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

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Yes because clearly that's a threat to life and limb, ay.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wiska)
    Hello,

    This kind of thing isn't allowed to happen though is it? Here in the UK, we do receive free healthcare and I am certain any citizen seeing a dying/ill person on the road would instantly call an ambulance.

    At the hospital they would receive food too of course - and plus if they are homeless the Government legally has to provide you with accomodation.

    There are also a range of benefits/welfare to ensure people are not completely penniless so they can maintain a standard of living, a sustainable one at that.

    I am interested in knowing what exactly it is you would like the state to be like - every body on equal pay, salary cap, what?

    The OP stated he opposes redistribution of income. That suggests he opposes all forms of shifting wealth from the rich to the poor by government force, and so it follows that he considers things like the NHS and other public services paid for disproportionately by the wealthy to be an illegitimate use of government force (as they might prefer to pay only for their own needs). The same of course applies ever more strongly to welfare, which is pretty much a direct shift of income from the richest to the poorest - something I consider essential to some degree as without it people could starve, live a horrendous quality of life or even end up dying.

    I'm not some sort of communist, I just think capitalism is a pretty brutal system and society's most vulnerable need a guarantee of protection.
    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
    I dispute that; my views on economics are pretty right wing yet I haven't had a problem maintaining positive rep.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elcano)
    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?
    There doesn't need to be a reason; you valued the sandwich as worth more to you than £2. It doesn't matter if the sandwich cost them a penny or one pound and ninety-nine pence to make and get to you; the point is that you both voluntarily traded with each other and in doing so you both gained more than you parted with.

    You ask "where is my profit?". If the £2 was worth more to you than the sandwich then why did you purchase it? If it was worth less to you than the sandwich then surely in some sense you gained from the trade?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Back to the freedom to starve again.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Redolent)
    The OP stated he opposes redistribution of income. That suggests he opposes all forms of shifting wealth from the rich to the poor by government force, and so it follows that he considers things like the NHS and other public services paid for disproportionately by the wealthy to be an illegitimate use of government force (as they might prefer to pay only for their own needs). The same of course applies ever more strongly to welfare, which is pretty much a direct shift of income from the richest to the poorest - something I consider essential to some degree as without it people could starve, live a horrendous quality of life or even end up dying.

    I'm not some sort of communist, I just think capitalism is a pretty brutal system and society's most vulnerable need a guarantee of protection.
    Hey,

    I am absolutely okay with basic redistribution of income, such as income taxes in order to fund public services like Policing, Healthcare and Education as well as many other things people take for granted. This gives those who are poorer a chance at life. I just don't like it when people say everyone deserves the same wage, that's just wrong.

    I believe in Capitalism but with a bit of regulation otherwise corporations would pay what they wanted lol.

    I find it unfair how people absolutely hate rich people, or those just well off and want things like 60% income tax or 100% estate tax. Regardless if they have inherited it that money belongs to their family, the person worked so hard and saved the money left to ensure their family continues to lead happy lives and continually progress, this would include access to top education.

    I believe in things such as private property and accumulation of wealth but at the same time taxes to ensure a country is continually being improved
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nick100)
    you valued the sandwich as worth more to you than £2.
    No I didn't. On the contrary, I find £2 for a sandwich expensive... only no one offers it for a better price. Now what?

    (Original post by Nick100)
    If the £2 was worth more to you than the sandwich then why did you purchase it?
    You can honestly not think of any other possible reason?? AGAIN - that homo oeconomicus crap is oversimplifying things in an incredible way.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elcano)
    No I didn't. On the contrary, I find £2 for a sandwich expensive... only no one offers it for a better price. Now what?

    You can honestly not think of any other possible reason?? AGAIN - that homo-economicus crap is oversimplifying things in an incredible way.
    If you are trading the £2 for the sandwich then you must have made a value judgement and decided that you'd rather have the sandwich than the £2. If the £2 is more valuable to you than the sandwich why did you buy it? Why not spend the money on something more valuable, or not spend it immediately?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nick100)
    If you are trading the £2 for the sandwich then you must have made a value judgement and decided that you'd rather have the sandwich than the £2.
    No, no, no and again no. That's not how human beings work. Normally you're hungry, you decide you need something like a sandwich (e.g. because real meals are too expensive, McDonalds makes you sick and the apples they offer don't look too good), and provided you're hungry enough and the price isn't completely unreasonable, you buy it.

    There is no 'extra value' there. I get a sandwich, the supermarket get's the money for the materials, the production etc.

    Where's the reason for a profit? And if you allow a profit, why shouldn't there be a partial redistribution for the more unfortunate ones who e.g. couldn't go to uni to become a businessman and build a supermarket?

    (Original post by Nick100)
    If the £2 is more valuable to you than the sandwich why did you buy it?
    £2 has no value at all for me. I don't eat money, I don't drink it, I can't enjoy it, it's just there for me to buy something with it. And no, I DON'T make a spreadsheet every time I think about buying something. Human beings just don't work like that.

