Redistribution of wealth?

philologos

I know this is my second poll in 2 days, but I think this is another topic that could have a lot of interesting banter attached, and I've had many discussions with people about it before. A few years ago, I would have identified myself as being far more leftist than I am now in this respect that socialism was a real opportunity in society, and that the world of free market capitalism could often seem harsh to those who didn't have opportunities education wise and so on.

It seems that there are two types of Government structure in the world concerning this issue in the West:

The welfare state which is really the type of model in continental Europe
The provide for yourself type country which is the type of model that we have in the USA, and in Ireland to an extent also.

My question for you is this, should the Government force us to spread our wealth evenly to others by taxation, or should we be encouraging generosity as a cultural norm so that we can spread the wealth more evenly by our own personal endeavour. Or is the idea of sharing wealth totally ridiculous altogether?

My personal view now, although I used to be in the first camp of the Government doing this through taxation, I am now in the second camp that I believe that society can encourage generosity without being forced to do so.

Hopefully this will be a good thread, and there'll be interesting points to be made

mikemac

Jakkass wrote: »

My personal view now, although I used to be in the first camp of the Government doing this through taxation, I am now in the second camp that I believe that society can encourage generosity without being forced to do so.

Do you pay 41% tax?
I do and therefore if I consider the government is doing the job for me.
I don't give money to reputable charities like St. Vincent De Paul as I consider the Minister Hannifin and her department have a budget of billions and therefore it should be enough.

If isn't enough that the highly qualified civil servants and planners will know this and rates and budgets can be adjusted. That is their job after all and I trust them to do it

I don't give money to chuggers or Trocaire or Concern as the Irish government gives over 700 million or possibly more already in foreign aid.
It's not 0.7% GDP but that's the goal and they'll reach it one day.

We have a large and well paid public service. If they do their jobs then why the need for charities?

Gonna get flamed as stingy but sure if billions are spent on social welfare and foreign aid through taxes I can't see the need for more unless a charity makes a direct appeal to me.
And it'd probably be something local that would make me donate, not Trocaire.

dreamlogic

I know how #1 and #3 work as I'm sure most people do. But option #2 is more of a vague idea... Can you give an example or two of how this would manifest in reality?

And are we talking Ireland here or worldwide?

Wibbs

mikemac wrote: »

Do you pay 41% tax?
I do and therefore if I consider the government is doing the job for me.

The problem is the government and successive governments are seemingly incapable of organising píssups in breweries so that's a problem right there. I do give to local charities. Then again with the notable exception of the Vincint de Paul, I'm highly dubious of how the others spend their money. As for overseas? No I don't, unless its an acute disaster such as the tsunami. There's a whole other argument on this, but I just don't see the point. Billions, literally billions have been invested in places like the continent of Africa to just disappear. It's frankly a waste. Going in and doing useful local things for local people in such places fine, but general charity? Nope. I object to a percentage of our GDP going towards that too.

turgon

Wealth redistribution dis-incentives people from making money and working. That is the failure of communism, why would I bother working hard if I get the same money?

If people want money redistributed to them, what stopping them going back to education and getting a different career? Once again though, everyone wants the government to do everything for them. They want all the benefits and none of the commitments.

philologos

Thanks for the feedback all:

dreamlogic: What I mean is that in schools and through parents that children can be taught to leave a portion of their money aside for charitable projects both domestically to help people in Ireland to get a chance at finding a home and finding a stable job if they are homeless, or to focus on international efforts.

It's not something that I do often enough myself, and I'm just wondering what the attitude in general is to this. Should the Government be responsible for shifting money around domestically, or should the population give as much as is deserving out of their own free will, or to give absolutely nothing at all. That is my query here.

turgon

Ok I voted no because I thought it meant "no the government shouldnt force it" rather than "no we shouldnt give at all." I give money to Concern.

dreamlogic

I think that government has to redistribute wealth. (Otherwise why have a government?)
As for our current system of government well there are many flaws in how this system operates. But at least there is that safety net there for people who lose their jobs or who for whatever reason don't have the means to support themselves on their own.

What I mean is that in schools and through parents that children can be taught to leave a portion of their money aside for charitable projects both domestically to help people in Ireland to get a chance at finding a home and finding a stable job if they are homeless, or to focus on international efforts.

I would tend to agree with this if it meant the setting up of small local governments to administer where the money went. However I would object to the use of the word 'charity' in this context.

turgon

dreamlogic wrote: »

Otherwise why have a government?

Erm

• Enforce the rights of the people
• Provide policing and justice
• Represent us abroad
• Set up control systems and registration services
• Maintain roads

as well as stuff they arguably shouldnt be doing.

• Providing public transport
• Providing healthcare

etc etc

Saying the only purpose of the government is to redistribute wealth is a bit naive.

dreamlogic

turgon wrote: »

Erm

• Enforce the rights of the people
• Provide policing and justice
• Represent us abroad
• Set up control systems and registration services
• Maintain roads

as well as stuff they arguably shouldnt be doing.

