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

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    It's really that easy; you measure your increase in utility and assign it a monetary value, then adjust it according to simple supply and demand.
    *watch out, we got a homo oeconomicus over here*


    Well... yeah. Except that nope, it doesn't work like that in real human beings.


    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    Please explain why.
    Simple. Marks show your abilities. Salaries obviously don't.

    Add to that the fact that marks aren't your reward, they're a system of feedback. Salaries, again, are not - they are what you earn.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    Please explain why.
    There is not a fixed supply of marks.

    Marks are an abstract concept, income equates to actual resources.

    The sole purpose of marks is to show a candidate's ability to do something relative to their peers.

    Having a low number of marks isn't going to destroy your quality of life, or even put your life at risk. Having an exceedingly low income, or no income, very easily could.


    I mean, honestly, how is this not completely obvious to you?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bhumbauze)
    Same answer as I've already given, really. Marks reflect effort (well... that's not entirely true... they reflect a combination of effort and natural ability) no matter how you look at it - wages paid in this country, currently, are preset arbitrary values that do not reflect effort nor ability.

    The way wages work in the UK is more akin to being told, upon entering an exam;

    "You're going to get 60% on this exam. You can answer every question with a completely perfect, original, inspired answer OR you can draw a massive **** across the page. It doesn't matter. You'll get 60% either way. So will Bob and Tim. Sue's getting 67% . Good luck everyone!"
    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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    if they do not, it is because they have not managed to compete effectively for it.
    So in effect, you think we could all be CEOs if we so wished?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    all you lot are making this far more complicated then this is. could the accountant do the cleaners job? yes. could the cleaner do the accountants job? no. This is such a silly thread why would anyone make any effort in life if we all earnt the same. Just to take this further for people who have to overthink things a cleaner earning £6 an hour will still be doing the same level of effort as another cleaner on £12 an hour as there is not much to be good at. An accountant on £6 hour is not going to be as good as one on £20 an hour. why overthink this stuff?!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Redolent)
    There is not a fixed supply of marks.

    Marks are an abstract concept, income equates to actual resources.

    The sole purpose of marks is to show a candidate's ability to do something relative to their peers.

    Having a low number of marks isn't going to destroy your quality of life, or even put your life at risk. Having an exceedingly low income, or no income, very easily could.


    I mean, honestly, how is this not completely obvious to you?
    Do you think that incomes are just arbitrary? They reflect your ability to do something relative to your peers too. Did you think supply and demand had no bearing upon wages?

    At any rate, you haven't made a moral argument at all. Why is the confiscation of income, which is the result of either labour or the bearing of risk through investment, justified if the confiscation of what you think are relatively unimportant marks on a test not justified?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    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?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elcano)
    So in effect, you think we could all be CEOs if we so wished?
    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.
    • Thread Starter
    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 move 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?
    I don't want that. I'm using it as an example of how silly the idea of equality of outcome is; it's obviously stupid in the context of examination, and I think it's as obviously stupid in the context of income.

    Why people don't realise it's a stupid ideal I do not understand.
    Offline

    2
    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
    :eek: You can't go throwing accusations like that around these days!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    Do you think that incomes are just arbitrary? They reflect your ability to do something relative to your peers too. Did you think supply and demand had no bearing upon wages?

    At any rate, you haven't made a moral argument at all. Why is the confiscation of income, which is the result of either labour or the bearing of risk through investment, justified if the confiscation of what you think are relatively unimportant marks on a test not justified?
    How about you start by justifying your position?

    Why do you think that a group of human beings with a monopoly over a resource that is essential in order to survive should be able to deny their fellow human beings even a tiny share of said resource, thereby killing them indirectly?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    Why is the confiscation of income, which is the result of either labour or the bearing of risk through investment, justified if the confiscation of what you think are relatively unimportant marks on a test not justified?
    Because we live in a society, and we didn't all have the same opportunities to start with, which makes the outcome unfair. And then, there's also the problem that people with a lot of money tend to make even more money more easily than poor people (... the first million is the hardest one...), hence there is even more unfairness. And this is about peoples livelihood, which is on average increased by redistribution, which in turn is something we as a society should find agreeable.

    Redistributing feedback is just plainly stupid and obviously not comparable. What purpose would it serve?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Redolent)
    How about you start by justifying your position?

    Why do you think that a group of human beings with a monopoly over a resource that is essential in order to survive should be able to deny their fellow human beings even a tiny share of said resource, thereby killing them indirectly?
    Who are you referring to?
    Which resource are you referring to?

    I put it to you that no man or company has a monopoly over any resource essential to human life.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    I don't want that. I'm using it as an example of how silly the idea of equality of outcome is; it's obviously stupid in the context of examination, and I think it's as obviously stupid in the context of income.

    Why people don't realise it's a stupid ideal I do not understand.
    Sorry, hangover and sleep deprivation kicking in. Didn't mean to aim that 'Why would you...' bit at you, was just a general statement.

    But yeah, I think it's generally an opinion held by people who haven't done very well for themselves and refuse to believe it's their own fault. The whole country would shatter into several million pieces if this were to be implemented.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elcano)
    Because we live in a society, and we didn't all have the same opportunities to start with, which makes the outcome unfair. And then, there's also the problem that people with a lot of money tend to make even more money more easily than poor people (... the first million is the hardest one...), hence there is even more unfairness. And this is about peoples livelihood, which is on average increased by redistribution, which in turn is something we as a society should find agreeable.

    Redistributing feedback is just plainly stupid and obviously not comparable. What purpose would it serve?

    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?
    Offline

    17
    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 move 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. 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
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    Which is why you have negative rep.
    Actually this user used to have 4/5 red gems so his posts recently have been quite reasonable.

    OP From redistribution of wealth, I see it more as people who earn more (i.e. take more from society) be ex[ected to give more back, and this goes towards services that benefit society colectively, i.e. health and education.

    It's not physically taking thousands away from a rich person and giving it to a poor person, so i feel like the example used in your OP is a bit redundant.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    The fallacy is in the OP itself: they're doing the same paper, but not the same job.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    The more money a man has, the more he has served humanity.
    Spoken like a true, rich, uncaring, antisocial fat-cat lawyer. Way to go, bravo - we need more people like you.

    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    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?
    Oh but you can. Move out and go to Afghanistan. Government tends to have much less power there.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    Who are you referring to?
    Which resource are you referring to?

    I put it to you that no man or company has a monopoly over any resource essential to human life.
    It's very simple.

    In the sort capitalist society you are advocating, it is essential to trade in order to get resources. If a man needs to buy food, but has no money or items to trade, he will starve to death, unless those that do have more food / resources / income than they need decide to give their spares to him (which is not guaranteed).

    I put it to you that it is morally wrong to let that man die simply because those with the most food / equivalent resources refuse to share it.
 
 
 
Poll
Should MenACWY vaccination be compulsory at uni?
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.