Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

To the people that support redistribution of income... Watch

  • View Poll Results: Do you support the following?
    I support the redistribution of income and marks
    0.91%
    I support the redistribution of income, but not marks
    47.27%
    I support the redistribution of marks, but not income
    0
    0%
    I support neither form of redistribution
    52.73%

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nick100)
    Because they don't need to live a particularly comfortable life to make your sandwich. Surely anything they ask for above that is morally equivalent to making a profit?



    Where's the moral argument for sport? Or owning a TV? Or earning a wage? Or anything which isn't strictly altruistic or necessary for one's survival? The onus is on you to show that it is immoral to make a profit from a mutually beneficial trade. If you want an argument in terms of how it benefits society; it sends a message through the price system about where people should focus their creative efforts to satisfy consumer demand.



    We weren't talking about cartels and monopolies. What exactly is stopping these alleged victims from buying the good from elsewhere for £10? How can I reliably and honestly sell something for £20 if it can easily be bought elsewhere for £10? And what if people are competing to buy the good and bid the price up to £20; is it immoral to sell it for £20 then?



    If the supply doesn't change while the price drops then there will be a shortage as demand increases. I would expect that eliminating profit would cause the supply itself to drop, exacerbating the problem you created in combating the "immorality of profit".
    So... you're saying that in a world where everything is ideal in terms of conditions for economic models to work, all the economic models would work perfectly. Yeah. But we live in the real world, you have a lot of things like monopolies and cartels.

    And nope, the onus is NOT on me. The onus is on the person making the profit, because this person is taking more off me than can be said to be fair.

    Oh, and yeah: there's a difference if someone gets a good salary enabling him or her to live comfortably in exchange for working somewhere, or if someone just gets money for having money. But yeah, that last thing is the core of capitalism, and of course that can't be ever changed.




    And lastly, just to remind you: I'm actually STILL not arguing for a ban on profits or anything like that. I'm saying that as you can't really show me the moral basis for making profit (as it seems to be something that 'just happens'), I don't really see how people can proclaim with such confidence that redistribution of wealth is not ok. Win some, lose some, I'd say. Somehow the rich are still rich, despite of any redistribution, and it can make a huge difference in the lives of poor people.

    Btw, no one has said anything about the economic point I made earlier, namely that redistribution is actually beneficial to the economy...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wiska)
    Yes it is, have you ever heard of fasting? Whether you put stuff in your mouth or not is completely voluntary.

    If you are talking about access to food then you do know there are things such as food banks right?
    pathetic
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nick100)
    The exchange in question is a person buying a £2 sandwich correct? A sandwich does not cost £2 to make, and as I pointed out you can get more caloric food from McDonald's for less than that (although it is still more expensive than the ingredients). The exchange is voluntary because there is cheaper food elsewhere, and there may even be better foods at a similar price elsewhere.
    Forget about the sandwich.

    Tell me how exchange is voluntary.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    pathetic
    **** reply, how does what I said not make sense?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Unfortunately neither income nor grades are always in proportion to importance nor effort.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wiska)
    **** reply, how does what I said not make sense?
    Nice try.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    Nice try.
    Is this your way of saying that you do not have an answer?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    So you think the people that end up in careers arbitrarily?

    Even if within a certain career or business, people are paid not according to their level of production but to their seniority or what their position is within the organisation, does their pay people receive not vary from career to career?

    I presume you will agree with that - and if you do, surely you don't think people end up in certain careers arbitrarily?

    I don't know about you, but I don't think people just apply to random careers and accept whatever they get - I'm pretty sure most people have a career in mind that they want to pursue. Whether or not they end up in it is a matter for them; if they do not, it is because they have not managed to compete effectively for it.
    You're completely overlooking the state of the world economy right now. Jobs are becoming so scarce that graduates are competing with each other for customer service jobs in Poundland, ffs!!

    So yes, people do end up in 'certain careers arbitarily' in these times, and it's a situation for which there is no precedent, so workers, companies and politicians are each having to invent 'rules' as they go along.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bad_moose)
    No, I don't support any of that.

    Why do so many people have this ridiculous idea that they're entitled to a life of luxury? A CEO will obviously work far harder and be far more productive than an office cleaner. The general trend is that you get out of life what you put in. Out of the CEO and the cleaner, I think it's fairly obvious who worked hardest and was more driven.

    The exam one is just stupid. Why would you want to undermine the whole exam system and make the whole shabang totally pointless in the name of equality?
    This post points to the fact that you seem to have a contempt of office cleaners.

    At the risk of sounding pretentious, people are people, and work is work. To say that cleaners are not driven, and don't work hard insults the very people who keep workplaces in a pleasant and tolerable position.

