|
Hello! I would just like to share some of my thoughts and ramblings about various things that I've been pondering and thinking about. These include some opinions of public policy, philosophy, and just my ideas of some stuff... yeah...
I understand that I have not really given any proper arguments or support / evidence for whatever I shall be discussing. My opinions are also completely based on my values and point of view without much considerations to opposing arguments. I also wrote in a really sloppy manner, (with bad mannered swearing). However hopefully it's... at least worth reading... ^.^;;
I will try to respond to criticism and discussions so.... yeah!! ^__^;;
1. who gets to go to higher education (university / college / undergrad)
people that deserve it should get higher education... But how do you determine that? Well first off.. it shouldn't be based on money / wealth / social economic status. But someone has to pay... and you might as well pay it... perhaps in terms of an inflation adjusted loan with zero interest... like... you just gotta pay for it in the future man. Also, as a smart person with a university degree, you should be able to fucking budget and understand opportunity costs and pay off that loan within a rational amount of time. Also you should have learned morals and shit and not be a freeloading asshole.
But what qualities define a person who “deserves” to get higher education? And how do people acquire these qualities... For example... should a person who works hard and can take advantage of a university education go, or a person who just did well in school and doesn't really apply themselves and aims for a “minimal pass” grade in classes go to university?
But what causes people to be hardworking and whatever? This is some stuff I'm not sure how to answer yet, but I fear that the causes that make people have good qualities may be a bit arbitrary and luck based. Like the school you go to, the friends you made, the teachers you had, the family you had... the opportunities offered to you... these make you a smart individual that can do well in higher education versus someone who didn't have these... does this make you more deserving to learn?
Also... don't the people who don't qualify... have the most need to get better education? This may be a question of social mobility and whatever, but I'm not going to get into it.
I guess it is a bit difficult to determine who deserves to go to university, but we can definitely say who “shouldn't go to university. There are cheaters... people who don't attend classes, people who fail, people who pretty much waste their opportunities in higher education and waste time. But ahh, there are also people who fail, then pick themselves up and do great... But there are also bitches and assholes that shouldn't be in university... but those people generally don't get in.
1.5. Alternative to higher education / preparation
There is iTunes U, UC Berkeley Webcasts... Open Courseware... Lots of online resources, as well as textbooks in libraries...which are a bit terrible to use, but there are textbooks in universities as well which i think are open to the public, just that you can't take them out without buying a card or something
For example, before i started my first year in september, i listened to a bunch of courses already so i knew what to expect in lectures and whatever. I also listen to lecture recordings for upper division classes and from classes in a variety of fields that are available at my university and it's a great source of knowledge and information that may be otherwise not learned or exposed to because those classes take money and time to attend... however with lecture recordings i can still learn that information without the commitment. And I also take out textbooks of courses that interest me.
2. the income of really rich people
Tax it. After a certain level, you don't need a fucking mansion. You don't need 3 sports cars. If you truly deserve the income you make, you will hopefully be a rational and good person and be aware that you don't need a ridiculous amount of money to be happy. Seriously. To live the good life, you don't need a fucking Ferrari or Lamborghini. If you are rich and capable but an asshole... fuck you. We aren't saying we want an egalitarian society... and maybe Rawls is too hardcore with inequalities being justified... but seriously. You don't need THAT much money. Like fucking jesus christ. Take a CEO for example. Any extra money they get... is money workers don't get... What the fuck? It's decreasing marginal utility... it's fucking not being an asshole... it's being a smart person: researching the social sciences of what makes people happy and fucking not being a dick and going on vacations all the time and whatever. Stop being a fucking clown. What makes you deserve that fucking vacation more than giving like an extra dollar a pay to everyone in your company... fml...
3. redistribution to less off people
Who gets the welfare and benefits of the higher class people and volunteer organizations? We need to make sure that the people that actually need the help, “good people who have managed through specific factors to use the money or assistance in ways to benefit society or whatever.” Just because you're poor doesn't mean shit. You need to prove that you will use the money for good reason, or you should just die.
