One To Five?

[Human No More]

It's also not socialism. Socialism is based on tax and welfare, not arbitrarily taking things from people with a limit on achievement.
I'd call it communism. After all, those people starving to death were not as rich as Stalin, were they? , yet there was an enforced 'ratio'.

[redpaintednavi]

Originally Posted by Human No More

It's also not socialism. Socialism is based on tax and welfare, not arbitrarily taking things from people with a limit on achievement.
I'd call it communism. After all, those people starving to death were not as rich as Stalin, were they? , yet there was an enforced 'ratio'.

Noone is talkaing about just arbitrarily taking things from people. There are many ways to regulate income (as you say through taxes and other kinds of redistribution, or by having regulation about income, investment and simular. All this can come about in a democratic way).

Society can with a sound redistributional, democratic policy achieve a healthy ratio in income.

As of now the most wealthy 20 percent of US population are about 8 or 9 times richer than the lowest 20 percent, while in Japan that difference is only 2 times or in Sweden between 3 or 4 times. In 365 of the most wealthy corporations in the US the CEO earns 500 times (or more) than the ordinary worker. In Sweden that corresponding numbers are about 30 times and in Japan around 20 times. These numbers can with the right economic policy be evened out even more without any Stalin or communism.

One can once again mention that the US (and also UK) have much worse social and medical problems (in correlation with the inequality) than for example Japan or Sweden. So if US shall be a country that is not falling apart out of social problems they should go for more economic equality.
Nutters like the Tea party movement and similar ought to read Wilkinson and Pickets book.