• Providing public transport
• Providing healthcare

etc etc

Saying the only purpose of the government is to redistribute wealth is a bit naive.

At the same time all those reasons that you mention cost money. What I was getting at was that the job of a government is to manage our budget and allocate where money is spent. Which could be considered a form of redistribution...

irish_bob

Jakkass wrote: »

I know this is my second poll in 2 days, but I think this is another topic that could have a lot of interesting banter attached, and I've had many discussions with people about it before. A few years ago, I would have identified myself as being far more leftist than I am now in this respect that socialism was a real opportunity in society, and that the world of free market capitalism could often seem harsh to those who didn't have opportunities education wise and so on.

It seems that there are two types of Government structure in the world concerning this issue in the West:

The welfare state which is really the type of model in continental Europe
The provide for yourself type country which is the type of model that we have in the USA, and in Ireland to an extent also.

My question for you is this, should the Government force us to spread our wealth evenly to others by taxation, or should we be encouraging generosity as a cultural norm so that we can spread the wealth more evenly by our own personal endeavour. Or is the idea of sharing wealth totally ridiculous altogether?

My personal view now, although I used to be in the first camp of the Government doing this through taxation, I am now in the second camp that I believe that society can encourage generosity without being forced to do so.

Hopefully this will be a good thread, and there'll be interesting points to be made

ireland has an extremley generous wellfare state , its nothing like in the usa

turgon

True, I personally think the welfare state in this country has gone too far, and dis-inventivenesses people to work (myself included).

philologos

turgon wrote: »

True, I personally think the welfare state in this country has gone too far, and dis-inventivenesses people to work (myself included).

Fair enough. However Ireland amongst others such as the USA and the UK are still quite unbalanced on the Gini scale of economic inequality. Some people may be so low in terms of what they earn that they mightn't be able to find work, or even find a place to live. Do you think that people should organise more to help these sorts of people, or are they the product of their own demise?

Cianos

I believe there are a lot of values to living in a more equal society that are not going to be immediately evident, especially to those who are being taxed higher.

While I don't think everyone should have a free ride, the reality of pure unchecked capitalism is the 'rich get richer, the poor get poorer'. It's a lot easier to make money when you have money. While getting richer sounds good to rich people, if left go to the extreme, I don't think many rich people would enjoy living in a place where all but 10% of the population were poverty stricken.

This is especially true for Ireland, where our total population is less than some of the big cities in the world. In other countries, it's easy to hide and confine the lower classes, where lower income districts populations can number in the millions. But in a country as small as ours we are sharing space with everyone else. And so for overall quality of life, it is better for the rich people themselves to be more giving to people less well off if they want to enjoy the place in which they live.

philologos

Cianos: I agree with you. I think the rich have a social responsibility to be giving to charitable causes moreso than the middle classes due to the fact that they are living more comfortably than the rest of the population. I do not think that this should be coerced though. As if this is coerced through taxation on businesses and other things, they will ultimately increase the prices of their products or lower the wages of their employees thus making the situation worse. I think it is far far better to develop the consciences of individuals from an early age to give to charity, so that the people who call the shots in the economy and the people who are the richest do think to leave aside money to those who are less fortunate both in Ireland and in the outside world.

Is there a way we can do this without the State being Robin Hood?

Cianos

I don't think the rich have a moral responsibility to help anyone. And I don't think it's beneficial to try and nurture or pressure that on the rich or anyone else. I think that kind of approach really just reinforces the separation between rich and poor because the rich feel they are carrying the weight of the poor, and the poor have

The kind of approach I would like to see is that the rich are taxed not for the benefit of the poor, but for the benefit of society as a whole. It shouldn't be about helping those less fortunate, but helping ensure a more rounded society so that there are equal opportunities no matter what your background or income bracket is.

Thus if a higher proportion of the total population are given the means with which to reach their potential, the less pressure there will eventually be on the rich to support the rest of the populace.

I am not an economist so I don't know what the specifics of this could be, but I think things like subsidised costs for essentials would be a good way about this. So reduced costs for the poor for clothing, education and transportation, grocery shopping etc.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

Whips out the usual analogy:

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. ‘Since you are all such good customers, he said, ‘I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. What happens to the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’ They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

‘I only got a dollar out of the $20,’ declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, ‘But he got $10!’

‘Yeah, that’s right,’ exclaimed the fifth man. ‘I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!’

‘That’s true!!’ shouted the seventh man. ‘Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!’

‘Wait a minute,’ yelled the first four men in unison. ‘We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!’

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important.

They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

The reality of the situation is that the top 5% of earners pay around 50% of the tax bill already!

dlofnep

Firm believer of a fair progressive tax system that allows for everyone to have a fair shot at life, and the benefits that would normally go with it - free and equal access to education, healthcare and social equality.

turgon

These are all things everyone wants, but in reality when the government provides health care weve seem how crap it is.

dlofnep

turgon wrote: »

These are all things everyone wants, but in reality when the government provides health care weve seem how crap it is.

