what is equality?

Question

we are told by the government that services funded by the government, such as education to the poor people is a gift by the rich since these are the tax paid by the rich.

yet i do not think so. the income of the rich comes from the poor people who works for them, yet they are exploited and convinced that this is what they deserve.

so, the assistance is not a gift, but a very small part of what they deserve to have.

what do you think about this idea?

Answer 1

Loving ALL people Equally, Unconditionally.
Please take just a few min. to patiently read

What in the world is the difference between loving a person and being attached to them ?
Love is the sincere wish for others to be happy, and to be free from suffering.
Having realistically recognized others' kindness as well as their faults, love is always focused on the other persons welfare. We have No ulterior motives to fulfill our self-interest, or to fulfill our desires; to love others simply because they exist.
Attachment, on the other hand, exaggerates others' good qualities and makes us crave to be with them. When we're with them, we're happy, but when we're separated from them, we are often miserable. Attachment is linked with expectations of what others should be or do.
Is love as it is usually understood in our society
really love ? or attachment ?
Let us examine this a bit more. Generally we are attracted to people either because they have qualities we value or because they help us in some way. If we observe our own thought processes mindfully, and carefully - we'll notice that we look for specific qualities in others.
Some of these qualities we find attractive, others are those our parents, or society value.
We examine someone's looks, body, education,
financial situation, social status. This is how most of us decide on whether or not the person holds any true value to us.
In addition, we judge people as worthwhile according to how they relate to us. If they help us, praise us, make us feel secure, listen to what we have to say, care for us when we are sick or depressed, we consider them good people, and it is this type of people we are most likely to be more attracted to.
But this is very biased, for we judge them only in terms of how they relate to "us", as if we are the most important person in the world.
After we've judged certain people to be good for us, whenever we see them it appears to us as if goodness is coming from them, but if we are more aware, we recognize that we have projected this goodness onto them.
Desiring to be with the people a lot who make us feel good, we become emotional yo-yo's -
when we're with these people, we're Up, when we're not with these people, we're Down.
Furthermore, we form fixed concepts of what our relationships with those people will be and thus have expectations of them. When they do not live up to our expectations of them, we're very disappointed, or may become angry !
We want them to change so that they will they will match what we think they are. But our projections and expectations come from our own minds, not from the other people.
Our problems arise not because others aren't
who we thought they we're, but because we mistakenly thought they were something they
aren't.
Checklist: "I Love You if __________ "
What we call love is most often attachment.
It is actually a disturbing attitude that overestimates the qualities of another person.
We then cling to tightly to that person, thinking our happiness depends on that person.
"Love, on the other hand, is an open and very calm, relaxed attitude. We want someone to be happy, and free from suffering simply because they exist. While attachment is uncontrolled and much too sentimental, Love is direct and powerful. Attachment obscures our judgment and we become impatient, angry, and impartial, helping only our dear one's and harming those who we don't like. Love builds up others, and clarifies our minds, and we
access a situation by thinking of the greatest good for everyone. Attachment is based on
selfishness, while Love is founded upon cherishing others, even those who do not look very appealing to the eyes. Love looks beyond
all the superficial appearances, and dwells on the fact that they are just like us: they want inner peace, happiness, and want to avoid suffering. If we see unattractive, dirty, ignorant people, we feel repulsed because our selfish minds want to know attractive, intellectual, clean, and talented people. Love, on the other hand, never evaluates others by these superficial standards and looks much deeper into the person. Love recognizes that regardless of the others' appearances, their experience is the same as ours: they seek inner peace, to be happy, to be free from sufferings, and to do their best to avoid problems.
When we're attached, we're not mentally and emotionally free. We overly depend on and cling to another person to fulfill our mental and especially our emotional needs. We fear losing the person, feeling we'd be incomplete without him.
This does not mean that we should suppress our emotional needs or become aloof, alone and totally independent, for that too does not solve the problem. We must simply realize our unrealistic needs, and slowly seek to eliminate them. Some emotional needs may be so strong that they can't be dissolved immediately.
If we try to suppress them or pretend they do not exist, we become anxious, insecure, falling into a depression. In this case, we can do our best to fulfill our needs while simultaneously working gradually to subdue them.
"The core problem is we seek to be loved, rather than to love. We yearn to be understood by others rather than to understand them. In all honesty, our sense of emotional insecurities comes from the selfishness obscuring our own
minds. 'We can develop self-confidence by recognizing our inner potential to become a selfless human being with many, many magnificent qualities, then we'll develop a true and accurate feeling of self-confidence. And
then we'll seek to increase true love, without attachments, to increase compassion, to cultivate patience and understanding, as well as generosity, concentration and wisdom.'
'Under the influence of attachment we're bound by our emotional reactions to others. When they are nice to us, we're happy. When they ignore us, or speak sharply to us, we take it personally and are unhappy. But pacifying attachment doesn't mean we become hard-hearted. Rather, without attachment there will be space in our hearts and minds for genuine Affection and Impartial Love for them.
We'll be actively involved with them.
If we learn to subdue our attachments, we can most definitely have successful friendships and personal relationships with others !! These relationships will be richer because of the freedom and respect - the relationships will be based on. We'll care about the happiness and the misery of all human beings equally, simply because everyone is the same in wanting and needing inner peace, happiness, and not wanting to suffer. However, our lifestyles and interests may be more compatible with those of some people more so than with others, and that is alright. In any case, our relationships will be based on mutual Love, mutual interests, and the wish to help each other in life.


SOURCE: Thubten Chodron.

Answer 2

In the USA, the largest percentage of taxes based on income is paid by the middle class. The upper class pays a much smaller portion of it's income ... some even smaller than most of the working poor. The middle class has always bore the tax burden.

In fact, the government says when the rich are taxed less that it has a "trickle down effect" ... meaning the rich can use the money they make to grown larger and pay more employees. I am dead serious about this. This is no joke.

The rich Never claim to pay for services for the poor with their tax money here in the USA! They state they pay privately ... usually given in the form of a tax-deductible charity donation ... so the "trickle down effect" is maintained.

What a different way of thinking I'm hearing here! I can't imagine living in a government where rich people fund things for the poor through their taxes. What a scream! I'm going to tell my friends about this.

Ps. As to the question: so, the assistance is not a gift, but a very small part of what they deserve to have.

In my opinion, YES! How can any country play and pay to be in the affair of other countries when it does not sufficiently help those at home? It's a question that comes up all the time in the USA.

Answer 3

The aim is not equality but redistribution. The advantages of the few should be used to assist those less fortunate than themselves. In a commune with no monetary system, each individual provides a service and exchanges it for other services. In a system where some people have material wealth then the individuals who contribute to the making of that wealth are entitled to a share of it. It makes sense anyway, since the rich fund the care their own educated and healthy workforce. No it is not a gift from the rich, it is what hardworking people deserve for their efforts. Fair redistribution makes a better world for everyone. Wealthy people could not enjoy life's luxuries if someone else wasn't clearing up the crap after them, or making the products they buy and providing the services they use.

Answer 4

The answer depends on your moral standpoint. You suggest that poor people 'deserve'... Economic liberalists may say that it is the successful application of initiative or entrepreneurial-ism that 'deserves' reward. In any social grouping individuals 'rights' are defined by law and constitutions etc which may be influenced by religious belief. As humans have free choice, they are more or less (depending on intelligence and socialisation etc) able to choose what to believe and do. Equality likewise is a concept open to subjective interpretation. Do we mean absolute uniformity or equality of opportunity? A problem is, of course, that we are not born with the same abilities or traits to perceive or take advantage of these opportunities. This can be influenced hugely by how rich or poor our parents are. If they are poor and subject to multiple deprivation, we may be born undernourished or even with drug or alcohol dependency. Education can make a difference but poor people often need the income earned by their children to get by - maybe its just the kids surviving without parents eg HIV orphans.

Answer 5

Hi

Equality is deifferent for different people

Equality for a socialist means economic equality - we all the same amount of money, and there are no rich or poor.

Equality for liberals is that we are all legally equal, as in the law applies to everybody the same, even if we are rich or powerful. e.g. if the primeminister murders someone, than they will get the same punishment than a council estate unemployed person . Also equality for liberals is that our opinion are equal (one person, one vote)

Conservatives do not believe that equality is desirable or achievable. They believe that heirarchy is a good thing, as the intelligent can lead the stupid. And that the rich provide jobs for the poor, and wealth trickles down to them.

Fascists think we are all weak, and that we need a powerful leader to guide us.

So as you see equality is so different for different people, so you have to know their political belief to understand what they mean when they say 'equality'.

Politics is so flippin complex

Hope that helps

Answer 6

No that's false reasoning. If that were true, then just let the poor people keep the money they earn and not give it to the rich for later delivery back to them as a government funded program. Wouldn't work, would it. The money is NOT generated just by the labor of workers, that is only one component. What is also needed is the business, the machinery, the administration, initial capitalization, knowledge and education, professional services, clerical services, marketing and accounting. Labor is paid their share.

Answer 7

In total agreement with "An ant="...its a pity more ppl dont think like this..the world would become a more peaceful place.. equality is abt treating all man kind with the same love u would want from others..love with no expectations..selfless and unconditional.. equality in the world is down to man kind..not just government officials..difficult in this day and age when everything revolves around me, mine and myself for the majority of ppl...

Answer 8

well, equality is equal access /opportunity,,, and being treated equally, not discriminated against,,,,, as to taxes and programs, while yes the rich pay,,,,, there are many more average people, the middle class,,, who really fund most all government programs,,,,,, not saying the rich dont pay,, but there are so many tax cuts and breaks ,, to start with,,,,,, then as i said, just the numbers, if a 50 rich people pay 10,000 dollars each,,, that compared to a million middle class paying 1000 dollars each,,,,, the backbone of our nation is supported by the middle class and lower middle class
i see your point, yes the rich get rich off of the others, but as to deserve, we only deserve what we ourselves earn,,,,,, no one , no matter how much money they have,,, has an obligation to give me anything
in addition,,,, while yes some get rich with needed services they provide,,, look at how many others get rich off of things we buy/want that we really dont need,,,,, fast food,,,,,, tvs,,,,, cars,,, excessive clothing ,credit cards , etc etc

Answer 9

Government is a scam the rich run on the poor because slavery is illegal.

Love and blessings Don

Answer 10

I think the equality is the acception of your condition.

Yes, the assistence is not a gift and if they are convinced that it is not a gift then they win ''the race'' .

Answer 11

I believe you as much as a factor. My sticking factor is the "team spirit" section. How would you create team spirit? would this require assimilation and the substitute of one custom with yet another? if so, does that recommend that the unique custom has no value? What precisely is "British custom"? in accordance with my information of "British" this would embody English, Welsh plus the cultures of all those from different international places who've now settled in super Britain and carry an ecu/British passport. i do no longer comprehend what the respond is myself yet your question did make me think of! thank you.