    Who says that the office cleaner isn't just getting experience for starting their own cleaning company, or that the supermarket cashier isn't in the middle of writing a business plan for a company that will re-conceptualise the retail industry??

    To hold such narrow views as 'CEOs are driven and hard-working, cleaners are drop-outs and layabouts' is extremely unhelpful.

    In a very real sense, you could argue that certain high-profile financial experts (cough* bankers) actually caused, or contributed to causing, a global recession through greed and short-term thinking, or even laziness, where cleaning is a physically demanding, oftentimes back-breaking work.

    Who seems more driven and hard-working now?? :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elcano)
    So... you're saying that in a world where everything is ideal in terms of conditions for economic models to work, all the economic models would work perfectly. Yeah. But we live in the real world, you have a lot of things like monopolies and cartels.

    And nope, the onus is NOT on me. The onus is on the person making the profit, because this person is taking more off me than can be said to be fair.

    Oh, and yeah: there's a difference if someone gets a good salary enabling him or her to live comfortably in exchange for working somewhere, or if someone just gets money for having money. But yeah, that last thing is the core of capitalism, and of course that can't be ever changed.
    You're trying to claim that something is not worth what its purchaser will pay for it because government forces can distort the economy. That's a completely vapid point to make; of course if you cause an artificial shortage or point a gun at someone's head and force them to overpay then the model doesn't work.

    Is the onus on liberals to show that homosexuality is moral, or on social conservatives to show that it is immoral? If its on the social conservatives in that case, why is it not on you in this one?

    Your last point diverges completely from everything said previously. Are you arguing against profit, or just usury (which is the only way to "make money by having money")?

    And lastly, just to remind you: I'm actually STILL not arguing for a ban on profits or anything like that. I'm saying that as you can't really show me the moral basis for making profit (as it seems to be something that 'just happens'), I don't really see how people can proclaim with such confidence that redistribution of wealth is not ok. Win some, lose some, I'd say. Somehow the rich are still rich, despite of any redistribution, and it can make a huge difference in the lives of poor people.
    Because I can see that stealing is immoral, but I can't see how making a trade is immoral. You are turning morality on its head.

    Btw, no one has said anything about the economic point I made earlier, namely that redistribution is actually beneficial to the economy...
    I'm going to take a wild guess and say that this is just a broken window fallacy. Claims like this almost always are. You know you need investment to increase productivity right? And it isn't demand that's lacking at the moment.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    Forget about the sandwich.

    Tell me how exchange is voluntary.
    No one forced you into it. There are a million and one things the money could be spent on. There technically aren't limitless choices - one cannot have such choices without being omnipotent.

    I'm sure you have an alternative system which is just full of consumer choice right? You definitely aren't one of those types who advocates a soul crushing democratic collective to achieve all economic goals, right?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nick100)
    You're trying to claim that something is not worth what its purchaser will pay for it because government forces can distort the economy. That's a completely vapid point to make; of course if you cause an artificial shortage or point a gun at someone's head and force them to overpay then the model doesn't work.

    Is the onus on liberals to show that homosexuality is moral, or on social conservatives to show that it is immoral? If its on the social conservatives in that case, why is it not on you in this one?

    Your last point diverges completely from everything said previously. Are you arguing against profit, or just usury (which is the only way to "make money by having money")?



    Because I can see that stealing is immoral, but I can't see how making a trade is immoral. You are turning morality on its head.



    I'm going to take a wild guess and say that this is just a broken window fallacy. Claims like this almost always are. You know you need investment to increase productivity right? And it isn't demand that's lacking at the moment.
    Oh god, I'm just going to give up. I would have bothered if you'd show any signs of actually reading what I write, but nope, obviously not. And even the parts you do read you manage to completely misinterpret.

    So yeah. Capitalism is great. Everything is going fine. Yay for unhindered accumulation of capital. Yay for ever increasing consumption.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by askew116)
    This post points to the fact that you seem to have a contempt of office cleaners.

    At the risk of sounding pretentious, people are people, and work is work. To say that cleaners are not driven, and don't work hard insults the very people who keep workplaces in a pleasant and tolerable position.

    Who says that the office cleaner isn't just getting experience for starting their own cleaning company, or that the supermarket cashier isn't in the middle of writing a business plan for a company that will re-conceptualise the retail industry??

    To hold such narrow views as 'CEOs are driven and hard-working, cleaners are drop-outs and layabouts' is extremely unhelpful.

    In a very real sense, you could argue that certain high-profile financial experts (cough* bankers) actually caused, or contributed to causing, a global recession through greed and short-term thinking, or even laziness, where cleaning is a physically demanding, oftentimes back-breaking work.

