Should rich people give their money to poor people ?

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="Vuurk"] Empirically substantiate the claim that there are not enough minimum wage jobs to fill the current lack of employment or accept that you are merely stating things without any real backing. Vuurk

Number of unemployed (keep in mind that this excludes those not currently on unemployment rolls): 12.8 million

Number of job openings: 3.5 million

Which leaves 4,000,000 people without means to find employment. Moreover, a large number of those positions are unable to be filled to to skills mismatching, thereby increasing the number of people incapable of finding employment.

'Mate.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="Vuurk"][QUOTE="iHarlequin"]

No, I don't think rich people should give their money to poor people. I think their assets should be seized and equally distributed among society, not in direct payment, but via the creation of new jobs and improvement of the public welfare system. I understand that some people (keyword: some) worked hard to amass their disproportionate wealth, that doesn't change the fact that it is indeed disproportionate.

Or, if you're not as radical as I am, make the % of taxes someone pays directly proportionate to their wealth and income. Someone that makes M.W. pays x% of their salary as tax, someone that makes 10x M.W. pays y*x% of their salary, removing the ceiling.

Vuurk

No. The countries that you listed are all still predominantly capitalist. They may have more social programs than the countries I listed, but it does not change the fact that overall the economies of Sweden, Norway, and Finland are capitalist. I'm still waiting for you to tell me your idea of an optimal economic system if it's not capitalism. I'm sure thousands of economists would also be intrigued to find out. He's right! Like I said the countries with the highest quality of life in the planet do something like that.

Vuurk

Capitalism is flawed, why would you ever call it an optimal economic system? It has poverty, misery, relies on the exploitation of other nations (as in, to bank a first world country's standards there are several countries with industries that barely pay their employees, utilize child labour and border the concept of slavery - you barely get enough to survive). I understand why people like capitalism: there's this notion of the self-made-man -- the man that started from scratch and built a fortune -- which happens once in a blue moon and is an image used mostly to convince people that hey, keeping that **** job might be a good idea: it could lead to great success! It happens, sure, but not nearly as often as it should to be considered a characteristic of capitalism. Now that we've moved whatever romantic view you might have of capitalism, let's continue:

- You're predisposed to continue in whatever social extract you were born into. As I said, changing from poor to middle-class or from middle-class to rich seldom happens.

- Basic services aren't guaranteed by the gov't. You really don't think it's absurd that several people die by the year because they can't pay for the SOLUTION to their medical issues? One that exists, is visible, plausible, but alas -- they lack the resources to be allowed to live.

- It functions on profit. What does that mean? Whatever you ever do, you're receiving much less than what it's worth. And while part of that value does see its way back to you, by creating more jobs, it also is lost in the personal sector. Hence, capitalism is sub-optimal.

Capitalism is only viable on a nation-by-nation basis. The model used by Finland and Canada, for instance, guarantee a significantly larger quality of life than you have - nay, that you're guaranteed - in the U.S.A., but for that nation alone. While there is no 'perfect' economic model, I firmly stand by my belief that Communism, and to a certain degree Socialism, on a global scale, are currently the best conceived models for a higher quality of life, regardless of nation.

The issue with Communism is that it is like a solid pyramid, with a perfect structure. It is a work of intellect. Mankind is neither perfect nor solid. Capitalism resembles wide-spread ivy, something that caters to more primal urges of mankind: the desire to be superior than your neighbour, to have a better car and a bigger house. I'm not saying it's a necessarily bad urge, but I do think that the posession of material goods is petty when compared to a widespread improvement in quality of life. It's much more rational.

what do you think ?

konichiwa21

:lol:

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="Vuurk"] Eh but that does not account for the fact that their is a natural rate of unemployment that is around 5%. Vuurk

Which leaves 4,000,000 people without means to find employment. Moreover, a large number of those positions are unable to be filled to to skills mismatching, thereby increasing the number of people incapable of finding employment.

'Mate.

No, I did it all in my head, but was off by a few mil. .05 * 150,000 (percentage of unemployed * size of labor force) gives 7,500,000 for the natural unemployment rate.

12,800,000 - 7,500,000 = 5,300,000 - 3,500,00 ~ 2,000,000

And as I said, this does not include workforce dropouts or the underemployed.

