what is wrong with having a high income?

[Unknown Unknownia]

Yeah. We want em to be dead.

not really

Only if I'm in their will.

HaHa!

OK.
night

[Calimera II]

Nothing

[Distruzio]

In America... the government doesn't do that. In fact, it's quite difficult to maintain unemployment benefits. I've yet to come across a pro-safety net individual who advocated the extension of benefits in the way that you describe.

there's things like guaranteed minimum income or negative tax but that's milton friedman (noted liberal leftist) territory

I wouldn't suggest that's liberal leftist policy, though. Friedman was right in his approximation that the government exists to administer the obligations of the State. That is to provide the services society desires. That's more realistic than either liberal or leftist.

[Greater-London]

Nothing - the problem is having a low income. I take the view that theres nothing inherently bad about wealth gaps whats bad is people suffering at the bottom; The problems associated with having a large gap are actually symptoms of poverty.

As such you need to ensure that those at the bottom receive some sort of support be it through benefits, high quality education and training or in the best case scenario a combination of the two.

The quickest and easiest way to do this is to take some money from those with a high income and use it to help those on a low income. This is a fair and pragmatic method that stops people dying in the street of preventable diseases and allows people to unlock their full potential. Whilst at the same time not bashing the ambiguous "rich" or having an intrinsic problem with a wealth gap.

[Vazdania]

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?

Nothing is wrong with earning a 'high' salary. Those who want to redistribute the wealthy of the affluent are really nothing more than greedy and self serving.

[SAH]

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?

Nothing. There is nothing morally wrong with having money, so long as it was not earned through morally wrong means or being put to morally wrong ends. The money in and of itself is a tool that can be used for either good or evil.

[Skeckoa]

Nothing is wrong with a high income. Anyone who is angry about it should simply refine their sentence. So "Look at those fat cats with all the cash" turns into a more proper "Look at those fat cats with all the cash while so many others remain in poverty and can really not get by"

Wealth inequality is only a problem if poverty is high.

[Keyboard Warriors]

I don't really care how much money Person X has or how much money Person Y earns so long as I have the same access to a decent quality of healthcare, education and civic services. Although, if we improved this access we'd probably see the gap start to shrink a bit anyway.

[Viritica]

Nothing, really.

The problem arises when they hoard their money.

The solution should simply be to impose a tax on stagnant wealth.

[Keyboard Warriors]

Nothing, really.

The problem arises when they hoard their money.

The solution should simply be to impose a tax on stagnant wealth.

Unless they hoard their money by keeping stacks of notes hidden under their bed or something, the wealth isn't exactly stagnant.

[Grave_n_idle]

Because nobody reports how much money the rich donate.

No, but we do know how much of the wealth (and income) is concentrated in how many hands. And that's far more important - because we live in a world where a significant percentage can't afford enough to eat - which means the others aren't donating enough, if we're going to rely on donation.

[Grave_n_idle]

Think about it this way, liberals:

Haven't the rich who have worked their way up to their wealth already given back to society? Society gave to them and by working hard in whatever institution they worked in, they gave back to that institution and that eventually helped society.

Can you guys just admit you want the rich to be broke?

According to the NS spectrum, I'm (apparently) a liberal (which shows you how America-centric NS actually is)... but I don't "want the rich to be broke". I don't want ANYONE to be broke.

If our system is balanced in such a way that some can only succeed at the expense of others, then I think that's something we need to address - but that doesn't mean I want anyone to be broke. Quite the opposite, in fact.

[Draica]

Raise taxes, cut some of the military, end the wars in the middle east, and reduce spending elsewhere. The states (who are in charge of education) would handle a lot of it.

Other than raise taxes, I agree with you. This has been proven time and time again, no matter how much you raise taxes on the rich, even taxing them at 50% will not put a dent in our national deficit. Not even over 7 years. According to CNBC reverting to Clinton-era levels would just get you about $40-$45 billion in the first year. The Government is going to need that money for it's wasteful spending programs, necessary spending programs, and other necessities. What even are we proposing here? We will not make the poor richer by make the rich poorer. It doesn't work that way. But lets say we attempt to close this gap by raising the minimum wage and making businesses raise wages for their workers. If every single worker saved just a little bit of their money overtime, weather it be 5 or even 1 dollar, and used some of it to INVEST then maybe this would work. But the truth is that doesn't happen whatsoever in MOST cases.

Secondly, tax hikes on those making $250K or more won't dent the deficit much. In all reality, the UNEMPLOYMENT rate is what causes income inequality, not the tax code.

