Let's Debate Inequality

[Heyo]

Sounds like anarchy. The problem with anarchy, is when you get rid of government control, gang control will always take over; and the problem with gang control is, might always means right

And "might" means money. Those with the money are able to pay their private army.

Wait ... we do have that now.

 

[Heyo]

Gangs are not voted into positions by the people they rule over.

CEOs are not voted into positions by the people they rule over.

 

[Koldo]

Why is hiring a CEO to run the business a problem?

That's not what I called THE problem. I was talking about how the one in charge of the company you worked for could simply risk your wage without your input. In other words, they lowered the negative consequences of the risks they took by paying you a lower wage whenever things went sour. And this is me presuming there isn't a loophole that further screws you up.

Why would you want to give ANY control over to the employees who have no idea on how a company should ebe run?

Because, first of all, it is not a given that they have no idea how a company should be run. Second, because they are stakeholders, particularly given what I formerly suggested: that every employee should have a financial incentive when they work in any given company. Third, because not every decision is complex. A decision to fire blue collar employees (particularly when this is going to burden the colleagues) in exchange for a bigger paycheck to the directors is easily understood by any ordinary folk.

 

[Augustus]

It would put everybody in the same starting position, independent from a rich daddy.

No it wouldn’t.

If your rich daddy/mummy live long enough you get the benefits.

They have even more reason to lavish spending on private education and all other benefits.

If your middle class parents die early you have a big fall in opportunities to compound the tragedy.

Especially when those treasured mementos have a high monetary value.

“Sorry your dad died, now we’ll be having everything he owned sorry if you wanted something to remember him by, you can’t afford it. It will go to a rich person instead. It’s just a bauble to them but you are too poor for such a memento”

Do the unintended consequences outweigh the intended consequences? How high do you value equality?

I don’t think it would remotely create equality.

Just add a bit more randomness into the system while breaking bonds of continuity and community and turbo charging a sense of dislocation and transience.

People will do crimes anyway, so why bother to make laws

Punishing the middle and working classes while letting the rich get away with it is not great equality imo.

 

[RestlessSoul]

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

I worked for two large companies which did this. It didn’t make me rich - I wasn’t in either scheme long enough - but it did incentivise me and inspired some loyalty towards the employer.

 

[Heyo]

Punishing the middle and working classes while letting the rich get away with it is not great equality imo.

I have a feeling that you are defending the super rich and forget about the middle and working classes.
How about a secured constant sum, let's say $100,000. And also pay $100,000 to every orphan who doesn't have any wealth to inherit?
(And up to $100,000 to those who inherit less.)
Are you still arguing for the privileged?

 

[sayak83]

Meritocratic competitions don't tend to happen under capitalism though.

It does happen, though in an imperfect manner. Companies regularly loose MarketShare when they do not make products that are relevant to the customer.
Fortune 500 company in 1990
FORTUNE 500: 1990 Archive Full List 1-100
Fortune 500 company in 2024
Fortune 500 Full List (2024)
You will see that the list has changed drastically. This is a signal of strong competition at the company level.

The problem is that, when a company goes down (as they inevitably do), the workers suffer. That is why there is need for a strong basic income and other types of social protections and a strong re-skilling and training program to allow transitions to happen. For example, companies may be mandated to give 1 year extra salary to all laid-off workers who are being let go during a downsizing, and have a fund pool for that purpose...etc.

Regarding what may be done to keep capitalist capture of government, we need to do something similar to what was done for separation of church and state. A legislative and constitutional provision that separates government from capitalist influences.

 

[Kfox]

A very telling answer. You like corruption, don't you?

No. My point is, if they knew each other before they attained positions of power, are they supposed to change their relationship once they attain power? How about if Thomas friend became a Pod caster, or an influencer? Also, did Thomas do him any favors as a judge? I guess we let the courts figure that out; which they seemed to be doing. The fact that this happened a while back, and it doesn't seem to be an issue today indicates whatever he did was not that big of a deal. Thomas has enough enemies in the public square, if he did step outta line, there would plenty of people fighting to get him removed.This doesn't seem to be the case though.

 

[Kfox]

CEOs are not voted into positions by the people they rule over.

True! The board of directors are elected by the shareholders, and CEO is elected by the Board of Directors.

 

[Kfox]

And "might" means money. Those with the money are able to pay their private army.

Wait ... we do have that now.

The difference is under our current government, the private army/security is subject to the same laws as everybody else is. Under gang rule, gang law is THE law.

 

[Augustus]

I have a feeling that you are defending the super rich and forget about the middle and working classes.
How about a secured constant sum, let's say $100,000. And also pay $100,000 to every orphan who doesn't have any wealth to inherit?
(And up to $100,000 to those who inherit less.)
Are you still arguing for the privileged?

