what is wrong with having a high income?

[Calimera II]

Less government is necessary to ensure that EVERYONE has the incentive to work hard and gather wealth.

[Elwher]

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?

The interest paid on money deposited at a bank is derived from the interest paid to the bank on the loaning out of said money; therefore it is zero-sum in this case. A better argument against the zero-sum nature of money is the year over year increase in the GDP caused by the expansion of the economy, but even that is questionable.

[Kilobugya]

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.

Money is just paper printed by someone you trust (ie, the state). Wealth (which is different from money, even if related) isn't a zero-sum game because it is created by work (and destroyed by entropy). But that doesn't change the fact if someone owns a lot, it means many people have to do uncompensated work for all that wealth to be produced.

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

Because when the bank lends the money, it asks for interests. Banks is a perfect example of how people who are already rich can become richer by making the ones who are already poor even poorer.

[The Fascist American Empire]

It isn't. They used their talents of managing and/or invention to make their money, thus earning it. I mean, if if Steve Jobs or Bill Gates only made as much as the guy flipping burgers in McDonald's, it'd be time to rethink the economy.

[Kilobugya]

It isn't. They used their talents of managing and/or invention to make their money, thus earning it. I mean, if if Steve Jobs or Bill Gates only made as much as the guy flipping burgers in McDonald's, it'd be time to rethink the economy.

Not at all. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs are fraud, they are charismatic salespersons and cunning thieves, they didn't invent anything. Meanwhile, those whose work really revolutionized the world, from those who discovered quantum mechanics powering all electronics to those who developed the foundations of Internet or computer science (Alan Turing, John Von Neumann, Denis Ritchie, Tim Beners-Lee, ...) to the countless unmanned ones who worked at Bell Labs to invent the transistor and the laser are nowhere near their level of wealth. That very well shows that this economy doesn't reward inventors, doesn't reward the great thinkers who improved our lives, but only the sharks who managed to exploit the discoveries of others, and used dirty tactics, poisoned contracts, lies, treachery, unfair methods to crush competitors. This system rewards sociopaths, not inventors, and it definitely should be changed.

[Romano-Germanic Empire]

For me, it's not so much the high income,it's how you got it and what you do with it. If your company treats it's employees like crap *cough*Walmart*cough* and you mostly keep all the money for yourself without donating, then I feel you don't deserve that much money. If you pay your employees well and give them good working conditions, and donate at least some money, then you deserve as much money as possible.

[Grave_n_idle]

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.

The argument is that wealth is not a zero-sum game, not money. Money definitely is.

And wealth is arguable - at least until we have some way off this rock.

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

Did you really just ask that question?

[Arko-Oklahoma]

Hate to break it to most of you, we need poverty in a society. A society without poverty is destined to fail. The impoverished are the only ones willing to do demeaning/gross/undesirable jobs that people with higher income are unwilling to do. It's a truth and a necessary evil.

[Grave_n_idle]

Hate to break it to most of you, we need poverty in a society. A society without poverty is destined to fail.

ALL societies are 'destined to fail'. Eventually.

There's no reason why a society without poverty is MORE likely to fail... indeed, given that economic inequality is quite often the central factor in the failure of a society... quite the opposite.

[Arko-Oklahoma]

Hate to break it to most of you, we need poverty in a society. A society without poverty is destined to fail.

ALL societies are 'destined to fail'. Eventually.

There's no reason why a society without poverty is MORE likely to fail... indeed, given that economic inequality is quite often the central factor in the failure of a society... quite the opposite.

Soviet society lasted less than 100 years, and they were an "equal" society.

[The Grim Reaper]

ALL societies are 'destined to fail'. Eventually.

There's no reason why a society without poverty is MORE likely to fail... indeed, given that economic inequality is quite often the central factor in the failure of a society... quite the opposite.

Soviet society lasted less than 100 years, and they were an "equal" society.

Nazi Germany, the popular paradigm of an unequal society, lasted how long?

This or that government is not synonymous with the successful implementation of left or right wing economics.

[Arko-Oklahoma]

Soviet society lasted less than 100 years, and they were an "equal" society.

Nazi Germany, the popular paradigm of an unequal society, lasted how long?

This or that government is not synonymous with the successful implementation of left or right wing economics.

British society is even more "unequal", and they've lasted how long now?

[The Grim Reaper]

Nazi Germany, the popular paradigm of an unequal society, lasted how long?

This or that government is not synonymous with the successful implementation of left or right wing economics.

British society is even more "unequal", and they've lasted how long now?

...more unequal than Nazi Germany?

Also, way to miss the point.

[Arko-Oklahoma]

British society is even more "unequal", and they've lasted how long now?

...more unequal than Nazi Germany?

Also, way to miss the point.

In terms of wealth? Yes.
And, no, I didn't miss your point. But societies that have attempted to achieve equal wealth have always failed. They either revert to government controlled capitalism(China and Vietnam) or their government is overthrown(All the other communist countries).

[Grave_n_idle]

ALL societies are 'destined to fail'. Eventually.

There's no reason why a society without poverty is MORE likely to fail... indeed, given that economic inequality is quite often the central factor in the failure of a society... quite the opposite.

Soviet society lasted less than 100 years, and they were an "equal" society.

Soviet society was never equal, it was just a little more enamoured with the ideal than some others.

Soviet society never overcame inequality, and was ultimately driven down by a combination of internal corruption and external pressure - how is that a reliable metric of the idea of an equal society?

But as I said, ALL societies ultimately fail - or have so far. Given how central inequality has been in overthrowing so many, it's illogical to assume that equality would make them MORE likely to fail.

