350

Nature article suggests that we cannot afford the rich (www.nature.com)

submitted 3 months ago by smegforbrains@lemmy.ml to c/politics@lemmy.world

14 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Equality is essential for sustainability. The science is clear — people in more-equal societies are more trusting and more likely to protect the environment than are those in unequal, consumer-driven ones.

all 16 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] Pandantic@midwest.social 45 points 3 months ago

These problems don’t just hit the poorest individuals, although the poorest are most badly affected. Even affluent people would enjoy a better quality of life if they lived in a country with a more equal distribution of wealth, similar to a Scandinavian nation. They might see improvements in their mental health and have a reduced chance of becoming victims of violence; their children might do better at school and be less likely to take dangerous drugs.

You see, “upper-middle class”, you can benefit too, stop voting against it!

[-] nkat2112@sh.itjust.works 9 points 3 months ago

This is a very interesting point and it makes perfect sense.

[-] andrew@lemmy.stuart.fun 4 points 3 months ago

I'm already voting for it, for sure. I feel like many of us on Lemmy are likely upper middle and in favor of more equality.

[-] Pandantic@midwest.social 2 points 3 months ago

I wasn’t yelling a lemmy upper middle class people, I was yelling at the shithead upper middle class people. I’m looking at you Florida!

[-] Binthinkin@kbin.social 30 points 3 months ago

No shit. We proved 20 years ago they were leeches on society and should be taxed back into reality. What did Congress do? Consistent blank checks to the wealthy, a weaker FCC, a weaker SEC, and a human trash billionaire scumbag who stole an election.

This isn’t new news. Wake up kids. VOTE for yourselves not for the wealthy.

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 months ago

As long as money infests politics, this problem will continue, regardless of how the public votes.

[-] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 17 points 3 months ago

I feel like this is a tautological conclusion, but that's just me trying to use a word I learned in the last few years.

Here's an observation: a death in the family resulted in an inheritance. I was advised that I'd be subject to higher taxes in my state than family members in another state. Someone suggested that was bad. I countered that I was happy that my tax dollars would go to my state / community. They seemed surprised.

Our enemy is not just the rich. They are everyone who fails to see the problem.

[-] catch22@startrek.website 9 points 3 months ago

But I worked extra hard. If there isn't a scale of shitty, how can I lord it over those that I perceive as not contributing as much me.

If making people miserable is what's makes me happy, then making myself miserable in the process is clearly worth it. /s

Spite is the mind-killer. Spite is the little-death that brings total obliteration.

[-] kaffiene@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

My personal view - I think closely related to your point - is that in-group out-group thinking is the root of most of our major issues

[-] catch22@startrek.website 3 points 3 months ago

Completely agree, it unfortunately seems to be innate in so many people

[-] n3m37h@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 3 months ago

Then let's start eating them, I just sharpened a bunch of knives too!

[-] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

The article cites the richest 1% in the world. If you’d like to know which countries have the largest number of the richest, here’s a graphic.

[-] UnrepententProcrastinator@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 months ago

I was thinking more of a dine and dash...

this post was submitted on 20 Mar 2024

350 points (97.8% liked)

politics

18072 readers

3017 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News