Equality and Fairness

Mr_Mumble

I'm so challenged that I had to google Ventnor

Undefined words have a special power in politics, particularly when they invoke some principle that engages people's emotions. "Fair" is one of those undefined words which have attracted political support... While the fact that the word is undefined is an intellectual handicap, it is a huge political advantage. People with very different views on substantive issues can be unified and mobilized behind a word that papers over their differing, and sometimes even mutually contradictory, ideas. Who, after all, is in favor of unfairness? Similarly with "social justice," "equality," and other undefined terms that can mean wholly different things to different individuals and groups— all of whom can be mobilized in support of policies that use such appealing words.

-- Thomas Sowell, Economic Facts and Fallacies (page 1).

the_ash_and_the_oak wrote: »

Removing tariffs might be an easier start to global equality?

We have to subsidise first world farmers to disadvantage Africa. If we don't some French politician'll say something about us not being good Europeans. :eek:

Generali

Someone earning a fiver an hour that is employed for 20 hours a week would be considered middle class by most of the world's population.

kabayiri

A side on view, and all my own uneducated drivel ...

Before we can achieve any level of equality in income, we have to improve the sustainability of what we produce.

I can't see how the current model which served us for the last 2 decades can persist. A vast army of highly worked, lowly paid, people producing ever greater quantities of consumerist crap (and a lot of it is crap).

Where is the sustainability in a 5 quid toaster, or 20 quid dvd player, which might survive its warranty?

How many remote control dune buggys does the average UK household need?

Somehow we have to switch the model so that more produce is created and consumed locally, that local workers are able to spend their earnings on local produce, that there is a shift to higher quality goods with greater longevity but with improved service income potential.

Afriend_2

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?

Is the OP a thinly disguised attack on Communism? Communism has been shown not to work.
IMHO, for a system to succeed, it needs to take into account that most people are inherently selfish.
It can then use this to benefit the common good.

BTW. I think purchasing power parity is a better 'leveller' than income.

Afriend_2

PasturesNew wrote: »

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).

PN, I am surprised you have spare monies to buy cigarettes. Special highly functioning types like yourself often have greater dependence on nicotene. Perhaps doctors should prescribe patches for free. While somewhat toxic, it will be better for your lungs. I am off topic, sorry.

StevieJ

michaels wrote: »

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

I am sure Stalin was on the average income :rolleyes:

ninky_2

Generali wrote: »

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

it's pointless putting a figure on income equality whilst assuming that if this was actually in place everything would cost what it does now. what i, and i think most people if they thought about it, am really concerned with is what resources i would have access to in this new equal income world - and therefore what the income would actually mean in reality.

what i'd like for myself is somewhere simple to live with enough land to grow some of my own food, an efficient transport system with freedom of movement, plenty of access to wilderness and wild areas and the freedom to roam and camp on these along with some sort of progressive prevention focused healthcare system and education system for all.

if i live in a society where many of the basics are taken care of. where private property does not take priority over freedom of movement. where food production is considered a basic human right and we don't have to spend a fortune on policing and military to protect ourselves from the have nots and the disenfranchised then i don't think a large salary is necessary.

LauraW10

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?

I'm not sure if you are having a pop at me but I pay enough tax to keep a couple of teachers employed for a year. I have no way of avoiding this tax as it is paid through the PAYE system.

I don't begrudge a penny of the tax I pay. However, I do like to think that it goes to the NHS or the Education system rather than being spent on quangos or bombs.

When the bill comes in for the credit crunch I will almost certainly be asked to give even more. I will probably have to pay tax at 50% next year. Of course I don't want to pay more tax but I'd rather pay more tax than see those living on hardly anything living on even less.

What I'm not going to do is start blaming people on benefits for this god awful mess. Nor am I about to become a communist.

PasturesNew

Afriend wrote: »

Special highly functioning types like yourself often have greater dependence on nicotene.

Really? What a brilliant excuse!
Where did that come from?

PasturesNew

Generali wrote: »

Someone earning a fiver an hour that is employed for 20 hours a week would be considered middle class by most of the world's population.

I earn about £2-3/hour, I just work a lot of hours so it adds up to about £30-40/day ... and it miffs me that I get taxed still because tax is on how much you earn, not how long it takes you to earn it