49 9

Why not equality right now?

With the start of Black History month, famous antiracism author Ibram Kendi thinks big, saying, “Why can’t we be calling for immediate equality? Why can’t we be thinking that big?”. Well, why not?

A major source of inequality between groups is income. The following illustration shows a simply way to get instant income equality - just have Asian and White people donate their surplus income each year to a pool to be distributed to Hispanic and Black people to make up for the gaps in income.

If it is true that income inequality is due to systemic racism, then what is an easier way to eradicate it than to simply eradicate the income inequality? White people, for example, would only need to give up 13.9% of their income. Could this be considered a small price to pay for 400 years of injustice? Should Asians, once arguably an oppressed group, also participate? What's your thoughts?

Source: []

Income equality right now...

  • 2 votes
  • 89 votes
Admin 8 Feb 2
You must be a member of this group before commenting. Join Group

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account


Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


I'm white...and my annual income falls right in between the mean household income for Blacks and Hispanics. So, do Hispanics give me some money, and then I split the difference and give it to Blacks ? Or do I just dip in to the slush fund provided by the wealthier Whites and Asians. How much does Oprah have to cough up...or Lebron James...or do they get a piece of the White/Asian pie too ? Where do American Indians fall ? I'm one quarter Blackfoot, do I only have to give up 10.425%, that's 75% of 13.9%.

Or maybe we might consider the Civil Rights Act and the financial and human cost of the Civil War as a down payment for reparations? Knock a little off the top.


The founding principles of this country, although they weren’t always in practice in the past, are equal opportunity, not equal outcomes. With the passing of countless laws over the decades offering preferences to preferred “victim” groups the scales have tipped in the other direction giving a lopsided advantage to those groups now. Imposing laws forcing equal outcomes for everyone despite ability or effort is nothing short of government tyranny and stinks of communism.

Andyman Level 8 Feb 2, 2021

@TheMiddleWay , giving preferential treatment to any group regardless of past injustices doesn’t “zero the scale”, it’s simply more injustice. In other words, two wrongs don’t make a right.

The real question is why are blacks not given equal access to mortgages?
Is it because they are black, or because on average they present a higher risk to lenders compared to whites and asians?

Should a black earning $100k per annum have lower requirements for a mortgage than a white earning $60k? Yes. Everything being equal the $100k is a lower risk than the $60k.
The other way around? Also yes. From the bankers perspective race has nothing to do with it.

If higher risks borrowers are given lower requirements purely based on race, then someone else needs to pick up the cost of that risk. Now if a bank is willing to cut its profits to help poorer borrowers, and they choose to be racist about it and only give that to blacks, that is their choice and may do so. Their shareholders will support or abandon them as they wish.

However, if a government makes laws forcing it, then the lower risk borrowers will need to pick up the tab and you have the situation where one race group, irrespective of their actual income or wealth, has to support and pay for another race group, irrespective of their income or wealth.

Now if you remove the racist counting, the problem becomes significantly easier and it gets down to the actual issue.
Do we force high earners to subsidise low earners?
We already do that with progressive taxes. Should this be expanded to other areas as well?

@TheMiddleWay Ah no my Woke, PC Lefty Progressive friend.
Personally I don't believe the Sins of the father/past should be visited upon the children.
Who knew Progressives were into the Old Testament?

@TheMiddleWay What "No" too complicated? I did expand, how could you miss it?
"But given past historical disadvantages towards minorities, isn't giving them an advantage today merely "zeroing the scale" such that they do have equal opportunity today?"
Leads to more discrimination and actually fosters things you advocate against.
There is nothing right or fair about blaming today's generation for things we see as the wrongs of the past. That is just part of the Progressive idiocy.

@TheMiddleWay Ah no I added it probably as you were replying... your post was not there till after I finished the post.
So don't try that one on.
I note my post does not say EDITED
whereas this one does.... 🙂

I honestly don’t know either and appreciate your honesty on that.The issue is that private institutions can do what they want. So it is very hard to know when they are racist or not. Or if their application of rules are fair or not. I have recently sat in an interview room with a darker and lighter candidate and had the strong compel to hire the darker one for political reasons, even though the lighter application was a better long term fit. So it is very to say if I was racist or not, irrespective who I hired.

