:dubious: Well, if you say it’s true, then it **must **be so. :dubious:
Your statement is impossible to prove, so I won’t even bother asking you to do so-- there are too many free market thinkers out there for me to ask you to cite them all. Let’s confine our analysis of that statement to this thread alone. Who has said that a wealthy person, like Bill Gates, works harder than someone pulling double shifts? Let’s assume harder = more hours and lets assume double shifts = 80 hrs/wk. Show us that “practically every” free market thinker on this thread has made that assertion.
Chiming in that its not the amount of work, or how hard you work, but the value of your work that set the price society is willing to pay for said work. One has only too look at professional atheletes in high paying sports vs professionals in less high paying sports…or between my own salary and that of Bill Gates.
But, then, if it’s not the amount of work but the “market value” of it, the distribution of wealth cannot help but being completely random! Because who can say if their bright idea will catch on or not?
So, what’s essential is not to do important work. It’s to do something capitalists are willing to pay you ridiculous amounts of money for.
No. It’s the folks who figure out what other people want. But not just WHAT they want, you have to figure out how best to make it, how best to market it, how best to sell it, how best to service it, and how best to keep ahead of the guy who’s trying to do a better job at it than you.
If by “capitalists” you mean everyone in society, then I agree with you. The moral basis is that all exchanges are voluntary in a free market. And please don’t go on about people using violence to crush competitors or force customers to buy goods. That’s not the free market, that’s banditry. Nor does the free market consist of running to the gov’t and asking for special tax breaks or a legalized monopoly. It’s just a bunch of folks buying and selling stuff.
The “moral basis” is that “capitalists” (as John Mace said) are basically everyone in society. People get rich because they are able to tap into some need or want that society is willing to pay to have fullfilled. They get rich because they are able to create wealth. How much wealth has Gates (and others) created in the economy through Microsoft? Not just the company itself but the growth his products have created indirectly? How much should he be rewarded for his contribution?
But now lets be realistic. Most of us are not going to create anything like a Fortune 500 company. For most of us, our economic success is tied to the success or failure of the corporations that we are willingly indentured to. And those people who are unable to develop the skills to be cogs in a giant corporate machine or self-employed professionals must either find some small business to run or live on the handouts of others.
The danger of wealth inequality as I see it is the creation of a permenant class structure, by design or as a result of economic forces, where only the top percent will be able to afford opportunity. They will be the only ones with enough capital to start up businesses or even pay for education. And the problem with such a class structure is that it becomes incestious in nature. Capital and resources go from meeting the wants and needs of the greater economy to preserving the aristocracy. Think of a CEO rewarding himself multimillion dollar bonuses while the company is in the red. Such a system is, of course, unstable.
So why is there so much income disparity in the US compared to places like the Netherlands or Sweden? Well, first of all, many of those country are a lot smaller and more homogenious than the US. That might have something to do with it.
More importantly is culture. Somehow America has learned to embrace the social retard. In many parts of the country, it’s far more acceptible to be a dumb drug addled violent moron than to work hard and study. One of the side effects of income disparity and a de facto class system is that it creates disincentives to try. Why bust your ass to maybe earn a little more when you can sit back and collect benefits for doing nothing. Meanwhile, the middle class continues to work longer and harder just to maintain their lifestyle.
Most evil man in existance…ask John Galt. (and its exactly your interperatation of the Robin Hood myth that he was railing against btw)
[QUOTELulia]
2. Do you think that the very rich should be required to give money to the very poor? Why not?
[/QUOTE]
I thought they already were…isn’t that what taxes are for? Are you saying they should be required over and above taxes? I’d have to say NO ONE should be required to give their money away, after meeting the requirements of society…it should be strictly voluntary.
Well sure. I don’t see how there can be much of a debate there. It’s a whole different world if you have money to start off with. You can be a C student if your parents are footing the bill. That’s an opportunity that poor people don’t get. If you are on scholarship, you don’t get to coast. You loose the right to just be “average” or “ok” and still make a decent living.
That said, there’s a difference between “poor” and being in a permenant underclass of society. Some people don’t have much money but they live within their means and make intelligent choices. Others think that the bling-bling lifestyle is the ticket to wealth (instead of the other way around) and blow what little they earn on drugs and crap and end up living in debt.
I think they are criminals.
This is not the same as a progressive tax structure. Simply robbing from the rich to give to the poor is random and unfair. Without getting too much into that debate, there are legitimate reasons for increasing a persons tax burden % of income as their thotal income increases.
They should be required to contribute their share of the tax burden (once again, what % is their share is debatable). It is the governments job to provide the basic infrastructure and safty nets for people who are TEMPORARILY down on their luck or unable to do for themselves.
I would say that they have a moral obligation to contribute, but really it is the creation of jobs and industries which I feel most effectively addresses poverty.
It’ll probably be my last post, because my guess membership expires, and I don’t know if I can become a paying guest. Anyway…
First, thanks, WesleyClark, for a very interesting read. Mandatory, indeed.
Second, no-one really answered my question:
Should the rich be required to give to the poor?
xtisme said:
But why should it be voluntary?
Because they worked for it and it is theirs, uh? Then, we’re back to square one, to me: the rich deserve to be rich because they worked “hard” for it. Or because they created a market, whatever.