NOR DOES THIS TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE SKILLS MISMATCH.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="Vuurk"] No. The countries that you listed are all still predominantly capitalist. They may have more social programs than the countries I listed, but it does not change the fact that overall the economies of Sweden, Norway, and Finland are capitalist. I'm still waiting for you to tell me your idea of an optimal economic system if it's not capitalism. I'm sure thousands of economists would also be intrigued to find out. He's right! Like I said the countries with the highest quality of life in the planet do something like that.

Vuurk

1. I have never argued that people shouldn't be taxed. I think that taxes are essential to society. There are other things that tax dollars can be spent on other than wealth redistribution however.

2. I have never said that a country that uses capitalism can't have high taxes or be a welfare state.

3. Those countries do not directly seize rich peoples' assets as iHarlequin is promoting.

4. The United States has the most progressive tax system in the world. The rich people in the United States already pay the majority of the taxes. In fact, 41% of people do not pay any income tax at all. The difference is that these other countries require the less rich people to pay taxes as well.

5. So you still are unable to tell me which economic system you think is ideal??? (since you previously claimed it's not capitalism...)

[QUOTE="iHarlequin"]

[QUOTE="Vuurk"]

No. The countries that you listed are all still predominantly capitalist. They may have more social programs than the countries I listed, but it does not change the fact that overall the economies of Sweden, Norway, and Finland are capitalist. I'm still waiting for you to tell me your idea of an optimal economic system if it's not capitalism. I'm sure thousands of economists would also be intrigued to find out. He's right! Like I said the countries with the highest quality of life in the planet do something like that.

Vuurk

Capitalism is flawed, why would you ever call it an optimal economic system? It has poverty, misery, relies on the exploitation of other nations (as in, to bank a first world country's standards there are several countries with industries that barely pay their employees, utilize child labour and border the concept of slavery - you barely get enough to survive). I understand why people like capitalism: there's this notion of the self-made-man -- the man that started from scratch and built a fortune -- which happens once in a blue moon and is an image used mostly to convince people that hey, keeping that **** job might be a good idea: it could lead to great success! It happens, sure, but not nearly as often as it should to be considered a characteristic of capitalism. Now that we've moved whatever romantic view you might have of capitalism, let's continue:

- You're predisposed to continue in whatever social extract you were born into. As I said, changing from poor to middle-class or from middle-class to rich seldom happens.

- Basic services aren't guaranteed by the gov't. You really don't think it's absurd that several people die by the year because they can't pay for the SOLUTION to their medical issues? One that exists, is visible, plausible, but alas -- they lack the resources to be allowed to live.

- It functions on profit. What does that mean? Whatever you ever do, you're receiving much less than what it's worth. And while part of that value does see its way back to you, by creating more jobs, it also is lost in the personal sector. Hence, capitalism is sub-optimal.

Capitalism is only viable on a nation-by-nation basis. The model used by Finland and Canada, for instance, guarantee a significantly larger quality of life than you have - nay, that you're guaranteed - in the U.S.A., but for that nation alone. While there is no 'perfect' economic model, I firmly stand by my belief that Communism, and to a certain degree Socialism, on a global scale, are currently the best conceived models for a higher quality of life, regardless of nation.

The issue with Communism is that it is like a solid pyramid, with a perfect structure. It is a work of intellect. Mankind is neither perfect nor solid. Capitalism resembles wide-spread ivy, something that caters to more primal urges of mankind: the desire to be superior than your neighbour, to have a better car and a bigger house. I'm not saying it's a necessarily bad urge, but I do think that the posession of material goods is petty when compared to a widespread improvement in quality of life. It's much more rational.

Wow a five year old thread. :shock:

[QUOTE="iHarlequin"]

[QUOTE="Vuurk"]

No. The countries that you listed are all still predominantly capitalist. They may have more social programs than the countries I listed, but it does not change the fact that overall the economies of Sweden, Norway, and Finland are capitalist. I'm still waiting for you to tell me your idea of an optimal economic system if it's not capitalism. I'm sure thousands of economists would also be intrigued to find out. He's right! Like I said the countries with the highest quality of life in the planet do something like that.

