How much wealth is acceptable?

Ilya_Ilyich

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

So by owning a computer - which is not necessary for a minimum level of survival, you are as morally bankrupt as the rest of us. So why preach what you clearly don't practice?

My personal situation is irrelevant to the topic at hand; my adherence or otherwise to my stated principles has no bearing on their validity.

So now you contradict yourself. Either your 3X income is 'moral' and therefore minimum level then how are the people on one third going to live? On the other hand, if their income is minimum then your 3X is immoral by your own definition above.

As I said, I believe there'd be some degree of pragmatism required if such a system were ever to be implemented. I don't believe I contradicted myself; while I personally believe it would be wrong to be disproportionately wealthy there are those who are motivated purely by personal greed and therefore in the interest of pragmatism I suggest allowing some variance in income/wealth in order to incentivise these people to work. I suggest 3x as a somewhat arbitrary figure, but one which I feel is much more acceptable than the 100s or 1000s of times more income that high-level capitalists of today earn/possess.

There are millions of people living on, say, the equivalent of £20 a week. That's a huge proportion of Africans, Indians and some Chinese.........

So even going with your ludicrous 3X theory, what are you advocating? A 100% tax on all UK income above £60 a week. £3,000 a year. The balance - not required for infrastructure - can be used for foreign aid.

What would be wrong with this?

Will this be positive or negative for the world economy. Discuss!

Pretty sure the labour of the people being used to provide for the people rather than to give wealth to the wealthy would be a net positive.

Cleaver wrote: »

I understand the point you make, which is that people from disadvantaged backgrounds can face barriers when trying to progress in life, especially in terms of work. For example, if your parents are white collar workers with plenty of cash then you probably have more factors growing up that help you: parents who encourage you to study, can help you at uni, can provide you with work experience through their contacts, help you get that first job etc. etc.

However, whilst this is a factor that can't be ignored, it's not the main aspect to this argument. We live in a country where we couldn't really do much more to try and help people from diverse or disadvantaged backgrounds. Yes, there are still some barriers, but the vast majority of people in 2011 have pretty much equal opportunities. So to say again, intelligent, hard working, pleasant people will tend to earn more than those that aren't all those things. And that's just life.

Take a look at my link or do some research of your own; it is significantly less possible for hard-working people now to successfully improve their economic status than it has been in the past and the trend is increasing. This is the case regardless of how you personally might feel about the issue.

ninky_2

Pete111 wrote: »

But surely the 'wage slaves' ending up paying for the non paying underclass is a textbook definition of a 'drag' on pure capitalism?

I can't see how these useless mouths are anything but a hinderence..unless you start from the point that the majority must be working all hours to live more or less hand to mouth for capitalism to work. Is that it?

no the majority don't need to be living "hand to mouth" but they must never be able to reach an level of inherited assets that would allow them to give up work. each generation must contain a majority who are indebted rather than asset income rich.

the underclass are an important factor in creating this indebtedness.

it's one of the reasons early colonised australia failed to prosper. the newly arrived were given free land. they instantly became asset rich. this meant there was no on to work the land. this lesson was learned when it came to colonising new zealand. social classes were represented in equal measure and land was not free. this allowed the capitalist system to be transported more readily. they also had an the maori's to swiftly turn into unsuspecting general providers of the underclass.

N1AK

chucky wrote: »

apologies for upsetting anyone in advance but why is it that the majority of children that are diagnosed with ADHD are boys and are from single parent families?

Good questions, and ones that deserves looking into. Most of the students at the school I attended had parents who had divorced or separated. Perhaps problem children cause break ups? Or perhaps break ups cause behavioural issues? Either way, if someone could work out how and why, and thus how to combat that problem it would be a great benefit to society.

Although many were separated, I would like to make clear that most were still good parents and abuse from parents was not a common theme.

N1AK

Ilya_Ilyich wrote: »

my adherence or otherwise to my stated principles has no bearing on their validity.

They cannot be your stated principles if you yourself do not believe in them. Are you suggesting that you believe they are right, but are too weak/selfish to follow them?

If you believe we should do everything within our power to help others, then the only 'ethical' lifestyle would be to work as hard as possible, live on the most meagre budget possible and give away the rest to worthy causes. Time spent posting on this forum would be 'unethical' because that time could be better used to help those in need.

Most people find the above position preposterous, though I respect your position if you believe in it, and are willing to admit your own weakness in being unable to adhere to your own principles.

