[Spliff]

http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2003/1006/136.html

The Forbes 400, the aggregate net worth of the nation's wealthiest 400 citizens leapt 10% in the past year, to $955 billion.

I have to say that I find this obscene. I know it's the system that allows individuals to earn this much money, but no individual needs this much money. We need a salary cap of some sort on everyone.

Given that the system is the way it is, nothing is going to change unless the system is changed. For the sake of argument, let's imagine there is a revolution in America. If you had a chance to re-make the system, how would you do it? (Let's confine this to the US or at the most, to the western world?)

The point of this thought-experiment is to imagine how to redistribute America's wealth fairly and equitably. The excess money gets redistributed: to science research, to top-up lower and middle-class incomes, free education, health care, etc. Whatever you can think of. The greatest good for the most.

And finally, no flames, please.

[finboy]

I think the govt. should take all the wealth from all of them and divide it up equally among everyone in the whole country.

I also think the generation AFTER this happens will be hiding from thunderstorms and living close to running water, in quaint little thatched huts.



Nobody GAVE THEM that wealth. For the most part, they earned it taking risks or working their asses off. And it isn't like the money is just sitting in some vault someplace -- it's working for them providing investments in activities and providing jobs for folks.

Our tax system already punishes the productive -- do we need any MORE of that?

And let's say we HAVE a revolution: do you think the folks with all the power and money and brains ("stealing" obviously takes brains)
will just let it happen? Not likely. In that instance the "opposition" is essentially bringing a knife to a gunfight -- if folks aren't successful in society now, how is a revolution going to do anything for them?

If we gave away the wealth, made people "share", what would happen to it? Would it get reinvested to provide incomes? Who would decide which things to produce and which services to provide? You? Me? Some mouthpiece representing a sniveling do-nothing-otherwise mob?

If wealth could be more easily confiscated than it is being confiscated today, why would anyone bother to gather any wealth? There would be no point, except for perhaps a warm fuzzy feeling deep down inside.

You say that these folks don't NEED this much money. Who says? Once you start with those folks, it's coming to your neighborhood next, and that kind of thinking (allocating by NEED) doesn't stop until everyone shares the same level of misery. Except the dictators and politicians who divide up the wealth and trade favors, that is.

We can't allocate by NEED unless you want to count charity, and those dollars are earned in the free market beforehand. Anything else gets us on a slippery slope with the property rights of individuals.

[BlackGriffen]

Spliff, there's a simple and immutable fact that you're ignoring (Marx did, too): money (more generally wealth, and even more generally power) once gained can be bent towards earning more money.

There is no way to avoid this. Even with a moneyless barter economy, it still happens.

The 400 above, for instance, probably had most of their net increase in personal wealth come from investments.

Now, I would love to have a tax policy that made it so that earning ability did not go up exponentially with wealth*, but I doubt that such a thing would be possible practically or politically.

Best we can hope for is a progressive tax system and enforcement of laws to keep people from outright exploiting others to get wealth.

*Personally, I wouldn't mind if earning ability went up linearly with wealth. There's absolutely no way to manage it that I know of, though, especially since all of the investments that beat inflation are risky; meaning that income isn't a definite exp(wealth), but loosely related to an exponential over the long term. You also cannot expect people to invest any fixed portion of their wealth, and it is only the portion invested that can grow exponentially.

More than that, I don't have enough information to say whether this natural phenomenon is really a bad thing.

So, as long as they pay there taxes and contribute to philanthropic endeavors, I really can't say I care that much.

I would also like if money didn't have an undue influence in the political process, but that's a problem with the political process, not those who have money.

BlackGriffen

[finboy]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:


I would also like if money didn't have an undue influence in the political process, but that's a problem with the political process, not those who have money.

Well said.

[BlackGriffen]

Those fat camels have their own problems. Maybe they can afford to buy God a bigger needle?</sarcasm>


BG

[AutoJC]

Forbes 400 wealthiest list. Should so few be entitled to so much?

Many of them earned their weath through diligence and hard work. Those who inherited it , for the most part, are descendants of hard working industrialists.

I salute many of those on this list. They deserve their weath.

Only those who obtain their weath through allegiances with the Government deserve didsain.

[AutoJC]

Originally posted by finboy:
Nobody GAVE THEM that wealth. For the most part, they earned it taking risks or working their asses off. And it isn't like the money is just sitting in some vault someplace -- it's working for them providing investments in activities and providing jobs for folks.

Our tax system already punishes the productive -- do we need any MORE of that?

And let's say we HAVE a revolution: do you think the folks with all the power and money and brains ("stealing" obviously takes brains)
will just let it happen? Not likely. In that instance the "opposition" is essentially bringing a knife to a gunfight -- if folks aren't successful in society now, how is a revolution going to do anything for them?

If we gave away the wealth, made people "share", what would happen to it? Would it get reinvested to provide incomes? Who would decide which things to produce and which services to provide? You? Me? Some mouthpiece representing a sniveling do-nothing-otherwise mob?

If wealth could be more easily confiscated than it is being confiscated today, why would anyone bother to gather any wealth? There would be no point, except for perhaps a warm fuzzy feeling deep down inside.

You say that these folks don't NEED this much money. Who says? Once you start with those folks, it's coming to your neighborhood next, and that kind of thinking (allocating by NEED) doesn't stop until everyone shares the same level of misery. Except the dictators and politicians who divide up the wealth and trade favors, that is.

We can't allocate by NEED unless you want to count charity, and those dollars are earned in the free market beforehand. Anything else gets us on a slippery slope with the property rights of individuals.

[AutoJC]

Originally posted by Spliff:
http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2003/1006/136.html
For the sake of argument, let's imagine there is a revolution in America. If you had a chance to re-make the system, how would you do it? (Let's confine this to the US or at the most, to the western world?)

The book, Atlas Shrugged, gives some outstanding hints as to how to go about this.

[Spliff]

Originally posted by AutoJC:
Many of them earned their wealth through diligence and hard work.

Yes, but how much is hard work worth? Cameron Diaz earned $40 million last year. Did she work harder than a teacher or a prison guard or a bank teller? Let's say she did. Then did she work $40 million harder than them? No f**king way. But the political and economic system, as it is today, distributes its wealth very unevenly.

Bill Gates and Michael Dell, for example, are hard workers and smart businessmen. But what they've done isn't that much greater or better than what middle class earners do. Lots of people work their asses off, but most of them don't make incomes like Bill Gates and Michael Dell. I value physicians and the work they do far more than businessmen. But GPs here in Canada probably average $200,000 per year.

Bill Gates might be entitled to $300,000 per year, but he sure isn't entitled to $48 billion.

We should be able to envision a system that is more equitable than the one we have today. However, it's one thing to imagine a new political and economic system, but it's another to implement it. Theory into practice always reveals the flaws. And it doesn't help that people are more prone to greed and corruption than to compassion and altruism.

[The Mick]

Stop crying. I don't begrudge anyone for making more money than me. You should take what you can get because you never know when it may all end. Do I wish I made more money? Sure. Do I wish I had as much wealth as Bill Gates or Paul Allen? Sure, but that's just a little jealousy. Accumulating wealth is not a crime against society. Also, you need to look at how much these people give away to charitable causes. Bill Gates just donated $51 million to New York City schools. Focus on being rich in the heart and soul versus rich in the wallet and on paper.

[Spliff]

Originally posted by The Mick:
Stop crying. I don't begrudge anyone for making more money than me. You should take what you can get because you never know when it may all end. Focus on being rich in the heart and soul versus rich in the wallet and on paper.

Fair enough. But my interest is in how to make our society a better place for everyone. And like I said, this is more of a thought-experiment.

Here's an interesting article that examines some of the problems with capitalism and examines improvements and alternatives:

Compassionate Capitalism

[boots]

Originally posted by Spliff:
Fair enough. But my interest is in how to make our society a better place for everyone. And like I said, this is more of a thought-experiment.

Here's an interesting article that examines some of the problems with capitalism and examines improvements and alternatives:

Compassionate Capitalism

I've often wondered what it would do to the country if we tied the highest paid employee (CEO, for example) to the lowest paid worker (Janitorial staff, for example). Something like: the lowest paid worker cannot make less than 1 % of the highest paid employees compensation (yes, that could include fringe benefits that are paid by the company). If nothing else it would be an interesting way to wage a "living wage" campaign.

Wealthy could still invest and become more wealthy outside of that framework, but it may diminish the number of working poor we have in the country.

[Spliff]

Socioeconomic Democracy: The Theoretical Model

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by Spliff:
Yes, but how much is hard work worth? Cameron Diaz earned $40 million last year. Did she work harder than a teacher or a prison guard or a bank teller? Let's say she did. Then did she work $40 million harder than them? No f**king way.

The measure of 'how hard' she worked or what value she demands for her time/ideas/skills/effort vs. anyone else isn't up to you to decide. (And thank goodness we don't live in any sort of broken society where it ever would be.)

The simple litmus test is- if what she does is so easy- then you go do it. Ready? Set? GO!

We'll wait.

That she earned $40 mil last year, is indicative of the fact that she co-creates (via her negotiated participation and performance in) properties that generate profits in the HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS. Why shouldn't she share in the spoils of the things she’s directly responsible for creating and drawing people to pay to see?

So according to your 'logic' it would be better for Warner Brothers or Disney or MGM or whoever to pocket the entirety of the hundreds of millions her work generates, and only give her peanuts in exchange?

Or it would be preferable that some fascist government step in and directly confiscate the box office profits her work generates?

How are any of the above scenarios somehow ‘fairer’ than people, sharing in the profits of their own profitable creations?

You may not feel someone is worth $40mil or whatever amount all you wish- so you have a simple choice of NOT going to see the movies they're in and don't take your significant other and plunk down for their ticket as well. Don't pay a ridiculous sum for a tub of carbonated goo and some stale air-popped popcorn. Likewise, turn off the TV and/or cable and for that matter the Internet, don't purchase DVDs/videos/recordings of any nature, etc. etc.

You're perfectly free not to participate in the activities that earn these people and the companies they run their dough.

But millions of other people DO participate in buying the products/services of any of those 400 people- in fact, many of them are the very people you're fantasizing will un-graft their bulbous rear ends from the couch long enough to stop vegetating to the latest neural-injection of 'Friends', in order to attend your oft-dreamed of 'revolution'.

Any 'revolution' that's ever coming won't stand any chance of getting anywhere unless it's a registered trademark of Sony, sponsored by Nike and Coke, with product endorsement tie-ins at all the major fast food chains, advertised via banner ads on AOL, and the whole thing managed by a task force of corporate publicists.

Even then it will probably flop unless there's a reality show tie-in, that's won by the highest-bid media network.

originally posted by boots:

…if we tied the highest paid employee (CEO, for example) to the lowest paid worker (Janitorial staff, for example).

Actually I think this would be morbidly interesting in the absolute literal sense, as in the Tony Curtis/Sidney Poitier ‘Defiant Ones’ sense!

