what is wrong with having a high income?

[Galenical Confederacy]

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?

You are 100% correct. The CEO/owner of a company did, and does, everything for that company.
They literally built it, from foundation to roof, by themselves. They stock every shelf, man every cubicle, drive every delivery truck, produce every good and provide every service that the company does. They maintain every part of every facility alone. They exist in an environment devoid of any assistance from any entity, be it government, corporate, or human. The very fact that they share ANY of the profits with anyone else is proof of their largesse. The question isn't "Why do they receive such a large share of the company's profits;" the question is, "Why do they receive so little?"

[Terrordome]

to be honest a raise in the minumum wage to a living wage and 3-2% tax increase wont make CEOs middle class. Most could stop working now and still live confortably for the rest of thier life. But most would prefer to grow thier companies and make more money. Nothing wrong with that. In fact if they grow their companies they can employ more people. I am just saying i understand the right wing reasoning.

However some worry has to be that wealth has got so lopsided so quickly that it could end up affecting the whole country including the rich. some people forget that the people who fuel the economy are consumers, which is everybody, even those on wealth are buying products from corporations with CEOs. As many familys have parents working 2 to 3 jobs just to get by with rent and basic foodstuffs, the consumer class is shrinking. And eventually it will affect everyone.

So the solution to grow the consumer class is to:

Take money from those who went through the exact situations you're describing.

Put a burden on our economy which will discourage investors.

And "spreading the wealth" around? AKA redistribution of wealth?(Karl Marx's idea).

It won't happen that way.

I am definately not a marxist. I would consider myself quite a centrist and perhaps even centre-right by european standards. I dont believe in collectivisation or massive nationalisation, or even BIG tax increases. By using some reductio argument that calling for even a tiny tax increase or a perfectly reasonable minumum wage increase makes me a marxist is pretty glenn beck of you.

[Pope Joan]

It's not that I believe you are doing something wrong but that since you have a higher income you are expected to contribute more to society through taxes and such.

The greater your income, the less you pay in taxes.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... taxes-oth/
http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml

[Constantinopolis]

And "spreading the wealth" around? AKA redistribution of wealth?(Karl Marx's idea).

Karl Marx's idea was to eliminate private property over the means of production - in other words take away ALL of the wealth of the rich and give it to the working class.

Redistributing a small fraction of that wealth is a wish-washy liberal compromise.

[Santa Lucania]

It's not that I believe you are doing something wrong but that since you have a higher income you are expected to contribute more to society through taxes and such.

The greater your income, the less you pay in taxes.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... taxes-oth/
http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml

Which is why we need to change the Status Quo so that such an injustice my be corrected. I'm not talk heavy taxation or anything just modest tax increases so the the Lower and Middle class don't hold as heavy of a tax burden as they do and to help distribute this burden.

[Constantinopolis]

Just because CEOs monopolize companies and get money out of investments or real estate, or atleast some do, doesn't mean they didn't earn it.

Actually, yes it does. That is exactly what it means.

They obviously earned their position as a CEO, they don't just hand those out on a silver platter. They are using the financial ability that they earned, their financial knowledge and position to get money. What is the problem?

"Earning" their position =/= earning the money they get from their position

For example, it is very difficult to become a mafia boss. They don't just hand you that position on a silver platter. It's probably a lot harder than becoming CEO, actually. Does that mean that a mafia boss earned the wealth he has, or that he deserves his money? Not really, no.

If you got your wealth through injustice, then you didn't earn it and you don't deserve it, no matter how difficult it was for you to perpetrate said injustice or how much skill it required. A skilled thief is still a thief.

[Tule]

Nothing, as long as it is spent on improving the community.

But we humans are like bacteria in a petri dish. We have limited resources that need to be used sustainably and conservatively.

If your high income is spent on a mansion, a large thirsty grass lawn and a couple of Hummers you are a fucking parasite on the human race.

[Unknown Unknownia]

I wonder how much wealth inequality has to increase before people rise up and take it back. When the 1% becomes 0.5%? 0.1%? 0.0001%?

