Communism - Yea or Nay?

[warri0r45]

Funniest comment I've read on one of these ridiculous threads

 

Almost as funny as the pointless nature of half your posts.

 

 

 

The amount of training required should have some bearing on salary because effort should be proportional to reward for that effort. Sorry, I can't boil it down any more than that. We've been using the analogy of the doctor and the grocery bagger so far. The ideal situation in respect to this scenario is that the doctor earns more because he put in more of an effort to get their job than the bagger did.

 

To get their job, maybe. That's why the state effectively pays the bills for those students while they're in training.

 

 

 

Actually performing the job itself though? I'll confess, being a doctor, or a lawyer, or any other professional job can be incredibly stressful, but does that really justify those people earning up to $150,000+ a year more than the bagger we've been talking about?

 

 

 

That bagger still has to undergo training, and can be fired just as easily as anyone else. He still has to follow instructions, and do laborious menial work day-in, day-out. He still has to get up at 7 in the morning to start work at 9, and work 42 hours a week full time. I really cannot see much difference in the actual effort required between the two jobs there.

 

 

 

Hence we come to a very sinister conclusion - the only reason they earn that much is because of how reliant we are on them, and thus how much power they hold over us. A problem which recurs everytime contracts are renewed in the NHS.

 

 

 

Wages aren't only for needs or necessities, either - they are for a little bit of fun, too.

 

A "little bit"? $150Ks worth of fun? That's some damn expansive whiskey.

 

 

 

You also avoid one major flaw in the system of self-perpetuating worth in individuals through universities. Only those with refined ability can access universities, or else the whole system becomes a joke and university becomes nothing more than an extension to basic eduction. Under your system, the rich continue to go to the best universities since they can afford the best tuition, the poor go to worse universities and thus, the gap between rich and poor becomes wider because social mobility stops.

 

 

 

There's nothing wrong with rewarding more difficult jobs with higher wages, since they require more responsibility (and that's what wages should be in correlation with), but at least accept that the rich by their very nature already have an advantage in the education system, so giving them yet more advantage with excessively high wages later on in life is unfair.

 

Of course the rich have an advantage in the education system, and to an extent capitalism will perpetuate that through the generations. That's not to say that the poor can't make something for themselves if they work hard, though. All I've been doing is arguing against pure communism and It seems that got lost in the thread somewhere. I've also purposefully avoided putting figures on the jobs in question because that opens a whole other can of worms. Perhaps me saying that capitalism isn't perfect and I favour a bit of socialism was lost somewhere too.

 

 

 

I don't know where you get that university is for the rich, either. I'm middle class (and am lucky enough to have my fees payed for me), and most of my friends have to pay their own fees or will end up with a nice big hecs debt when they leave. I remember just the other day going to a uni friend's party, and their place was old and run-down. These aren't exactly rich people, not that it matters to me or anything. If you want my opinion, I think uni should be free like it was when my dad got his education.

[Legosimx]

The Americas were colonised before Marx was even born... I don't know much about the native Americans but if they did have some form of system where the tribes shared out all their resources equally it's nothing to do with communism.

 

So Marx is the only person in world history that could ever come up with the idea of even a primitive form of communism. Wow. Didn't know they had copyright laws back then. :roll:

[aguz]

I say no to communism. I am in the top part of the social pyramid in my country (only two classes) and it wouldn't work here. I think what should happen is that the rich create jobs for the poor and education should be enhanced on the children of each country.

 

 

 

But we have to face the fact that America is turning into a communist continent. Obama has some socialist ideas (higher taxes for the rich). Hugo Chavez is revolutionizing most of Latin America. Honduras, Nicaragua, Cuba, Venezuela, Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Dominica and Ecuador have socialist presidents. El Salvador has a strong political party running for president this comming year and so on.

[assassin_696]

There are so many reasons beyond wage to take up a profession, the kudos, the mental challenge, the desire to help people, the desire to do something with ones life, the desire to put ones skills and talents to use. Do you really think that someone who had the drive and intelligence to become a Doctor in a capitalist society would be satisfied with a job as a bagger in a communist one?