[Uday's Carcass]

money motivates people. But behind that money is the magic word--opportunity.

Allah bless the Great Satan, indeed.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
money motivates people. But behind that money is the magic word--opportunity.

Allah bless the Great Satan, indeed.

You should really remove that last sentence.

[lil'babykitten]

There has been some really interesting thoughts posted on this. Thank you for the great topic Spliff. I tend to agree with your take on this.

Originally posted by Spliff:
We should be able to envision a system that is more equitable than the one we have today. However, it's one thing to imagine a new political and economic system, but it's another to implement it. Theory into practice always reveals the flaws. And it doesn't help that people are more prone to greed and corruption than to compassion and altruism.

[Joshua]

Originally posted by Spliff:
Yes, but how much is hard work worth? Cameron Diaz earned $40 million last year. Did she work harder than a teacher or a prison guard or a bank teller? Let's say she did. Then did she work $40 million harder than them? No f**king way. But the political and economic system, as it is today, distributes its wealth very unevenly.

Bill Gates and Michael Dell, for example, are hard workers and smart businessmen. But what they've done isn't that much greater or better than what middle class earners do. Lots of people work their asses off, but most of them don't make incomes like Bill Gates and Michael Dell. I value physicians and the work they do far more than businessmen. But GPs here in Canada probably average $200,000 per year.

Bill Gates might be entitled to $300,000 per year, but he sure isn't entitled to $48 billion.

We should be able to envision a system that is more equitable than the one we have today. However, it's one thing to imagine a new political and economic system, but it's another to implement it. Theory into practice always reveals the flaws. And it doesn't help that people are more prone to greed and corruption than to compassion and altruism.

Odd, I'd argue that the movie star is one of the best examples of someone who genuinely deserves the huge pay check. The difference between a movie starring Brad Pitt and Joe Shmoe can literally be hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue. Their time is worth a lot of money.

Our economy functions on incentives: people put in the hard work, make the sacrifices, for certain rewards. Altering the incentive structure would have huge implications.

Try a hypothetical: two guys, both about to graduate high school, choose different career paths. One decides to be an electrician: within a year of graduation, he's working full time and making something like $30,000. The other guy decides to be a lawyer. He has to get a four year undergraduate degree followed by a three year J.D. program. He starts working full time making $100,000. At this point, though, he might be a couple hundred thousand dollars in debt, and he's spent the better part of his 20's in school. He's made a huge sacrifice.

The reason the lawyer is willing to sacrifice so much financially and otherwise is for the eventual reward: lawyers make a lot of money. If you "level the playing field" and have the electrician and the lawyer making similar amounts of money, you've removed the primary incentive for spending all of that time and money getting the advanced degree. In a society like that, how many people who would otherwise make great lawyers, doctors, or CEO's are going to wind up as carpenters or electricians? How is the overall quality of business and medical care going to fair?

But all of that is sort of irrelevant; even if you somehow managed to get the best people in the appropriate jobs, you still have to find a way of redistributing the income. And that means giving someone the power to decide what you deserve to have. That kind of stomping on our individual rights would make the Patriot Act look like nothing.

[macvillage.net]

The problem isn't with the 400 wealthiest list. It's just the most outward example.

There is a serious money distribution issue getting worse and worse in the US.

Problem is that despite the wonderful stories you hear, only a handful will ever move up a class in life. What class your parents raised you in... is what you will live. It's about as likely as winning the lottery.

People don't tend to move up. These top 400 are the excpetion to the rule.

You get an education that your parents could afford to give you. You get a job your education qualifies you for. With accounting for inflation, that puts you in the same place your parents were a generation ago.


The real gripe is not at the handful that did move up...

1. Education being based on family social status.

2. Jobs hiring based on paper, rather than skill or potential. Degrees mean more than actual ability in hiring. Retention depends on skill or potential. Sadly many who have the inate skill never get that chance to work on retention of the job they deserve.

You could really blame that all on society, and it's "value" of education (which is really the value of class.)


It's an age old argument that nobody has been able to fix. The best attempt is what's known as Communism, which attempted to remove classes altogether... didn't work out as planned.


The problem isn't the money, or the rich, or the government. It's social values.

That a harvard degree makes you a better employee. When any employer will tell you that they have had an ivy league graduate who was the worst employee ever, bad interpersonal skills, managment disaster... and someone with a public college degree moved right up the ladder. Of course there are ivy league graduates that are great... but it's not a good indicator. Ivy league means your booksmart, and rich.

There are quite a few who will never get to go to a good college, but if they were in a financial position... would rip apart those who currently are in a good college.

Same with graduate school.



This is why there's an old saying that everyone needs help getting their first job. To get their foot in the door.

Why is that? Shouldn't you get that perfect job based on your ability? Not somebody vouching to make up for your lack of a Harvard doctorate?

It's not the money, it's not the rich. It's the society we live in, and it's "values"

[moki]

Originally posted by Spliff:
Yes, but how much is hard work worth? Cameron Diaz earned $40 million last year. Did she work harder than a teacher or a prison guard or a bank teller? Let's say she did. Then did she work $40 million harder than them? No f**king way. But the political and economic system, as it is today, distributes its wealth very unevenly.

What it boils down to is whom decides how much is enough, how much is too much, etc.

You appear willing to let the government decide who is allowed to have money, and how much of it they are allowed to have. If I was living in a country that had such a system in place (economic communism), and I started to succeed, I'd leave.

Under the current system the market decides. That market is you and me. Cameron Diaz makes that much money because we like to see her in movies. It's the same with football players; it's the market that decides how much they are worth.

[Spliff]

Originally posted by moki:
Under the current system the market decides. That market is you and me. Cameron Diaz makes that much money because we like to see her in movies. It's the same with football players; it's the market that decides how much they are worth.

But the market doesn't determine this fairly. Wealth is distributed unequally. Some get far more than they deserve.

Business is essentially feudalism. A few on top take most of what the workers ("serfs") earn. Why should a bank teller make $30,000 per year while the bank CEO takes home $1.5 million?

Just because the market determines it doesn't it make it fair and just. Just because the system pays Cameron Diaz $40 million doesn't mean that it should. No one needs that much money to live comfortably. That money could do much more good if distributed elsewhere.
The government and economic systems would have to change for that to happen.

That's what I'm interested in: a system closer to Utopia than what we currently have. Read the two articles I linked to above for more explicit and coherent ideas on that. It's not like these ideas are radical and seditious. For thousands of years, philosophers have been pondering how to create a just and equitable society. To think that capitalism (as we have it today) is the best we can do is ridiculous. Why rest on our laurels, especially when there is so much inequity in the world. We should never be content with the status quo when we can do better.

And the btw, the government does determine how much you earn, to a certain extent. It sets the tax percentage, it sets the minimum wage, it allows loopholes for people to take their money offshore.

[Uday's Carcass]

I keep getting spliff confused with the more notorious splifdaddy. hahah. Couldn't be more on opposite sides of the spectrum.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by Spliff:
Why should a bank teller make $30,000 per year while the bank CEO takes home $1.5 million?

Here's the difference: The teller clocks off at 5:30pm and the bank no longer exists for him/her until the following morning. The CEO never really clocks off. The teller doesn't lie awake in the middle of the night worrying about not laying workers off.

Originally posted by Spliff:
Just because the market determines it doesn't it make it fair and just. Just because the system pays Cameron Diaz $40 million doesn't mean that it should.

Here's the difference: Cameron Diaz has traded her privacy - she can't walk down the street without being mobbed. The average worker can.

Originally posted by Spliff:
No one needs that much money to live comfortably.

Who are you to say what's comfortable? Let's take the example of someone who's just spent $15m on a yacht and is spending the $2m a year to keep it running. Who has the right to say that this person has spent too much on a "luxury"? Do we deny this person the freedom to own his/her own yacht (with the freedom to go wherever s/he wishes at any time s/he wishes) and make them go only to places which public transport services?

Originally posted by Spliff:
That money could do much more good if distributed elsewhere.

No, it wouldn't - it'd just get pissed up the wall.

Observe the L.A. riots. I recall reports that one shop selling boom boxes had been emptied, yet the Apple store next to it was completely untouched. In effect, people who constantly moan about being held back had the opportunity to loot the equipment which would advance their situation but chose to steal boom boxes instead. Says it all.

[Joshua]

Originally posted by Spliff:
That's what I'm interested in: a system closer to Utopia than what we currently have. Read the two articles I linked to above for more explicit and coherent ideas on that. It's not like these ideas are radical and seditious. For thousands of years, philosophers have been pondering how to create a just and equitable society. To think that capitalism (as we have it today) is the best we can do is ridiculous. Why rest on our laurels, especially when there is so much inequity in the world. We should never be content with the status quo when we can do better.

One man's Utopia is another man's gulag.

[Spliff]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
Here's the difference: The teller clocks off at 5:30pm and the bank no longer exists for him/her until the following morning. The CEO never really clocks off. The teller doesn't lie awake in the middle of the night worrying about not laying workers off.

Here's the difference: Cameron Diaz has traded her privacy - she can't walk down the street without being mobbed. The average worker can.

The teller lies awake trying to figure out how to put her daughter through college. I'm not saying that the CEO doesn't deserve to be compensated, but he or she would do just fine on $200,000 or $300,000 per year.

As for celebrities losing their privacy, it still doesn't justify their multi-million dollar salaries.

Again, the money could be better used elsewhere. E.g., more research into fusion energy, medical research, rebuilding America's infrastructure, etc.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
I keep getting spliff confused with the more notorious splifdaddy. hahah. Couldn't be more on opposite sides of the spectrum.

There's a typo there pal. Should be.

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
I keep getting spliff confused with the more notorious splifdaddy. hahah. Couldn't be more on opposite sides of the rectrum.

[chabig]

But the market doesn't determine this fairly. Wealth is distributed unequally. Some get far more than they deserve.

First of all, your statement that they get more than they deserve is pure subjective judgement--your own personal opinion, and I'm not going to comment on it since it's unlikely that I'll change your mind.

On the other points, I would argue that the market is ultimately fair, and the unequal distribution of wealth is due to the unequal contribution to society that different people make. Just because movies are pure entertainment, for example, and do not cure cancer, does not mean that entertainment is not valued. In fact, I would guess that by and large, the largest group of highly paid people in the US are entertainers, because they provide pleasure to the largest number of people and in return they get a small reward from everyone--it just adds up to big numbers. And when I say entertainers, I include professional sports stars, because pro sports is just entertainment.

Chris

[Spliff]

Originally posted by chabig:
I would argue that the market is ultimately fair, and the unequal distribution of wealth is due to the unequal contribution to society that different people make. Just because movies are pure entertainment, for example, and do not cure cancer, does not mean that entertainment is not valued. In fact, I would guess that by and large, the largest group of highly paid people in the US are entertainers, because they provide pleasure to the largest number of people and in return they get a small reward from everyone--it just adds up to big numbers. And when I say entertainers, I include professional sports stars, because pro sports is just entertainment.

Chris

Using your utilitarian argument then, shouldn't health care providers (nurses, physicians, surgeons), scientists, and medical researchers be rewarded more than anyone else since their work would lead to the greatest happiness for the most people? Movie entertainment is very transitory; the pleasure from it lasts from seconds to hours. But if scientists development cheap, reliable fusion power, it would provide a excellent energy source for people all over the world.

People in the medical profession provide comfort and support to the ill and dying. When someone in a hospital bed shits all over themselves, a nurse is there to clean it up. You can't tell me that what an athlete or celebrity does is more valuable than that. Most ethical systems would say the same thing.

The market pays athletes and celebrities so generously because there is so much profit to be made. That's a capitalistic justification. But utilitarianism philosophy won't support that because it doesn't give the greatest good to the most people.

I love money as much as the next person. I would love to be rich, but I would also like everyone to be rich. But right now, as it stands, there is great inequity in the world. A small percentage of people have most of the wealth. That wealth could do much more good if distributed in a different manner. That's not just my personal opinion. It's a rational and reasonable argument. But don't take my word for it. Go to the library and take out two dozen books on ethics. Most of them will agree.

If you're interested, start with chapter 8, "Rich and Poor," in "Practical Ethics" by Peter Singer.

[chabig]

shouldn't health care providers (nurses, physicians, surgeons), scientists, and medical researchers be rewarded more than anyone else since their work would lead to the greatest happiness for the most people?

No. Let's say a nurse may serve 100 people in a year's time. The value to each person served is tremendous, but 100 people just isn't very many folks. Also, lots of people can do what a nurse does. It's not a rare talent.

An entertainer may entertain millions in the same period. Not many people can do what the entertainer does. The entertainer may earn less per person, but it adds up to more, even though the nurse gets paid more for each person. It's simply a numbers game.

The market pays athletes and celebrities so generously because there is so much profit to be made.

If that were truly the answer, then government should simply mandate that every citizen enter the sports or entertainment professions. Poof! No more poor people. No--there's more to it than that. Athhletes and entertainers get paid so generously because there aren't many people who can do what they do, and the rest of us are willing to pay them for their services.

That wealth could do much more good if distributed in a different manner.

I don't agree with this either. We've already tried it. Remember the war on poverty? It got us nowhere. And I hardly think your argument is rational and reasoned. You haven't presented any facts, just feelings and opinions.

Chris

[Spliff]

Originally posted by chabig:
No. Let's say a nurse may serve 100 people in a year's time. The value to each person served is tremendous, but 100 people just isn't very many folks. Also, lots of people can do what a nurse does. It's not a rare talent.
Chris

Okay, if you're using talent as a measure of worth, then surgeons and physicists, for example, should earn more than anyone else. Surgeons are fairly well compensated, physicists are not.

[moki]

Originally posted by Spliff:
Using your utilitarian argument then, shouldn't health care providers (nurses, physicians, surgeons), scientists, and medical researchers be rewarded more than anyone else since their work would lead to the greatest happiness for the most people?

No, because health care workers generally provide one to one value. ie, the value they can provide to a society happens one person at a time. An entertainer, for instance, can provide value to millions of people at once, thus the disparity in value, and the disparity in income.

I love money as much as the next person. I would love to be rich, but I would also like everyone to be rich.

If you were rich, and everyone was rich, then by definition, you would not be rich. It is a relative term.

But right now, as it stands, there is great inequity in the world. A small percentage of people have most of the wealth.

It actually has very little to do with "right now" -- the world has always been this way. Do you think the Pharaohs had the same wealth as the workers who broke their backs building the pyramids?

That wealth could do much more good if distributed in a different manner. That's not just my personal opinion.

Oh, but it is. "good" is a matter of opinion. As an instance, if everyone had the same amount of money, and didn't have to work in order to obtain it, who would work? The economic system could very well collapse.

Much of what drives people to achieve is personal gain, whether monetary, notoriety, etc. Take that away, and it would be a very different world indeed, and I think not quite the Utopia you're envisioning.

[moki]

Originally posted by Spliff:
Okay, if you're using talent as a measure of worth, then surgeons and physicists, for example, should earn more than anyone else. Surgeons are fairly well compensated, physicists are not.

You seem to be very hung up on "fairness" -- but who is going to decide what is "fair"? You seem to think that you, or the State should decide.

To me, this seems much more fallible than letting the market decide. You may not think it is "fair" -- but your opinion shouldn't matter as much as the opinion of the entire marketplace of millions of people.

[tie]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
Who are you to say what's comfortable? Let's take the example of someone who's just spent $15m on a yacht and is spending the $2m a year to keep it running. Who has the right to say that this person has spent too much on a "luxury"? Do we deny this person the freedom to own his/her own yacht (with the freedom to go wherever s/he wishes at any time s/he wishes) and make them go only to places which public transport services?

Or let's take the example of someone who's just spent $85 million on two yachts and a crew of professional sailors. Who are we to call this a "luxury"? What do we know about "extravagance"? One person's luxuries are another person's necessities. Do we deny this person the freedom to finance his/her own America's Cup team, and make her/him only watch it on a 12" black-and-white television?

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by tie:
One person's luxuries are another person's necessities.

Indeed.

We each have one life. If someone has the opportunity to do something interesting in that lifetime because they're a little better at making money than everyone else and can afford to do it, who are we to stop them?

Certain experiences can only be had by spending large amounts of money. Because the average person will never earn enough to finance those experiences, should we deny them to everyone?

Do we deny someone the exquisite sound of a Ferrari V8 on full chat inches behind his/her head because the average wo/man can't afford that experience?

Do we deny someone the cool, refreshing feeling of finest Portuguese marble under their feet first thing in the morning because the average wo/man can't afford to surface their bedroom floor with it?

Do we deny someone the fine user interface of the Mac because the average person can't afford it?

No, no, no and no. So let's drink a toast to the current way of doing things. With a '57 Bollinger.

[moki]

Originally posted by tie:
Or let's take the example of someone who's just spent $85 million on two yachts and a crew of professional sailors. Who are we to call this a "luxury"?

Not to mention the fact that businesses that make yachts, and all of the people they employ, the governments that take huge tax revenues from yacht purchases, dock workers, the sailors manning the yacht, and everyone in the economy created by someone's purchase of said yacht would be pretty pissed off if the government made that purchase impossible.

[Face Ache]

Originally posted by moki:
You seem to be very hung up on "fairness" -- but who is going to decide what is "fair"? You seem to think that you, or the State should decide.

To me, this seems much more fallible than letting the market decide. You may not think it is "fair" -- but your opinion shouldn't matter as much as the opinion of the entire marketplace of millions of people.

So you're saying doctors, nurses, policemen, teachers, etc should all strike until the market "decides" they're worth $1 million apiece? Cool!

[Spliff]

Originally posted by moki:
Oh, but it is. "good" is a matter of opinion. As an instance, if everyone had the same amount of money, and didn't have to work in order to obtain it, who would work? The economic system could very well collapse.

Much of what drives people to achieve is personal gain, whether monetary, notoriety, etc. Take that away, and it would be a very different world indeed, and I think not quite the Utopia you're envisioning.

I'm not proposing that people shouldn't have to work for money. My idea is for a salary cap. The top earners can only earn a certain percentage more than the bottom earners.

[Spliff]

Maximum Allowable Personal Wealth

Consider now Maximum Allowable Personal Wealth (MAW). In the ideal theoretical model, all participants of the democratic socioeconomic system would understand that all personal material wealth above the democratically determined allowable amount would, by due process, be transferred out of their ownership and control in a manner specified by the democratically designed and implemented laws of the land.

Hence, a rational, self-interested (as the neoclassical saying goes) extremely wealthy participant in the democratic socioeconomic system, who is at or near the upper bound on allowable personal wealth and who further desires increased personal wealth, would be economically motivated, that is, have "economic incentive," to increase the well-being of some less wealthy members of society. Only in this manner can these (still-wealthiest) participants persuade (a majority of) the rationally self-interested participants in the democratic society to vote to raise the legal upper limit on allowable personal wealth -- thus allowing those wealthiest participants to legally acquire and retain the increased allowable amount of personal net wealth.

There is, in fact, strong economic incentive for those who are pegged at or near the upper limit on allowable personal wealth to be successful in improving the general welfare. For if the current level of MAW is not producing sufficient improvement in the general welfare, as democratically determined, there is the possibility that the democratic society might democratically decide to reduce the MAW limit even more in order to enlist even more still-wealthy participants and their extra wealth in the noble task of improving the well-being of society in general.

It should perhaps be explicitly stated that the primary effect of a democratically set upper bound on allowable personal wealth is definitely not the sudden availability of that previously private wealth which society, acting peacefully and legally through its democratic government, has decided to acquire for its general welfare. It is rather the permanently altered economic incentive existing for those at or near the upper bound on personal wealth, which aligns the still-wealthy individual's personal economic interest with the economic interest of society in general. The synergy of the society is thus significantly increased. On the other hand, the revenue raised directly and immediately by this cap on personal wealth or net worth certainly will amount to something and certainly could be used by practically every society on the planet for a variety of presently unmet obligations.

It is evidently necessary to emphasize that we are considering here a maximum limit on allowable personal wealth and not a limit on allowable personal income. The latter is also a possibility, of course, and one which has been explored, advocated and in fact implemented in a variety of situations -- though never democratically.

The idea of some form of limit to or upper bound on personal wealth, like the idea of a societally guaranteed income, can also be traced back to Thomas Paine, the man who gave the United States of America its name and the necessary encouragement to create the experiment of a new country. Thomas Jefferson's familiar belief that "taxes should be proportioned to what may annually be spared by the individual" is also certainly in line with the general idea of a cap and/or significant tax on personal wealth. Regarding Jefferson's progressive stance concerning taxation, consider the following.

According to former US President Ronald Reagan, the idea of a progressive income tax came from Karl Marx, "who designed it as the prime essential for a socialist state." But the shocking truth is that Thomas Jefferson had the idea first. In a letter to James Madison dated October 28, 1785, Jefferson said that a way to lessen inequality in wealth "is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point and to tax the higher portions ... in geometrical progression as they rise." A question rises: Was Jefferson a Marxist or Marx a Jeffersonian?

Possibilities. As the assets, capital, titles, resources, wealth, net worth, dollars, acquired by a democratically established maximum allowable personal wealth limit are to benefit all members of society, all members of society might be interested in how these assets are to be deployed. One immediate question is whether these assets should go directly to the government of, by and for all the participants of the democratic society to be used in an appropriate manner, or should they be dispersed directly by the present owners in societally acceptable ways preferred by the present owners.

If the government periodically received payment from individuals in amount equal to how much the individual's personal fortune exceeded the universally applicable and democratically established MAW limit, these funds could be used as follows:

(1) Considered and treated as general revenue, (2) Committed by law to reducing the budget deficit or national debt, (3) Committed by law to finance the democratically chosen UGI, (4) Combinations of the above and others.

On the other hand, there may well be societies so outraged at what they perceive or plainly see to be present and past bungling governmental bureaucracies and personally profiting politicians squandering precious public funds that they democratically adopt a system whereby the extremely wealthy person being relieved of his or her excess personal wealth has complete say (within no doubt legislatively specified options) as to how to dispose of this personal excess wealth to best enhance the general welfare.

It is observed that if it were the democratic desire of a particular society to not appropriate any presently held personal wealth through a democratically set MAW limit, that society might still want to adopt an upper limit on personal wealth set at, say, twice (or one dollar more than) the present net worth of the wealthiest citizen. This would in effect be saying that society agrees to let everyone keep all they've got so far, legally or otherwise, but that there is going to be a limit to just how much longer this societally harmful and silly game will be played. Like the future itself, the possibilities are endless.

http://www.wfs.org/george.htm

[tie]

If you are against setting pay levels and salary caps, how do you feel about inheritance taxes? People can still earn as much money as they're worth, and spend it as they please.

[Sherwin]

Your proposal doesn't work Spliff.

• People at the brink of the "MAW" would see no need to further their efforts and consequently have no requirement for the additional staff that they may have set on under the current system. Thus, potential employment is lost.

• You state that people at the brink of the "MAW" could increase their wealth by increasing the wealth of the people at the bottom. All that this will achieve is an increase in inflation, thus ensuring that the person at the top is no wealthier. Everyone will pay $2 for a Coke instead of $1 and while the person at the top may now be earning $600k instead of $300k, s/he'll still have exactly the same real-world spending power.

[Spliff]

Universal Guaranteed Personal Income

In the idealized state of the model, each participant in this democratic socioeconomic system would know that, regardless of what he or she did or did not do, a democratically determined Universal Guaranteed Personal Income (UGI) would always be available. Put another way, society would somehow guarantee each citizen some minimum amount of purchasing power, with that amount determined democratically by all of society and with citizenship the only requirement for eligibility to participate.

It is appropriate to note that the idea of UGI is by no means just theoretical. The state of Alaska has for many years provided each and every resident an annual cash grant -- just for being a resident of the great state of Alaska! Financed by the Alaska Permanent Fund with revenues from the state-owned oil fields, public dividends started to be paid in 1982 and now amount to around $2000 each year to each resident. We see that the governmental jurisdiction involved in providing some form of UGI need not be just at the federal level.

Depending upon the degree and direction of technological development, this democratically set, societally guaranteed minimum income for all could be sufficient to satisfy the typical individual's minimum subsistence needs. Alternatively, other societies might democratically decide to set the guaranteed amount at only a partial subsistence level, as a number of proposals in western Europe are presently suggesting. We note in passing that some such universal income or purchasing power guarantee appears essential before simultaneously fundamental, peaceful and minimum-pain transformations in present economic systems can take place.

The general idea of UGI can be traced back to the ancient Greeks, and certainly to both Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson, couched in the terminology of their times. A not-so-small and certainly impressive list of promulgators of more or less serious proposals for some form of UGI would include simply the many Nobelists in economics who have at one time or another in their career suggested or concurred with the basic idea. In the United States, Robert Theobald significantly developed and promoted the idea well over a quarter century ago, in his pioneering Free Men and Free Markets, Guaranteed Income and others. Then, of course, there was Daniel Moynihan and the ill-fated FAP fiasco, partially documented in his Politics of a Guaranteed Income.

Another fundamental form of UGI is Universal Share Ownership (USO). The many Universal Share Ownership Plans (USOPs) that have been proposed in effect provide some income for all through dividends from universally owned shares of productively employed capital. Louis Kelso, aided by an enthusiastic Mortimer Adler, originally conceived and significantly developed the idea of "universal capitalism" through what was then called a "Financed Capitalist Plan" in his first of many books, The Capitalist Manifesto. Stuart Speiser, in a number of informative books as well as by sponsoring a highly regarded series of Essay Contests devoted to the serious study of USOPs, has done much to develop and promote the possibilities.

Throughout western Europe generally, there is considerable and increasing study of the idea, in part initiated by Keith Roberts' classic Automation, Unemployment and the Distribution of Income, as well as by the writings of the early economics Nobelists such as Tinbergen, Myrdal, Meade and others. There is now the well established Basic Income European Network (BIEN), which in fact enjoys world-wide membership, and the Citizen's Income Trust in England, which publishes the Citizen's Income Newsletter. As a final example, there is the pioneering work by Pieter Kooistra of the Netherlands, contained in his The Ideal Self-Interest, which describes his proposal for a supplementary world economy, initiated, managed and financed by the U.N., to provide an equivalent Basic Income for all people of the world.

The many different versions of UGI share the same fundamental set of remaining unresolved dilemmas impeding their otherwise almost immediate implementation. Important unresolved issues include:

(1) How much should the UGI be? (2) Who should decide how much the UGI should be? (3) Where and how should any necessary funds for UGI be obtained? (4) Just where does democracy fit in all this? (5) How soon can all this start to happen?

http://www.wfs.org/george.htm

[Spliff]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
Your proposal doesn't work Spliff.

• People at the brink of the "MAW" would see no need to further their efforts and consequently have no requirement for the additional staff that they may have set on under the current system. Thus, potential employment is lost.

• You state that people at the brink of the "MAW" could increase their wealth by increasing the wealth of the people at the bottom. All that this will achieve is an increase in inflation, thus ensuring that the person at the top is no wealthier. Everyone will pay $2 for a Coke instead of $1 and while the person at the top may now be earning $600k instead of $300k, s/he'll still have exactly the same real-world spending power.

