One To Five?

[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?

[Isard]

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.

[redpaintednavi]

Originally Posted by Aihwa

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Aihwa

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.

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

[Isard]

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.

[redpaintednavi]

Originally Posted by Aihwa

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.

[Isard]

Originally Posted by redpaintednavi

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.

[redpaintednavi]

Originally Posted by Aihwa

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.

[Isard]

Originally Posted by redpaintednavi

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.

[Tsyal Makto]

Like I said in the other thread, total wealth distribution would be too much, but European-style social-democratic, Keynesian, demand-side capitalism would be an ideal medium. People get to keep what they make, but there's measures to keep greed in check, and ensure those who don't have the means to help themselves have a basic level of care.

[Isard]

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

Like I said in the other thread, total wealth distribution would be too much, but European-style social-democratic, Keynesian, demand-side capitalism would be an ideal medium. People get to keep what they make, but there's measures to keep greed in check, and ensure those who don't have the means to help themselves have a basic level of care.

Thank you for being a voice of reason. A safety net to keep people at a livable level, but freedom to rise as much as they wish.

[Fighter-of-Wars]

Distribution of wealth is a tricky subject.

It would work if everyone would put out equal effort, in jobs equally complex, working equal hours. But the margin of five to one or even 10 to one wouldn't, in my opinion, wouldn't work in our world.

For example, if I earned 50 dollars a week, and everyone else earned 10 dollars a week. That is okay in this theory. But what is driving me to excel when the others are okay with their earnings. Why should I improve myself thus improving who I work for when my earnings of more than 50 dollars are going to be redistributed?

And why do I earn 50 dollars a week and the others earn 10? Because I work at a job where I have to make important decisions, I have to take long trips away from home, when I'm home I'm still working, I worked for 30 years to be in the position I'm in. But the one who earns 10 dollars a week is working 6 hours a day at a fast food restaurant. They are just starting there, they have few responsibilities, and when they go home they aren't working. I'm sure to them that getting more money that what they earned would be nice. But what about to the man who has worked his whole life to be where he is at, went to school for 8 years, and devoted his life to his business. Is that fair to him? No. It's not.

And if someone wanted to be in his position. They could. How did he get there? He studied through school, he got scholarships, he went to college, he worked a job to help pay for college, after college, he picked a good job and strove to do his job and do it right. And that is why he makes enough to own a big house, have nice cars, and take nice vacations.

That is a life most anyone could have if they applied themselves. If they wanted it bad enough, they could have it. But not everyone wants to work that hard, not everyone has the drive in themselves to accomplish that.

If he had to relinquish earnings that were more than the five to one ratio, why would he drive himself, why would he build a company that employs thousands of other people, giving them a job. If all he earned he had to just give away he wouldn't have built a great company, and thousands of others wouldn't have a job.

Many people wouldn't go to great lengths to create big businesses just for the sake of the people.

That is why people are entitled to only what they earn.

P.S. sorry if I offended anyone with the fast food place thing. I needed an example and that was easy. I didn't mean any harm.

[Elyannia]

From what I see, wealth distribution is a not so good idea. In my Econ class there were a lot of people who saw wealth distribution as a very good thing and my teacher decided to play an evil trick on us We all took our chapter quiz as normal, but my teacher announced a new grading system. Idk the mathematical formula to figure it out, but it was essentially a distribution of grades. The people who earned and A got lowered because of the slackers who didn't study for the quiz and totally bombed it. The people who bombed the quiz though got a passing grade and they continued on being slackers, thinking they didn't have to try because the people who did earn A's would save their butt. You could all imagine the people who got A's were pissed off because they felt they earned that grade, they were also upset that someone who didn't even care to study got a passing grade for basically only breathing air and marking random answers.
Sure it was a good thing for the slackers, because they didn't have to do anything and get a passing grade, but it's not fair to the people who got an A and actually studied hard for the quiz.

Sorry if this doesn't make sense. It's 3 am, the wind is really bad and making all sorts of noise and I can't sleep XD

[redpaintednavi]

Originally Posted by Elyannia

From what I see, wealth distribution is a not so good idea. In my Econ class there were a lot of people who saw wealth distribution as a very good thing and my teacher decided to play an evil trick on us We all took our chapter quiz as normal, but my teacher announced a new grading system. Idk the mathematical formula to figure it out, but it was essentially a distribution of grades. The people who earned and A got lowered because of the slackers who didn't study for the quiz and totally bombed it. The people who bombed the quiz though got a passing grade and they continued on being slackers, thinking they didn't have to try because the people who did earn A's would save their butt. You could all imagine the people who got A's were pissed off because they felt they earned that grade, they were also upset that someone who didn't even care to study got a passing grade for basically only breathing air and marking random answers.
Sure it was a good thing for the slackers, because they didn't have to do anything and get a passing grade, but it's not fair to the people who got an A and actually studied hard for the quiz.

Sorry if this doesn't make sense. It's 3 am, the wind is really bad and making all sorts of noise and I can't sleep XD

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.

[Isard]

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.

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.

[Elyannia]

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.

Alcohol addiction, drug addiction and even a gambling addiction can all be reasons that people go into poverty. If people can't manage their money right then I don't see why other people have to give up their earned money for them.

While yes there are people who really need help out there financially, like loosing a job and then not being able to pay off their house or credit card bills and end up in povery, but thats what donating is for. Or volunteering at a homeless shelter.