Login or Sign Up
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Global Forums > Politics & Current Affairs > Distribution of Income
 
Only members can see photos
Only members can see names and photos
Distribution of Income

Today some people can earn 100 or 1000 times as much as others. Is this really useful and necessary?


Doesn't it have a negative impact on democracy when some people are so rich that they can massively influence political elections and decisions (like the media empires of Murdoch and Berlusconi for example)? 

The text you are quoting:

Today some people can earn 100 or 1000 times as much as others. Is this really useful and necessary?


Doesn't it have a negative impact on democracy when some people are so rich that they can massively influence political elections and decisions (like the media empires of Murdoch and Berlusconi for example)? 


Simon HAug 9, 2011 @ 11:27
Your Reply:
Reply  Reply With Quote  Thank Poster
! Report to Admin
 
4 Replies | 1387 Views      |  Send to friend
 
Only members can see photos
Only members can see names and photos
Re: Distribution of Income
Post 1

It's much more than a negative impact on democracy, it has a huge effect on people's happiness and wellbeing. A lot of research suggests that, once a country has reached a wealth level where there are no longer people starving and very few people homeless, an increase in GDP does not increase wellbeing, but an increase in equality does.


See for example the excellent book 'The Spirit Level' or this website from the same authors: http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/ 


Unfortunately it's human nature to want more than our neighbours. For example, an interesting sociology experiment showed that, when offered two scenarios:


1) Everyone in your company gets a 10% raise


2) You get a 5% raise and everyone else gets nothing


people are happier with 2, even though they get less money, because of the implied boost to their status and ego.

The text you are quoting:

It's much more than a negative impact on democracy, it has a huge effect on people's happiness and wellbeing. A lot of research suggests that, once a country has reached a wealth level where there are no longer people starving and very few people homeless, an increase in GDP does not increase wellbeing, but an increase in equality does.


See for example the excellent book 'The Spirit Level' or this website from the same authors: http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/ 


Unfortunately it's human nature to want more than our neighbours. For example, an interesting sociology experiment showed that, when offered two scenarios:


1) Everyone in your company gets a 10% raise


2) You get a 5% raise and everyone else gets nothing


people are happier with 2, even though they get less money, because of the implied boost to their status and ego.


adam_jeff, Aug 9, 2011 @ 14:58
Your Reply:
Reply  Reply With Quote  Thank Poster
! Report to Admin
Only members can see photos
Only members can see names and photos
Re: Distribution of Income
Post 2

Since people won't give up their wage differential voluntary, the only way to reduce it is legislation.


I would propose a 'maximum wage' tied to the minimum wage. the maximum wage would not be a set number but a multiple of the smallest wage in that company. So for example, if the CEO is earning 100 times what the cleaner earns, and he wants a raise, he can only have it if he gives the cleaner the same raise.


When first introduced the multiple could be, say, 100. Slowly it would be reduced to less than 10. I don't necessarily support reducing it all the way to 1 i.e. complete equality, I think that some incentive to promotion should remain.

The text you are quoting:

Since people won't give up their wage differential voluntary, the only way to reduce it is legislation.


I would propose a 'maximum wage' tied to the minimum wage. the maximum wage would not be a set number but a multiple of the smallest wage in that company. So for example, if the CEO is earning 100 times what the cleaner earns, and he wants a raise, he can only have it if he gives the cleaner the same raise.


When first introduced the multiple could be, say, 100. Slowly it would be reduced to less than 10. I don't necessarily support reducing it all the way to 1 i.e. complete equality, I think that some incentive to promotion should remain.


adam_jeff, Aug 9, 2011 @ 15:10
Your Reply:
Reply  Reply With Quote  Thank Poster
! Report to Admin
Only members can see photos
Only members can see names and photos
Re: Distribution of Income
Post 3

Hi Adam,


thanks for your comments. I would not support total equality either, because this would indeed massively reduce peoples motvation. And it is just fair, when people who work harder earn more money. But to earn the double, triple or at most the fivefold than others should be enough incentive to work efficient! Your proposal is quite original, but maybe companies would find ways to bend the rules (maybe outsource the cheapest employees, etc). In my opinion the tax system is still the best instrument to regulate income. But it does not happen because of the international tax competition.So, countries should agree to implement similar tax rates.

The text you are quoting:

Hi Adam,


thanks for your comments. I would not support total equality either, because this would indeed massively reduce peoples motvation. And it is just fair, when people who work harder earn more money. But to earn the double, triple or at most the fivefold than others should be enough incentive to work efficient! Your proposal is quite original, but maybe companies would find ways to bend the rules (maybe outsource the cheapest employees, etc). In my opinion the tax system is still the best instrument to regulate income. But it does not happen because of the international tax competition.So, countries should agree to implement similar tax rates.


Simon H, Aug 9, 2011 @ 15:21
Your Reply:
Reply  Reply With Quote  Thank Poster
! Report to Admin
Only members can see photos
Only members can see names and photos
Re: Distribution of Income
Post 4

Yes, I have thought about the problem of outsourcing. The law would need to be very carefully worded to avoid this. For example, you could say that everyone working in the same building is included in the same 'wage group' which has to respect the maximum multiplier.

The text you are quoting:

Yes, I have thought about the problem of outsourcing. The law would need to be very carefully worded to avoid this. For example, you could say that everyone working in the same building is included in the same 'wage group' which has to respect the maximum multiplier.


adam_jeff, Aug 9, 2011 @ 17:24
Your Reply:
Reply  Reply With Quote  Thank Poster
! Report to Admin
4 Replies | 1387 Views      |  Send to friend
 
 
 
Feedback Form