To follow up with my previous articles on this subject, I want to present my idea for "redistributing" wealth--even though it isn't "re-" distribution because I don't think it would be fair in any way to take away the wealth of someone who has already accumulated it.
What I do think is fair, is placing limits on how much an individual can earn in proportion to other people who aid in the production of that wealth.
For instance, McDonald's CEO earned 3,101 times that of the median employee, 1.2M times for Amazon's Jeff Bezos. --These numbers are preposterous.
I'm not opposed to the leader and financer making a large profit, but even pirates shared the wealth equally among themselves--this is worse than piracy, this is robbery.
Full disclosure: I invest in the stock market and believe in the American Dream. I believe in retirement by riding off of and taking part in the American Economy. However, I've been in the sorry situation before where my wages didn't cover my expenses. I think they call that underemployment, where you earn some money but it's not enough and you need to make more to keep on living. --Honestly, I don't know how I survived and now that I'm away from it and I have various mental and physical benefits from not having that stress in my life, I think I should turn back and say that this disproportionate distribution of wealth is not sustainable nor is it ethical.
My suggestion is that we place limits on the amount of money anyone can make on the backs of another human being. That includes the stock market, though I don't know how to make that work logistically speaking. If you invest money into a company and you make say 1000X or more what that company's median salary is, you should be required to pay (all or part of) the taxes of those individuals who earn less than that median salary.
So if you invest in McDonalds and you report earning more than $10/hr, you should be required to pay from your profit (say if the value of the stocks went up by $1,000 in the year) You should be required to pay the tax bracket rate that they get paid--in this case they are paid $10/hr which falls in %12 range, so you pay $120 divided by all of those employees (which comes down to like 1 cent per person).
But that one cent per person times the total number of people who gained $1000 off of the growth of McDonalds, plus all the Officers and personal investors who own the company, these indivduals could actually take home money (yes, I'm saying that they should be paid more than just their taxes, but I'd settle on them being paid just all of their taxes, which does amount to a significant portion of their salary.
Wednesday, October 3, 2018
Sunday, August 26, 2018
Redistribution of Wealth and Death
Redistributing wealth after a person dies only perpetuates a world where there are wealthy individuals who remain wealthy--this is the world we live in presently. In the social world we have created for thousands of years, kings would give their power and wealth to their children (primarily sons because of tradition and bias) and those children would increase the household wealth, giving their children the incentive to please their father so that they can be held "worthy" of the amassed wealth.
Redistributing wealth before a person dies is also problematic. In the unique situation where a wealthy king or capitalist did not have heirs, he or she could opt to choose someone to be their stand-in heir. This involves a lot of political intrigue. Many of Shakespeare's plays explored the problems with this type of wealth and power redistribution.
After-Death Redistribution (ADR) of wealth favors the cheats of the world, the aggressive, the liars, so on and so forth--people who break society's rules to gain wealth. It favors such lowlifes because if they are not the wealthy powerful king or tycoon, in order for them to compete and rise to a level comparable with their local wealthiest person, they must cheat in order to rise at rapid enough of rate as to surpass or maintain the distance between the two of them!--If you are wealthy and invest your wealth, because you have more money to invest, you will gain more than the person who invests a small amount and gains the same rate of yield as you do.
With this form of wealth progression, wealth in society dumbs down to who can manage their money the best so that they mitigate losses and maximize gains, as well as who can exploit the system so that they maximize their gains more than the next highest person. --And all you have to do to see the effects of this is look in any national newspaper in 2018. Investment Bankers cheating the poor by writing up fake loans so that the shares of their stocks are padded. Rulers of countries changing the laws to support their own agendas or that of their cronies. Corrupt police and investigative forces throughout the world who discover criminals making lots of money and so they blackmail and coerce them into working for them instead of their selfish interest. You even see management and company officers who earn 120 times of that which their blue-collar, producer workers earn.--The people who actually make the product are being exploited by those who, in many instances, don't even know the intricacies of how the product is made.
It is this kind of exploitation that we as a society would like to eliminate, but every attempt to do so is thwarted and then exploited by the cheats of the world.
A few more forward thinking individuals have decided that they will give ALL of their wealth after-death to charitable organizations, and although this is a good step, it will not solve this problem. This is merely a middleman attempt at Redistribution Before a Person Dies (RBD). Such billionaires turn over their wealth to an appointed heir rather than a blood heir, the only difference is that the appointed heir is an organization of people rather than one individual, such as a non-profit charitable foundation.
Just like in olden days when the king would declare an heir after much political intrigue and cheating to get ahead, today's RBD billionaires are merely creating an environment where only a select few who reach a specific requirement receive the previously acquired wealth of one person.--Who determines where the money goes? If it's a board of individuals, that's better than a solitary president or financial manager, but it also creates a desirable position to be fought for where one or a couple people are rewarded with wealth or power to mete out wealth and power to other individuals as they see fit. Which, again, leads to exploitation, cheating, and gaming of this kind of system.
Regardless of whether you redistribute your wealth after death or before death, you are still in charge of who receives your wealth. You still choose who to give your money and power to and that opens the door for unfairness.--You may have earned your money from hard work, determination, guts, intense risk, and shrewd decision making, but whoever you give money to did not earn that money, and the rest of the world who did not receive that money unfairly must live in a competitive world where Privilege gives a competitive advantage to a select few.
Socialists of hundreds of years ago saw the problem with this system and were outraged enough to form political parties that would rob from the rich and give to the poor, but that wasn't a fair outcome for the rich--regardless of whether 100% of the money was earned or not, it is not fair to take the money right out of their hand because those people believe that it is the hard work and decision making and skill on their part that earned them that money.
So we see a system where people believe it is their own skill that is giving them an advantage over others even though it is skill at cheating, skill at sucking up, or luck of birth. --And...I supposed you could twist the meaning of the word "skill" to signify those things, but it doesn't change the reality of what you are doing, and what you are doing is unfair to some. Perhaps the belief that "everyone cheats" is enough justification to permit rampant cheating, but I believe that surely there must be a better way! Surely there must be the possibility of a more equitable society.
Redistributing wealth before a person dies is also problematic. In the unique situation where a wealthy king or capitalist did not have heirs, he or she could opt to choose someone to be their stand-in heir. This involves a lot of political intrigue. Many of Shakespeare's plays explored the problems with this type of wealth and power redistribution.
After-Death Redistribution (ADR) of wealth favors the cheats of the world, the aggressive, the liars, so on and so forth--people who break society's rules to gain wealth. It favors such lowlifes because if they are not the wealthy powerful king or tycoon, in order for them to compete and rise to a level comparable with their local wealthiest person, they must cheat in order to rise at rapid enough of rate as to surpass or maintain the distance between the two of them!--If you are wealthy and invest your wealth, because you have more money to invest, you will gain more than the person who invests a small amount and gains the same rate of yield as you do.
With this form of wealth progression, wealth in society dumbs down to who can manage their money the best so that they mitigate losses and maximize gains, as well as who can exploit the system so that they maximize their gains more than the next highest person. --And all you have to do to see the effects of this is look in any national newspaper in 2018. Investment Bankers cheating the poor by writing up fake loans so that the shares of their stocks are padded. Rulers of countries changing the laws to support their own agendas or that of their cronies. Corrupt police and investigative forces throughout the world who discover criminals making lots of money and so they blackmail and coerce them into working for them instead of their selfish interest. You even see management and company officers who earn 120 times of that which their blue-collar, producer workers earn.--The people who actually make the product are being exploited by those who, in many instances, don't even know the intricacies of how the product is made.
It is this kind of exploitation that we as a society would like to eliminate, but every attempt to do so is thwarted and then exploited by the cheats of the world.
A few more forward thinking individuals have decided that they will give ALL of their wealth after-death to charitable organizations, and although this is a good step, it will not solve this problem. This is merely a middleman attempt at Redistribution Before a Person Dies (RBD). Such billionaires turn over their wealth to an appointed heir rather than a blood heir, the only difference is that the appointed heir is an organization of people rather than one individual, such as a non-profit charitable foundation.
Just like in olden days when the king would declare an heir after much political intrigue and cheating to get ahead, today's RBD billionaires are merely creating an environment where only a select few who reach a specific requirement receive the previously acquired wealth of one person.--Who determines where the money goes? If it's a board of individuals, that's better than a solitary president or financial manager, but it also creates a desirable position to be fought for where one or a couple people are rewarded with wealth or power to mete out wealth and power to other individuals as they see fit. Which, again, leads to exploitation, cheating, and gaming of this kind of system.
Regardless of whether you redistribute your wealth after death or before death, you are still in charge of who receives your wealth. You still choose who to give your money and power to and that opens the door for unfairness.--You may have earned your money from hard work, determination, guts, intense risk, and shrewd decision making, but whoever you give money to did not earn that money, and the rest of the world who did not receive that money unfairly must live in a competitive world where Privilege gives a competitive advantage to a select few.
Socialists of hundreds of years ago saw the problem with this system and were outraged enough to form political parties that would rob from the rich and give to the poor, but that wasn't a fair outcome for the rich--regardless of whether 100% of the money was earned or not, it is not fair to take the money right out of their hand because those people believe that it is the hard work and decision making and skill on their part that earned them that money.
