Page 1 of 18
1
2
3
11
... LastLast
  1. #1

    Thumbs down About Wealth and Income Redistribution

    So on one hand economic progressives often say company X "exploits" its workers, because the big guys upstairs earn 400 times more than the usual employee and therefore we should have "more income equality" or "more wealth equality" (even though they're not the same thing).

    But... on the other hand the "solution" proposed is often something along the lines of "let's tax those big guys upstairs by 50-90% and give the money to everyone else in society (although we still decide how it's spent since we're the "progressive" elite and we know best).

    Does that make any sense? Nope.


    And also for those saying that workers aren't payed enough or should somehow share in the profit... I take it you have no problem with them also sharing losses even if it means they go for long periods with nothing but debt? Right? Didn't think so.

  2. #2
    Epic! Templar 331's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Waycross, GA
    Posts
    1,724
    Quote Originally Posted by Thunderaan View Post
    Does that make any sense?
    Yes, yes it does.

    And also for those saying that workers aren't payed enough or should somehow share in the profit... I take it you have no problem with them also sharing losses even if it means they go for long periods with nothing but debt? Right? Didn't think so.
    I take it you've never heard of a golden parachute. It's where the employees take the fall and the executives get off with bonuses while the company takes a plunge.

  3. #3
    The Insane Cattaclysmic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Århus
    Posts
    17,804
    Hey Elsa, do you wanna build a strawmaaaan?

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Thunderaan View Post
    And also for those saying that workers aren't payed enough or should somehow share in the profit... I take it you have no problem with them also sharing losses even if it means they go for long periods with nothing but debt? Right? Didn't think so.
    not that you got it right anyway but, ever heard of firing a bunch of employees because of losses? nope? didn´t think so.
    secretly gay

    Quote Originally Posted by Tinykong View Post
    Remember, a firearm homicide is not always firearm violence.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayhem View Post
    not that you got it right anyway but, ever heard of firing a bunch of employees because of losses? nope? didn´t think so.
    Not the same thing.

  6. #6
    Income distribution means changing the system, to give everyone a fair go.

    It doesn't mean giving everyone equal shares of the income.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Templar 331 View Post
    Yes, yes it does.
    No, no it doesn't. Seriously, stop listening to politically influenced people who don't know anything about the subject, stop listening to idealists, just look at facts. It doesn't make sense, and it doesn't even encourage a better society.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Thunderaan View Post
    Not the same thing.
    you´re right, when they owned shares they at least get something out or probably still have a job but lose some money, nowadays they have no job, but hey, at least they don´t lose money from owning shares
    secretly gay

    Quote Originally Posted by Tinykong View Post
    Remember, a firearm homicide is not always firearm violence.

  9. #9
    I dont know why people bother making these threads, its obvious what most people here are going say.

    There just gona spew a rather naive, conspiracy theory loving form of socialism. this argument has already been decided anyway. it terms of economics socialism has been proved not to work very well throughout the 20th century.

    In my opinion most of this sort of thing about wanting to tax rich people massive amounts is mainly jealousy.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayhem View Post
    you´re right, when they owned shares they at least get something out or probably still have a job but lose some money, nowadays they have no job, but hey, at least they don´t lose money from owning shares
    I know someone who works for company that hasn't made a profit in years (let alone made payed out any dividends) and its shares have done nothing but go down constantly. They also have a lot of debt. If the employees had to bear responsibility for all of this, they'd be in crippling debt too.

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Thunderaan View Post
    I know someone who works for company that hasn't made a profit in years (let alone made payed out any dividends) and its shares have done nothing but go down constantly. They also have a lot of debt. If the employees had to bear responsibility for all of this, they'd be in crippling debt too.
    what does this prove? that they somehow manage to stay in business, while in debt and without making profits... doesn´t sound like a very reasonable business plan
    secretly gay

    Quote Originally Posted by Tinykong View Post
    Remember, a firearm homicide is not always firearm violence.

  12. #12
    The Lightbringer bergmann620's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Stow, Ohio
    Posts
    3,259
    The issue isn't wealth inequality- it's about (on the human side) making sure the folks on the bottom of the ladder can keep their heads above water, and (on the economic side) making sure we have enough consumers to keep the low-and-slow Ponzi scheme flowing.

    The trouble isn't that we take too much or too little from the top earners- it's that we spend it the wrong way trying to 'help' the bottom earners.
    Life: bergmannity.com/ | Gaming: indignantgoat.com/
    XBL: Indignant Goat | BattleTag: IndiGoat#1288 | SteamID: Indignant Goat

  13. #13
    if global WARMING why cold out? heh heh, checkmate.

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Thunderaan
    So on one hand economic progressives often say company X "exploits" its workers, because the big guys upstairs earn 400 times more than the usual employee and therefore we should have "more income equality" or "more wealth equality" (even though they're not the same thing).

    But... on the other hand the "solution" proposed is often something along the lines of "let's tax those big guys upstairs by 50-90% and give the money to everyone else in society (although we still decide how it's spent since we're the "progressive" elite and we know best).

    Does that make any sense? Nope.
    While I disagree with the welfare state/socialist system, I must say that, judging by this post, you have no idea about which are the actual arguments from Keynesian economists/socialists. It actually makes a lot of sense if you accept their premisses, and that's why this argument still exists between the economists.

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Thunderaan View Post
    And also for those saying that workers aren't payed enough or should somehow share in the profit... I take it you have no problem with them also sharing losses even if it means they go for long periods with nothing but debt? Right? Didn't think so.
    Workers do share in losses. They unexpectedly lose their jobs and still have to pay their bills without an income. Sometimes (as is often the case now) this takes some time to rectify and they incur significant losses in the interim.

  16. #16
    I am Murloc! Tomatketchup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    5,322
    Quote Originally Posted by Sevyvia View Post
    No, no it doesn't. Seriously, stop listening to politically influenced people who don't know anything about the subject, stop listening to idealists, just look at facts. It doesn't make sense, and it doesn't even encourage a better society.
    And I take it you're an expert at the subject yourself.
    Kalle Anka-partiet in i svenska riksdagen 2014!

    Don't stop... Don't stop the feelin'

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayhem View Post
    what does this prove? that they somehow manage to stay in business, while in debt and without making profits... doesn´t sound like a very reasonable business plan
    Who said it is? That's kinda the point. They can earn or lose big bucks. They take the risks. It's not all plain sailing to the "top 1%" and even those at top 1% can lose what they have if they make stupid investments.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zdrasti View Post
    Workers do share in losses. They unexpectedly lose their jobs and still have to pay their bills without an income. Sometimes (as is often the case now) this takes some time to rectify and they incur significant losses in the interim.
    No. The bills they have to pay are personal bills which everyone else with phone or electricity or water pays, they don't have to pay any of the company's debt, that's the point. They don't share in the profits or losses.

    (And secondly, you don't "own" your job. It's a limited contract, doesn't last forever if your services aren't needed, but you can look in other places.)
    Last edited by Thunderaan; 2014-01-29 at 03:00 PM.

  18. #18
    The Lightbringer bergmann620's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Stow, Ohio
    Posts
    3,259
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayhem View Post
    what does this prove? that they somehow manage to stay in business, while in debt and without making profits... doesn´t sound like a very reasonable business plan
    I don't know, ask Amazon.
    Life: bergmannity.com/ | Gaming: indignantgoat.com/
    XBL: Indignant Goat | BattleTag: IndiGoat#1288 | SteamID: Indignant Goat

  19. #19
    High Overlord
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    166
    Quote Originally Posted by Sevyvia View Post
    No, no it doesn't. Seriously, stop listening to politically influenced people who don't know anything about the subject, stop listening to idealists, just look at facts. It doesn't make sense, and it doesn't even encourage a better society.
    Science, scientific studies and logic is all biased BS and not at all based on facts, discoveries and history /wrist QQ. What your level one mind came up with together with your uneducated friends are facts. Did I understand you correctly?

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Thunderaan View Post
    Who said it is? That's kinda the point. They can earn or lose big bucks. They take the risks. It's not all plain sailing to the "top 1%" and even those at top 1% can lose what they have if they make stupid investments.



    No. The bills they have to pay are personal bills which everyone else with phone or electricity or water pays, they don't have to pay any of the company's debt, that's the point. They don't share in the profits or losses.
    It would be stupid to invest EVERYTHING. If they did that they wouldn't be in the top 1%, though. so.... moot point?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •