what is wrong with having a high income?

[Czeckolutania]

I hear a lot of arguments that CEOs and owners of large companies make too much money. I hear quite often that they should have their money redistributed because they didn't earn it. Why is this so? Furthermore, how did they not earn their money? If one starts a company are they not responsible for everything that company accomplishes? Are they not responsible for all of it's employment, and all of it's profits? After paying all the overhead of that business that they started why should they not be allowed to keep the rest?

I'm genuinely interested in discovering the reasoning behind this ideology. I'm sure debates will start over this, but can we try to answer explain the beliefs first?

[Murkwood]

They want to make society more equal by lowering the wealthy, instead of raising the poor. That's my take.

[Kelinfort]

Nothing wrong, unless it's too much wealth concentrated. Money should be flowing through a society, increasing mobility. To combat this, I would recommend a higher income tax on the wealthy, while lower the capital gains tax, thus inducing investment.

[Jocabia]

I hear a lot of arguments that CEOs and owners of large companies make too much money. I hear quite often that they should have their money redistributed because they didn't earn it. Why is this so? Furthermore, how did they not earn their money? If one starts a company are they not responsible for everything that company accomplishes? Are they not responsible for all of it's employment, and all of it's profits? After paying all the overhead of that business that they started why should they not be allowed to keep the rest?

I'm genuinely interested in discovering the reasoning behind this ideology. I'm sure debates will start over this, but can we try to answer explain the beliefs first?

It's not complicated.

Use the Waltons as an example. They make all that money while they're employees cannot afford to eat without government assistance. They fact that they underpay their workforce skews their profits.

The other examples are companies that declare bankruptcy, thus passing their failures on to other businesses or the government, while the people who caused the failure taking huge compensation packages and walk away with pockets overflowing with cash and prizes.

Nobody hates the wealthy. Just some of us are reasonable enough to say that before someone gets their second yacht, maybe everyone should get to eat.

[Jocabia]

They want to make society more equal by lowering the wealthy, instead of raising the poor. That's my take.

Your take is wrong. No one is lowering the wealthy. They're trying to close the wealth gap, because the result of the wealth gap is that the middle class has to feed the children of the ultra poor while the rich ship their money overseas.

[Constantinopolis]

I hear a lot of arguments that CEOs and owners of large companies make too much money. I hear quite often that they should have their money redistributed because they didn't earn it. Why is this so? Furthermore, how did they not earn their money? If one starts a company are they not responsible for everything that company accomplishes? Are they not responsible for all of it's employment, and all of it's profits? After paying all the overhead of that business that they started why should they not be allowed to keep the rest?

They did not earn their money because they did not work for it. Property income (profit, interest and rent) is obtained without labour - without working for it. Sometimes the issue can get muddled because a person gets part of their income by working and another part without working, so, to make things clearer, let's talk about people who get all of their income as property income.

Consider, for example, a landlord who owns a bunch of apartment buildings. People rent apartments in those buildings and pay the landlord money. So he gets property income (in this case, rent). For doing what? Nothing at all.
Or think about a man who makes a living by lending out vast sums of money and getting them back with interest. His income consists of interest payments (a type of property income). Does he work for it? No. He starts out with a certain amount of money, makes some loans, and receives more money back, without doing anything at all.
Next, consider the owner of a large company (or a major shareholder in a large company). He has employees who actually do the work of running the company. As a shareholder, he doesn't have to do anything at all. In fact it's possible to be the owner of a company without having even seen the workplaces that you own or the people who work for you. You can be a shareholder without having any interaction with the company that you partly own. And yet you get money from that company - you get profit, a type of property income - despite not doing any work for the company.

Property income is unearned income. Company owners do not deserve their money because they did not work for it. And since wealth does not grow on trees, for every dollar that a company owner gets without working, someone else worked and did not get a dollar that (s)he rightfully deserved. Redistribution is about taking some money away from the people who got it without working, and giving that money back to the people who worked and got less than they deserved.

[Alyakia]

I hear a lot of arguments that CEOs and owners of large companies make too much money. I hear quite often that they should have their money redistributed because they didn't earn it. Why is this so? Furthermore, how did they not earn their money? If one starts a company are they not responsible for everything that company accomplishes? Are they not responsible for all of it's employment, and all of it's profits? After paying all the overhead of that business that they started why should they not be allowed to keep the rest?

I'm genuinely interested in discovering the reasoning behind this ideology. I'm sure debates will start over this, but can we try to answer explain the beliefs first?

1) CEOs do not necessarily found their companies
2) they also do not personally do every job in the company, so no they aren't really
3) because having ridiclous situations like 1% of the people control 42% of the wealth, 4% of the people control 29% (i.e. 5% of the people control 71% of the wealth), 15% of the people control 21% of the wealth and 80% of the people control 7% of the wealth is actually really bad for the economy and society on various levels

[Cetacea]

No body would complain if wealth was derived from labour including intellectual labour. However when CEOs gain pay rises despite their employees needing welfare and their shareholders facing losses then something is amiss. Especially in "financial services" where wealth is created on promises and fakery rather than real value.

[New Aerios]

Because jealousy is rather common, and one might even say part of human nature. It is therefore inevitable that someone is going to make a political ideology out of said jealousy to make it sound acceptable. Such people are wrong, of course, but the motive behind their rhetoric is clear.

[Constantinopolis]

New Aerios, do you believe in justice?

Is it "jealousy" to demand (what you consider to be) justice?