I am not too concerned about what private companies do as long as they are willing to face the consequences when the public and their shareholders find out.

I am more concerned when government enacts laws to force racial or sexual (and these days gender preferences and religion) “equality”.

Would it not be easier to ignore race and help everybody as they need and ask everyone to contribute as they can? (Very Marxist of me LOL!).
As long as it is voluntary.

Where I do think where governments have a role is making sure that we have equality in education and to a lesser extent in health.

But that is another discussion and I am off topic.

@TheMiddleWay , it’s a bit more complicated than using the “head start” analogy/scenario. The Africans who were sold to the slavers by other Africans weren’t taken from societies on a comparable level as the one they were brought to and the whites who built this country didn’t inherit any “head start”. As much as I’m sure it pains you to acknowledge this, white Europeans were far more advanced than the sub Saharan Africans who were brought here and it was a superior civilization. The descendants of the Africans who were brought here as slaves are actually much better off than they would have been had their ancestors never been brought here in the first place. As far as acknowledging the sins of the past, I think we’ve been doing that through the pop culture and through the aforementioned welfare programs for the better part of a century and I think it’s actually created more division than helped to heal any wounds. It’s time to put the past behind, not forget, but move forward and start treating all Americans as equals with equal rights and no preferences based on skin color or alleged past grievances.

@TheMiddleWay your entire argument seems to be based on the erroneous assumption that all white people in this country today are the product of past generations that, because they enjoyed rights that had not yet been extended to blacks, grew successively successful with each generation, naturally passing their unfairly gained wealth on to the next generation, to where the majority of whites in this country today are exceedingly wealthy compared to the other racial demographic groups in this country and that’s false. The majority of whites in this country are NOT rich nor have they inherited any past generational wealth. You also seem to willfully ignore the point that has been made several times in this thread that blacks HAVE in fact been paid “reparations” over at least the last sixty years to the tune of trillion of taxpayer dollars and preferential treatment in jobs, housing, schooling and college admissions. What more would you suggest? Are you implying that you think there should be yet more monetary reparations as the democrat party is in favor of? How would that work? Would it only be white people who would pay it and would it only be black people who would receive it? How would it be determined whether someone was white or black? WHO would determine whether someone was white or black? Would Vietnamese boat people who fled here in the seventies and became successful through hard work be obligated to pay blacks who migrated here from Nigeria in the eighties? Are you not able to see how the concept of “reparations” and “equity” (they’re the same with the same exact social justice goal) is pure madness?

@TheMiddleWay , the problem that the black community faces today has very little to do with them not getting enough government handouts and more to do with the intentional destruction of the nuclear black family by the democrat party in the sixties up to the present. Add to that a prevailing “black culture” that embraces pathological criminality and white narcissists who feel self righteous justifying and making excuses for bad behavior in the black community and you have a toxic mix.


“ I'm not black so I'm not about to make assertions about a community I'm not a member of.”

Do you consider yourself white?


This is based in resentment and revenge-seeking. Does anybody remember what happened to the Kulaks? This is Marxist/Communist dogma and whenever it's been tried it's been a disaster.


Can I request that the amount my income is docked go to LeBron James or Jay-Z? Anything to help these gentlemen get ahead in a world that has oppressed them.


Social/Economic engineering invariably fails. "We are the government, and we are here to help."

The self-fulfilling prophesy of neoliberal austerity.



Yeah, that’s always worked.

As Jordan Peterson put it: “We’ve run that experiment. The data is in. It doesn’t work. Move on.”

Oh... right. This time you’ll make sure you’re properly funded.

What, 100,000,000 corpses isn’t enough to make the point?

I’m sorry, it’s just that I’d considered this a forum for intelligent discussion.


