Let's Debate Inequality

[Shadow Wolf]

This nonsense of comparing greed to rape needs to end. Rape is hateful, hurtful and destroys people in ways greed rarely can.

 

[Koldo]

Because you earned it.

Did I? How do you know?
And even if I earned it, that still doesn't explain why I would keep it to myself.

So it is greedy to keep what you earned but not greedy to take from someone else what they earned?

Depends on why the money is taken. Is it to feed the hunger and provide a shelter to the homeless? Or is it to eat at a very expensive restaurant?

 

[Heyo]

Err, that was explicitly one of my points that I repeatedly made.

Simply assuming anyone who disagrees with you must be irrational while ignoring their actual reasons isn’t a great stance.

The reasons you gave were based on assumptions of how people might react to the proposal, not on facts. You didn't take into account the benefits of the proposal (i.e. no income taxes while you're alive). You didn't compare the proposal's effects to alternative methods (i.e. higher taxes, at least a steeper progression) or no action at all.
Except from the emotional reaction, it should be preferable to everyone to pay taxes after death. And for anyone who believes in meritocracy, it should be preferable that everyone starts the game with the same amount of money.
Your objections suffer from not taking the premises into account, not comparing the proposal to alternatives, or not looking at the status quo.

On psychology, yet another great example of Michael Oakeshott’s prescient observation that the rationalist “finds it hard to believe that anyone who thinks honestly and clearly could think differently to himself”.

That's an inherent feature of rationalism. When you don't have a flaw in your thinking, there is only one rational solution.

 

[Nakosis]

Did I? How do you know?

If you stole it, then it wouldn't really apply.

And even if I earned it, that still doesn't explain why I would keep it to myself.

But it does explain why you have a right to.

Depends on why the money is taken. Is it to feed the hunger and provide a shelter to the homeless? Or is it to eat at a very expensive restaurant?

I suppose if your compassion is a matter of using other people's money.

 

[Koldo]

If you stole it, then it wouldn't really apply.

Why not? And why would it apply if I didn't steal it?

But it does explain why you have a right to.

Anything explains why anyone has any right.

I suppose if your compassion is a matter of using other people's money.

I am not talking about compassion though.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Here is an article showing unambiguously that competition eliminates less productive firms and cause an increase in productivity for surviving firms.

Agreed.

It's self-evidently true that the profit incentive drives people to do up to these four things, the first three being beneficial and the last requiring laws and regulations to mitigate:

• People are more creative in order to make more money. Come up with a good idea and you can make bank on it
• People are more efficient in order to make more money. Streamline production or reduce overhead and profits go up.
• People are more industrious in order to make more money. Get an education. Work full time. Open a new branch of your business.
• People will harm and cheat others in order to make more money.

The ideal approach in my opinion is to capitalize on the positive aspects of the first three behaviors, outlaw and penalize the fourth, and incorporate elements of socialism to underpin infrastructure, foster human development, and assist those facing misfortune.

That is the question for you to answer.

You: How much wealth is too much? What is the number?
Me: How much money does anybody need? Whatever the number, more than that is greed
You: That is the question for you to answer.

I did answer it.

Maybe you meant for me personally and specifically. We have enough money to sustain our current lifestyle until we die, and it's not because we're obscenely wealthy, but because we are debt-free and live humbly in an inexpensive economy that costs less to live in than our income, which is just interest income and Social Security, but that means that our savings grow every year.

I retired fifteen years ago because I thought I could, so why go on working? Why work for money that you don't need? The trick is to have the ability to say, "I have enough."

What I mean by living humbly is that we drive a 2001 vehicle. I almost never buy clothes. We don't go to bars. We're done travelling. Doctors, vets, and medications are much less expensive here. A nice dinner for two here is well under $50 USD including a generous tip. Lunch for two today was 380 pesos - about $19 USD before tip, and that included a margarita.

This is all we need. We could spend more, but why? On what? A new car? This one is still running just fine.

But I'm well aware that for many, there is no such thing as enough money. They're at a disadvantage. They're never satisfied. Too bad that. My peers are still working in their seventies. I've been on vacation in paradise for fifteen years now. That had more value than more money.

People in a free society have the right to accumulate as much wealth as they want.

People in a free society also have the right to limit that. I would if I could. America was financially healthiest and had its strongest middle class when taxes were progressive and the highest rates approached 100%:

"The top income tax rate reached above 90% from 1944 through 1963, peaking in 1944, when top taxpayers paid an income tax rate of 94% on their taxable income."

That was the American pinnacle.

just because someone has more does not mean someone else has to have less.

History and common sense contradict you. Ever since the class wars of the Reagan era, the wealthy have been getting wealthier on the backs of the middle class. More for them meant less for you and me. The less they pay staff, the greater their profits and the poorer the staff.