Personally, I find the idea that I was born with the inherent purpose of self-sacrifice for the greater good of humanity rather distasteful.

[Deleted User]

The_White_Horse wrote: »

if a lot of the problem is caused by kids coming from disadvantaged backgrounds, why do we keep paying scum to breed like bacteria?

You seem to posture on here as a highly successful businessman yet on another thread you commented that you earn less than two of your teacher neighbours combined. Although no doubt significantly above average wage it hardly justifies your arrogance.

I don't agree with paying people who make no effort to breed via the benefits system but I think low income working couples should get some help. I certainly wouldn't be such a bigot as to brand them all as scum.

If you want the scum out of society where are you going to go?

Loughton_Monkey

Ilya_Ilyich wrote: »

What would be wrong with this?

Ilya_Ilyich wrote: »

Pretty sure the labour of the people being used to provide for the people rather than to give wealth to the wealthy would be a net positive.

Well I could write a book on what would be wrong. Not a single person earning less than £6 an hour and not a single person earning more than £18 an hour.

What you describe is basically pure Russian Communism. Financial Misery for the whole population for years.

Maybe you should go to North Korea, which is about the only country left on this earth that runs this sort of system.

Let us know how you get on.

noh

It appears that the countries with the most even income distribution are in the scandinavian region
North Korea is not much different to here in terms of income inequality although of course the level of that income is much lower.

http://www.visionofhumanity.org/gpi-data/#/2010/GINI

Ilya_Ilyich

I'm not advocating central planning. That said, why do you believe that the USSR's economic policies produced 'misery'? Do you think the average Russian was better off under the tsars or after the revolution? Do you believe the average Russian today is better off than they would have been under a continued Marxist-Leninist system?

Mentioning the DPRK with (presumably) the intention of conflating its sorry state with socialist policies is pretty dishonest; as you know its situation is far from a direct result of its economic policies.

N1AK wrote: »

They cannot be your stated principles if you yourself do not believe in them. Are you suggesting that you believe they are right, but are too weak/selfish to follow them?

If you believe we should do everything within our power to help others, then the only 'ethical' lifestyle would be to work as hard as possible, live on the most meagre budget possible and give away the rest to worthy causes. Time spent posting on this forum would be 'unethical' because that time could be better used to help those in need.

Most people find the above position preposterous, though I respect your position if you believe in it, and are willing to admit your own weakness in being unable to adhere to your own principles.

Personally, I find the idea that I was born with the inherent purpose of self-sacrifice for the greater good of humanity rather distasteful.

I agree it'd be essentially impossible to live that way. I believe that something like that would be the 'ideal' that one should strive towards - but of course nobody could ever attain it. The issue might lie in my choice of words - I think the claim "I believe it is 'more moral' to donate more of your money to charity" would be better-received than "I believe it is immoral to donate only small amounts to charity".

I mean something similar to the old Christian maxim "Love thy neighbour" - it's always possible to love your neighbour just a little bit more, but you can still do it 'enough' to be considered a good Christian.

My issue isn't so much a feeling that I naturally need to sacrifice myself for the common good. My views are more driven by the awareness that my incredibly privileged position is essentially due to luck, and that the income and goods I enjoy are only to some tiny degree the results of my labours but come primarily from the exploitation and in many cases brutal repression of the poor. Unfortunately I'm not able to dehumanise as 'scum' those born less fortunate than myself, and so my motivation is primarily one of guilt and desire to assuage it by improving matters.

ninky_2

N1AK wrote: »

Good questions, and ones that deserves looking into. Most of the students at the school I attended had parents who had divorced or separated. Perhaps problem children cause break ups? Or perhaps break ups cause behavioural issues? .

adhd has been linked to certain genetic makeup so perhaps genetics of the parent(s) are linked to greater chance of relationship breakup / failure AND behavioural issues.

i do wonder why we have an obsession with calling everything a 'disorder' rather than a difference. it is possible /likely that the behavioural differences thrown up by things like autism and adhd actually strengthen the likelihood of species survival. it makes us more adaptable. in certain situations a lack of empathy and increased risk taking could actually be advantageous.

alfiesmum

Somebody may have already done this link, my apolgies if they have, I haven't had time to read right through at the moment. It might interest a few of you: http://www.globalrichlist.com/
It will tell you where you are in the worlds richest people list.