Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
People earn exactly what they’re worth professionally and what they negotiated for with their employer...
Because no one's ever been screwed over by the system, or just on hard luck.
The system is the system. Without it, we'd be just as bad off as poor countries elsewhere in the world.
Someone somewhere is going to get screwed, thats just how it is. We may not like it but we have to accept it.
No system will ever be perfect, everyone will game it to get ahead and that will lead to people getting screwed. And thats whats nice about it, everyone has a chance to make it. Not everyone has an equal chance, but that was never promised. Its just that in America you have a better chance than anywhere else.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
And it's life that other people should want their share back. If you claim that hereditary wealth is legitimately owned, then it must also be legitimate for those without wealth to own it. Put simply if someone's ancestor's stole land from your ancestor, you have every right to forcefully reclaim it, just as they have every right to defend it.
Conversely, no civilised society can tolerate the theft of property. So wealth distribution becomes more complex, and frankly more effective than outright theft. If the government taxes a rich man £200 and gives that money to a poor family, it's better for society as a whole than the damage to property and people that would result from forceful redistribution.
The problem i have, anytime we try to even distribute wealth a little bit, like use taxes to pay for poorer income students Tuition or daycare it is decried as socialism. People need help that is a fact, if we want to help people, people have to be willing to give.
whembly wrote: People earn exactly what they’re worth professionally and what they negotiated for with their employer...
The chief exec of the hospital I work at earns more in a day than I do in 3 weeks (plus other sources of income). I as a mid to low level employee have little in the way of a negotiating power to get a "fairer" wage given that I work solidly for 8 hours every day with no breaks (I am entitled to have breaks but there is too much work to do as there has been a hire freeze for quite a long time - even though we just hired a new chief exec... and several more managers...).
I've now completed an MSc and am looking to move into a job where I start on a wage almost twice that of what I make now, and it is still not a particularly high wage. And still nothing like the wage of the top levels of management of most companies.
The work they do isn't markedly harder than anything I do, so why is their time worth so much more than the average worker? Hell, why is it worth so much more than even the most highly skilled, educated and experienced workers?
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
Yes, but giving that money to the poor will not make them any richer.
Wealth redistribution is tricky because it creates a disincentive to aquire wealth(which the government will just take away)
Thus, the Rich get poorer, and the poor have no incentive to work to get richer. And the rich man has no incentive to stay rich, so he cuts back on his wealth generation. So the entire population gets poorer.
Not saying we shouldn't tax the rich more than other people, just that those taxes don't need to be excessivly high. We should not punish success, or limit your enjoyment of it.
Instead, make things easier for business owners. Allow businesses to grow and prosper. When a (rich) business owner expands his business, many many people get employed and paid. Which in turn spurs growth in other areas.
Job Creation is self sustaining, but it needs to get started.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
BryllCream wrote: And it's life that other people should want their share back. If you claim that hereditary wealth is legitimately owned, then it must also be legitimate for those without wealth to own it. Put simply if someone's ancestor's stole land from your ancestor, you have every right to forcefully reclaim it, just as they have every right to defend it.
Sure... we tell that the Native Indians all the time... they were conquer'ed. Now assimilate!
Conversely, no civilised society can tolerate the theft of property.
Stop... what's your definition of "theft"... just so that we're clear.
So wealth distribution becomes more complex, and frankly more effective than outright theft.
THATs theft... no matter how much you're worth.
Paying a tax, that's a civic duty. But increasing the tax rate, just so that the gubmint can redistribute wealth IS theft.
If the government taxes a rich man £200 and gives that money to a poor family, it's better for society as a whole than the damage to property and people that would result from forceful redistribution.
In your opinion...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hotsauceman1 wrote: The problem i have, anytime we try to even distribute wealth a little bit, like use taxes to pay for poorer income students Tuition or daycare it is decried as socialism.
Wealth redistribution is a form of theft.
People need help that is a fact, if we want to help people, people have to be willing to give.
Sure... but at the gunpoint of said government?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/03/06 20:58:15
whembly wrote: People earn exactly what they’re worth professionally and what they negotiated for with their employer...
The chief exec of the hospital I work at earns more in a day than I do in 3 weeks (plus other sources of income). I as a mid to low level employee have little in the way of a negotiating power to get a "fairer" wage given that I work solidly for 8 hours every day with no breaks (I am entitled to have breaks but there is too much work to do as there has been a hire freeze for quite a long time - even though we just hired a new chief exec... and several more managers...).
I've now completed an MSc and am looking to move into a job where I start on a wage almost twice that of what I make now, and it is still not a particularly high wage. And still nothing like the wage of the top levels of management of most companies.
The work they do isn't markedly harder than anything I do, so why is their time worth so much more than the average worker? Hell, why is it worth so much more than even the most highly skilled, educated and experienced workers?
Do you know that their work is or isn't harder? Who are you to judge what their job is worth? It may require additional experience that you simply don't have, experience they aquired through additional schooling or simply working in the field for 20+ years.
And you arn't the person that determines what your job is worth, the employer is who determines that. You are always free to leave your job if you don't think you are being paid enough to find another one.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Grey Templar wrote: Yes, but giving that money to the poor will not make them any richer.
Wealth redistribution is tricky because it creates a disincentive to aquire wealth(which the government will just take away)
Thus, the Rich get poorer, and the poor have no incentive to work to get richer. And the rich man has no incentive to stay rich, so he cuts back on his wealth generation. So the entire population gets poorer.
Not saying we shouldn't tax the rich more than other people, just that those taxes don't need to be excessivly high. We should not punish success, or limit your enjoyment of it.
Instead, make things easier for business owners. Allow businesses to grow and prosper. When a (rich) business owner expands his business, many many people get employed and paid. Which in turn spurs growth in other areas.
Job Creation is self sustaining, but it needs to get started.
Just giving money indefinitly is a bad idea, that is why im talking about things like Grants, Scholarships and fee waivers. Things that help poorer elements of society get a leg up.
Grey Templar wrote: Thus, the Rich get poorer, and the poor have no incentive to work to get richer. And the rich man has no incentive to stay rich, so he cuts back on his wealth generation.
Once you get to a certain level of "wealth" it becomes self sustaining. You could work 23 hours a day 365 days a year and still "earn" more from trust funds, stocks and shares etc... What exactly is the incentive to the richest people to go out and work hard to get more money when they have tends or hundreds of millions, perhaps billions in the bank?
Conversely, where is the incentive for the lowest paid workers to go out and work hard and work their way up the ladder when 80% of that ladder isn't very well paid compared to what they get anyway and most of it will be barred to them because their family couldn't afford to send them off to university and they don't have a network of old boys to help them out?
The money of the wealthiest doesn't create wealth; only a small amount of that money is being used to generate wealth. Wealth is created through spending and too much of the top %'s money goes into generating money for the top %'s in a great big feedback loop.
Grey Templar wrote: Yes, but giving that money to the poor will not make them any richer.
Wealth redistribution is tricky because it creates a disincentive to aquire wealth(which the government will just take away)
Thus, the Rich get poorer, and the poor have no incentive to work to get richer. And the rich man has no incentive to stay rich, so he cuts back on his wealth generation. So the entire population gets poorer.
Not saying we shouldn't tax the rich more than other people, just that those taxes don't need to be excessivly high. We should not punish success, or limit your enjoyment of it.
Instead, make things easier for business owners. Allow businesses to grow and prosper. When a (rich) business owner expands his business, many many people get employed and paid. Which in turn spurs growth in other areas.
Job Creation is self sustaining, but it needs to get started.
Just giving money indefinitly is a bad idea, that is why im talking about things like Grants, Scholarships and fee waivers. Things that help poorer elements of society get a leg up.
Yeah... I don't think anyone is really arguing against those sorts of thing. That's a different sort of topic than this thread.
BryllCream wrote: And it's life that other people should want their share back. If you claim that hereditary wealth is legitimately owned, then it must also be legitimate for those without wealth to own it. Put simply if someone's ancestor's stole land from your ancestor, you have every right to forcefully reclaim it, just as they have every right to defend it.
Conversely, no civilised society can tolerate the theft of property. So wealth distribution becomes more complex, and frankly more effective than outright theft. If the government taxes a rich man £200 and gives that money to a poor family, it's better for society as a whole than the damage to property and people that would result from forceful redistribution.
What if the government taxes a rich man $200 but a middle class man $100 to give $30 to the poor family and $270 to government employees?