 

 

 

What I find really saddening is how low people have been taught to conceptualise things in the capitalist societies, as though the only possible gain in life is serving oneself, the only meaning one can find is the most base and any higher drive to succeed for reasons beyond yourself is suspect?. Is this really how you want your society to work?

 

 

 

I think it's just human nature. We can all be armchair idealists but when we have to take a reduction in our standards of living for the sake of equity most people wouldn't want to. Capitalism is just an economic system, it doesn't prescribe any morals or ethics so I don't think you can blame capitalism for the way we conceptualise society. Doctors and baggers are maybe at extreme ends of the spectrum, but what about in jobs (previously mentioned) where there is a higher risk to the employee? There needs to be some incentive for them to do that job that carries the personal risk.

 

 

 

My problem with communism is that I don't think it's a viable economic system. You're welcome to prove me wrong, but although capitalism has its faults I think we are all enjoying the benefits of increased standards of living.

[Shinjula]

My problem with communism is that I don't think it's a viable economic system. You're welcome to prove me wrong, but although capitalism has its faults I think we are all enjoying the benefits of increased standards of living.

 

Its an interesting time to make that comment. With the market in collapse, I mean.

 

Obviously this doesnt apply to all forms of Capitalism, but it is one of the problems of free market capitalism, that you are at the whims of an unpredictable system.

 

 

 

I'd also like to suggest that the majority of the increased standards of living came from a technological boom rather than any force due to capitalism but of course its difficult to show definite cause and effect in something as complex as economics. But it can be seen that communist countries are equally recieving the same boom, and whilst they are not forms of communisms which I would support and thus dont have the distribution of that wealth in the way I'd like to see it, that wealth is still there, just in the hands of very few (to which my response is "And thats supposed to be communism??").

[user1991]

The problem with the far left is that it is too easy for someone to manipulate it/become a dictator etc. I don't get it, people on the far left usually have this whole thing about wanting to tell people what they can and can't do etc.

 

 

 

Personally, I think that communism on paper is a good idea but will never ever work because we are human. Maybe in the future with a bit of transhumanism it could work, but not until we lose all our negative aspects.

 

 

 

Libertarian socialism is a lot better though.

[Rebdragon]

Shinjula, if you're referring to China when you talk about communist countries "receiving the same boom", read up on capitalism and China's friendship :D .

 

 

 

Ginger, how old are you...? You're quite the little idealist so I don't want to bet on too old, but you understand the matter well enough to be around 18... hm...

 

 

 

You need to stop looking at things in black and white, especially with this little doctor debate. When a person decides they want to go through a solid decade+ of workaholic hell, only to land a job that is workaholic and stress hell in and of itself, is it really so evil as you portray it that they wouldn't mind a little incentive beyond "I like helping people"? Obviously for someone to become a doctor there must exist a natural instinct to help people, to want to understand the human body, to further mankind; without it they wouldn't be able to stand being a doctor, let alone make it through all the training. But as can be seen by how "in demand" doctors are, even with the extra incentive of the amazing salaries that doctors get, there still aren't nearly enough of them to drop their demand to levels similiar to the average job. Knowing this you honestly think that dropping their pay to that of the average household won't matter, that there are enough people in the world willing to sacrifice their 20's and their mental health for the sake of merely helping people, even when there are thousands of other jobs where one can help people without having to go through nearly as much prep work as it takes to become a doctor?

 

 

 

Haha. Wow. Seriously?

 

 

 

In essence, what this debate between me and you boils down to this: Should people choose your Utopian society where only the few who go to university earn the majority amount of wealth; or my Utopian society where everyone, in theory at least, receives their fair share from society, regardless of how much time they've spent pruning themselves in the ivory towers of university?

 

Jesus Christ Ginger, have you ever even heard of scholarships and financial aid? Financial aid (and scholarships, from the school or outside) is basically the biggest socialist system in existence, and for some reason you're griping on it more than anything else. Here's how this gigantic financial trickle down system works, by true example. A friend of mine currently attends an Ivy League institution, and because she is in a upper class family she has to pay the full $50,000 tuition. Another friend of mine who isn't as well off goes to the same university, but because she isn't that rich guess how much she pays a year, compared to the full tuition of fifty grand?

 

 

 

$9,000.

 

 

 

Not because she's some genius that the university has to have, but because she's in a lower class. Working a part-time job throughout the year and in the summer, and with a little help from her parents, she's easily paying for her entire tuition at said Ivy league institution. She's not a rare case either- many of my [too smart] buddehs at Ivy league schools are getting ten, twenty, even thirty grand a year in financial aid and scholarships. Nearly all of them receive some form of financial aid or scholarship.

 

 

 

Oh ya mate, dreadfully evil the college system is, isn't it?

 

Libertarian socialism is a lot better though.

 

I still do not get, and most likely will never get, how in the hell that makes any logical sense whatsoever. It sounds like one of those ideas that looks, I dunno, good on paper but not great in reality?

[l0l0lpur32]

How the hell is "libertarian socialism" possible? left-wing economics require a strong state to enforce, which is the opposite to libertarianism

[l0rd]

How the hell is "libertarian socialism" possible? left-wing economics require a strong state to enforce, which is the opposite to libertarianism

 

 

 

Couldn't really follow that due to your sloppy English. But are you trying to say insituting a libertarian society cannot be done in a "strong" (your word choice, so ambiguous) state?

[l0l0lpur32]

How the hell is "libertarian socialism" possible? left-wing economics require a strong state to enforce, which is the opposite to libertarianism

 

 

 

Couldn't really follow that due to your sloppy English. But are you trying to say insituting a libertarian society cannot be done in a "strong" (your word choice, so ambiguous) state?

 

Maybe I should've used the word "intrusive" rather than "strong"

[l0rd]

How the hell is "libertarian socialism" possible? left-wing economics require a strong state to enforce, which is the opposite to libertarianism

 

 

 

Couldn't really follow that due to your sloppy English. But are you trying to say insituting a libertarian society cannot be done in a "strong" (your word choice, so ambiguous) state?

 

Maybe I should've used the word "intrusive" rather than "strong"

 

 

 

That info doesn't answer my question. ^^^

[assassin_696]

Libertarian socialism is a lot better though.

 

 

 

Isn't liberatarian socialism a paradox?

 

 

 

My problem with communism is that I don't think it's a viable economic system. You're welcome to prove me wrong, but although capitalism has its faults I think we are all enjoying the benefits of increased standards of living.

 

Its an interesting time to make that comment. With the market in collapse, I mean.

 

Obviously this doesnt apply to all forms of Capitalism, but it is one of the problems of free market capitalism, that you are at the whims of an unpredictable system.

 

 

 

I'd also like to suggest that the majority of the increased standards of living came from a technological boom rather than any force due to capitalism but of course its difficult to show definite cause and effect in something as complex as economics. But it can be seen that communist countries are equally recieving the same boom, and whilst they are not forms of communisms which I would support and thus dont have the distribution of that wealth in the way I'd like to see it, that wealth is still there, just in the hands of very few (to which my response is "And thats supposed to be communism??").

 

 

 

The current finanical crisis is not a failure of the free market system, it's a failure of the way it was regulated/handled. I'm sure you realise recessions just come in cycles, so I assume you're referring to the credit crunch. I agree it's a significant event, but it's hardly 1929. Governments have come a long way since then and the theories and models have developed significantly. Economics is still far from an exact science, but we're learning more about it and gathering more data every day.

 

 

 

As for your last paragraph, for a start the increased standards of living haven't largely come through technological boom. Rather they've come through years of basic economic growth. Yes, technology will have had a part to play in this growth. But so has globalisation, free trade between countries, increased productivity, better training/education and the control of inflation. Besides, I find it very hard to believe that the same technological booms would have come about in communist societies, where there won't have been the same free market incentives to develop them.

[l0l0lpur32]

How the hell is "libertarian socialism" possible? left-wing economics require a strong state to enforce, which is the opposite to libertarianism

 

 

 

Couldn't really follow that due to your sloppy English. But are you trying to say insituting a libertarian society cannot be done in a "strong" (your word choice, so ambiguous) state?

