|
|
I see on the news that some businesses are a bit worried that experts in busineess are getting too much flack? I think there should be rewards but not these excessive bonuses if we are all supposed to be "in this together".
Let's make it a much fairer society?
|
|
|
To first make a fairer society first we need to change society. Then the government. or is it the other way round?
|
|
|
"all supposed to be "in this together". "
The problem those with the bigger snout block those with the smaller snout getting to the trough, does a nurse get a monetary bonus or the teacher postman, bus driver or any other low paid (in comparison to the bankers and company directors) worker get a bonus just for doing their job, day in day out.
David Cameron said we are ‘all in this together’ but some are more ‘in it than others’ and it is those at the bottom of the pile who are in more than the rich, but the very rich will say that is the capitalist way.
ltp
|
|
|
top salaries need to be looked at with a fine toothbrush,eg,england fc manager,reputed to earn five million pound a year,win or lose,to many more of his kind right across the spectrum,...~
|
|
|
Supposing a business man was promised a bonus of 1% of any income he generated - would that be fair?
Supposing he then generated £100 million income - which meant he'd get £1 million bonus -would that still be fair?
The thing is, everybody is ranting about these (so-called) excessive bonuses but does anyone actually know how the bonuses are worked out?
... Because until you do know how they are worked out then surely you can't determine whether they are fair or not, can you?
And as for 'us all being in it together' - we all have had the opportunity to create a fortune so just because you didn't stop griping about it!
Jason.
|
|
|
The fact is even if you knew how the bonuses were 'worked out' it would still be an injustice to the poorest.
|
|
|
trucker,
"The fact is even if you knew how the bonuses were 'worked out' it would still be an injustice to the poorest."
Please explain why it would be an injustice to the poorest.
Jason.
|
|
|
Someone gets £1million pound bonus in this country - they pay £500,000 income tax. No ifs, no buts, they pay it.
Show me an ordinary working person who pays 50% income tax - they don't.
Explain to me how it is 'FAIR' to take even more money, or stop the bonus from the high earner (who is already contributing very significantly to the countries tax income), in order that we may increase benifits to those the high earner is already supporting.
|
|
|
"inrease benefits" more likely to cut them!
|
|
|
Trucker you're avoiding the issue!
|
|
|
ltp - "those with the bigger snout block those with the smaller snout getting to the trough"
This ignores the issue of who is filling the trough.
|
|
|
Jason,
It depends on your philosophy! Its been mentioned so many times - so some people are very clever but cleverness does not match up with being wise.
Moderation can bring about a fairer society whereas competition and headlong pandering into an ideology that just leads to divide and conquer and leads to riots and protests.
Who really wants endless aguing and violence whether by the police or people on the street?
|
|
|
trucker,
You still haven't explained why it would be an injustice to the poorest.
"Moderation can bring about a fairer society whereas competition and headlong pandering into an ideology that just leads to divide and conquer and leads to riots and protests."
What evidence do you have that moderation brings about a fairer society?
What's this ideology that leads to divide and conquer?
And what's with the 'riots and protests' - you don't see rich people rioting and protesting, do you?
trucker - you're just playing around with fancy sounding phrases that don't seem to be making any point at all!
Jason.
|
|
|
Everh,
That's an animal behaviour - snouts and troughs! We are surely bigger than that? Isnt about time we behaved with all the intelligence that is on offer to find better ways?
The earth itself, sun, sea, wind and air, combine to give us all the riches imaginable but we can't use that intelligence to deal with it in a more fair and just way?
Divide and rule sets up a division which reeks of the 'survival of the fittest', I don't subscribe to that philosophy at all. Human beings have a higher nature and thrive on fraternity and love, happiness and friendship more than aquisition of material things but the basics need to be met first: homes, warmth and sustaining food.
Our children need to be born into a world where they can flourish and not continually being beaten down by selfishness as an example to follow.
|
|
|
Argonaut,
I didn't expect you to agree or understand me, as i said my philosophy is more to do with the real human nature and not what is generally believed by materialistic thinking alone.
|
|
|
Oh I understand you trucker - and you're right, I don't agree with you - especially when you come out with wild generalities.
You want to talk "human nature" - OK, man started out as a hunter/gatherer and, in spite of learning and using cultivation he still bore the hallmarks of a hunter/gatherer - and rich people, in the main, became rich by hunting and gathering - not food, I'll grant you, but wealth.
There you go - Mankind - true to Nature - as ever!
The benefits of Materialistic thinking are: the results are easy to access and asses, and visible to all, it's something we can all do if we have the acumen.
The problems with philosophy are: there are too many to choose from, many are untried so the true outcomes are unknown, not everyone will adhere to the rules, and it would be too easy for people with hidden agendas to ride them piggyback on a philosophy - like you do sometimes.
Jason.
Jason.
|
|
|
Argo,
Business acumen is an excellent talent and no doubt it can earn someone a lot of wealth. All i'm saying is, spare a thought for those not so endowed with such talent or motives to develop it.
Apart from this particular talent there are other talents which are often ignored: sociability and friendliness not just as a means to sell a commercial proposition but to really enhance peoples lives.
I know you enjoy scientific facts and prefer logic because you have often said so.
Perhaps you will understand a quote that I found that explains my own philosophy as follows:
Let us banish the phantasmal thoughts of east and west, north and south, European and American, English and German, Persian and French.
Consider the creation of the infinite universe. This globe of ours is one of the smallest planets. Those stupendous bodies revolving in yonder immeasurable space, the infinite blue canopy of God, are many times greater than our small earth. To our eyes this globe appears spacious; yet when we look upon it with divine eyes, it is reduced to the tiniest atom. This small planet is not worthy of division. Is it not one home, one native land? Is not all humanity one race? Creationally there is no difference whatsoever between the peoples.
How short-sighted we would be should we try to divide a room into the eastern and western corners. The geographical division of this world is an exact parallel. Through our ignorance and lack of viewpoint we divide this common home, we divide the members of this family into various races, we divide religion into different sects and then with those suppositional division we wage war against one another; we shed one another's blood and we pillage one another's possessions. Is not this unpardonable ignorance? Is this not the height of injustice? Were we just and could we observe without prejudice we would realize that there are no fundamental differences. For the last six thousand years there have been wars and contentions between the various nations and in every age we have had some great culminating catastrophe.
Abdu'l-Baha : Divine Philosophy, Page 179
|
|
|
I understand the quote - it's just an extended version of John Lennon's "Imagine" - it all sounds good on paper, and maybe this world just might be a better place if barriers were dropped BUT It will never be achieved with 'pie-in-the-sky' philosophies.
If you were to take some time out from your 'faith' readings, and read a bit about other relevant sciences, you'd probably discover why the world is like it is - and that just might give you a clue as to how to go about remedying some of the problems.
Until all mankind can think 'as one' then there will always be conflict - unless we can create a universal police force to prevent it - but that in itself would involve conflict! Mankind has thrived on conflict - and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future - so you're just wasting your, and everybody else's, time by professing your philosophy.
The bottom line is: Actions speak louder than words - if you want to achieve something then you lead by example, not push from a pulpit!
Jason.
|
|
|
"Until all mankind can think 'as one' then there will always be conflict. . ."
Absolutely Argo! The main difference we have is that you believe it will never happen, whereas I believe it will have to happen in the future!
The main reason being that the world economy is sinking into chaos and deprivation which will affect all.
Eventually we will wake up to that fact sooner or later.
|
|
|
what we have is very similar to an evolutionary system in that it is the survival of the fittest, however, this all depends on what we define as being 'fittest'.
In this context, fittest, is those with the most money, or skills in an area that pay the most money.
Yet, the level of skill though may be exactly the same level as a different career type, but some skill sets get rewarded more than others
- thats just the way it is
|
|
|
CORRECTION
It's not survival of the fittest - everybody misquotes that one!
Its survival of the most adaptable!
Puts a whole new slant on the argument - doesn't it?
Jason.
|
|
|
"Puts a whole new slant on the argument - doesn't it?"
No it doesn't at all, We are still able to care for those people less adaptable! Its called care in the community.
Looking after the old, ill or disabled, orphans, etc.by development of a caring society shorn of prejudice against the weakest members.
|
|
|
The World Religions Summit 2010 was the sixth in a series of interfaith gatherings associated with the annual G8 meetings. It brought together more than 80 participants from all of the world's major faiths including, for the first time, representatives of the Baha'i community.
Religious leaders from more than 20 countries attended, including each of the G8 nations – Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
Looks to me like religion is not going away eh Argo?
|
|
|
Actually Jason,
Space Core Directive 487-b sub section 5 paragraph F states that pedants must be ejected form the nearest airlock (or garbage waste disposal chute - whichever is closest) -without trial or supper.
|
|
|
"Looks to me like religion is not going away eh Argo? "
Quite right, trucker.
Looks like the World is doomed to being blighted by ignorance forever!
Jason.
|