Try out American healthcare which 45 million Americans don't have access to.

Cianos

Sean_K wrote: »

Whips out the usual analogy:


The reality of the situation is that the top 5% of earners pay around 50% of the tax bill already!

interesting analogy. but where does the $20 reduction come from in relation to the economy?

turgon

Reduction in spending.

I think Fine Gaels new healthcare proposal is what we need: private healthcare but those who cant afford it are helped out.

Cianos

The problem is that those in the lower income brackets have way less opportunities to achieve the same amount as those in the higher income brackets.

You could say that if you work hard and put your mind to it, you can be a success. But the reality is that if you are born disadvantaged, chances are that's the way you will end up. Being born in to money gives you so much more opportunity, and unless you completely fck up, you can expect to lead a comfortable and wealthy life, through better education, nepotism, inheritance, and so on.

dreamlogic

Jakkass wrote: »

As if this is coerced through taxation on businesses and other things, they will ultimately increase the prices of their products or lower the wages of their employees thus making the situation worse.

Sorry but I don't see how you are drawing this conclusion. The pricing of a product is determined by how much people are able or willing to pay for it.

Jakkass wrote: »

I think it is far far better to develop the consciences of individuals from an early age to give to charity, so that the people who call the shots in the economy and the people who are the richest do think to leave aside money to those who are less fortunate both in Ireland and in the outside world.

I tend to agree with this idea. Subjects such as civics and ethics should be taught in schools from a young age.

Jakkass wrote: »

Is there a way we can do this without the State being Robin Hood?

Assuming this is a serious remark, I think you need to seriously reconsider your conception of what constitutes theft.

irish_bob

Cianos wrote: »

The problem is that those in the lower income brackets have way less opportunities to achieve the same amount as those in the higher income brackets.

You could say that if you work hard and put your mind to it, you can be a success. But the reality is that if you are born disadvantaged, chances are that's the way you will end up. Being born in to money gives you so much more opportunity, and unless you completely fck up, you can expect to lead a comfortable and wealthy life, through better education, nepotism, inheritance, and so on.

its not as simple as that , its hard to pin down exactly why disadvantaged groups become established , take travellers for example , they pay no tax yet many of them make a decent amount of money on various scams like painting sheds for farmers with watered down paint , yet no matter how much money a traveller has , the chances of him insisting on an education for his children are extremly low , its not part of that culture to get educated , the same goes for people who live in certain parts of our inner citys , many of theese people are financially not that badly off but yet thier children would not be encouraged to go to 3rd level or in many cases to even get an apprenticship for a trade

i believe our overly generous wellfare state has resulted in a culture where the term personal responsibility hardly exists , we have entire estates where the height of ones ambition is either taking full advantage beit by getting pregnant young or living apart from ones partner of whatever handouts are going
such a culture i believe has been one of the main reasons behind social breakdown in this country , we didnt have theese problems 40 years ago when a much higher percentage of the country were poor yet despite this , most people grew up with respect for the ideals of work ethic , respecting other peoples property and believing that you work for what you wish to own , nowadays due to the overly generous wellfare state , a lot of youngsters grow up believing they are just as entitled to all the things people who go to work everyday choose to own , plasma screens , sun holidays etc

rantyface

I am very annoyed that you described taxes as "the government should force us to pay- coercion". It's completely biased.

How on earth would "generosity as a cultural norm" work? Name a country where it does work and I'll name ten where taxation and good public services work.

I don't agree with the private healthcare for those who can afford it system. If you can afford private healthcare you are surely paying for it through taxes. If something is free for one person it should be free for everyone, and the redistribution of wealth should be through income tax and property tax.

dreamlogic

irish_bob wrote: »

the same goes for people who live in certain parts of our inner citys , many of theese people are financially not that badly off but yet thier children would not be encouraged to go to 3rd level or in many cases to even get an apprenticship for a trade

If children are not being encouraged to progress through the education system then the only practical answer is to look at how they are being educated and reform the education system. Or what would you suggest instead?

philologos

rantyface wrote: »

I am very annoyed that you described taxes as "the government should force us to pay- coercion". It's completely biased.

Easy now. It's best to keep calm

What I meant was, is it the Governments role to tax us so as to provide for the needy, or are human beings capable of doing this themselves in a more personal way. I don't see how it is biased to say that it indeed is coercion for us to pay more taxes to do this, as that is what it is. It's not voluntary to pay taxes but it is a means of coercion.

rantyface wrote: »

How on earth would "generosity as a cultural norm" work? Name a country where it does work and I'll name ten where taxation and good public services work.

That isn't the point. Political theories and theories concerning economics take place in the abstract before they actually take place in reality. For example Karl Marx and Marxism, Adam Smith and the modern taxation system, and numerous others. Their ideas did not occur in reality before they were conceptualised or at least that is what I thought. Feel free to correct me. Point is many ideas are conceptualised before they come into fruition.

