though. in that video, she said people who are too poor to have health care and people who are homeless shouldn't exist in a society with billionaires.

  • Yes, it's profoundly immoral when you have some dude buying a 100 million dollar yacht next to someone who works 2 jobs and can't afford to give their kid swimming lessons.

    0|0
    0|2
  • Well… It's more like the result of capitalism and how it's set up in the US. It's in the end manifestation of human greed.
    But immoral? It's like asking if universe, which allows complex life and big ass asteroids to collide with planets is immoral. There is no atribute of morality here. This property…just isn't there. There are only consequences of how systems are set up.

    0|0
    0|0
    • Well then, is it immoral to oppose changing the system? And moral to try to set it up in a more egalitarian way (as the lesser wealth gaps of other countries have proven is possible)

  • I think there's a lot more that "billionaires" could do to help the impoverished in there own area, locally, and globally too. But that should be their choice. I wouldn't want to see laws and regulations in place to force that. That said, the super wealthy pay a lot smaller percentage of their income in taxes than we regular working folk, because we don't have all the investment breaks and write offs that they do. This too, is nothing new.

    0|0
    0|1
  • How could it not be? They don't need all that money to live happy lives. It just cause countless other people to live miserable lives.

    2|1
    0|2
  • no, as long as they make the money by working fairly they should keep them. The rich get taxed more anyway. We should encourage people to be successful, not to give all their earnings which they may have gotten through hard work to lazy people.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Disagree with her but bought political influence needs to be curtailed but based on historical data and done by experienced people. We need to take examples from the Guided Age.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6l6Ck4TKxo

    0|0
    0|0
  • Not if they earned their money through providing wanted or needed goods and services, or financing the same, or through inheritance. But I do believe that a society that allows the government to plunder the productive in order to buy the votes of the lazy and inept most certainly is morally bankrupt.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Of course.
    A moral society has no poor

    Do you agree with Ocasio-Cortez that a society which allows billionaires and poverty to coexist is immoral?

    0|0
    0|5
  • No. Any society that allows communists to exist is immoral.

    Simples...

    0|5
    1|0
    • I'd take a communist over a capitalist any day

    • @Singapura Why? Do you work for the KGB or something?

    • No, it's just that countries with socialized healthcare live longer, are happier, save more money, are healthier than the USA, which is alone in the developed world for not being able to provide universal health care. It's frankly insane that the number one cause of bankruptcy in the USA is medical bills when every other developed country provides it free of cost.

  • Her opinion isn't new, people have been saying that for ages. I agree with her but capitalism has been the only system that has worked properly worldwide.

    0|2
    0|0
  • She is an idiot, who will lose reelection after people realize they elected a deranged person. You take out the billionaires , you take out Businesses and jobs. Besides they would all move to another country and you get no tax revenue.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Not necessarily. I mean look at what the alternative choices we have.

    0|3
    0|0
    • Higher taxes on rich people? Seems like an excellent idea that works in most of the developed world.

    • @Singapura Well explain how it would be accomplished.

    • You tax rich people more than poor people, this is what you already do, but just increase the marginal tax rate for millionaires to the levels we had in the 1970s (70% highest bracket). This will pay for free health care for everybody, which is what every other developed country in the world has, it's insane the USA is the *only* country without free healthcare in the developped world.

  • I think she's naive, because she thinks billionaires CONSUME their billions. Instead, they live relatively modest lives, and their billions are INVESTED into something that drives the economy, like stocks.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Yes, I think she makes a very logical case for that.

    1|1
    0|3
  • Yes, I agree with Ocasio-Cortez's statement. However, I strongly disagree with her ideas of how to fix things.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Yeah but being poor is no excuse to be lazy, or uneducated.

    0|1
    1|0
    • Lazy, no, but uneducated come easy if the schools are funded by local taxes and everyone around is poor.

  • That is what freedom is. In a free society, those who are driven, smart, ambitious, hard workers, risk takers can and will succeed big time.

    I think many need to learn what "poverty" is. There aren't that many in the U. S. are in real "poverty". You check out people is some places in the world and that is poverty.

