I just heard a great analogy concerning wealth redistribution:
Imagine applying it to education. Why not take, say, 30% off the scores of the highest achievers and redistribute them proportionately to the lower achievers? Wouldn't that be better for everybody?
Wealth Redistribution
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Wealth Redistribution
What are scores for? By all means do that if it has a practical use but people don't eat scores, they don't sleep under a score, they can't stay warm in winter by putting an extra score on. The thing that matters to the poor is wealth, something they don't have. Redistribution of wealth allows them to live longer, in more comfort.
We in England had this debate through the second half of the 19th Century, we passed two waves of reform, one around 1880 enabling women to retain their property despite marriage and the other around 1925 confiscating the resources of the wealthy on death. It's changed England beyond recognition. Established privilege has been swept away, the English Aristocracy no longer dictates the political life of the nation. England's always had the meteoric ascendancy of members of the middle classes into stratospheric wealth - there's even an 18th century name for them, they're called Nabobs. It's only with the systematic destruction of the rich landed gentry families that the English shook of their class ownership. America still has that process to go through.
We in England had this debate through the second half of the 19th Century, we passed two waves of reform, one around 1880 enabling women to retain their property despite marriage and the other around 1925 confiscating the resources of the wealthy on death. It's changed England beyond recognition. Established privilege has been swept away, the English Aristocracy no longer dictates the political life of the nation. England's always had the meteoric ascendancy of members of the middle classes into stratospheric wealth - there's even an 18th century name for them, they're called Nabobs. It's only with the systematic destruction of the rich landed gentry families that the English shook of their class ownership. America still has that process to go through.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Wealth Redistribution
Scrat;1025236 wrote: I make pretty good money as does my wife. I would be more than willing to pay extra taxes to help my fellow Americans, it just so happens there's a lot of my "betters" seem to be so corrupt it's sickening. Why would you have to depend on taxes to help your fellow Americans? Why don't you just do it yourself? Why use gov't to do what you should be doing anyway?
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Wealth Redistribution
spot;1025270 wrote: What are scores for? By all means do that if it has a practical use but people don't eat scores, they don't sleep under a score, they can't stay warm in winter by putting an extra score on. In an indirect way, they do. Scores help employers determine who the most qualified candidate is to hire for starting positions. The better a student scores, the higher on the list of graduates, the better positioned they are to land a primo starting job.
But I spose that's unfair as well.
But I spose that's unfair as well.
Wealth Redistribution
Accountable;1025379 wrote: In an indirect way, they do. Scores help employers determine who the most qualified candidate is to hire for starting positions. The better a student scores, the higher on the list of graduates, the better positioned they are to land a primo starting job.
But I spose that's unfair as well.
No, it's merely the use that employers put scores to. I don't really mind at all what mechanism society selects to perform social engineering so long as it's reasonably effective, reasonably fair and reasonably transparent. If manipulating scores seemed usable to that end then I'd say go for it as a part of an integrated whole. Maybe you're onto something. So far you've failed to persuade me. Confiscating wealth and excess income and using it to level that which was slanted, to provide facilities for all, seems rather more direct. Moving toward an endgame where money is a meaningless concept is still there in the background as a final nail in wealth's coffin.
But I spose that's unfair as well.
No, it's merely the use that employers put scores to. I don't really mind at all what mechanism society selects to perform social engineering so long as it's reasonably effective, reasonably fair and reasonably transparent. If manipulating scores seemed usable to that end then I'd say go for it as a part of an integrated whole. Maybe you're onto something. So far you've failed to persuade me. Confiscating wealth and excess income and using it to level that which was slanted, to provide facilities for all, seems rather more direct. Moving toward an endgame where money is a meaningless concept is still there in the background as a final nail in wealth's coffin.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Wealth Redistribution
spot;1025480 wrote: No, it's merely the use that employers put scores to. I don't really mind at all what mechanism society selects to perform social engineering so long as it's reasonably effective, reasonably fair and reasonably transparent. If manipulating scores seemed usable to that end then I'd say go for it as a part of an integrated whole. Maybe you're onto something. So far you've failed to persuade me. Confiscating wealth and excess income and using it to level that which was slanted, to provide facilities for all, seems rather more direct. Moving toward an endgame where money is a meaningless concept is still there in the background as a final nail in wealth's coffin.
