Income inequality - is it a problem?

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by FredLC
Hey, thanks a lot, Akka. It took me some good two hours and a half to get that done, so it's nice to have the work appreciated.

It's a pity, however, that so far no one seen to be interested in pinpointing aspects they disagree. There's always room to improve, and I really like when I get to discuss valid points. I was looking forward to some controversy.

Oh, well, maybe I have closed the matter. Now my ego is properly fed .

Regards .

Sorry, Fred, but I happen to agree with most of what you wrote, and the differences are trivialities.

Someone alert the media.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by Damien
Fearlessleader,the tax on inheritance is a joke since money just gotta be dealt before death and the state gets dust.

And without the rich,we'd live and much better.Rich people aren't messiahs.

To your first point, good. I am glad that there is a way to shelter one's fortune from the greedy, grasping claws of government.

To your second, I never said they were messianic, I said they were essential to the economy.

 

[Damien]

essential to the economy?
Who makes money?Workers/consumers,not boss.
If workers/consumers would control economics and wealth would be regulated so that no one can hold the state,boss would work for the state.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by Damien
essential to the economy?

Wow. You've just shattered my every argument. I must capitulate, for I am defeated. Never again shall I deny the wisdom of communist goodness.


(BTW, I'm being sarcastic.)

Originally posted by Damien
Who makes money?Workers/consumers,not boss.

And what must exist before they can do anything? The business, the raw materials, and the demand for the product. Any idea where the first two came from? Capital. IE wealth.

Originally posted by Damien
If workers/consumers would control economics and wealth would be regulated so that no one can hold the state,boss would work for the state.

You say that like it is a good thing. Here in the states, I've seen what happens when the workers gain control of a factory. They 'share' all the profits the company makes into their own pockets for a year, and then scratch their heads in wonder when their company goes belly up.

 

[Damien]

Originally posted by FearlessLeader2
And what must exist before they can do anything? The business, the raw materials, and the demand for the product. Any idea where the first two came from? Capital. IE wealth.

>>>Capital prevails only at the start.If there's no worker or no consumer,you can lay your money under your bed
That starter can be provided by everyone(see public companies)

You say that like it is a good thing. Here in the states, I've seen what happens when the workers gain control of a factory. They 'share' all the profits the company makes into their own pockets for a year, and then scratch their heads in wonder when their company goes belly up.

It's because those workers didn't really control the factory.They didn't vote on the policy to follow to make the company benefitial.
They only exploited its ressources without renewing em.
The goal was not to lead a comppany but to take money from it and then goodbye.

 

[FredLC]

Originally posted by FearlessLeader2

Sorry, Fred, but I happen to agree with most of what you wrote, and the differences are trivialities.

Someone alert the media.

No need to be sorry, dear FearlessLeader2. It was not a challenge to you, but a open invitation to anyone that would be interested. Considering the high level of many discussions I saw here, I can only feel pride that even those who decided to address the matter didn't indicate any relevant flaw in my remarks.

Anyway, if you agree with most, you don't agree with all. If you care to discuss the diferences, even if they are trivial, I'll be more than happy to listen to you.

Just one more thing: I don't believe that "economy is infinite". I think it is the sum of the productive value of those who are at working age. It will only be infinite when the avaiable man/machine power also does.

I don't think we are quite there yet.

Regards .

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by Damien


It's because those workers didn't really control the factory.They didn't vote on the policy to follow to make the company benefitial.
They only exploited its ressources without renewing em.
The goal was not to lead a comppany but to take money from it and then goodbye.

Wrong. These are instances where a business owner has died, and willed his company to his employees, making all of them members of the board of directors. The first thing they do is give themselves a huge pay raise, and then a ****load of benefits, and then the company tanks. It's almost comical watching them try to figure out why.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by FredLC


No need to be sorry, dear FearlessLeader2. It was not a challenge to you, but a open invitation to anyone that would be interested. Considering the high level of many discussions I saw here, I can only feel pride that even those who decided to address the matter didn't indicate any relevant flaw in my remarks.