The super rich wouldn’t pay it.

Why would they keep their wealth onshore?

It would drive a lot of business overseas too.

Tbh anyone with decent assets would likely try to offshore as much as they can, and there would be an entire industry that emerged to help them.

Better off doing things like closing corporate tax loopholes, taxing income and wealth more effectively, minimising rent seeking opportunities and minimising excessive executive pay by limiting it to a multiple of average worker pay.

 

[Kfox]

That's not what I called THE problem. I was talking about how the one in charge of the company you worked for could simply risk your wage without your input. In other words, they lowered the negative consequences of the risks they took by paying you a lower wage whenever things went sour. And this is me presuming there isn't a loophole that further screws you up.

But that’s what happens when you tie your pay to company profit. Isn’t that what you were talking about? Attaching employee pay according to the profit (or not) the company makes?

Because, first of all, it is not a given that they have no idea how a company should be run.

99% of the time it is. How many people do you think do research into what the board, and CEO wants for a company before applying for a job?

Second, because they are stakeholders, particularly given what I formerly suggested: that every employee should have a financial incentive when they work in any given company.

They can have a financial incentive yet still have horrible ideas on how the company should be run.

Third, because not every decision is complex. A decision to fire blue collar employees (particularly when this is going to burden the colleagues) in exchange for a bigger paycheck to the directors is easily understood by any ordinary folk.

But some decisions are complex. That is where the problems lie.

 

[Heyo]

The difference is under our current government, the private army/security is subject to the same laws as everybody else is. Under gang rule, gang law is THE law.

The private army, yes, the boss ...

 

[Heyo]

Better off doing things like closing corporate tax loopholes, taxing income and wealth more effectively, minimising rent seeking opportunities and minimising excessive executive pay by limiting it to a multiple of average worker pay.

I'll take all of that as an intermediary solution. Estate tax is simply not compatible with the current tribalism - but I'll bring it up occasionally to make the idea more popular, and to show the hypocrisy of those who talk about meritocracy when they mean plutocracy.

 

[Augustus]

and to show the hypocrisy of those who talk about meritocracy when they mean plutocracy

It’s nothing to do with a plutocracy.

Just a tax that ignores human psychology, would damage the economy wouldn’t create a level playing field and would be easily circumvented if you are well enough off anyway.

But a diamond or 2, go on your holidays several times a year and stash the proceeds overseas. Or just retire to another country.

Estate tax is simply not compatible with the current tribalism

Tribalism?

What tribes are these? It’s just lots of people of all political persuasions think it’s an awful idea.

 

[an anarchist]

Gangs are not voted into positions by the people they rule over.

I don’t vote

 

[an anarchist]

The difference is under our current government, the private army/security is subject to the same laws as everybody else is. Under gang rule, gang law is THE law.

It requires a paradigm shift in thinking to realize and equate the government to nothing more than the most powerful gang there is. I don’t blame you for your views, it appears few can hurdle over the required shift in worldview to even process what I try to say in regards to government.

 

[an anarchist]

And "might" means money. Those with the money are able to pay their private army.

Wait ... we do have that now.

Whataboutism?

I am unsure the specific context you are referring to when you say “private” army. If your claim’s purpose is to say that absent of government (as I understand it) capitalists would be a de facto government/exploitive gang, then I say “whataboutism” as that is our current predicament with the State: they are exploitive rulers. I believe it is whataboutism to say that Ancapistan would devolve into a de facto state system ran by exploitative capitalists.

Of course, my tangent may be irrelevant. @Kfox responded to me then you to his response, so I am unsure if you were referring to my original comment or…

 

[Guitar's Cry]

As I said, I'll wait until you're dead. No need to worry. Your heirs on the other hand would get a fair chance like anybody else - with the added benefit of a decreased tax burden.
But as I've found out, most people don't like fairness if they can have privileges.

My partner and I were living paycheck to paycheck for years with very little savings (enough to fix the car if needed) until my mother-in-law passed. Due to what we inherited, we now have a decent savings and are far less financially stressed. We'd rather her back, but we know that she worked hard to help us in the case of her passing.

I am for estate taxes, but I think they should be able to provide the same thing in return for people who need it. In other words, I am biased, but I've been helped through inheritance so the benefits we get for it should account for it.

It gets more complicated, but an estate tax should take into account the finacial burdens of those who may benefit from it. I support higher taxes, including in estate taxes on the wealthy because of this.

 

[an anarchist]

@Heyo I misread your post that I just responded to. Ima leave it up tho, I feel like there is a trinket of wisdom in there.

I read it as -

Well ... what will we have then

I have no clue where I got that from