 

[Kfox]

Problems with inequality is concentration of power in the hands of the wealthy. They can, and do, buy politicians and ensure that their interests are served....vitiating the role of the govt.

With today’s technology, power is not concentrated in the hands of the wealthy. Look at the BLM movement, look at the defund the Police movement; these were started by people of little wealth, and they were able to control politicians, academia and pretty much every major corporation world wide even though they were dumb ideas.

Second is misallocation of resources. A rich person may prefer to spend money on luxury goods, diverting resources from essential goods and services. We can call it the pyramid problem.

I find it hard to believe rich people go around neglecting things they find essential just so they could buy luxury items. Can you give an example of this actually happening in the real world?

 

[Watchmen]

If you're going to ignore reality we have nothing to discuss.

Half measures are just half measures. They don't address the real problem of rewarding greed and corruption. Capitalism rewards greed and corruption, and so enables and encourages it.

That wasn't capitalism. That was technological advancement.

Holding government accountable is “ignoring reality”? Please.

You think greed and corruption is unique to capitalism? It exists, to some extent, in all economic systems currently. But capitalism provides the best opportunities to improve one’s situation.

And it wasn’t technological advancement, it was capitalism. Technological advancement occurred with every advanced country, but it’s the capitalists who lifted people up the most.

 

[Augustus]

The reasons you gave were based on assumptions of how people might react to the proposal, not on facts

Policies must take into account human psychology and assumptions about how people might act.

A policy that presumes people will simply do as you please would be most irrational.

One fact is that people already try to avoid estate tax, especially the super rich.

You didn't take into account the benefits of the proposal (i.e. no income taxes while you're alive)

Currently in some countries people pay around 50% tax on income and 50% on estate.

The super rich don’t of course because many people seek to avoid tax if they can.

No income tax while you are alive while people furiously offshore wealth and buy every advantage for their children isn’t going to create equality.

That's an inherent feature of rationalism. When you don't have a flaw in your thinking, there is only one rational solution.

The idea anyone could think there is only one “rational” solution to any problem in a complex system is worrying.

Unfortunately the real world is indeed complex, humans are not particularly rational, and the most impeccably “rational” solution frequently ends up not working the way it is intended.

Yet many people fail to learn and assume next time the reality will definitely match the theory.

It’s just that the other people were irrational…

 

[sayak83]

Nevertheless, we humans lived in extended family clans for many thousands of years, and quite successfully. To the point where the raising of children was considered a communal responsibility. And the well being of the clan, and of the individual within the clan, were quite literally one and the same.

We can't even comprehend this way of living, now, because our minds have been so long buried under many generations of capitalist greed and competition. In an "every-man-for-himself" culture. Where every trade is an attempt at exploitation. Them or us.

Oh, I can well comprehend that way of living. Just look at the tribal clans of Afganistan, the countless examples of honor killing and caste violence in South Asia etc etc. A person calling back humanity to live in communal clans has no idea as to how bad it is to live like that. Living in North Korea is more favorable than that option. Thank you.

 

[sayak83]

With today’s technology, power is not concentrated in the hands of the wealthy. Look at the BLM movement, look at the defund the Police movement; these were started by people of little wealth, and they were able to control politicians, academia and pretty much every major corporation world wide even though they were dumb ideas.

I find it hard to believe rich people go around neglecting things they find essential just so they could buy luxury items. Can you give an example of this actually happening in the real world?

An important and relevant movement like BLM failed because the political leadership was captured by capitalist special interests. Similarly occupy wall streets movement. Most civil movements in the last 20-30 years have failed because of this concentration of power in the hands of the few.
The enormous investment in cosmetic procedures (plastic surgery, skin creams etc) by pharma companies rather than medicines and vaccines for serious tropical diseases (malaria etc.) is an example. In US, there is enough money to construct and maintain affordable housing, and yet the homelessness crisis continues to increase. There is more money spent on storing, supplying and bottling luxury wines than making it possible for the poor to access clean water or fresh vegetable and fruits. Etc.

 

[Koldo]

Holding government accountable is “ignoring reality”? Please.

You think greed and corruption is unique to capitalism? It exists, to some extent, in all economic systems currently. But capitalism provides the best opportunities to improve one’s situation.

And it wasn’t technological advancement, it was capitalism. Technological advancement occurred with every advanced country, but it’s the capitalists who lifted people up the most.

You probably meant imperialists and colonialists, rather than capitalists.

 

[Kfox]

Playing stupid isn't going to get you anywhere.

There is limited food, clothing, shelter. There is limited health care, education, and career opportunity. There is limited time, energy, and resources from which we humans can generate these nevessities. And money is simply a convenient abstract representation of them that we use to trade them with other.

So the more money one manages to capture through unfair trade practices the more access to and control over all these necessities one has, and consequently, the LESS access to and control over these necessities everyone else has. Because these necessities of life are limited.

