One To Five?

[redpaintednavi]

Originally Posted by Aihwa

But there ARE slackers and lazies in life. Its not flawed, there were probably people in the class that actually tried hard but just do poorly on tests too, still a good thing for them, but the slackers dragged them down.
If I had a dime for the number of people I've seen use food-stamps, followed by 50$ cash for alcohol, I'd be a very, very rich man.

According to some sociologists the amount of slackers in a society is seldom more than a couple of percent of the total population, and they will remain slackers whatever measures are put in front of them. But most people that are poor are no slackers, instead their powerty is a result of the political and economic system they live in. Or do you really believe that the USA has more than 44 million lazy slackers?

[Elyannia]

Originally Posted by redpaintednavi

Well, the idea of the experiment your teacher conducetd was flawed in its basic thinking. It presupposed that those who are poor is it because of slackness or laziness. That means that your teacher did not grasp the underlying societal, economic and power based structures in a society that causes inequality and powerty.

My teacher was a very smart man, I wouldn't write him off so easily.

[Isard]

Originally Posted by Elyannia

My teacher was a very smart man, I wouldn't write him off so easily.

Teachers always get the short end of the stick. To liberals, teachers are the mouthpiece of the corporate machine indoctrinating youth, to conservatives, they're former hippies corrupting youth.

You cannot win at politics as a teacher.

[Human No More]

People shouldn't be able to live off handouts without doing anything. There are far too many people like that here and they're a drain on everyone who works. 99% of people would do it if they could get given enough, which is why communism will never work.

[Neytiri.]

Originally Posted by redpaintednavi

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?

Sounds like a watered down form of communism, Share the wealth equally! No thanks. why should someone who's worked hard and makes a large sum of money be forced to share with someone making less just for the sake that they make less? If your unsatisfied with how much your earning then change it.

[redpaintednavi]

Originally Posted by Neytiri.

Sounds like a watered down form of communism, Share the wealth equally!

Are you from USA? In USA all social reforms, welfare or economic justice and equality seem to be seen as some form of communism. Shades of McCarthy?

Originally Posted by Neytiri.

No thanks. why should someone who's worked hard and makes a large sum of money be forced to share with someone making less just for the sake that they make less? If your unsatisfied with how much your earning then change it.

Many of the inhabitanst of great wealth do not posses that wealth just because of hard work (if it only depended on hard work every nurse or care assistent in a common hospital would be a millionaire) but often also because they used ruthless methods and greedily hijacked more money than they deserved from companies or from the common.

[Human No More]

Originally Posted by redpaintednavi

Are you from USA? In USA all social reforms, welfare or economic justice and equality seem to be seen as some form of communism. Shades of McCarthy?

I agree with her and I'm not American . Communism is interesting in theory, but it's going against human nature and will never work. If someone offered you everything you wanted - financially, physically, whatever... would you want to work? For the majority of people, it would be no.

Giving away people's money so that AREN'T ALLOWED to have more than x is a lot different to simple income tax, where there is no actual limit, just a proportion that is taken. A limit means that there is no incentive to improve, to do better as you are going to have it stolen from you, so you might as well do the minimum to get the maximum you are allowed to have, and that causes stagnation.

I'm in favour of welfare for people who DESERVE it - people who need healthcare, people who genuinely can't find a job, or don't earn enough to support children through no fault of their own (not talking about people who consciously have too many children in order to be eligible for more handouts) - but people should never be able to consciously choose to live off it without even attempting to improve their situation. If they decide that they have enough of their own assets to live without work, good for them, but they should not get anything from the government other than the very basics that are provided to EVERYONE.
Taking things from people who earned them and giving them away can be communism, I consider it as such if it means there is an actual limit on achievement, as opposed to a simple percentage.

Many of the inhabitanst of great wealth do not posses that wealth just because of hard work (if it only depended on hard work every nurse or care assistent in a common hospital would be a millionaire) but often also because they used ruthless methods and greedily hijacked more money than they deserved from companies or from the common.

And many have it because they had an idea, they innovated, they had the sense to start often with very little and build it up into a success. They worked just as hard as other people and deserve it. Yes, I think some jobs are very underpaid especially considering the value of the work they do, but that doesn't mean that people who took the initiative to do things for themselves should not be allowed to.

[redpaintednavi]

Originally Posted by Human No More

I agree with her and I'm not American . Communism is interesting in theory, but it's going against human nature and will never work. If someone offered you everything you wanted - financially, physically, whatever... would you want to work? For the majority of people, it would be no.

Noone offers anything, people still have to work. But the system we have now makes too big differencies between different works. Noone actually work one hundred or even 50 times more than someone else (the day and night just have a limited amount of hours) or hundred times better. Noone is hundred times more important. We have just fallen into a system, created by the privileged that in many places actually increases the inequality between people, and in doing so creates a lot of problems (like social alienation and criminality). One do not have to be a communist to see that.

Originally Posted by Human No More

I'm in favour of welfare for people who DESERVE it - people who need healthcare, people who genuinely can't find a job, or don't earn enough to support children through no fault of their own (not talking about people who consciously have too many children in order to be eligible for more handouts) - but people should never be able to consciously choose to live off it without even attempting to improve their situation. If they decide that they have enough of their own assets to live without work, good for them, but they should not get anything from the government other than the very basics that are provided to EVERYONE.
Taking things from people who earned them and giving them away can be communism, I consider it as such if it means there is an actual limit on achievement, as opposed to a simple percentage.

You do not have to limit achievment, just the amassing of capital and other resources in the hands of a few.

Originally Posted by Human No More

And many have it because they had an idea, they innovated, they had the sense to start often with very little and build it up into a success. They worked just as hard as other people and deserve it. Yes, I think some jobs are very underpaid especially considering the value of the work they do, but that doesn't mean that people who took the initiative to do things for themselves should not be allowed to.

The main problem is that if some people take a too big share of the cake than there is a risk that others get a to less share of the cake. And taht creates social instability and problems. And even if someone have some good ideas it do not entitle him to take a disproportional part of societal resources.

[Fkeu'itan]

I say you should be willing to share your wealth with others, because they're people.

Not just statistics.

A fair amount of my weekly paycheck on taxes. That doesn't bother me at all. In a way, I feel good that I work hard enough to support those who are less well off than me.
I give a lot of my money away to charity, because, the way I see it, if I have more money than I need (let alone more money than any one person could ever spend in the cases of many CEOs out there) then why should I hoarde it?

That said, I can't say I agree with those who simply sit back, offer nothing to society and just let the money roll in... but it seems like many people forget that there are genunie cases out there. Even moreso with this increasingly jobless economy.
I myself was on Jobseeker's allowance for 5 weeks, while I found a job. I didn't necesarrily need this money, as I live at home, but it did help in providing the basic things I needed like food.

I was called a "waster" the other day for seriously considering not going to university and instead going off around the world and using my life for other, and better things than amassing a personal fortune. Seems like if you don't crave and worship money, you're not a worth human being any more...

(A quick search allowed me to discover that the CEO of Walmart earns in one hour what some of his employees do in an entire year. You seriously can't sit there in all good faith and say "Yep, that's completely fine.")

[Isard]

Originally Posted by Fkeu'itan

I say you should be willing to share your wealth with others, because they're people.

Not just statistics.

A fair amount of my weekly paycheck on taxes. That doesn't bother me at all. In a way, I feel good that I work hard enough to support those who are less well off than me.
I give a lot of my money away to charity, because, the way I see it, if I have more money than I need (let alone more money than any one person could ever spend in the cases of many CEOs out there) then why should I hoarde it?

That said, I can't say I agree with those who simply sit back, offer nothing to society and just let the money roll in... but it seems like many people forget that there are genunie cases out there. Even moreso with this increasingly jobless economy.
I myself was on Jobseeker's allowance for 5 weeks, while I found a job. I didn't necesarrily need this money, as I live at home, but it did help in providing the basic things I needed like food.

I was called a "waster" the other day for seriously considering not going to university and instead going off around the world and using my life for other, and better things than amassing a personal fortune. Seems like if you don't crave and worship money, you're not a worth human being any more...

(A quick search allowed me to discover that the CEO of Walmart earns in one hour what some of his employees do in an entire year. You seriously can't sit there in all good faith and say "Yep, that's completely fine.")

Oh, this is fun, You just bitched about my boss.

He also ensures that I have proper healthcare available, a retirement fund, and an internal watchdog service to report any mistreatment of employee's Yep, that's completely fine.

[Human No More]

A lot of people conveniently ignore the good things that so many people do with their money too... look at Bill Gates for an example.
Look at whenever there is a natural disaster and people make donations - yes, a lot of it is millions of people donating £1, but then one person donates a few million as well, it has equal impact.

It's not about amount of work, it's because some people had the ability, the inspiration and the intelligence to start something. Without that, nothing would ever be achieved. Anyway, those people contribute huge amounts in tax, a lot of which goes to people who have no intention of doing anything for themselves when they can live on handouts. I'm not saying everyone is like that, but there are a lot of people who are.

redpaintednavi, I see limiting what someone can have as the same as limiting achievement. There's no drive to think 'I could do even better, I could improve what we have' if it becomes 'I could but I wouldn't be allowed to benefit from it'. That's why communism collapsed, because that mentality leads to people doing the bare minimum so what needs to be done to support it never happens.

[redpaintednavi]

Originally Posted by Human No More

A lot of people conveniently ignore the good things that so many people do with their money too... look at Bill Gates for an example.
Look at whenever there is a natural disaster and people make donations - yes, a lot of it is millions of people donating £1, but then one person donates a few million as well, it has equal impact.

In a just and equal society it is the long run ofcource better if states could do the good things (welfare and so on) and also that there would be a readiness for catastrophes and crisis and be able to quick come up with the aquired aid. One can not have a system that relies on some philantropic billionaires to get things done.

Originally Posted by Human No More

It's not about amount of work, it's because some people had the ability, the inspiration and the intelligence to start something. Without that, nothing would ever be achieved. Anyway, those people contribute huge amounts in tax, a lot of which goes to people who have no intention of doing anything for themselves when they can live on handouts. I'm not saying everyone is like that, but there are a lot of people who are.

Even if you have ideas and start up things, you are still not entitled to an unproportional part of societal resources. Noone is irreplaceable.

Originally Posted by Human No More

redpaintednavi, I see limiting what someone can have as the same as limiting achievement. There's no drive to think 'I could do even better, I could improve what we have' if it becomes 'I could but I wouldn't be allowed to benefit from it'. That's why communism collapsed, because that mentality leads to people doing the bare minimum so what needs to be done to support it never happens.

Still one must limit an individuals part of the resources of a society because otherwise you get an inequality that will give rize to alienation and social problems. Also if few persons take up to big a part of resources there will be people that get a less part of the resources. And if the ratio of wealth is for example around 5:1 (give or take a couple of steps) then you still have leeway for economic achievement.

[Fkeu'itan]

Well, seeing as most people these days with any large amount of money have off-shore bank accounts in tax havens, they actually don't pay any tax at all to the country they live in.

Yes, there's no denying what Bill Gates does for charity, as for a few others out there who do the same. However, I think that people also need to start worrying, not just about what's going on abroad, about the major disasters that we see on the news every day, but the social disasters that are occurring within their own countries.

I just wish that people would give because they can, that they are willing to give the excess that they have, because they love other people...

Not because they're forced to.

Unfortunately, this doesn't ever look like happening.

[Human No More]

With 5:1, many things would never happen because they require investment. People would be unable to privately fund most businesses or even causes such as many charities, and there would never be enough money available for research or new technologies or improvement of existing ones. Large companies would not be able to pay their employees if they are included, and decentralisation DOES result in reduced efficiency and therefore higher prices, ironically lowering standards. In poorer countries, while essentials such as food may be cheap by the standards of more developed ones, proportionally to what people there earn, they are more expensive compared to countries with more economic development.

[redpaintednavi]

Originally Posted by Human No More

With 5:1, many things would never happen because they require investment. People would be unable to privately fund most businesses or even causes such as many charities, and there would never be enough money available for research or new technologies or improvement of existing ones. Large companies would not be able to pay their employees if they are included, and decentralisation DOES result in reduced efficiency and therefore higher prices, ironically lowering standards. In poorer countries, while essentials such as food may be cheap by the standards of more developed ones, proportionally to what people there earn, they are more expensive compared to countries with more economic development.

Investment is one thing, money can be channelled into investments without being channelled into the pockets of private shareholders. Incomes from a certain activity can be cooperatively managed and invested where they are needed, without being ammassed into the hands of certain individuals.