4. different people's happiness are worth more
People who gain happiness from socially approved behaviours... a good persons happiness more than a less good person's happiness... Kitty's happiness versus my mom's happiness
5. the "ideal" person
For this topic. I think I am quite ideal. I am very critical and think thoughtfully on a range of topics. I want more people to be like me. To be conscious of the implications of our actions. To know what is the best thing to do. To study, to care about specific outcomes. To derive happiness from higher pleasures...
6. inequalities must benefit the least well off...
well you know what. Fuck the least well off as much as the most well off. I want people to move towards the “ideal” and then i want everyone to be rewarded based on how well they reach the ideal. Also the ideal person shouldn't want fucking unnecessary luxuries. Therefore we may actually dramatically reduce scarcity or something and everyone can have whatever they want.
 
|
I work night shifts because it pays more. However, because it pays more, I also pay higher taxes, which means I'm getting a very low increase in pay compared to the commitment of working during the night.
Oh, and also, rich people already pay higher taxes. Except the ones that know how to abuse the system.
In Iceland we have 40% income tax, rising to 56,5% at most, depending on your income. Also you seem to have this image of high-pay people as never working and always vacationing, which in some cases is true, but many of these people are very hard working.
I used to work in a fish factory, making 160.000 ISK a month. I paid very little tax during that period, usually never more than 40.000 ISK or so. Today I work night shifts at a gas station. Last month I made 383.000 ISK, paying 160.000 ISK to taxes. The difference between these two jobs is A) My value as an employee, and B) The responsibilities I have.
The higher your value is to the company, and the more responsibility you have in the company, the more you should get paid.
Also, if you want richer people to pay higher taxes, would you then agree that richer people should get more voting power, since the amount they contribute to the running of this country is exponentially higher than the amount you contribute?
|
On November 06 2011 18:07 Elektrobear wrote:
Oh, and also, rich people already pay higher taxes. Except the ones that know how to abuse the system.
If they have personal wealth and luxury in abundance, more than any person would realistically ever need to have in life, and even their grandchildren are financially secured for the rest of their lives...
...they aren't being taxed enough.
|
So some people should contribute more to the state than others, just because they're able to? Say I spend time to increase my value as an employee and take on more responsibilities in order to get paid more. That means you'd want me to pay even higher taxes. But what do I get in return? Should rich people pay 25% more for the same food we buy, just because they're able to?
Edit: If I am to be taxed to the point where no matter what I earn, I always get the same wage, why work harder? Why improve? A better life with higher pay is what drives us to make ourselves better. Higher taxes take that away and change our society into one filled with mediocrity.
|
IMO there's nothing wrong with people of higher ability, who contribute more to the world, spending money on luxuries. I think that society should ensure that everyone has at least the minimum required to make a decent living, and anything else people earn beyond that, they can do whatever they like with it.
Redistribution of wealth to the poor might be good, but it is often hard to discern between those who really need the help and undeserving slackers who leech.
|
I do agree that after a certain point, money does become irrelevant if you're not spending it on useless crap like fast cars and villas. The minimum wage could stand to be a bit higher, although people could also stand to be tighter with their budget in general. We're addicted to credit cards and spending our money before we actually get it. The first step towards building wealth is being one step ahead of your finance, as opposed to one step behind, using your cash to pay for last months expenses.
In a perfect world, there aren't any leeches, but in our world, if you build a system that allows for leeches, people will leech. My brother spends all day playing WoW while collecting unemployment checks, then going out and spending it mostly on alcohol. I love him, but currently he's a leech. I believe in earning what you get and working hard. I don't believe in paying the unemployed, because there's no better motivation to find work than not being paid. This caused me to find a job in 2 weeks, after quitting my last job. I imagine applying this logic to finding an apartment as well would have worked out, but I'm staying at dads house atm, and thusly am not desperate enough to jump at the first okay thing I find. If I'd had nowhere to stay, I'd be in my own apartment right now.
