• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Wealth Inequality

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
Why would we want to redistribute his wealth? He earned it. If its done illegally then its a different matter.

Our current laws allow folks like Bezos to be parasites on our society. We need to change the tax codes. If we put some sort of wealth tax in place, then we could start to tax him for the wealth he's accumulated.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Firstly, the current economy is set up in such a way that you can only earn more money by investing that money somewhere. When a money is invested, that wealth is being actively used to fund some activity. The cap on inheritance I proposed is one way that stops the wealth being concentrated in a family over the generations.
The answer to the second problem is to make the law making and legal enforcement system less vulnerable to bribery and special interests.
I do think when a person's wealth equals or rivals an entire town or village it's time to take a serious look at what is going on.

It's happened in the past already, calked corporate towns, and and I think its going back in that direction (albeit with some alterations) now in terms of insanely individuals taking the upper hand in ways it shouldn't be when it comes to employing power and control over people by their own sheer wealth alone.

Truth be said it's the common people who make their own monsters in the making.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Nobody earns that much money. The only reason it's legal is because he can pay the egregious worker safety fines, and his legal team is just too big and too powerful to be threatened by anti-trust lawsuits or compliance lawsuits.

People die on his warehouse floors so he can extract the maximum value.
Are the safety rules and deaths more than other warehouses in the same region?
What I want to see is whether treatment of workers worsen as the company gets wealthier. Working conditions should certainly be improved... question is whether there is any correlation between worse working conditions and greater wealth of company owners.
 

epronovost

Well-Known Member
No, not necessarily. What makes a person a winner or a loser isn’t based on something unfortunately happening for them. It is determined by how the choose to respond.

Now you are making a false equivalence with the usage of "loser". I am talking about a "loser" in a competition as in the person who didn't succeed at a specific goal and you are using "loser" as colloquialism for someone who doesn't react in a manner you deem fitting according to your personal moral code when faced with adversity like a "sore loser" for example.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
Are the safety rules and deaths more than other warehouses in the same region?

What I want to see is whether treatment of workers worsen as the company gets wealthier. Working conditions should certainly be improved... question is whether there is any correlation between worse working conditions and greater wealth of company owners.

In addition to the discussions concerning workers, also consider Bezo's use of our common infrastructure. He has benefitted IMMENSELY from our roadways, our police and fire departments, our education system, our healthcare system (flawed as it is), our utility grid, and on and on.

And our tax system has allowed him to find ways to legally NOT PAY his fair share for the upkeep of all of these common societal assets. This is not sustainable for our society.
 

JustGeorge

Not As Much Fun As I Look
Staff member
Premium Member
Inheritance should be taxed at 100% (with income taxes lowered accordingly). The best time to get taxed is when you're dead.
There are benefits from having rich parents but it would be much fairer when people have to earn their own merits (and money).
Generationally built monopolies would end up in public possession eventually.

That's a thought.

Might also encourage folks to spend and donate while still living, as they'll lose the say on where it goes after they kick the bucket.
 

Shaul

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Now you are making a false equivalence with the usage of "loser". I am talking about a "loser" in a competition as in the person who didn't succeed at a specific goal and you are using "loser" as colloquialism for someone who doesn't react in a manner you deem fitting according to your personal moral code when faced with adversity like a "sore loser" for example.
Not at all. A person that competes in the market “wins” even when his short term goal isn’t achieved. He could gain experience or new knowledge he didn’t have before. Thereby preparing him for future successes. Plus he can gain from there being a better value product or service from the competitor that succeeded better in the market. It really depends on how he reacts. The winners are those that have learned to make lemonade from lemons.
 

averageJOE

zombie
There is a line between wealth and hoarding money. Bezos, and others, are hoarding money. Bezos is projected to be the worlds first Trillionaire by 2026. One doesn't become a billionaire (or soon to say a trillionaire) by dedication and hard work. One does so by destroying lives, exploiting labor, buying politicians.

Rather than keeping money in the circulation of the economy, Bezos is hoarding money and doing nothing with it (except for going on joy rides in space). Just like a fire breathing dragon sleeping on a mountain of gold.
 

epronovost

Well-Known Member
Not at all. A person that competes in the market “wins” even when his short term goal isn’t achieved. He could gain experience or new knowledge he didn’t have before.

There is no guaranty of that at all. You could learn something or not. There might be nothing to for you to learn at all or what you learn might be false or inapplicable to your next venture.

Thereby preparing him for future successes.

