Income inequality
Alias 20 Apr 2010
Wizard, on 20 Apr 2010, 20:06, said:
Rich19, on 20 Apr 2010, 10:52, said:
Wizard, on 20 Apr 2010, 20:06, said:
Wizard, on 20 Apr 2010, 20:06, said:
Chyros, on 20 Apr 2010, 10:58, said:
Wizard, on 20 Apr 2010, 20:06, said:
Alias, on 20 Apr 2010, 11:00, said:
Wizard, on 20 Apr 2010, 19:45, said:
Edited by Alias, 20 April 2010 - 10:19.
Shirou 20 Apr 2010
Wizard, on 20 Apr 2010, 12:06, said:
Theres a difference between earning and earning. Say you were a CEO of a big bank and you earn 2 million annually and get a 1.5 million bonus. You'd state that it is money that you earned yourself and thus the state can't take away more from it relatively than from poorer people.
However I would state it is ridiculous in the first place that a CEO would earn so many and thus I feel its more justified to take more from him as well. Relatively the CEO does less work for much more money, so I would relatively take more taxes from it. CEO's didnt fucking earn so much money. They didnt setup a company in a market niche and benefited from it by theirselves. The competence required for running a very large company is significant but it doesn't justify the need to pay multi million bonuses ''otherwise they won't come to the company''.
Quote
Edit: that makes more sense.
This doesnt make sense at all. This makes an employee look like less of a person because he is only part of the employees-layer. Because there are more employees than CEO's doesnt mean the CEO should earn a god damn truckload of money. I agree there has to be some difference but its just too disproportionate.
Edited by Trivmvirate, 20 April 2010 - 10:24.
Wizard 20 Apr 2010
Alias, on 20 Apr 2010, 11:18, said:
Wizard, on 20 Apr 2010, 20:06, said:
Rich19, on 20 Apr 2010, 10:52, said:
Alias, on 20 Apr 2010, 11:18, said:
Wizard, on 20 Apr 2010, 20:06, said:
Alias, on 20 Apr 2010, 11:18, said:
Wizard, on 20 Apr 2010, 20:06, said:
Chyros, on 20 Apr 2010, 10:58, said:
Alias, on 20 Apr 2010, 11:18, said:
Wizard, on 20 Apr 2010, 20:06, said:
Alias, on 20 Apr 2010, 11:00, said:
Wizard, on 20 Apr 2010, 19:45, said:
Trivmvirate, on 20 Apr 2010, 11:20, said:
Wizard, on 20 Apr 2010, 12:06, said:
Theres a difference between earning and earning. Say you were a CEO of a big bank and you earn 2 million annually and get a 1.5 million bonus. You'd state that it is money that you earned yourself and thus the state can't take away more from it relatively than from poorer people.
However I would state it is ridiculous in the first place that a CEO would earn so many and thus I feel its more justified to take more from him as well. Relatively the CEO does less work for much more money, so I would relatively take more taxes from it. CEO's didnt fucking earn so much money. They didnt setup a company in a market niche and benefited from it by theirselves. The competence required for running a very large company is significant but it doesn't justify the need to pay multi million bonuses ''otherwise they won't come to the company''.
Why not? He is in charge of what goes on, will 99/100 make a decision that earns the company more money. Why is he not entitled to receive compensation representative of his stature within the company?
Trivmvirate, on 20 Apr 2010, 11:20, said:
Quote
Edit: that makes more sense.
This doesnt make sense at all. This makes an employee look like less of a person because he is only part of the employees-layer. Because there are more employees than CEO's doesnt mean the CEO should earn a god damn truckload of money. I agree there has to be some difference but its just too disproportionate.
Alias 20 Apr 2010
Wizard, on 20 Apr 2010, 20:28, said:
Wizard, on 20 Apr 2010, 20:28, said:
Wizard, on 20 Apr 2010, 20:28, said:
Wizard 20 Apr 2010
Alias, on 20 Apr 2010, 11:37, said:
Wizard, on 20 Apr 2010, 20:28, said:
Alias, on 20 Apr 2010, 11:37, said:
Alias, on 20 Apr 2010, 11:37, said:
Wizard, on 20 Apr 2010, 20:28, said:
Shirou 20 Apr 2010
I have always learned that normal average loans should rise in check with inflation. I admit I haven't studied any economics but a comparison of the given graphs with inflation should clear some things up.
Here:
.
I don't know if I am reading this right, but if this is about the yearly rises in payments and profits, I am. You can clearly see workers are on 4.3 percent now which is probably close to inflation. No harm said there, didn't say average people were deliberately cut. However every year these lines continue to be high, the gap between the rich and the rest will grow. In an equal society where every bonus and rise is relative to income, the CEO and worker lines should run parallel. However, corporations increasing profits contributes to the CEO's increasing loans being much, much higher, and the workers lones just staying down the low. America has become wealthier, but only the rich have profited. Integrate and compare the surface of the graph below the CEO line and that of the workers line, adjust for inflation, and there you go, there is your ever increasing gap.
It may be one of the inherently unfair features of capitalism, but the proportions are in my opinion just off.
Edited by Trivmvirate, 20 April 2010 - 12:14.
Wizard 20 Apr 2010
Trivmvirate, on 20 Apr 2010, 13:11, said:
This graph indicates the disparity in manual labour and corporate (most likely, financial sector) CEOs. The two cannot be compared as they generate universally different profits and work in totally separate economies of scale. Also, look at the HUGE dip in CEO pay at the beginning of the noughties! D: Workers did not suffer in the same manner there.
Trivmvirate, on 20 Apr 2010, 13:11, said:
Edited by Wizard, 20 April 2010 - 12:31.