You have to define equality first.
You mean to say a white doctor should earn the same as a black janitor?
Considering the drive to train more black doctors through preferential recruitment and lower entry requirements the past two decades, is it white doctors fault that they racially dominate the profession?
Or Asian IT specialists?
Or Black basketball players?

You can replace doctor with engineer, lawyer, accountant... etc.
You can also replace white and black above with men and women.

Should black sports stars earn the same as their less gifted white counterparts?

When you start thinking and digging into the problem, you find it has very little to do with race, but the general issue that some earn large incomes and some don’t.
And how this is becoming socially unpalatable, unless you are a politician or a billionaire.

Hanno Level 8 Feb 2, 2021

It has to do with race because race has in the past had the same social function as class in some countries.

In other cultures you can replace race with untouchables ,Burakumin, serf, what have you. In the new world because land was free and geographical conditions made it difficult to control migration the landed nobility system didn't work. Thus racial slavery. A black person could not hide no matter how far West they went nor blend into society long enough to escape their tie to a piece of land or a dirty job. To large extent you will find that the extreme racial prejudice that allowed for racial slavery to go on followed the demand for cheap reliable labor. It also explains why the poor whites are among the most bigoted. They had no desire to return to being serfs or relegated to the worst jobs. Even if they were relegated to something like coal mining at least they had racial, ethnic or cultural pride to ease the pain.

That does not mean that ethnocentrism, xenophobia, or ignorance played no role. As social animals we sniff out differences very effectively. We can tell what class someone belongs to with only casual contact. As social animals we are also very sensitive to status in the hierarchy. You can see it in mating patterns where women pick high status men and men pick highly prized women. We can learn to group people differently but we cannot overcome the basic instincts.

As racial prejudices have waned class loyalty has replaced it. Terms like deplorables and clingers designate a new caste system. So yes you are right. The fences and military in Washington D.C. are reminiscent of the paranoia that slave holders had over slave revolts.

@wolfhnd I can’t argue with you.

The evolving class system is interesting... and I am not entirely against it as long as people are allowed to be class mobile.
My grand father for example was white poor... my father was the first to go to university and ended up upper class and that set the tone for all his children.
Even though he ended up as a professor, his low class upbringing would come out especially when he got angry.
However he was allowed to be class mobile. Many of his siblings remained stuck in the poor white class and some managed to middle class.

Maybe it is the fairest system. I doubt if we will ever escape some form of class system due to personal freedom to make the wrong decisions.
So as long as you are able to rise and fall in the classes due to your own efforts, maybe it is fair.

I will need to think about it some more.


Absolutely, as I keep saying civilization is dependent on hierarchies of competence.  Rigorous caste systems only make sense in a society that doesn't require much competency to keep going and the various castes are reasonably competent at their jobs.  The problem is of course that competence even if it determines the hierarchy at point A doesn't mean at point B an entrenched hierarchy that is no longer competent will not still be in place.    

Wealth inequality is a much less serious problem if people feel that the game isn't rigged.  Few people complain about not being paid as well as athletes because it is obviously a competency hierarchy.  They may still think athletes are overpaid but it doesn't come across as class envy.  When people complain about athletes salaries it's about the broken system of competing hierarchies.

What has always struck me is that people love to hate the fossil fuel industry.  It goes back way before the whole Global Warming thing.  The energy sector however has always proved pretty good at what they do.  The world has been awash in cheap reliable energy for a long time.  By comparison the banking and investment  industry are a paradigm of incompetence.  Yet those industries have far higher profit margins than fossil fuel industries and now have an unwarranted and almost sacrosanct place in the minds of many liberals.   Another example is people are enamored of the educational system but it would be hard to find any sector of the economy that has had so many failures in recent decades.  One example would be the myth that education makes people good citizens and maintains democracy.  If that was true the most educated voters in history would not have allowed the current one party system to become so entrenched and the failures of that party would not be so easily covered up.