About education, the states do not run it. The local communities nor parents don't even have input on what their children learn, the Government dominates public education.

[Draica]

I don't really care how much money Person X has or how much money Person Y earns so long as I have the same access to a decent quality of healthcare, education and civic services. Although, if we improved this access we'd probably see the gap start to shrink a bit anyway.

You will not have the same quality of healthcare that a billionaire has. You will not have the same quality of education that a billion or millionaire's children have. Total equality like this is not possible.

[Keyboard Warriors]

I don't really care how much money Person X has or how much money Person Y earns so long as I have the same access to a decent quality of healthcare, education and civic services. Although, if we improved this access we'd probably see the gap start to shrink a bit anyway.

You will not have the same quality of healthcare that a billionaire has.

For non-elective treatments, yes I can.

You will not have the same quality of education that a billion or millionaire's children have.

Give or take some extra-curricular activities, yes I can.

Total equality like this is not possible.

Yes it is. It's as simple as making it much harder if not impossible for people to buy themselves better access to societal necessities. In fact, you'll find the this "total equality" is already mostly present in our education systems and healthcare today.

[Liberaxia]

New Aerios, do you believe in justice?

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

This. I don't subscribe to Constantinopolis' Christian socialism (or any socialism), but this is how they see it. To argue that some social justice warriors (a rather wacky bunch, in my opinion) aren't motivated by some sense of justice would be daft.

[Kilobugya]

Because wealth is created by work, so if one person has a high amount of wealth (much more than he can produce with his own work), it necessarily means some others are working without fair compensation, and that's unacceptable.

[Infected Mushroom]

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?

they have so much money they don't really need it... can you imagine fussing over if you have 500 million dollars or 900 million dollars?

meanwhile other people go without education, food and stuff...

[McCatson]

If all of the money you earn is given to you voluntarily, nothing.

[The Grim Reaper]

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?

Nothing is wrong with earning a 'high' salary. Those who want to redistribute the wealthy of the affluent are really nothing more than greedy and self serving.

What about wealthy leftists?

[Sociobiology]

Raise taxes, cut some of the military, end the wars in the middle east, and reduce spending elsewhere. The states (who are in charge of education) would handle a lot of it.

Other than raise taxes, I agree with you. This has been proven time and time again, no matter how much you raise taxes on the rich, even taxing them at 50% will not put a dent in our national deficit. Not even over 7 years.
According to CNBC reverting to Clinton-era levels would just get you about $40-$45 billion in the first year. The Government is going to need that money for it's wasteful spending programs, necessary spending programs, and other necessities. What even are we proposing here? We will not make the poor richer by make the rich poorer. It doesn't work that way. But lets say we attempt to close this gap by raising the minimum wage and making businesses raise wages for their workers. If every single worker saved just a little bit of their money overtime, weather it be 5 or even 1 dollar, and used some of it to INVEST then maybe this would work. But the truth is that doesn't happen whatsoever in MOST cases.

Secondly, tax hikes on those making $250K or more won't dent the deficit much. In all reality, the UNEMPLOYMENT rate is what causes income inequality, not the tax code.

About education, the states do not run it. The local communities nor parents don't even have input on what their children learn, the Government dominates public education.

We have to increase the taxes on the wealthy because they have the vast majority of the money.

Of course they don't invest, it's hard to save what you don't have to spare. Asking the poor to invest in the stock market is like asking them to play russian roulette, they cant afford to lose the money. You need quite a large amount of discretionary income to have the diverse portfolio needed to actually make money in the stock market.
also most of what your child learns is controlled at the local school board level, and the state budget level.

oh and you do realize 40 billion is equal to all the money the US government spends on child education, right?

Lasty do you have a source for your information, not and internet search of blogs, a source.

[Sociobiology]

Nothing, really.

The problem arises when they hoard their money.

The solution should simply be to impose a tax on stagnant wealth.

Unless they hoard their money by keeping stacks of notes hidden under their bed or something, the wealth isn't exactly stagnant.

actually hoarding money as real estate and other stagnant goods is actually quite common.
that is one of the reasons I support a net wealth tax.

[Sociobiology]

Think about it this way, liberals:

Haven't the rich who have worked their way up to their wealth already given back to society? Society gave to them and by working hard in whatever institution they worked in, they gave back to that institution and that eventually helped society.

Can you guys just admit you want the rich to be broke?

No one wants the rich to be broke. What are you talking about?

shit the richest 20% could give up half of what they have and still have almost half the wealth in the country.

[Fireye]

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.

Money is not a zero sum game.

if it were, how can money gain interest at a bank?

[Vissegaard]

Nothing, that's it.