Right now money is used as the stimulus for people to do jobs that they otherwise would choose not to do. What would you replace it with?
Right now money is used as the stimulus for people to do jobs that they otherwise would choose not to do. What would you replace it with?
Wealth Redistribution
Accountable;1025492 wrote: Right now money is used as the stimulus for people to do jobs that they otherwise would choose not to do. What would you replace it with?
Now? Money's fine. I do think people would choose to do jobs regardless. I agree that some jobs are less desirable than others and ought to get more pay in return but the inverse is invariably the case under Capitalism - at the moment the less desirable the job the less it pays. That's so topsy-turvy.
Now? Money's fine. I do think people would choose to do jobs regardless. I agree that some jobs are less desirable than others and ought to get more pay in return but the inverse is invariably the case under Capitalism - at the moment the less desirable the job the less it pays. That's so topsy-turvy.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Wealth Redistribution
spot;1025541 wrote: Now? Money's fine. I do think people would choose to do jobs regardless. I agree that some jobs are less desirable than others and ought to get more pay in return but the inverse is invariably the case under Capitalism - at the moment the less desirable the job the less it pays. That's so topsy-turvy.
Nice non-answer. Wanna try it again?
Nice non-answer. Wanna try it again?
Wealth Redistribution
Accountable;1025736 wrote: Nice non-answer. Wanna try it again?
You just don't want to hear what I say, it's nothing to do with "non-answer". Go read the question and the reply, it's an answer. It's a way of organizing society. I commend it. You don't. Who says we're likely to agree? One of us will end up to have more accurately described the future.
You just don't want to hear what I say, it's nothing to do with "non-answer". Go read the question and the reply, it's an answer. It's a way of organizing society. I commend it. You don't. Who says we're likely to agree? One of us will end up to have more accurately described the future.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Wealth Redistribution
spot;1025480 wrote: .... Confiscating wealth and excess income and using it to level that which was slanted, to provide facilities for all, seems rather more direct. Moving toward an endgame where money is a meaningless concept is still there in the background as a final nail in wealth's coffin.
Accountable;1025492 wrote: Right now money is used as the stimulus for people to do jobs that they otherwise would choose not to do. What would you replace it with?
spot;1025541 wrote: Now? Money's fine. I do think people would choose to do jobs regardless. I agree that some jobs are less desirable than others and ought to get more pay in return but the inverse is invariably the case under Capitalism - at the moment the less desirable the job the less it pays. That's so topsy-turvy.
spot;1025818 wrote: You just don't want to hear what I say, it's nothing to do with "non-answer". Go read the question and the reply, it's an answer. It's a way of organizing society. I commend it. You don't. Who says we're likely to agree? One of us will end up to have more accurately described the future.Okay, we'll pretend you're thick and I'll rephrase.
Right now wealth is used as the stimulus for people to do jobs that they otherwise would choose not to do. What would you replace it with?
Accountable;1025492 wrote: Right now money is used as the stimulus for people to do jobs that they otherwise would choose not to do. What would you replace it with?
spot;1025541 wrote: Now? Money's fine. I do think people would choose to do jobs regardless. I agree that some jobs are less desirable than others and ought to get more pay in return but the inverse is invariably the case under Capitalism - at the moment the less desirable the job the less it pays. That's so topsy-turvy.
spot;1025818 wrote: You just don't want to hear what I say, it's nothing to do with "non-answer". Go read the question and the reply, it's an answer. It's a way of organizing society. I commend it. You don't. Who says we're likely to agree? One of us will end up to have more accurately described the future.Okay, we'll pretend you're thick and I'll rephrase.
Right now wealth is used as the stimulus for people to do jobs that they otherwise would choose not to do. What would you replace it with?