 

Maybe I should've used the word "intrusive" rather than "strong"

 

 

 

That info doesn't answer my question. ^^^

 

Yes. (I agree with assasin that "Libertarian socialism" is a paradox)

[l0rd]

How the hell is "libertarian socialism" possible? left-wing economics require a strong state to enforce, which is the opposite to libertarianism

 

 

 

Couldn't really follow that due to your sloppy English. But are you trying to say insituting a libertarian society cannot be done in a "strong" (your word choice, so ambiguous) state?

 

Maybe I should've used the word "intrusive" rather than "strong"

 

 

 

That info doesn't answer my question. ^^^

 

Yes. (I agree with assasin that "Libertarian socialism" is a paradox)

 

 

 

Agreeing that socialism is a paradox doesn't answer my question lawl.

 

 

 

I'll ask it again: Are you trying to say instituting a libertarian society cannot be done in a "intrusive"(strange word choice) state?

[l0l0lpur32]

How the hell is "libertarian socialism" possible? left-wing economics require a strong state to enforce, which is the opposite to libertarianism

 

 

 

Couldn't really follow that due to your sloppy English. But are you trying to say insituting a libertarian society cannot be done in a "strong" (your word choice, so ambiguous) state?

 

Maybe I should've used the word "intrusive" rather than "strong"

 

 

 

That info doesn't answer my question. ^^^

 

Yes. (I agree with assasin that "Libertarian socialism" is a paradox)

 

 

 

Agreeing that socialism is a paradox doesn't answer my question lawl.

 

 

 

I'll ask it again: Are you trying to say instituting a libertarian society cannot be done in a "intrusive"(strange word choice) state?

 

Yes, because the main point of libertarianism is the government staying out of people's lives.

[Ginger_Warrior]

warri0r, let's end this debate. We both agree communism is not a viable form of economics.

 

 

 

Ginger, how old are you...? You're quite the little idealist so I don't want to bet on too old, but you understand the matter well enough to be around 18... hm...

 

Sorry, I wasn't aware ceasing to be an idealist was a needed condition to growing up. Jesus, it's what your whole country's ethos is based on.

 

 

 

But as can be seen by how "in demand" doctors are, even with the extra incentive of the amazing salaries that doctors get, there still aren't nearly enough of them to drop their demand to levels similiar to the average job.

 

Did you honestly just use that logic?

 

 

 

Doctors are in demand because unfortunately most people will suffer from disease. Doctors are low in numbers because there aren't enough university places to meet with supply; it remains true only 1 out of 10 applicants will receive a place in through UCAS. There are more than enough students in both of our countries who want to be doctors - the situation you described simply does not exist.

 

 

 

You also failed to answer my point - how does simply being a doctor entitle you automatically to excessively high wages compared to the rest of society?

 

 

 

Knowing this you honestly think that dropping their pay to that of the average household

 

Not what I said, nor what I support. But whatever.

 

 

 

that there are enough people in the world willing to sacrifice their 20's and their mental health for the sake of merely helping people, even when there are thousands of other jobs where one can help people without having to go through nearly as much prep work as it takes to become a doctor?

 

You mean, like, a nurse, who also needs a degree to work these days? How much do they start earning on average for not dropping out of high school, pulling their way through uni and working emotionally intense shifts? £19K, before tax:

 

BBC News[/url]":14x29ubd]"...The average nurse starts on £19,000 and has course debts of £5,500. Nurses are not able to move to expensive parts of the country," Ms Mitchell said

 

 

 

Jesus Christ Ginger, have you ever even heard of scholarships and financial aid? Financial aid (and scholarships, from the school or outside) is basically the biggest socialist system in existence, and for some reason you're griping on it more than anything else. Here's how this gigantic financial trickle down system works, by true example. A friend of mine currently attends an Ivy League institution, and because she is in a upper class family she has to pay the full $50,000 tuition. Another friend of mine who isn't as well off goes to the same university, but because she isn't that rich guess how much she pays a year, compared to the full tuition of fifty grand?