Vuurk

Capitalism is flawed, why would you ever call it an optimal economic system? It has poverty, misery, relies on the exploitation of other nations (as in, to bank a first world country's standards there are several countries with industries that barely pay their employees, utilize child labour and border the concept of slavery - you barely get enough to survive). I understand why people like capitalism: there's this notion of the self-made-man -- the man that started from scratch and built a fortune -- which happens once in a blue moon and is an image used mostly to convince people that hey, keeping that **** job might be a good idea: it could lead to great success! It happens, sure, but not nearly as often as it should to be considered a characteristic of capitalism. Now that we've moved whatever romantic view you might have of capitalism, let's continue:

- You're predisposed to continue in whatever social extract you were born into. As I said, changing from poor to middle-class or from middle-class to rich seldom happens.

- Basic services aren't guaranteed by the gov't. You really don't think it's absurd that several people die by the year because they can't pay for the SOLUTION to their medical issues? One that exists, is visible, plausible, but alas -- they lack the resources to be allowed to live.

- It functions on profit. What does that mean? Whatever you ever do, you're receiving much less than what it's worth. And while part of that value does see its way back to you, by creating more jobs, it also is lost in the personal sector. Hence, capitalism is sub-optimal.

Capitalism is only viable on a nation-by-nation basis. The model used by Finland and Canada, for instance, guarantee a significantly larger quality of life than you have - nay, that you're guaranteed - in the U.S.A., but for that nation alone. While there is no 'perfect' economic model, I firmly stand by my belief that Communism, and to a certain degree Socialism, on a global scale, are currently the best conceived models for a higher quality of life, regardless of nation.

The issue with Communism is that it is like a solid pyramid, with a perfect structure. It is a work of intellect. Mankind is neither perfect nor solid. Capitalism resembles wide-spread ivy, something that caters to more primal urges of mankind: the desire to be superior than your neighbour, to have a better car and a bigger house. I'm not saying it's a necessarily bad urge, but I do think that the posession of material goods is petty when compared to a widespread improvement in quality of life. It's much more rational.

How conceited. Basically: "I won't reply to your post because I think you're wrong. You're probably dumb, too, so go study. I'm also going to claim it's currently the best economic model by saying someone has said it before me. Undisputably."

You want my answer? I'm currently on my third year of not an 'economics' class, but the graduation course 'Economics'. I think you claim to know a lot of a subject you never bothered studying beyond reading third-hand information on books you'd never consider reading. I bet you haven't read several of the most important economic theory books and treatises from authors such as Keynes, David Ricard, Karl Marx, Engels, Adam Smith, but rather what other people think about their books. You cite no sources, and even if you did, I'm going to wager they'd be from a journalist, instead of from an actual historian/economist/political scientist/sociologist. Your status as a forum poster on a games website doesn't give you enough credibility to act like that. I actually bothered giving a reply with my thoughts and concerns. From my perspective, your post might as well be something you ran on an online rambler to turn "I disagree with you and you're wrong." into something of the length of a paragraph. I already spent too much effort on this, and I expected more than an ignorant reply. If you ever want to have a valid debate, I'm open to hearing your opinions -- and even if the authors I consider correct most likely disagree with them, I won't say you're inherently wrong -- but I'm not here to have some random individual tell me that I should study economics before I talk about it.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="Vuurk"]

1. I have never argued that people shouldn't be taxed. I think that taxes are essential to society. There are other things that tax dollars can be spent on other than wealth redistribution however.

2. I have never said that a country that uses capitalism can't have high taxes or be a welfare state.

3. Those countries do not directly seize rich peoples' assets as iHarlequin is promoting.

4. The United States has the most progressive tax system in the world. The rich people in the United States already pay the majority of the taxes. In fact, 41% of people do not pay any income tax at all. The difference is that these other countries require the less rich people to pay taxes as well.

5. So you still are unable to tell me which economic system you think is ideal??? (since you previously claimed it's not capitalism...)

Vuurk

The world where countries with high taxes (Sweden, Finland, Norway) enjoy the highest quality of life in the world and the countries that receive more money from charities (African countries) have some of the lowest standards of life in the world. AKA the real world. In the real world charities are not much more than a feel-good measure. In the real world taxes that transform into strong social institutions are actually useful to make a better society.

Alright fair enough. This does not change the principle however, that there are currently people without jobs, who are choosing to collect unemployment rather than working a minimum wage job (or any wage job for that matter). I know someone personally who collects unemployment yet works a job for cash and does not report his income. This type of stuff happens all of the time.

I still stand by my statement work or starve. This is applicable regardless of whether or not their are "jobs" available. You can create your own job or grow a garden. It is a law of nature that as humans we need food to survive, and that in order to obtain this food we need to work and produce it. Fortunately today we live in a society where you can specialize and trade so we don't all need to be hunters or gathers. However, we have way too many leeches who take advantage of our modern advanced society and live off of the system.

Vuurk

I've known people who have been unable to pick up menial jobs in this recession -- and this is an area of the country hit not too hard, comparatively speaking. Essentially your argument rests on the premise that over the past few years, for no apparent reason, a significant portion of the labor force decided to call it quits and take a two-year vacation at the expense of their careers. The fact of the matter is that millions of people are unable to find jobs, and without jobs, cannot place food on the table through their own work. This is a relatively new phenomena, a shortage of work. Standing by your statement, to work or starve, is much more readily defended when the means exist to do so. The fact of the matter is, for many in recent years, has not been the case. Specializing is a fantastic long-term strategy. Food is a short-term problem which requires short-term solutions. Do I necessarily think that people should be able to waltz through life w/o pulling their weight provided it is within their ability to do otherwise? F*ck no. A different problem arises, however, when circumstances do not allow for a person to work. Forcing them to call it quits on life is something that quite frankly seems unjustifiable. You stated yourself that you think exemptions on mandatory workplace involvement should be given to children, the disabled, and the elderly, presumably because you consider them less than capable of providing for themselves. The cold, hard reality is that it is not only those people. It is unequivocally true that a fair portion of the U.S. labor force is currently unemployable, and it was even worse a year ago. By extension of your own positions, these people ought not starve either.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="Vuurk"] I do not know where to even begin when addressing your post. All I can do is highly recommend that you take an economics class. Please just take one economics class or read ANY mainstream economic literature. I do not by any means believe that capitalism is perfect...however, it is currently the best economic system known. This is backed by empirical evidence of countries throughout history and throughout the world today. I have no motivation to debate with someone who says that they believe Communism or Socialism are a better conceived economic model. The amount of effort that would be necessary on my part is not worth the time and energy. Vuurk

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="Vuurk"] I do not know where to even begin when addressing your post. All I can do is highly recommend that you take an economics class. Please just take one economics class or read ANY mainstream economic literature. I do not by any means believe that capitalism is perfect...however, it is currently the best economic system known. This is backed by empirical evidence of countries throughout history and throughout the world today. I have no motivation to debate with someone who says that they believe Communism or Socialism are a better conceived economic model. The amount of effort that would be necessary on my part is not worth the time and energy. Vuurk

The communist manifesto, important as it was to socialist movements, isn't Karl Marx's gift to economy. Das Kapital is. You should know that. The fact that you call Karl Marx's ideas crazy show how one-sided your education (if you had a proper education in economics) was. They're anything but crazy. You may think them wrong, but they're very reasonable. You consistently hide yourself behind the (I assume) claim that you took an economics course. Did you take a semester-long course? And you're honestly bragging about it? It's like me trying to debunk a mathmetician's argument by asking if they ever took a "mathematics course", when all I did was study Statistics.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="Vuurk"] I do not know where to even begin when addressing your post. All I can do is highly recommend that you take an economics class. Please just take one economics class or read ANY mainstream economic literature. I do not by any means believe that capitalism is perfect...however, it is currently the best economic system known. This is backed by empirical evidence of countries throughout history and throughout the world today. I have no motivation to debate with someone who says that they believe Communism or Socialism are a better conceived economic model. The amount of effort that would be necessary on my part is not worth the time and energy. Vuurk

[QUOTE="Vuurk"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"] Karl Marx was one of the most knowledgeable people in economics ever and he was the one who came up with the idea for socialism. He studied Adam Smith's theory in depth. Most people like you who are so adverse to the idea of socialism probably never read Marx in the first place. So maybe you should take a class on Karl Marx and socialism too. -Sun_Tzu-

Well, a lot of million/billionnaires tend to be philanthropists too. I say it's their money, their choice no matter how they obtained their wealth but even they couldn't possibly spend all of that money. It couldn't hurt to give that money to charity.

