(December 1, 2010 at 2:09 pm)lrh9 Wrote: Indeed. I witnessed a rather curious conversation between Adrian_Hayter and another person about that person's live in situation. When that person explained that he or she was responsible for half the bills, but earned less than the other live in person, Adrian said that wasn't fair.I don't append a 'but...' or 'except...'. I believe there is a fundamental difference between how individuals and couples share "equality", and how equality is handled by the government. Taking the example you gave, if I was living with a partner, and I was the main income earner, I wouldn't ask her to pay half the bills. I have the right to do that, because I care about her. Other people might insist she pay half the bills; and that is up to them. What this doesn't mean is that suddenly all main income earners must be forced into paying the bills by the government; it is an individual's choice, and should remain so.
My point is, don't listen to people who talk about equality who have to append a 'but...' or 'except...'.
(December 1, 2010 at 2:09 pm)orogenicman Wrote:I don't see a problem with people earning lots of money. It means they have to give a lot more in terms of taxes, which ultimately helps the country. If a CEO runs a business into the ground, they should be accountable for it. The problem at the moment is governments aren't helping by bailing out big businesses that are failing. You can't have it both ways; you either let businesses fail, or you help them out (and give the CEOs the golden parachute). I take it from your statement about that being a "huge problem" that you were against the bailout then?Tiberius Wrote:It would only be equal if everyone took an across the board 80% pay cut. When will people get it into their heads that everyone earning the same amount of money (or limiting the amount you can earn) doesn't work? Economies fluctuate; people come up with services and use them to make profit. If you limit that, you take away any incentive people have for expanding on their ideas in the first place.I disagree. And for the record, I am a strong believer in capitalism, but not at the expense of the poor and the middle class. When a CEO, ANY CEO makes more than the GDP of our poorest state, I see a problem with that. When CEO's run businesses to the ground and then get golden parachutes as they are shown the door, I have a huge problem with that. I believe in a fair wage for a fair day's work. I know of very few upper management people for whom this axiom is applied. I know of tons of middle class and working poor for whom this axiom is NEVER applied.
Indeed, I believe in a fair wage for a fair day's work too. I also believe the system at the moment is perfect for creating an objective measure of what that is. It is the minimum amount which a worker will work for. For some people, that amount is very small; for others, it is very large. For instance, a man with no education might be glad of the £5 an hour he earns working at McDonalds, but if I was asked to accept £5 an hour for doing research, or working at a security company, I would turn them down. In this respect, CEO's can earn quite a lot of money, and fairly. After all, they are running the company, and as long as all their employees are paid well (i.e. paid the amount for which they will work or more), then the money left over is put back into the company, and also into the CEO's pocket. A bad CEO might take all the profits, and then risk losing everything when the company goes bankrupt.
