there are some difficulties in executing the solutions mentioned above. 1) higher tax might decline the willingness of investors/entrepreneurs keep investing in those countries since it will lessen the profit margin. even HSBC has considered to move the headquarter back to Hong Kong from London because of the heavy tax in UK. http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/investing-and-markets/article.html?in_article_id=413377&in_page_id=3 one of the reason of such move could be because of the low taxation as well as simple taxation system in HK. the other reason would be HSBC is also focusing the booming China market. 2) minimum wage policy may also has the same effect in reducing investment of businesses although it has its advantage. the disadvantage is that it may weaken the flexibility of the self adjustment on a economic system. it may also weaken the probability of low-skilled people to find a job since given a same wage policy, employers will choose the better one among the qualified people. low-skilled people can't even lower their expected salary (provided that they can live under such proposed low salary) to compete people who has higher education than them. the disadvantage of minimum wage policy would be more obvious in the downturn of a economy. even in Australia, the Howard government introduce the workchoices to increase the flexibility of the wages. well, workchoices is debatable, though. 3) the last suggestion above seems more applicable but it is also depends on the investors and the policies of the governments in different countries. one of the schemes might help fighting poverty could be teaching poor people to help themselves by introducing technologies, rather, simply offering them money as it is a short term help (it needs in some cases). for example, the microcredit or microfinance system. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microcredit http://www.unitus.com/sections/pove...039907a939d6&gclid=CNvWnP20-IsCFSnKggodGgc9bA In sum, education is one of the most important factors to help people get away from poverty. for sure, chances and opportunities are required for them to move the first step. do hope the entrepreneurs will take more social responsibilities while they are making profits (or huge profits) from the societies. - Chin H Mak, Sydney, NSW
raystonn: i posit that there is an inherent problem with unchecked income inequality: inequality of wealth over time becomes systemic and leads to the inevitable development of an aristocracy: a system of government most notable for corruption, nepotism, and a marked resistance to change and new ideas. under such a system, all that is required for success is the correct parentage, it is, by definition, a closed society, one bitterly opposed to the adaptation of new or better ideas, and fiercely protective of its inherited paradigm: the best and most able are presumed to be born only to the elite ruling class who comprise only a tiny percentage of the total population. everyone outside the desired class is irrelevant. excessive, dynastic capital accumulation is utterly inimical to the continued viability of a free society and inevitably, any society which tolerates unchecked greed is doomed: some other, competing society will develop, attract the best talents, and bury the aristocratic one. history is replete with examples. - bazi
There is no fair solution, and that is the way it should be. A solution implies that we punish winners and reward losers. Do you really want to live in a society with that kind of incentive plan?
The best solution to help the poor is so simple and counter intuitive that the world will probably never see it. 100% separation of politics from economics. Money buys power, power buys money. The greedy and powerhungry are winning the fight for and keeping the flow of money coming from forced taxation in the name of helping the poor, more so in some countries than others. It looks like itâs easy to sell ideas that do a lot more for special interests than the social good to the voting majority. There will always be people that make or have more than enough money. If these could chose to finance the social good instead of being forced to finance special interests much could be accomplished. With the reduced bureaucracy, and energy wasted on trying to avoid taxes less would also be needed.
Most University/College's social science programs are designed to let people pass; but very hard to get a good mark. Same as you can easily making end-meet; but hard to become rich.
the world will never be equal because we are not born equal, why should the rich be forced to help the poor just because they have money? I think capitalism is a great thing, if a person is willing to work hard and take risks and succeds financially in the process, they diserve every bit of it, a lazy bum diserves to live in poverty.
... while there is a lot of truth in the statement that we are not born equal, it is extremely simple minded to categorieze the imporverished as being lazy. If you cannot see that the human equation is far more complicated than that, you are like the trader who only knows how to trade from the long side during a bull market, but becomes bankrupted at the onset of the first bear market. Let us hope that you continue to experience this bull market in your life, but realize that is no true for everyone. Jimmy Jam
What you term "Inequality", is better termed as "Duality". Duality is a inherent universal principle that is built into nature and can not be changed.
definitely shouldn't punish winners, but you shouldn't punish the losers either and the current money creation process is biased in favor of banks at the expense of everyone else