[Othelos]

This idea, this myth that CEOs or rich people didn't work for their money has been populated by Communists, Liberals, and secular progressives. Just because CEOs monopolize companies and get money out of investments or real estate, or atleast some do, doesn't mean they didn't earn it. They obviously earned their position as a CEO, they don't just hand those out on a silver platter. They are using the financial ability that they earned, their financial knowledge and position to get money. What is the problem? To be honest, we should all be looking up to be LIKE them, now to drag people like them down and make them Middle Class.

Liberals and Communists populate the myth that unless you're rich you won't be rich when you grow up. That will come true if their orgy visions of bringing down rich people and rich institutions with taxes and regulation come into reality. See, it's not the CEOs or businesses poor people should worry about, it's the liberals, democrats and communists.

It is well known that upward mobility (at least in American society) is challenging, especially for poorer people. If someone can't afford college, they are much more likely to end up in poverty, continuing the cycle. Middle class and rich people can pay for college, so they stay well off.

The problem, though, is that the American middle class is declining. Granted, some people have moved up and out of the middle class, but there are plenty of people who have had life circumstances hit them hard. For example, someone could have grown up in a upper middle class family, only to have one parent or both parents fired and not be able to afford their home, cars, or an education for their kids. This is happening to one of my friends right now, right before they were supposed to be going off to college.

If the cost of getting an education was less expensive or free, everyone would be better off because hard work WOULD be all that would be needed to grow up and live decently. If everyone could get an education, we would be wealthier as a nation, and the tax hike would have been worth it.

Northern/Western European society is wealthier, healthier, and better off even though they have high taxes and regulation. Why? Because instead of favoring a few individuals or relying on luck, they have ensured the well being of society as a whole.

No one should have to lose out because they can't afford college, medical care, or something else essential like a place to sleep. This is one of the problems with American society - people aren't willing to help out their neighbors or country as a whole, unlike many Europeans. I would rather live in a place where my life doesn't depend on being lucky enough to have a good job at all times.

[Vicious Debaters]

<<Long. I couldn't make it shorter, I have a lot to say.>>

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?

Let me briefly summarize for you what's up.

If a human being has a private island, a jet, a mansion, and everything else he wants while another human being in the same country is starving on the street corner it is monstrous and unreasonable! You cannot justify to me having a wealthy class that has so much while there are homeless people. I don't care about how much they work, the very concept of having some people live on the street while others have everything is intrinsically unfair and needs fixing.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be social classes but if the lower classes are treated so poorly that America resembles a third-world country for them, you Dun Fucked it Up!

Furthermore, how did they not earn their money?

If I punched you in the face and took your money, did I not earn my money? How about if I stole your money? Or if I promised you something, had you work for it, then didn't give it to you? It's my money now, isn't it. I deserve it!

The very wealthy get their money by manipulating a flawed political system and exploiting the real workers- the people who work at a company and ensure it is successful and are willing to do the dirty work.

Furthermore, how did they not earn their money?

I think the rich, industrious, and clever deserve more than the common crop. But not this much more. We have a system where they have everything, where entire industries are devoted to their every whim while mothers in urban ghettoes wonder where there next meal is coming from. They earned money. They just didn't earn these ludicrous over-rewards.

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?

Do we have no obligation to our fellow human beings? Do people not inherit their fortunes, make their wealth exploiting others, etc?

Let me put it this way. If I had a shoe factory and paid my workers decently, I'd make money but not much. If I had a shoe factory in Asia, paid my workers a mere pittance, and didn't care about their working conditions I'd make more money. So the best way to make it big is to exploit others- what, are these children in Bangladesh getting a fair chance? Maybe if they worked hard enough, those child laborers will have the chance to be the next CEO of Adias. Give me a fuckin' break.

See, our society is a world built around the acquisition of wealth. It's not really built around fair competition, it's not really built around merit, it's not really built around any sort of morality.

[Estado Paulista]

Absolutely nothing.

[Terrordome]

I wonder how much wealth inequality has to increase before people rise up and take it back. When the 1% becomes 0.5%? 0.1%? 0.0001%?