 

 

 

$9,000.

 

 

 

Not because she's some genius that the university has to have, but because she's in a lower class. Working a part-time job throughout the year and in the summer, and with a little help from her parents, she's easily paying for her entire tuition at said Ivy league institution. She's not a rare case either- many of my [too smart] buddehs at Ivy league schools are getting ten, twenty, even thirty grand a year in financial aid and scholarships. Nearly all of them receive some form of financial aid or scholarship.

 

 

 

Oh ya mate, dreadfully evil the college system is, isn't it?

 

Nice strawman.

 

 

 

What that little rant had to do with the people I was referring to (i.e., those who do not go to university [due to a lack of ability, funds or wanting to]) I have not the slightest clue.

 

 

 

You (again) failed to address another key point I made; you need to get into university first, and private tuition gives an advantage in that respect.

 

 

 

It sounds like one of those ideas that looks, I dunno, good on paper but not great in reality?

 

Nope, Libertarian socialism doesn't even work on paper.

[Rebdragon]

Sorry, I wasn't aware ceasing to be an idealist was a needed condition to growing up. Jesus, it's what your whole country's ethos is based on.

 

 

 

I've always been a fan of this quote from Mark Twain, 'The man who is a pessimist before 48 knows too much; if he is an optimist after it, he knows too little.'

 

 

 

I think idealism is childish. It's simply the nature of my political stance, or actually of who I am; it's nothing more than my opinion. It's probably really arrogant from the socialist side. Ah well, I'm not going to act like I don't think that.

 

 

 

Doctors are in demand because unfortunately most people will suffer from disease. Doctors are low in numbers because there aren't enough university places to meet with supply; it remains true only 1 out of 10 applicants will receive a place in through UCAS. There are more than enough students in both of our countries who want to be doctors - the situation you described simply does not exist.

 

More than enough that want to, yes. But that goes back to the matter of qualifications- if any average Joe could become a doctor, well, let's just say that I don't think I'd be alone in being a little wary about going to hospitals. It's a fair point, if we had more spots it would be nice, but you have to be wary about expanding the system too much. Doctors are the best and the brightest; there's a massive trade-off in expanding the system, in that the bigger it becomes inevitably the less trust it will receive.

 

 

 

How big would you expand it, and how would you go about doing that?

 

 

 

You also failed to answer my point - how does simply being a doctor entitle you automatically to excessively high wages compared to the rest of society?

 

Supply and demand, which, yes, has already been debated. It's essentially an inconceivable orders of magnitude more difficult to become a doctor than a bagger. The amount of effort it takes to become a doctor rather than a bagger... the amount of time put in, the stress, the work... Hell, just quantifying it by only one factor, time, the order of magnitude is about 4,000 (if one is to consider the training for a bagger to be one day). That's 4,000 times harder, without thinking about the stress and the work that has to be completed, let alone the intellectual qualifications it takes to even be able to become a doctor.

 

 

 

No, of course you can't justify their wages mate.

 

 

 

Knowing this you honestly think that dropping their pay to that of the average household

 

Not what I said, nor what I support. But whatever.

 

Then how far do you want to drop the average doctor's pay?

 

 

 

You mean, like, a nurse, who also needs a degree to work these days? How much do they start earning on average for not dropping out of high school, pulling their way through uni and working emotionally intense shifts? £19K, before tax:

 

That's a job that has lower intellectual/etc qualifications, is less stressful, and takes still years less prepwork than a doctor. Fair point in that they put a good deal of time into becoming one (six years or so, but only two-three of it is nursing school)

 

 

 

As for your second point, do you know how much a doctor makes starting out? Me neither, but I remember that in some scene in Scrubs that JD noted his salary was around thirty grand. Let's not talk starting salaries. It's very misleading mate; the average salary for a nurse practitioner (in the USA) is over $80,000, according to salary.com. You know, like double the number you just told everyone :| .

 

 

 

Nice strawman.

 

 

 

What that little rant had to do with the people I was referring to (i.e., those who do not go to university [due to a lack of ability, funds or wanting to]) I have not the slightest clue.