Desperation is a great motivator.
|
New Zealand695 Posts
I think a central question in these kinds of arguments is whether poverty/inequality is a choice or not. In some cases its quite obvious, people were born into a poor family, never received any education etc. However, you get cases like
My brother spends all day playing WoW while collecting unemployment checks, then going out and spending it mostly on alcohol.
and it's very hard to convince people that they should use the product of their exertion to support his lifestyle
|
One star for trying!
If you want serious discussion, you should adopt a different tone. 'Fuck 'em bitches, assholes and fucking clowns, be more like me, the ideal person!' stops me listening IRL and stops me reading online.
|
what I hear is
fuck them ... or they should die ... ideal person ... people should be more like me
well this doesn't characterize you as a good person imho. Your truth isn't the only one and you should learn some critical introspection.
|
Let's try this.
I think you are about 20 years old.
You don't have many friends and don't get much credit from others(e.g. for being smart, talented in sth...), although you've been always one of the top smartest kids on high school.
You are a person that likes to think(deeply) about everything all the time.. however you get easily emotional which clouds your judgement.
You are probably good at math and you think that there is an exact solution to every problem.
I think you should read more about psychology, sociology, philosophy(moral dilemmas for example) so your get a less exact view on the world.
Every system is flawed, every rule has an exception and every solution has a drawback.
|
Canada2480 Posts
Yes there are inequalities in the system but guess what, life is inqual.
should a Surgeon be paid as much as a cashier? No, because the surgeon studied for years and years to get there, he worked really hard and he DESERVES to have that much money.
Same goes for the C.E.O. generally speaking if someone is a C.E.O that's because they are a very competent person in their field and thus DESERVE to have a very high paying job.
Why should I work hard to try and improve my economic situation if I know the rich's money is just going to be redistributed to my lower economic class? Following that line of thought, why should Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and all the great innovators of the last few decades have innovated if they could just have sat on their ass and collect a check from someone wealthier that probably deserved to make more money then them in the first place.
Honestly, Canada has one of the best economic system in the world and I don't understand why you are complaining.
|
On November 06 2011 20:59 Thrill wrote:
One star for trying!
If you want serious discussion, you should adopt a different tone. 'Fuck 'em bitches, assholes and fucking clowns, be more like me, the ideal person!' stops me listening IRL and stops me reading online.
On November 06 2011 21:12 Bigpet wrote:what I hear is Show nested quote +fuck them ... or they should die ... ideal person ... people should be more like me well this doesn't characterize you as a good person imho. Your truth isn't the only one and you should learn some critical introspection.
On November 06 2011 22:08 LastWish wrote:
I think you should read more about psychology, sociology, philosophy(moral dilemmas for example) so your get a less exact view on the world.
Every system is flawed, every rule has an exception and every solution has a drawback.
I am well aware of psychology, sociology, and political philosophy. The blog entry I posted were my raw feelings without diluting them to fit the social norm. Generally if you want to discuss such matters you would present them in a formal manner, and not using colloquial language and swearing, however I wanted to be as open about how I felt as possible.
I'm well aware every system is flawed, and I understand the validity of different perspectives. I also understand the serious flaws in the opinions I stated.
On November 06 2011 23:07 swanized wrote:
Yes there are inequalities in the system but guess what, life is inqual.
should a Surgeon be paid as much as a cashier? No, because the surgeon studied for years and years to get there, he worked really hard and he DESERVES to have that much money.
Same goes for the C.E.O. generally speaking if someone is a C.E.O that's because they are a very competent person in their field and thus DESERVE to have a very high paying job.
Why should I work hard to try and improve my economic situation if I know the rich's money is just going to be redistributed to my lower economic class? Following that line of thought, why should Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and all the great innovators of the last few decades have innovated if they could just have sat on their ass and collect a check from someone wealthier that probably deserved to make more money then them in the first place.