Are you gonna answer my question? Or keep dodging. You made a claim about wealth claiming it is not limitless, and it is captured rather than created. Your claim was about WEALTH, not food, clothes, shelter, money, or all that other stuff you trying to bring into the picture, that does have a limit. Now are you gonna answer my question? Or are you gonna keep dodging.

 

[Kfox]

Playing stupid isn't going to get you anywhere.

There is limited food, clothing, shelter. There is limited health care, education, and career opportunity. There is limited time, energy, and resources from which we humans can generate these nevessities. And money is simply a convenient abstract representation of them that we use to trade them with other.

So the more money one manages to capture through unfair trade practices the more access to and control over all these necessities one has, and consequently, the LESS access to and control over these necessities everyone else has. Because these necessities of life are limited.

Are you gonna answer my question? Or keep dodging. You made a claim about wealth claiming it is not limitless, and it is captured rather than created. Your claim was about WEALTH, not food, clothes, shelter, money, or all that other stuff you trying to bring into the picture, that does have a limit. Now are you gonna answer my question? Or are you gonna keep dodging.

 

[Kfox]

You have a tendency to ask for numbers that don't exist.

No I don’t; go back and look at who I am responding to. If my questions sound absurd, it’s because I am asking them in the context of what this person believes.

Wealth gets created (and destroyed) constantly. So there is only a number for wealth at a given time.

You’re preachin’ to the Choir! The person I am responding to claims wealth is NOT created, but is captured, and there is a limited amount of wealth that could be captured. So the obvious question to ask is; if wealth is limited, where is the limit?

And there is a distribution of wealth at a given time. Any wealth the rich have captured is not available to the rest, at a given time.

What do you mean by that? Take Musk for example who created billions by building an electric car that people actually want to drive. Obviously he isn't preventing anyone else from doing the same, so what do you mean by this?

 

[Kfox]

Did I? How do you know?
And even if I earned it, that still doesn't explain why I would keep it to myself.

Everybody is entitled to the fruits of their own labor. Nobody has a right to demand others work harder in order to support their chosen lifestyle.

Depends on why the money is taken. Is it to feed the hunger and provide a shelter to the homeless? Or is it to eat at a very expensive restaurant?

How about if it's so someone else can have children they can't afford to raise, and refrain from working because they'd rather drink alcohol and smoke drugs all day?
IMO; You don’t have an inherent moral right to the property of labor of someone else. You can purchase it, they can voluntarily give it to you, but don’t confuse a need for a service or commodity as a “right” to it. You don’t get to steal or enslave other people to meet your needs.

 

[Augustus]

Nevertheless, we humans lived in extended family clans for many thousands of years, and quite successfully. To the point where the raising of children was considered a communal responsibility. And the well being of the clan, and of the individual within the clan, were quite literally one and the same.

We can't even comprehend this way of living, now, because our minds have been so long buried under many generations of capitalist greed and competition. In an "every-man-for-himself" culture. Where every trade is an attempt at exploitation. Them or us.

Yes, in a completely different environment where people have reciprocal personal relationships that are key to survival people will behave differently.

In a modern urban setting, these personal bonds do not exist. Modern communication and transportation technology and any modern economy make them impossible to recreate.

We can’t put the genie back in the bottle and return to a simpler past, and we can’t replicate such communities at mass scale.

Scale changes all things, and makes many things impossible.

I’m a pretty nostalgic person, but it’s a form of escapism as the “pain” comes from the fact these things will always remain part of a long distant past, and not our present or future.

 

[Kfox]

An important and relevant movement like BLM failed because the political leadership was captured by capitalist special interests.

BLM failed? Are you kidding me? They made millions off of that movement; they got rich! IMO it was a racist movement that should not have been taken seriously in the first place….. but that’s a different topic. My point was that it is one of many examples of power not being concentrated in the hands of the wealthy.

 

[Koldo]

Everybody is entitled to the fruits of their own labor.

How did you reach this conclusion?
This is quite literally what a communist would say, by the way.

Nobody has a right to demand others work harder in order to support their chosen lifestyle.

I agree. Nobody is doing that though.

How about if it's so other people can have children they can't afford to raise, and refrain from working because they'd rather sit on their duff?

Fair enough. But refraining from having children and being willing to work doesn't automatically entail having access to food, housing, clothes, medication and so on.

IMO; You don’t have an inherent moral right to the property of labor of someone else. You can purchase it, they can voluntarily give it to you, but don’t confuse a need for a service or commodity as a “right” to it. You don’t get to steal or enslave other people to meet your needs.

Thus one of the reasons as to why taxation exists, so people don't have to resort to barbarism to survive.

 

[Watchmen]

You probably meant imperialists and colonialists, rather than capitalists.

Uh……no.