Anyway, if you agree with most, you don't agree with all. If you care to discuss the diferences, even if they are trivial, I'll be more than happy to listen to you.

Just one more thing: I don't believe that "economy is infinite". I think it is the sum of the productive value of those who are at working age. It will only be infinite when the avaiable man/machine power also does.

I don't think we are quite there yet.

Regards .

My main difference from what you wrote is that you seem to think that life has to be made fair, even if it means doing so at the expense of those who succeeded where others failed. What you fail to recognise is that it is not 'fair' to those who have succeeded to take away what they have made and give it to others who made nothing. That's communism, and it is evil.

The other thing I object to is your statement that it is not right for an individual to amass sufficient wealth to 'buy a country'. Nonsense. A person should be allowed to be as successful as they can manage to be, and no one should try to take away from them the fruits of their labors. Most of these successful people give away vast sums of money to charities, so there is no need to have a government steal yet more from them to 'redistribute' their wealth. These wealthy people have to buy goods and services anyways, and the money they spend will drive the economy, and don't forget that their bank accounts are what banks lend to entrepreneurs and such.

When you institute draconian policies and confiscatory tax rates, you only encourage these wealthy, the backbone of your economy, to hide their assets and flee to nations that do not despise them. How does that help?

 

[Damien]

How was it wrong FL2?
What you said described what I said.

 

[MrPresident]

What you fail to recognise is that it is not 'fair' to those who have succeeded to take away what they have made and give it to others who made nothing.

It is also not fair to let people starve and suffer just because they haven't "succeeded".

That's communism, and it is evil.

I agree that communism is evil but for entirely different reasons. Also, as a serious question, have you read about communism? If so, from what you have read can you tell us how they say what you are telling us they say. If that made any sense.

no one should try to take away from them the fruits of their labors.

What about the inland revenue or IRS? Surely if they fail to pay their taxes then their fruits of labour should be taken away? Or if they made their money through illegal means (i.e. insider trading etc).

Most of these successful people give away vast sums of money to charities, so there is no need to have a government steal yet more from them to 'redistribute' their wealth.

Evidence, please. And the government isn't stealing from them. Taxes are the price we pay for a civilised society. Or another words, taxes are the price these successful people pay so that they could have the opportunity to be successful.

These wealthy people have to buy goods and services anyways

Luxury goods.

When you institute draconian policies and confiscatory tax rates

I suppose it all depends on what you consider draconian policies and confiscatory tax rates. I know, as you have said it before, that you consider any income tax to be a conficatory tax. Whereas many others would point out that someone like a 40% top band tax rate is perfectly acceptable.

There are certain measures would could be considered by some, and probably are, to be a form of redistributing wealth. For example taking money from the well-off to pay for the betterment of the less forunate, i.e. state education or the NHS. However to me it is part of the moral duty a society has to aloud the biggest possibly amount of people to have the best opportunity in the "pursuit of happiness".

 

[Akka]

Most of these successful people give away vast sums of money to charities, so there is no need to have a government steal yet more from them to 'redistribute' their wealth.

Charity is a personnal act that has only to do with the personnal desire to help others.

Social welfare is the recognizing of the RIGHT to live and to have a home and healthcare. People should not have to beg and to wait for charity to have their rights ensured. A state has to enforce the rights of its people.

The place of charity is to help a bit more people who are in difficult position. The place of social welfare is to ensure that people get the minimul the have the RIGHT to have.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by Damien
How was it wrong FL2?
What you said described what I said.

Are you FredLC?

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by MrPresident

It is also not fair to let people starve and suffer just because they haven't "succeeded".

You may have noticed that 'fair' is in quotes above. Think about that.

Originally posted by MrPresident
I agree that communism is evil but for entirely different reasons. Also, as a serious question, have you read about communism? If so, from what you have read can you tell us how they say what you are telling us they say. If that made any sense.