I think people find a habit of personal choice to be much easier to deal with than a forced mechanism in taxes which can cause dissatisfaction.

rantyface wrote: »

I don't agree with the private healthcare for those who can afford it system. If you can afford private healthcare you are surely paying for it through taxes. If something is free for one person it should be free for everyone, and the redistribution of wealth should be through income tax and property tax.

I'm not sure if I do either. However, I don't think people should be taxed too heavily on income tax, and perhaps it should be up to people and interest groups in society to be able to help the less fortunate instead of insisting that the State bail us out all the time. I think that could well make for a healthier society.

This discussion isn't really one of absolutes I don't think. I personally find there is a middle ground (Tony Blair referred to it as the third way, but I have a feeling my idea differs a lot to his on the issue) between the welfare state and the neoliberal type model that had been in practice in the US and in Thatchers Britain.

turgon

rantyface wrote: »

I don't agree with the private healthcare for those who can afford it system.

Well if people work their asses off to make loads of money surely they are entitled to buy a different type of healthcare than that offered by the state?

rantyface wrote: »

If something is free for one person it should be free for everyone, and the redistribution of wealth should be through income tax and property tax.

I dont get you here. Are you saying we cant make health care free just for those who cant afford it? Instead we have to make it free for even those who can?

Cianos

irish_bob wrote: »

its not as simple as that , its hard to pin down exactly why disadvantaged groups become established , take travellers for example , they pay no tax yet many of them make a decent amount of money on various scams like painting sheds for farmers with watered down paint , yet no matter how much money a traveller has , the chances of him insisting on an education for his children are extremly low , its not part of that culture to get educated , the same goes for people who live in certain parts of our inner citys , many of theese people are financially not that badly off but yet thier children would not be encouraged to go to 3rd level or in many cases to even get an apprenticship for a trade

i believe our overly generous wellfare state has resulted in a culture where the term personal responsibility hardly exists , we have entire estates where the height of ones ambition is either taking full advantage beit by getting pregnant young or living apart from ones partner of whatever handouts are going
such a culture i believe has been one of the main reasons behind social breakdown in this country , we didnt have theese problems 40 years ago when a much higher percentage of the country were poor yet despite this , most people grew up with respect for the ideals of work ethic , respecting other peoples property and believing that you work for what you wish to own , nowadays due to the overly generous wellfare state , a lot of youngsters grow up believing they are just as entitled to all the things people who go to work everyday choose to own , plasma screens , sun holidays etc

You are making a lot of assumptions in this post. You cannot say that it is just because of an overly generous welfare system there is a lack of respect and ambition. There are many other factors in play.

It is not everyones driving ambition to own a plasma TV and go on sun holidays. The prospect of these things is not going to make a child growing up in a bad area want to better themselves. People don't make choices like that, it is about the opportunities that are presented to you that are realistically obtainable. Material gain is a side product of success.

If that same child is given the chance to succeed in a nurturing environment, they are going to take it. Not because of the prospect of material gain, but because it is in our nature to want to improve ourselves and feel good about ourselves.

I agree that an overly compensatory welfare system will make the unambitious less ambitious. But at the same time, a welfare system that is depriving will not drive people to succeed but rather to look for the quick and easy way to get a bit of cash. This usually means crime.

Again, we take the opportunities that are most obtainable and or attractive. For some this is playing the system and maxing their social welfare. Others, it is the cash they make from robbing or dealing drugs. For most of us it is the opportunities that we see at the end of an education, because we have a suitable environment in which to achieve this.

rantyface

turgon wrote: »

Well if people work their asses off to make loads of money surely they are entitled to buy a different type of healthcare than that offered by the state?



I dont get you here. Are you saying we cant make health care free just for those who cant afford it? Instead we have to make it free for even those who can?

The current system doubly penalises rich people by providing a crap service, which they are paying a lot for through taxes, and almost forcing them to buy private insurance on top of their taxes.

I think Jakass' dream country would be the US- low tax, super religious, no public services. People there are queing for charity food and book handouts. They also give less per head of population to charity than us.

Joey the lips

Its an interesting concept Jak especially when you consider the 80/20 rule applies in so many ways in ireland ie

80% of development land is owned by the top 20% of developers

80% of the wealth in the country is also owned by the same elite

and the last one

80% of many majour political donations to the 3 main parties

FF/FG/LAB comes from this wealth

So just how exactly are we going to get the goverment to redistribute this without effecting there major source of funding?

Its a very interesting concept!

philologos

rantyface wrote: »

I think Jakass' dream country would be the US- low tax, super religious, no public services. People there are queing for charity food and book handouts. They also give less per head of population to charity than us.

How about letting me discuss my own dream?

My own dream is a country where people don't have to rely on the Government to look after the needy, but that the people will do it themselves. People interacting with the less fortunate on a personal level within their community as a part of normal behaviour. I think it's possible only if it is taught as a cultural norm and only if it permeates society very quickly.

