Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

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

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by danny111)
    Because sitting on your ass all day requires more effort than scrubbing toilets all day?
    It's not just sitting on your ass all day though it is, it's a stressful job that requires the constant application of your mind. It certainly requires a lot of effort and drive to put yourself into that position too. Cleaning a toilet is just rubbing a brush in a circular motion until the poo is gone and then repeating it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by will2348)
    But with this, the point you missed was in a macroeconomic environment of high unemployment, there are many people that could do that and be just as productive which is what drives your salary down. If this was an extremely complicated job to be highly productive in that few could replicate, your salary would be much more reflective of the overall income you generate for the company.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    While your idea is correct, you missed his point. He is saying that this is actually not the case. Other branches make a fraction of what his does, so if there really would be so many people out there able to do his job just as well, the other branches should at least be close to what his is.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bad_moose)
    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.
    You’re conflating two different things: ‘effort’ and ‘ability’.
    We live in a world which places a high value on intellectual cognisance, which means those individuals with the ability to make swift and effective financial or structural decisions are in demand and able to command higher salaries.
    That doesn’t mean they put in more effort at work than the man who cleans their office.
    Similarly, two footballers can run 10km and make 50 passes in a match, but if one plays for Real Madrid and the other for Darlington, their salaries will be wildly different. Both put in same amount of effort, but the market dictates an exponentially higher reward for the one with higher ability, because his talent is rarer and in greater demand and achieves a higher financial income for his employer.

    It’s natural that this higher ability justifies a much higher salary.
    The problem you face is justifying why your natural ability should go as far condemning another man to penury, simply because he lacks that natural ability. As Warren Buffett says, he happened to be born into a world where his intellectual skills and natural ability allowed him to become materially secure. Had he been born 4000 years ago, he would have been dependent on those with greater physical attributes: the ability to hunt more meat, procure a secure dwelling, and defend him from attacks.
    I would say any proportional redistribution that helps the cleaner up to Living Wage + £1 is justified.

    And the original question was stupid.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bad_moose)
    It's not just sitting on your ass all day though it is, it's a stressful job that requires the constant application of your mind. It certainly requires a lot of effort and drive to put yourself into that position too. Cleaning a toilet is just rubbing a brush in a circular motion until the poo is gone and then repeating it.
    Okay sir, you try rubbing a brush all day.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by danny111)
    Okay sir, you try rubbing a brush all day.
    I have and I will. And then I'll sit there and count my wages and wish that I earned more, but then I'll remember that scrubbing a toilet is much harder that being a banker/CEO etc. and so I'll have a lovely tingly feeling inside.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nick100)
    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?
    Back to eating is voluntary again.

    You just can't avoid this, no matter how hard you squirm.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I don't understand people like you who also moan about benefits. If say, A CEO earned less, and minimum wage workers earn more, then those on low incomes will receive less benefits,
    less working tax credits etc...so they'd be less reliant on the government to survive. To quote people such as the AspiringLawyer, you'd give less of your 'hard earned money' to them.

    You want people to be poor, but you don't want them to have any support to live. They can't win! Awful spoilt, middle class children, you've had no hardships. So ignorant.

    :chaplin: Beat them with a stick and send them to the poor house.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    I'm getting really sick of all these silly threads. The problem at the moment is huge redistribution of income from the poor to the rich on a scale unprecedented since Victorian times, not the other way round. Basically OP and buddies of OP, cut it out.
    They resent the idea of the poor workers earning more to live, yet they also resent the idea of them receiving financial aid from the government to live.

    The poor cant win, they expect them to live in shared accommodation, and go to food banks. It's such a joke.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Who said we resent the idea of poor workers earning more? I'd gladly vote for increasing the minimum wage and increase the income tax allowance.

    I also DO NOT hate the idea of them receiving financial aid, I am all for redistribution of income, I simply dislike those who see benefits as a lifestyle and choose to live on them all their life without ever trying to improve themselves so they can get a job, welfare is supposed to be a safety net, not a fricken' hammock.

    What I believe is that those with limited skills or none at all shouldn't go round feeling entitled to earning the same wages as Dentists/Doctors/Bankers because they simply aren't equal.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    Back to eating is voluntary again.

    You just can't avoid this, no matter how hard you squirm.
    Back to "it's a £2 sandwich; the choice isn't 'buy this sandwich or starve' any more than the choice is 'spend £20 at a restaurant or starve'". What part of "this isn't the bare essentials" do you not understand?

    I really need to ask you; if I spend £1000 so that I can eat an endangered turtle is that involuntary "because eating isn't voluntary"?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elcano)
    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.
    I responded point by point. You started with irrelevant points about monopolies and cartels your continued attempt to dismiss "everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it"; for you to bring those in you had to ignore the word "honestly" in my question "if I can honestly, reliably sell a good for £20 in what sense is it not worth £20?". You wanted me to "show profit is moral"; I asked if one should have to "show homosexuality is moral". Your next point was trying to distinguish earning a salary from earning money through usury (or maybe some other means like renting) without explaining why one profit is acceptable and the other isn't.