A lot of the problem is that people rely on their instincts.  While instincts are important they are out of wack with civilized life because of our evolutionary history.  At some level people hate civilization because it curtails their instincts.   This has been especially true since the youth culture became dominate in the 60s.  Young people are r strategist by design (evident by hormone induced disagreeableness).  Low status means few mating opportunities for the young and that forces them to abandon their troop which in turns prevents inbreeding depression.  They are forced into a fast lifestyle because the odds of making it to a position in the hierarchy is really low.  Form the point of view of a civilized culture r strategists are a disaster.  

You can thank people like Jay Gould and punctuated equilibrium for the popularity of the idiocy that socialism is good because it's "natural".   The prejudice for naturalism is evident everywhere in our society.  What people forget is that instincts don't serve them they serve the "selfish gene".  Not that the selfish gene concept was a work of genius.  Everything is way more complicated than the adolescent approach we have adopted since we abandoned rigorous competency standards.  Again competency comes from experience and a K strategy that is long suffering not from the emotionalism of our youth culture.  The best example of that is Dawkins rejection of group selection which is mostly a result of how frightened the establishment is of anything that doesn't support socialism or as they like to paint it supports fascism.  Group selection in their distorted minds smacks of ethnocentrism, racism, Nazis. I'm not saying Gould or Dawkins are incompetent I'm saying that their competency has not been tested outside of a very narrow discipline.  

The cognitive dissonance required to not see that the Nazis were an odd form of socialism is mind boggling.  Perhaps not socialism in the academic sense but as it has manifested itself everywhere it has been tried minus the overt racism.  Keep in mind I have nothing against socialism, only socialists.  Socialists being every social ape accept humans and the human apes that think they are perfect enough creatures to make it work.  

Fairness is a strange zero sum instinct worth studying.  It's nothing like how most people picture it as some form of reciprocal altruism.  It is meant for a world without productivity AKA the "natural" world.  It only works in an easy but unstable environment where you take what you can get when it's available.  The exact opposite of the harsh but stable environment that civilization requires where planning and productivity is the key to survival.


Stupid ideas such as this one have practically destroyed the Black race in the USA.
It doesn’t help them, it simply forces them to become more and more dependent while making them less and less productive.

Give tge People a Fish and tomorrow they’ll be back for another fish.
After awhile, you’ll have them eating from your hand.
You will strip from them the concept of purpose ... of pride ... of self worth.

But that’s been a deliberate DemLeft Program for decades.


I am reminded of a story from Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago.

Secret police came and evicted a family of kulacks (rich peasants) from their prosperous farm. They took them by train to a river in Siberia, then they took them down the river to a howling wilderness. They threw them off the boat with a handful of tools.

The family worked hard and gradually prospered. Years later the secret police came down the river again. They shouted at the farmers, "We exiled you here years ago with nothing because you were kulacks. And here you are kulacks again!"

Enforced equality doesn't work because it contradicts human nature.

I'm reminded of the little factoid that the majority of $1M+ lottery winners in the States are broke within five years. Simply put, you cannot just give money to someone who's never had it and expect them to build wealth because they don't know how. There's a difference between using money to live a desired lifestyle versus using it to build wealth.

I would fully expect that if the U.S were insane enough to do something like taking everyone's money and redistributing it equally, within two generations, most people would be right back where they were in the wealth ladder. The rich understand the power of money and how to apply it, whereas the poor only know how to spend it.

Relatively good answer.
Some people ... whether born to it or self taught ... handle finances well ... most people however, do not.
Look at all the Multi Million per Year Athletes ... and Musicians ... who end up barely getting by.

A. Fool and His Money are Soon Parted.


I think it's more than just a natural talent for finances; I think the circles that the rich walk in make them more aware of opportunity, trends in the economic marketplace, help them network with other investors and entrepreneurs in business, and so forth.

I mean, not to put too fine a point on it, but there's a reason why rich people send their kids to Harvard or Princeton or Yale, and it's not because they offer a head-and-shoulders better undergraduate education than any place else: it's because they will have the opportunity to hob-nob with future politicians and captains of industry.

The poor have NOTHING remotely like these support mechanisms. So even if you were savvy enough to teach yourself finance and investing, you're still miles behind someone born into wealth, even if you have the same amount of capital at your disposal.

Well, yes ...
Although that’s what I mean by “born to it” ... I really didn’t mean being born with an innate grasp of Finances and Economics.


So, all white people are making $70,000 USD plus/year? I will mention that to the next homeless white guy I see digging through a grocery store dumpster for food, or sleeping on a sewer grate for warmth!

That really is the proof of the insanity. People are failing but some under nearly the same circumstances are responsible for their failure and others are not. Sounds like racism to me.

I know exactly one person who makes 70k or more in a year and she's considered rich. Everyone else makes 20 to 40k, the lower being on government assistance. All of them are white.


Exactly! I wonder exactly who compiles these statistics?


What I have to repeatedly point out is that many people are more than willing to give up their agency in exchange for security.

The history of failure of the climate scientists to make predictions sufficiently accurate to formulate reasonable policy. The inability of the medical community to make predictions accurate enough to formulate policy concerning the pandemic in a timely manner. The number of drugs that have to be recalled after FDA approval. Are just a few examples of how science struggles to deal with complex chaotic systems. The problem can be summed up by a biblical quote " pride goeth before a fall".

Empiricism and determinism are not the same thing. As it relates to this issue it can be stated more exactly as the question of the validity of incompatiblism. What incompatiblism reality means is we have little or no control over our destiny. It has become the dominant intellectual position and is at the heart of our social malaise and political discord.

Because freewill is historically tied to religious ideology killing God killed freewill. All freewill really means is individual agency and dignity. Along with God "science" killed freewill. What most scientists do not grasp is the relationship between culture and physical evolution. The former preceded and defined the latter. The argument that culture is as random as evolution is valid but freewill is one of the environmental factors that define cultural natural selection. Remove it and the cultural environment is so radically alter that existing institutions cannot survive. The irony is that if you accept the incompatibilists argument then the proper environment cannot be created it is simply a matter of random changes. The proof of the truth of this concept is the failure of almost every progressive intervention.

The answer is humility. You will never get that from the likes of Sam Harris or any of our other public intellectuals. They are exactly what they purport to oppose, silly apes driven by instinct. Balls of suppressed emotions.

Freewill is real it just isn't what you think it is. It is a social construct that is as real as money and just as useful an abstraction. We all know that money isn't "real". It is however a cultural adaptation to a real problem. Similarly we know that agency is abstract but it has real consequences. Without agency punishment is useless and society chaotic.

Unearned privilege and unearned income are two sides of the same coin. Both are destructive to civilization which requires hierarchies of competence. Unfortunately the concept of competency has been destroyed by the same forces that destroyed freewill. The proof is in crony capitalism and the welfare state, Corporatism and Globalism. Another biblical quote comes to mind "to those that have much will be given". Take away agency and society becomes a pyramid scheme where everyone eventually becomes a loser.

I keep this short with the limits of attention span in mind. I may flesh it out in the philosophy group someday.

Please flesh it out. I'd like to understand the concept of incompatiblism more, but other than that... you've got a solid foundation from my perspective.


Someday if I'm still around.


This is called the bigotry of LOW expectations.
The majority of income inequality happened, because most of the wealth was earned by hard working parents, and grandparents. It took them generations to rise out of poverty. In doing so, they learned how to be productive and organized.


I know that it's very unfashionable and very un-PC to use nature as a baseline but in nature "income" is directly related to output. There are examples of charitable care for the incapable in some species but as a general rule those who do the work eat. Those who don't starve. Income inequality is an idea that is based in political ideology, not sound economics nor sound philanthropic judgment. So very unreasonable.


Are you (the OP) talking about equality or equity?
Black people don't get paid less than white people in the same role.
This whole post reeks of a racial version of 'the gender pay gap' nonsense that's been debunked thoroughly. It seems like the exact same arguments are being applied in this post, substituting women with black/hispanic people instead.

