Wealth, Poverty, and Morality

SecondRateMind

I am interested in the approach this forum takes to money. Apart from sex, (which I am quite relaxed about) it seems to me that wealth is the surest divider between those who are moral, and those who are not.

It seems Jesus thought so, also. Luke 16:19-31 KJV describes well enough His dusty attitude to the rich who do not succour the poor.

And this world has many poor: so many, it might seem that we can do nothing about it, and twist His words; 'the poor ye shall have always with you, but me, ye shall not have always.' to excuse our individual and collective failure to right this wrong.

There are two billion people who are absolutely poor, according the the UN. So poor, they cannot provide food and clean water, secure shelter, sanitation, and primary healthcare and education for their families. They live on the equivalent of less than $1.25 per day. Less than the cost of a starbucks coffee, for all their daily needs.

Meanwhile, the richest 1% of the world own as much as the remaining 99% put together. And, according to Oxfam, last year the rich got even richer, while the poor did not.

I propose a simple, just, fair, equitable solution.

Let us take all the world's wealth, and divide it equitably amongst all the world's people. And let us take all the world's annual production, and divide it equitably amongst all the world's people.

That would allow us each a net worth of some $33,000, and an income per year of some $16,000. Multiply by four, for the the combined allowance of the conventional nuclear family. That is quite sufficient for all of us to live a modest, environmentally sustainable, reasonably dignified way of life.

And let us do this voluntarily, because we think it good and right and just. And, for those of the rich who cannot bring themselves to part with their money, let us pity them the fate that Jesus warned of in the parable of Lazarus, and try to save them from the consequences of their avarice.

Best wishes, 2RM

days of future passed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_YXSHkAahE

DesirousOfChange

Likely most who have less that $33K of net worth will think this not a bad idea.

I think this is how socialism works.

Alex Bogdanov

You raise a very difficult question. Many philosophers thought about it. Taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor wont solve the problem for a long time. What are the problems we as people can't solve?

1. Human nature. Laziness. There are a lot of people who are lazy. Rich or poor. But to live in an equal world everyone has to give their energy and time.

2. You would have to move people from areas that dont produce anything. A farmer from South Carolina will produce five times more than a farmer from Siberia. Hence American farmer is already richer by doing the same work.

3. How much money will you give to artists and scientists? The experience of USSR shows that when people don't get big money for their developments they stop to create. In USSR a scientist would get 500 rubles, but a builder 300 rubles. One of the reasons USSR collapsed is because the country stopped producing innovation. The reason is people lost creativity as there was nothing that would stimulate them.

4. We love freedom. What will you do with people who want 10 children? It is obvious that they won't be able to educate all of them, but that is their choice. Will you stop freedom.

I think you need to read books on communism. Communists themselves came to a conclusion that at the moment we can't create equal world. Maybe later when we will use robots for manual work. But that is still maybe

SecondRateMind

Likely most who have less that $33K of net worth will think this not a bad idea.
I think this is how socialism works.

I think what you Americans call socialism, which is what we Brits call communism, is based on the state ownership of all means of production, political coercion, and the compulsion of it's citizenry. That is quite different to my proposal. Citizenship in kingdom of heaven on earth has always been, and must always remain, an entirely voluntary affair.

Best wishes, 2RM

dubstepped

How is it just, fair, and equitable to take what one person earned and give it to another? Reaping and sowing is also a Biblical principle, no?

I grew up poor and watched people do stupid things instead of doing anything to remedy their situations. It's one thing to help people in countries with zero opportunity, but another to enable bad behavior.

If you distributed all money equally throughout the world and let things be, eventually it would probably flow back to the same situation. Lottery winners often end up bankrupt.

SecondRateMind

Thank you Alex, for your considered response. In reverse order:

4) Of course we love freedom. There is nothing in my proposal that prevents freedom. I just think free people should freely succour those less fortunate, or they are not, actually, free, but slaves to their wealth.

3) How much to artists and scientists? The same. My proposal should be clear enough, on that.

2) No, we don't need to move people around. Just subsidise them, such that they are in a position to enhance their productivity, and thereby improve the lot of the whole of humanity.

1) I think laziness is a danger overstated by the ideologically driven right-wing of politics. In my experience, most people want to improve their lot, and that of everyone else, but are frustrated by a lack of monies that allow them to invest in themselves and their families and so raise overall standards of living. Doing nothing is, at the end of all considerations, a very boring method of passing one's life away. Mostly, people want to feel they are contributing. Furthermore, I am not suggesting that the world's annual production should be given away for nothing, but that everyone should qualify for an equitable distribution of the world's production, whether they are the CEO of a fortune 500 corporation, or a subsistence millet farmer in sub-Saharan Africa.

Best wishes, 2RM

pale.emperor

Funnily enough I wrote an essay about this very thing only yesterday for my university.

IT DOES NOT WORK. The economist Joseph Stiglitz (former director of world bank) confirmed that the divide of rich and poor is certainly at an all time high. The top 0.05% control over 85% of the worlds wealtg. BUT in a healthy economic society there MUST BE inequality. The extremes we're witnessing to today is systematic because government policies are set up to benefit the interests of the top 1% (banks, investors, stockbrokers etc). They pay higher taxes, sure, but the poor tend to spend all of their income whereas the rich have a surplus plus massive savings anyway.

You know what would happen if you took all of Richard Branson or Bill Gates money and gave them $33,000? In a few years they'd be billionaires again. Because people like this KNOW how to make money and they're innovative enough to actually get out there a make it happen. Society needs people like big earners to keep doing what they do - make money. So they can be taxed and the money funded into the public like roads, healthcare, farming etc. If you kept taking their billions off them and handing them back $33,000 that the road sweeper next door gets they'd just leave the country or stop bothering to make money for other people.

The answer is proving incentives to work hard and providing opportunities to actually work.

SecondRateMind

How is it just, fair, and equitable to take what one person earned and give it to another? Reaping and sowing is also a Biblical principle, no?

Uh huh. Where did I say that I wanted to take from some and give to others? Charity is also a Biblical principle, and this is what I advocate. Just on a massive scale. The advantage of charity is that each individual, charitably distributing their own excess of wealth, will want maximum 'bang for their buck', and be very careful about where, and to who, it goes.

Best wishes, 2RM

dubstepped

Nothing is stopping anyone right now from giving whatever they want if this is all voluntary. If someone wants to, do what you want.

Wealth, Poverty, and Morality

Share this