Not really. We aren't talking about equality of outcome. We are referring to genuine choice. For example, we know that countries with lower inequality also tend to have higher self employment rates
I guess that's what I was thinking in that when you have "inequalities" the propesity for innovation through motivation and elevation in status derived thereform is/can be enhanced. I guess (all things being equal) inequalitiy breeds the ability to elevate ones status through a desire to better onesself. I don't know, maybe it should be inequality of outcome vesus inequality of opportunity? Inequality leads to incentive the OP I guess is dependednt upon the level of incentive and the limitation of incentive a system is prepared to tollerate...kindda like...moral justice versus propensity to consume....
It's a fair system. The rich are rich and can lose their money if they squander it/mismanage it; The poor are poor or can better themselves and work and buy and sell to become rich/pay the bills. What's unfair everyone being a slave to the state with nationalised command economic structures instead of free trade. Spoiler: EU Rant Free trade is good, but the only reason the EU likes free trade is because EU citizens are just another market called the workforce who operate in what is called the jobs market in Europe and freedom of movement has saturated the workforce in the jobs market (which suggests countries and EU citizens are products like products are products and free to move). There is no democracy in the EU for creating law and regulation, it's just a protectionist movement put in place that feeds on the back of cheap labour, that's why we have Eastern European EU countries working on VW engines and a whole integrated supply system of skill & cheap labour that sees aeroplanes and cars bounce around the EU from country to country like the people, but doesn't have EU elections because it's still countries tied up into this system that sees sovereignty as the enemy and the people a voteless product. So when we're talking about free trade, we're not talking about EU membership. Socialism says the people have no products and no land and no voice but the state governs all.
Small governments are good because it lets private people and business get a long. Big governments are bad because they take more and dictate and make what they can nationalised thus making whatever's nationalised one more thing for the socialist government to worry about and tax about turning citizens into shareholders of failing industries.
Do countries with greater income inequality exhibit greater social or intergenerational mobility? The answer is no. The idea that income inequalities creates incentives is not consistent with the evidence. Instead it limits opportunities and shifts the economy away from a meritocratic outcome
Nope. Socialism protects property rights. It's focus, after all, is in ensuring that you receive the value of your labour.
Can you think of one? Analysis focuses on the likes of Britain and the US: neatly combining high poverty rates, low social mobility rates and crap intergenerational rates.
But who's owner of the property? Private or communal? Is Socialism acting like Robin Hood to protect those rights? Taking and giving.
Social mobility in the UK is massive. Half my family went from broken homes on the council estate to self made millionaires in one generation. More of them than didn't. The working class all became middle class. Almost no working class left. So few we have to import them by the million. People migrate from around the world to America and the UK for social mobility. These two countries are the very peak destinations world wide for those seeking social mobility. Relatively speaking, we have a lot of rich people here for a reason. It's the easiest place to get rich.
Robin Hood robbed tax collectors. The left. The left rob the poor. And anyone else weak. Socialist societies are notorious for their abject poverty. No one looks at a socialist country and thinks "wow" look how well they are all doing. It's the ideology that history abandoned. And with good reason.
The worker. How that operates depends on the form of socialism. In market socialist, for example, the focus is on eliminating the distinction between the owner and the worker. Labour hires capital. Given Robin Hood is a righteous story concerning reaction to dictatorship, perhaps not a good choice!
Robin Hood was a great legend then, the guy who stood up to taxes and big government and nationalisation of property and business.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/13/labour-announces-26bn-raid-city-london-robin-hood-tax/ From that whole Summer of Chaos/lost election you know... So Labour are wrong to hijack Robin Hood. 'this changes everything' but reaffirms Labour's grubby self serving policies and practises.
Robin Hood "tax". LMAO. Polished Turd. Socialists pick on the weak. And rob them. The poor or the minorities. They believe in monopoly power. Hitler did the Jews. They were bankers. Minorities with money make for easy and lucrative targets. What thief does not aspire to rob a bank? It is the very pinnacle of criminal aspiration. What incentive is there to change your social class in socialism? None. Work harder than the rest to be stolen from. So that you have no more than the rest. Pointless. Save more than the rest to have less than them. Self defeat. Better to do nothing and have the same as the rest. Nihilism. Socialist societies are poor societies for a reason. They aren't all empoverished countries by co-incidence.
Typically a righteous redistribution of economic rents. Bit obvious really, but them there right wingers need help
Yeah, well, the city is full of philanthropists doing this without the need for Westminster to intervene, thank you. I've Umbrella Company Job'd a blue collar job doing construction in many offices in and around The City and one week doing night at a French trading bank near the Stock Exchange opened my eyes to the charity culture these people work with; if it's not teaching cooking or English to refugees or sign up sheets for running for charities in runs up and down the UK and in London to donating and real culture of philanthropy these people look at in the canteens that's on every identical floor where the sink, fridge, microwave and coffee machine is. Real philanthropy culture (just is when you have more, you give more) that Labour wish to ignore in the act of taking/helping their selves and dictating - forcing the very Christian act of charity in an unholy way across many faiths.
But it isn't is it? Otherwise we wouldn't see inequality so far that even the conservative IMF tuts. Economic rents go unchecked in Britain. In the mean time? Real wages often fall; underpayment necessarily increases. You think our society, where food banks grow and people die because of austerity, is christian? If that is your god, tell him to kindly do one
Labour only seek to give that which they didn't earn themselves. And that is the core difference between left and right wing. Right winger gives his own money to charity. Not yours.
But it is, now what do you call a someone who doesn't work and can't feed their families? Charity case. If you're disabled you're entitled to disability allowances, regardless of how much you earn. This robs from the people who can not work for health reasons.
Even now you deliberately underplay the severity of our unchristian society. Our working poverty problems are well documented so no excuse! We've had disabled people robbed of their disability by private companies employed to artificially reduce welfare payments. Where the feck have you been?
We've got a workforce which includes disabled workers, high earners too, why must they get money too? Should this money be made to make those who can't work have more money rather than just grabbing money and misspending it. We have food banks to feed people. You know what giving for unemployment buys on the black market if not at the pub or bookie. Why not issue food stamps instead of cash and let Tesco and whoever else benefit for the sudden loss of pounds and pennies? If you want to talk fair and humane and who robs who from their benefits. Give 'em food stamps, This would dictate how the people spend my money and when we taxed the black market in 2014, it was £12bn, which is probably the same as getting a refund from JSA that year.
Socialism merely asks that labour property is protected. Not surprisingly all workers benefit. Misspending? Perhaps refer to the likes of Phillip Green's 'BHS Destroyer'? Its really not difficult. If you're happy with a society where even working full time isn't enough to escape poverty and you're happy with a country with rampant homelessness while people profit from empty homes, then you aren't Christian. Golly gosh, the Tory Party must be an Anton LaVey offshoot!