And, no, I don’t think that’s what taxes are for. Taxes are for services, and services are for everbody, not just the poor. Saying that the rich don’t use them is a very weak excuse.
The bottom line, to me, is that human beings are just not willing to do what it takes to have a truly fair distribution of wealth.
So what would be a “fair” distribution of wealth? How much should the “rich” be required to give?
How “fair” will you think it is when they come to take your money away and give it to junkies and unemployables?
And you aren’t talking about wealth. You are talking about money and there’s a difference. I put $30000 into a house or a mutual fund, I am creating wealth. An apreciating asset that makes money for it’s owner. I put that same money into a car, I’m basically just spending money.
So how do we distribute that wealth? Should the state randomly confiscate people’s assets and turn them over to poor folks to lounge around in?
Except for that one, incredibly huge, stupendously large, overwhelmingly massive benefit of BEING super-wealthy. Their wealth is a product of the laws, customs and work of the society they live in. Wealth is such a huge benefit that most people’s morality would crumple like a sheet of notebook paper when presented with a realistic chance of making $1 million or more by doing something evil.
Yeah, except for THAT benefit, they don’t get a hell of a lot out of society.
SOMEBODY’S been listening to a little too much Rush Limbaugh. The welfare system was pretty much dismantled back in the 90s, msmith. YOu will fucking starve if you try to get by without working in America nowadays. Frex, here in Georgia the maximum allowable income for SSI is $687 a month – for a family of three. The maximum benefit is $283 a month. Your maximum income per month for a family of three would be about $1000. The average rent on a two-bedroom apartment in Atlanta? $650 a month, leaving $350 a month for food, clothing, utilities, etc.
Do the math and tell me this is some kind of an incentive. You’d have to be fucking insane to want to live like that.
So, to you, the only poor are junkies and unemployables?
What I meant is that no self-respecting occidental individual will let go of its sacrosanct “right to get rich” to ensure a better distribution of wealth.
Like Nike or Wal-Mart or whatever would never, in their right mind, pay workers 10$/hour in America when they can pay them 0.50$ and hour in Asia. 'Cause, you know, it would make a huge dent in the profits. And these poor Asians won’t know the difference, because they were never rich anyway. To them, 0.50 $ an hour is a fortune, man, a fortune!
Except now Asia is waking up to the “free market”, and many North Americans are discovering what’s its price.
Firstly, I think you’re talking about WalMart’s suppliers and what they pay their employees, not WalMart itself. It helps the argument if you get the facts straight.
So, why don’t you organize a boycott of WalMart and get everyone to shop only at stores that use suppliers who hire only American workers at $10/hr.? Educate the public and get them on your side. If people really want this, it can be accomplished without legislation. If they don’t really want it, then don’t expect legislation to get passed.
Because my property is my property. It isn’t yours or societies to do with as it pleases.
Yes, because its their’s. Lets assume for a second that you own your own house. Should I, who don’t own a house, have full access to your? If not, why not? Why shouldn’t I be able to come right in and use your house? After all, I don’t have one, and I NEED one. Why do you have a house and not me? Once you understand the answer to that you’ll understand why it would be wrong to take more from anyone…rich, middle class or poor…that is taken already by society in the form of taxes. This has nothing to do with working hard or not working hard, with their benifit to society in creating a market or not…it has to do with private property and ownership.
Taxes are societies way of paying for general services desired or needed by the community at large. What you want to do is require MORE from a select portion of society…over and above what they are already giving. How do you think this is fair? Where do you draw the line? Why can’t I use your house when I don’t have one Lulia? Sure, you pay your taxes, but you have a house and I don’t, and taxes aren’t just for the poor after all. Why can’t I have your car when I NEED one? Why can’t I use your bank account when I have no money of my own? Since you don’t believe in private property (appearently) then you shouldn’t have any problem if I move right in…you don’t own that house or that car or that money anyway, right?
Human being aren’t motivated to distribute whats their’s to someone just for the sake of doing so. They grudgingly distribute SOME of their wealth in the form of taxes to get services they want or need from the government. Beyond that whats their’s is their’s. Its YOUR house…I have no right to move in just because I need one. Its YOUR car…I have no right to it because I need it. Its YOUR money…you earned it and have already given what society asks of you in the form of the taxes you pay…I have no right to REQUIRE you to give more. Thats YOUR decision as its YOUR property.
Just out of curiosity, what would be a ‘fair’ distribution of wealth in your mind? What is the cut off for stealing at the point of a gun from people who have and giving to people who don’t?
Are you even certain we can really say that wealth inequality exists at all, except as a temporary step? In the US, most indivudals eventually reach the middle class even if they don’t start there, and then exit it later in life, as far as income is concerned.
Secondly, I’m not at all sure you can demonstrate wealth inquality has actually increased. The heady days of Reconstruction and the gilded age were surely the height. Rockefeller, Carnegie, Vanderbilt - they had fortunes much vaster than any modern tycoon I know of, Gates included. Secondly, those big fortunes tend to either dissipate or get invested back again into the economy over time - thus benefiting the rest of us more or less like we used to. While the indivudal may get use of wealth, nobody can hold onto his wealth without giving other people the use of it.
(and its exactly your interperatation of the Robin Hood myth that he was railing against btw)