 

 

 

You (again) failed to address another key point I made; you need to get into university first, and private tuition gives an advantage in that respect.

 

How does my post not have anything to do with funds? The entire point I was making was that people who aren't as well off as those who can easily afford the funds are almost always allotted compensation to make it possible for them to go to uni if they so choose (generally indirectly from those who can afford it). If you have some magic way to make uni cheaper in such a way that the taxpayers would permit it, then please, tell me it. Otherwise you're just asking for something that can't be given.

 

 

 

On your points about ability/wanting to, university really isn't for everyone, and I'd personally say that too many people nowadays go to uni. Yes, some people are less gifted/well driven academically/whatever when it comes to school. That's just the way it is- if there weren't people who were less smart than the average person there would be complete equality in this world, which there obviously isn't. That's a utopia, not the real world :| .

[Shinjula]

The current finanical crisis is not a failure of the free market system, it's a failure of the way it was regulated/handled. I'm sure you realise recessions just come in cycles, so I assume you're referring to the credit crunch.

 

Well I'm referring to the cycle of recessions, and whilst I'm happy agreeing that a lot of it is the way its regulated, its still one more downside to capitalism - as far as I'm aware the boom bust cycle is an inevitable part of capitalism.

 

 

 

As for your last paragraph, for a start the increased standards of living haven't largely come through technological boom. Rather they've come through years of basic economic growth. Yes, technology will have had a part to play in this growth. But so has globalisation, free trade between countries, increased productivity, better training/education and the control of inflation. Besides, I find it very hard to believe that the same technological booms would have come about in communist societies, where there won't have been the same free market incentives to develop them.

 

I would still disagree with you here, so I dont think were going to find consensus.

 

But a lot of the things you mention here are not dependant on a capitalist system, the only two which seem dependant on capitalism would be free trade and control of inflation. I'm not sure about how inflation works in a commune, i would think at least in pure communism it wouldnt exist at all so control of it would be irrelevant, free trade I'm sure is a great help to globalisation and so benefit standards of living as you say, but its certainly not the be all and end all.

 

 

 

I will just say again that these are not my best arguments against Capitalism but since whenever I put forward my best arguments they get ignored - and I really do suspect that because there isnt a good answer to them.

 

 

 

That being that Capitalism creates a system where some people are rich and some people are poor and many of the reasons which divide them are arbitary and to me thats simply unnacceptable.

 

 

 

Sure with the Doctors getting high wages, well done youve managed to find a reason which is at least slightly less arbitrary than most, now account for the more arbitrary ones please. Tell me why a TV Presenter is worth more than a Bagger?

[l0l0lpur32]

Doctors are in demand because unfortunately most people will suffer from disease. Doctors are low in numbers because there aren't enough university places to meet with supply; it remains true only 1 out of 10 applicants will receive a place in through UCAS. There are more than enough students in both of our countries who want to be doctors - the situation you described simply does not exist.

 

I'm not saying only 1 in 10 are good enough but are you seriously saying every single person who applies is good enough and should all get places?

[BlueLancer]

 

You also failed to answer my point - how does simply being a doctor entitle you automatically to excessively high wages compared to the rest of society?

 

 

 

I'm willing to pay $200-$300.. No, make that -anything- for a doctor to fix a physical problem that limits my body and life, god forbid that of my child (if I ever have one).

 

 

 

A grocery bagger is useful, but I don't really need his/her services for anything. I'm willing to pay maybe $1 extra for it, or just pack the things myself.

 

 

 

When you pay a professional for services that demand exclusive knowledge, you're paying for years of knowledge that you can't just attain in a matter of minutes, at a significantly discounted price. I can't perform brain surgery on my kid, but I can pack his/her lunch in a school bag.

 

 

 

Those doctors aren't "entitled" to anything; Due to the demand of their skilled service, the high salary automatically follows. Every physically fit illegal immigrant, even a teen, can bag groceries. Not a single illegal immigrant without education can perform eye, nerve or brain surgery.