    You then said that you can't see how wealth redistribution is not okay. I said that it involves stealing - or force - and that therefore it is morally dubious.

    You then claimed that redistribution of wealth is economically beneficial. I guessed that this would be a broken window fallacy.

    Where's the misinterpretation?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bad_moose)
    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.
    So you're saying it's right and fair to judge someone's intelligence by the job they do?

    By your own admission, applicants with firsts from top universities and work experience are being rejected from the few sought after graduate placements/jobs available. So what are these people meant to do? That's right, they get any job they can while continuing to look for jobs more suited to their degree.

    Just because you see someone working as, say a cleaner, or working in McDonalds, absolutely does NOT mean that they are not hard working or driven.

    How many cleaners have you actually sat down and spoken to, and bothered to find out their backgrounds, their hopes and dreams? I've listened to a lot, and yes, they do ALL see cleaning as a stop-gap, and they put in a lot of effort to make sure that they achieve their dreams, whatever they may be.

    Your apparent contempt for every human being not in a job earning upwards of £50k is disgusting, quite frankly.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    Back to eating is voluntary again.

    You just can't avoid this, no matter how hard you squirm.
    In this particular case he could have just made a sandwich at some or something like that for a fraction of the cost!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elcano)
    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.
    Why didn't you just get a big mac/quarter pounder/mc-chiken sandwich and chips for £1.99 using the vouchers they give away on the buses and thursday editions of the metro?

    And invested the 1p or something to offset the profit McD's made of you lol!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elcano)
    You DO know that non-profit organisations actually exist? That there is no terrible calamity befalling them for not making profit, right?

    Or is this news to you?


    My, it is interesting to see how some people just seem to be mentally incapable of looking at something from a different perspective, especially when they're used to something... interesting, and sad.
    Lets look at the countries where everything was "non-profit":

    -Cuba
    -North Korea
    -USSR
    -China
    -Vietnam

    not exactly a glowing list of economic prosperity, are they? And China grew as soon as they got rid of "non-profit" stuff!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nick100)
    Back to "it's a £2 sandwich; the choice isn't 'buy this sandwich or starve' any more than the choice is 'spend £20 at a restaurant or starve'". What part of "this isn't the bare essentials" do you not understand?

    I really need to ask you; if I spend £1000 so that I can eat an endangered turtle is that involuntary "because eating isn't voluntary"?
    **** the sandwich, the discussion has moved on.

    You said all trade is voluntary. Now unless eating is now voluntary, you can't justify this statement.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Hold on - isn't this example problematic with Tories because they are looking to be the workers party now.

    By redistributing funds do you mean literally transferring money to equalise wages? Then no

    Have differing tax levels? Yes
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Hasta siempre, comandante.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    A protest against those who do nothing to help or invest in themselves and expect to be kept by the rest of us.

    The economy is in a dreadful state. If there were a lever that could be pulled to improve matters in this respect don't you think some politician from one party or another wouldn't pull it? That party would rule unchallenged thereafter for ever.

    The truth is that the answer does not lie with politicians. They were part of the problem.

    If this country is to stand a chance in the future, it has to return to habits of fiscal and personal financial rectitude. No government over a cyclic term, can spend more than the electorate are *prepared* to grant it through taxation. There is no other way. Similarly no individual can spend more than he can afford. If he pays interest as most of us do from time to time, that interest counts as spending and has to be met.

    This is not rocket science. Surely it's not too difficult to drive such a lesson home.

    Some things are certain. You will not make this or any other country prosperous by taking earned money from one pocket and placing it into the pocket of someone who refuses to earn it. If you yearn for someone else's money you have to directly or indirectly earn it from him. That's how economic activity is generated and economies at any level, function.

    Of course there are people who for whatever reason just can't work. I don't think anyone begrudges maintaining such unfortunates but here again it's a question of degree. The cost of welfare seems to be rising exponentially.

    Similarly we shall never become prosperous by beggaring those we see as rich and successful. Face it, many of them are rich and successful because they have outwitted and/or outperformed you and if it becomes necessary will do so again and again.

    All you will achieve, if anything, will be to drive a schism through society that will benefit nobody and furthermore, should such a society become sufficiently intolerable, it is the rich, the powerful, the successful and the talented that will be in the best position to leave it all behind taking their wealth, power and talent with them.

    The sad truth is, we need the rich and successful a lot more than we need the old, the alleged poor, the disabled and the useless. What a society they would cobble together!
 
 
 
Poll
Which web browser do you use?
General election 2017 on TSR
Register to vote

Registering to vote?

Check out our guide for everything you need to know

Manifesto snapshots

Manifesto Snapshots

All you need to know about the 2017 party manifestos

Party Leader questions

Party Leader Q&A

Ask political party leaders your questions

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.