As for a "super religious" society. A theocracy can only serve in a country of the willing and it is subsceptible to corruption and it isn't able to adapt should the country not end up believing in religion X anymore. I don't think it is a useful model. A country that is based on Christian virtue, but allows for tolerance of other traditions is more useful in practice and allows for a lot of personal autonomy where it doesn't adversely affect the lives of others.

As for no public services, perhaps less by the Government and more by the people. As for the USA, I don't support their military spending and many other things about the way that it is run. I don't think that would be my "utopian" view at all.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

TheInquisitor

The welfare system in Ireland is way too generous. It became too inflated just like our economy and housing bubble. After 75% of private sector employees so far having taken pay cuts i think its high time that welfare does too. E200 plus for not working. its £64 in england which translates to roughly E70. Even when their currency was very strong it was only worth E89. There is no justification for such a ridiculously high enemployment benefit. Interest rates have fallen to their lowest ever. Most normal bills are falling. Rich should be taxed at 10%. They create all the jobs, they take all the risks why should they be penalised for that?

What your talking about is communism, we've all seen how well thats worked eh!

Joycey

Just spotted this thread now...

Im actually shocked at the idiocy on display in this discussion... Either that or Boards is seeeeriously skewed to the far right in terms of economics.

Taxes = coercion... Yeah, so what? So is having a police force, so is forcing people to make good on their contracts like mortgages and so on, theres nothing new here.

So anybody who didnt vote for option 1, either believes that there should be no police force, no fire service, no government regulation of unsafe drugs/fertilisers etc, no education system apart from schools who filter out "troublesome" kids, no sex offenders register, no prisons (or if you have a private prison system no state regulation), nothing except what private corporations deign to give to us at a generous rate which ensures them a tidy profit :rolleyes:.

Or the other possibility is that everyone who didnt vote 1 is an idiot and didnt understand the question. Seems to me theres a healthy mix of both in the thread.

Research shows time and time again that people who earn the most actually give proportionally less money to charity then do the people at the bottom of the earning bracket... The fact that the people who are richest in society are either getting massive salaries from the state (consultant nuerosurgeons and the like) or make their money through not paying the people who work for them a correlative amount with regard to the amount of effort that both parties put in, I dont see why the highest earners shouldnt be taxed far more.

With regard to whoever came up with that analogy of the guys paying for drinks in the bar, thats why we should have proper regulation and enforcement of the laws which prevent overseas leakage of money that should be taxed. If we threw a few of the bastards in jail and took their houses from them im sure the rest wouldnt be long in paying what is due.

dreamlogic

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Approx 2% of adults in the world own more than half the world's wealth.
Under our current system, a successful businessperson is allowed to accumulate enough wealth to run a medium-sized country all by himself. Think of the obscene amount of wealth accumulated by Bill Gates for example.
Are you saying that this system of dominance and wealth accumulation by the few is fair or acceptable or "moral"?

Joey the lips

Joycey wrote: »

Just spotted this thread now...

Im actually shocked at the idiocy on display in this discussion... Either that or Boards is seeeeriously skewed to the far right in terms of economics.

Taxes = coercion... Yeah, so what? So is having a police force, so is forcing people to make good on their contracts like mortgages and so on, theres nothing new here.

So anybody who didnt vote for option 1, either believes that there should be no police force, no fire service, no government regulation of unsafe drugs/fertilisers etc, no education system apart from schools who filter out "troublesome" kids, no sex offenders register, no prisons (or if you have a private prison system no state regulation), nothing except what private corporations deign to give to us at a generous rate which ensures them a tidy profit :rolleyes:.

Or the other possibility is that everyone who didnt vote 1 is an idiot and didnt understand the question. Seems to me theres a healthy mix of both in the thread.

Research shows time and time again that people who earn the most actually give proportionally less money to charity then do the people at the bottom of the earning bracket... The fact that the people who are richest in society are either getting massive salaries from the state (consultant nuerosurgeons and the like) or make their money through not paying the people who work for them a correlative amount with regard to the amount of effort that both parties put in, I dont see why the highest earners shouldnt be taxed far more.

With regard to whoever came up with that analogy of the guys paying for drinks in the bar, thats why we should have proper regulation and enforcement of the laws which prevent overseas leakage of money that should be taxed. If we threw a few of the bastards in jail and took their houses from them im sure the rest wouldnt be long in paying what is due.

I am amazed you get people on boards who have the ability to be "shocked at the idiocy on display in this discussion" and not actually contribute any positive ideas themselves

So it seems boards might be full of shocked people.

Its easy to be critical but a little harder to lay your ideas on the line...... Stand up say your peice and then we might see your logic at being shocked!

philologos

Joycey: Nobody is saying that tax shouldn't exist. I'm saying that a huge welfare state shouldn't be necessary to get people to help and assist eachother. If that makes me and idiot go ahead and call me and idiot . Ad hominems generally don't help ones argument mind.