You might never get another shot at it, most people who fail a business never get a second chance, especially if your loss was devastating. A failure makes it harder to succeed in obtaining loans and investors as bankruptcies are going to follow you in your credit score and reports. In essence, even if you have gained experience, those gains might be mitigated by harder access to capital.

Plus he can gain from there being a better value product or service from the competitor that succeeded better in the market.

That's a success for the consumer and its a victory of scale. If you lost $100 000 of your personal money and 6 years of work of your life and the only thing you can claim is that you managed to lower by 7% the price of deliveries in your area, you are an absolute loser. You are now ruined, your life is in shamble, but hey if you ever get enough money to order food again it will be about a $2 less.
 

Bird123

Well-Known Member
Lot of conflicting opinions on this in this site. Found this recently and it seemed relevant. If you got a few minutes go ahead and scroll through. Then with a strait face tell me why its justified.


Wealth, shown to scale


When making such comparisons, clearly you do not know much about how money works. Maybe, I can help you understand a bit.

First is a question: Is the money Bezos has all in cash?? You seem to look at it that way.

I'm sure Mr.Bezos has a bit of cash, however the bulk has to be tied up in amazon stock. From the start Bezos got amazon off the ground through much hard work. This wasn't sit back and it made itself.

Next is a lesson in stocks. It takes lots of money to get important businesses off the ground. Even your crucial utilities required large amounts of capital investment from people with money willing to take a chance.

There is no faster way to acquire great wealth than to start and grow a company. New investors want to get in on the growth and invest causing that stock price to climb.

Great wealth will grow with the stock price, however if the business is not kept up with, one can loose great wealth rather quickly. You see, it's not as easy as you see.

The wealth effect: Stocks create a great wealth effect for all. It creates money on paper that does not really exist. This wealth effect helps everyone, even the working people of the world. Example: Amazon quote for today $3656.64. Everyone that owns amazon think they have 3656.64 a share but do they really? Of course not!! If they sold it all. someone would only get a dollar.

This wealth effect is working with all stocks. The feeling people have seeing that high stock price in their portfolio makes them go out spend money which gets the economy going creating work, jobs and a living for all. That is why a recession is so bad. Reverse wealth effect can cause starvation like in the great depression.

How much economy was created from amazon? How many jobs? How much livelihood? Should we dismantle it all for equal distribution of money when that would lead to disaster?

Did you notice China, a communist country, has a stock market? How can they justify capitalism?? The wealth effect raised the standard of living for everyone in China. Economies that allow freedom have a greater standard of living than those ruled and controlled without free markets. China has learned this.

Straight communism does not work. Why work when they give you all the money and food you need? Put a rich person out there for people to see then allow the system for people to acquire more for themselves and you will have people not only working but thriving.

Get rid of all the rich people??? Not on your life!! Teach others how to get richer for themselves!!!

On the other hand, there is much that needs to be done in this world. It would be nice if the rich would take it upon themselves to nudge everyone forward. Selling a few shares for really good causes can be done.

There are wealthy people who are doing good things to help the world. Do not discount efforts over the jealousy of how much money another has.

Whether rich or not, everyone can make the world better solving the problems. Time, effort, and willingness is all that is needed. Sometimes something as small as a kind word can change generations upon generations down the road.

The mindless obsession of having money, getting money or possessions, and being jealous over others can be a vicious circle that can lead only to pain.

It doesn't matter what everyone else is doing. It's what you choose to do that counts!!!

That's what I see. It's very clear!!
 

epronovost

Well-Known Member
Why work when they give you all the money and food you need?

That's one of the most spectacularly stupid argument there is. Why does Jeff Bezos keeps on working? He still works and he still works a lot, probably significantly more than the average man. All of the great fortune of the world and all of the millionaires of the world work even though they have enough money to retire and live a nice little life (or two or in the case of Bezos about a thousand). He has enough wealth to live about 5 lifetime with all of his needs fulfilled. Hell, I could work less and still be fine yet I don't. Hell I could have made more money working in another field in which I would have performed just as well yet I didn't. People work because they like to work and they like to make more than the bare minimum they like the little extra. Every single studies on UBI have found no sign that UBI result in lower work and lower work productivity, there is even studies that shows the opposite.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Why would we want to redistribute his wealth? He earned it. If its done illegally then its a different matter.

From my own standpoint, I don't really care that much about Jeff Bezos one way or the other. He seems to have gotten into the spotlight and become obscenely rich in the process. I guess that makes him a success in the eyes of the capitalists, and isn't that just wonderful for him. I think Bill Gates held the top spot as the world's richest man for many years, but Jeff Bezos surpassed him. I never really thought that much about Bill Gates one way or the other, although I have heard a lot of people complain about Microsoft products.

If he acquired his money legally, then that's how it stands. It's still a fair question as to whether the law is strong enough or diligent enough to properly assess if someone has earned their money fairly, honorably, ethically, and without exploitation or other chicanery. Are regulations on business strong enough to prevent abuses?

It's also a fair question as to what such huge imbalances of wealth can do to the stability of the economy and the overall condition of the country. That's the real issue, as I see it. It's not so much about Jeff Bezos and how hard he worked to build up his business and, as you say, "he earned it." It's more about those at the lower end of the divide who appear to be getting more restless and cranky. If their needs aren't being met, then it won't really matter who earned what. I believe that the primary responsibility of the state should be to maintain political stability and public order - even if it means restraining the business community and bringing about a more equitable society.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
It's self evident. Did he work millions of times harder than his workers who aren't even allowed bathroom breaks? Or is it that he has siphoned the value of tens of thousands of workers?
Conceptializing and developing new ideas or systems is a billion times more valuable than labour. Otherwise an artist painting a masterpiece would have the same worth as a painter creating a copy of that masterpiece.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
From my own standpoint, I don't really care that much about Jeff Bezos one way or the other. He seems to have gotten into the spotlight and become obscenely rich in the process. I guess that makes him a success in the eyes of the capitalists, and isn't that just wonderful for him. I think Bill Gates held the top spot as the world's richest man for many years, but Jeff Bezos surpassed him. I never really thought that much about Bill Gates one way or the other, although I have heard a lot of people complain about Microsoft products.

If he acquired his money legally, then that's how it stands. It's still a fair question as to whether the law is strong enough or diligent enough to properly assess if someone has earned their money fairly, honorably, ethically, and without exploitation or other chicanery. Are regulations on business strong enough to prevent abuses?

It's also a fair question as to what such huge imbalances of wealth can do to the stability of the economy and the overall condition of the country. That's the real issue, as I see it. It's not so much about Jeff Bezos and how hard he worked to build up his business and, as you say, "he earned it." It's more about those at the lower end of the divide who appear to be getting more restless and cranky. If their needs aren't being met, then it won't really matter who earned what. I believe that the primary responsibility of the state should be to maintain political stability and public order - even if it means restraining the business community and bringing about a more equitable society.
I am for universal basic income.
I am saying that redistributing the wealth of a few rich entrepreneurs is not the way to solve the problems.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
That's one of the most spectacularly stupid argument there is. Why does Jeff Bezos keeps on working? He still works and he still works a lot, probably significantly more than the average man. All of the great fortune of the world and all of the millionaires of the world work even though they have enough money to retire and live a nice little life (or two or in the case of Bezos about a thousand). He has enough wealth to live about 5 lifetime with all of his needs fulfilled. Hell, I could work less and still be fine yet I don't. Hell I could have made more money working in another field in which I would have performed just as well yet I didn't. People work because they like to work and they like to make more than the bare minimum they like the little extra. Every single studies on UBI have found no sign that UBI result in lower work and lower work productivity, there is even studies that shows the opposite.
This is correct.
 

Friend of Mara

Active Member
Conceptializing and developing new ideas or systems is a billion times more valuable than labour. Otherwise an artist painting a masterpiece would have the same worth as a painter creating a copy of that masterpiece.
He didn't invent perpetual energy he created an internet monopoly. Are you also under the delusion that people like Elon Musk are wizards of their craft? And if so shouldn't it go to the engineers and business strategists instead of just the one who owned the capital that exploited their ideas?
When making such comparisons, clearly you do not know much about how money works. Maybe, I can help you understand a bit.
Oh boy here we go. I hope this is more than a high school intro.
First is a question: Is the money Bezos has all in cash?? You seem to look at it that way.
If you think this has any bearing on the income inequality issue I don't know if I can take you seriously.
I'm sure Mr.Bezos has a bit of cash, however the bulk has to be tied up in amazon stock. From the start Bezos got amazon off the ground through much hard work. This wasn't sit back and it made itself.
I'm sure. Though I know several people who work far harder and barely live above the poverty line. So whats the point? He deserves it because he works more than 40 hours a week? I doubt you have the same opinion of immigrants that work 80 hours a week on 3 different jobs.
Next is a lesson in stocks. It takes lots of money to get important businesses off the ground. Even your crucial utilities required large amounts of capital investment from people with money willing to take a chance.

There is no faster way to acquire great wealth than to start and grow a company. New investors want to get in on the growth and invest causing that stock price to climb.

Great wealth will grow with the stock price, however if the business is not kept up with, one can loose great wealth rather quickly. You see, it's not as easy as you see.

The wealth effect: Stocks create a great wealth effect for all. It creates money on paper that does not really exist. This wealth effect helps everyone, even the working people of the world. Example: Amazon quote for today $3656.64. Everyone that owns amazon think they have 3656.64 a share but do they really? Of course not!! If they sold it all. someone would only get a dollar.

This wealth effect is working with all stocks. The feeling people have seeing that high stock price in their portfolio makes them go out spend money which gets the economy going creating work, jobs and a living for all. That is why a recession is so bad. Reverse wealth effect can cause starvation like in the great depression.
Ah the spekulative market that had nothing to do with the greatest depression in a century. Such a flawless system with no drawbacks what so ever! Man I'm sure glad mr was so nice to explain that to me.
How much economy was created from amazon? How many jobs? How much livelihood? Should we dismantle it all for equal distribution of money when that would lead to disaster?
Far fewer jobs that it destroyed.
Did you notice China, a communist country, has a stock market? How can they justify capitalism?? The wealth effect raised the standard of living for everyone in China. Economies that allow freedom have a greater standard of living than those ruled and controlled without free markets. China has learned this.

Straight communism does not work. Why work when they give you all the money and food you need? Put a rich person out there for people to see then allow the system for people to acquire more for themselves and you will have people not only working but thriving.

Get rid of all the rich people??? Not on your life!! Teach others how to get richer for themselves!!!

On the other hand, there is much that needs to be done in this world. It would be nice if the rich would take it upon themselves to nudge everyone forward. Selling a few shares for really good causes can be done.

There are wealthy people who are doing good things to help the world. Do not discount efforts over the jealousy of how much money another has.

Whether rich or not, everyone can make the world better solving the problems. Time, effort, and willingness is all that is needed. Sometimes something as small as a kind word can change generations upon generations down the road.
There wasn't a single point made in this rambling.
The mindless obsession of having money, getting money or possessions, and being jealous over others can be a vicious circle that can lead only to pain.
I can only assume this obsession people have with pinning legitimate criticism as "jealousy" is projection.
It doesn't matter what everyone else is doing. It's what you choose to do that counts!!!

That's what I see. It's very clear!!
Sure. And I choose to impose higher taxes and unionization.
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
Conceptializing and developing new ideas or systems is a billion times more valuable than labour. Otherwise an artist painting a masterpiece would have the same worth as a painter creating a copy of that masterpiece.
Perhaps they do have the same worth - and it is our perception of what any produces that often means we allow others to rule over us. Like a businessman who is successful in his job when a cooperative might have achieved the same. So why should such a businessman be any different from a craftsman who is likewise (produces value)? It might seem obvious that we give respect (and rewards) to one rather than the other but is this based in anything other than utility? I suspect it is this issue that is the problem with how so many societies operate - placing value on some more than others.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Perhaps they do have the same worth - and it is our perception of what any produces that often means we allow others to rule over us. Like a businessman who is successful in his job when a cooperative might have achieved the same. So why should such a businessman be any different from a craftsman who is likewise (produces value)? It might seem obvious that we give respect (and rewards) to one rather than the other but is this based in anything other than utility? I suspect it is this issue that is the problem with how so many societies operate - placing value on some more than others.
Isn't utility the only criteria for value in an economic system?
If customers prefer to buy from Amazon than a rival online or offline shop is it not because they deliver better utility to the customer? Even if the increased utility is small, the choice of prefering the one which provides the highest utility seems entirely rational.
 

Kooky

Freedom from Sanity
Conceptializing and developing new ideas or systems is a billion times more valuable than labour. Otherwise an artist painting a masterpiece would have the same worth as a painter creating a copy of that masterpiece.
Ideas guys are a dime a dozen. We reward artists for the masterpieces they create with their own hands, not for the ideas that exist only in their heads. Unique artistic pieces are more valuable simply because they are unique, as per supply and demand.

By the way, in industrial design and logistics, you literally employ people to do the conceptualizing and development of new products, services and processes, so that's unlikely to be something these billionaires were substantially involved with in the first place.
 
Top