Wealth Redistribution
Accountable;1025938 wrote: Okay, we'll pretend you're thick and I'll rephrase.
Right now wealth is used as the stimulus for people to do jobs that they otherwise would choose not to do. What would you replace it with?
My point is that you're entirely wrong. The jobs which pay most also coincidentally happen to be the jobs that people would most enjoy performing, while the badly paid jobs are the ones people wouldn't want to do irrespective of the fact that it's low-paid. All the dreck jobs are low paid, all the fun interesting jobs that people would do for free if they were honest about it - like the jobs I've done, for example - carry the high pay. It's nothing to do with incitement to work or stimulus to take the job. Wealth is added on top of the attractive nature of the work, wealth is removed from the jobs that ought to carry it as an incentive like emptying garbage bins or giving classes in primary schools or caring for people in hospices.
I'd give a flat $30,000 a year payment to every person in the labor force through the tax system and then I'd tax at a progressive rate on every cent of income made. If people want not to work, who needs them? If a company needs them they can offer an attractive incentive, and the nastier the job is - like collecting the garbage - the more incentive they'll have to offer to get anyone to do it. That's a creative use of money. Why replace something that has the ability to restructure society? I'm redistributing wealth, not destroying it. I can imagine, generations from now, that alternative ways of accounting for goods and services might arise which wouldn't involve money, but I'm not interested in knowing anything about it - I'm not designing it. I'm designing for next year, not for Buster Crabbe.
Right now wealth is used as the stimulus for people to do jobs that they otherwise would choose not to do. What would you replace it with?
My point is that you're entirely wrong. The jobs which pay most also coincidentally happen to be the jobs that people would most enjoy performing, while the badly paid jobs are the ones people wouldn't want to do irrespective of the fact that it's low-paid. All the dreck jobs are low paid, all the fun interesting jobs that people would do for free if they were honest about it - like the jobs I've done, for example - carry the high pay. It's nothing to do with incitement to work or stimulus to take the job. Wealth is added on top of the attractive nature of the work, wealth is removed from the jobs that ought to carry it as an incentive like emptying garbage bins or giving classes in primary schools or caring for people in hospices.
I'd give a flat $30,000 a year payment to every person in the labor force through the tax system and then I'd tax at a progressive rate on every cent of income made. If people want not to work, who needs them? If a company needs them they can offer an attractive incentive, and the nastier the job is - like collecting the garbage - the more incentive they'll have to offer to get anyone to do it. That's a creative use of money. Why replace something that has the ability to restructure society? I'm redistributing wealth, not destroying it. I can imagine, generations from now, that alternative ways of accounting for goods and services might arise which wouldn't involve money, but I'm not interested in knowing anything about it - I'm not designing it. I'm designing for next year, not for Buster Crabbe.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Wealth Redistribution
Scrat;1026098 wrote: You noticed that too? If we used another standard such as the amount of calories burned in an hour then it would be totally different.
My preference is the degree of empathy required.
My preference is the degree of empathy required.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Wealth Redistribution
Scrat;1026091 wrote: Because you have to do it in a collective and constructive manner. I as an individual can walk around all day giving the homeless ect 20 dollar bills but I can't build a factory that employs thousands of people.Gov't doesn't build factories with our tax dollars. Gov't goes around giving people 20 dollar bills.
Just imagine the factories you could invest in if you weren't paying so much in income tax.
Just imagine the factories you could invest in if you weren't paying so much in income tax.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Wealth Redistribution
Scrat;1026104 wrote: Oh Really? Why do we import so many people from Mexico? I [sic] couldn't be for the purpose of doing the low paying dirty jobs of society now would it?You're really not that dumb, are you? What an American considers good pay is higher than an illegal immigrant does. It's simply cheaper to get them to do the work, not impossible.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Wealth Redistribution
spot;1025966 wrote: My point is that you're entirely wrong. The jobs which pay most also coincidentally happen to be the jobs that people would most enjoy performing, while the badly paid jobs are the ones people wouldn't want to do irrespective of the fact that it's low-paid. That just shows how little you know about low-paying jobs and the people that perform them. If they don't want to do them irrespective of pay then why do they do them?