Studying government types is part of one's education in an American high school. One might also learn quite a bit about governments by studying the countries that utilize them. I equate what Marx wrote about Communism to be little more than a sales pitch for a social experiment, glossing over the weaknesses and playing up the strengths. I value the historical performance of a government far higher than the claims its supporters make on its behalf. By that touchstone, communism is an exclusive path to personal power for a ruling elite, by riding on the backs of an impoverished people. Capitalism is not AS elitist as communism, and therefore is better. Anyone can can be a wealthy capitalist, you have to join a club to be a communist leader.

Originally posted by MrPresident
What about the inland revenue or IRS? Surely if they fail to pay their taxes then their fruits of labour should be taken away? Or if they made their money through illegal means (i.e. insider trading etc).

Uh, me not sure, but me think there laws against illegal stuff. Me think that there Latin word or phrase for gabble you just spout. Me think it rhymes with 'pond equator'.

Originally posted by MrPresident
Evidence, please.

Charitable organizations exist. Many of them hold $500/plate dinners, some go even higher. Many auction off valuables donated by wealthy patrons. Shall I go on, or will you yield the point?

Originally posted by MrPresident
And the government isn't stealing from them. Taxes are the price we pay for a civilised society. Or another words, taxes are the price these successful people pay so that they could have the opportunity to be successful.

But when a government oversteps its bounds and does more than defend the people it governs from other governments and maintain law within its own borders, and taxes its people to do so, then it is stealing from them.

Originally posted by MrPresident
Luxury goods.

Gosh, who do you suppose MAKES those luxury goods? Why, LABORERS, I suppose! Does that mean that the rich person's money gets paid to those laborers as a wage? Gosh, I think so! And you know, I bet those rich people have to eat, run air conditioners, mow their lawns, get their windows washed, and a whole lot of other real expensive things done, just like everyone else. Why, they might even buy stuff like clothes too!! Gosh, wouldn't that mean that some of the money they spend doing all that stuff goes into LABORERS' pockets? Hully Gee, I bet it does! You know, there just might be something to this 'trickle-down economics' thing after all...

Originally posted by MrPresident
I suppose it all depends on what you consider draconian policies and confiscatory tax rates. I know, as you have said it before, that you consider any income tax to be a conficatory tax. Whereas many others would point out that someone like a 40% top band tax rate is perfectly acceptable.

As long as the only things the government spends taxes on are defense and law enforcement, fine and groovy, and make sure you give back the surplus.

Originally posted by MrPresident
There are certain measures would could be considered by some, and probably are, to be a form of redistributing wealth. For example taking money from the well-off to pay for the betterment of the less forunate, i.e. state education or the NHS. However to me it is part of the moral duty a society has to aloud the biggest possibly amount of people to have the best opportunity in the "pursuit of happiness".

Welfare = communism = blackest evil. And not just because it steals from one group to 'benefit' another. The group it supposedly benefits becomes dependant upon that aid, and withers into uselessness. Look at America's bumper crop of couch potatoes and tell me I'm wrong.
Dependancy breeds dependancy. Don't give the man a fish, teach him to weave a net. It's timeless wisdom, who are you to dismiss it?

 

[Damien]

FL2,you probably know what happened during the 1st french republic?The terror,mob rule,etc.
So what?All hail the king?

 

[FearlessLeader2]

I'm sorry, do you have a specific question for me?

 

[MrPresident]

You may have noticed that 'fair' is in quotes above. Think about that.

Were you quoting someone? Because I believe that is the function of quotation marks.

Studying government types is part of one's education in an American high school.

So I take it you don't know about other government types then.

I equate what Marx wrote about Communism to be little more than a sales pitch for a social experiment

What Marx wrote was what he believed would happen in the future. It is not a 'sales pitch' (see how I used them?). Marx believed that capitalism was doomed to failure and that the eventual outcome would be communism.

Anyone can can be a wealthy capitalist, you have to join a club to be a communist leader.

Not 'anyone' (see that?) can be a wealthy capitalist. I should know, I have been trying for years. Seriously though, only someone who believes in communism or wants power can be a communist leader. Only someone who is successful or born with money can be a wealthy capitalist. And also you are using the word elite in the wrong context.

Me think it rhymes with 'pond equator'.

Me thinks there is cockney word for someone like you, merchant banker.

You know, there just might be something to this 'trickle-down economics' thing after all

If the same amount of money currently spent on luxury goods was spent on goods that were actually needed. Then how much better would the world be today? Think about that.

As long as the only things the government spends taxes on are defense and law enforcement

I have to disagree here. As you may or may not know I am a firm believer in right of everyone to both a good education and quality health care. That is why I support state education and the NHS (National Health Service). These not only benefit the people who use them but also benefit you, a sort of trickle-down effect if you will. Also a government has to regulate markets for irregularities and for such things as worker safety. Then of course there are the market failures, such as negative externalities.

Welfare = communism = blackest evil.

Communism = dictatorship. Socialism = Democracy. Democracy - Good.

Look at America's bumper crop of couch potatoes and tell me I'm wrong.

You are wrong. America's bumper crop of couch potatoes is more to do with other factors (such as bad parenting, poor diets, etc) than welfare.

Don't give the man a fish, teach him to weave a net. It's timeless wisdom, who are you to dismiss it?

I wonder where does the man get the money to buy the necessary material to weave a net? From the government? But that would be welfare and as you say welfare is evil. So really your saying would, don't give the man a fish, teach him to weave a net. Realise there is no material to weave a net. The man and his family starve. FearlessLeader2 celebrates the success of pure capitalism.

 

[Damien]

Originally posted by FearlessLeader2
I'm sorry, do you have a specific question for me?

You said that socialist ideals gave dictatorship and failure,I replied that the 1st french republic gave terror and bloodbath,therefore it could be said that without the king,things go wrong.

And no,I've got no question.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Mr. President-
Firstly, sorry it took so long to get back to you.

Secondly, it seems we have narrowed our differences down to the essence. I believe that a man should stand on his own two feet, and that if a man cannot stand, it should be his neighbor's CHOICE whether or not to help him. You feel that those who have done well for themselves need to be stripped of the fruits of their labor, and made to watch as others enjoy those fruits.

Let us agree to disagree. That is as much charity as I can stomach for your position.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by Damien
You said that socialist ideals gave dictatorship and failure,I replied that the 1st french republic gave terror and bloodbath,therefore it could be said that without the king,things go wrong.

And no,I've got no question.

If you are attempting to goad me into an impassioned defense of some particular government form, then you are about to be disappointed. I feel, and history agrees with me, that no form of human-led government can succeed beyond the level of small town, if by succeed, we mean provide each citizen with basic freedoms and needs.

As such, if you're in a small town, any government will succeed, and if you're in a larger political entity, no government will succeed. Period.

I do know this much however. The governments that embrace the capatilist ideology do a hell of a lot better than the ones that embrace communism or socialism. History agrees with me on that score too.

If you wish to continue to disagree with me, feel free. I am resting my case, as it is unassailable.

 

[MrPresident]

sorry it took so long to get back to you.

No need to apologise.

FearlessLeader2 our positions are a lot closer than you appear to think. I don't know if this is due to my inability to express my thoughts in a clear and concise manner or due to your inability to understand what I wrote, either way it doesn't matter. I will attempt one more time to tell you what I think and hopefully the confusion will be a problem no more.

I believe (using your language) that a person (with a few changes) should stand on their own two feet. If a person cannot stand on their own two feet a safety net should be constructed so that they do not fall over and have the chance to stand on their own two feet in the future. However I do not believe that the child of a person who stand on their own two feet should get that be a helping hand in standing on their own two feet. There should be a level playing field (This isn't realistic I know but neither is the destruction of human suffering, doesn't mean we shouldn't try) for every generation. That is the best way to ensure that the people who are currently standing on their own two feet and the people who are there on their own merits and not the merits of their parents. Understand?

Thinking about it the confusion is probably caused by my inability to express my thoughts clearly.