Joycey

Jakkass wrote: »

Joycey: Nobody is saying that tax shouldn't exist. I'm saying that a huge welfare state shouldn't be necessary to get people to help and assist eachother. If that makes me and idiot go ahead and call me and idiot . Ad hominems generally don't help ones argument mind.

But you presented us with a choice which doesnt actually make any sense unless you tie it down. Im assuming 99% of the people who read this thread are in favour of some kind of taxation, and opposing that with "every man for himself" is just rediculous. As for the second option, there is currently no instance of such a society in existence, while it may be that this would be preferable to any society which we now have, I think it might be better to keep the discussion at least somewhat grounded in reality...


And to JoeyTheLips: I actually contributed two new ideas to the thread... here they are:

The fact that the people who are richest in society are either getting massive salaries from the state (consultant nuerosurgeons and the like) or make their money through not paying the people who work for them a correlative amount with regard to the amount of effort that both parties put in, I dont see why the highest earners shouldnt be taxed far more.

and

With regard to whoever came up with that analogy of the guys paying for drinks in the bar, thats why we should have proper regulation and enforcement of the laws which prevent overseas leakage of money that should be taxed. If we threw a few of the bastards in jail and took their houses from them im sure the rest wouldnt be long in paying what is due.

As well as pointing out that the positions which the poll forces us to accept are rediculous.

the_syco

Joycey wrote: »

Research shows time and time again that people who earn the most actually give proportionally less money to charity then do the people at the bottom of the earning bracket...

So... rich people are rich because they don't give away money for no return? Shock horror. If I put €100 a week into an account, I'd be rich after a while. If I gave that €100 to some charity every week, I'd still be no better after a few years.

philologos

Joycey wrote: »

But you presented us with a choice which doesnt actually make any sense unless you tie it down. Im assuming 99% of the people who read this thread are in favour of some kind of taxation, and opposing that with "every man for himself" is just rediculous. As for the second option, there is currently no instance of such a society in existence, while it may be that this would be preferable to any society which we now have, I think it might be better to keep the discussion at least somewhat grounded in reality...

Do you realise there was no such thing as a Marxist society before Marxism? Although political theories don't necessarily exist doesn't mean that they cannot come into fruition realistically. It's fine to have an opinion but don't descend into ad-hominems and unneccessary slander of other peoples views without justifying yourself.

There is no reason why this cannot happen even if there isn't a tangible example of it surely?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Zascar

Why should those of us who are ambitious, work hard and achive things and earn money that most do not, have to give it to those who sit on their ass and collect the doll? Doesn't make any sense to me...

Try encouraging the less fortunate to do something to try to improve their situations - but don't reward them for being lazy.

philologos

Zascar: Traditional extreme capitalist view that all people can get out of a terrible situation if they just work. It doesn't work that way a lot of the time. If you are homeless you are going to find it very hard to keep a job. Some people just need a hand up so that they can eventually support themselves.

Joycey

Why should those of us who are ambitious, work hard and achive things and earn money that most do not, have to give it to those who sit on their ass and collect the doll? Doesn't make any sense to me...

Try encouraging the less fortunate to do something to try to improve their situations - but don't reward them for being lazy.

So you dont starve when the company that you work for goes out of business... Although according to donegalfella nobody "has any moral authority" to help you out, il make sure never to fall down the stairs when hes the only one around to save me anyway.

donegalfella wrote: »

And are you under the impression that rich people merely hoard all their wealth in big steel vaults, locking it away from the world so that they can blow raspberries and chant "Nah-na-na-na-na!" from behind the wrought-iron gates of their obscenely oversized mansions? If so, you are wrong. Rich people reinvest their wealth in the economy, where it is put to productive use funding investment, job creation, and entrepreneurship that benefits all of us.

But it benefits them most. The whole "rich people are good because they create jobs" argument is just so specious. If the power to create jobs wasnt in the hands of the rich, but everybody had the means to start their own businesses/employ others etc then why would we need to thank them for something that its only in their power to do because we let them? If people were in a position to choose what was in their best interests in a democratic system, where they were educated, empowered and not brainwashed, then a system wouldnt be long coming into place whereby industries and workplaces were owned, managed and profited from by the people who actually work there, not lazy, fat, golf playing **** who sign their names on pieces of paper and collect paychecks with 7 figures every year.

What do you mean "is allowed to"? Allowed to by whom? Is Big Brother watching?

Allowed to by the people who allow themselves to be put in a position where they are forced to live paycheck to paycheck while

lazy, fat golf playing ****

profit from their daily grind.

When I was three, I was "allowed to" go out and play. As an adult in a free society, I don't have to ask permission to go where I want, do what I want, or earn as much money as I can.

