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 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?
    I don't know about you, but even with equal pay I'd still MUCH rather be leading a company than cleaning the toilets.
    Offline

    17
    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.
    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
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AspiringGenius)
    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.

    Well, for starters... it is physically taking thousands away from a rich person and giving it to poor people. That's exactly what it is... I'm not sure how you don't see that :confused:

    And secondly, how do people who earn more 'take' from society?

    In order to earn money, you understand you have to give things to society, right?

    When Tesco makes £2 from me when I buy a sandwich, they've given me something - they haven't 'taken' from me, because they've given me something (the sandwich) that I value MORE than what I gave them (the money). I've made a net gain; I'm better off.

    Why would you give money to someone in exchange for something you value less than your money :confused:

    The only time I do that is where I'm forced to by the government. No company has ever told me to buy their products or go to prison; the government tells me to pay my taxes or be jailed.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elcano)
    I don't know about you, but even with equal pay I'd still MUCH rather be leading a company than cleaning the toilets.
    You clearly don't know how difficult it is to run a plc then. Yes, most people may rather do that. But how many would be successful at it? And how many would crumble under pressure or simply drive the organisation down. Most CEOs are target-driven, driven by monetary incentives and so when they get there, again, they are target-driven, they get stuff done and rewarded according to targets. If someone became CEO just because they felt like it, and not through incentives, they may not be as target-driven and not as successful. Arguably, the target culture is exactly what is wrong with society. But again, just putting it out there. But I think most people would rather not be a CEO, they would feel under-valued. Yes, many other jobs you feel under-valued but that is linked to the supply of labour rather than the social value of what you do.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    14
    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?
    If you're an aristocrat then you can inherit masses of land. You now have the ability to supply something which there is a demand for. Does that mean you deserve it?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    If you're an aristocrat then you can inherit masses of land. You now have the ability to supply something which there is a demand for. Does that mean you deserve it?
    Do you not believe that people have the right to own real property?

    And of course you deserve it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    In order to earn money, you understand you have to give things to society, right?
    Well no. The only thing you need to do is to take advantage of the needs that exist. Do that in the right way, and you stand to make a LOT of money. And the more unethically and corrupt you do it, the more money you can make. Isn't that nice?

    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    the government tells me to pay my taxes or be jailed.
    And rightly so. The whole infrastructure, security, rule of law etc. doesn't just pay for itself.
    Offline

    15
    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!"

    Work hard and have a high level of ability you become a top accountant

    Don't work hard and have a low level of ability you end up as a cleaner.
    • Section Leader
    • Political Ambassador
    • Reporter Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I support the redistribution of income because I deem it necessary to pay for required public amenities and to provide citizens with fair access to opportunities. I don't support the redistribution of test scores because scores are a measure of performance and no benefit is served by their reallocation.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by will2348)
    You clearly don't know how difficult it is to run a plc then.
    Actually, I do. Not from personal experience, but I do know about it. I'd still much rather do that instead of cleaning toilets.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    What a stupid comparison. The test scores are based on academic performance on an equal basic, assuming there are no real world factors like private education and family background, whilst the different workers are performing different types of labour, which have different values, and for different amounts of time.

    I would argue in general there needs to be a re-distribution of wealth from all CEOs or heads of companies, to all the workers and employees under them since they only get paid a fraction of the true value of their labour, which is where profit comes from.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AspiringGenius)
    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.

    Are they not already giving back to society by providing a service/product that is in demand, as well as employing people from the local area maybe supporting local suppliers as well.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    Do you not believe that people have the right to own real property?
    No.

    And of course you deserve it.
    So do the Saudi Royal family deserve their wealth?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elcano)
    Well no. The only thing you need to do is to take advantage of the needs that exist. Do that in the right way, and you stand to make a LOT of money. And the more unethically and corrupt you do it, the more money you can make. Isn't that nice?



    And rightly so. The whole infrastructure, security, rule of law etc. doesn't just pay for itself.
    So when I buy a sandwich from Tesco for £2, I'm being 'taken advantage' of?

    How so?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    No.



    So do the Saudi Royal family deserve their wealth?
    Well, if you disagree with the first point there is no way we can agree.

    I don't know enough about the Saudi Royal Family to give you an accurate answer - my general policy is that so long as someone hasn't stolen, coerced, assaulted, defrauded or threatened someone to earn what they have, they deserve it. I don't know if the SRF has done any of these things, so I cannot say with any certainty.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Still waiting for you to tell me why it's right that the starving man in my scenario should be left to die, Aspiringlawstudent.
    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
    Why do you want CEOs?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    So when I buy a sandwich from Tesco for £2, I'm being 'taken advantage' of?

    How so?
    They get a profit off me, don't they?

    Where's my profit? I pay for the materials needed, for the salaries of everybody including management, even for interest for money lent to the supermarket, e.g. by a bank... and for that, I get a sandwich.

    Where's the reason for the profit?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Redolent)
    Still waiting for you to tell me why it's right that the starving man in my scenario should be left to die, Aspiringlawstudent.
    Sorry, missed that - I'll answer it here.

    It's moral because I do not recognise the good of others as the reason for my existence. I do not exist to serve others; I exist to pursue my own happiness. I would never ask another man to live for my sake involuntarily, nor am I willing to live for another man against my will. Now, if one wishes to give to another, there is nothing wrong with that. But I believe that people must be free to make their own choices - people do not owe each other a better condition. So long as I did nothing to put that man in that position - I didn't steal from him, assault him, defraud him etc - I have no moral obligation to do any positive act in his favour, just as he has no moral obligation to do any positive act in my favour - the duties owed by men to one another are wholly negative, in my thinking; that is we have duties to refrain from doing things, including inter alia defrauding, stealing, assaulting, raping, killing. We have no duty to provide goods or services to others.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    I don't know enough about the Saudi Royal Family to give you an accurate answer - my general policy is that so long as someone hasn't stolen, coerced, assaulted, defrauded or threatened someone to earn what they have, they deserve it. I don't know if the SRF has done any of these things, so I cannot say with any certainty.
    What about people that acquired wealth through these unjust means you mention, but received state sanction at the time and have since passed it down (as is the case with most aristocrats)?

    Secondly, private property in itself is inherently coercive.
 
 
 
Poll
If you won £30,000, which of these would you spend it on?
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.