Income inequality - is it a problem?

[FredLC]

Originally posted by MrPresident
It all depends on what your definition of socialist is. Here in Britain the Labour party are considered socialist but they are not proposing no private property.

We have parties such as that, too. I don't consider them as socialist, but rather as "of socialist inspiration".

Than I guess Sweden would not fit in my view of a socialist nation.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.


I'm all done here.

 

[FredLC]

Yeah, and bad intentions will lead us to heaven...

 

[allan2]

More like, good intentions and a buck fifty will buy you a cup of coffee. It's the results that count--and also that people don't get guns pointed at them along the way.

I suspect I'm also through with the whole communism/socialism vs. capitalism debate. It's been SO done. I just know what political side I'LL fight for (with my vote, powers of persuasion, etc.)....

 

[Akka]

Originally posted by FearlessLeader2
Who ever said, or even implied, that life was fair, or had to be?

Isn't the totality of your arguing based on the fact that taking money to the rich who "have earned it" is unfair ?

Hope there is still some pieces of your foot around the hole

 

[allan2]

Originally posted by Akka




Isn't the totality of your arguing based on the fact that taking money to the rich who "have earned it" is unfair ?

Hope there is still some pieces of your foot around the hole

And the moral is... no one can agree on what is fair!

Btw, *I* would not call it unfair, but rather theft, or plunder. (Un)fairness is one thing--but when you introduce FORCE to the equation, it becomes something else.

 

[Akka]

Originally posted by allan2


And the moral is... no one can agree on what is fair!

Btw, *I* would not call it unfair, but rather theft, or plunder. (Un)fairness is one thing--but when you introduce FORCE to the equation, it becomes something else.

That's not the point of my remark.
I merely pointed that FLL2 was plainly hypocrital and inconsistent, as he was saying that fairness did not matter while the entirety of his argument was based on supposed fairness.

Having a different view on fairness is not the same as saying that fairness does not matter.

 

[allan2]

Originally posted by Akka


That's not the point of my remark.
I merely pointed that FLL2 was plainly hypocrital and inconsistent, as he was saying that fairness did not matter while the entirety of his argument was based on supposed fairness.

Having a different view on fairness is not the same as saying that fairness does not matter.

I can't speak for FL2, but I THINK he was trying to point out an irony using your (or someone's) argument of fairness--i.e. if you use the argument of fairness, couldn't you also say that taking wealth from people who created it and giving it to people who didn't is also unfair.

Not that I'd use that argument though--like I said, fairness is one thing that either occurs naturally or doesn't, whereas using force is another thing. If you WANT to talk about fairness though, one COULD say that things can never be "fair" when one party holds a gun to another's head, and the other has no recourse. Put down the gun, and the situation can be a bit more "fair" then, right?

See how many interpretations of "fair" there can be? It's really a subjective term, hence has no real meaning in an objective discussion. Hence I rarely (if ever) use the term in arguments like these....

 

[MrPresident]

couldn't you also say that taking wealth from people who created it and giving it to people who didn't is also unfair.

Of course it is unfair to the people with the money. However it is in their interests to do so. It is like when a child gets some pocket money and a parent forces them to put some of it in the bank. That is unfair to the child. However it is for the child's own good. And also there is the argument that some of the wealthy didn't exactly earn their money. But that has been done before.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

allan2, irony is plainly lost on these people.

MP. Ugh, I wanted out, but you are so insistently blind to reality, that I feel a need to open your eyes to the truth, and I just can't walk away. I have a friend who thinks like you do, and I've been working on him, but it's neccessarily slower going.

You have a flawed definition of a great many terms, and I feel that it is not so much a language issue as it is an outlook issue.

The following are entirely truthful statements:

Money, in and of itself, is not evil. 'The love of money is the root of all evil.' is how that passage in the Bible reads.

