It sounds to me like you and Voyager feel that the rich primarily harm the poor by not giving money to them, and/or because our country’s government lags behind in taking money away from the rich to give to the poor.
Therefore are we in agreement that no one earns a lower salary nor faces limits in the amount of money they may potentially earn, either through employment or entrepreneurialism, because rich people have soaked up all the available money?
Are you two game for discussion in a separate thread on this? I think it’s an interesting topic that is different enough from the discussion here. I can try slapping together an OP, although I make no promises re: timeliness or eloquence.
Maybe something like: Minimum wage vs EITC vs other aid
“Not Found.”
There was a link to get it as an audiobook from amazon.uk. I tried and and it’s not available in the US because of publishing and copyright restrictions.
I am always interested in discussing this topic because it is fascinating and important, but to be perfectly honest I do not have the time to do my part justice. Too much work, too much family, too much other activities…
Also, there was a thread not too long ago that hashed out a lot of this even though I did not feel that a lot of important points were touched upon.
Great. I’ll look that up.
Boy, that was a lot of work but I found a copy of the Russell Brand video. The link at the end takes you to that “Not Found” page, but I was really mainly posting the video for its own sake.
I read of a study one time where a guy asked a bunch of people this question. If I could push a button and instantly everyone’s income would double, would you want me to push the button? Of course, everyone wanted him to push the button.
Then he asked the same people, if I push the button your income will double but for ten people in this room, their income will go up 10 times and for two people in this room their income will go up 100 times.
The same people who had been very enthusiastic for pushing the button the first time around, suddenly became far less enthusiastic for pushing the button under the conditions of the second question.
The fact is…discussions about income inequality are driven purely by envy. Nothing else. It’s a total non-issue.
Do you have a link to this study? Why would people punish themselves just because other people might get more?
Yes, please provide ANY justification for this Republican fantasy other than “I read of a study one time.”
I’ve seen it argued on this very board that the problem with wealth disparity in this country isn’t that poor people have such crappy lives (due to what they have when compared to most other societies around the world) - it’s that they have so little compared to what the wealthy have.
The fact is that the issue of wealth disparity being a problem is driven primarily by one of two things: an ignorant and erroneous belief that the more money the rich have, the less there is for everyone else; and resentment over the fact that some people have so much more than everyone else.
The first is factually wrong and the second is simply childlike.
Is your position that the First Amendment should not apply to “corporations”?
Beyond that you’re aware that “corporate personhood” was established way back in the 19th Century aren’t you?
You keep saying that people are making that argument. Point us to someone who’s actually doing it, please.
And don’t forget the generosity of the uber wealthy. Recently hedge fund manager John Paulson donated $400 million to higher education.
Let’s raise our glass to Harvard who certainly needs that 400 mil to bolster their meager $36 billion endowment and investment income of as much as $5 billion a year. Here’s to John’s monetary masturbation!
So long as he’s not taking any of my money – or yours, or anyone else’s – I’m trying to mind, but I can’t; mention someone who wants to take my money and I’ll wince.
Perhaps not taking anyone’s money, but he could certainly fund a lot of free or subsidized college educations. Harvard already does that for twenty percent of their enrollment. It would certainly provide a helping hand to those who are trying to pull themselves up on the economic ladder.
I agree that study sounds highly suspicious and I’ll need some sort of cite before I accept it as evidence.
What other reason could someone have for being opposed to income inequality? Why does it effect me at all that my neighbor has millions of dollars? I can certainly think of reasons why I am benefitted by his having millions; I can’t think of any reason why it hurts me. So…I am left with thinking that debates about income inequality are simply motivated by envy.
If I am the the owner of a big company, and I decide to pay myself $500,000 because why not, that’s $500,000 that isn’t going back into the company to further growth or to develop new products or to improve standards or to simply keep up with the economy. Perhaps all it’s doing is sitting in my bank account to earn me some nice interest.
Well, corn, there’s a historical, statistical perspective. Income inequality has gone up in recent decades. It’s fair to ask why; what factors have changed that led to the increasing inequality. There are also ways that rich people can enrich themselves at the expense of the less wealthy. They can donate to, or lobby politicians to shift the tax burden to those with lower incomes. Companies can outsource their production and engineering jobs to foreigners, in the name of competition and efficiency, but never subject their executives to the same pressures.
So, yes, if my neighbor has millions of dollars, it isn’t necessarily good news for me.
Okey-doke! Here’s but the most recent example, where Kobal2 makes the following claim:
Now that I’ve provided but one example of a belief held by many, I’d like to ask why you challenged me on it. Are you of the opinion that for people to believe that the more money the wealthy have the less there is for everyone else is so fallacious that hardly anyone believes it? And do you disavow this notion yourself?
If the wealthy are so powerful in “shifting the tax burden” to those with lower incomes, why do they still pay such a wildly disproportionate share of the nation’s taxes?
I would suggest also that the poor have considerable power of their own by virtue of their numbers and the fact they can vote. I would further suggest that this is the exact reason why the wealthy indeed do pay such a disproportionate share of the nation’s taxes.
And yes, companies can outsource jobs. They have to in order to stay competitive and therefore stay in business. It seems to me that your argument as to how wealthy people harm the poor is simply by not voluntarily giving them money, which is what willingly accepting increasingly higher taxes and continuing to employ workers inside the country at financial disadvantage is.
What you and certain others don’t seem to understand is that companies are not in business to serve their employees. They are in business to make a profit and labor is a commodity they pay for in service to that end, just like the equipment and supplies they have to pay for. When a company hires someone they are purchasing that person’s knowledge, skill, expertise and labor for a price the company and the employee agree upon. It makes no more sense for a company to voluntarily pay its employees more than they agreed to work for than it does to voluntarily overpay for the equipment and supplies it needs to conduct business.
As far as keeping their executives on the payroll here in the U.S., would you not expect them to given that the U.S. is where their headquarters are located? Taking Apple as an example, would you expect Tim Cook to outsource his executives all over the world rather than have them there in the building with him where he can meet with them face to face, call them together for meetings, etc., whenever he needs to? How do think it would work trying to synchronize a meeting of twenty different vice presidents scattered all over the world in different cities and time zones? Etc., etc., etc.
Besides, it’s none of your or anyone else’s business where a company keeps its executives employed. Again, companies aren’t in business to ensure a fair shake for their employees. And for that matter most employees aren’t employed primarily to benefit their employer. They’re there to make money and often will leave when better income opportunities present themselves. So to resent the fact that a company keeps its highly paid execs employed here while outsourcing other jobs is just another example of the childish resentment and envy that I’ve talked about before, because for them to do so not only makes perfect sense but harms no one.
Well, what if it is?
In the first place, throwing money into a business in an effort to make it grow is not a sure thing, there’s a lot more to it than that. In the second place, that $500,000 is profit and that’s what he’s in business to make. Chances are that he’s already plowed money into growing the business in whatever way he feels necessary, because generally speaking the more a business grows the more money it makes, and making money is why he’s in business. And in the third place, the fact that he makes money and puts it in the bank (or spends it on big houses and boats and expensive cars or whatever) hurts no one and is rightfully no one’s concern but his (unless you too want to make the argument that rich people hurt the poor primarily by not voluntarily giving them money).