Politics And Thailand's Wealth Gap

[Heng]

Alternatively, the wealthiest are those most willing to exploit others, engage in unethical or immoral behavior in the acquisition of wealth, or were simply born into a wealthy family. This in no way means that every wealthy person is unethical or immoral. However, accumulation of large quantities of wealth necessarily means others suffer for it, directly or indirectly.

Another point is that it is ridiculous to assume that a dirt farmer in Issan has anywhere near the opportunity that a child born of wealthy parents will have. The playing field is not even.

No more so than lions and sharks exploit gazelles and smaller fish. Accumulation of wealth alternatively also means your family tends to be more comfortable, directly or indirectly. What's the logic in saying folks should switch seats?

The playing field is not even, in fact it's hopelessly uneven because people aren't equal. Some are faster, stronger, smarter, etc. Why is there a cut off point at which things should be reset or made "fair" from one lifetime to the next when family lines, genetic lines stretch back thousands of years? Just because it seems unfair? Would it be more fair to force hundred+ year old multinationals to completely dismantle and rebuild every time a majority shareholder dies?

Edited November 5, 2009 by Heng

[Heng]

And when you think about it, that phrase along with class differences pretty much sums up why the divide is so big.

The rich here tend to inherit the money and so generally take very little risk, in general the poor bow down to the rich and simply aren't pushed enough to or educated enough to rise up from their current circumstances to make serious money and affect the figures the figures quoted by the OP. Then when they do, they're not used to it and have a higher than normal chance of blowing it and losing it all again due to the downward pressures from above.

Right, that makes perfect sense to me after a few beers, but I think i'd better shut up now.

Tom.

IMO "inherit" is only a dirty word to folks who tend not to have anything to inherit and more often than not will not leave anything for the next generation to inherit. In fact, it's something as natural as going to the supermarket every week and filling your fridge. Not every family member actually has to go to the store, nor do they all have to actively contribute towards paying the bill, but they all can consume what's in the fridge.

While many folks who inherit do blow it, I think the whole point of this thread, and what we know intuitively (via the widening wealth gap) is that folks who inherit, often to the nth generation tend NOT to blow it all, but instead tend to continually amass and expand on this wealth albeit often with a decreasing amount of work, ability and risk exposure. That's despite how some folks 'wish' it were to make themselves feel better about their current situations.

[Heng]

You are totally in denial and you know it. People aren't born equal, they aren't raised equal, and the sum result of their entire lives to any specific point certainly can't be expected to be equal. Any redistribution is just a temporary burden for them before they find a way to return to their natural state.

Wrong again Heng… what should I deny….that I think it is a shame that in 2009 scrupulous business owners, local and foreign still can make themselves rich with tax evasion and lousy staff salaries under the umbrella to undemocratic and mostly one mans Governments.

I have no personal agenda with this just political, but I think its both interesting and a bit sad that I make to steer up the steam in some which obviously seems to not yet have come out of the imperial times and observed that some of the countries with best education, high equal index and high standard of living use tax as a form to redistribute wealth.

BTW, unless the world start to go backward your grand-grandchildren will one day see it even in this part of the world

Wrong Felt35. I'm not saying you should deny it. I'm saying your are denying it. You're just focusing on the tail end of the race. All people at one time were just poor hunter gatherers... whether his/her descendant 10,000+ years later would be a member of parliament or member of the work crew sweeping the streets is the sum result of millions of decisions made along his/her family line. People make decisions and there are consequences, simple as that.

I have no personal agenda either, I just look at it as an amusing academic discussion. In issues like this people tend to take a myopic view of the present day situation and think if they just tweak a few things, all will be better. It's like giving a 10, 20, and then 30, etc. yard head start in a marathon so you can hope to beat a Kenyan cross country runner. He's just a human, so am I. How is it possible that he beats me by 30+ minutes/4-5+ miles in a run ("how is it possible that they have millions and I'd run out of food and starve if I stopped working for a few weeks")? No one wants to take into account why he/she is such a strong long distance runner (and in fact that 'why' may have evolved over generations), but they feel that because the gap is so great they need to make it even and 'fair' somehow. So we slowly inch toward the conclusion that to make things fair, you "deserve" a 4-5 mile head start against the other guy. Which brings me to my previous point that it's not about making things "fair," but in fact so many folks are just tired of losing and would like to win for a change.

Edited November 5, 2009 by Heng

[hammered]

"In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth, and the top 1% controlled 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation's wealth."

Oops.