People who have money are not, as a whole, evil grasping tycoon aristocrats who take joy in dancing on the graves of the poor, nor do they routinely bathe in the blood of innocent children as a beauty treatment. Additionally, not every person who inherits money is a venal, cowardly, petty tyrant with delusions of superiority, nor are they members of a secret illuminarti bent on world dominion.

The world owes neither you, nor any other man, woman, or child on, under, or over the face of the earth a living. We're all in this together, but it really is every man for himself. This fact makes those who CHOOSE to be charitable truly admirable. When you force everyone to be charitable by stealing from them to give to others, you taint and reduce the moral value of charity, and thereby reduce the spiritual incentive for being charitable. In the long run, this will weaken the social value attached to charity, and reduce the likelihood of vouluntary charity.

Legality does not confer morality, and vice-versa. There are unjust laws, and unjust governments, and they are the rule, not the exception.

The only good thing that comes out the barrel of a gun is defense from everything else that comes out of it. By this I mean (and allan2 is sure to agree) that laws passed to force people to follow moral codes are not the good idea they seem to be. If you have to use force to get someone else to follow your philosophy, there is probably something deeply wrong with it.

Robbing from the rich to feed the poor creates a world where everyone is poor and all starve together. Look at the former Soviet Union if you need an example.

 

[Richard III]

(god, isn't this thread dead yet? I thought it would last a day at most....)

(guess it is a problem then)

 

[allan2]

Originally posted by MrPresident

Of course it is unfair to the people with the money. However it is in their interests to do so. It is like when a child gets some pocket money and a parent forces them to put some of it in the bank. That is unfair to the child. However it is for the child's own good. And also there is the argument that some of the wealthy didn't exactly earn their money. But that has been done before.

The implication of this statement is that taxpayers are CHILDREN, who must be TOLD what is in their best interests and forced by the "parent" government if need be. How condescendingly arrogant that is. Can't you see that? Can't you see why people like myself (who are proud of how far they've come in this life--not necessarily materially (not me), but just through years of experience good and bad) would be turned off by such an implication? If you want to persuade people, I'd suggest a different tack (although it's probably too late now)....

Are leaders automatically more "mature" than the people? That feeling is what is called "paternalism", and it's caused more problems than it ever "solved" throughout history. In a word, leaders are EQUALS to the people (i.e. leadership is just another job, not an indication of any superiority or "divine right" or whatever, but a position for which the people can hire or fire)--it's time the people stepped up and faced the implications of that reality.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

allan2, the arrogance is strong in this one. I don't even try to fight it anymore.

 

[MrPresident]

MP. Ugh, I wanted out, but you are so insistently blind to reality, that I feel a need to open your eyes to the truth, and I just can't walk away.

"Everytime I think I'm out, they pull me back in."

The implication of this statement is that taxpayers are CHILDREN, who must be TOLD what is in their best interests and forced by the "parent" government if need be.

I don't know about you but I have encountered a large amount of stupidity in my time, I have to admit some of it was mine. Why else do you think that a McDonalds coffee comes with the words 'caution: this coffee is hot' (or whatever it says). Or why shampoo has instructions on the bottle. I could go on and on.People do need to be told what to do on certain (read that word carefully) matters. For example hard drugs such as heroin and cocaine.

Are leaders automatically more "mature" than the people?

Of course not. I believe in democracy though which is majority rule. If the majority feel that it is prudent to do something, i.e. have a national health service. Then it should be done. Of course the minority have certain rights that shouldn't be breached by the majority but choosing the amount tax and what to do with it, I think should be the right of the majority.

You have a flawed definition of a great many terms

Better than no definition at all. Seriously though I would greatly appreciate it if you could show me my flawed definition and tell me the correct ones. That way I won't make the same mistakes again.

Money, in and of itself, is not evil. 'The love of money is the root of all evil.' is how that passage in the Bible reads.

I don't really see the point in quoting the Bible to me but I totally argue that money is not the root of all evil. The same with power. Power doesn't corrupt. The weaknesses in people's character does that.

irony is plainly lost on these people.