[Alyakia]

Because jealousy is rather common, and one might even say part of human nature. It is therefore inevitable that someone is going to make a political ideology out of said jealousy to make it sound acceptable. Such people are wrong, of course, but the motive behind their rhetoric is clear.

"you are just jealous of the rich!" is on the same level as "you hate the poor". please stop hating the poor, ancaps.

[Threlizdun]

Having a high income in and of itself is not wrong; what is wrong is that you cannot acquire capital without taking it from others. The excesses of the rich by necessity must involve the deprivation of said resources from others. If we are to promote human wellbeing, we must ensure that everyone has access to resources. That is impossible under present conditions.

[Nervium]

Having a high income in and of itself is not wrong; what is wrong is that you cannot acquire capital without taking it from others. The excesses of the rich by necessity must involve the deprivation of said resources from others. If we are to promote human wellbeing, we must ensure that everyone has access to resources. That is impossible under present conditions.

Hit the nail.

[Distruzio]

I hear a lot of arguments that CEOs and owners of large companies make too much money. I hear quite often that they should have their money redistributed because they didn't earn it.

I'm curious to know where you've heard these arguments and how they come about?

Why is this so? Furthermore, how did they not earn their money? If one starts a company are they not responsible for everything that company accomplishes? Are they not responsible for all of it's employment, and all of it's profits? After paying all the overhead of that business that they started why should they not be allowed to keep the rest?

Not it keeping it comes at the expense of someone's self-image.

No. Seriously, though. Those who earn so much more than the median wage deserve to have their wealth redistributed if their wealth comes at the expense of the nation at large. Now, how they manage to take advantage of the nation depends entirely upon the culture of the nation in question. Generally speaking, it happens through the merger of government and business. The "too big to fail" CEO's and BoE's who sought to avoid bankruptcy by having their companies bought out by the government deserve, in my mind, to have the salaries they earned that previous year seized and redistributed to the public. Of course that would necessitate government intervention and asset seizure but, honestly, if the CEO (and his Board of Exec's) dare to ask for exemption for financial risks failed then they deserve to endure some recompense on behalf of the victims of their financial risk taking.

I'm genuinely interested in discovering the reasoning behind this ideology. I'm sure debates will start over this, but can we try to answer explain the beliefs first?

The reasoning is wealth envy.

[Kiruri]

If I become rich I don't want anyone touching my money

[Distruzio]

They want to make society more equal by lowering the wealthy, instead of raising the poor. That's my take.

Your take is wrong. No one is lowering the wealthy. They're trying to close the wealth gap, because the result of the wealth gap is that the middle class has to feed the children of the ultra poor while the rich ship their money overseas.

Pretty much. Although I don't see why the more wealthy shouldn't be allowed to do what they will with their money.

[Jordsindia]

People who work hard to get their income are supposed to share it with lazy bums who want free government hand outs. [sarcasm]

[Kiruri]

Your take is wrong. No one is lowering the wealthy. They're trying to close the wealth gap, because the result of the wealth gap is that the middle class has to feed the children of the ultra poor while the rich ship their money overseas.

Pretty much. Although I don't see why the more wealthy shouldn't be allowed to do what they will with their money.

They should be allowed to do what they want with their money, they already do so, that's not gonna change, and it's good it wont change.

[Distruzio]

Pretty much. Although I don't see why the more wealthy shouldn't be allowed to do what they will with their money.

They should be allowed to do what they want with their money, they already do so, that's not gonna change, and it's good it wont change.

Even if that's sending their money overseas?

[Kiruri]

They should be allowed to do what they want with their money, they already do so, that's not gonna change, and it's good it wont change.

Even if that's sending their money overseas?

okay.. well, maybe not everything is okay.. but still, leave the rich alone

[Alyakia]

People who work hard to get their income are supposed to share it with lazy bums who want free government hand outs. [sarcasm]

*is born into rich family* (my great grandfather worked stealing land from the irish, ok?)
*calls sick and unemployed lazy bums because they cannot a job in a climate where are at least 4 people for every vacancy*

[Terrordome]

Its not hating the rich per se but some people think its a bit perverse that that 93% of wealth from the "recovery" since 2009 has gone to the top 1% earners with 7% going to the 99% to share out. Many people have seen thier wages frozen since the recession, and thier CEOs giving themselves million dollar wage increases. Wealth inequality is at the highest level in 40 years with CEOs on average earning 380 times what an average worker earns compared to 42 times more in 1980. Now I have trouble believeing that CEOs work 9 times harder than they did 30 years ago.

so its natural that some people think they should pay their workers, the people who create their wealth a bit more, or if not pay a bit more tax to provide services for all.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/04/19/news/economy/ceo-pay/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... _blog.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-0 ... dened.html

[Nazi Flower Power]

If one starts a company are they not responsible for everything that company accomplishes?

What about the CEOs who didn't start the company?

[Kiruri]

People who work hard to get their income are supposed to share it with lazy bums who want free government hand outs. [sarcasm]

*is born into rich family* (my great grandfather worked stealing land from the irish, ok?)
*calls sick and unemployed lazy bums because they cannot a job in a climate where are at least 4 people for every vacancy*

The government shouldn't give out stuff for free to everyone (maybe only to those who truly cannot do much or are dependent upon others). What the government should do is promote job creation and provide all the necessary tools for those who can do something to do something. Something like: "I'll help you help yourself".

[Distruzio]

If one starts a company are they not responsible for everything that company accomplishes?

What about the CEOs who didn't start the company?

They maintain it, don't they?