Redistribution of Wealth

[numbers]

Okay I know this is about 'redistribution of wealth' as the title says and that its about 'fairness'. Am not taking sides either way but had to comment upon this:

"How are high earners being treated unfairly? Why do I in particular support a different fairness for higher earners?"

said by SJ. In my mind, this contradicts what's said above (also by SJ):

"There is a perception that rich people are picked on simply for being rich, but I really don't think that is the case. Even if it was the case, they are rich, they'll get over it"

That's an example of supporting a different fairness towards the rich isn't it? You might as easily say "they're poor, they'll get over it" then. If you're treating both groups equally.

Although I guess you were meaning in relation to taxation as opposed to generally speaking.

[StraferJack]

I'm not saying rich people SHOULD be picked on simply for being rich

What I'm saying is if rich people have to suffer a few people moaning about them being rich, it's a small price to pay isn't it? You have your riches, your goods, your future sorted. You're in clover. is it fair if people pick on you JUST because you are rich? No it isn't "fair" but it's not likely to bother you ultimately

That just doesn't apply if you are poor - if you are poor it's a miserable, daily grind. Throwing a few mean spirited words their way seems nothing like someone grumbling about a rich person. Why would you even compare the two to demonstrate fairness?

[numbers]

why would I compare the two to demonstrate fairness?

simply because its not treating both equally. although of course I wouldn't throw mean spirited words someone's way because they are poor but to be honest, I wouldn't throw them someone's way because they were rich either.

I wouldn't necessarily assume that just because someone's rich that 'their riches/goods/future was sorted/they were in clover' either. But yes I agree if you're poor it can indeed be a miserable daily grind.

Don't even know why rich people should suffer a few people moaning about them being rich but yes, its not going to make their lives any harder. But they could still be miserable. And who knows what hard work and effort/sacrifice it took for them to get there in first place.

[StraferJack]

of course being rich doesn't solve everything - life is much more complicated than that.

(Then again you wouldn't find many rich people swapping voluntarily with their poor counterpart - "what you're complaining about me being rich? come on then let's swap places and see how YOU like it!")

I maintain that most of the time nobody bemoans the rich JUST because they are rich. If people start picking on specific rich people there is probably a wider story there. People picking on Cameron say - no he can't help his background, but making the decisions he does.. well it leads to a wider debate. People aren't hating on him just because he is rich

[El Pibe]

The question was, to quote Charlie Brooker, 'A Cunt's trick'.

You prefigure the debate by framing it a certain way, one beloved of the american right who manage to make any idea of redistribution positively unamerican. By keeping the focus on whether people are 'moaning at the rich' or whether 'a successful person is a rich bitch sucking the nation dry' noone asks any useful questions.

Well done all, pat yourselves on the back for rising to it.

DNFtT.

but 10/10 H, you even sucked snorky in.

[Loz]

StraferJack Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> That just doesn't apply if you are poor - if you are poor it's a miserable, daily grind. Throwing a

> few mean spirited words their way seems nothing like someone grumbling about a rich person. Why

> would you even compare the two to demonstrate fairness?

Because it is - by definition - unfair. You may think it is acceptable, but unfair it still is.

[woodrot]

git tae feck.

I was going to propose laying a marxian grid over the scenario and looking at the flows to suggest at least a starting point for discussion but realised it was ultimately futile. Interestingly, there could be discussion as to whether software like this actually produces anything or merely facilites access to the results of production is soemthing I need to consider further. When Homes under the hammer has finished blates.

[El Pibe]

I loved a quote from Neal Stephensons patchy 'Anathem'

I probably paraphrase "money is in theory infinite, in practice most of it goes on sugary water and pornography".

I guess that was written back when people paid for porn.

[woodrot]

Marx was clear that machinery did not add surplus value innit.Software is just machinery in its most basic sense - ie. something that makes a task more convenient, thus apps n ting shouldnt really be regaeded as adding surplus value, this can only be from human labour- this is the sole originator of value creation if you want to be orthodox about things. actually lets not.

[El Pibe]

you need to tell the treasury this, software is about number 3 on our balance of trade positives.

I suppose if we produce real bubble wrap and now we sell less because of the bubble wrap popping app, then we have a net negative outcome true.

I'm not sure what angry birds is making more convenient mind...

[woodrot]

.

[silverfox]

woodrot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Marx was clear that machinery did not add surplus

> value innit.Software is just machinery in its most

> basic sense - ie. something that makes a task more

> convenient, thus apps n ting shouldnt really be

> regaeded as adding surplus value, this can only be

> from human labour- this is the sole originator of

> value creation if you want to be orthodox about

> things. actually lets not.

I think you'll find software, as intellectual property, is a product of human labour for Marx. See The Communist Manifesto:

"...Even when I carry out scientific work, etc., and activity which I can seldom conduct in direct association with other men, I perform a social, because human, act..."

[woodrot]

Surplus value though bro', thats key

and Im out of here.

[Huguenot]

What a thoroughly depressing read that was.

Thoreau generously observed, "Most men lead lives of quiet desperation and go to the grave with the song still in them"

He was probably too forgiving for how this frustration manifests itself in petty small minded resentment.

[steveo]

You started it

[StraferJack]

" petty small minded resentment."

a phrase which sums up the hypothetical she's predicament

Edited for shocking spelling, WTT LadyD

[StraferJack]

Huguenot begins with the letter H

so does Howard Roark

coincidence?

[LadyDeliah]

Lol

[*Bob*]

Try this one:

Two men grow-up on different sides of the street. One on a council estate, the other in a flat-fronted Georgian four-storey terrace with plantation shutters, a giant etched-glass number over the door and a magimix juicer (used twice). The man in the council flat, whilst high on Cash In The Attic, comes-up with the idea for an iPhone App which cleverly allows the user to see the back of their head - in real time. His neighbour over the road then brings the app to market - achieving global sales of 22m

Who is right?

[silverfox]

The rich kid.

Serves the poor kid right, sitting on his arse watching Cash in the Attic