Worldly Talk

Civil discussion and debate on real world events and issues.


Society - Inequality vs. Equality

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by canjowolf View Post
In theory I agree that those who contribute the most to society should have the most say in the governance of that society. However, after looking at a couple of online pictures such as those found here and here show that the top 1% of people pay less than half of the income tax. According to this handsome webpage taxes on work make up the majority of federal revenues. Therefore, if you take taxation as the major indicator of contribution to society then individuals, especially those in the upper and upper middle classes, should have the most say in government while the destitute and the fancy corporations should have very little say in government.

Edit: Actually, after a little introspection I reallized that I do not, in fact, believe the crossed out line. Sorry about that folks. The rest still stands though.
For me, it's that puny little 7.9% contribution made through corporate taxes that bothers me the most. American corporations include many (most?) of the biggest corporations in the world - you'd think they could help out at home a little more.

Part of the payroll taxes come from them, but I understand the sentiment. It is already widely believed that jobs have been moved overseas because the regulations and requirements imposed by the American government make American labor less competitive. Raising taxes on these corporations would only exacerbate that issue by making it less profitable to be based in the US.

Quote:
Originally Posted by canjowolf View Post
Part of the payroll taxes come from them, but I understand the sentiment. It is already widely believed that jobs have been moved overseas because the regulations and requirements imposed by the American government make American labor less competitive. Raising taxes on these corporations would only exacerbate that issue by making it less profitable to be based in the US.
US workers have the highest productivity in the world. American corporations have been reporting record profits for 2-3 years now. CEO and upper-management compensation is as through-the-roof as it was leading up the the 2008 crisis. Bull crap the business environment here is hostile.

The title of the thread is equality v inequality ...

Everyone seems very concerned with economic equality and I agree it's a huge issue. One of my concerns is power equality. I suppose its a fine line sometimes.

I believe that at the heart of this issue is the same villain that is at the heart of every issue facing us as a species today: overpopulation.

It's a simple bit of math really. The more people on the planet the less wealth each person has. Also the more people you have the more competition and evil increase. No serious philosophical debate or practical debate about the betterment of mankind or constructing a more equal society can exist credibly in my opinion without addressing overpopulation first.

Take a nice oceanside location with a few acres of land to do with as you will in a fairly temperate zone with a nice city nearby for services and such. Who is to say who gets that. Market price? Past History? Let's assume mankind becomes a better creature and society teaches maturity and fairness. Why should people that currently own the best things get to keep them? Everyone deserves it some, to be fair. So - what? Rotate? If there are 8 billion people on the world getting a slice of that oceanside life will be a staggering effort to anyone not born into wealth. With every new person born the threshold to change your situation in life diminishes. Relative wealth diminishes, relative power diminishes. Overpopulation is an evil scourge. It is THE greatest threat to equality and happiness there ever has been.

Steps I feel would enable society to prosper more thoroughly:

1. Your born - you get 1 ticket. You have a kid - either you or your wife just spent your ticket. Tickets can never be sold. You are not allowed to have more kids than you have tickets for. People that die without using theirs goes into a worldwide lottery. Everyone MUST play. In such a way some folks could die with more than 1 unspent ticket but the process repeats. Overpopulation - solved. I also think science could provide us a way to ensure this is possible without resorting to abortions. No exceptions. We only allow free breeding to populate new worlds.

2. No inheritance - Your ungrateful get must earn their way in the world like everyone else. Just because you were industrious and made millions or billions your spawn will not be allowed to create a dynasty with it and keep better men than they ever will be under their oppressive thumbs by weight of wealth and position. Gifts beyond a certain value are against the law. Once you die your wealth is sold at auction and money distributed to public causes. Merit!

3. No elections - Government service is required and allocated by lottery. A simple set of tests to determine competency is all that is given and that should be passable by 75% of the public. If society can ever figure out a way to test true maturity (and I think it can to some degree already) then perhaps this can change and such tests more properly refine who is allowed to rule us all as a representative of not a place, not a creed, not a ethnic group, but a human, humanity only.

4. No ownership of labor - Corporate entities are required to be owned in equal parts by all people working for that corporation and by no one else. You are not allowed to work unless you own the results of your work. Investors invest for humanity's sake not for profit. Merit.

Just a few mad ideas - I know I am a wild dreamer. Ok flame on!

Wow, I have never seen a more disfunctional concept for a government structure. I'll have to use it for a villain in one of my games.
Also, since people are capable of creating wealth your 'simple math' does not apply.

I love when he says, "Who believe they're entitled to food, to healthcare, to housing, to you-name-it".

They sorta are. That's what article 25(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights boils down to. "People are entitled to food, healthcare, housing and you-name-it." More specifically,
"Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control."

BREAKING NEWS: People like free stuff and are more likely to vote for people who promise to give more of it to them.

Nothing in there is groundbreaking or even new... I'm not sure what the fuss is really.

I substantially dislike the inclusion of 'widowhood' in that list, given it's gender equality implications...

I think there are no gender equality implications except the ones you're reading into it. "Widowhood" refers to being a widow or a widower alike.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/widowhood




 

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Last Database Backup 2017-11-18 09:00:07am local time
Myth-Weavers Status