So you can walk into any bank you want with a gun and "earn as much money as I can"? What your saying is that you recognise as legitimate the laws and coercion which allow private interests to profit at the expense of others (such as bailiffs collecting on unpaid mortgages, bouncers on doors of pubs, security guards in banks), but not any kind of egalitarian authority which irons out some of the inequalities which are a direct result of people who think they have a right to "earn as much money as I can" at the expense of everyone else.

Not to mention all the others who have profited from the rapid advances of information technology in the free market.

There is no such thing as the free market. What you are referring to as the "free market" is one which is rigged, with absolute volumes of legislation, protectionism, legitimations of coersive action etc etc, but all in order to protect the interests of the ones with the money. What "free market" proponents are actually argueing for, is a market system which has injustice built into it from the get-go, only those who are profiting from transactions are protected, no regulation is allowed for the environment, for the exploitation of people in countries who are unable to defend themselves etc, on the grounds that "the market is able to regulate itself". What a load of bullsh1t. Fed to people in rich, Western democracies and then mindlessly regurgitated.

If the state had simply intervened to "disallow" Gates & Co. from accumulating personal wealth, they would not have had the incentive to do what they did. The industry would not have taken off in the way it did. Who would have benefitted then? Do you think poor people would have somehow been better off if Gates & Co. had been held down by the jackboot of the state?

I personally think that alot more people would be better off if some of the many billions which Gates has now accumulated was actually used for benefiting some of the people who Microsoft are indebted to for producing the hardware which earned Gates his wealth in sweatshops in South East Asia and the like where they work loooong loooong hours for **** pay and get treated like dirt.

On an aside, you think its actually a good thing that people are indoctrinated to believe that the only reason its worthwhile doing anything which benefits anyone is to accumulate vast amounts of personal wealth? Rest in peace the days when people werent so blatent about being selfish pr1cks.

And Gates has paid his fair share of taxes, too, one might add.

Has he now? Could have fooled me. There was I thinking hes worth a few tens of billions of dollars :rolleyes:

This is the problem with leftists. They complain endlessly about the "ridiculously" wealthy people, with their "obscene" bank accounts, their mansions, their flashy cars, and the like. They somehow assume that all this wealth just exists as some kind of a priori given, and that it just happens to have been distributed unevenly and unfairly.

I only find it obscene when someone who is only in a position to make money in the first place because they have been given the oppurtunity to earn wealth (both in terms of natural ability and environment such as education and the like), is earning vast sums at the expense of those who were lacking in the luck that whoever the rich person had when they were born. Thats my problem. When everyone is in a position that whoever has the talent to do become neurosurgeons, or massively gifted software designers, then I wont consider wasteful splurging of resources obscene.

They never stop to consider that wealthy people are also the creators of wealth. Without them, we wouldn't have wealth to redistribute in the first place.

I tackled this BS at the beginning of my post.

[edit]Incidentally, isnt this kind of reminiscent of the arguments people used in favour of slavery back in the day? If it wasnt for us creating the wealth they wouldnt even have the food to live anyway, so were doing them a good deed.[/edit]

Redistributionism always turns into a case of trying to strangle the goose that lays the golden eggs.

How about trying to strangle the selfish wanker who hoards the eggs which pays for the food that he wont give to the geese that dont lay golden eggs?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

dreamlogic

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

How noble and generous of them. :rolleyes:
Well I disagree with your implication that an employee should be at the mercy of some undemocratic corporation whose main motivations are profiteering and competitiveness in some dog-eat-dog marketplace. What happens when a person is laid off by the company? What then? In your scenario there is no welfare available for the now unemployed person. How are they going to pay rent, live, buy food etc?

What do you mean "is allowed to"? Allowed to by whom? Is Big Brother watching?

It is my belief that businesses and corporations should be run democratically. Each employee should have a vote and a say in how wealth is shared and what happens to whatever profits are made by a company. That is what I meant by the term "allowed to". There is no "moral authority" here; no "big brother" watching. Employees participate and have a realistic say in their own livelihoods.

When I was three, I was "allowed to" go out and play. As an adult in a free society, I don't have to ask permission to go where I want, do what I want, or earn as much money as I can.

I am all in favour of a free society. However I am in favour of freedom for all (or most), not just freedom for the privileged few.

Have you considered what would happen if the state didn't "allow" successful businesspeople to accumulate wealth? To use your example, Bill Gates founded Microsoft in the 1970s. Steve Jobs co-founded Apple. Microsoft and Apple became successful. Gates and Jobs became wealthy. But their efforts—and those of other IT entrepreneurs—have helped to create jobs, income, and wealth for computer programmers, system administrators, IT experts, and untold millions of others around the world who now work in an industry that virtually didn't exist thirty years ago. Not to mention all the others who have profited from the rapid advances of information technology in the free market.

You are assuming that such technological advances would not have happened if wealth was more fairly distributed?!

