Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As an American who supports some degree of income redistribution (see above), I disagree with this very, very strongly.
I see progressive redistribution via taxes as an offset to our regressive distribution via fractional reserve banking. You sound like you don't agree with the idea of markets in general, a la communism or socialism.
What? How do you conclude that? You did not even adress anything in my post.
What? How do you conclude that? You did not even adress anything in my post.
Alright:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pamky
My justification: Some jobs/occupations generate bigger income than other even though people work as hard as the ones that receive higher paychecks.
Here you're saying that hard work is the justification for income redistribution.
Quote:
The income gap is not always justified by a different investment in schooling. Here e.g. social workers earn lower wages even though many of them went to university for many years. Their jobs just don't generate much revenue, so there are no big incomes to make.
This was unclear, but it seems that you're saying that a person who makes poor decisions in the marketplace, and chooses a profession that is not worth much to society, is somehow entitled to higher income based on the amount of time they spent in school.
Quote:
But every society needs social workers or other workers that are paid low incomes (like plumbers, metal workers etc.).
If people earn more just by sheer luck (because we value some occupations more than others), then it is only fair that these people will have to deal with higher taxes.
It isn't luck that dictates incomes, it is scarcity and need.
Social workers grow on trees. I know so many poorly-skilled, unmotivated girls my age who got their masters degree in social work. My opinion is that they contribute far less to society than they believe they do.
Plumbers make good money.. but if they don't, then it seems fair, based on how the labor market allocates wages based on scarcity.
Removing scarcity from the wage equation is an anti-market perspective.
I would like to hear how people justify confiscating money from the people that earn it so that they may give it to those who did not earn it.
Please answer the question only with intelligent and sound responses and remain on topic. Do not turn this into another verbal food fight by throwing out what ever you can think of. Any off subject responses will be considered trolling.
If you think you can intelligently articulate a sound basis for income re-distribution please do so. If not, don't reply.
Is this the kind of income redistribution you're talking of?
"The U.S. government and the Federal Reserve have spent, lent or committed $12.8 trillion, an amount that approaches the value of everything produced in the country last year, to stem the longest recession since the 1930s.
“The president and Treasury Secretary Geithner have said they will do what it takes,” Goldman Sachs Group Inc. Chief Executive Officer Lloyd Blankfein said after the meeting. “If it is enough, that will be great. If it is not enough, they will have to do more.”
Here you're saying that hard work is the justification for income redistribution.
Read again:
Some jobs/occupations generate bigger income than other even though people work as hard as the ones that receive higher paychecks.
Quote:
This was unclear, but it seems that you're saying that a person who makes poor decisions in the marketplace, and chooses a profession that is not worth much to society, is somehow entitled to higher income based on the amount of time they spent in school.
Wrong. I said income differences are not always due to different investment in education. I think society can agree that a doctor who spent 7 or 8 years in university, should be rewarded with a higher income than someone that did not finish high school.
"Poor decisions in the marketplace"?
You still chose a job that you like, OR that you CAN do based on your personal skills. Not everyone can become a doctor or an engineer. In don't believe that people that do jobs that needs to be done, should live in poverty only because we don't value their jobs.
But I don't believe there should not be any differences in incomes at all.
Quote:
It isn't luck that dictates incomes, it is scarcity and need.
Quote:
Social workers grow on trees. I know so many poorly-skilled, unmotivated girls my age who got their masters degree in social work. My opinion is that they contribute far less to society than they believe they do.
Plumbers make good money.. but if they don't, then it seems fair, based on how the labor market allocates wages based on scarcity.
Removing scarcity from the equation is anti-market.
Well, these are your own anecdotes and these were only two examples.
Also, it is definitely not only scarcity determines how wages are allocated. You don't have free markets (we neither), because today lobbys determine wages as well. They have a big impact on income. And by lobbys I mean both lobbys like banks, or the pharma industry and labour unions that also determine wages.
What is more greedy:
[1] Keeping what you earned, or
[2] Taking what someone else earned?
If you are a recipient of government's entitlement system, you are grateful to the government, not the donor. That is injustice compounded. And as long as recipients can wield the vote, they will continue to bleed the nation until it collapses. It's human nature. Expressing outrage at those who wish to keep what is theirs and not have it given to someone else, is misplaced.
The victim is the donor, not the recipient.
Envy of the rich is not a virtue, but a vice. Seeking to dispossess him is not moral, but evil.
I would rep you again if they would let me - great post!
Anybody catch the special "Battle for the Future" with John Stossel?
It was an excellent program in which Stossel debunked all of the entitlement claims in this thread about who and what is responsible for our nations economic well being.
Basically, there are two classes; the givers and the takers. The givers are the ones who create jobs like the "Paychex" founder B. Thomas Golisano who pays over $700,000 in income tax annually and employees I forget how many thousands of people. People like him are the givers in society.
People like Golisano are what fuel or economy. They, through their efforts, are the ones who make it possible for others to earn a living. See, most people simply don't have what it takes to create wealth for themselves. They need others to create the opportunity for wealth for them. In exchange, they agree to a specified task for a given income.
Because there are few people who have what it takes to create wealth and so many that need an opportunity provided for them, it makes sense that there are a tiny handful of rich and a great deal of middle class and poor. It isn't a conspiracy at all but a natural order. And it is fair as well because the person creating these wealth opportunities is immensely more valuable than those that receive the benefit of their wealth creating ability.
