One To Five?
 

It is said that even old Platon recommended that the difference between the poorest and the richest person in a society should be no more than one to five, ie the rich could be up to five times more wealthy than the poor. If the gap grew more than that it would mean that the system was injust and non equal, and it would also lead to alienation and social unrest among the poorest.

Would it not be a good idea to perhaps have such a distribution of wealth also in our own societies? Even the poorest, unemployed, sick and others should have a decent income so they could live decent life, and the richest would have a good life but not drown in luxuary. Such a system would free a lot of resources to build a god network of social services and it would probably also reduce crime, social instability and other problems.

What is your take on the idea?

The problem with wealth redistribution is it puts a lid on peoples ability to achieve. While I feel everybody deserves an equal chance at success in life, not everybody deserves financial equality their whole lives. That is to say, you get a chance at an education, life, and finding a job, but we're not going to force others to wait up for you. Take it, or leave it.

I personally prefer meritocracies, everybody starts out on the same level, but whatever you can earn above that line is yours, not to be taken to help others off the base.

Actually it is in the long run probably the other way around. By giving everyone a fair share of the wealth in a society, by giving everyone a certain level of financial security it actually frees peoples abilities. Instead of being locked in powerty and maybe meaningless underpaid jobs, more people will be free to chose lifeways that is in correspondance with their true talents.

Also be equaling out differencies in wealth between people you create a climate of better trust in society and politics. Also you heighten the societal moral and in the long run decrease criminality and anti social behaviour.

Nobody ever starts out with the same in an unequal society.

You have to establish a baseline that everybody can start from. Those that want to move up will have the proper foundation to do so, however, there should be no ceiling on what you're allowed to achieve.

A baseline is good, but we ought not allow certain individuals to amass a lot of wealth (which is mostly based not only on their own work but also on the work of others) that in one way or another is amassed to the disadvantage of others.

If you take it away, you'd be punishing success. This does not promote success.

Success do not give anyone the right to amass more than a reasonable share of the resources of a society. A CEO are not working 50 times more than a worker at the same company, a shareholder that just sits and monitors his stocks are not 100 times more valuable than a care assistent saving lives at a hospital.

A CEO earned his right to control a company. Either through shrewd investing, or work. Investing is a valid strategy for amassing wealth, its a gamble, for every one who succeeds, dozens fail at it.

A CEO has as a job to administrate and controll a company, that do not entitle him to a dispropotional amount of the wealth of a society.

Usually, CEO's have disproportionate amounts of cash they earned before they take their posting at the head of the board. Or, they're the ones who created the company in the first place, and you are now telling them that they are not entitled to the profits of THEIR business.

A business is a collective enterprise, very few larger companies are driven by one person. So ofcourse the pofits shall be relatively equally spread among those who works at the company. So perhaps the ratio 5:1 in favour of the owner is reasonable.

That should be up to the owner to decide. If he screws over workers, they'll move on. Treat them well, and they stay.

You can not leave such descisions to owners of companies. It ought to be up to society to distribute wealth.

I earn it, you decide who gets it. Wow.

Sign me up.

So... the leader of a company can't distribute their profits?