I think it was The Roman Republic who had a policy suggested up by the Tribunes that no one could have more than 125 times the average salary. I don't believe it was implemented - I don't remember a lot of my reading on the Classical age - but it strikes me as pretty fair. Today's CEOs earn a lot a lot more than 125x their workers wages.Chuck Mangione wrote:Absolutely.Silent Majority wrote:I'm not sure I follow. Is your issue that people inherit wealth?Chuck Mangione wrote:What do you guys think about the rich and healthy giving away money after they die? I think that's a load of bull. People should experience misanthropy and philanthropy through pessimism and optimism, not through giving or passing down what is known as nepotism.
As for charities, they're kind of essential in a capitalist society. The wealth is taken from the bottom, so the bottom, in highly unfair times like today, can sometimes lack the resources to survive. If there are people with solid gold toilet seats and ten figure bank accounts, that cash didn't fall out of their arses. It came from other people, from their share of the planet's resources and from the sweat of their labour. And those people do without for the sake of the greed and prestige of the oligarchs. It's a bullshit myth of the privileged that hard work can get you rich or that we live in anything like a meritocracy. It doesn't and we don't. I'm just going into this because of the thread title and something you hint at in the original post.
As for my own meager contribution of time in my community, I volunteer at a food bank, collecting & distributing tinned foods and non-perishables for those in need, and you'd be amazed at the slack the state just lets lie. The children who would go without meals without the charity of others and the elderly whose pensions won't go far enough for both heat & food. So I'm - as controversially as Flex is elsewhere - pro charity.