Equality and Fairness

Generali

Just a thought.

If you want an end to income inequality through taxes on the rich and redistributing that income then presumably that should be extended to everyone across the world rather than ending the largesse at Ventnor.

Gross World Product was US$69,620,000,000,000 at y/e 2008 and the world's population was 6,790,062,216 as of end July 2009 according to the CIA (link).

GWP per head (assuming there is no loss from redistribution which there would be but let's ignore that) would be about US$10,250/person.

Would you choose to live on a hundred quid or so per week or is equality for you but not for other people?

After all, if you want taxes imposed on all those horrid bankers and pop stars then it's only fair that poor peasant farmers should live off taxes imposed on you as a fat cat cleaner or admin clerk. Right?

the_ash_and_the_oak

Removing tariffs might be an easier start to global equality?

Cleaver

You big old trouble maker Mr Generali.

nearlynew

Make poverty history?


History makes poverty more like.

tomterm8

Generali wrote: »

Just a thought.

If you want an end to income inequality ?

Urm, I don't. I would quite like to end absolute poverty (defined as: not having access to the basic necessities of life in return for a reasonable amount of labour) worldwide, but the best way to do that is to encourage global trade. Inequality is a rather useful feature of the capitalist system, as long as there is also social mobility.

the_ash_and_the_oak

tomterm8 wrote: »

Urm, I don't. I would quite like to end absolute poverty (defined as: not having access to the basic necessities of life in return for a reasonable amount of labour) worldwide, but inequality is a rather useful feature of the capitalist system.

Inequality is a necessary function of capitalism imo (unemployment in particular - a flexible pool of people to be taken on in time of boom and let go in leaner times - one of the reasons for the welfare state imo).

there was less poverty (and other than vagrants - no unemployment) under feudalism than capitalism imo (this isn't a value judgement in any way) - esp globally (we've managed to square the circle quite well by exporting our working class)

michaels

Worked so well when they tried it in the Soviet Union I thought...

Generali wrote: »

Just a thought.

If you want an end to income inequality through taxes on the rich and redistributing that income then presumably that should be extended to everyone across the world rather than ending the largesse at Ventnor.

Gross World Product was US$69,620,000,000,000 at y/e 2008 and the world's population was 6,790,062,216 as of end July 2009 according to the CIA (link).

GWP per head (assuming there is no loss from redistribution which there would be but let's ignore that) would be about US$10,250/person.

Would you choose to live on a hundred quid or so per week or is equality for you but not for other people?

After all, if you want taxes imposed on all those horrid bankers and pop stars then it's only fair that poor peasant farmers should live off taxes imposed on you as a fat cat cleaner or admin clerk. Right?

PasturesNew

Generali wrote: »

GWP per head (assuming there is no loss from redistribution which there would be but let's ignore that) would be about US$10,250/person.

That's plenty if I live in a tent. It's the cost of housing that stuffs us in this country. US$10,250 is roughly what a single pensioner would get, but they'd have rent/council tax paid too. So it is doable ... if only we can kill the high cost of housing.

Edit: I would say that at today's exchange rate this is about £6,200. Also, while you're measuring it in $s, my long-term observations and conversations with multiple Americans tells me time and time again that for wages/cost of living and general prices an American earning $10k is doing the same job as somebody earning £10k and for all aspects of their life the currency symbols are interchangeable, meaning $10,250 will buy an American what £10,250 will buy a Brit.

But either figure works for me. £6,200 is livable (with housing costs covered) and I've been earning about £10,250 for the last year, so yes that's doable too (and I pay housing out of that).

tomterm8

the_ash_and_the_oak wrote: »

there was more equality under feudalism than capitalism imo (this isn't a value judgement in any way)

Maybe you could explain how you are coming to this conclusion; I think it depends on where and which kind of feudalism you are talking about. Feudalism in russia amounted to near slavery, for example. A landowner could sell you to another landowner, while keeping all your personal property and your family. He could do pretty much anything he wanted in practice, except kill you (and even if he did kill you, there were rarely any consequences).

the_ash_and_the_oak

Sorry - I changed that to "less poverty - and minimal unemployment" as I got distracted when writing it first time around

the_ash_and_the_oak

also wanted to add that the other main function of unemployment in capitalism imo is to put a brake on wage inflation and labour power.