If Everyone is Rich, there would still be Poor among them.

Hello ParaTed2k! Your argument about $100,000/year having no value for anyone if everyone gets the same amount is logically faulty, if I understand your argument rightly. You are presuming that people work for money as an ‘end result’. Yes, they work for money but not for money itself rather to get/buy something they need/want. Hence, unless everyone has everything, one needs/wants…getting equal amount of money will not make it valueless. And, as everyone can’t have everything, there will always be trade, either through money or through barter. Having said that, a system where everyone gets the same reward (communism) is intrinsically unnatural and unjust and destructive for society. Undeniably, all people don’t have same potential and intelligence. Those who have more potential and intelligence deserve more reward than others and have the natural right to have more. Equally unnatural, unethical and destructive is Capitalism. Communism fails to take into account not only the difference of potentials and aspirations among humans but also one set of undesirable part of human tendencies like laziness, lack of motivation, determination and struggle. Thus, it “forces” more capable people to work not only for less capable but also for lazy. Capitalism fails to take into account not only the incapable people (whose presence can’t be denied in any society) but also another set of undesirable human tendencies like greed, selfishness, elitism and lust for power. So, Communism leaves out the upper, say, 10%, and capitalism leaves out the lower 10%. An economic system in which everyone at least gets the very basic necessities of life and at the same time people with more potential are allowed to excel is more likely to serve best. A system where upper 10% are not “forced” to work for others and a system where lower 10% are not left out to die of hunger and cold is what can work progressively. I think of society as a human body. We have different parts, some vital and some not as much important yet needed for the body to function fully well. There are even those few things in body which are apparently quite useless, like a vein in our legs, but become very useful when treating some vital parts. One can still live with rash on skin, or pain in finger or even without finger but not without brain. Still, a paining finger gets attention of Brain and other parts where they contribute to get it fixed. A society should be just that, in my humble opinion, giving one his/her due share and importance but caring for everyone.

Yes, I agree but what would be good would be an economic system that didn't seriously hamper some from maximising their potential. Also it would be desirable to remove restrictive trade practises that hamper the free market. Where qualifications hinder market forces such as the cartels run by lawyers then some balancing forces should apply. governments should not subsidise the arts or sport nor employ heavily restrictive international trade agreements like those of the US. all the best urban

Wow, this is an interesting concept, and truthfully it makes a lot of sense when you think about it. I am sure we would have a lot of unhappy people, and people having to wonder where there next meal would come from etc because in my opinion, if people were earning this type of $$, then they could charge us $100 or more for a gallon of gas, 1 or 2 million for a house, $300,000 for a car, etc. And they could do it, as they would think nothing of it considering how much everyone is making.

The flaw with the system of the uthopia in question , is not that all trade will come to an end if all people had equal amount of money.Trade will go on ,because people will have needs which other people will fulfil for a price( the irony is at this point all people will no more continue to have equal amount of money). The proposed system cannot be acheived. It's not possible to ensure that all people have the same amount of money. Even so, if we were to try, the means we'd have to resort to , would be immoral. Simply put, we'd have to take money from the the people who have it and give it to people who dont. This is where the immorality lies.

nice debat here yaar. pls do not think that they will never be a poor man . i will be there always . other than god all are poor in one or another occasion .

Exactly, and I couldn't have said it better. Human endeavor has value. It has to be compared to other human activities. Life doesn't have worth otherwise. See I didn't say it better. :)

Yes ted I agree with you. If we all had $100,000 yearly then yes money would devalue and as you said be as worthful as leaves on trees. Also those store owners would then need to increase the cost of their items meaning a loaf of bread could verywell then cost $250.00 rather than the $1.15 we are gripping about now (at least in my area haha). I am IDEALISTICALLY Marxist Communist which means that I would LOVE to live in a society without money. We all work for the betterment of each other. But again yes you are right, so we abolish money and decide to barter. Well I live on a farm. My cows and eggs, butter, and milk, pigs and chickens would be worth more than say your.... ability to burn cds for me. so yes everything would still have a value and we would still have rich and poor which is why the communist utopia is flawed as is democracy but they can still be ideals to hold to our hearts. Without hate there wouldn't be love and the same can be said of rich. Without poor there isn't rich. It's just what is. Great topic Parated! You rock!