What annoys me is when rich people claim that it isn't their fault they are rich, or that they got their wealth by themselves and that poor people need to stop depending on other people. It's not like they became self-sufficient when they were a toddler, or built their mansion for themselves, or paved those roads they drive on with those fancy cars of theirs that were made with someone else's blood and sweat.

EDIT: and look, there's Vuurk being insightful again.

Just say it -- you want free handouts.

Vuurk

What ass backwards world were you raised in?Vuurk

Funny you mention Marx. I read the communist manifesto and have taken a class taught by a socialist. Vuurk

[QUOTE="iHarlequin"]

[QUOTE="Vuurk"] I do not know where to even begin when addressing your post. All I can do is highly recommend that you take an economics class. Please just take one economics class or read ANY mainstream economic literature. I do not by any means believe that capitalism is perfect...however, it is currently the best economic system known. This is backed by empirical evidence of countries throughout history and throughout the world today. I have no motivation to debate with someone who says that they believe Communism or Socialism are a better conceived economic model. The amount of effort that would be necessary on my part is not worth the time and energy. Vuurk

How conceited. Basically: "I won't reply to your post because I think you're wrong. You're probably dumb, too, so go study. I'm also going to claim it's currently the best economic model by saying someone has said it before me. Undisputably."

You want my answer? I'm currently on my third year of not an 'economics' class, but the graduation course 'Economics'. I think you claim to know a lot of a subject you never bothered studying beyond reading third-hand information on books you'd never consider reading. I bet you haven't read several of the most important economic theory books and treatises from authors such as Keynes, David Ricard, Karl Marx, Engels, Adam Smith, but rather what other people think about their books. You cite no sources, and even if you did, I'm going to wager they'd be from a journalist, instead of from an actual historian/economist/political scientist/sociologist. Your status as a forum poster on a games website doesn't give you enough credibility to act like that. I actually bothered giving a reply with my thoughts and concerns. From my perspective, your post might as well be something you ran on an online rambler to turn "I disagree with you and you're wrong." into something of the length of a paragraph. I already spent too much effort on this, and I expected more than an ignorant reply. If you ever want to have a valid debate, I'm open to hearing your opinions -- and even if the authors I consider correct most likely disagree with them, I won't say you're inherently wrong -- but I'm not here to have some random individual tell me that I should study economics before I talk about it.

W.e. I don't see much of a point in discussing with someone who thinks K. Marx's ideas were crazy. I have capitalist friends and socialist friends alike, and while the former may disagree that Communism is ideal, they'd never have the audacity to, as still a student, claim K. Marx's ideas were bull. You're wrong there. You're also wrong when you assume someone is wrong because they don't follow the same theories as you do. I honestly don't blame you, specially with how this smells like the work of a biased teacher with which a student sympathised. Again, no offense. I'm sorry if I took it personally when you said Karl Marx wasn't a good economist. He was a genius. As a matter of fact, you'll find very few respectable economists who will deny that.

And last, but not least, you're the one who's more likely not to be an economic student. You flaunted it at any given (or not) opportunity - I wouldn't even have mentioned it if you hadn't made it your task to infer that, given my 'ignorance', I probably never took an economics course. You display all the characteristics of someone who had a few lessons in a given subject that most people never did, or that recently started studying something, and that uses that fact as an argument when they can't give a decent response concerning the matter at hand.

I find it genuinely amusing (lulzy) that Vuurk consistently questions the economic education of those he argues with. At this point I've seen him knock heads with cybrcatter, chess, SUD123456 and this harliquinn person.

A note to Vuurk:

I live in Birmingham where it was pretty badly hit by the recession. The job market is awful, there is barely anything out there with my experience and there are hardly ny retail jobs. It's not fair on those who just can't get work or don't get any callbacks let alone interviews. I've also paid a lot in taxes with my own hard-earned money, so the way I see it, I might as well get some of that back if I can (by claiming, that is).

Getting a job is absolutely not as easy as you make it out to be.