Answer: The pay is high relative to the worker's alternatives.
See, that's the problem with ya'll that think one program can solve all problems. Not everyone is the same. Not everyone values the same things. That's why individuals must have the freedom of self-determination. You, have forgotten what self-determination really feels like, if you ever knew at all. Don't pretend you have empathy for the poor. You're clueless.
Answer: The pay is high relative to the worker's alternatives.
See, that's the problem with ya'll that think one program can solve all problems. Not everyone is the same. Not everyone values the same things. That's why individuals must have the freedom of self-determination. You, have forgotten what self-determination really feels like, if you ever knew at all. Don't pretend you have empathy for the poor. You're clueless.
Wealth Redistribution
Accountable;1026227 wrote: That just shows how little you know about low-paying jobs and the people that perform them. If they don't want to do them irrespective of pay then why do they do them?
Answer: The pay is high relative to the worker's alternatives.
This is a nonsensical comment. Sometimes people have no choice. They want to eat, they want a roof over their heads. If your only choice is a crappy job that enables you to survive, although barely, or living on the streets, then obviously you would take the job. Particularly if you have a family who also need food and a roof. To coin an Americanism, you 'suck-it-up' and get on with it - and you hope your kids can have a better life than you have.
Answer: The pay is high relative to the worker's alternatives.
This is a nonsensical comment. Sometimes people have no choice. They want to eat, they want a roof over their heads. If your only choice is a crappy job that enables you to survive, although barely, or living on the streets, then obviously you would take the job. Particularly if you have a family who also need food and a roof. To coin an Americanism, you 'suck-it-up' and get on with it - and you hope your kids can have a better life than you have.
Wealth Redistribution
Accountable;1026227 wrote: Not everyone is the same. Not everyone values the same things. That's why individuals must have the freedom of self-determination.
Do you really believe this?
Do you think that the Mexican immigrants who clean the filmstars Hollywood homes wouldn't want to live their jet-setting lifestyle?
Do you not think they would also like to have a big house? A nice car? Lovely holidays? Plenty of money to spend? Or even enough food for their families and the ability to afford medicine when they get sick?
Of course people are the same in their wants and their needs.
Everyone wants a nice home to live in, food and warmth and protection for their families.
A better life for their children.
Birth and education and even nationality direct your life from birth so you grow up using what is available to you. Where you end up is due to this. A Mexican national with limited schooling is obviously going to have a less well paid job than the sons of rich men who went to Harvard. You just seem to think they choose to have the poorest paid jobs. Why would they?
Your opening post was naive and nonsensical IMO. You're not stupid Accountable. Did you misphrase your question or are you just trying to pick a fight for some reason? I may be wrong, but it sounds like the latter to me. :sneaky:
Do you really believe this?
Do you think that the Mexican immigrants who clean the filmstars Hollywood homes wouldn't want to live their jet-setting lifestyle?
Do you not think they would also like to have a big house? A nice car? Lovely holidays? Plenty of money to spend? Or even enough food for their families and the ability to afford medicine when they get sick?
Of course people are the same in their wants and their needs.
Everyone wants a nice home to live in, food and warmth and protection for their families.
A better life for their children.
Birth and education and even nationality direct your life from birth so you grow up using what is available to you. Where you end up is due to this. A Mexican national with limited schooling is obviously going to have a less well paid job than the sons of rich men who went to Harvard. You just seem to think they choose to have the poorest paid jobs. Why would they?
Your opening post was naive and nonsensical IMO. You're not stupid Accountable. Did you misphrase your question or are you just trying to pick a fight for some reason? I may be wrong, but it sounds like the latter to me. :sneaky:
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Wealth Redistribution
Scrat;1026323 wrote: Exactly, it cheapens us all in the long run.
