Congratulations on your achievements rkz...but I think your argument is bullshit when applied to society at large. Plenty of people have hard childhoods and achieve great things in their field. My husband is one of them.

We're not just talking about going to school and getting the best out of it. It's about having the opportunity to put to use the knowledge you might gain yourself. Some people simply don't ever get that opportunity no matter how smart they are. No matter how hard they've worked.

I could give you plenty of examples, but one is the commercial fishing industry. An industry which is traditionally filled with people who're uneducated but work hard for the money they earn, and yet governments continually make life harder for them by imposing restrictions which are not usually in the best interest of the industry. How can someone, no matter how hard they work, seriously be expected to understand legal jargon to the extent where they can argue against it in order to improve their likely outcome?

These are the types of scenarios which are regularly to be found in the real world.

Do something else... go to school part time... move on.
Many do it.
Fear of/fighting change is a dead-end.
Reading problems were not my only issues. I had a great deal to overcome... it was very hard and is for anyone who has to do it, as a child or adult.
I am in no way belittling that, I am celebrating it.
I often say, a simple solution is rarely easy.
If your job is dead-end or becoming overpopulated, the solution is simple. It will not be easy.
The only time one loses is when they quit or say that the solution lies in relying on others to solve the problem completely when you can actually do it.
It makes me crazy to see those who can work choose not to for simple excuses when I would give almost anything to be able to work again.
I don't buy it... if you want to work at it, you will, if not... you will not.
I worked until they took me out of that building in an ambulance.

Who is Gary Ryan Blair?

There's no way that my reality is the same as yours, or anyone else's, therefore reality is far more discriminatory than Mr Blair would have you believe.

What's the definition of reality? Something that is real. But from what perspective?

How do you prounounce the word for the car Jaguar? What's the reality? What do you think is a good education? Yr 10? Yr 12? Finishing University? Exactly whose perspective are we talking about?

Everyone has a different reality, and showing them that there's a difference is something that takes more than just telling people.

I disagree.....reality is entirely subjective.

Wow, cool... I get to decide not to be sick!!!!

Yet again I hear an argument based on the fact that a few have achieved what is difficult. For every one who had succeeded despite dyslexia, I can show another five whose lives and self esteem have been irreparably damaged. We as a society lose so much through those people.
I have, in my time as a literacy tutor, met people who were so bright and yet so damaged by life and their early schooling, that they will likely never contribute to society as a whole.....but they could have done so much. It's truly heartbreaking.

No, but you get to decide how much it affects your life - no disrespect intended, but as you say, there are plenty of people who have similar stories as you but who do not live their lives in such a positive way.

Nope.....but how that sickness feels to you, is entirely your own.

LOL... let me crush your spine and then you get to tell me it feels like a massage.

As for the dyslexia thing... I agree, you choose to let others make you feel like it is a handicap or not.

Social capital consists of networks of social relations which are characterised by norms of trust and reciprocity. Combined, it is these elements which are argued to sustain civil society and which enable people to act for mutual benefit (Lochner et al 1998; Winter 2000a); it is ‘the quality of social relationships between individuals that affect their capacity to address and resolve problems they face in common’ (Stewart-Weeks and Richardson 1998: 2). Thus, social capital can be understood as a resource to collective action, which may lead to a broad range of outcomes. In his analysis of social capital and family life, Winter (2000a: 2-6) argues that despite some conceptual confusion in the social capital literature, three of the most notable social capital writers each conceptualise social capital in this way, albeit it in relation to differing outcomes, of varying social scale. Bourdieu (1993), Putnam (1993) and Coleman (1988) each understand social capital as a resource to collective action, the outcomes of which concern economic wellbeing, democracy at the nation state level, and the acquisition of human capital in the form of education, respectively 6.

I highly recommend reading the whole article if you have time.http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/RP24.pdf

Okay, my point may sound facetious.....but, even with something as serious and devastating as a crushed spine feels different to each person. I cannot know how you feel, you cannot know how I feel, all we can do is extrapolate from our own experience base as to what we think the other person is feeling.

I know the concept and have read about it.
Had to do with me. I had a hard time early in life. Nearest neighbor was 2 miles away, was not related to as a normal child, really. Dyslexia and no social skills for my age group was a real set-back. Never had a social group until Jr. High. Spent the first part of my life solitary, even when in school surrounded by kids, I was alone. I had my nervous disorder and other things I don't talk about.
I learned very quickly to tell people what they wanted to know. Things in my teens made it worse.
Blame is futile... you do what you need to do to make things happen for yourself. If I ever let other's opinions affect me in any way other than a challenge I would be dead. It is not an excuse.
We are all alone in our skin, I learned that from day one... day two, it is not so bad alone.

I think you and I have quite a lot in common.

I was quite isolated early on, actually through most of my childhood and teenage years, through ill health (not stuff I really want to talk about in detail). It makes one quite.....self-sufficient in many ways.

Well I think that's your opinion, and if it works for you that's great rkz, but research suggests that you are probably one of few who have had the ability to do so.

Good on you.

Yup.

That's not a reason not to attempt to limit the effects when it does, mr gets-annoyed-when-an-ambulatory-person-parks-in-a-handicapped-space.

As you should. Handicapped spaces are a perfectly legitimate way by which society attempts to limit the negative effects of nature, without which you'd have to work even harder to get the same things as others.

Wow! That was a reach.
I agree... but I am not pissed-off about being disabled. That is more on point.

Actually, I think Happy made a very good point. Society in many ways tries to offset the disadvantages that nature burdens individuals with.

Do you think it is "unfair" that I am sick?

As unfair as it was that I spent the first sixteen years of my of life 'sick'

As unfair as it is that my Father is dying.

As unfair as it is that one of the most intelligent men I ever met was taught by his teachers that he was stupid.

Experiences may be subjective, but that lays the best argument for saying that the individual is eventually the one in control. Pain is pain, we all suffer it, just in different fashions. However if you were to suffer a specific injury, lets say a broken arm, the pain itself is not what is subjective. The difference between the person quietly suffering and waiting for treatment and the person screaming as if being filleted alive is not the actual level of pain they experience, but how they choose to react to it. The one in control can understand that imparting their misery onto everyone else will not make the pain go away any faster, the screamer feels that the fact that they are experiencing pain lifts all other responsibilities from their shoulders.

Or.....the person screaming feels that screaming in some way helps them deal with their pain.

I don't believe in fair. It is a silly concept that only belongs on board-games.
Each person's worst pain is the worst pain in the world as far as they are concerned.
It drives me nuts when I try to comfort someone when something has happened to them and they say some shit like "I have no right saying anything to you with all that you have been through/go through".

Yelling can release endorphins... it does help in extreme cases. Most yell before they need to or because they are surprised because they did not realize how bad something was going to hurt or (mostly IMO) because they are not used to pain.

My Drs are always amazed at my pain threshold (not a good thing, it is a problem with my meds) due to having always been in pain and my brain/nervous system functions differently. Also, I'm just very stoic about it.

Some pain meds do not work on me, I had a root canal with no working meds once, he did not believe me, did not know my history... that was very bad.

I guess 9th has never given birth to a child. lol

Yes. And handicapped spaces, wheelchair-access laws, and the Americans with Disabilities Act are some of the ways in which society attempts to mitigate the unfairness.

LoL ali.
many
rkzenrage, I totally agree. But society isn't really about what's fair, it's about what's useful. Is it really useful to society that millions of people don't reach their potential and therefore do not contribute to their fullest ability? How many Einsteins have we lost to the slums? ....how many Darwins never realised their potential? .....how many Ciceros were too busy surviving to write their thoughts?......How many Fords never got the chance to put their ideas into action?

Good point except for Ford... I am not a fan of that Anti-Semite.

The ADA is a joke.
Just went shopping in a village where I could go into a grand total of four shops (out of around a hundred) and eat in two places, none were really restaurants.
One was a hot-dog place and another was a Blimpys.

Handicap spaces where 90% of the permits are given to people who can walk walk the store and mall, don't need the spot for a lift or ramp... yeah... tell me about fair.

Hey...how come no one acceded my point when I made the same point with less words??? :(

Har. True, but he did a fair amount for mechanisation:P

I have to roll my eyes when women throw out the old 'men have nothing to say about pain because they've never given birth to a child' chestnut. :right: I've had many types of pain, including labor (four children), and the worst pain I've ever had by far was the pain of cluster headache. Second is migraine. Women don't have a corner on significant pain.

I wasn't suggesting they do.

True enough orthodoc, but I also think Ali had a point about 9th. My guess is, with his attitude to screaming, he hasn't experienced pain bad enough to warrant it.

From the perspective of the desired result.

We can talk about perspectives and feelings all day, and while we do, reality is going on around us.
Pointing your perspective at reality does nothing to affect it. Actions affect reality. Actions have positive and negative consequences - and that is reality.

It doesn't matter what your perspective is on how long is long enough when brushing your teeth. The reality of it is, if you don't get all the crap off of them, you're gonna get cavitites.

So by that logic, you're not educated till you've been to university, completed a Phd and are still studying, because no one on this earth knows everything, but until you do, you're not educated.

Nope, not even close. Wanna try again, or shall I?

Or not. I know a lad, who cleans his teeth once in a blue moon and rarely goes to the dentist (like twice in about four years!)and never, ever gets toothache. last time he went to the dentist he only needed one filling.......I on the other hand, go to the fecking dentist every six months, clean my teeth two-three times a day and somehow need constant fecking work doing. In the last two years I've had fillings, root canals, caps and porcelain veneers.

That wont be necessary. Your argument is the same as rkz's and he hasn't convinced me he's right so it's probably a case of never the twain shall meet on this issue.

If rkzenrage isn't able to convince someone then I seriously doubt jinx, can:P

Just to get back to the original topic of the thread. Those of you who are arguing against the point myself a few others have tried to make, support the huge earnings of the top few executives? Yes? They must have earned it after all right? The deserve to work as hard as you and earn a million times more right?

Oh I don't know about that Dana. I reckon Jinx probably has a few cards rkz hasn't played, but they're from the same deck, so unlikely to help too much. That's all I meant.

Don't forget Ali.....in America, anybody might get into the top-earning bracket. The fact that so very very few ever do, doesn't stop people wanting to defend their right to be there.

Dana, I think if people make it there good for them, although I totally disagree with the actual real amount of money they get paid. I don't think they deserve that amount. I don't think anyone does. They certainly can't need that much when others work their fingers to the bone and still can't make ends meet. There are similar situations here in Australia and I object to it happening here too...hence my argument.

The issue of social capital is important to me because I see evidence of brilliant kids all the time, but they're left to squander their talent because their parents fail to see how they can be supported through to a better life.

So, let me get this straight.... if someone is rich, they should have to pay more for being so?
Poor people have more value or are more "right" somehow, so we tax them less per-capita because we are going to assume that they earned more of their income legitimately?

This is a problem I well understand Ali. The ward I represent is full of children whose expectations in life are tragically low....their family's expectations for them are likewise low....I also know people who've done very well for themselves and yet are patently thick as pigshit....go figure.

let me ask you this. Have you ever given to a charity? Maybe to the victims of Katrina for instance, or the Tsunami in south west asia?

If so, you have a social conscience, if not, your argument might work.

If you have a social conscience, it means you care about what happens to others in your society and see value in helping those who for whatever reason are not as well off as yourself. As to who should pay more tax etc, that's a difficult one. Probably another topic entirely.

More to the point, a wealthy person probably will get better care for his broken arm than a poor person. That's what this is about. The wealthy get better teachers, better healthcare, nutrition, dentistry, haircuts, skin cream, therapy, tutoring, professionally written resumes, etc. It all goes to why they have an advantage over those who are not as wealthy. No matter how hard a poor person tries, the wealthy person has the edge. Let's face it - it's wealthy people typically who do the hiring. People will typically hire people who are like themselves - it's human nature.

So?

I have... that has nothing to do with anything.
I choose to have one.
To try to force it is wrong.
You cannot, and should not, try to make someone care.

So, unless wealthy people have a monopoly on talent, ability and worth, they are depriving society of the benefits that could be gleaned from t hose who do not come from a wealthy background.

That is called natural selection.

no. society skews 'natural selection' to favour an unnatural set of criteria.

If you choose to live in a society and benefit from doing so, you should have one. If you don't, the state has a responsibility to make you do so because you have benefitted from the state.

Nothing occurs outside of nature.

At the risk of sounding like Ebeneezer, that is what taxes are for... I believe each should be taxed per-capita, not one group more than another.
I don't understand you...
Are you saying you want to get rid of social programs and rape the rich for it?

True enough, but plenty occurs within nature. Natural tendencies can be subverted by societal norms.

It's actually unnatural. Natural selection would be for the "best person" to succeed. Her the "most connected person" to win. The one who was given more just because his parents had wealth.

Including stepped tax rates. So what?

Sure... which is why the rich have a vested interest in continuing the current system that allows them to get out of most taxes the rest of us pays.
If you want them to have to pay like everyone else, tax them like everyone else... duh!

