|
|
Post by Marv on Apr 25, 2017 10:42:44 GMT
Ideally we'd all be equal right? So my answer is no.
|
|
althea
Sophomore
@althea
Posts: 105
Likes: 10
 
|
Post by althea on Apr 26, 2017 6:11:00 GMT
To be clear, I'm not drawing a line. In most cultures, it is usually apparent who the wealthy are in a community in contrast to the rest of us. If one cannot tell, then maybe there is already an equalization happening. However, that's irrelevant to the question and I shouldn't have spent any time explain it in any detail beyond the tax brackets since all we are talking about is money and what would be needed to run a good economy For example, not everyone has to make the same amount of money (Although that could be a scenario). maybe a Mcdonald's work makes 20k a year, a doctor makes 150k a year, a greedy banker makes 80k/year. There's just a cap that prevents anyone from being wealthy. Would an economy be OK under those circumstances or do the rich need to exist in order for there to be a middle class? Generally, in functioning capitalist economies you need rich as well as poor. The problem IMHO is when the rich become too wealthy because the economy shifts from a functioning capitalist economy to something different - either a dysfunctional capitalist economy, or it all falls apart and we have to figure out a new way of doing it. As long as income is predominately generated through the sale of labour, I think we'll be okay. The issues arise when we start rewarding the investment of capital to generate wealth over the sale of labour for an income....no matter how high that wage may be. The evidence would suggest that the narrower the gap between the end extremes and the stronger the middle is, the better for the humans inhabiting that economy and society. The biggest problem facing the future is technological advances. When we don't need people to perform work, there isn't enough demand for labour, which in turn means there's not enough demand for products and services and the modern capitalistic economies as we understand them will cease to function....as well as the political systems that depend on them. (Which sounds a lot more more conspiracy nut than I'd like, but I'm speaking in general terms....I think the biggest issue is that we're on the cusp of the sort of political and economic changes we've seen in the past, it's just difficult to judge the time scales of such changes while they're still taking place.) |
|
|
|
Post by dividavi on Apr 26, 2017 7:09:15 GMT
It seems that income inequality is something that can't be avoided. The countries that come closest to equality include Sweden, Norway, Japan and Switzerland, depending on what measurement you use. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equalityWho really cares? Yes, people like Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, the Koch brothers and the members of the Walton family all have more money than I ever will. But I've got enough for the things I need and I won't be going hungry. If it would help the world to confiscate the holdings of these individuals then that's what should be done. Okay, let them keep their last $200 million. Will that really help the poor? Experience says no. Look at Venezuela to prove that point. |
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Apr 26, 2017 19:53:08 GMT
Nobody NEEDS rich people.
But IMO society is better served when the most industrious and wealthy have empathy for their fellow human beings and give back to their communities.
When you have wealthy people who are only in it for themselves and use others to gain wealth to horde.. nobody needs people like that.
|
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Apr 26, 2017 21:34:57 GMT
Cinemachinery I don't know. Let's make up a scenario. So die hard Bernie Sanders type, but extreme, says everyone should make the same amount of money. Now we know that over that generation, it'll be somewhat of a disaster as industries change and shift to conform to the new normal. After the dust settles, though, everyone is making the same amount despite have the different job titles. Another scenario could be that everyone can make different levels of wages but no more than what would be considered middle class. I'm OK with either one of those as the question mainly has to do with what would happen if the top 1-3% earners no longer existed in an economic way. In order to see what would happen if this was implemented, we don't have to make up a scenario. We can look at the now defunct German Democratic Republic (GDR). They had almost income equality; which led to the most qualified people leaving, or trying to. After Hungary opened the Iron Curtain, the GDR quickly collapsed. Do we need rich people? I'm not sure; but what we don't need is mechanisms to prevent people from getting rich. Unless it's to stop poor people from being exploited. |
|
|
|
Post by 🌵 on Apr 26, 2017 21:46:52 GMT
Ideally we'd all be equal right? So my answer is no. I don't agree with that. My ideal world would not be a place where everybody has equal wealth. |
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Apr 26, 2017 21:53:41 GMT
Why?
|
|
|
|
Post by 🌵 on Apr 26, 2017 23:14:50 GMT
In general, I don't feel it would be ideal for everybody to be equal with respect to possessions or characteristics. My ideal world would not be a place where everybody has equal skills, for example. I like diversity and equality across the board would hinder that. It's a good thing in my view for people to have different goals in life. In an ideal world, that's going to lead to inequality in various respects, including inequality of wealth. Basically, I'd say that rather than aiming for a world in which everybody has equal wealth, or is equal in other respects, we should aim for a world in which the maximum number of people are best able to achieve their goals. Some people care about acquiring big houses and expensive clothes. Some people want to live in a cabin in the woods and hunt all their own food. Etc. Do you have a reason why you feel it would be ideal for everybody to have equal wealth? |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Apr 26, 2017 23:19:35 GMT
I do like the notion of everyone not wanting to have the same pay.
I don;t really think that would be possible.
However, that isn't the same thing as removing the wealthy from the equation.
After all, the majority of people in non-sucky countries are middle class while at the same time making different levels of income.
I'm a greedy banking manager who is middle class supervising people who are also middle class but make less than me. I largely open accounts for middle class people and provides loans for middle class people and all of them are different from each other.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2017 18:45:44 GMT
The relationship between the haves and have nots? Material richess isn't an evil in and of itself. It's how wealth is created and the how wealth is used .. that's where the problems arise. To me this sounds like you are saying that a person can make as much as they want as long as they use it to help poorer people. Otherwise, how is wealth supposed to be used? To a certain extent but not totally. The excesses of wealth that exist today aren't evil in isolation but juxtaposed beside the reality of the wretched poverty that exists then the wealth of the elite can be seen for what it is.. empty, ugly trash. Mind you I'm still gonna do the lottery this weekend haha |
|