Scrat;1026344 wrote: Both right and wrong. Government is supposed to build infrastructure, this in turn leads to the building of other things such as factories. Our government should be able to get us off the oil tit for example but due to the corruption it cannot.
The tax dollars we give are not being used properly, some of it is used for building highways but then it seems we are pouring billions down the rathole of the middle east all for nothing.
Government could build factories if it wanted too, we could have a city in space, we could have started the first archologies by now with the completion dates in about 50 years.
We can do anything we want, we just can't overcome our greed and stupidity.The only thing I would change is the "cannot" to "does not", and our constitution doesn't allow gov't to build factories. Other than that, we agree.
Scrat;1026344 wrote: Both right and wrong. Government is supposed to build infrastructure, this in turn leads to the building of other things such as factories. Our government should be able to get us off the oil tit for example but due to the corruption it cannot.
The tax dollars we give are not being used properly, some of it is used for building highways but then it seems we are pouring billions down the rathole of the middle east all for nothing.
Government could build factories if it wanted too, we could have a city in space, we could have started the first archologies by now with the completion dates in about 50 years.
We can do anything we want, we just can't overcome our greed and stupidity.The only thing I would change is the "cannot" to "does not", and our constitution doesn't allow gov't to build factories. Other than that, we agree.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Wealth Redistribution
Rapunzel;1026400 wrote: Do you really believe this?
Do you think that the Mexican immigrants who clean the filmstars Hollywood homes wouldn't want to live their jet-setting lifestyle?
Do you not think they would also like to have a big house? A nice car? Lovely holidays? Plenty of money to spend? Or even enough food for their families and the ability to afford medicine when they get sick?
Of course people are the same in their wants and their needs. Everyone wants a nice home to live in, food and warmth and protection for their families.
A better life for their children.
Lots of people would reject their jet-setting lifestyle. It's busy and shallow. Many people prefer a slow quiet pace.
I live in a house smaller than I could afford - quite a bit smaller than I could mortgage, I'm sure.
"nice car" has different meanings to different people ranging from a simple sedan to limousine to SUV to maserati.
Lovely holidays like world tours, big family reunions, or staying home to relax and enjoy a beer?
I can't think of anyone who wouldn't want plenty of money, food, and ability to afford medicine; and I don't know why you specified Mexican immigrants. My point is that everyone defines the things you listed differently, and they are not the same in their wants and needs.
Rapunzel wrote: Birth and education and even nationality direct your life from birth so you grow up using what is available to you. Where you end up is due to this. A Mexican national with limited schooling is obviously going to have a less well paid job than the sons of rich men who went to Harvard. You just seem to think they choose to have the poorest paid jobs. Why would they?Not at all. I'm suggesting that what one considers a good job, a well-paying job, is relative to one's situation. Nothing more.
Rapunzel wrote: Your opening post was naive and nonsensical IMO. You're not stupid Accountable. Did you misphrase your question or are you just trying to pick a fight for some reason? I may be wrong, but it sounds like the latter to me. :sneaky:Then address my opening post. What is naive and nonsensical? I infer you think it is a bad analogy. Why?
Do you think that the Mexican immigrants who clean the filmstars Hollywood homes wouldn't want to live their jet-setting lifestyle?
Do you not think they would also like to have a big house? A nice car? Lovely holidays? Plenty of money to spend? Or even enough food for their families and the ability to afford medicine when they get sick?
Of course people are the same in their wants and their needs. Everyone wants a nice home to live in, food and warmth and protection for their families.
A better life for their children.
Lots of people would reject their jet-setting lifestyle. It's busy and shallow. Many people prefer a slow quiet pace.
I live in a house smaller than I could afford - quite a bit smaller than I could mortgage, I'm sure.
"nice car" has different meanings to different people ranging from a simple sedan to limousine to SUV to maserati.
Lovely holidays like world tours, big family reunions, or staying home to relax and enjoy a beer?
I can't think of anyone who wouldn't want plenty of money, food, and ability to afford medicine; and I don't know why you specified Mexican immigrants. My point is that everyone defines the things you listed differently, and they are not the same in their wants and needs.