Tom81 Level 8 Feb 3, 2021

Why not? Because the races are not equally productive, as individuals are not equally productive. Kendi's whole premise is that all the races perform the same on average in every field of endeavor, so they all deserve the same average rewards, but that is a false premise.

sqeptiq Level 10 Feb 2, 2021

I would say instead that Kendi's assertion is that poor white and Asian people do not exist and rich black and Latino people do not exist. That this whole plan is predicated on skin color without any consideration of need or one's ability to contribute completely invalidates the entire proposal.

For example, under Kendi's proposal, a white person living in poverty should have to kick in some percentage of their income and Oprah Winfrey should receive some chunk of that. That's insane.

@Alysandir maybe instead of money, we should be donating a few IQ points to poor Mr Kendi.


"If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are wormeaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall! I am not for tying or fastening them on the tree in any way, except by nature’s plan, and if they will not stay there, let them fall. And if the Negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also. All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs! Let him alone!" - Frederick Douglass, former slave, orator and Great American Treasure

If you want them to fail, tell them they’re a victim. The best prison is our own mind. If you love them, tell them they’re responsible for themselves.

If Frederick Douglass were alive today, he'd be branded a white supremacist. How ironic.

@Alysandir as the black son of a slaveholder, would he be required to pay and receive reparations at the same time? Surely Ibram Kendi has avoided the tough questions.


No, he'd receive reparations only. In Kendi's wisdom, the money flows from two skin colors to two other skin colors, irrespective of income or need.

Although now that you bring it up, I'm sure they'd find some way to penalize anyone not on the progressive Left. They always do.

@dd54 - neoracists same as the old racists. They just take their hoods off when they go to congress.


Income equality? Socialism/Communism 101! Animal farm: All the animals are "equal", but some are more "equal" than others.


How would you implement said equality, at the barrel of a gun??

2peros Level 8 Feb 2, 2021

You just use taxation. It is done in Europe where some countries have top tax rates of 55% and average taxes 45%.
Then you give the money to preferential groups the through work subsidies, housing grants etc etc.

@Hanno yes, at the barrel of a gun...

Actually, it comes through the voting booth. We vote into power governments that do to us what we allowed them to do.
If you don’t like the current one, vote them out next election.
Most of you countrymen are idiots and voted an oppressive regime?... welcome to democracy.

Irrespective who is in power or what they want to do... until we voluntarily hand over money to government, it will always be taken at the end of a barrel.

@Hanno I think we’ve proven the value of the voting booth in the last election, or the lack there of...


Agree with you - however it wasn't an election, it was a COUP plotted by the corrupt Democrats to oust Trump at all cost, resulting in a corrupt government.

Wonder if true democracy will ever be restored in the USA.

@w0tn0t you can vote your way into socialism, but you have to shoot your way out...


I personally know quite a few people who have risked their & their families lives fleeing socialism - so you're right there - have to "shoot your way out of socialism"
Wonder how many people who want socialism have moved to a socialist country....


The welfare state works ok when you have a homogeneous country, without a history of radical class difference.  Or in places like Germany or Japan where the population is naturally subservient or orderly.   It helps if social status is not based on wealth like the Nordic countries.  In places with a lot of diversity you will not find the level of cooperation necessary.  Some of that cooperation is expressed in work ethic and respect for competence.  

Compare Britain with Germany.  They are both powerful countries with strong elements of welfare states.  Britain's healthcare system however is not working as well as Germanies.  The pandemic has exposed a lot of weaknesses in the NHS.  Neither are doing as well as Japan which has strong ethnocentric policies and a history of orderliness and cleanliness.  Part of the orderliness and cleanliness is expressed as healthier diets and personal restrain.  Public healthcare works where you have a responsible population that maintains it's own health.