Are you mad? I am the king of irony. I live for irony. My whole system of humour is based on irony. There is nothing funnier than a good use of irony, well except a guy getting hit in the groin with a football.

The world owes neither you, nor any other man, woman, or child on, under, or over the face of the earth a living.

Agreed.

This fact makes those who CHOOSE to be charitable truly admirable.

To some extent I agreed. But no act of charity is ever selfless.

When you force everyone to be charitable by stealing from them to give to others, you taint and reduce the moral value of charity, and thereby reduce the spiritual incentive for being charitable. In the long run, this will weaken the social value attached to charity, and reduce the likelihood of vouluntary charity.

I don't agree with this at all. And would like to see some evidence that supports it. For example people have been taxed for hundreds of years, has the level of charity dropped over this period of time? And especially during the industrial revolution in America at the turn of the last century when capitalism run amok and there was laissez-faire policies and no income tax, what was the level of charity? and how does it compare with current levels?

Robbing from the rich to feed the poor creates a world where everyone is poor and all starve together.

Agreed. I don't want high taxes at all. I want low taxes. But I still want taxes. And I want some degree of wealth redistribution. That way everyone benefits to the best possible level.

If you have to use force to get someone else to follow your philosophy, there is probably something deeply wrong with it.

So forcing the world to respect the value of human life, i.e. war crime tribunals and crimes against humanity, is wrong?

allan2, the arrogance is strong in this one. I don't even try to fight it anymore.

I believe that we are conducting a worthwhile debate (most of the time) and that is what living in a free society means. I think the worse possible thing someone can do in a debate is to not even fight. You are like the Roman senators who left the Senate in disgust at what was being done. The result was that no one was left to oppose and the even more extreme measures were passed.

 

[Free Enterprise]

The tax on inheritance is ridiculous unless you do not believe a person has a right to leave money to whoever they choose.


"Most of people I know DO work very hard (myself included). I know some people of largely commendable abilities and yet, I know that most of them – most likely them all – will not get rich. They will never reach the top of the food chain, no matter their capabilities and competence. But we all feel comfortable with the system because we have this small hope of getting rich some day. Obviously, this claim that all that takes to be rich is work is false, because it’s impossible that most people gets rich, even being true that most people do work hard.

Using this idea what would be the solution? How can opportunity be given to one person without taking what has been earned from another? It requires more than hard work it requires smart work and risk taking(which may or may not pay off). A person is not owed anything by anyone else. Also I would not consider it a system that is to be enforced like socialism(voluntary socialism will never occur since people disagree) is rather it is more what occurs naturely with the government ready to punish crimes.

Edit: Corrected terminology to correct tense and third person.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Talk about a Lazarus topic! MP got the last word in I see. *shrug* I still feel the same way.

 

[Free Enterprise]

Originally posted by MrPresident

Of course not. I believe in democracy though which is majority rule. If the majority feel that it is prudent to do something, i.e. have a national health service. Then it should be done. Of course the minority have certain rights that shouldn't be breached by the majority but choosing the amount tax and what to do with it, I think should be the right of the majority.

One man one vote(not saying anyone should get more than one vote) direct democracy is ineffective.

Ok let us say that a national health care system was voted in. Now how would you pay for it? Through taxes? Ok if you pay for it through taxes you must take more from those who have more money(the rich) and therefore require an income tax of sorts. If you tried this with a flat tax you would have to tax an enormus amount of money. Ok now you have effectively punished people for trying to earn more income which may result in less effort to generate more income which results in a buisness here or there being more content with the status quo rather than grabing as many marbles on the table as they can get(competition which lowers prices). The dog eat dog results in the company being forced to do what is needed to get people to by their product. Then as the tax goes up more individuals/companies being to reduce their efforts after seeing a rapid decline in profitability and therefore lowering the amount of income gained by tax. Sort of like a reverse Marxism. Although there is a limit to how atrocious socialist economy can get(based on technology). If one believes in hard core equality it will be hard to motivate people to work, would you work harder if you recieved the same money as someone who worked less hard? The so called reward based socialism system goes against equality also.