    In the U. S. you get free education, welfare, food stamps, unemployment. There are jobs everywhere for those that truly want to work and will be willing to.

    If you have a tiny apartment and a lower income. You have a roof over your head, A/C in summer, heat in winter, a fridge/freezer, you have a job. You are not in real poverty.

    Her ideas or horribly dangerous if they were inflicted on the entire country.

    0|0
    0|0
  • No. If you perform better, you get to have more. That's darwinism in it's purest form.

    The problem isn't that we have millionaires and billionaires. The problem is that once we have a whole bunch of people using and abusing the system (including her rich socialist buddies) as well as a constant transfer of money from bottom to top.
    The later happens anyway, but due to the influence of people who can use and abuse the system it's also sped up.

    Not to mention her socialist dream doesn't work and she is a liar about her heritage of a poor neighborhood.
    Plus she is a major moron. I remember at least two interviews of her about economy where she clearly showed she has no clue AT ALL. To the point I wouldn't be surprised if this "grassroots" vote of hers is nothing more than her being a sockpuppet.

    0|0
    0|0
  • I feel that this is a conversation that can be had that's less about "why do the rich get richer?" and more about "why do the rich get richer without help from people below the poverty line?" or better "why do we put so much value merit into being extremely wealthy?" or even " If our economic system had so much room for anyone to become rich, why are so many people shafted out of degrees, or why is college so expensive to the point of needing to borrow from a bank in order to pay for it? " we need to talk more about why we are going to stay below the line, and how we can fix it in a way that doesn't leave us jobless.

    0|0
    0|0
  • She’s an idiot. Perfect example of a liberal

    0|6
    2|1
  • Fuck off with your communism

    0|5
    2|0
    • The USA needs more socialism, especially free healthcare for everybody. It's insane it's the only developed country that doesn't provide this service for free. That is really messed up.

  • Everything she says makes no sense

    0|5
    1|0
  • That is overly simplistic and she's a moron.

    0|2
    0|0
  • of course. only fools and cynics will disagree

    1|1
    0|7
    • Many people don't understand money and will blow it on stupid stuff and/or never try to get above minimum wage or even bother with a job. You can not get rid of poverty unless you have universal income that puts everyone above the poverty line. The immoral thing is when you don't give people the opportunity to escape poverty.

    • Mostly fools on the website.

    • *this website

  • She needs to shut up.

    0|2
    0|0
  • Yes, actually.
    xx
    ~ Mrs Manson

    0|0
    0|3
  • That woman doesn't seem bright.

    0|2
    0|0
  • I think she's a hot but crazed socialist

    0|1
    1|0
  • She is a nut-job.

    0|2
    0|0
  • Can this woman just die already?

    0|0
    0|0
  • No, because it is impossible to get rid of poor people. Every society in history has poor people. "Poor" is a relative term used to define roughly the bottom 10% of society and there will always be a bottom 10%. The bottom 10% of American society are better off the bottom 10% of most societies. That is why poor people from around the world try to go there.

    0|0
    0|0
  • No, I don't think so. Simply taking money from the rich doesn't mean people will be lifted from poverty. Handing out money doesn't breed wealth. I think in the long run it just makes everyone poor.

    0|0
    0|0
  • She's a special kind of stupid. This is another example, next to Trudeau's, of why you don't vote for looks, age, and how "cool" they are. This woman has absolutely no idea what she's talking about. She keeps making comments that makes you wonder what on earth where her voters thinking.

    Anyways, no, it's not immoral. That's life. Communism and Socialism would be more immoral. People are different, they have different ambitions, they have different desires, they make different choices. Some of those choices leads people to earning more money than others. It's not that that person is better, they just simply chose differently.
    Expecting people to have the same amount of money, and be completely equal in the social hierarchy is ridiculous. It would go against human nature and it would set us back in time. There would be no evolution of society.

    0|4
    1|0
  • No that’s communism and that’s how you starve to death and end up in a group grave, communism has been tried over and over and over again and it’s failed horribly every single time, this women and everybody who agrees with her needs a history lesson ASAP

    0|4
    0|1
Show More
3

Recommended myTakes

Loading...