contribution to society by an individual is limited - so fortunes should be limited for justice, so there is not overpay and underpay and the violence generated by that injustice - it doesnt stop a person getting fair reward for hardwork, creativity, innovation - it merely prevents robbery - stops a person getting excess reward for contribution - paying bill gates up to $10 million an hour is excessive - it causes superunderpay, super anger, super danger, starvation, prevents education of 90% of humanity, kills 1 in 50 humans every year from starvation and violence [war and crime] - it drops 90% of humanity to 10th-1000th of world av hrly pay [US$7500 - US$75 income a year] - ie extreme suffering, slavery, powerlessness, anger, putting all humanity in extreme danger [nuclear winter]
in a state of nature or equal opportunity, with equal tools & materials, the range of wealth created by individuals would not vary more than by a factor of about 10 - but pay range factor is 1 billion
2006-10-03 11:34:59 · 2 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
I am afraid that your plan would limit creativity and drive of the innovators of our society. One of the largest things driving people to invent and succeed is the belief that they can make it ahead of others.
The real problem is the fact that those on top, that are making all this money, can exploit those making less. Enron was a good example, but Wal-mart is an even better example.
Work for rights, and ways to build up the ones making less, not a way to drag down those making more.
2006-10-03 11:48:47 · answer #1 · answered by John J 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
You sound like a communist.
And we all know Communism doesn't work as a feasible economic model.
2006-10-03 22:35:41 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