It's not actually my proposal. I just quoted the author who wrote the article.

In response to your first point, I think you're right to a certain extent. But there could be other incentives like public/national recognition, awards, etc. A lot of egos are stroked by awards. Just look at Hollywood.

Re: the second point. I'm not sure how I understand how inflation would increase, but as long as it doesn't increase astronomically, I don't see what the problem is.

Neither of your points invalidates of idea of a Maximum Allowable Allowance. However, if their are serious technical issues with MAW, then people could debate and troubleshoot the problems. The point is to envision a system that is more just and equitable than the current system.

The current system is a good one. It works in many ways, but why be content with the status quo? Why not try to develop economic and political systems that improve upon the current situation.

[chabig]

It just struck me...the title of your thread is wrong.

"Should so few be entitled to so much?" is soooo wrong. It belies your crooked thinking.

These people didn't receive their vast wealth as some form of "entitlement." They acquired it the old fashioned way, they "earned" it.

Chris

[Spliffdaddy]

heh.

When there is a disincentive to achieve - there is no achievement.

Lots of European countries have taught us that much.

[Spliff]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
heh.

When there is a disincentive to achieve - there is no achievement.

Where is the disincentive to achieve?

Why do people become school teachers, nurses, cops, naturalists, scientists, social workers, electricians? None of those jobs will make you wealthy.

People pursue careers for all sorts of reasons. Putting a cap on wealth won't act as a disincentive because the majority of US citizens don't earn anything near what a cap would be.

Many writers and poets (e.g., Shelley) of the previous centuries were born into nobility and money. There was no need for them to achieve wealth because they already had it. They could've sat on their asses all day. But they didn't. The pursued writing careers and sought fame and satisfaction through art.

Extreme wealth isn't the sole motivation for individuals to achieve something. If it were, no one would become a high school teacher. Yet thousands of people do. No one should ever become a writer for the money, because as most writers will tell you, there is no money in writing, unless you're one of the lucky few who has a few bestsellers. Yet many people pursue careers in writing. If it's not for money, then why do they do it? Because they love it and because they're compelled to do it. Because for them, there is nothing else they would rather do.

I can guarantee that if you removed the multi-million dollar salaries that athletes and actors earn, that people would still want to be actors and athletes.

[shmerek]

Originally posted by Spliff:

I can guarantee that if you removed the multi-million dollar salaries that athletes and actors earn, that people would still want to be actors and athletes.

I don't think so, NBA NFL players and such are such babies they wouldn't do it without the coin. People who go to hollywood do so to become famous and wealthy. If they just wanted to work their craft they would be doing Shakespeare and the like not Saved by the Bell. Soap operas are such crap with horrible scripts I don't think you could get actors to perform it without the $$$

[shmerek]

Originally posted by chabig:
It just struck me...the title of your thread is wrong.

"Should so few be entitled to so much?" is soooo wrong. It belies your crooked thinking.

These people didn't receive their vast wealth as some form of "entitlement." They acquired it the old fashioned way, they "earned" it.

Chris

DId the Hilton twins or whoever they are earn their dough? Many people are rich because of something someone did in their families in the past. I agree with whoever said that capitalism has become like a feudal system.

[Face Ache]

Originally posted by chabig:
These people didn't receive their vast wealth as some form of "entitlement." They acquired it the old fashioned way, they "earned" it.

Highly subjective don't you think? Did GWB earn everything he has?

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by shmerek:
DId the Hilton twins or whoever they are earn their dough? Many people are rich because of something someone did in their families in the past. I agree with whoever said that capitalism has become like a feudal system.

Who cares if the Hilton sisters earned their money. Someone did, and it's none of our business anyway.

The people who say capitalism is like a feudal system spend too much time and energy envying (and being jealous) of other people's possessions, and not enough time studying and working to earn their own take.

Besides, who said money was everything. Not everyone needs to be a founder of Microsoft or Hilton to enjoy their life. But to sit here and criticize others for doing so (and reaping the rewards) is ridiculous.

You wanna be the next Sam Walton (of Wal-Mart fame)? Work 120 hours a week for 50 years, and save, save, save. And when you're gone, you can leave your savings to your children. That is, unless liberals have been in office for decades, and the estate tax has risen to 95%. In that case, for every $1 million of your savings, your kids will get $50,000. Uncle Liberal Sam will gladly take the other $950,000 without so much as a thank you.

So mind your own bank account, work hard, play right, vote conservative, and father two hot daughters.

[shmerek]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Who cares if the Hilton sisters earned their money. Someone did, and it's none of our business anyway.

The people who say capitalism is like a feudal system spend too much time and energy envying (and being jealous) of other people's possessions, and not enough time studying and working to earn their own take.

Besides, who said money was everything. Not everyone needs to be a founder of Microsoft or Hilton to enjoy their life. But to sit here and criticize others for doing so (and reaping the rewards) is ridiculous.

You wanna be the next Sam Walton (of Wal-Mart fame)? Work 120 hours a week for 50 years, and save, save, save. And when you're gone, you can leave your savings to your children. That is, unless liberals have been in office for decades, and the estate tax has risen to 95%. In that case, for every $1 million of your savings, your kids will get $50,000. Uncle Liberal Sam will gladly take the other $950,000 without so much as a thank you.

So mind your own bank account, work hard, play right, vote conservative, and father two hot daughters.

Whatever someone said they all "earned" their cash and I said no they didn't, as for the rest of your post blah blah I didn't criticize anyone. And Uncle Sam will never get any of my $ because I am not an american and never plan on being one.