Now, you are surly tempted to argue that the rich (owners) were "given" the opportunities to begin with and the workers (workers) were not. But the facts show that this is false. Most lottery winners are broke soon after receiving their winnings. The same is true of a great many entertainers who make monumental sums of money for a short while. Think of MC Hammer, Mike Tyson and even Michael Jackson.
Owners are simply a different breed. Anyone who has worked in a small business knows this quite well. Owners simply think on a different level and in a different way. It is their thinking and their choices that are responsible for their success. And conversely, most of the time it is the worker's thinking and actions that keep him at the bottom. Now of course there are idiot rich kids in positions they haven't earned and probably don't deserve. But the fact is, someone else did earn the power and they bequeathed it to their kid as is their right.
Anyway, this thread has degraded into another verbal food fight in which everyone just throws whatever they can think of. Most of the "arguments" and I use the term loosely are nothing more than appeals to emotion based on a school yard view of "fairness" in which the term is defined according to how equally something is distributed. If Johnny brings 6 cookies to school and the other kids have none "it isn't fair." Never mind the fact that the other kids are not entitled to Johnny's cookies.
It is a fallacy to attempt to prove injustice based on equal wealth allocation. The wealth is exactly where it should be, with the ones who CREATE (not control) it - the givers. The proper way to get a giver to give you some of their wealth is to trade something for it. Generally, this would be your skills or labor. To attempt to use the political system to steal from the givers makes you a taker. Takers hurt us all - givers benefit us all.
Yeah who gave them the right to steal 40% of the economy and now take it to China. Executive Salaries went from 30 times a workers pay to 500 times a workers pay. Talk about redistrution of wealth!
That's not your wealth. They aren't taxing you or taking money out of your pay check to add to theirs.
Some jobs/occupations generate bigger income than other even though people work as hard as the ones that receive higher paychecks.
Wrong. I said income differences are not always due to different investment in education. I think society can agree that a doctor who spent 7 or 8 years in university, should be rewarded with a higher income than someone that did not finish high school.
"Poor decisions in the marketplace"?
You still chose a job that you like, OR that you CAN do based on your personal skills. Not everyone can become a doctor or an engineer. In don't believe that people that do jobs that needs to be done, should live in poverty only because we don't value their jobs.
But I don't believe there should not be any differences in incomes at all.
Well, these are your own anecdotes and these were only two examples.
Also, it is definitely not only scarcity determines how wages are allocated. You don't have free markets (we neither), because today lobbys determine wages as well. They have a big impact on income. And by lobbys I mean both lobbys like banks, or the pharma industry and labour unions that also determine wages.
So you're saying that just because someone has a college education they should get paid more than the person who doesn't have college education but performs the job just as well or better? If that's what you're saying, that is pure socialism playing favoritism to elitism. If you have the skills to do the job well, education has not a damn thing to do with it and you should be paid for your skills, not the useless trivia you might know.
So you're saying that just because someone has a college education they should get paid more than the person who doesn't have college education but performs the job just as well or better? If that's what you're saying, that is pure socialism playing favoritism to elitism. If you have the skills to do the job well, education has not a damn thing to do with it and you should be paid for your skills, not the useless trivia you might know.
That's not what I said. Try again. Btw, to work as a doctor you need college education. At least here. I don't know how someone without college education can do this job.
In most societies more years of education lead to higher incomes (in many cases). You cannot argue that. You might read what I wrote in the other posts.
The labour market doesn't necessary pay for skills. Some jobs pay lower wages, independent of how hard people work or how skillful one is.
Can you explain this sentence:
If that's what you're saying, that is pure socialism playing favoritism to elitism.
That's not what I said. Try again. Btw, to work as a doctor you need college education. At least here. I don't know how someone without college education can do this job.
In most societies more years of education lead to higher incomes (in many cases). You cannot argue that. You might read what I wrote in the other posts.
The labour market doesn't necessary pay for skills. Some jobs pay lower wages, independent of how hard people work or how skillful one is.
Can you explain this sentence:
If that's what you're saying, that is pure socialism playing favoritism to elitism.
Education is socialism?
So what, people work hard at UNSKILLED jobs all the time. They should get high pay just because they work hard? Yeah right, so you are saying that someone that works hard at McDonalds or other fast food restaurants should get the same high pay as an IT network engineer? BTW, you don't have to go to college to be a network engineer, 6 months of trade school is sufficient. On the other hand, you have a network engineer that went to college and one that went to trade school. The college person doesn't have the same skill set as the trade school person, should the college educated get the higher pay or the person with the higher skill set?
No, education is not socialism, your brand of trying to justify higher pay just because someone went to college although they have a lesser skill set is elitism favoritism.
It is a fallacy to attempt to prove injustice based on equal wealth allocation. The wealth is exactly where it should be, with the ones who CREATE (not control) it - the givers. The proper way to get a giver to give you some of their wealth is to trade something for it. Generally, this would be your skills or labor. To attempt to use the political system to steal from the givers makes you a taker. Takers hurt us all - givers benefit us all.
So once again, what do you want to see happen to make you feel better about all the wealth the rich turn over to the government? In other words, do you want ALL government welfare to be abolished and replaced by private charities? Or would doing that still be out of order to you, if the private charity does not require takers to do some work first? Some people, though, may not have any skills or service to offer in return.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