Rapunzel wrote: Birth and education and even nationality direct your life from birth so you grow up using what is available to you. Where you end up is due to this. A Mexican national with limited schooling is obviously going to have a less well paid job than the sons of rich men who went to Harvard. You just seem to think they choose to have the poorest paid jobs. Why would they?Not at all. I'm suggesting that what one considers a good job, a well-paying job, is relative to one's situation. Nothing more.
Rapunzel wrote: Your opening post was naive and nonsensical IMO. You're not stupid Accountable. Did you misphrase your question or are you just trying to pick a fight for some reason? I may be wrong, but it sounds like the latter to me. :sneaky:Then address my opening post. What is naive and nonsensical? I infer you think it is a bad analogy. Why?
Wealth Redistribution
My opinion on redistributing the wealth is that it means there is a penalty for success.
Wealth Redistribution
TheNewDG;1027108 wrote: My opinion on redistributing the wealth is that it means there is a penalty for success.
Only if you regard excess wealth as a reward.
Only if you regard excess wealth as a reward.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Wealth Redistribution
spot;1027120 wrote: Only if you regard excess wealth as a reward.
I would hardly consider 250K annually excess wealth.
I would hardly consider 250K annually excess wealth.
Wealth Redistribution
TheNewDG;1027122 wrote: I would hardly consider 250K annually excess wealth.
Neither would I. I'd happily adopt that as a maximum individual annual income within a wealth redistribution scheme. If I applied that to the table we were using earlier in the thread it would have a big practical effect.
Neither would I. I'd happily adopt that as a maximum individual annual income within a wealth redistribution scheme. If I applied that to the table we were using earlier in the thread it would have a big practical effect.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Wealth Redistribution
spot;1027124 wrote: Neither would I. I'd happily adopt that as a maximum individual annual income within a wealth redistribution scheme. If I applied that to the table we were using earlier in the thread it would have a big practical effect.
That just sounds ludicrous to me. Putting a maximum income on someone? Its some Robin Hood bullcrap.
America isnt a communist country. ANd I am glad it isnt. My money is my hard earned money. I dont make 250K a year and probably never will but its the principal. It doesnt make any sense.
That just sounds ludicrous to me. Putting a maximum income on someone? Its some Robin Hood bullcrap.
America isnt a communist country. ANd I am glad it isnt. My money is my hard earned money. I dont make 250K a year and probably never will but its the principal. It doesnt make any sense.
Wealth Redistribution
You can see from the table what proportion of Americans do. Close to 2% of the labor force. One worker in fifty. They take around 30% of the entire income of the labor force.
The price of not redistributing their excess wealth is that over half of the US labor force, 85.3 million Americans, make do, in a society where sleeping rough is considered normal behavior for the long-term jobless and access to medical treatment, short of paying or insuring for it, depends on getting within 200 yards of a hospital while in danger of imminent death, with an average annual gross income of $16,075.
The price of not redistributing their excess wealth is that over half of the US labor force, 85.3 million Americans, make do, in a society where sleeping rough is considered normal behavior for the long-term jobless and access to medical treatment, short of paying or insuring for it, depends on getting within 200 yards of a hospital while in danger of imminent death, with an average annual gross income of $16,075.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Wealth Redistribution
Accountable;1025492 wrote: Right now money is used as the stimulus for people to do jobs that they otherwise would choose not to do. What would you replace it with?
Luxury is what defines wealth. One could argue that by buying luxury places jobs in the hands of all peoples willing to work to remain healthy...The problem is is that for this concept to be altruistic necessities in life have to be free to those willing to work to obtain them...Real estate is not free. One is disallowed to hunt as they see fit and not one commodity is available for people to take to provide adequate clothing for themselves and their loved ones because they're patented.
What's left is the rich sheltering the poor to remain more wealthy by virtue of laws and greed all the while people buy into societies need to convince the lazy and ignorant that the middle man is common ground.