 

 

 

Since everyone wants the best quality service possible, the prices are automatically driven up by people like me and you. Unlike on bagging groceries, I can't put a price tag on health. I would pay 10 years of salary for my child to be fully able to use his/her mental capacity, legs, hands, etc.. Directly in the bank account of a private surgeon. So would millions of other people.

[Zierro]

^^ I can understand that supply and demand is what puts the cash into a doctor's pocket in the first place but is there anything implying that he should be entitled to keep all of it and not pay taxes proportional to his earnings?

[BlueLancer]

^^ I can understand that supply and demand is what puts the cash into a doctor's pocket in the first place but is there anything implying that he should be entitled to keep all of it and not pay taxes proportional to his earnings?

 

 

 

Especially in nordic countries which have relatively socialistic policies, progressive taxation is common: The more you earn, the more taxes you pay. Taxation in nordic countries can even get up to 45-65% for the highest earning part of society & makes up almost half of the GDP

 

 

 

[1]

 

 

 

If a privately practising doctor earns $150,000 a year, pays 45% tax on it, I see no reason why he shouldn't be able to keep the rest $82,500 dollars as a reward.

 

 

 

He's helping his community enormously by paying over $67k in taxes annually, thus the fees the local residents paid for complicated surgeries go directly back to the city & state coffers paying for children's education, public healthcare, road construction, state salaries, etc.

 

 

 

A grocery bagger (this job doesn't really exist in scandinavia though) who earns $15,000 a year would only pay roughly 25-28% income tax & help his/her community significantly less. His/her service to the society is also less valuable because without the job being done by anybody, people could still lead normal lives without interruption.

[Shinjula]

I see no reason why he shouldn't be able to keep the rest $82,500 dollars as a reward.

 

OK how about "Because other people are in need of that money"!!!

 

Isn't that a good reason he shouldnt get to keep the money?

 

Seriously many people in the UK particularly pensioners, who have worked hard all their lives yet are now unable to afford to have the heating on in winter, people are out living on the streets, people are having to support families on too little money and their children are borderline malnourished.

 

 

 

Sure if this were a happy go lucky world with more than enough resources to go round I wouldnt really have a problem with that sort of idea, but its not, there are people in genuine need, and Capitalism is a deliberately unequal system.

 

every one has the right to a share of the planet, people are born into different circumstances and have different abilities, that shouldnt make them more eligable for better treatment.

[Shinjula]

I also cant help noticing that we've fixated on two jobs which are partiuclarly skewed towards the Capitalist argument, how well do your arguments work for Call Centre Manager vs Nurse?

 

 

 

Now take a look at the spread of jobs versus wages and I think youll find as far as usefulness to society & essentialness there is no coorelation between that and wage.

 

 

 

In a free trade economy the highest wage goes to the person with the gift of the gab, not to the guy who does essential and useful work, otherwise teacher, nurse, sewage workers would be much much higher paid and managers would be paid the same as baggers.

[BlueLancer]

 

every one has the right to a share of the planet, people are born into different circumstances and have different abilities, that shouldnt make them more eligable for better treatment.

 

 

 

Some people have less abilities, intelligence and utility than other people. Some human beings are less of an asset to society due to their personal traits, professional skills, physical size, etc... That's not discrimination, that's a fact which has existed since the dawn of time.

 

 

 

Companies that currently provide work to people were created by people who put their personal wealth at huge risk. The incentive for risking their wealth was to create further wealth by bringing new products or solutions on the market.

 

 

 

Everyone can't have equal compensation. If there is no incentive to risk capital or allocate time into creating innovations, there wont be any jobs to begin with. Even the basic utilities of society like transporting food & water, are maintained by people who recieve monetary compensation to do so. Nothing works without elevated compensation for the person who creates those utilities and products.

 

 

 

99.9% of the population can mop a floor. 0.01% of the population can create nanoarchitechture for computer microprocessors. Due to their low availability and high demand, the engineers creating those microchips will always be paid more than a floor mopper. It isn't decided by anyone; It follows naturally due to many people requiring their services, but few people being available to fulfill them.