    Who seems more driven and hard-working now?? :rolleyes:
    It may be insulting but it's an unfortunate truth. How many cleaners do you know that have a good degree and choose cleaning over a more interesting, well paid job? It's a low skilled profession that employs people who in many cases don't have the qualifications or capacity to get into a different form of work.

    That is a laughably unlikely situation. Very, very few people who decide to become cleaners are in any kind of position to start a business venture like that. Have you got any idea how difficult it is to get anywhere even vaguely close to being a CEO nowadays? You have to be extremely dedicated and be willing to sacrifice a lot to get there. My dad works for an insurance company and he was talking to me about their graduate scheme. It's so competitive that they're having to reject people who's intelligence levels place them in the top 1% of the country. We're talking about people who've got firsts from top Universities and who've spent all their free time gaining work experience. Compare that to somebody who's walked into the job centre and applied for a few jobs that require next to no qualifications or experience.

    A full time cleaner is probably going to be working a 6 hour day max. They get into a work, wipe some tables down, scrub some floors and then go home. Many bankers are expected to be in the Office at 7am and work solidly through until most people are at home and tucked up in bed. One of my friends fathers is a banker and she doesn't even get to see him during the week because he works such long hours.

    I still maintain that your average CEO is almost always going to be more hard working and driven than your average cleaner.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    Risk is but one component in a matrix of factors that determine the level of remuneration one receives.

    One's level of production is the overriding determinant factor.
    No, it's not.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by billydisco)
    I would say about 90% of those on TSR with the red gems are those with their feet fixed firmly on the ground...

    All the green gem-ers are most likely lib dem wannabes...... "everyone has the right to a family and society should fund it for them if they cant" type-of-crap
    Right, because gems are awarded purely on political views, and not say how helpful you are or what your religious views are...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bhumbauze)
    Maybe it should be, but it isn't.

    I work in a retail environment in a team of 6. The highest paid member of that team earns an annual salary of £23000. The shop is a very productive one and makes a net profit of over £600,000 per annum. That's after wages.

    It's part of a chain with identical staffing levels and wage structures. Many shops in the chain make net profits of < £50k per annum.

    The reason we are so productive is because we work incredibly hard to trample the local competition. I'd be bloody laughing if production level was reflected in wages.

    So yes... in your idealised world where this is the case, then perhaps there is no reason for wealth redistribution. In our current capitalist structure where the wages of over 99% of a company's employees are arbitrary and in no way linked to profits ... it seems pretty much essential.
    It is not even an ideal world. This is far from how wages are determined and he lacks rudimentary economics knowledge.

    E.g. wtf is that example he gave about you paying the hairdresser by how "happy" he makes you.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bad_moose)
    No, I don't support any of that.

    Why do so many people have this ridiculous idea that they're entitled to a life of luxury? A CEO will obviously work far harder and be far more productive than an office cleaner. The general trend is that you get out of life what you put in. Out of the CEO and the cleaner, I think it's fairly obvious who worked hardest and was more driven.

    The exam one is just stupid. Why would you want to undermine the whole exam system and make the whole shabang totally pointless in the name of equality?
    Because sitting on your ass all day requires more effort than scrubbing toilets all day?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    Is that what I said? I think you know it isn't.

    People differ, for all sorts of reasons. Some differences are innate. Some are the results of our actions and inactions.

    I don't think we should pretend this isn't the case by redistributing income from those that do better to those that do worse to ignore or try to 'fix' this fundamental fact of human existence.

    This isn't just a fact pertinent to humans; variation exists everywhere. There is no reason it shouldn't exist.

    Free people that differ from one another will always end up earning different amounts - and I don't see anything wrong with that.
    What a huge shame you weren't born with an IQ of 90 and no discernible talent. Coz I'd be laughing at your face right now. Would make my day.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    I do not see that some people are very wealthy is a problem at all. How does one get wealthy without stealing money? By providing a good or service that people value.

    If a man makes his money by providing people with goods and services, his wealth is a badge of honour. The more money a man has, the more he has served humanity.

    I've never given any man a penny to make me worse off - nobody would voluntarily pay someone to make them worse off - the only group I have ever given money to and been made worse off by is the Government, who force me to give them my money.

    I have no option of 'leaving' society. I am held prisoner here. If I could live with a group of like-minded individuals within a society run according to those principles that I adhere to, do you not think I would?
    That's ironic given that Brits are actually very charitable.

    Oh and good luck finding a cleaner to come with you in that last part.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by will2348)
    This. It's too true. Incentives is what drives the living standards forward for all. You take the incentives away, who would want to aspire to become a CEO?

    Just putting it out there.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Taxes are already rather high if you think about it, and OMG there are still CEOs out there! :eek:

    What's happening, where are the incentives, why do people still become CEOs? :confused:
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.