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Grey Templar wrote: Yes, but giving that money to the poor will not make them any richer.
Wealth redistribution is tricky because it creates a disincentive to aquire wealth(which the government will just take away)
Thus, the Rich get poorer, and the poor have no incentive to work to get richer. And the rich man has no incentive to stay rich, so he cuts back on his wealth generation. So the entire population gets poorer.
Not saying we shouldn't tax the rich more than other people, just that those taxes don't need to be excessivly high. We should not punish success, or limit your enjoyment of it.
Instead, make things easier for business owners. Allow businesses to grow and prosper. When a (rich) business owner expands his business, many many people get employed and paid. Which in turn spurs growth in other areas.
Job Creation is self sustaining, but it needs to get started.
Just giving money indefinitly is a bad idea, that is why im talking about things like Grants, Scholarships and fee waivers. Things that help poorer elements of society get a leg up.
Yeah... I don't think anyone is really arguing against those sorts of thing. That's a different sort of topic than this thread.
The thing is, that is how quite a bit of wealth distribution goes, into schooling. A bit go into welfare. But when people hear "Redistribution of wealth" they think you just take money and give it to other people for no charge.
Grey Templar wrote: Thus, the Rich get poorer, and the poor have no incentive to work to get richer. And the rich man has no incentive to stay rich, so he cuts back on his wealth generation.
Once you get to a certain level of "wealth" it becomes self sustaining. You could work 23 hours a day 365 days a year and still "earn" more from trust funds, stocks and shares etc... What exactly is the incentive to the richest people to go out and work hard to get more money when they have tends or hundreds of millions, perhaps billions in the bank?
Conversely, where is the incentive for the lowest paid workers to go out and work hard and work their way up the ladder when 80% of that ladder isn't very well paid compared to what they get anyway and most of it will be barred to them because their family couldn't afford to send them off to university and they don't have a network of old boys to help them out?
The money of the wealthiest doesn't create wealth; only a small amount of that money is being used to generate wealth. Wealth is created through spending and too much of the top %'s money goes into generating money for the top %'s in a great big feedback loop.
Yes it does. The wealthy have money in the banks.
This money is lent out to business owners who expand/create their businesses. Which creates Jobs for people. Its called the money multiplier effect, and its quite powerful.
So while the wealthy themselves may not spend this money, it is being spent by people that borrow it.
This actually creates more wealth than the rich spending it directly because the money is still there to be borrowed against.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Grey Templar wrote: Yes, but giving that money to the poor will not make them any richer.
Wealth redistribution is tricky because it creates a disincentive to aquire wealth(which the government will just take away)
Thus, the Rich get poorer, and the poor have no incentive to work to get richer. And the rich man has no incentive to stay rich, so he cuts back on his wealth generation. So the entire population gets poorer.
Not saying we shouldn't tax the rich more than other people, just that those taxes don't need to be excessivly high. We should not punish success, or limit your enjoyment of it.
Instead, make things easier for business owners. Allow businesses to grow and prosper. When a (rich) business owner expands his business, many many people get employed and paid. Which in turn spurs growth in other areas.
Job Creation is self sustaining, but it needs to get started.
Just giving money indefinitly is a bad idea, that is why im talking about things like Grants, Scholarships and fee waivers. Things that help poorer elements of society get a leg up.
Yeah... I don't think anyone is really arguing against those sorts of thing. That's a different sort of topic than this thread.
The thing is, that is how quite a bit of wealth distribution goes, into schooling. A bit go into welfare. But when people hear "Redistribution of wealth" they think you just take money and give it to other people for no charge.
You're talking about taxation and where it gets spent.
While that's tangental to this conversation, I'm talking about that video arguing about wealth inequality... it's really nothing more that class envy/greed. Same old story really (same sort of thing that 'cuz Romney has a horse, they don't understand hard working people... just another skin here).
In the USofA... compared to the rest of the world... even the poorest of the poor is doing well.
Please note, I'm advocating that we do away with these saftey nets...
Grey Templar wrote: Yes, but giving that money to the poor will not make them any richer.
Wealth redistribution is tricky because it creates a disincentive to aquire wealth(which the government will just take away)
Thus, the Rich get poorer, and the poor have no incentive to work to get richer. And the rich man has no incentive to stay rich, so he cuts back on his wealth generation. So the entire population gets poorer.
Not saying we shouldn't tax the rich more than other people, just that those taxes don't need to be excessivly high. We should not punish success, or limit your enjoyment of it.
Instead, make things easier for business owners. Allow businesses to grow and prosper. When a (rich) business owner expands his business, many many people get employed and paid. Which in turn spurs growth in other areas.
Job Creation is self sustaining, but it needs to get started.
No. Wage rates are determined by markets, and the market is skewed against the poor.
Case in point - last year the manager of a group of factories that I work for paid himself a £12m bonus. He is 101 on the Times Rich List. Also last year, our contracts were changed - overtime went from time and a half to time and quarter, the bank holiday premium was removed, unsociable hours premium was removed, and the pay increase was 1% below inflation. Sales were up 10%.
Now, why has this happened? It's happened because the last time a factory went on strike over a decrease in their pay and conditions, the factory was shut down and the workers made redundant. Concequentaly, even though the union is quite big at our factory, they're very reluctant to go on strike, so by and large simply agree to the management's offers. The root cause of this is the anti-union laws implimented by the Thatcher/Blair governments, and since then large employers in the UK have by and large simply ignored the unions, so the income of the bottom 50% has stagnated, even as productivity has risen steadily.
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
Did I say anything about wages?
I only said that if a businessman has the ability to grow his business, he will employ more people.
Of course getting more efficient equipment that reduces the employees you need is a problem. But not one anyone can change, or should. Nobody is doing anything wrong.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
In the USofA... compared to the rest of the world... even the poorest of the poor is doing well.
Please note, I'm advocating that we do away with these saftey nets...
I disagree with the former statement. I live a few blocks away from very poor neighborhood's. The poor are not well off where I am, many survive on maybe only 20$ a week.
Compared to 3rd world countries, yeah they are well off, but that isnt what we are talking about.
And what safety nets? You mean the ones where if you loose your job you are up gak creek without a paddle.
Grey Templar wrote: This actually creates more wealth than the rich spending it directly because the money is still there to be borrowed against.
"A 2012 study by the Tax Justice Network indicates that wealth of the super-rich does not trickle down to improve the economy, but tends to be amassed and sheltered in tax havens with a negative effect on the tax bases of the home economy."
One of the reasons that trickle down economics don't work. Apparently the rich are more keen on keeping their money safe and sound than in use it to generate wealth for everyone else
Hell, we saw when the economy tanked the banks were the first ones to stop lending, instead hoarding their money.
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
Well the rich might not keep their money in tax havens if we threatened to tax it excessivly.
Or at the very least get tax havens to move to the US itself so the money can still be lent out. Have reduced tax types of accounts that they can keep some of their money in.
That way it can still get lent out.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
In the USofA... compared to the rest of the world... even the poorest of the poor is doing well.
Please note, I'm advocating that we do away with these saftey nets...
I disagree with the former statement. I live a few blocks away from very poor neighborhood's. The poor are not well off where I am, many survive on maybe only 20$ a week.
Compared to 3rd world countries, yeah they are well off, but that isnt what we are talking about.
And what safety nets? You mean the ones where if you loose your job you are up gak creek without a paddle.
First of all, there's no quick fix...
Secondly, answer me this... who's responsible for those jobs?
Grey Templar wrote: Well the rich might not keep their money in tax havens if we threatened to tax it excessivly.
Hahaha!
That's why even with your current low taxes on the wealthy they use every trick in the book to ensure that they pay as little as they can and still ship their money overseas to keep it nice and untaxable... erm... I mean... to generate wealth for everyone...
In the USofA... compared to the rest of the world... even the poorest of the poor is doing well.
Please note, I'm advocating that we do away with these saftey nets...
I disagree with the former statement. I live a few blocks away from very poor neighborhood's. The poor are not well off where I am, many survive on maybe only 20$ a week.
Compared to 3rd world countries, yeah they are well off, but that isnt what we are talking about.
And what safety nets? You mean the ones where if you loose your job you are up gak creek without a paddle.
First of all, there's no quick fix...
Secondly, answer me this... who's responsible for those jobs?
I know there is now quick fix, hell there may not even be a way to fix it.
But it also depends who you are working for. but typically the managers or the location you are working for.
5000pts 
6000pts 
3000pts
