Are rich people more important than poor people?

Scroll to see replies

I'm disgusted at the fact that 57 people voted yes on this poll. how can you possibly think that one life is more important than another?

Reply 81

The_Internet

Original post by MrHappy_J

how does that mean that rich people on a whole are more important? explain to me how a top earning footballer for example is more important than a nurse?
Whilst I don't like to say any one is more socially important, the footballer is more economically important atm, because there's few of them and the market is prepared to pay quite princely for them. If we were lacking in nurses, and every thing was privatised, the nurses would be more important economically if they were bringing in as much/more than a footballer does now

Original post by MrHappy_J

i used to live with a man who worked full time at mcdonalds and spent the rest of his free time volunteering as a paramedic. he didnt earn a penny from it but he saved lives. how is that less important than being a manager at a CEO?
The person who started the thread mentioned economics, not social factors. On a pure economic point, the top 1% of the population become more important, because they pay for a lot of our taxes

Original post by MrHappy_J

all they do is twiddle their thumbs making decisions
They do a lot more than twiddling their thumbs. If it was that easy,a lot of people would be CEO's and as a result they would be paid less

Original post by MrHappy_J

that will probably have a negative effect on the lives of their employees
I fail to see how "twiddling their thumbs" will have a direct effect on the lives of their employees

Reply 82

MrHappy_J

Original post by de_monies

Whilst I don't like to say any one is more socially important, the footballer is more economically important atm, because there's few of them and the market is prepared to pay quite princely for them. If we were lacking in nurses, and every thing was privatised, the nurses would be more important economically if they were bringing in as much/more than a footballer does now

The person who started the thread mentioned economics, not social factors. On a pure economic point, the top 1% of the population become more important, because they pay for a lot of our taxes

They do a lot more than twiddling their thumbs. If it was that easy,a lot of people would be CEO's and as a result they would be paid less

I fail to see how "twiddling their thumbs" will have a direct effect on the lives of their employees

are you serious :lolwut:

the nurse's job is much more functionally important. are you a football fan?

Reply 83

The_Internet

Original post by MrHappy_J

are you serious :lolwut:

the nurse's job is much more functionally important. are you a football fan?

Im not disagreeing that the nurse's job is much more functionally important, but they don't bring much in economically speaking, and no I'm not a football fan. I did say if there weren't many nurses, and demand was really high ie: they got paid footballers wages, then they would be as economically important as footballers.

Reply 84

Left Hand Drive

We dont need them, they need us! working class here!

Reply 85

Left Hand Drive

Original post by Iola :}

I'm disgusted at the fact that 57 people voted yes on this poll. how can you possibly think that one life is more important than another?

I totally agree

"The life of a single human being is worth a million times more than all the property of the richest man on earth" Che

Reply 86

Cool Kid

Original post by MrHappy_J

"we live in a world where there is little need for those who are not academically gifted"-your own words.

When did "little need" and "no need" mean the same thing?

Reply 87

MrHappy_J

Original post by Iola :}

I'm disgusted at the fact that 57 people voted yes on this poll. how can you possibly think that one life is more important than another?

agreed. i think from the tone of the op that this thread was simply meant to be inflammatory. Either that or the OP is pining for world domination, as his avatar seems to suggest.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 88

AlmostChicGeek

Original post by Iola :}

I'm disgusted at the fact that 57 people voted yes on this poll. how can you possibly think that one life is more important than another?

I agree with your point in relation to the subject matter of this thread. However I think it is very easy to consider someone's life and rights more important than another's in a different situation, i.e I would consider an innocent victims life and rights far more important than that of a murderer or rapists. :smile:

In economic terms however, you can't say someone is more important than another, because both sets of people need each other in order to function in society.

Reply 89

johndoranglasgow

Some people are more valuable than others, but this is not based on wealth.
Instead, I think it's based on what that person accomplishes in their life and how they are viewed by other people.

The sum of a human life is most definitely not equal to the sum of their bank balance on the date of their death, a better measure would be the number of people in attendance at their funeral.

Reply 90

'Will'

Original post by oo00oo

But their ability to earn that kind of money is predicated upon the availability of poor people to exploit.

Duncan Bannatyne wouldn't make a penny from his gyms if he didn't have thousands of near-minimum wage staff to exploit, for example.

Yes, in terms of tax revenue, the top earners contribute far more per capita than the rest of the country, but their ability to earn that much in the first place is completely tied up with the availability of masses of "poor" people.

More and more of the top earners are moving their assets abroad to avoid paying tax. I understand your point and agree with you, but we need the wealthier people to stay in the UK.