Luxury is what defines wealth. One could argue that by buying luxury places jobs in the hands of all peoples willing to work to remain healthy...The problem is is that for this concept to be altruistic necessities in life have to be free to those willing to work to obtain them...Real estate is not free. One is disallowed to hunt as they see fit and not one commodity is available for people to take to provide adequate clothing for themselves and their loved ones because they're patented.
What's left is the rich sheltering the poor to remain more wealthy by virtue of laws and greed all the while people buy into societies need to convince the lazy and ignorant that the middle man is common ground.
Wealth Redistribution
Accountable;1025167 wrote: I just heard a great analogy concerning wealth redistribution:
Imagine applying it to education. Why not take, say, 30% off the scores of the highest achievers and redistribute them proportionately to the lower achievers? Wouldn't that be better for everybody?
Isn't education tested or examined in order that jobs, or positions in life that require intelligence/skill sets get the right person for the job/position, and vice versa. If distributed equal it's not a true reflection of the persons ability to meet the employers requirements and could be setting someone up to fail.
Imagine applying it to education. Why not take, say, 30% off the scores of the highest achievers and redistribute them proportionately to the lower achievers? Wouldn't that be better for everybody?
Isn't education tested or examined in order that jobs, or positions in life that require intelligence/skill sets get the right person for the job/position, and vice versa. If distributed equal it's not a true reflection of the persons ability to meet the employers requirements and could be setting someone up to fail.
Wibble
Wealth Redistribution
I may have this wrong, I thought this was about educational distribution, not financial distribution.
I shall await instruction.
I shall await instruction.
Wibble
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Wealth Redistribution
K.Snyder;1027153 wrote: [...] necessities in life have to be free to those willing to work to obtain them... [...]Isn't that oxymoronic?
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Wealth Redistribution
Violetmay;1027174 wrote: Isn't education tested or examined in order that jobs, or positions in life that require intelligence/skill sets get the right person for the job/position, and vice versa. If distributed equal it's not a true reflection of the persons ability to meet the employers requirements and could be setting someone up to fail.
Violetmay;1027175 wrote: I may have this wrong, I thought this was about educational distribution, not financial distribution.
I shall await instruction.
The analogy was to show that distribution of wealth is as dumb and unfair an idea as distribution of test score points.
Welcome! :-6
Violetmay;1027175 wrote: I may have this wrong, I thought this was about educational distribution, not financial distribution.
I shall await instruction.
The analogy was to show that distribution of wealth is as dumb and unfair an idea as distribution of test score points.
Welcome! :-6
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Wealth Redistribution
Jester;1027237 wrote: I am fully prepared for a Obama tax plan, under his plan my taxes will go way up. So next year 100% of my profit will go to charity. None of it will be taxed.
I am drawing up my list of charites now, but I plan to make charities like the Christian Law Association very wealthy.
I will find charities that fight government corruption and any policy Obama tries to put forward. I find a deep sense of satisfaction sending money that the government pays me, since 1/3 of my income is from government contracts to fight the unconstitutional government of (the terrorist:wah:) Barack Hussien Obama.
I plan on redistributing my own wealth before he gets to it. (if he gets in)Can't you create your own charity? A non-profit organization to manage a trust fund designed to help whomever you find worthy? Hoss can be the president. You can pay him $249K annually for keeping it solvent.
I am drawing up my list of charites now, but I plan to make charities like the Christian Law Association very wealthy.
I will find charities that fight government corruption and any policy Obama tries to put forward. I find a deep sense of satisfaction sending money that the government pays me, since 1/3 of my income is from government contracts to fight the unconstitutional government of (the terrorist:wah:) Barack Hussien Obama.
I plan on redistributing my own wealth before he gets to it. (if he gets in)Can't you create your own charity? A non-profit organization to manage a trust fund designed to help whomever you find worthy? Hoss can be the president. You can pay him $249K annually for keeping it solvent.