    Well, perhaps you do, but I can assure you that if that is the case, you belong to a tiny minority.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elcano)
    No, no, no and again no. That's not how human beings work. Normally you're hungry, you decide you need something like a sandwich (e.g. because real meals are too expensive, McDonalds makes you sick and the apples they offer don't look too good), and provided you're hungry enough and the price isn't completely unreasonable, you buy it.

    There is no 'extra value' there. I get a sandwich, the supermarket get's the money for the materials, the production etc.
    Whether you value it as worth more than £2 because you are hungry at that moment or because you anticipate that you'll want to eat it down the line it is a fact that you must value it more than anything else you could buy with that £2 at that particular moment. If you often find yourself regretting your decision to buy a £2 sandwich you could always forgo that sandwich in future.

    You say you buy the sandwich "because real meals are too expensive, McDonalds makes you sick and the apples they offer don't look too good". All that means is that you value the sandwich more than those things, and more than £2.

    Where's the reason for a profit? And if you allow a profit, why shouldn't there be a partial redistribution for the more unfortunate ones who e.g. couldn't go to uni to become a businessman and build a supermarket?
    There doesn't need to be a reason; the transaction was voluntary. The difference between allowing a profit and forcing redistribution is that the first occurs via entirely voluntary actions, whereas the second requires one party to be forced to give money to another. And bear in mind that the "unfortunate ones" in this country are still almost certainly part of richest 20% of the planet, and few people would tolerate the idea of taking their money by force and sending it to Africa and India.

    £2 has no value at all for me. I don't eat money, I don't drink it, I can't enjoy it, it's just there for me to buy something with it. And no, I DON'T make a spreadsheet every time I think about buying something. Human beings just don't work like that.

    Well, perhaps you do, but I can assure you that if that is the case, you belong to a tiny minority.
    It isn't about making a spreadsheet; you have a pretty good idea of what you can buy with £2 and a you know how much a sandwich is worth to you. If what you were saying was true then there would be no difference between £100 and £2.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    Youve set up a lovely little strawman here. These examples share nothing in common. The marks are decided entirely by the students achievements, whereas the incomes are determined by market properties.

    Also, in the marks situation, it is obvious that the other children need more tuition than the top student, so if this is followed the marks essentially will be redistributed. Redistribution does'nt have to mean taking stuff directly from one side and giving it to the other.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nick100)
    that the first occurs via entirely voluntary actions
    Well no. It's not 'entirely voluntary'. There's a system and a society in place which only gives me certain choices. Within that system, my choices are - partly - voluntary. Which still doesn't provide adequate reason why someone should be allowed to profit off my needs. I don't have to accept a system just because it was there before me.

    (Original post by Nick100)
    If what you were saying was true then there would be no difference between £100 and £2.
    As long as I don't actually buy anything, there isn't - not for me, anyway.


    I really wish it would be more generally acknowledged that all those economic models are just that - simplified models, not completely wrong, but most certainly also not a very accurate representation of how a complex human being really acts.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nick100)
    I dispute that; my views on economics are pretty right wing yet I haven't had a problem maintaining positive rep.
    Ok let me re-word- those of us with red gems don't give a crap how we word things and don't pussy around- we say it how it is.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elcano)
    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?
    Your body profited in terms that the number of vitamins/minerals/carbs/protein/fat in your body increased....... ??
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by billydisco)
    Your body profited in terms that the number of vitamins/minerals/carbs/protein/fat in your body increased....... ??
    That is the natural consequence of ingestion of food, for which I have paid - together with all the production costs.

    So again, where exactly does the justification for extra profit come from?
    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
    Well said mate!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bad_moose)
    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.
    The dangers of socialism
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    A LOT of people don't do very well and it really isn't their fault.

    Even if everybody tried - not everyone can be a millionaire. That's exactly why the eternal 'you just have to try harder' is such a bloody lie.



    And yeah, I'm very probably going to be one of the rich guys, so don't you go around saying that's just an opinion poor people have. Money doesn't have to stop you from being ethical, you know.
    Offline

    2
    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?
    I guess that society world be similar to pre-1913 USA- before the Federal Reserve and US military spending becoming unsustainably high
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    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.
    I don't see it that way because if they were literally taking away thousands and dishing out to the poor like some sort of state run "robin hood" paradigm, then the poor would spend the money on themselves to give themselves a better quality fo life through luxury items like TVs, houses, cars etc. The government spends the money (alledgedly) on public services and ammenities which are supposed to be available for everyone. Health and education for one, and even things like benefits are available tto all should they need them. The wealthy people who are taxed more only lose out if they go private for things like education (which if they do only proves how poor their investing skills are anyway).

    how do people take more? Well lets take your £2 sandwhich senario. When you pay £2, you are not getting a product that is worth £2. You are getting a product that is worth far less. The company would still turn a profit if it was £1.50 or even £1. So the excess is exactlly what the wealthiest in this particular company "take". Did they do more work? no. If you charge £2 for a £1.50 sandwhich is it worth more? no.
 
 
 
Poll
Which pet is the best?
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.