Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9
781 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 348

Subscriber

  Reply # 1479764 27-Jan-2016 12:18
One person supports this post
Send private message

Geektastic:

 

Brendan:

 

frankv:

 

Geektastic:

 

 

 

The fundamental issue to be faced is that there are or will be too many people for the available work.

 

 

Depends on your definition of 'work', I guess.

 

I recall that some years ago, the number of 'information workers' exceeded the number of 'industrial' workers (in the same way that in the Industrial Revolution the number of 'industrial' workers exceeded the number of 'agricultural' workers). So now most people's work does not directly produce any physical product. Instead, they work with information, essentially managing and optimising those that do produce stuff. I see no reason why that kind of work wouldn't continue to be useful.

 

 

I'm sure it will be valuable for some time yet. It just wont be done by PEOPLE. It'll be done by machines, far more quickly and accurately and tirelessly than any group of humans could. And it'll be CHEAP.

 

It's not about too many people for too few jobs. Well, it is, but that is ignoring the real question: HOW do you distribute the wealth of our civilization in a fair way that achieves maximum benefit for maximum people?

 

It's quite the optimisation problem...

 

What I can tell you is that what we are doing NOW is not it. It is not even a part of it. It bears no likeness to a working system.

 

Indeed, I think you could argue that our current world economy more closely approximates a complex MULTI NODE FAILURE MODE rather than a working economic system. It is fault intolerant, buggy and prone to hacking. If it was an OS, we'd call it Windows.

 

 

 

 

Why do you need to distribute it fairly? I don't understand this need for fairness at all. Some people do better than other people. That's called life. Roman Abramovich has more money than a small country. Bill Gates has twice the entire annual tax take of NZ. I don't regard that as 'unfair' - it merely 'is'.

 

They are very lucky but I feel no need nor see any particular reason to force them to give their money to other people. Making everyone equally poor strikes me as a bad idea. Yes, some are more equal than others and personally I am fine with that. It's been that way since time immemorial. It will always be that way I suspect, in some form or another.

 

 

 

 

The wealthy are in a position to influence society to their sole benefit. This is why we see on 68 people having as much wealth as the lower 50% (over 3.5 Billion people).

 

The wealthy get special treatment from the law, drug convictions get dismissed for the rich and the poor get excessively punished.

 

The wealthy can leverage tax laws to pay much lower effective taxes that the rest of us can't, because they have been able to influence tax laws.

 

The wealthy benefit from educated, stable, healthy workforce, that costs money, tax money.

 

 


2130 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1027


  Reply # 1479767 27-Jan-2016 12:20
Send private message

Geektastic:

 

 

 

 

 

Why do you need to distribute it fairly? I don't understand this need for fairness at all. Some people do better than other people. That's called life. Roman Abramovich has more money than a small country. Bill Gates has twice the entire annual tax take of NZ. I don't regard that as 'unfair' - it merely 'is'.

 

 

Fairness is about human rights. It's 'fair' for a person to have food, shelter, water, freedom from disease, a say in their future, opportunity. When one person has so much wealth he doesn't know what to do with it and another person starves, that is unfair.

 

 

They are very lucky but I feel no need nor see any particular reason to force them to give their money to other people.

 

Think of it as an insurance policy... we each pay a premium so that a single stroke of bad luck won't kill us. The wealthy could also consider it an investment; it is in their own interests that the environment which allowed them to become rich, and the system that supports it, should be maintained.

 

 

Making everyone equally poor strikes me as a bad idea. 

 

Agreed. But no-one is suggesting that everyone should be poor. The converse is true; what is wanted is that no-one should be poor.

 

 

Yes, some are more equal than others and personally I am fine with that. It's been that way since time immemorial. It will always be that way I suspect, in some form or another.

 

 

Agreed. 

 

 

 

 


 
 
 
 


2479 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 535


  Reply # 1479796 27-Jan-2016 12:58
One person supports this post
Send private message

mattwnz:

 

Work hierarchy, and big pay scale differences,  is such a contradiction to the PC world we live in. Supposedly everyone should be treated equally, no matter what their status. But in the work environment, this is is totally different. Some progressive companies in the USA mainly,  are removing hierarchies, and paying everyone the same. I suppose that is where a living wage comes in. 

 

 

 

 

This is bordering on communism, the biggest downfall of paying everyone the same, is you take that incentive to improve out of the mix.

 

I am not saying some people wont improve for self improvement sake, but the fair majority will plod along day in and day out doing the bare minimum to keep their jobs, much like a lot do now but now they are paid the same as someone who strives to do the best they can for their boss and the company they work for. There needs to be a shift in thinking, but don't reward the slack at the expense of the hard working!





I know a little more than nothing but not much...

10328 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3180

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1479805 27-Jan-2016 13:07
Send private message

sir1963:

 

Geektastic:

 

Brendan:

 

frankv:

 

Geektastic:

 

 

 

The fundamental issue to be faced is that there are or will be too many people for the available work.

 

 

Depends on your definition of 'work', I guess.

 

I recall that some years ago, the number of 'information workers' exceeded the number of 'industrial' workers (in the same way that in the Industrial Revolution the number of 'industrial' workers exceeded the number of 'agricultural' workers). So now most people's work does not directly produce any physical product. Instead, they work with information, essentially managing and optimising those that do produce stuff. I see no reason why that kind of work wouldn't continue to be useful.

 

 

I'm sure it will be valuable for some time yet. It just wont be done by PEOPLE. It'll be done by machines, far more quickly and accurately and tirelessly than any group of humans could. And it'll be CHEAP.

 

It's not about too many people for too few jobs. Well, it is, but that is ignoring the real question: HOW do you distribute the wealth of our civilization in a fair way that achieves maximum benefit for maximum people?

 

It's quite the optimisation problem...

 

What I can tell you is that what we are doing NOW is not it. It is not even a part of it. It bears no likeness to a working system.

 

Indeed, I think you could argue that our current world economy more closely approximates a complex MULTI NODE FAILURE MODE rather than a working economic system. It is fault intolerant, buggy and prone to hacking. If it was an OS, we'd call it Windows.

 

 

 

 

Why do you need to distribute it fairly? I don't understand this need for fairness at all. Some people do better than other people. That's called life. Roman Abramovich has more money than a small country. Bill Gates has twice the entire annual tax take of NZ. I don't regard that as 'unfair' - it merely 'is'.

 

They are very lucky but I feel no need nor see any particular reason to force them to give their money to other people. Making everyone equally poor strikes me as a bad idea. Yes, some are more equal than others and personally I am fine with that. It's been that way since time immemorial. It will always be that way I suspect, in some form or another.

 

 

 

 

The wealthy are in a position to influence society to their sole benefit. This is why we see on 68 people having as much wealth as the lower 50% (over 3.5 Billion people).

 

The wealthy get special treatment from the law, drug convictions get dismissed for the rich and the poor get excessively punished.

 

The wealthy can leverage tax laws to pay much lower effective taxes that the rest of us can't, because they have been able to influence tax laws.

 

The wealthy benefit from educated, stable, healthy workforce, that costs money, tax money.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I suppose that depends on what you regard as wealthy. I, for example, do not regard myself as wealthy in the sense I suspect you mean it. However I have most assuredly leveraged the tax laws since I can remember having to pay tax. If there is a loophole I can exploit, I will exploit it. You do not need to be wealthy to do that, merely have an understanding of tax law and some flexibility in the way you do things.

 

For example, my house is in a trust: anyone can do that. It doesn't have advantages for everyone, but you need not be wealthy in order to do it. I'm self-employed. Anyone can do that too. It has some tax advantages (also some disadvantages!) but anyone can do it.






781 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 348

Subscriber

  Reply # 1479814 27-Jan-2016 13:20
One person supports this post
Send private message

dickytim:

 

mattwnz:

 

Work hierarchy, and big pay scale differences,  is such a contradiction to the PC world we live in. Supposedly everyone should be treated equally, no matter what their status. But in the work environment, this is is totally different. Some progressive companies in the USA mainly,  are removing hierarchies, and paying everyone the same. I suppose that is where a living wage comes in. 