Wealth Redistribution
Accountable;1027484 wrote: The analogy was to show that distribution of wealth is as dumb and unfair an idea as distribution of test score points. :)The proposal DG came up with - capping gross individual annual income at $250,000 - hands $1,5 trillion a year to either federal or state governments to buy health care for anyone who applies to them for it.
The entire health care and pharma industries can remain private sector, the weight of government purchasing is enough to force them to become lean and competitive. The entire school market can be privatised at no cost on exactly the same basis. All that disappears are the medical insurance companies whose profits are entirely a millstone on the nation, and the overweight profit centers in those private hospitals which currently have no incentive toward efficiency because they're plain owned by the insurance groups.
The entire health care and pharma industries can remain private sector, the weight of government purchasing is enough to force them to become lean and competitive. The entire school market can be privatised at no cost on exactly the same basis. All that disappears are the medical insurance companies whose profits are entirely a millstone on the nation, and the overweight profit centers in those private hospitals which currently have no incentive toward efficiency because they're plain owned by the insurance groups.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Wealth Redistribution
spot;1027504 wrote: All that disappears are the medical insurance companies
and any reason to try to excel in most industries, since everything's paid for and ya don't get to keep what ya rightfully earned anyway.
and any reason to try to excel in most industries, since everything's paid for and ya don't get to keep what ya rightfully earned anyway.
Wealth Redistribution
Accountable;1027510 wrote: and any reason to try to excel in most industries, since everything's paid for and ya don't get to keep what ya rightfully earned anyway.
Did you not "rightfully earn" the entire gross income? In what way is any tax at all on any earning "rightful"? And if you say it's "rightful" to tax gross income, all I've done is adjusted the current tax rates, I've not invented any new mechanisms at all.
Did you not "rightfully earn" the entire gross income? In what way is any tax at all on any earning "rightful"? And if you say it's "rightful" to tax gross income, all I've done is adjusted the current tax rates, I've not invented any new mechanisms at all.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Wealth Redistribution
spot;1027514 wrote: Did you not "rightfully earn" the entire gross income? In what way is any tax at all on any earning "rightful"? And if you say it's "rightful" to tax gross income, all I've done is adjusted the current tax rates, I've not invented any new mechanisms at all.
You've flipped the whole system on its head. Rather than the gov't justifying what it needs from the citizens to operate, now it's the gov't deciding what the citizens need and taking the rest.
Fine for the UK. Knock yerself out.
You've flipped the whole system on its head. Rather than the gov't justifying what it needs from the citizens to operate, now it's the gov't deciding what the citizens need and taking the rest.
Fine for the UK. Knock yerself out.
Wealth Redistribution
So you only "rightfully earn" what the government can't justify taking from you?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Wealth Redistribution
Jester;1027533 wrote: Better yet I can form my own church, all I need is ten members, a constitutional statement, and an accounting of contributions, apply for a tax ID number and Bammo- instant church to funnel all my cash through. We meet in my home every thursday night.
Now when they come for me and my guns they will have the excuse they need- ultra religious zealot...
I better buy a black hat.
Better make it a cyber church. It's a long drive for me and Thursday is Grey's Anatomy night.
Now when they come for me and my guns they will have the excuse they need- ultra religious zealot...
I better buy a black hat.
Better make it a cyber church. It's a long drive for me and Thursday is Grey's Anatomy night.
Wealth Redistribution
Jester;1027538 wrote: Thats already my plan, if Obama's gonna raise my taxes above 250K then I'm not goign to earn that much. I thought the Capitalist mechanism is that if you don't work it your competitor will, so the wealth stays the same whether it's you that works it or not. The only person affected if you don't earn it is you.
I asked whether you only "rightfully earn" what the government can't justify taking from you since Accountable used the expression "rightfully earn" in the context of taxation. I didn't get a reply though it seems a simple and balanced question. What part of gross income is "rightfully earned"?
I asked whether you only "rightfully earn" what the government can't justify taking from you since Accountable used the expression "rightfully earn" in the context of taxation. I didn't get a reply though it seems a simple and balanced question. What part of gross income is "rightfully earned"?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.