[Grave_n_idle]

...more unequal than Nazi Germany?

Also, way to miss the point.

In terms of wealth? Yes.
And, no, I didn't miss your point. But societies that have attempted to achieve equal wealth have always failed.

So have all others. A point you seem to be missing.

An if you look mat why, for example, the Russian society that PRECEDED the soviet society failed - it was overturned by bloody rebellion BECAUSE of inequality.

[Arko-Oklahoma]

Soviet society lasted less than 100 years, and they were an "equal" society.

Soviet society was never equal, it was just a little more enamoured with the ideal than some others.

Soviet society never overcame inequality, and was ultimately driven down by a combination of internal corruption and external pressure - how is that a reliable metric of the idea of an equal society?

But as I said, ALL societies ultimately fail - or have so far. Given how central inequality has been in overthrowing so many, it's illogical to assume that equality would make them MORE likely to fail.

Equal societies cannot exist because (spoiler alert) People are not equal. No matter what you are told to believe, or want to believe, some people are more fit. That is the whole idea behind Darwinism.
Like I said, it's a sad truth. Everyone has their place in a society, but they are by no means equal in said society.

[The Black Forrest]

Nothing wrong with having a high income as long as it earned and deserved.

Problem is there are endless examples of getting a high salary for warming a seat. Accountability is not always applied across the board. For example, if I did something stupid and costed the company millions of dollars I would be rightly tossed out on my ear. An exec tends to "retire" with a big reward. My favorite example is the former CEO of Home Depot. He was fired for failing to meet ALL objectives. His punishment? Two hundred and ten million.

I have no problem with "questionable" salaries for the right people. I can't think of the guys name but he is gifted with taking companies on life support and turning them back into economic power houses. The first thing he always does if go through the executives and purge with impunity. Not exact but he said "I love to fire these people. It was their decisions which led the company to where it was and why do they deserve stock options and bonuses when the company is about to die! This effort also works when I have to eliminate jobs in the work force. It wasn't their fault but they are a little less upset when they see the "big guys" were terminated first as it suggests the evaluations were fairly done."

An anecdotal example. I once was involved with an obscenely large entity during the era of Saint Reagan. The company was mismanaged and had to be "saved" by a dumb jackass who got off on job elimination. This guy decided the first people to reduce was physical security for a plant that had over 20000 people. When the blood bath began I remember watching people openly stealing stuff and the guards simply sat back and read the paper. Bad declensions all over the place. Massive losses; massive theft and the poor oppressed execs gave themselves hefty bonuses for saving the company.

Like most people; nobody minds big salaries when they are earned.

[Wind in the Willows]

Nothing.

[The Grim Reaper]

Equal societies cannot exist because (spoiler alert) People are not equal. No matter what you are told to believe, or want to believe, some people are more fit. That is the whole idea behind Darwinism.
Like I said, it's a sad truth. Everyone has their place in a society, but they are by no means equal in said society.

Do you honestly think that the distribution of wealth correlates to the 'fitness' of a person, as defined in a Social Darwinist sense?

[Grave_n_idle]

Equal societies cannot exist because (spoiler alert) People are not equal.

Those two things don't actually connect.

No matter what you are told to believe, or want to believe, some people are more fit.

Irrelevant. We don't terminate people just because they are, for example, blind. Our society - like it or not - is based on the idea that we're collectively better off if we look out for each other. In this, we're similar to just about every other gregarious mammal.

That is the whole idea behind Darwinism.

Actually, it's not.

Gregariousness is a Darwinian survival characteristic, in and of itself. It's our gregarious mammal nature that has been our big advantage. It's why we've managed to survive despite having no armour, no claws or fangs, and being a ground-based ape.

Like I said, it's a sad truth. Everyone has their place in a society, but they are by no means equal in said society.

Maybe that's the kind of 'society' you want to live in, but that doesn't mean that's what society objectively IS.

[Pope Joan]

It isn't. They used their talents of managing and/or invention to make their money, thus earning it. I mean, if if Steve Jobs or Bill Gates only made as much as the guy flipping burgers in McDonald's, it'd be time to rethink the economy.

Unearned wealth rules the US. It is forbidden to discuss this fact.

http://www.renegadeeconomist.com/blog/w ... ealth.html

[Canaore]

Because when the bank lends the money, it asks for interests. Banks is a perfect example of how people who are already rich can become richer by making the ones who are already poor even poorer.

Not really. As long as you're a bit financially responsible, you should have no issues with paying interest back. There is absolutely nothing wrong with interest — what would the banks gain in exchange for lending money to the poor? Welcome to capitalism, baby. You might criticize it and see it as unfair, but it's an undeniable fact that it is the best economic system designed by mankind thus far. If you don't like it, feel free to start a cult found a commune somewhere remote or join an already existent one.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with having a high income either.

[Grave_n_idle]

Because when the bank lends the money, it asks for interests. Banks is a perfect example of how people who are already rich can become richer by making the ones who are already poor even poorer.

Not really. As long as you're a bit financially responsible, you should have no issues with paying interest back. There is absolutely nothing wrong with interest — what would the banks gain in exchange for lending money to the poor? Welcome to capitalism, baby. You might criticize it and see it as unfair, but it's an undeniable fact that it is the best economic system designed by mankind thus far. If you don't like it, feel free to start a cult found a commune somewhere remote or join an already existent one.

It's cute when people use words like 'undeniable' and 'fact' to mean almost the exact opposite.

[Draica]

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.

So total equality is possible? Making the same income as someone in your profession is possible? Having the same socio-economic status as someone with a higher wealth than you is possible?

Total equality is impossible.