The U.S. as the most diverse Western country cannot adopt the same policies as other Western countries.  It has by far the least responsible and healthy cultural habits.  There is no voluntary compliance with healthy cultural norms because it has no shared culture.
The U.S. is proof that diversity is not a strength.  It is costly in a variety of ways.  A tremendous amount of resources has been poured into bringing minorities up to standard with very little success.  Open borders in Europe is simply arrogance.  If they understood their own culture or looked at the U.S. honestly they would see the world as it really is.  Voluntary segregation is a key giveaway that diversity policies are not working.
Eventually the world will have one culture.   Memes like genes are subject to flow and drift erasing differences.  That said it is a process that will take many generations.  A single language would help.  Social engineering like genetic engineering could speed it up but complexity is the enemy.  It is very difficult to predict consequences.  In the meantime we would be better off devoting our resources to preparing for the AI revolution, securing the food supply, concentrated energy, third world standards of living, etc. than worrying about income equality in countries where everyone is comparatively rich. 

That does not mean that the distribution of wealth is not a problem.  It is a central problem in Western countries.  In part because of the tensions it causes between classes but primarily because it is not associated with competence or work ethic or for that matter ethics of any kind.  Work ethic should not be confused with how hard someone works but involves to what end they are working also.  Capitalism like socialism requires a highly moral population.  Populations that do not require coercion to hold to ethical standards.


I would never tell anyone that I could be bought even if I could. Although it would be nice to buy their equality for them there are no free lunches in nature. Why would or should anyone that considers themselves underprivileged want to be even more beholden to the very Government that is supposedly keeping a foot on their throat?


It’s completely naive to think that simply giving people money will have any impact on equality.

Leftists think everything is about handing out money, and are blissfully ignorant of other variables like money management, prudence, impulse control, saving and investing, delayed gratification, want vs need, and basic household budgeting to name a few.

You could give many people a fortune and they would be broke in five years, or raise the minimum wage to $50/hour and achieve nothing but more poverty.

GeeMac Level 8 Feb 3, 2021

@dd54 money is merely the means, power is always the end.


Three and a half million uneducated white men and five hundred thousand free black men were displaced by slaves. I don't think they were pro-slavery. Whose idea was it anyway? The same group that is doing it today? Who are we displacing now? I wonder what reparations they will require in the future?

Xtra Level 8 Feb 2, 2021

When is #White History Month"???

w0tn0t Level 8 Feb 2, 2021

I believe it comes every Undecimber


it is obviously an unreasonable idea. obviously.

iThink Level 9 Feb 3, 2021

How about we make the 1% give back instead

The 1% are serving an important function. They hide the disconnect between real wealth and imaginary wealth. Just consider the value assigned to worthless derivatives in the world.


This is just completely asinine.

Write Comment

Recent Visitors 160

Photos 127 More

Posted by Admin Does teaching "white guilt" also cultivate a "white pride" backlash?

Posted by Admin Is it time to take a knee on the Superbowl?

Posted by Admin Why not equality right now?

Posted by Admin How's Biden doing?

Posted by Admin How many good friends do you have from other political tribes?

Posted by Admin What did Trump do, if anything, to incite violence?

Posted by Admin Is free speech dead?

Posted by Admin Is free speech dead?

Posted by Admin Is free speech dead?

Posted by Admin Under what time and circumstance is the use of violence warranted?

Posted by Admin Now what?

Posted by Admin What do you expect to be achieved by this week's pro-Trump DC rally?

Posted by Admin What did you learn in 2020?

Posted by Admin Should pedophiles be allowed to have "child" sex robots?

Posted by Admin Do you have a "line in the sand" regarding political or social change?

Posted by Admin Should big tech firms hire more Blacks and Hispanics?

  • Top tags#video #media #racist #world #biden #truth #government #liberal #racism #democrats #conservatives #society #politics #community #youtube #justice #IDW #hope #videos #friends #Identity #FreeSpeech #Google #book #policy #vote #Police #conservative #evidence #culture #violence #reason #economic #USA #liberals #tech #Socialmedia #money #god #guns #gender #whites #campaign #population #laws #religion #TheTruth #equality #democrat #Christian ...

    Members 9,846Top