 

 

 

 

This is bordering on communism, the biggest downfall of paying everyone the same, is you take that incentive to improve out of the mix.

 

I am not saying some people wont improve for self improvement sake, but the fair majority will plod along day in and day out doing the bare minimum to keep their jobs, much like a lot do now but now they are paid the same as someone who strives to do the best they can for their boss and the company they work for. There needs to be a shift in thinking, but don't reward the slack at the expense of the hard working!

 

 

 

 

The US top tax rate from about 1930-mid 1960's was over 90%

 

It did not discourage people from working harder/longer

 

It did not stop people from building huge amounts of wealth (eh howard hughes)

 

It did not damage the economy (in fact that period was probably the most vibrant)

 

The trickle down theory has failed to work, in the USA wages in real terms are less then they were in the 1970's

 

Management is often never held accountable for their actions, they make decisions that can take years before the damage shows, but they have moved on a year or more before and never suffer the consequences

 

"Hard Work" is grossly misused , try seeing how many managers can cope with a day in a coal mine, digging post holes, lifting the elderly. There are a LOT of jobs that are VERY hard, but pay minimum wage.

 

Research has shown the wealthy are generally less honest less generous, less sympathetic than the average worker

 

Also

 

Raising the minimum wage has no negative impacts

 

http://www.dol.gov/featured/minimum-wage/mythbuster

 

 

 

 

 

 


781 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 348

Subscriber

  Reply # 1479841 27-Jan-2016 13:31
2 people support this post
Send private message

Geektastic:

 

sir1963:

 

Geektastic:

 

Brendan:

 

frankv:

 

Geektastic:

 

 

 

The fundamental issue to be faced is that there are or will be too many people for the available work.

 

 

Depends on your definition of 'work', I guess.

 

I recall that some years ago, the number of 'information workers' exceeded the number of 'industrial' workers (in the same way that in the Industrial Revolution the number of 'industrial' workers exceeded the number of 'agricultural' workers). So now most people's work does not directly produce any physical product. Instead, they work with information, essentially managing and optimising those that do produce stuff. I see no reason why that kind of work wouldn't continue to be useful.

 

 

I'm sure it will be valuable for some time yet. It just wont be done by PEOPLE. It'll be done by machines, far more quickly and accurately and tirelessly than any group of humans could. And it'll be CHEAP.

 

It's not about too many people for too few jobs. Well, it is, but that is ignoring the real question: HOW do you distribute the wealth of our civilization in a fair way that achieves maximum benefit for maximum people?

 

It's quite the optimisation problem...

 

What I can tell you is that what we are doing NOW is not it. It is not even a part of it. It bears no likeness to a working system.

 

Indeed, I think you could argue that our current world economy more closely approximates a complex MULTI NODE FAILURE MODE rather than a working economic system. It is fault intolerant, buggy and prone to hacking. If it was an OS, we'd call it Windows.

 

 

 

 

Why do you need to distribute it fairly? I don't understand this need for fairness at all. Some people do better than other people. That's called life. Roman Abramovich has more money than a small country. Bill Gates has twice the entire annual tax take of NZ. I don't regard that as 'unfair' - it merely 'is'.

 

They are very lucky but I feel no need nor see any particular reason to force them to give their money to other people. Making everyone equally poor strikes me as a bad idea. Yes, some are more equal than others and personally I am fine with that. It's been that way since time immemorial. It will always be that way I suspect, in some form or another.

 

 

 

 

The wealthy are in a position to influence society to their sole benefit. This is why we see on 68 people having as much wealth as the lower 50% (over 3.5 Billion people).

 

The wealthy get special treatment from the law, drug convictions get dismissed for the rich and the poor get excessively punished.

 

The wealthy can leverage tax laws to pay much lower effective taxes that the rest of us can't, because they have been able to influence tax laws.

 

The wealthy benefit from educated, stable, healthy workforce, that costs money, tax money.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I suppose that depends on what you regard as wealthy. I, for example, do not regard myself as wealthy in the sense I suspect you mean it. However I have most assuredly leveraged the tax laws since I can remember having to pay tax. If there is a loophole I can exploit, I will exploit it. You do not need to be wealthy to do that, merely have an understanding of tax law and some flexibility in the way you do things.

 

For example, my house is in a trust: anyone can do that. It doesn't have advantages for everyone, but you need not be wealthy in order to do it. I'm self-employed. Anyone can do that too. It has some tax advantages (also some disadvantages!) but anyone can do it.

 

 

 

 

I just LOVE the "but anyone can do it."

 

Can you run a sub 4 minute mile ?, I am sure tens of thousands of others have

 

What about play competition grade/concert grade piano, there are kids younger than 10 who can

 

Whats your physics like, quantum mechanics anyone , millions of students do this

 

Mountain climbing, long distance swimming, tri-athalons, C++ programming, singing, mathematics , gardening, cooking, foreign languages ???????

 

Just because YOU can do something does not mean "anyone can".

 

Do you think YOUR value to society should be judged on the things you struggle with ?

 

 


10328 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3180

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1480027 27-Jan-2016 17:06
Send private message

sir1963:

 

Geektastic:

 

sir1963:

 

Geektastic:

 

Brendan:

 

frankv:

 

Geektastic:

 

 

 

The fundamental issue to be faced is that there are or will be too many people for the available work.

 

 

Depends on your definition of 'work', I guess.

 

I recall that some years ago, the number of 'information workers' exceeded the number of 'industrial' workers (in the same way that in the Industrial Revolution the number of 'industrial' workers exceeded the number of 'agricultural' workers). So now most people's work does not directly produce any physical product. Instead, they work with information, essentially managing and optimising those that do produce stuff. I see no reason why that kind of work wouldn't continue to be useful.

 

 

I'm sure it will be valuable for some time yet. It just wont be done by PEOPLE. It'll be done by machines, far more quickly and accurately and tirelessly than any group of humans could. And it'll be CHEAP.

 

It's not about too many people for too few jobs. Well, it is, but that is ignoring the real question: HOW do you distribute the wealth of our civilization in a fair way that achieves maximum benefit for maximum people?

 

It's quite the optimisation problem...

 

What I can tell you is that what we are doing NOW is not it. It is not even a part of it. It bears no likeness to a working system.

 

Indeed, I think you could argue that our current world economy more closely approximates a complex MULTI NODE FAILURE MODE rather than a working economic system. It is fault intolerant, buggy and prone to hacking. If it was an OS, we'd call it Windows.

 

 

 

 

Why do you need to distribute it fairly? I don't understand this need for fairness at all. Some people do better than other people. That's called life. Roman Abramovich has more money than a small country. Bill Gates has twice the entire annual tax take of NZ. I don't regard that as 'unfair' - it merely 'is'.

 

They are very lucky but I feel no need nor see any particular reason to force them to give their money to other people. Making everyone equally poor strikes me as a bad idea. Yes, some are more equal than others and personally I am fine with that. It's been that way since time immemorial. It will always be that way I suspect, in some form or another.

 

 

 

 

The wealthy are in a position to influence society to their sole benefit. This is why we see on 68 people having as much wealth as the lower 50% (over 3.5 Billion people).

 

The wealthy get special treatment from the law, drug convictions get dismissed for the rich and the poor get excessively punished.

 

The wealthy can leverage tax laws to pay much lower effective taxes that the rest of us can't, because they have been able to influence tax laws.

 

The wealthy benefit from educated, stable, healthy workforce, that costs money, tax money.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I suppose that depends on what you regard as wealthy. I, for example, do not regard myself as wealthy in the sense I suspect you mean it. However I have most assuredly leveraged the tax laws since I can remember having to pay tax. If there is a loophole I can exploit, I will exploit it. You do not need to be wealthy to do that, merely have an understanding of tax law and some flexibility in the way you do things.

 

For example, my house is in a trust: anyone can do that. It doesn't have advantages for everyone, but you need not be wealthy in order to do it. I'm self-employed. Anyone can do that too. It has some tax advantages (also some disadvantages!) but anyone can do it.

 

 

 

 

I just LOVE the "but anyone can do it."

 

Can you run a sub 4 minute mile ?, I am sure tens of thousands of others have

 

What about play competition grade/concert grade piano, there are kids younger than 10 who can

 

Whats your physics like, quantum mechanics anyone , millions of students do this

 

Mountain climbing, long distance swimming, tri-athalons, C++ programming, singing, mathematics , gardening, cooking, foreign languages ???????

 

Just because YOU can do something does not mean "anyone can".

 

Do you think YOUR value to society should be judged on the things you struggle with ?

 

 

 

 

But anyone can. There is no barrier caused by wealth to do any of the things which I suggested. Yours, on the other hand, all require quite specific talent which of course most people will not have.

 

You suggested that only the wealthy could do these things - I am saying that is not the case. My plumber's house is in a Trust. He is self employed. He is by no reasonable definition 'wealthy'.

 

Using the tax system legally to your advantage is not a benefit only conferred by wealth. Playing concert grade piano IS a benefit only conferred by rare talent.






6202 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2907

Subscriber

  Reply # 1480173 27-Jan-2016 18:57
2 people support this post
Send private message

The real argument is about equality of opportunity. Does a poor person from a deprived background in a backward socio-economic location have the same opportunity to develop an equal talent as someone from an affluent family in a good neighbourhood with the right connections? I think the answer, in most cases with the possible exception of Rugby talent, would be no.

 

Apart from that, using the tax system or any other system to your benefit is a function of education, attitude, and, yes, class. People who are barely literate, or simply less blessed with basic intelligence, rarely know how to 'play' the system in this way. They are disadvantaged because they speak with the wrong accent, or poor grammar, or simply have never been taught, or have been incapable of learning, how things work. It is absurd and unfair to pretend there is no difference of opportunity in this or any other modern society.

 

 

 

 





I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage
 


3252 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 207

Trusted

  Reply # 1480207 27-Jan-2016 19:29
Send private message

Geektastic: I wouldn't get in, the required score is 150.

 

Don't sell yourself short. They take the top 2% (i.e. 1 in 50), you could probably get in.

 

Unless the scores you're quoting are from a test with s.d. of 24 points (which seems likely) in which case, no, you're probably right. I don't know if there are any lesser societies you may be able to join, if you're interested in socialising with like-minded people.


781 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 348

Subscriber

  Reply # 1480214 27-Jan-2016 19:37
Send private message

Geektastic:

 

sir1963:

 

Geektastic:

 

sir1963:

 

Geektastic:

 

Brendan:

 

frankv:

 

Geektastic:

 

 

 

The fundamental issue to be faced is that there are or will be too many people for the available work.

 

 

Depends on your definition of 'work', I guess.

 

I recall that some years ago, the number of 'information workers' exceeded the number of 'industrial' workers (in the same way that in the Industrial Revolution the number of 'industrial' workers exceeded the number of 'agricultural' workers). So now most people's work does not directly produce any physical product. Instead, they work with information, essentially managing and optimising those that do produce stuff. I see no reason why that kind of work wouldn't continue to be useful.

 

 

I'm sure it will be valuable for some time yet. It just wont be done by PEOPLE. It'll be done by machines, far more quickly and accurately and tirelessly than any group of humans could. And it'll be CHEAP.

 

It's not about too many people for too few jobs. Well, it is, but that is ignoring the real question: HOW do you distribute the wealth of our civilization in a fair way that achieves maximum benefit for maximum people?

 

It's quite the optimisation problem...

 

What I can tell you is that what we are doing NOW is not it. It is not even a part of it. It bears no likeness to a working system.

 

Indeed, I think you could argue that our current world economy more closely approximates a complex MULTI NODE FAILURE MODE rather than a working economic system. It is fault intolerant, buggy and prone to hacking. If it was an OS, we'd call it Windows.

 

 

 

 

Why do you need to distribute it fairly? I don't understand this need for fairness at all. Some people do better than other people. That's called life. Roman Abramovich has more money than a small country. Bill Gates has twice the entire annual tax take of NZ. I don't regard that as 'unfair' - it merely 'is'.

 

They are very lucky but I feel no need nor see any particular reason to force them to give their money to other people. Making everyone equally poor strikes me as a bad idea. Yes, some are more equal than others and personally I am fine with that. It's been that way since time immemorial. It will always be that way I suspect, in some form or another.

 

 

 

 

The wealthy are in a position to influence society to their sole benefit. This is why we see on 68 people having as much wealth as the lower 50% (over 3.5 Billion people).

 

The wealthy get special treatment from the law, drug convictions get dismissed for the rich and the poor get excessively punished.

 

The wealthy can leverage tax laws to pay much lower effective taxes that the rest of us can't, because they have been able to influence tax laws.

 

The wealthy benefit from educated, stable, healthy workforce, that costs money, tax money.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I suppose that depends on what you regard as wealthy. I, for example, do not regard myself as wealthy in the sense I suspect you mean it. However I have most assuredly leveraged the tax laws since I can remember having to pay tax. If there is a loophole I can exploit, I will exploit it. You do not need to be wealthy to do that, merely have an understanding of tax law and some flexibility in the way you do things.

 

For example, my house is in a trust: anyone can do that. It doesn't have advantages for everyone, but you need not be wealthy in order to do it. I'm self-employed. Anyone can do that too. It has some tax advantages (also some disadvantages!) but anyone can do it.

 

 

 

 

I just LOVE the "but anyone can do it."

 

Can you run a sub 4 minute mile ?, I am sure tens of thousands of others have

 

What about play competition grade/concert grade piano, there are kids younger than 10 who can

 

Whats your physics like, quantum mechanics anyone , millions of students do this

 

Mountain climbing, long distance swimming, tri-athalons, C++ programming, singing, mathematics , gardening, cooking, foreign languages ???????

 

Just because YOU can do something does not mean "anyone can".

 

Do you think YOUR value to society should be judged on the things you struggle with ?

 

 

 

 

But anyone can. There is no barrier caused by wealth to do any of the things which I suggested. Yours, on the other hand, all require quite specific talent which of course most people will not have.

 

You suggested that only the wealthy could do these things - I am saying that is not the case. My plumber's house is in a Trust. He is self employed. He is by no reasonable definition 'wealthy'.

 

Using the tax system legally to your advantage is not a benefit only conferred by wealth. Playing concert grade piano IS a benefit only conferred by rare talent.

 

 

 

 

No I am saying running your own business successfully is a set of skills not everyone has. A LOT of people go broke because they simply lack the skills required.

 

Being able to pay for lawyer/accountant to set up trusts etc costs money that lot of people simply don't have.

 

I am also unsure why we are willing to accept a range of abilities for all the things I mentioned, and yet people feel everyone is capable of running their life when all the evidence proves there are a large group of people who are not.


2333 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 985


  Reply # 1480215 27-Jan-2016 19:39
Send private message

sir1963:

 

"Hard Work" is grossly misused , try seeing how many managers can cope with a day in a coal mine, digging post holes, lifting the elderly. There are a LOT of jobs that are VERY hard, but pay minimum wage.

 

 

Again, you need to understand economic value. As I have tried to point out before, value is extrinsic not intrinsic, and markets set prices at the margin.

 

Top grade managerial talent and experience, capable of running say a top-50 company, is very, very scarce. Hence the market rate is high.

 

Semi-skilled young people with strong backs capable of swinging a shovel are relatively abundant, as are people capable of stitching the soles onto shoes (which can also be outsourced to pretty much anywhere in the world), and hence the market rates for people with these skills are comparatively low. They pay minimum wage because that's as low as the price is legally allowed to fall, and the excess supply of low-skill labour results in unemployment instead.

 

It is pretty much irrelevant how "hard" you consider the two jobs are, or whether you consider one is more socially worthy than the other. That's not how things work.

 

sir1963:

 

The US top tax rate from about 1930-mid 1960's was over 90%

 

It did not discourage people from working harder/longer

 

 

 

 

Personally, although I don't earn huge sums, I know what my response would be if you put my tax rate to 90%. It wouldn't discourage me from working harder or longer.

 

It would, however, encourage me to nostalgically look in on NZ online news from time to time to see how the country was doing, from whatever country I had emigrated to. You wouldn't get more money from me for your pet causes, in fact you would go from whatever I pay now to zero. It would be good for Aussie and the UK though, as they would pick up a lot of skilled labour (business owners, plumbers, electricians, doctors, teachers, lawyers, actors, etc) as they fled en masse.

 

The labour market is global. You can't make a tax change like that without consequences.


11531 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5244

Trusted

  Reply # 1480220 27-Jan-2016 19:53
4 people support this post
Send private message

Anyone who believe the opportunities are equal for sole parents or the disabled are deluding themselves and living in dreamland.




Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 It's our only home, lets clean it up then...

 

Take My Advice, Pull Down Your Pants And Slide On The Ice!

 

 


610 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 119


  Reply # 1480346 28-Jan-2016 01:57
Send private message

JimmyH:

 

 

 

Personally, although I don't earn huge sums, I know what my response would be if you put my tax rate to 90%. It wouldn't discourage me from working harder or longer.

 

It would, however, encourage me to nostalgically look in on NZ online news from time to time to see how the country was doing, from whatever country I had emigrated to. You wouldn't get more money from me for your pet causes, in fact you would go from whatever I pay now to zero. It would be good for Aussie and the UK though, as they would pick up a lot of skilled labour (business owners, plumbers, electricians, doctors, teachers, lawyers, actors, etc) as they fled en masse.

 

The labour market is global. You can't make a tax change like that without consequences.

 

 

 

 

Yeah I wouldn't swallow a 90% tax rate unless I was uber rich.

 

If housing, transport, health, food, security was catered for and every aspect of life was insured, well, maybe 70% tax rate would be more tolerable.

 

If tax was also 90% I'd hope that was to discourage the few owning most of the worlds wealth. The economy works much better when it's more spread out. Even Warren Buffet gave good arguments to why the richest should be taxed much higher because the benefits of wealth in circulation are much better for the majority of people on the planet.

 

 

 

 


13449 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1616


  Reply # 1480347 28-Jan-2016 02:15
One person supports this post
Send private message

dickytim:

 

mattwnz:

 

Work hierarchy, and big pay scale differences,  is such a contradiction to the PC world we live in. Supposedly everyone should be treated equally, no matter what their status. But in the work environment, this is is totally different. Some progressive companies in the USA mainly,  are removing hierarchies, and paying everyone the same. I suppose that is where a living wage comes in. 

 

 

 

 

This is bordering on communism, the biggest downfall of paying everyone the same, is you take that incentive to improve out of the mix.

 

I am not saying some people wont improve for self improvement sake, but the fair majority will plod along day in and day out doing the bare minimum to keep their jobs, much like a lot do now but now they are paid the same as someone who strives to do the best they can for their boss and the company they work for. There needs to be a shift in thinking, but don't reward the slack at the expense of the hard working!

 

 

 

 

It all depends on how it is done. Different businesses will have different pay scales, there can still be incentives etc. My impression of communism is very different,  in extreme case people were forced to work particular jobs, and there was still some hierarchy, they sometimes also have dictatorships, hence people being forced. Although if you look at communist countries the largest is one of the most successful countries in the world now, and countries like NZ want to go all out to have free trade with them.


610 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 119


  Reply # 1480348 28-Jan-2016 02:20
One person supports this post
Send private message

Rikkitic:

 

Geektastic:

 

 

 

 

 

The fundamental issue to be faced is that there are or will be too many people for the available work.

 

Unless the world can face up to the fact that the population cannot be allowed to grow unrestrained because neither the physical environment nor the economic one will cope, I can't see anything getting better over the long term at all. All the shifting of people around the place (especially in Europe just now) only leads to stories like this and general ruination over time.

 

Also the poor really WERE poor when Howard Hughes, JJ Astor etc were rich - and with pretty much zero healthcare or benefit systems.

 

 

That certainly is a fairly pessimistic view. I don't have a magic formula with the answers but I do strongly believe that our current economic system is unsustainable. How can there be constant growth when there is no place to grow to? I think I read somewhere that we already need three earths just to keep going as we are. I think the present system is broken, in more ways than one. Wealth disparity and poverty and lack of any possibility for those at the bottom to better themselves are just symptoms of this. The tax system is an unworkable anachronism. Honestly, I think the whole mess is on the way down the toilet. I guess that is a pretty pessimistic view as well, except I also believe things can change for the better. Hopefully this can happen before there is a complete collapse and a lot of people get hurt.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I would hope, with the Internet, if they can afford it, those at the bottom (hey don't forget poor people are richer than middle class... they don't have liabilities most of the time like mortgages, couple of car payments a months etc...)  would are able to educate themselves more. So not all is lost.

 

The problems with humans apart from mental or physical disability, is the real want for change. Most people hate change. They all want the illusion of security, something that doesn't really exist in today's economy for the 90% or what is it now, 99%? You become attached with material things, or where you grew up etc... and life outside of where we are looks now looks grim.

 

The greatest inventors of last and the century before spent their life observing to come up with crazy ideas that benefit us today without the Internet and some without very smart parents. So all is not lost or hinges on having money to start with. Yes it is way harder to access money when your on a minimum wage job. So get learning about business and get writing sound business plans.

 

The thing I find sad about third world countries... is the lack of investment. These are countries ready to progress and would have the fastest rate of growth to invest in. Of course... there's war, corruption and terrorism around so perhaps the no one is born equal is correct. I would say no one is equally educated and fully a product of their environment. This doesn't mean you don't have a say in your own life, but everything around you is all you have until you know any better.

 

Instead investors go where it's safer, so our wallets get picked on with low wages until they go elsewhere leaving us to buy out what they leave behind. As Warren Buffet said, you make your money when you buy not when you sell. One day when people get bored with New Zealand there'll be more opportunity to own New Zealand by New Zealand, then we can set our own wage rates without funneling more money off shore in the process.

 

 

 

 

 

 


1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic



Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:





News »

New Zealand hits peak broadband data
Posted 18-Jan-2018 12:21


Amazon Echo devices coming to New Zealand early February 2018
Posted 18-Jan-2018 10:53


$3.74 million for new electric vehicles in New Zealand
Posted 17-Jan-2018 11:27


Nova 2i: Value, not excitement from Huawei
Posted 17-Jan-2018 09:02


Less news in Facebook News Feed revamp
Posted 15-Jan-2018 13:15


Australian Government contract awarded to Datacom Connect
Posted 11-Jan-2018 08:37


Why New Zealand needs a chief technology officer
Posted 6-Jan-2018 13:59


Amazon release Silk Browser and Firefox for Fire TV
Posted 21-Dec-2017 13:42


New Chief Technology Officer role created
Posted 19-Dec-2017 22:18


All I want for Christmas is a new EV
Posted 19-Dec-2017 19:54


How clever is this: AI will create 2.3 million jobs by 2020
Posted 19-Dec-2017 19:52


NOW to deploy SD-WAN to regional councils
Posted 19-Dec-2017 19:46


Mobile market competition issues ComCom should watch
Posted 18-Dec-2017 10:52


New Zealand government to create digital advisory group
Posted 16-Dec-2017 08:47


Australia datum changes means whole country moving 1.8 metres north-east
Posted 16-Dec-2017 08:39



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.