CodeCat 20 Apr 2010
Wizard, on 20 Apr 2010, 12:47, said:
If you need 500 a month to make a bare living and you earn 500, then 10% might just cause you to spiral into debt, or worse. On the other hand, if you earn 5000, then you can easily lose 50% of that with no problem, since even with 50% of your income you still have 5 times more than the minimum needed to survive.
The strongest shoulders must bear the heaviest loads, because the weak shoulders crumble under the weight.
Edited by CodeCat, 20 April 2010 - 20:41.
Wizard 21 Apr 2010
CodeCat, on 20 Apr 2010, 21:40, said:
The strongest shoulders must bear the heaviest loads, because the weak shoulders crumble under the weight.
How is that really my problem? Listen, I am all for compassion for my fellow man, but if you aren't making enough to not spiral into debt that is your problem and that person needs to make the arrangements to cut back on their lifestyle, not tax me more because of it.
Edited by Wizard, 21 April 2010 - 11:11.
CodeCat 21 Apr 2010
Wizard 21 Apr 2010
Tax banded systems are disproportionately unfair to those who earn more, not in extreme cases, such as CEOs who make millions a year, something to which I still consider them to be entitled to if they have reached the position, but to people in the middle banding. Those who just make it over the specific thresholds. A single, flat level tax on earnings is the fairest way to do it.
Wizard 21 Apr 2010
Alias, on 21 Apr 2010, 14:14, said:
Yes, we needed graphs to tell me that the those that are paid more money, earn more money than the lowest paid.
What no one has yet, imo, clearly demonstrated is why it should be different? All people have done is say that it's unfair that people earn more money than others.
Alias 21 Apr 2010
Wizard 21 Apr 2010
Alias, on 21 Apr 2010, 14:23, said:
What about the 16 year old factory worker who lives at home with his parents who does nothing with his money but buy drugs and video games, as opposed to the 55 year old stock broker who has 4 children, a housewife and a massive mortgage, all kids in University, earns more than the means tested allowance and has to pay to put them all through uni. Does he deserve to pay more tax than the youngster?
Alias 21 Apr 2010
My family is above the means tested allowance by a very small margin. We are also in the highest tax bracket (45%). We also have a mortgage but we pull through fine, even though my father has been unemployed for the last 6 months. I live next to a 'lower class' suburb and there are plenty of kids there who I would say roll with the wrong crowd. I'm sure a substantial proportion of them use drugs. They will mostly be in the lowest tax bracket, which I believe is around 15%.
Is this fair? I'd say so. I see nothing 'unfair' about it. Those who come from a lower-privileged household (as much as we don't like to admit it, practically all of society is still based of who your parents are) will of course be in a lower position to pay more than those who already have a head start.
Oh, and you're forgetting that there's no such thing as a 55 year old stockbroker. They all retire at 40 with more money than the factory worker would earn in his lifetime.
Edited by Alias, 21 April 2010 - 13:42.
CodeCat 21 Apr 2010
Wizard 21 Apr 2010
Alias, on 21 Apr 2010, 14:40, said:
Alias 21 Apr 2010
Wizard, on 21 Apr 2010, 23:49, said:
Alias, on 21 Apr 2010, 14:40, said:
Ion Cannon! 21 Apr 2010
Alias, on 21 Apr 2010, 14:54, said:
Wizard, on 21 Apr 2010, 23:49, said:
Alias, on 21 Apr 2010, 14:40, said:
People always have a choice, they just choose not to accept it sometimes. The education at my old school was excellent yet a substantial proportion of people decided they didn't need education, so they wouldn't bother with it and instead make themselves as much of a nuisance as possible, in the process harming others education. No matter how they've been brought up, they can choose to think for themselves, just many don't. It works at both ends of the spectrum. One of my most intelligent friends has awful parents. Yet I know of complete twats who have very good parents.
Wizard 21 Apr 2010
Alias, on 21 Apr 2010, 14:54, said:
Wizard, on 21 Apr 2010, 23:49, said:
Alias, on 21 Apr 2010, 14:40, said:
You're automatically assuming that a child who has suffered domestic abuse will be a useless member of the economy and require the State to provide for them or won't be able to make it into a position to earn lots of money. All of which is totally beside the point.
So far we've managed to split this topic into 2 fragments.
1. That a small percentage of people earn a large proportion of the total in the global wage pot.
2. That these people should pay more taxes because they do.
What you're saying is, that it's totally unfair that these people to earn huge wages, but it is totally fair to take more of these wages away from them than someone lower down in the economic food chain. I disagree with (everyone else in this thread it seems) because I think that it is fair that someone is remunerated for the work they do in direct relation to the job role and consequential profits that this job generates AND that taxing someone more (on a proportional basis) is unfair because you are counter productively telling them that earning money is bad, which in a capitalist system is utter nonsense, quite frankly. The idea should be "worker harder/smarter to earn more money", not "earn more money so I can take more of your wages away".
Alias 21 Apr 2010
Wizard, on 22 Apr 2010, 0:11, said:
Wizard, on 22 Apr 2010, 0:11, said:
Wizard 21 Apr 2010
Alias, on 21 Apr 2010, 15:21, said:
Alias, on 21 Apr 2010, 15:21, said:
Alias 21 Apr 2010
Wizard, on 22 Apr 2010, 0:34, said:
Alias, on 21 Apr 2010, 15:21, said:
Wizard, on 22 Apr 2010, 0:34, said:
Alias, on 21 Apr 2010, 15:21, said:
Edited by Alias, 21 April 2010 - 14:47.
Wizard 21 Apr 2010
Alias, on 21 Apr 2010, 15:43, said:
Wizard, on 22 Apr 2010, 0:34, said:
Alias, on 21 Apr 2010, 15:21, said:
Alias, on 21 Apr 2010, 15:43, said: