Equal Distribution of Wealth, or "Would You Take one For the Planet"?

BasketCase · Jan 9, 2005

I forget which thread it was that made me come up with this one (probably one of the Communism ones, but not sure). One day I pulled out my calculator and divided the world's total GNP by its population.

I came to a final figure of $11,000 per person.

So, the poll question is this: would you be willing to accept $11,000 a year for life in order to finally have true Global Economic Equality?

For simplicity's sake, those who aren't getting paychecks (still in school, disabled, too young to work yet, etc) will just be assumed to receive a government handout of $11k a year. $11k per capita, all around, regardless of what job you have, if any.

Sims2789 · Jan 9, 2005

The world is not ready for complete equality. However, if somehow I could magically make it so, then yes.

Perfection · Jan 9, 2005

No, this would require the implentation of a fascist communist government and would be unfair to those who work much harder to get much nicer things. Flat income is BS.

It would be a nightmare.

Sims2789 · Jan 9, 2005

Perfection said:
No, this would require the implentation of a fascist communist government and would be unfair to those who work much harder to get much nicer things. Flat income is BS.

It would be a nightmare.

Right now yes it would be, as the world is not ready for it. I voted the first answer, but that is under the assumption that I can magically make the world ready.

Perfection · Jan 9, 2005

Sims2789 said:
Right now yes it would be, as the world is not ready for it. I voted the first answer, but that is under the assumption that I can magically make the world ready.

By destroying all self-centered behavior that makes us human?

What happens when some kid tries to sell some other kid a yo-yo, should the government arrest him for unfairly increasing his own net worth.

What if a guy wants to work hard to get really nice stuff and another guy wants to work one day a week and he's willing to live in a storage rental unit to do it? How can the government justify this?

How do you distrubute jobs? You can't have everyone pick a job because then "undiserable" jobs will go unfilled so you'd have to force them to do it.

The fact is it would be a fascist hell-hole and/or people would be mindless government robots.

Sims2789 · Jan 9, 2005

^If some people are willing to work one day a week than society is not ready for it.

Perfection · Jan 9, 2005

Sims2789 said:
^If some people are willing to work one day a week than society is not ready for it.

There's always going to be people who want to work more and those who want to work less. It's called individuality, and it's a good thing. Either you're going to have to opress it by forcing them to conform, or destroy it by eugenics and brainwashing. And what about all my other criticisms? You can't just dismiss them with that!

A'AbarachAmadan · Jan 9, 2005

Absolutely not. I'm willing to give folks a hand up, but not a hand out.

Perfection · Jan 9, 2005

A'AbarachAmadan said:
Absolutely not. I'm willing to give folks a hand up, but not a hand out.

It's niether a hand out nor a hand up, it's the destruction of thier individuality.

Shadylookin · Jan 9, 2005

no. the most important reason is that communism is bad, the second is that it does not take into account the actual worth of the money. An example would be you could live like a king with that kind of money in some godforsaken 3rd world country while you would be homeless if that was your income in a big US city.

JohnRM · Jan 9, 2005

It won't work, because those working jobs that keep the GNP as high as it is would refuse to work any harder than $11,000. It would just keep dropping until the system is abolished.

Akka · Jan 9, 2005

No, and the poll has bad answers, none of them is adequate.
This would be strict communism, and communism like that can't work.
Propose me to give every person between 5000 $ and 25000 $ according to his work, and THEN, yes, it starts to seem a good idea.

JohnRM · Jan 9, 2005

Akka said:
No, and the poll has bad answers, none of them is adequate.
This would be strict communism, and communism like that can't work.
Propose me to give every person between 5000 $ and 25000 $ according to his work, and THEN, yes, it starts to seem a good idea.

I think I'd end up having to shoot you.

Akka · Jan 9, 2005

Wow, that just made me change my mind and realize the error of my ways :rolleyes:

And I'm afraid. Oh yes, very very afraid.

A'AbarachAmadan · Jan 9, 2005

Akka said:
No, and the poll has bad answers, none of them is adequate.
This would be strict communism, and communism like that can't work.
Propose me to give every person between 5000 $ and 25000 $ according to his work, and THEN, yes, it starts to seem a good idea.

Note: BOLDING is mine.

I thought 'give every person according to his work' is already what we do in capitalism. Of course some socialism is good, but all we need to do is encourage capitalistic democracy and we'll get there. I don't begrudge Bill Gates his mu-la; he earned it.

The Last Conformist · Jan 9, 2005

Incidentally, that's about what I get in student's grants and loans per year.

Well, there's no realistic possibility of instituting a such scheme, so the question is strictly academic. I don't think totally decoupling income from achievement would be a good idea.

Mise · Jan 9, 2005

I reluctantly voted yes. It would solve a lot of problems, and create a few, but it would be nice to know that people weren't living in poverty.

Incidentally, the actual value ($11k per year) doesn't really mean much. It might as well be $1 per year, or a pack of cigarrettes, people would still charge a proportional amount for their goods.

Shadylookin said:
no. the most important reason is that communism is bad, the second is that it does not take into account the actual worth of the money. An example would be you could live like a king with that kind of money in some godforsaken 3rd world country while you would be homeless if that was your income in a big US city.

You didn't think this through did you. If everyone had the same amount of money, the value of that money would be homogenised also. I'll leave you to think this through properly...

John HSOG said:
I think I'd end up having to shoot you.

Why do half of your posts involve shooting people?

Akka · Jan 9, 2005

A'AbarachAmadan said:
Note: BOLDING is mine.

I thought 'give every person according to his work' is already what we do in capitalism.

No. Capitalism is based on economic leverage, not on merit.

Of course some socialism is good, but all we need to do is encourage capitalistic democracy and we'll get there. I don't begrudge Bill Gates his mu-la; he earned it.

Precisely not.

nonconformist · Jan 9, 2005

Akka said:
No, and the poll has bad answers, none of them is adequate.
This would be strict communism, and communism like that can't work.
Propose me to give every person between 5000 $ and 25000 $ according to his work, and THEN, yes, it starts to seem a good idea.

I agree. Also, giving every person $11,000 would mean that the whole economic system would crash.

And capitalism is based on demand rather than work.

Mathilda · Jan 9, 2005

Personally I'd be prepared to live on 11 000 / year if that solved the world's problems.
It's mind boggling to try to think how it woud affect the world.
What would happen to the western industries?
What would happen to the third world countries.
How long would it take for the chaos to settle and something new to start forming?

Equal Distribution of Wealth, or "Would You Take one For the Planet"?

Equal Distribution of Wealth?

Absolutely! Great idea.

I'd hate it personally, but yes. Fair is fair.

Dunno.

Bad idea for the world (wars, etc)

Hell no! I'm entitled to what I earned!

Username sez it all

Fool me once...

The Great Head.

Fool me once...

The Great Head.

Fool me once...

The Great Head.

Deity

The Great Head.

master debater

Don't make me destroy you

Moody old mage.

Don't make me destroy you

Moody old mage.

Deity

Irresistibly Attractive

isle of lucy

Moody old mage.

Miserable

Queen

Similar threads