Already happening. The richest 85 individuals in the world have as much wealth as the bottom 3,500,000,000 people (3.5 billion, 50% of the people on the planet). Thats not the richest 8500 or 850, no typo, the richest 85. You could fit them all on a double0decker bus and they would still have elbow room.

[Aquitanie]

Do you know what Social Reproduction is ?
It is the fact that in America, a child from the working class has 70% of chances to finish worker
And the son of an executive will probably finish himself executive.

If people don't become rich, it's because they can't.

It starts at home. The rich child will learn the maneers allowing to grow big in the business ( or school ) world.
The poor child will learn the language, the manneers, the accent of the working class, allowing him to stay in there forever.

At school, the rich child will have better learning conditions. His family might get him into a private school, or pay him school support. They will show him things improving his chances to succeed in studies, like books or theater.
At school, the poor child might not have a proper desk to work on. He will go to a public school. If he don't manage to follow it, he will just get lost into the school system. Also, he'll watch more TV, mostly stupid programs.


After High school, the rich child will have access to the best universities. And he will have more time to revise since he won't have to do additional work to pay his studies.
After High school, the poor child will face a choice. Will he take enormous loans for this university ? He might stop school, because he needs money. If he continues, he'll have to work between class. A big disadventage.

Once out of college, the rich child will be helped by the connexions of his parents to find a job ( Or he'll just go to the company of his father) .
If his parents are really richs, they'll give him a house. A car, all this. And since rich people live together, he will also inherit of the connexions of his wife.
Once in the working world, the poor child will have to find a job. If he manages to, he'll have to work all day to have a little pay. He can't count on his family, only on himself.


So don't say that people are poor because they are lazy. That's just not true.


And if I made any spelling mistakes, it's not my language

[Nervium]

I wonder how much wealth inequality has to increase before people rise up and take it back. When the 1% becomes 0.5%? 0.1%? 0.0001%?

Already happening. The richest 85 individuals in the world have as much wealth as the bottom 3,500,000,000 people (3.5 billion, 50% of the people on the planet). Thats not the richest 8500 or 850, no typo, the richest 85. You could fit them all on a double0decker bus and they would still have elbow room.

Well, we have to be nice to them, can't punish success.

[Unknown Unknownia]

I wonder how much wealth inequality has to increase before people rise up and take it back. When the 1% becomes 0.5%? 0.1%? 0.0001%?

Already happening. The richest 85 individuals in the world have as much wealth as the bottom 3,500,000,000 people (3.5 billion, 50% of the people on the planet). Thats not the richest 8500 or 850, no typo, the richest 85. You could fit them all on a double0decker bus and they would still have elbow room.

So will it get to 4 people owning the whole world and the rest of us starving? Because at some point it's going to be worth trying to kill those people. Even if they worked hard to take over the world.

[Grave_n_idle]

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.

How does the guy who signs the checks do more to 'earn' his money than the guy digging the ditches?

"Earning it" is actually kind of irrelevant. Either everyone is 'earning it', or no one is.

That's why the more important question to ask is - is it causing someone else to actually suffer? If it is, they are 'earning' too much.

[Grave_n_idle]

I wonder how much wealth inequality has to increase before people rise up and take it back. When the 1% becomes 0.5%? 0.1%? 0.0001%?

See - this is what concerns me. The lesson of history is that inequality only builds unless it is limited - and eventually it always turns into bloodshed.

We need to decide if that's the paradigm we WANT, or if we want to try to regulate it instead.

[Estado Paulista]

I hear quite often that they should have their money redistributed because they didn't earn it.

I don't think that's the reason why it should be redistributed. Wealth in general should be redistributed, mainly to increase social mobility and because having a high GINI is actually bad for the economy. Of course, there's an enormous difference between redistribution and expropriation.

After paying all the overhead of that business that they started why should they not be allowed to keep the rest?

Because they, as well as everyone else, have to contribute to society through taxes but of course, tax burdens shouldn't be astonishingly high. Nonethless, I sort of flirt with the idea of a negative income tax and I'd love to see it implemented in a country, mainly to see if it actually works.