 

[Free Enterprise]

Originally posted by FearlessLeader2
Talk about a Lazarus topic! MP got the last word in I see. *shrug* I still feel the same way.

There was a link to this thread in another thread.

 

[FredLC]

Originally posted by Free Enterprise
How can you blame other people for this or even the system? It requires more than hard work it requires smart work and risk taking(which may or may not pay off). You are not owned anything by anyone else. Also I would not consider it a system that is to be enforced like socialism(voluntary socialism will never occur since people disagree) is rather it is more what occurs naturely with the government ready to punish crimes.

Blame?

Who said anything about blame? Have you actually paid attention to my post? I repeatedly said that I was not pointing fingers at anyone.

I know this will sound quite “meronvigianesque”, but the current economical system, with its advantages and its disadvantages, is the consequence of numerous factors interacting for thousands of years. It’s not something that someone can “blame” or “congratulate”, as the case may be, for. Causality, plain and simple.

Nonetheless, you are falling in the fallacy I mentioned in my post: “If someone is rich, it is because that person is some sort of elite human being, with dedication, brains and bravery superior to that of other man”.

Well, I don’t buy it. I’ve met many poor people who are outstanding. And I’ve met a few rich people that are absolutely dumb. There is, for sure, a great role of the personal skills in the act of achieving wealthy, but it’s simply not as simple to divide men in casts like this.

Finally, I’d like to know where you think I advertised socialism in my posts.

Regards .

 

[Free Enterprise]

Originally posted by FredLC


Blame?

Who said anything about blame? Have you actually paid attention to my post? I repeatedly said that I was not pointing fingers at anyone.

I saw the mistake in the post and edited it.

The point of saying blame was how can you(as in man in general) require someone else to give you(you can mean many things) what they have earned out of a so called denial of opportunity. I wasn't refering to you when I said you. I was using it like when someone says "You cannot even buy an oven these days without paying $40 dollars." That was a reference to a situation where a person would claim such a thing it rather than saying you blamed people. I should have not used the word you during hypothetical speech. I did not mean that you yourself are blaming people although it probably sounding exactly like that. It was merely vague wording that made it appear that way, I was using a custom defination..... Next time that will be different.

Originally posted by FredLC
I know this will sound quite “meronvigianesque”, but the current economical system, with its advantages and its disadvantages, is the consequence of numerous factors interacting for thousands of years. It’s not something that someone can “blame” or “congratulate”, as the case may be, for. Causality, plain and simple.

Nonetheless, you are falling in the fallacy I mentioned in my post: “If someone is rich, it is because that person is some sort of elite human being, with dedication, brains and bravery superior to that of other man”.

If someone inherts a company and is ineffective that company is going to have a difficult time dealing with other ones. You could argue that the person may get lucky with effective workers however this is like the rare chance of winning a sweepstakes. Every system is flawed and has mistakes which occur. Capitalism does also however it is less flawed than socialism in my opinion.

Originally posted by FredLC
Well, I don’t buy it. I’ve met many poor people who are outstanding. And I’ve met a few rich people that are absolutely dumb. There is, for sure, a great role of the personal skills in the act of achieving wealthy, but it’s simply not as simple to divide men in casts like this.

Generally if a person is highy skilled they can get a high paying job. If a person with an important job is dumb that weakens the company against more effective ones. Although the dumb companies do not die instantly they will lose profits however. The book "Atlas Shrugs" has good examples of what can happen and how it happens.

Originally posted by FredLC
Finally, I’d like to know where you think I advertised socialism in my posts.

I did not think you did. I did read where you said you did not. I was trying to use your ideas to prove my points for capitalism and against socialism and/or a mixed economy. If capitalism is flawed and there is not a better system it will be used(or should be) despite the flaws. Perhaps that was not the most appropriate thing to do(the quick and easy is not always the best). I need to use the word you less often since it can lead to what seems like offense speech .

Originally posted by FredLC
Regards .