So we see a system where people believe it is their own skill that is giving them an advantage over others even though it is skill at cheating, skill at sucking up, or luck of birth. --And...I supposed you could twist the meaning of the word "skill" to signify those things, but it doesn't change the reality of what you are doing, and what you are doing is unfair to some. Perhaps the belief that "everyone cheats" is enough justification to permit rampant cheating, but I believe that surely there must be a better way! Surely there must be the possibility of a more equitable society.
Wednesday, August 22, 2018
Distribution of Wealth Vs Redistribution
I've been exploring the philosophy behind the redistribution of wealth lately. It's a really dumb idea honestly, but I think there is a core principle behind it worth looking at:
The core principle is that there is a problem in our society with how wealth is disproportionately found among an elite group of people. The problem is manifest in inequality relationships in class, race, education, religion, and most other strata of society. --Simply put, being born in a privileged group that has access to wealth and resources, grants you a circular effect of greater education, opportunities, power positions, etc. It allows for the domination of minority groups such as racial or ethnic groups, and it has the great potential of securing bad actors in the position of power.
But, redistributing wealth is a bad idea because wealth is only one factor in the equation. People who are born wealthy have more resources than just financial resources at their disposal. With wealth comes connections or social capital. With wealth comes positions of power. With wealth comes greater education (as much as I hate to admit it). --Not to say that someone who is poor can't become as educated or intelligent or even surpass that of a wealthy person, but the journey is harder and the statistics of intelligent wealthy people outnumber unwealthy intelligent people.
Redistributing the wealth of people who have already amassed wealth and power is a bad idea if done on a strictly wealth basis--I have to make that claim because there may in the future come philosophies where many factors (intelligence, means, wealth, resources, knowledge, etc) are taken into account and actually balance the concept of redistribution, but it doesn't seem as feasible in my perspective of today.
A better idea (though probably facing the same level of pushback as redistribution) would be redefinition of distribution. Meaning, changing the way in which wealthy people can make money and collect resources and political power away from the way it is presently done today. --We know of the inherit flaws in our systems, and it isnt' to say that our political or social institutions benefit wealthy people, but rather wealthy people are aware of how to game the system and are better positioned to do so to strategically place themselves in such a way as to secure their current gains and accumulated wealth and also future gains.
What I am suggesting is that we redefine what is acceptable and what is not acceptable (i.e. ethical and protectable by social/legal laws).
I will present my ideas on a few topics which I see as possible for the distribution of wealth (NOT the redistribution). --I still believe that the wealthy--initially-- will have an advantage and may thwart the attempts, but if bright philosophical minds can combat such thwarts, perhaps we can make a social course adjustment to a more ethical, more equitable society which we all dream about.
The core principle is that there is a problem in our society with how wealth is disproportionately found among an elite group of people. The problem is manifest in inequality relationships in class, race, education, religion, and most other strata of society. --Simply put, being born in a privileged group that has access to wealth and resources, grants you a circular effect of greater education, opportunities, power positions, etc. It allows for the domination of minority groups such as racial or ethnic groups, and it has the great potential of securing bad actors in the position of power.
But, redistributing wealth is a bad idea because wealth is only one factor in the equation. People who are born wealthy have more resources than just financial resources at their disposal. With wealth comes connections or social capital. With wealth comes positions of power. With wealth comes greater education (as much as I hate to admit it). --Not to say that someone who is poor can't become as educated or intelligent or even surpass that of a wealthy person, but the journey is harder and the statistics of intelligent wealthy people outnumber unwealthy intelligent people.
Redistributing the wealth of people who have already amassed wealth and power is a bad idea if done on a strictly wealth basis--I have to make that claim because there may in the future come philosophies where many factors (intelligence, means, wealth, resources, knowledge, etc) are taken into account and actually balance the concept of redistribution, but it doesn't seem as feasible in my perspective of today.
A better idea (though probably facing the same level of pushback as redistribution) would be redefinition of distribution. Meaning, changing the way in which wealthy people can make money and collect resources and political power away from the way it is presently done today. --We know of the inherit flaws in our systems, and it isnt' to say that our political or social institutions benefit wealthy people, but rather wealthy people are aware of how to game the system and are better positioned to do so to strategically place themselves in such a way as to secure their current gains and accumulated wealth and also future gains.
What I am suggesting is that we redefine what is acceptable and what is not acceptable (i.e. ethical and protectable by social/legal laws).
I will present my ideas on a few topics which I see as possible for the distribution of wealth (NOT the redistribution). --I still believe that the wealthy--initially-- will have an advantage and may thwart the attempts, but if bright philosophical minds can combat such thwarts, perhaps we can make a social course adjustment to a more ethical, more equitable society which we all dream about.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)