I find it genuinely amusing (lulzy) that Vuurk consistently questions the economic education of those he argues with. At this point I've seen him knock heads with cybrcatter, chess and this harliquinn person.

coolbeans90

I don't really care about that. What I do wonder is what he's doing on a gaming forum if his posts are specifically directed at economists. This is the second thread I've read where he completely disregards a person's opinion because he thinks they didn't study economy. Either open the discussion and accept posts from people who haven't dwelved deeply into theoretical economy lessons, or go to a more specific forum.

A note to Vuurk:

I live in Birmingham where it was pretty badly hit by the recession. The job market is awful, there is barely anything out there with my experience and there are hardly ny retail jobs. It's not fair on those who just can't get work or don't get any callbacks let alone interviews. I've also paid a lot in taxes with my own hard-earned money, so the way I see it, I might as well get some of that back if I can (by claiming, that is).

Getting a job is absolutely not as easy as you make it out to be.

Spitfirer

no personal choice

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]I find it genuinely amusing (lulzy) that Vuurk consistently questions the economic education of those he argues with. At this point I've seen him knock heads with cybrcatter, chess and this harliquinn person.iHarlequin

I just found it to be humorously ironic, is all, his getting called out by people who have degrees in the subject.

Altruism is definitely a reality.ghoklebutter

I agree wholeheartedly with this.

Of course those who help others are doing it to make themselves happy. This is why I want tp punch those who say "Oh, they're only giving to people to feel better about themselves!". If you make yourself happy by making others happy, more power to you. It's sad that people can't differentiate between those who are genuinely nice and the conceited d*cks who boast about the nice things they do.

The question is far too vague for me to give an answer. Should rich people pay more taxes? Yes, Should they be forced to give away every dollar they have in some sort of Robin Hood, Communist system? No.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="Vuurk"] Funny you mention Marx. I read the communist manifesto and have taken a class taught by a socialist. I would not consider Marx even close to being "one of the most knowledgeable people in economics ever" as you claim. Goodluck finding economists who agree with Marx's ideas. You are living in a dreamworld. Academia might be the only place crazy enough to push Marxist philosophies as anything that could potentially be practical. I assume you have never taken an economics course?

kuraimen

I've always felt that Communism, Especially under Stalin took the work of Marx to the extreme and corrupted it. Which is a shame as many people are quick to associate the two and come to the conclusion that they are one and the same.

loLLOLOLD THREAD.

Nope. Not for a second. The use of a progressional tax system should suffice. A lot of rich people have made very smart decisions in life and with their money, it shouldn't be taken from them just because they're rich and someone else is poor. After tax, what they do with their money is their business - and that doesn't mean taxing them ridiculously, but earning a lot of money, they should pay proportionately more than someone who earns less. Those criticising capitalism in favour of communism are being ridiculous. Communism is perfect as a theory, but it is pointless and impossible in our world, "communist" countries are poor and have greedy dictators. Capitalism of course has its flaws. The free market mechanism, the greed of multinational corporations, oligopolies in industries *cough* *American banks* *cough* and idiot governments all influenced what is occurring across the world now.Fire_Emblem_RD

Big money is mostly inherited.

Give money to the poor? No.

Give money to encourage and sponsor development of lower classes in society? Yes.

I don't believe in the current welfare state. If you are between the age of 18 and 65, you should be required to work or be in full-time education, or get no form of welfare whatsoever. Only exception should be new mothers and the disabled (and their carers).

If you get fired, then sure, you should get some form of payments to start with. However, if you aren't able to find a job within the next six weeks you should be required to do training courses or take up education. If you can get a full-time job wihtin six weeks, you'll be sweet and shouldn't need welfare payments. If, however, you only get a part-time job, you should be required to undertake part-time education as well, in order to recieve any more government assistence. If you can't find work at all within the six week period, you should be required to do full-time study, with your welfare payments based on the grades you achieve in your course.

If they feel like it. Personally I've known way too many people who lived a very nice, middle-class lifestyle - on welfare - to have any concern for them whatsoever.

No. Rich people have the right to do what they please with their money. Poor people are poor because of their own choices in life. It's their own fault they didn't go to college and get a decent job. No one should be give anything. Everyone should have to earn their place in the world.SmashBrosLegend