If the state had simply intervened to "disallow" Gates & Co. from accumulating personal wealth, they would not have had the incentive to do what they did.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the world would be less technologically advanced without the presense of a gigantic monopolising corporation such as Microsoft (renowned by the way for a buggy internet browser and crash-prone operating system... )
IT entrepreneurship would have happened anyway simply because many who are involved in IT development are passionate about their work. You can see ample evidence of this entrepreneurial spirit in the form of international open source projects whose raison d'etre is to provide quality, free, community-owned software and not to generate profit.

Do you think poor people would have somehow been better off if Gates & Co. had been held down by the jackboot of the state?

If we lived in a truly democratic world, the question of a "jackboot" would not even arise simply because these obscene amounts of wealth would not be concentrated in the hands of the few in the first place! There is no justification for one person holding onto such wealth when there are millions in the world who can barely feed and clothe themselves and struggle to keep a roof over their heads. I am not picking on Gates or any particular individuals here. I am simply pointing out the injustice of the system that promotes and encourages profiteering and crude selfishness over community consciousness.

So what? As noted above, Gates is stupendously wealthy because he founded and ran a highly successful software company—but in doing so, he has provided countless benefits to countless others around the world.

Just because someone founds a company, and just because this company happens to become a successful profit-making enterprise does not mean that the founder of this company should cream off the bulk of the profits for themselves and live like royalty for the rest of their lives. For without the hard work of their thousands of employees etc the massive wealth generated by the company would be non-existent! So why are you against a company's wealth being distributed more equitably?

(And Gates has paid his fair share of taxes, too, one might add.)

Well it depends on your definition of "fair share"...
For the record whilst we're on the subject of taxes, I am totally opposed to the misuse of tax for corrupt and non-humanitarian purposes such as warmongering and destruction which is where much of the tax paid by people like Gates has actually gone. If I was in such a position of power and influence I would probably refuse to pay taxes under such circumstances or at least utilize my position of dominance to draw attention to such injuctices. Because I am against bloated, excessive and wasteful, centralized government. However these are perhaps separate topics for another discussion, since this topic is simply about the question of whether or not wealth should be concentrated in the hands of the few, to which my own answer is an emphatic No!

They never stop to consider that wealthy people are also the creators of wealth. Without them, we wouldn't have wealth to redistribute in the first place.

Sorry but it is not quite that simple and you know it! Most of these people who are free to set up businesses are born into a privileged background in the first place. It is relatively easy to generate more wealth if you already have capital to start a business or if for example a wealthy parent can guarantee a loan for a young wannabe entrepreneur. I have nothing against entrepreneurship! I just think that anyone who is talented and willing to work hard should be given a fair chance in society. So that people who are already born into privelege and have their bread buttered on both sides do not have an unfair advantage over someone who may be more talented but cannot for example secure finance from a lending institution in order to realise their ambitions..

Redistributionism always turns into a case of trying to strangle the goose that lays the golden eggs.

Always? Sorry but I don't know where you are getting this from..?
We already have a certain level of redistribution in Ireland for example in the form of unemployment assistance. I admit it is a flawed system but it is better than none at all... And no geese have been strangled because of this...! Or am I misinterpreting what you are getting at here...? Can you give an example of what you mean?

Absolutely. The state has absolutely no moral authority to expropriate an individual's private property on the basis of "social justice."

As I mentioned earlier the question of wealth sharing is not necessarily a question of "moral authority". You seem to be adamant to frame it in such terms. I am opposed to authoritarianism! My argument is that it should not fall to some "authority" to redistribute wealth but that in a truly democratic society, systems of employment and co-operation are such that no single individual has carte blanche to take the profits of collective labour all for themselves in the first place! Why should they when others' labour was essential to the profits that have been generated? (If you want to talk about theft, then if anything, this is what I would classify as theft!)

TheInquisitor

dreamlogic wrote: »

1) It is my belief that businesses and corporations should be run democratically. Each employee should have a vote and a say in how wealth is shared and what happens to whatever profits are made by a company.

2)Just because someone founds a company, and just because this company happens to become a successful profit-making enterprise does not mean that the founder of this company should cream off the bulk of the profits for themselves and live like royalty for the rest of their lives.

1) That is communism.

2) You make it sound so easy to do this. It takes a huge amount of effort , years or decades, not months or weeks of work and huge amounts of risk. Employees are paid for their work, if they are not willing to take the risk and set up their own company then they do not deserve anything more than their wage.

Also you say most people that become rich are from rich families. Where is your proof, that is just pure speculation. Sean Quinn ireland's richest man started off with nothing , took out a £100 loan and built that into a massive fortune. He employees thousands of people and do you know what, he deserves to keep every penny he makes in profit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Se%C3%A1n_Quinn#Irish_business

You keep saying democracy what you mean is communism.

dreamlogic

TheInquisitor wrote: »

dreamlogic wrote: »

It is my belief that businesses and corporations should be run democratically.

That is communism.

I said democratic and democratic is what I meant!
Why do you have difficulty with the word "democratic"? Or is it actually the concept of democracy that you have difficulty with?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.