Honestly, Canada has one of the best economic system in the world and I don't understand why you are complaining.
I'm not arguing for an egalitarian society. Perhaps something close to rawl's vision but inequalties were not my main concern. It was the motivation to have inequalities coming from people that deserve the inequalities. The Davis-Moore thesis also doesn't exactly hold up. For example...Operah Winfrey earned more in one day than the U.S. President did all year.
On November 06 2011 18:24 Pangpootata wrote:
IMO there's nothing wrong with people of higher ability, who contribute more to the world, spending money on luxuries. I think that society should ensure that everyone has at least the minimum required to make a decent living, and anything else people earn beyond that, they can do whatever they like with it.
Redistribution of wealth to the poor might be good, but it is often hard to discern between those who really need the help and undeserving slackers who leech.
yes but spending money on luxuries doesn't make people happy, or at the very least it is shallow happiness and also a waste of economic resources in the sense that, the production of the luxuries and employment could have gone to something else more worthwhile
but i see your point, redistribution is not easy
|
On November 06 2011 18:09 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2011 18:07 Elektrobear wrote:
Oh, and also, rich people already pay higher taxes. Except the ones that know how to abuse the system. If they have personal wealth and luxury in abundance, more than any person would realistically ever need to have in life, and even their grandchildren are financially secured for the rest of their lives... ...they aren't being taxed enough.
Why not? If they've ascended to that level, they probably deserve it. What right does the government have to their work and money? They pay more taxes.
I would be extremely happy if my grandchildren's financial future was secure, and you would have no right to take that away from me.
|
On November 07 2011 02:24 jodogohoo wrote:
I'm not arguing for an egalitarian society. Perhaps something close to rawl's vision but inequalties were not my main concern. It was the motivation to have inequalities coming from people that deserve the inequalities. The Davis-Moore thesis also doesn't exactly hold up. For example...Operah Winfrey earned more in one day than the U.S. President did all year.
That's a bad example. You really think Oprah didn't do a shit ton of work to get where she is today? Another thing is comparing her to a president. I doubt people want to become a president for the money. I would imagine they are after the power and fame more. To some people, that is even better than money.
|
On November 07 2011 05:07 Sotamursu wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 02:24 jodogohoo wrote:
I'm not arguing for an egalitarian society. Perhaps something close to rawl's vision but inequalties were not my main concern. It was the motivation to have inequalities coming from people that deserve the inequalities. The Davis-Moore thesis also doesn't exactly hold up. For example...Operah Winfrey earned more in one day than the U.S. President did all year.
That's a bad example. You really think Oprah didn't do a shit ton of work to get where she is today? Another thing is comparing her to a president. I doubt people want to become a president for the money. I would imagine they are after the power and fame more. To some people, that is even better than money.
how about comparing the salaries of NBA players and surgeons and doctors
|
United States5162 Posts
On November 07 2011 08:46 jodogohoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2011 05:07 Sotamursu wrote:On November 07 2011 02:24 jodogohoo wrote:
I'm not arguing for an egalitarian society. Perhaps something close to rawl's vision but inequalties were not my main concern. It was the motivation to have inequalities coming from people that deserve the inequalities. The Davis-Moore thesis also doesn't exactly hold up. For example...Operah Winfrey earned more in one day than the U.S. President did all year.
That's a bad example. You really think Oprah didn't do a shit ton of work to get where she is today? Another thing is comparing her to a president. I doubt people want to become a president for the money. I would imagine they are after the power and fame more. To some people, that is even better than money. how about comparing the salaries of NBA players and surgeons and doctors
There's around 500 people who can get that position in an industry that generates billions of dollars a year. While a doctor is certainly a more important job in the grand scheme of things, there's a lot more doctors out there so supply/demand isn't so skewed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