The US is often described as a first world economy with third world distribution of wealth

[hammered]

You are totally in denial and you know it. People aren't born equal, they aren't raised equal, and the sum result of their entire lives to any specific point certainly can't be expected to be equal. Any redistribution is just a temporary burden for them before they find a way to return to their natural state.

Wrong again Heng… what should I deny….that I think it is a shame that in 2009 scrupulous business owners, local and foreign still can make themselves rich with tax evasion and lousy staff salaries under the umbrella to undemocratic and mostly one mans Governments.

I have no personal agenda with this just political, but I think its both interesting and a bit sad that I make to steer up the steam in some which obviously seems to not yet have come out of the imperial times and observed that some of the countries with best education, high equal index and high standard of living use tax as a form to redistribute wealth.

BTW, unless the world start to go backward your grand-grandchildren will one day see it even in this part of the world

Wrong Felt35. I'm not saying you should deny it. I'm saying your are denying it. You're just focusing on the tail end of the race. All people at one time were just poor hunter gatherers... whether his/her descendant 10,000+ years later would be a member of parliament or member of the work crew sweeping the streets is the sum result of millions of decisions made along his/her family line. People make decisions and there are consequences, simple as that.

I have no personal agenda either, I just look at it as an amusing academic discussion. In issues like this people tend to take a myopic view of the present day situation and think if they just tweak a few things, all will be better. It's like giving a 10, 20, and then 30, etc. yard head start in a marathon so you can hope to beat a Kenyan cross country runner. He's just a human, so am I. How is it possible that he beats me by 30+ minutes/4-5+ miles in a run ("how is it possible that they have millions and I'd run out of food and starve if I stopped working for a few weeks")? No one wants to take into account why he/she is such a strong long distance runner (and in fact that 'why' may have evolved over generations), but they feel that because the gap is so great they need to make it even and 'fair' somehow. So we slowly inch toward the conclusion that to make things fair, you "deserve" a 4-5 mile head start against the other guy. Which brings me to my previous point that it's not about making things "fair," but in fact so many folks are just tired of losing and would like to win for a change.

Trouble is that approach doesnt address the issue of inherited wealth or the lack of. That is an advantage that government redsitribution and pro-poor schemems try to redress to a very small degree. Unless of course we accept that there a genetic master races and inherited wealthis just part of the master race passing on to the rest of the genetically superior ones;) In this day and age I would think that wasnt accepted by anyone beyond the insane. So it is about trying to make things a little fairer for those not advantaged by wealth from birth.

[PeaceBlondie]

Can Thailand at least give a decent, free, public education to everybody? Yes, it can.

Can Thailand provide decent, free public health to everybody? Yes, it can.

[skyler]

and please, Felt 35, can you explain the benefits or a "more equal society" versus a society with big differences in income, but where basic needs are covered and where the system provides every citizen with real chances to succeed?

The benefits is of course that its for all the people, not a few newly wealthy due to their tax evasion and underpayment of their workers.

- poverty and social exclusion

are not the same thing. Thais, poor or rich, hang around in large groups and have fun. Sanook?

- less income inequality

I can't see how this in itself is a good thing

- eradication of child poverty

sure, better for the individual child, but again, not sure how this helps society - I am convinced a mix of poor and rich is better than a mass of equals.

- less disadvantage for people by where they live

sorry, it is logical that if people settle down / live in an area without much resources or things to do don't get much income, they've got to move.

- legislation which protects people from discrimination

there is no virtue if one doesn't have the liberty to misbehave.

"laws against discrimination" only work in places where nobody gives a darn, i.e. government services/agencies

- free and equal healthcare for all

Now this is a definitve NO NO.

This is the best way to let a society bleed to death with unreasonable health costs.

- equality between sexes

when was the last time you saw the opposite sex?

if you get the chance, take a picture and then compare with yours and post the results.

Joke aside, men and women are different in appearance, strength, character and biological and psychological needs. Why should they be absolute equals?

No reason to give more examples unless of course you where this pink glasses which are very popular here.

arf. you just gave a catalog of socialistic prejudices.

what you do is like the handicapping system for horses.

horses are greatly inequal, like humans.

instead of giving each horse at the beginning the same training, you put extra ones on the best horses, hindering them to run at their full speed.

Dear Lord. You really believe this stuff??!! Saddens me people like you in this country, or even on this planet

[caf]

Can Thailand at least give a decent, free, public education to everybody? Yes, it can.

Can Thailand provide decent, free public health to everybody? Yes, it can.

It could but it does not.

[YoungNRich12]

"The US is often described as a first world economy with third world distribution of wealth"

So, the trillions of dollars the US government spent on social programs failed? Food stamps, getting paid because you are unemployed, bonuses for the number of children you have, providing financial assistance to anyone who wants to study, affirmation action laws that make it easier for minorities to get into Universities, etc hasn't led to an equal distribution of wealth in the wealthiest nation in the world?

[YoungNRich12]

"Trouble is that approach doesnt address the issue of inherited wealth or the lack of. That is an advantage that government redsitribution and pro-poor schemems try to redress to a very small degree. Unless of course we accept that there a genetic master races and inherited wealthis just part of the master race passing on to the rest of the genetically superior ones;) In this day and age I would think that wasnt accepted by anyone beyond the insane. So it is about trying to make things a little fairer for those not advantaged by wealth from birth."

Do you own an automobile? I know many people who do not even own a motorbike. Lets sell your car and exchange it for as many motorbikes as we can and distribute them. This will help even things out.

[IanForbes]

"In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth, and the top 1% controlled 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation's wealth."

Oops.

The US is often described as a first world economy with third world distribution of wealth

Although this is basically true, even the poor in North America are far wealthier than the poor in Asia. And, the poor in North America are mostly poor by choice. That is not always the case for poor in Thailand. There social programs available to people who want to use them in North America. School is free if you want to attend. There are libraries available for everyone. If you are poor in North America it means you are either mentally ill or lazy. And, there are even programs for the mentally ill in North America. I don't see the same programs available to poor Thais.

A good example of rising from the depths of despair is the Japanese Americans who had their land stolen from them during the second world war. After they were released from the internment camps (no better than prisons) they were given nothing, and yet they turned their lives around by hard work. 40 years later they owned the joint and their children all had university degrees. They started out a second time with all the other very poor in North America... mostly native indians, blacks and hispanics. The Japanese Americans (and Canadians) had to fight through racial discrimination in getting jobs, and yet they still succeeded. Don't tell me that it can't be done.

[citizen33]

Going back to a couple of the earlier posts, I wanted to ask how many think that risk taking is really the central plank of wealth accumulation. This is certainly part of the current political rhetoric in the US and some other Western countries, but to my mind we are in danger of advocating an economy based on high-stakes gambles rather than, say, true product innovation, knowledge creation or social contribution. This is reflected in the structure of rewards and the argument that investment bankers and insurance executives need ten-digit salaries to prevent them moving overseas, whilst engineers, medical consultants, research scientists or university professors will stay for much more modest rewards. Arguably in was excessive risk taking combined with regulatory failure that got most advanced economies around the world into their current parlous state. In the past, extreme risk taking may be a fair characterisation of the bahaviour of many start-up businesses but it did not really apply to the prudent long-term planning that went on in large corporations. Even in the financial services industry, risk taking doesn't apply across the board - tools like automated rapid trading give the dealers an edge that minimises the risk. So I wonder if Thailand isn't better to build an economy based on knowledge and innovation - rather than risk taking per se - as the alternative to the conservative management of capital by the traditional elite. Probably a certain former PM was more towards the risk-taking end of the spectrum!

Edited November 5, 2009 by citizen33

[thaihome]

.... If you are poor in North America it means you are either mentally ill or lazy. ...

Ok, if you say so it must be true

TH

PS - You do know that Mexico is in North Amreica, right?

[Felt 35]

Wrong Felt35. I'm not saying you should deny it. I'm saying your are denying it. You're just focusing on the tail end of the race. All people at one time were just poor hunter gatherers... whether his/her descendant 10,000+ years later would be a member of parliament or member of the work crew sweeping the streets is the sum result of millions of decisions made along his/her family line. People make decisions and there are consequences, simple as that.

The tail, no then you get me wrong...but the start is overdue

I have no personal agenda either, I just look at it as an amusing academic discussion. In issues like this people tend to take a myopic view of the present day situation and think if they just tweak a few things, all will be better. It's like giving a 10, 20, and then 30, etc. yard head start in a marathon so you can hope to beat a Kenyan cross country runner. He's just a human, so am I. How is it possible that he beats me by 30+ minutes/4-5+ miles in a run ("how is it possible that they have millions and I'd run out of food and starve if I stopped working for a few weeks")? No one wants to take into account why he/she is such a strong long distance runner (and in fact that 'why' may have evolved over generations), but they feel that because the gap is so great they need to make it even and 'fair' somehow. So we slowly inch toward the conclusion that to make things fair, you "deserve" a 4-5 mile head start against the other guy. Which brings me to my previous point that it's not about making things "fair," but in fact so many folks are just tired of losing and would like to win for a change.

This post has been edited by Heng: Today, 2009-11-05 09:43:14

Okay Heng, you hit home with the marathon synthesis. Research show that the Kenyans have an advance due to less thickness of their lower legs everything else similar in a research done on runners from Denmark and Kenya..I.e they spend less energy when running and can by that run easier/faster.

Even with their legs the Kenyans had to start once, but if the Kenyan government not had give anyone an equal opportunity to try out if they had a talent as runner Kenya had never reach the level they are on today. It all started some 40 years ago and nobody then know that they had an advance with light legs.

In 1985 was 44% of the worlds best long distance runners from Europe. 25 years later 69 % of the worlds best comes from Africa and of that 47% from Kenya.

With a solid tax system in Thailand redistribution of wealth could help anyone to a equal start, not 20 yard or years ahead or behind. Only a few will be like the Kenyan runners, but there are seldom the rest of the pack are far behind. Over time this would help to minimize inequality and spread the knowledge also to they which not are born into a opium rich mafiafamily.

[YoungNRich12]

1% of America owns 40% of the country. Its nice if Thailand improves free schooling and health care for poor people but its not going to result in a meaningful decrease in the wealth gap from your perspective. Why haven't the American social wealth distribution programs worked?

[PeaceBlondie]

1% of America owns 40% of the country. Its nice if Thailand improves free schooling and health care for poor people but its not going to result in a meaningful decrease in the wealth gap from your perspective. Why haven't the American social wealth distribution programs worked?

One part of the USA's wealth redistribution was to give free state education to age 18 (in Texas, even to illegal aliens). But almost no free health care. They took kids out of sweat shops. Some programs succeeded.

.

[Briggsy]

One can see a classic example of how the laws in this country allow the rich to get richer in the tax legislation pertaining to land. Most countries 'tax' in some way the ownership of land and property and tax it even more if it is unused. This is not so here. Land can be held by speculators for a relative pittance for years until it is profitable to sell.

This costs the country's economy. It costs the rural poor. It makes inefficient use of city centres. However it allows rich people to hold land virtually for free.

And I haven't even started on how corruption tends to keep the poor poor.

[IanForbes]

.... If you are poor in North America it means you are either mentally ill or lazy. ...

Ok, if you say so it must be true

TH

PS - You do know that Mexico is in North Amreica, right?

Good point, I was thinking of only Canada and the USA. It's little wonder why the Mexicans are constantly trying to enter the USA. There is an opportunity for people who actually WANT to work in Canada and the USA. Although Mexico COULD be a wealthy country, it's too much like Thailand with corruption at the top, and it won't change any time soon.

[IanForbes]

1% of America owns 40% of the country. Its nice if Thailand improves free schooling and health care for poor people but its not going to result in a meaningful decrease in the wealth gap from your perspective. Why haven't the American social wealth distribution programs worked?

The social wealth distribution programs HAVE worked for people who are not inherently lazy. There will ALWAYS be a group at the bottom who want to blame their fate on others. Most are just plain lazy. However, I HAVE seen a few Thai families that I've helped get ahead and rise above their former poverty. If I've done nothing else in my life I can at least feel I've done something for a few people. How far they take it in the future is entirely up to them.

[caf]

1% of America owns 40% of the country. Its nice if Thailand improves free schooling and health care for poor people but its not going to result in a meaningful decrease in the wealth gap from your perspective. Why haven't the American social wealth distribution programs worked?

The social wealth distribution programs HAVE worked for people who are not inherently lazy. There will ALWAYS be a group at the bottom who want to blame their fate on others. Most are just plain lazy. However, I HAVE seen a few Thai families that I've helped get ahead and rise above their former poverty. If I've done nothing else in my life I can at least feel I've done something for a few people. How far they take it in the future is entirely up to them.

Not all people are inherently lazy , Ian

Social welfare programs ( health, education) if administered fairly, should be encouraged. It is not always helpful to blame the underdog.

Yes there are lazy people everywhere. Are you suggesting they should not be helped. Better to control the schemes than to exclude them surely.

[Dakhar]

Alternatively, the wealthiest are those most willing to exploit others, engage in unethical or immoral behavior in the acquisition of wealth, or were simply born into a wealthy family. This in no way means that every wealthy person is unethical or immoral. However, accumulation of large quantities of wealth necessarily means others suffer for it, directly or indirectly.

Another point is that it is ridiculous to assume that a dirt farmer in Issan has anywhere near the opportunity that a child born of wealthy parents will have. The playing field is not even.

"Alternatively, the wealthiest are those most willing to exploit others, engage in unethical or immoral behavior in the acquisition of wealth, or were simply born into a wealthy family."

I do not really agree with this statement. But something that does blow my mind is if we look at Physicians that own their own private practice in the US. Their employees are, in a lot of cases HS drop outs, making min. wage and on medi-caid. (Govt. provided health care for the poor)

So what u see is the highest earnining individuals in the US, paying the lowest wages possible, all under the facade of providing "excellent health care" to their fellow man. It has been my experience, that the odds of discovering a physician that really provides health CARE, are the same as finding a diamond in a pile of dog crap. I do not contend that HS drop oust should be paid well, but I sure would not want a HS drop out to be calculating the amount of Hydrochloride to administer to my child either.....

So in the "field of health care" we see high paid doctors willing to exploit their patients and often times their employees.

In some respects I agree with Heng.... but lets shed some light on this. A lot of the wealthy wear the crown of wealth bestowed to them from their parents. It is an easy crown to wear when it is handed to you. It is easy to look down the nose and say silly things like the "poor are wired to be poor." My sister married in to a very wealthy family, and really has forgotten her roots.

I would say their are a lot of folks happy with their lot, but plenty that are not... and I hope those that are not dig in and push hard... and every time their head hits the pillow, they know they did something to get out of the rut they are in during the day.

cheers

[YoungNRich12]

Whether or not they have worked from your perspective doesn't change the fact that they have not, in the end, resulted in a redistribution of wealth as 1% of America owns 40% of the country, isn't that what we are talking about here?

All these suggestions about which taxes Thailand should implement to match the Western world assumes that these taxes are just. Isn't taxation just a fancy word for theft? Rich people can hold land for free! Well... why shouldn't they be able to? Clearly, there needs to be some form of taxation because society can't rely on the poor to get things done. Clearly, the rich has a responsibility to the poor, but I do not see how massive social spending as exhibited in the US with such little progress is worth it to the tax payer. Yes, improve the schools and make health care better but I doubt that is where many of you draw the line.

As long as that 1% continues to dominate, you will keep calling for more taxes to even things out.

[Heng]

Trouble is that approach doesnt address the issue of inherited wealth or the lack of. That is an advantage that government redsitribution and pro-poor schemems try to redress to a very small degree. Unless of course we accept that there a genetic master races and inherited wealthis just part of the master race passing on to the rest of the genetically superior ones;) In this day and age I would think that wasnt accepted by anyone beyond the insane. So it is about trying to make things a little fairer for those not advantaged by wealth from birth.

Why does it need to be addressed? Anyone can hand over something to the next generation not just the super wealthy. My great grandfather left one single shophouse to be divided among 9 children. The next generation left a little more to the next generation and so forth.

There's nothing master race about inheritance. Anyone can do it, even if you only own a 1 bedroom 1 bath studio condo or a 50 tarang wah house with dirt floor, in fact many of the super wealthy had much less if you look back far enough.

Edited November 5, 2009 by Heng

[Heng]

Okay Heng, you hit home with the marathon synthesis. Research show that the Kenyans have an advance due to less thickness of their lower legs everything else similar in a research done on runners from Denmark and Kenya..I.e they spend less energy when running and can by that run easier/faster.

My point is that there already was an equal start at the dawn of time. Why does there need to be another one when people are inherently different and not equal?

[Heng]

In some respects I agree with Heng.... but lets shed some light on this. A lot of the wealthy wear the crown of wealth bestowed to them from their parents. It is an easy crown to wear when it is handed to you. It is easy to look down the nose and say silly things like the "poor are wired to be poor."

I would say their are a lot of folks happy with their lot, but plenty that are not... and I hope those that are not dig in and push hard... and every time their head hits the pillow, they know they did something to get out of the rut they are in during the day.

cheers

Not looking down at folks when I say 'wired to be poor.' It doesn't mean they can only be poor (or wealthy, or average, or whatever). It means they have tendencies that more than likely will keep them poor.

And again, inheritance is no different than building a 50, 100, 500+ year old corporation. One certainly wouldn't expect that all the Walmarts would have to be torn down and all the shares redistributed (and not to his kids) when Sam Walton died. Sorry, time up, time for you to start over because it's really not fair that no one else will ever control the North American hypermarket market. Again, folks who complain the most aren't complaining for the greater good IMO, they just want to be further along in line, and sometimes the only way to do so (in their minds) it to bring those at the top down.

[Jingthing]

.... If you are poor in North America it means you are either mentally ill or lazy. ...

Ok, if you say so it must be true

TH

PS - You do know that Mexico is in North Amreica, right?

Good point, I was thinking of only Canada and the USA. It's little wonder why the Mexicans are constantly trying to enter the USA. There is an opportunity for people who actually WANT to work in Canada and the USA. Although Mexico COULD be a wealthy country, it's too much like Thailand with corruption at the top, and it won't change any time soon.

That's kind of misleading considering the current trends --

MEXICALI, Mexico — Census data from the Mexican government indicate an extraordinary decline in the number of Mexican immigrants going to the United States.

The recently released data show that about 226,000 fewer people emigrated from Mexico to other countries during the year that ended in August 2008 than during the previous year, a decline of 25 percent. All but a very small fraction of emigration, both legal and illegal, from Mexico is to the United States.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/15immig.html

Also consider many reports that a large number of the immigrants are returning home due to lack of work, better to suffer in your own country than abroad.

[IanForbes]

1% of America owns 40% of the country. Its nice if Thailand improves free schooling and health care for poor people but its not going to result in a meaningful decrease in the wealth gap from your perspective. Why haven't the American social wealth distribution programs worked?

The social wealth distribution programs HAVE worked for people who are not inherently lazy. There will ALWAYS be a group at the bottom who want to blame their fate on others. Most are just plain lazy. However, I HAVE seen a few Thai families that I've helped get ahead and rise above their former poverty. If I've done nothing else in my life I can at least feel I've done something for a few people. How far they take it in the future is entirely up to them.

Not all people are inherently lazy , Ian

Social welfare programs ( health, education) if administered fairly, should be encouraged. It is not always helpful to blame the underdog.

Yes there are lazy people everywhere. Are you suggesting they should not be helped. Better to control the schemes than to exclude them surely.

No, I agree that there SHOULD be social services to help the poor. And, Jingthing is right about the recent drop in Mexicans entering the USA. The USA has recently gone into a slump caused by excessive greed at the top end. The bankers created a pyramid scheme that was bound to fail.

However, there are different types of charity. There are pure handouts that do little more than keep people from starving, and there are work schemes that actually put people back in charge of their lives. I've financed a couple of Thai families in starting home businesses. It seems to be working. A good friend of mine financed a poor Thai lady who now runs a successful business that is growing. And, he eventually married the woman. We aren't the only ones. All those stories you read on this forum of men marrying bar girls and setting them up with a home are examples of helping people. Whether or not the marriages last is of little consequence. There is a sharing of the wealth, and the recipients of the "charity" can get on with their lives, and are much better off than before. Even paying bar girls is a form of charity. Most earn enough to help their families and then get out of the trade. Some enjoy the life and stay in the trade. Some are just lost souls like you find anywhere.

[Heng]

Whether or not the marriages last is of little consequence. There is a sharing of the wealth, and the recipients of the "charity" can get on with their lives, and are much better off than before. Even paying bar girls is a form of charity. Most earn enough to help their families and then get out of the trade. Some enjoy the life and stay in the trade. Some are just lost souls like you find anywhere.

There are also an inordinate number of folks who end up at square one, especially if you take the mentor figure out of the picture who leaves behind a moderate pile of liquid assets and a property or two. Businesses and property are sold at a loss or at best par value (and yes in some cases for a profit, but how long is that going to last when the individual has never built anything in his/her life) simply because some people aren't comfortable at their new level so they do whatever they can, sometimes on purpose, sometimes just by their very nature, to get back to their previous comfort level.

It's not unlike the numerous accounts of lottery winners both here and abroad who end up broke or in the red a few years down the road.

[tgw]

ohmy.gif Dear Lord. You really believe this stuff??!! Saddens me people like you in this country, or even on this planet mad.gif

and you're a one post commie!

You commies have a view of reality that is full of jealousy.

Your answer is always to take from those who have to give to those who don't.

I would like to hear from you how much you think should be the income gap between a hard working but moderately skilled factory worker and a reasonably successful, erm... lawyer or doctor or a highly skilled engineer (they are all employees, not small entrepreneurs or partners of their company) ?

We are talking net income after taxes.

I am thinking 4 to 4.5 times as much would be appropriate.

What do you think?

Edited November 5, 2009 by tgw

[YoungNRich12]

the free market has already determined that.