Let's Debate Inequality

[PureX]

About 87% of Denmark's tax revenue goes to public benefit vs about 54% for the US.
Poverty rate of Denmark is .03%. Poverty rate of the US is about 11.50%.

Perhaps it would be better to focus on what the government is actually spending its money on vs how much the already rich are making.

Excessive wealth accumulation and government corruption/incompetence are two aspects of the same problem. We can't ignore the one and expect to correct the other.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

This is a scary thread. Confiscating estates, ending competition, excessively taxing the rich, ending capitalism etc. Why don't we tax the rich and start a fund to pay for people that don't want to live in a capitalist free society to move to any country of their choosing instead of trying to fundamentally change our society?

 

[Kfox]

Change requires change.

Change is not good, unless it's for the better.

People will still want to start businesses because they will still want to profit from it, and to be the progenitor.

You need to understand the drive to accomplish something to hand down to your kids. Most of the people I know start business originally did it not for themselves, but because they wanted something that they could hand down to their kids and allow them to have a hand up. Your ideas would take away the incentive for these people to start something

Competition would be lessened because we would all see how absurdly wasteful it is.

How is more competition wasteful?

 

[Kfox]

Little to nothing. Bigger companies aren't run by owners, but by CEOs.

But when the CEO's are hired by workers looking for an easier job rather than a CEO looking for maximum output, nobody outside of employees are gonna want to invest in such a company. IMO the only workers who should have a say in how the company is run are those with a financial incentive for that company to succeed.

 

[Kfox]

Excessive wealth accumulation and government corruption/incompetence are two aspects of the same problem. We can't ignore the one and expect to correct the other.

Why is excessive wealth accumulation a bad thing?

 

[Watchmen]

Yes, we should. But we also need taxation to re-appropriate the wealth to whom and to where it's needed. We NEED to stop individuals and corporate entities from accumulating huge piles of wealth that they will then use to corrupt the government to their own advantage. The wildly skewed accumulation of wealth and the corruption of government go hand in hand. Yes, we need to tax the rich far more than we are. But we also need to make sure the government spends that tax money back into the general economy, and NOT back into the pockets of the wealthy elites they took it from.

Taxing the rich even more is not the answer. Spending wisely is.

But at the end of the day, you’re an anti-capitalism socialist and I’m a capitalist who also recognizes the benefits of certain social programs done right.

I will say, capitalism has done more than any other modern day economic system to lift people out of poverty and make the world a better place. I’m sure you disagree.

 

[Heyo]

But when the CEO's are hired by workers looking for an easier job rather than a CEO looking for maximum output, nobody outside of employees are gonna want to invest in such a company. IMO the only workers who should have a say in how the company is run are those with a financial incentive for that company to succeed.

There's an easy solution to that. Give the workers stocks in the company.

 

[an anarchist]

This is a scary thread. Confiscating estates, ending competition, excessively taxing the rich, ending capitalism etc. Why don't we tax the rich and start a fund to pay for people that don't want to live in a capitalist free society to move to any country of their choosing instead of trying to fundamentally change our society?

Meh. You're all statists. You still support government in some fashion, no?

People on both sides advocate for government control one way or the other. Every thread is a scary thread, but then you get used to it.

 

[Koldo]

IMO the only workers who should have a say in how the company is run are those with a financial incentive for that company to succeed.

Which should be literally every single worker.

 

[Heyo]

Why is excessive wealth accumulation a bad thing?

Because wealth is power. It is excessively used to bribe politicians and thus very undemocratic.

 

[Koldo]

I will say, capitalism has done more than any other modern day economic system to lift people out of poverty and make the world a better place. I’m sure you disagree.

Nearly no other economic system has been tried after the rise of capitalism though, and even when tried only in a few countries.

 

[Heyo]

Taxing the rich even more is not the answer. Spending wisely is.

But at the end of the day, you’re an anti-capitalism socialist and I’m a capitalist who also recognizes the benefits of certain social programs done right.

I will say, capitalism has done more than any other modern day economic system to lift people out of poverty and make the world a better place. I’m sure you disagree.

Capitalism has lifted people out of poverty until the '80s. Then came Reagan and it went downhill. First in the US and other countries followed. "Trickle-down economics" (i.e. tax cuts for the rich) was expected to "fix" the economy, but it didn't. Since then, poverty got worse and wages tanked (compared to productivity). When you still think that capitalism is a beneficial system, you are stuck in the '70s.

 

[Koldo]

This is a scary thread. Confiscating estates, ending competition, excessively taxing the rich, ending capitalism etc. Why don't we tax the rich and start a fund to pay for people that don't want to live in a capitalist free society to move to any country of their choosing instead of trying to fundamentally change our society?

The US wouldn't let a country that is not capitalist thrive... unless it is a very powerful country or a necessary ally.

 

[Heyo]

Again, it's failed 'whack-a-mole'. By not addressing the real problem, it simply finds a new way to achieve it's corrupt ends.

No you won't. The rich will control the means of production, meaning all the career opportunities.

You see things too black and white, there are always nuances and changes don't have to solve everything at once. You won't get socialism anywhere in the West, not even with a revolution. (At least not today. Let capitalism unchecked and that might change. But a revolution will likely only get you a new authoritarian regime.)
Higher taxes for the rich, in which form ever, are at least somewhat realistic.

 

[Kfox]

Which should be literally every single worker.

But it's not. People willing to invest their hard saved money into a company has a financial incentive for it to succeed. If it comes down to making my job easier vs making the company more profitable, employees will gladly run the company into the ground, then look somewhere else for employment.

 

[Kfox]

There's an easy solution to that. Give the workers stocks in the company.

Most companies do that via 401-K.

 

[Kfox]

Because wealth is power. It is excessively used to bribe politicians and thus very undemocratic.

Celebrities have power, social influencers have power, anybody with a podcast has power; there are lots of ways people get power outside of wealth.

 

[Spice]

But it's not. People willing to invest their hard saved money into a company has a financial incentive for it to succeed. If it comes down to making my job easier vs making the company more profitable, employees will gladly run the company into the ground, then look somewhere else for employment.

Both are correct depending on the integrity and ethics of both management and employees. But the opportunity for bonuses, that truly are realized in some way, makes a huge difference.

 

[Nakosis]

Excessive wealth accumulation and government corruption/incompetence are two aspects of the same problem. We can't ignore the one and expect to correct the other.

If you can accumulate excessive wealth, why would you stop?

 

[Heyo]

Most companies do that via 401-K.

I don't know what 401(k) is except from what I just read on Wikipedia. And they don't mention ownership in the company. Maybe there is another model you confused it with?