"Social norms" is our system of natural selection... "just because" they have wealth is it's determiner. Way it is.
& one has to hang on to the wealth and do something with it... a hell of a lot more than a "just because". It is called swimming with sharks for a reason.

So now your problem is that the rich pay too few taxes?

A = A

I have a problem with the tax system as it is. I feel all should pay a flat percentage of what they earn or spend... I could care less which.
Rich or poor. I have heard the argument that this would be easier on the rich. Bullshit, no easier than it is now. Being rich is easier, it should be.
Many want the rich to be taxed MORE than poorer people.
This is wrong. Not only is it unethical, but it encourages them to do what happens now... take over the tax system and rig it with loop-holes so they don't have to pay as much in taxes, or any at all.
I have some extremely rich family who have told me that if they did not want to pay taxes that they would not have to and that they have peers that make money off of the tax system. I also know that for what they make they pay a lower percentage than most.
The reason that there is so much resistance in government to a flat tax is that the rich are in control of it and they don't want it because they will pay more... not because the poor will, that is a scare tactic.
By doing this we would eliminate a sales tax (the states would just get a percentage), it would be easier on the poor and middle class.

Ok, well from what I've read here, and I've only skimmed the last few pages to get up to date, it seems to me that some here think that if you are super rich, you should be taxed higher to support those who do not make as much money. Or, if that doesn't follow, then they at least think that if you are not one of the super rich, then you will need to become dependant on the government to meet your needs. I would argue that it is not the government's job to take the place of charities, as well it is not the governments job to redistribute wealth, regardless of how hard one may think the rich had to pay for it. Now, maybe in a traditional sense, an executive may not work 'hard', but they are worth what they are paid. Now before anyone craps thier pants from what i just said, let me say it again... EXECUTIVES ARE WORTH THEIR PAY, and here is why.

While the U.S. economy is not a capitalist economy in its pure form, it is capitalistic. One of the fundamental concepts of capitalism is supply and demand. Most people only think of supply and demand when it comes to how much you might pay for a certain good or service, however you can apply the same idea to the labor force. You can take any job and an employer will only be willing to pay up to a certain amount to fill that position (demand). At different levels of pay, different amounts of people will be willing to work and become part of the labor force (supply). So for the people who may not be making much for their efforts, know that there is a supply of people who would do the job for the same or less, which keeps pay down. That is one reason unions are effective, they essentially cut off the supply from the people who demand it.

While most people at the bottom of an organization may not see it or know it, executives play an important role in a company. They are the leaders, they set strategy, decide on production levels, prices, they make all the important business decisions and have to do all of this while trying to stay competitive in a global economy. Now, when you look at a good executive, a company is going to pay a lot of money for that person. Good executives are hard to come by. Ok, a small company is not going to have the resources to pay for one, but a large, fortune 500 company is, and when they are depending on the leadership and vision a good executive has, they are going to pay them a lot. It is more of an investment, in that if they pick the right one, they can turn around a company and make them more money in the long run. If they can't pay them what they are worth, they will leave to work somewhere else, possibly even a competitor.

Take Bill Gates for instance. What is a 'fair' rate to tax the richest man in the world? He is a college dropout who created one of the most sucessful companies in the world, and most of his wealth has come from appreciation in Microsoft stock as well as what he made from Microsoft. Once the company matured, how much work do you think he did? Should he be taxed more than the rest of the population? Is it the governments job to decide that even? If you think he should be taxed more for the benefit of the 'less fortunate', consider this. As a wealthy individual, he created the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The foundation's grants have provided funds for college scholarships for under-represented minorities, AIDS prevention, diseases prevalent in third world countries, and other causes. The Foundation has also pledged over $7 billion to its various causes, including $1 billion to the United Negro College Fund. Also consider that this is not the exception, but a norm with wealthy. Most don't hoard their wealth. Warren Buffett matches all of Gate's contributions to the foundation. Would that money be better spent by the government? Most can agree that if the government had that extra money, it would end up in 'pork' projects rather than in the hands of the less fortunate. So rather than take their money, let us put more responsibility on the shoulders of the people so their is less dependancy on the government, as well as also more hope and faith that people will continue to be generous with their money for the causes they believe in rather than give it to the government in the form of taxes to be spent on causes the government believes in.

I know... long and rambling, but now I've said my piece. have a superb day