[Nimzonia]

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?

One should not be able to make money from money without doing anything of actual value. The problem with rich people is they think that their day's work is worth vastly more than everybody else's. They think merely owning shit entitles them to make money even if they spend all day at the golf course. Industry requires many different skillsets, and I do not see why the skillset of the business owner or the CEO is worth significantly more than that of other skilled workers.

[Shnercropolis]

Having a high income is okay. Having an income so vast that you couldn't possibly spend it is not okay.

[Draica]

And "spreading the wealth" around? AKA redistribution of wealth?(Karl Marx's idea).

Karl Marx's idea was to eliminate private property over the means of production - in other words take away ALL of the wealth of the rich and give it to the working class.

Redistributing a small fraction of that wealth is a wish-washy liberal compromise.

Still, it's bits and pieces of that idea. One tax increase is bound to lead to another, then another, then another until the working class is satisfied(and not everyone will be satisified.) It's a slippery slope.

[Kommeria]

Because nobody reports how much money the rich donate.

[Draica]

This idea, this myth that CEOs or rich people didn't work for their money has been populated by Communists, Liberals, and secular progressives. Just because CEOs monopolize companies and get money out of investments or real estate, or atleast some do, doesn't mean they didn't earn it. They obviously earned their position as a CEO, they don't just hand those out on a silver platter. They are using the financial ability that they earned, their financial knowledge and position to get money. What is the problem? To be honest, we should all be looking up to be LIKE them, now to drag people like them down and make them Middle Class.

Liberals and Communists populate the myth that unless you're rich you won't be rich when you grow up. That will come true if their orgy visions of bringing down rich people and rich institutions with taxes and regulation come into reality. See, it's not the CEOs or businesses poor people should worry about, it's the liberals, democrats and communists.

It is well known that upward mobility (at least in American society) is challenging, especially for poorer people. If someone can't afford college, they are much more likely to end up in poverty, continuing the cycle. Middle class and rich people can pay for college, so they stay well off.

The problem, though, is that the American middle class is declining. Granted, some people have moved up and out of the middle class, but there are plenty of people who have had life circumstances hit them hard. For example, someone could have grown up in a upper middle class family, only to have one parent or both parents fired and not be able to afford their home, cars, or an education for their kids. This is happening to one of my friends right now, right before they were supposed to be going off to college.

If the cost of getting an education was less expensive or free, everyone would be better off because hard work WOULD be all that would be needed to grow up and live decently. If everyone could get an education, we would be wealthier as a nation, and the tax hike would have been worth it.

Northern/Western European society is wealthier, healthier, and better off even though they have high taxes and regulation. Why? Because instead of favoring a few individuals or relying on luck, they have ensured the well being of society as a whole.

No one should have to lose out because they can't afford college, medical care, or something else essential like a place to sleep. This is one of the problems with American society - people aren't willing to help out their neighbors or country as a whole, unlike many Europeans. I would rather live in a place where my life doesn't depend on being lucky enough to have a good job at all times.

So we should take money from those who have earned it(who have came from problems you have outlined) to give to those who might not even work hard? I support free colleges, don't get me wrong. But who's going to pay for those "free" colleges? Who's going to pay for the textbooks? The Government? We have a 17 trillion dollar debt and the last thing we need is to drive that up. And there's a difference between America and Europe, my friend. A big difference. Europe has had monarchs, chancellors, dictators and the such. The culture is different historically. America is much younger than Europe. It's an unfair comparison.

But as long as we can agree that most/some Middle class families can afford college then I'm good.

[Unknown Unknownia]

Because nobody reports how much money the rich donate.

But charity is tax deductible in the US and UK

[Scomagia]

Karl Marx's idea was to eliminate private property over the means of production - in other words take away ALL of the wealth of the rich and give it to the working class.

Redistributing a small fraction of that wealth is a wish-washy liberal compromise.

Still, it's bits and pieces of that idea. One tax increase is bound to lead to another, then another, then another until the working class is satisfied(and not everyone will be satisified.) It's a slippery slope.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope