redistribution of wealth.

[kid chameleon]

Redistribution of wealth refers to the transfer of wealth from some individuals to others. Historically: "Redistribution of wealth" is specific to when assets are seized from one entity and redistributed to another entity in a process to cause economic equality. (Case example: the land was taken from the lords and given to the serfs.) Communists believe "Redistribution of wealth" is an approach for equality between the rich and the poor. Socialists deem it necessary to keep the inequality gap from widening any further. Today's Republicans and Democrats do not believe in "redistribution of wealth" through nationalization or the taking of assets.

Republicans and Democrats disagree on a fair approach of taxing future income. Republicans say that having a progressive income tax on the wealthy is unfair, counter productive and is a "transferring of wealth". Democrats say that the wealthy are able to pay more of their future income for the benefit of the rest society. -Rhetoric-

"Redistribution of wealth" should not be confused with the term "transferring of wealth" for taxes on unrealized future income. All political and economic systems facilitate the "transferring of wealth" including capitalism, communism and socialism; however the favored method of redistribution varies from system to system.



thought this would be a good topic for you all to discuss. i didn't know how to cite the source as wikipedia but u guys an gals get the idea.


in my opinion this is a double edged sword as anyone who has seen the channel 4 show "the secret millionaire"?
there was the one guy who gave gary the jobless bum $2500(my keyboard has no pound sign) only to find out that the guy hadn't done anything to improve his life or the lives of his 3 small children he just used it as an xcuse to continue not looking for a job.

if this idea were to be used in todays society, there would be backlash from the people who didn't get any or as much as they wanted, and if you gave the poorest families (in the uk at least) a large sum of money we'd essentially be signing over a vast percentage of it to people who haven't done nothing in life apart from getting knocked up whilst still in primary school and their biggest achievement being learning how to smoke, drink or shoot up whilst still holding their baby/ies.

i'm interested in hearing your views on this
thank you and enjoy

 

[Y 2 Jake]

Redistribute wealth to causes instead of individuals. No one person or family is more worthy than another, certainly not in a fair society.

Not exactly what your topic was about, but anyway. You should never be allowed to have over a certain ammount of money. Nobody needs more than a billion in the bank. Flaws aplenty, but I don't care.

 

[Azrael Cain]

As long as man is greedy -- which has been the case since the beginning of time and is in the throes of its continuation -- "redistribution of wealth" will never work fairly. Man, in general, has a problem with giving away what he thinks/see as "his." The theory and logic of 'if I did it, why can't you?' dominates, and all the factors that aid in or prevent from doing so are ignored.

The idea itself while noble in theory and appearance is really not because the human element [of greed and egoism] is not removed. Nothing can ever be equal when man is working with wealth. Automatically, when it comes to any sort of aid it is the 'I' that has suffered the most, not someone else. It goes " 'My' suffering trumps yours, 'I' should get it, not him/her!" Man is wired to want more wealth than he needs/knows what to do with, and man does not want anyone other than himself to distribute what is "his."

And to further that notion, who is it that will deem who gets the wealth and how much of it they get? Again the notion of greed applies: if I get x amounts of dollars, I can do one of two things: (i) not work and leech off, or (ii) save it. Reason and logic suggests the latter, but intuition and human nature will opt for the former -- almost every time. And it will "never be enough," because of greed, again.

Redistribution of wealth cannot work until man decides that 'enough to survive is actually indeed enough,' and until man decides to get over his own egoism. The moment we realize we are all in this together -- and we are, we inhabit one and the same planet, are member of one and the same society and face one and the same problems (poverty, hunger, debt, death, etc) -- and starts caring as much about other as himself, then it may work.

Man has a culture and history of excess. Who the fuck needs billions of anything, honestly? Besides, 'wealth' is also kind of relative -- it could mean a lot of money or a lot of property or a stable family and a decent income with loving and caring friends. Wealth and its redistribution are mere concepts that we hide behind and try to apply like band-aids to a gun shot. It'll stop bleeding for a little bit, but then we see the flaw in it and scramble to point fingers, point out flaws, and all hell breaks loose as we try to find another 'quick fix.'

Enough quick fixes [like redistribution of wealth]. Opt for a long term solution - that's better for everyone.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

Philosophically, I don't find anything wrong with the redistribution of wealth, as long as it is redistribution in kind rather than money. By redistributing wealth in kind, I mean redistributing wealth in such ways as better health care, better education, food stamps, etc. I am not an advocate of redistributing wealth in the form of cold, hard cash (but, this isn't the issue at hand).

More than anything, I want to post on taxation, the primary means through which wealth is redistributed. Personally, I am opposed to any type of taxation other than a delayed progressive tax system. In America, the federal tax system works at the margin (e.g., for your first $20,000, you will be taxed 10%, or $2,000; for every dollar after that you will be taxed 20%, or 20 cents). Currently, the tax brackets we have make it so that we tax upper middle-class Americans as much as the affluent/wealthy/ultra-rich (e.g., anything over $200,000 is taxed at 40% and isn't capped off to enter a new bracket which taxes at, let's say, 65%).

Personally, I find something very wrong with this. More often than not, people earning anywhere from $200,000 to $1,000,000 per year are extremely hard-working and have truly earned their income (I include bonuses in the yearly figures). I don't see any reason why these people should be taxed at a higher bracket because they are driven and sacrificed so much to get where they are at.

However, I do agree with Jake in that no one needs a billion dollars/pounds in their bank account. An income that is over a million dollars a year is, in my opinion, excessive. It is this income that I think a progressive tax system should target. Out of fairness to the hard-working, anything less than this should be taxed at the same rate.

 

[OIL]

This a rubbish idea.

You're telling me, if I understand correctly, that you want the people who worked their ass off to earn what they have, to spread around that wealth significantly to reduce their wealth that they worked for? That's bullshit. If they've worked for it, then great for them. Having a billion in the bank might be too much, but if they want more then why not? Them earning more is because they're good and smart enough to earn that much. It's not their fault you're all dipshits. Stop complaining and actually do something about it.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

This a rubbish idea.

You're telling me, if I understand correctly, that you want the people who worked their ass off to earn what they have, to spread around that wealth significantly to reduce their wealth that they worked for? That's bullshit. If they've worked for it, then great for them. Having a billion in the bank might be too much, but if they want more then why not? Them earning more is because they're good and smart enough to earn that much. It's not their fault you're all dipshits. Stop complaining and actually do something about it.

Why exactly are we dipshits? Because we don't have jobs that overcompensate us? Furthermore, what do you propose we do instead of complaining about it? Also, what exactly am I complaining about?

Moreover, what would you do with a billion dollars? Buy a home made of exotic marble and gold? Buy twenty pedigree horses, nineteen of which you will never do anything with? Buy bra and panties made of platinum and diamonds? What purpose do these things serve?

I am not denying that intelligent and hard working people should earn a salary that affords them a comfortable living. However, there is a big difference between living comfortably and living sumptuously to an unnecessary degree.

 

[Shocky]

Why does it matter if someone has a billion dollars? Who are you to judge why someone shouldn't have a billion or so in the bank. Obviously a person that has a billion dollars in teh bank has done something of amazing importance. Chances are, if someone is a billionaire, a product that they either produced, or invented is sitting in your house and you are using it probably on an almost daily level.

I never understood why people think that excess is bad. I say, tough shit. I'm by no means rich, but to envy those that have more money then me is simply ridiculous. I have had the same opportunities for an education and finding a job in this country as everyone else, from the poorest black kid, to the richest white kid. Everyone has the same opportunity, believe it or not. The reason I'm not a billionaire, or hell, even a millionaire, I haven't been able to do soemthing that makes me stand out to earn that type of money. I earn what I put in. Sure, would I like more, of course I would, but I'm a realist.

I have no reason or grounds to tel someone that probably put in 7 years at elast of college, working 7 days a week for probably 80 hours a week for years, missing countless family hours for the business, and then all of a sudden people stand up and say, you can't dow hat you want to do with your money. You provided a product to people that went out and bought it whent hey couldn't afford it, so now you should give that money back to them,a nd they keep their product, and they don't learn any fiscal responsibility all along in the process.

Simply put, people that earned their money should decide what they do with it, not a bunch of people crying with their hands out.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

Why does it matter if someone has a billion dollars? Who are you to judge why someone shouldn't have a billion or so in the bank. Obviously a person that has a billion dollars in teh bank has done something of amazing importance. Chances are, if someone is a billionaire, a product that they either produced, or invented is sitting in your house and you are using it probably on an almost daily level.

I am just going to highlight this portion of your post and tell you, before making such a claim, I would take a look at a list of the world's billionaires. One is available on Wikipedia. A vast number of them are media moguls, movie industry executives, and fashion designers. As far as I can tell, none of these people have given me anything indispensable.

I never understood why people think that excess is bad. I say, tough shit. I'm by no means rich, but to envy those that have more money then me is simply ridiculous. I have had the same opportunities for an education and finding a job in this country as everyone else, from the poorest black kid, to the richest white kid. Everyone has the same opportunity, believe it or not. The reason I'm not a billionaire, or hell, even a millionaire, I haven't been able to do soemthing that makes me stand out to earn that type of money. I earn what I put in. Sure, would I like more, of course I would, but I'm a realist.

Ah, "straw manning" someone's argument is so much fun, isn't it? Please show me where in my post I said that I was envying someone that was richer than me. This seems to me like nothing more than a diversion tactic and an attempt to make me admit that I hate rich people. I would say something about opportunity, but then I am sure you would give me some spiel about responsibility that is besides the point, so I won't bother for the time being.

But, let's take about equality of opportunity in education for one moment. Say we have a billionaire's kid who goes to a prestigious private high school and a blue collar worker's kid who goes to a public high school. Furthermore, let's say that they both are of average intelligence but have the drive to learn as much as they can. Are you really trying to tell me that both of these kids will have the same opportunity to learn? Will not the kid that goes to the private school have better qualified teachers and greater access to academic resources (e.g., tutors and costly passes to university libraries) than the kid that goes to the public school? Consequently, will not the kid that goes to the private school find it easier to improve his education than the kid that goes to public school?

I have no reason or grounds to tel someone that probably put in 7 years at elast of college, working 7 days a week for probably 80 hours a week for years, missing countless family hours for the business, and then all of a sudden people stand up and say, you can't dow hat you want to do with your money. You provided a product to people that went out and bought it whent hey couldn't afford it, so now you should give that money back to them,a nd they keep their product, and they don't learn any fiscal responsibility all along in the process.

Please go look at the list of billionaires and see which of these individuals has a graduate degree. The majority of people that have graduate/professional degrees and that put in an insane amount of work hours make somewhere between $100,000 to $1,000,000 a year. And, these are the people that I said shouldn't be taxed any more than those that make less than them.

Simply put, people that earned their money should decide what they do with it, not a bunch of people crying with their hands out.

I think you can do without the rhetoric.

 

[OIL]

Why exactly are we dipshits? Because we don't have jobs that overcompensate us? Furthermore, what do you propose we do instead of complaining about it?

You're dipshits because you're complaining about a way of life that just because you don't have, you feel the need to complain about. If you were that rich then there is no way in hell you'd complain. You'd just enjoy it. You only live once.

Moreover, what would you do with a billion dollars? Buy a home made of exotic marble and gold? Buy twenty pedigree horses, nineteen of which you will never do anything with? Buy bra and panties made of platinum and diamonds? What purpose do these things serve?

If someone having an exotic home makes them happy, then what's wrong with that? I'd love an exotic house, it would make me very happy. Not being materialistic, but it would be nice. And what billionaires do you see with 20 pedigree dogs? Surely you're judging them before you even know them? For all you know they have one dog, that's it.

I am not denying that intelligent and hard working people should earn a salary that affords them a comfortable living. However, there is a big difference between living comfortably and living sumptuously to an unnecessary degree.

Living sumptuosly is fine. We only have one life, so if we're able to live a life of luxury then why not? It's not their fault that you're not living like that. Being able to have multiple houses, luxury super cars is fine if it makes them happy. And if they're successful enough to make themselves that rich, then why should it be capped? Maybe you get out there and do something about it instead of complaining. Stop being on a forum and get a job, perhaps.

 

[Shocky]

I am just going to highlight this portion of your post and tell you, before making such a claim, I would take a look at a list of the world's billionaires. One is available on Wikipedia. A vast number of them are media moguls, movie industry executives, and fashion designers. As far as I can tell, none of these people have given me anything indispensable. .

So assuming that you watch no news, read no newspapers, listen to no radio stations, look at nothing but individual blog websites, that don't happen to be owned by myspace or facebook, and watch zero movies that arent' distributed by the big six american movie companies, then none of those people effect your life. Then again, if you don't have any of those things in your life, you are probably pretty sheltered in your opinion. These billionaires effect your life in more ways then you even could begin to think. From teh computers you use, to the televisions you watch, to the progams you use on those computers and watch on your TV, hell even the food you eat, someone that is a billionaire is responsible for it, and they are a billionaire because of it.

Ah, "straw manning" someone's argument is so much fun, isn't it? Please show me where in my post I said that I was envying someone that was richer than me. This seems to me like nothing more than a diversion tactic and an attempt to make me admit that I hate rich people. I would say something about opportunity, but then I am sure you would give me some spiel about responsibility that is besides the point, so I won't bother for the time being. .

No, growing up in a neighborhood and a school district with very wealthy classmates has open my eyes to how most people feel about them. People assume that they are born with silver spoons in their mouths and they shoudl give something back, when in fact their parents and probably their grandparents before them worked hard enough to make sure their families are well off and don't have to worry about money in the future. Someone somewhere in the history of that family put in more time and work then someone of another family to make sure their heirs lived a life they couldn't live. And yes, I will give you a shpeel about responbility. Personel responsibility is a large issue in t his country today, and no one seems to want to take it. Whether as a teenager someone went out and partied too hard, or played too many sports, or simply didn't put the time and effort into their class work, in the end, you are responsible for what you get out of life, no one else.

But, let's take about equality of opportunity in education for one moment. Say we have a billionaire's kid who goes to a prestigious private high school and a blue collar worker's kid who goes to a public high school. Furthermore, let's say that they both are of average intelligence but have the drive to learn as much as they can. Are you really trying to tell me that both of these kids will have the same opportunity to learn? Will not the kid that goes to the private school have better qualified teachers and greater access to academic resources (e.g., tutors and costly passes to university libraries) than the kid that goes to the public school? Consequently, will not the kid that goes to the private school find it easier to improve his education than the kid that goes to public school?
.

Being a person with a history background and a degree in anthropology, I can tell you about all of the wonderful tools of information that are available to you at many public places. If you've ever had the privelage of going to a major cities library, you can find practically everything you need. Education comes in many forms, while some assume rich and expensive tutors and a private education is wonderful, someone that puts in the time at a public school, looks up the information they have trouble finding, and begins to talk with elderly folk that are living history, someone will do well. The amounts of information you can get from simply a world war 2 vet that saw action first hand is immensely better then what a tutor willt ell you out of a history book that you can read.

Please go look at the list of billionaires and see which of these individuals has a graduate degree. The majority of people that have graduate/professional degrees and that put in an insane amount of work hours make somewhere between $100,000 to $1,000,000 a year. And, these are the people that I said shouldn't be taxed any more than those that make less than them.



I think you can do without the rhetoric.

Even the billionaires that don't have said degree, still provide a service or have invented something that an overwhelming amount of people use in their daily life. Bill Gates is a fine example of a guy that "invented" a product and now essentially everyone in industrialized nations uses his product. Like wise with the Waltons and Wal-Mart being the most shopped in store in this country. Service is provided that most people use on a day to day basis. Sometimes just being able to read people and provide to them what they want is vastly more important then any Doctorate you could receive.

I could do without the rhetoric, but it illicits responses.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

You're dipshits because you're complaining about a way of life that just because you don't have, you feel the need to complain about. If you were that rich then there is no way in hell you'd complain. You'd just enjoy it. You only live once.

Son, let me break it down for you. And, keep in mind that you are flaming me in this thread, so the strong words I have are justified in this case.

At 24, I currently own my own town home with no mortgage. Granted, it is in a lower middle-class neighborhood, but I own it nonetheless. Furthermore, once I finish paying off my school loans, I will probably move into a nicer home with a mortgage as is standard with most Americans.

As far as I can tell, you still live at home with your parents flaming people who you assume are poor because they believe in higher taxes for wealthier people. Furthermore, you aren't even doing it intelligently.

So, live up the life that your parents currently give you, which allows you to sneer at those you deem inferior and chase Paris Hilton wannabes. Actually, scratch that. More than likely, you will always be living off of your parents. In other words, even with my sympathy towards those who make less money than your parents probably make, I will still crush you with my wallet.

If someone having an exotic home makes them happy, then what's wrong with that? I'd love an exotic house, it would make me very happy. Not being materialistic, but it would be nice. And what billionaires do you see with 20 pedigree dogs? Surely you're judging them before you even know them? For all you know they have one dog, that's it.

Your post shows you are the epitome of materialism. But, what does that really matter? It's not my burden, as it is not yours...it is your parents' burden. And, if you are responding to a post of mine, make sure to read it correctly. If you are going to bash people, at least take the effort to read them out.

Living sumptuosly is fine. We only have one life, so if we're able to live a life of luxury then why not? It's not their fault that you're not living like that. Being able to have multiple houses, luxury super cars is fine if it makes them happy. And if they're successful enough to make themselves that rich, then why should it be capped? Maybe you get out there and do something about it instead of complaining. Stop being on a forum and get a job, perhaps.

Ah...false assumption are great, aren't they? Even if I had the means to buy multiple houses and luxury cars, I wouldn't; cars are horrible investments and, currently, so are luxury homes (see, even people who don't have as much money as your parents can still be smart with what money they have!). Furthermore, unlike the part-time job you probably have at some consumer-electronics store goofing off with your mates, I have a full-time job, something you will probably never have unless it is through nepotism or pity.

I am done with this post. However, I do like to debate with those that aren't ignorant. So, in the very small likelihood that you will post something intelligent, I will be here waiting to have a civilized discussion with you.

P.S. To Shocky: I will get back to you on your post, as it will take me some time to think it over.

 

[OIL]

As far as I can tell, you still live at home with your parents flaming people who you assume are poor because they believe in higher taxes for wealthier people. Furthermore, you aren't even doing it intelligently.

So, live up the life that your parents currently give you, which allows you to sneer at those you deem inferior and chase Paris Hilton wannabes. Actually, scratch that. More than likely, you will always be living off of your parents. In other words, even with my sympathy towards those who make less money than your parents probably make, I will still crush you with my wallet.

Let me just point something out. I'm 17. I haven't even finished my A-Levels yet (not sure what the equivelent in America is), so the fact that I live with my parents is, normal lmao. I don't understand that argument. Not even finished my education, but yeah, I'll go buy my own house with the part-time job I have..

It's not my burden, as it is not yours...it is your parents' burden. A

My parent's burden? I pay my own way thank you very much. The minute I could get a part-time job I told my parents not to worry about buying me anything, because I could do that now. Unless, when you were a child, your parents didn't do fuck all for you?



Ah...false assumption are great, aren't they? Even if I had the means to buy multiple houses and luxury cars, I wouldn't; cars are horrible investments and, currently, so are luxury homes (see, even people who don't have as much money as your parents can still be smart with what money they have!). Furthermore, unlike the part-time job you probably have at some consumer-electronics store goofing off with your mates, I have a full-time job, something you will probably never have unless it is through nepotism or pity.[/QUOTE]

You seem to have the impression that my parents are rich? Well, they're not. Well off, but not rich. And just because you think cars and multiple homes are horrible investments, doesn't mean they are. Other people might love them. Some people collect cars, so what's wrong with that? Just because their hobby is more expensive, and they can afford it.

I have a part-time job. Argos infact. But, at 17.. you expect me to leave my education so I can get a full time job? You need to find out more information before you bash me for not having a full time job. 17 year olds with a full time job drop out of their education, and they're usually dipshits. So, what are you getting at? Having a go at me for sticking with my education?

 

[FromTheSouth]

The redistribution of wwealth is the worst idea in the history of mankind. The idea came from John Rawls. He posited that if you go under a veil of ignorance (closing your eyes and being assigned a socioeconomic position) and had to design a tax system, you would tax the rich more, in case you were poor.

My problem with that is I am not going under a veil of ignorance, I have my socioeconomic position already, and I am going to work with that. Redistribution of wealth ignores the middle class. The money of the rich is given to the poor. Now the poor are better off, the rich are still rich, and the middle class is the same. The middle class is the majority of society, and yet they see no benefit, and in fact, a net loss. If the poor have more money, prices go up. The poor are compensated for this inflation, however the middle class gets hit.

Furthermore, ROW denigrates achievement. If I know that if I make my business successful, I am going to have to pay exorbitant taxes, then I will stay where I am. I will not hire more employees, because productivity is punished. We live in a capitalist system, and productivity is the basis of our success. Doing anything to make us less productive is the antithesis of what this country was founded on.

We are promised freedom, and we get this freedom through life, liberty, and property. If the government starts over regulating our property, we are less free.

In this country you can be whatever you want if you work hard at it. I don't care if some people have to work harder. Instead of whining about their condition, they should use that energy, I don't know, working harder. There are no more excuses. the President is black, yet people in the hood whine about no opportunity? Fuck that. It is an excuse. Let me have my money, and if you want some, go get some and let the fuck go of my wallet.

 

[Big Sexy]

I don't think the redistribution of wealth idea would work. In theory it sounds good, but it just wouldn't work. My family is fairly poor, so I would like nothing more then to get free money but in reality this idea has too many flaws. I think the tax bracket needs to change slightly so the most wealthy people get taxed the most and so on down the line. Barack being president will definitely help the poorer people in the country. The only redistribution of wealth I would do, would be to take some money from all of the multi-billionaires and use it to help out the poor people that are getting evicted from their homes and living on the streets.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

So assuming that you watch no news, read no newspapers, listen to no radio stations, look at nothing but individual blog websites, that don't happen to be owned by myspace or facebook, and watch zero movies that arent' distributed by the big six american movie companies, then none of those people effect your life. Then again, if you don't have any of those things in your life, you are probably pretty sheltered in your opinion. These billionaires effect your life in more ways then you even could begin to think. From teh computers you use, to the televisions you watch, to the progams you use on those computers and watch on your TV, hell even the food you eat, someone that is a billionaire is responsible for it, and they are a billionaire because of it.





No, growing up in a neighborhood and a school district with very wealthy classmates has open my eyes to how most people feel about them. People assume that they are born with silver spoons in their mouths and they shoudl give something back, when in fact their parents and probably their grandparents before them worked hard enough to make sure their families are well off and don't have to worry about money in the future. Someone somewhere in the history of that family put in more time and work then someone of another family to make sure their heirs lived a life they couldn't live. And yes, I will give you a shpeel about responbility. Personel responsibility is a large issue in t his country today, and no one seems to want to take it. Whether as a teenager someone went out and partied too hard, or played too many sports, or simply didn't put the time and effort into their class work, in the end, you are responsible for what you get out of life, no one else.



Being a person with a history background and a degree in anthropology, I can tell you about all of the wonderful tools of information that are available to you at many public places. If you've ever had the privelage of going to a major cities library, you can find practically everything you need. Education comes in many forms, while some assume rich and expensive tutors and a private education is wonderful, someone that puts in the time at a public school, looks up the information they have trouble finding, and begins to talk with elderly folk that are living history, someone will do well. The amounts of information you can get from simply a world war 2 vet that saw action first hand is immensely better then what a tutor willt ell you out of a history book that you can read.




Even the billionaires that don't have said degree, still provide a service or have invented something that an overwhelming amount of people use in their daily life. Bill Gates is a fine example of a guy that "invented" a product and now essentially everyone in industrialized nations uses his product. Like wise with the Waltons and Wal-Mart being the most shopped in store in this country. Service is provided that most people use on a day to day basis. Sometimes just being able to read people and provide to them what they want is vastly more important then any Doctorate you could receive.

I could do without the rhetoric, but it illicits responses.

I really think we are getting off track. In this post, I am going to clarify my beliefs, as it was misconstrued to mean that I think the state should seize the assets of billionaires, when all I meant is that, ethically, I believe no one should have or needs a billion dollars in their bank account. If you would like me to provide answers to your points in this post of yours I am quoting, just tell me, should you decide to respond to the post I am now making.

As I said in the first post I made in this thread, if wealth gets redistributed, then it should be redistributed in kind in the form of such things as better libraries, better schools, better health care coverage for the poor, etc. People seem to think that, because I believe in the redistribution of wealth, I believe in redistributing wealth in the form of cash so that those who didn't earn this money can spend to their heart's content and live a life similar to those who did earn it. No, this is a total misinterpretation of what I said. You can talk all you want about responsibility and how taking none gives you no excuse to later in life mooch off of others (which I agree with, to a certain extent). But, should kids be held responsible for their parents' mistakes? Should someone that lives in inner-city projects or a trailer park be denied the chance to better their lives because their parents fucked up in such a royal manner? I would have to say no. And, I think that the redistribution of wealth should be aimed at giving these kids the resources that will allow them to improve their lives and that will not allow them to point to their shitty upbringings as the reason why their lives suck so much at some future point in time. So, Shockmaster, it seems we agree that equality of opportunity is what is key here, not the equality of income. What we do disagree on, though, is whether equality of opportunity currently exists. You say, for the most part, that it does, while I say that there is much room for improvement.

Now, let me discuss my beliefs on taxation, the primary means by which wealth is redistributed. I believe in a quasi-delayed progressive taxation scheme. If I were to create the federal income tax brackets, it would be something like this: for the first $40,000 you make, you are taxed at 15%; what you make above $40,000 but below $1,000,000, you are taxed at 25%; anything above $1,000,000, you will be taxed at 40%.

In reality, this bracket scheme is in many ways even more advantageous to the wealthy than Bush's tax scheme. The only real difference is that mine has a higher marginal tax rate for income that is earned over $1,000,000 (in Bush's bracket scheme, anything above $357,700 was taxed at 35%).

All right, I am done now. Thank you for giving me the time to clarify my points. Here's to hoping for some more debate.

 

[FromTheSouth]

But here's the problem. Why should no one have over $1 billion in their bank account? Because it's not fair? Fucking tough. I agree with Shock 100%. People who have invented something integral to society deserve to reap those rewards.

Our parents and grandparents came to this country on the promise that anyone could strike it rich. If I own land that has enough oil to sustain society for ten years, then why should I not get $100 billion? I can tell you why I should. Because if I didn't get what I felt was appropriate, I would horde the oil. I would wait until it was more of a necessity, then I would look for trillions. I would hamstring the world, and it would be completely within my rights.

If I invent a technology that eliminates the need for oil, the same scenario applies. Why would I sell it to anyone for $1 million when it's worth $1 trillion? I wouldn't, and once again, I would wait until it showed more utility to sicety and ask for $100 trillion.

I am telling you now, that if people are taxed at a rate which makes their product or service less valuable, they will hold on to it until they get the value tehy feel they deserve. It will wind up costing more.

Taking money away from people will cause the haves to horde money, products, services, etc. and will lead to have nots to have less, and that, sir, is the true danger of redistributing wealth.

I did not grow up rich. I am not rich now. But what's mine is mine, and I will be damned if anyone is going to take it away from me.

 

[LigerBomb]

Just for a moment lets move beyond the intrinsic nature of man's greed. I see that at the heart of this matter is the concepts of safety and preservation of self (taken a bit further, the preservation of your family/loved ones and perhaps a certain lifestyle). Simply put it is a matter of survival to have the most _______. In our current state of affairs, and for the purposes of this topic it's money or capital to trade for goods and services be them immediate or invested for later use, but it could easily be said goods and services like food, water, munitions, shelter in a more direct manner etc.

With that in mind I believe that there should be a bare minimum of protections and standards that allow for security and an amelioration of such base anxieties: such as where one's next meal is coming from, or will they have a bed to sleep on, or the proper nourishment and health care. As already said, were some wealth redistributed to allow for these basic services (as well as an already mentioned upgrade of education employment and other civil institutions) it would be a tremendous aid to the bulk of humanity.

Beyond the obvious and immediate benefits I feel as though once we -humanity as a whole- can move past such simple problems we could start focusing on much more advanced pursuits. Its the basic hierarchy of needs pyramid. Once the low levels are meet the higher levels can be serviced with greater focus, ability, and purpose.

Now for me to speak strictly personally: I would agree that no one needs more than a billion dollars (if that much, but lets leave it at that). To those who who suggest otherwise I am not saying that you don't deserve it, or for argument's sake perhaps due to inventions shouldn't be owed it, or disallowed to posses it, but that simply put you don't need it. It serves no real purpose except to create a level of self indulgence far beyond what IMO is decent. As an act of outright charity, and with a belief in the necessary advancement of humanity, those who are thusly enabled should after a certain level of wealth focus on the rest of society (beyond said theoretical inventions).

Now regardless of whether or not you believe in an after life we all -save for students of certain branches of philosophy I suppose- must agree that there is live after death, its just not yours. Once I'm gone I'm reasonably certain (99.999% sure) that the world will still go on. As such I believe in some way shape or form its my duty to leave it better than I found it so that the people that come after me can have a better go and progress us a step further.

In some off shoot future I would hope that we could have a government/culture/society that agrees with the above and to some extent enforce such measures. Similarly I hope that all would see the aid to humanity via some of or all of these reforms. Were it up to me, and the vast majority of people in the country to agree -popular democracy after all-, I would simply tell those who don't that they have to leave. Harsh and offensive as it may be, I have a believe in the old adage if you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem. You have $3 billion and don't want to share even a little then you don't have to, but get out and buy a mansion somewhere else. Likewise, were you not apt to want to contribute to this type of society be it through criminal actions or sheer laziness you should/would also have to leave. And much like a bartender would say " You don't gotta go home, but ya cant stay here."

I realize this has gone from somewhat based in reality to the begings of bad fiction but none the less, the concepts of a need for a resdistributuin of wealth are in my mind tied to basic yet deeply hardcoded fear/greed. Take that fear away via whatever method and things get better for everyone, not just a select (deserving and hardworking as they may be) few.

Apologies for the rant, its 4 in the am here and I don't think well this early/late. Off to bed.

 

[FromTheSouth]

Once again though, can anyone tell me why no one should have a billion dollars? You guys keep saying that there is no need, but, honestly, is it jealousy or extreme liberalism? You say no one should have a billion dollars, I say everyone should, and that's where we differ.

In this country, everyone has the opportunity to be a billionaire. If you don't believe me, then you must not have noticed that we have a black President. If someone can't feed themselves, it's not because Bill Gates has all the money, it's because someone lets pride get in the way of necessity. I read an article about laid of contractors in Florida bitching that the Super Bowl is coming there to celebrate extravagance. These guy complain about not having jobs, but then say they will be holding down the couch with a bottle of rum. The guy said he can't feed his family, yet he can drink? I should redistribute my wealth to this asshole? The Super Bowl, and events surrounding it, need ushers, people to clean, etc., yet these guys won't do that, as it would hinder their unemployment checks.

Laziness is more to blame than greed. The world needs ditch diggers, Walmart needs greeters, and my toilet isn't getting any cleaner. If you need a job, go find one. You can change it later when you find what you want, but my money is not going to someone because they feel work is beneath them.

 

[LigerBomb]

Once again though, can anyone tell me why no one should have a billion dollars? You guys keep saying that there is no need, but, honestly, is it jealousy or extreme liberalism? You say no one should have a billion dollars, I say everyone should, and that's where we differ.

As stated above, for me personally it's neither jealousy nor liberalism. In fact in certain areas I'm rather classically conservative. But I digress. At the heart of the matter, it's not about the possession of a billion dollars, as a number or amount per se, but rather conceptually at its current value $1,000,000,000 is more than adequate to ensure for anyone's survival and prosperity of self, present and future.

I would liken it to nutrition: Lets say for example, you need 2,000 kilo calories a day, yet to satisfy a pleasure of tastes, and other impulses you consume 10,000 kcal. The excess is wasted almost to a detriment. Were a second individual starving and via a redistribution of kcal you were asked to give up even a mere 2,000 kcal, that would still leave you with your base needs met and an excess 6,000 kcal for your own enjoyment, pleasure, and potential future securities. At some point it should be enough. Now were society able to afford for you in down times via a RoW there should be less fear to instill the need to horde the excess.

BTW were we all to have 1 billion dollars, yet the distribution of wealth still be in the same ratios, all that would happen is the value of the dollar would plummet and a gallon of milk would simply cost $200,000 instead of $2. It's not about a specific numerical value but rather a means to provide a basic level of safety and security for the populace in perpetuity

In this country, everyone has the opportunity to be a billionaire. If you don't believe me, then you must not have noticed that we have a black President.

Come now, with his immigrant black Kenyan father and white American mother, his upbringing in Hawaii and Indonesia, and his Ivy League education (both undergrad at Columbia and post graduate at Harvard Law) with its connotations of social elitism and selectivity, Obama's life experiences differ markedly from those of most African-Americans. Race aside, his life isn't even typical of most white Americans. And he himself is hardly a billionaire. In fact he's barely a millionaire a few times over, the bulk of his wealth coming from sales of his books.

Now interestingly, you seem to equate the opportunity to be the President, a rarity to be sure, to the opportunity to be a billionaire. As can be seen from the previous talk of obama's life and road to the White House it is clear that it is exceptionally rare to become President (43 in 220 yrs) or even have the opportunities to be a viable contender. Like wise in achieving a billion dollars don't imply that opportunity, as you call it, is the equivalent to equal possibility/probability.

If someone can't feed themselves, it's not because Bill Gates has all the money

Agreed. There is no causal link, however the fact remains that said money could foster a solution (via a RoW) to the problem. At this point I would like to mention that I am well aware of Gates' humanitarian efforts.

it's because someone lets pride get in the way of necessity. I read an article about laid of contractors in Florida bitching that the Super Bowl is coming there to celebrate extravagance. These guy complain about not having jobs, but then say they will be holding down the couch with a bottle of rum. The guy said he can't feed his family, yet he can drink? I should redistribute my wealth to this asshole? The Super Bowl, and events surrounding it, need ushers, people to clean, etc., yet these guys won't do that, as it would hinder their unemployment checks.

I'll not say that the individual in your example is a perfect display of the failing system, or that he is an example of those whose deserve to be propped up in times of need. Obviously he comes off like a jerk. I will agree that he sounds lazy and ignorant. However I must say that I can understand the last bit about unemployment benefits. Were the menial jobs you recommend he takes limit, reduce, or cause denial of his benefits thereby actually lowering his income I could understand his potential hesitance. Perhaps if he had a network of support, a better education, and marketable skills for potential proper long term employment, he wouldn't feel the need to stay on unemployment.

Laziness is more to blame than greed. The world needs ditch diggers, Walmart needs greeters, and my toilet isn't getting any cleaner. If you need a job, go find one. You can change it later when you find what you want,

Were these supposed professions able to sustain an individual economically and perhaps not be so ridiculed by the population perhaps more people would indeed participate in these areas of opportunity.

but my money is not going to someone because they feel work is beneath them.

Nor should it. But you must acknowledge that there are plenty of people who are unemployed or underemployed who are honest, hard working individuals who are capable but need assistance from those who have an abundance either directly, or via systems that promote a social equity for those in need.

 

[FromTheSouth]

As stated above, for me personally it's neither jealousy nor liberalism. In fact in certain areas I'm rather classically conservative. But I digress. At the heart of the matter, it's not about the possession of a billion dollars, as a number or amount per se, but rather conceptually at its current value $1,000,000,000 is more than adequate to ensure for anyone's survival and prosperity of self, present and future.

True, a billion is enough to sustain a few generations of your family. And I agree that the debate isn't about the number one billion, but actually about the mass accrument of wealth, but I do disagree with some of your rhetoric. I also feel like Sly, as every post in here is a point by point analysis of something, but in this case the concepts are broad enough to where it can come off as clean and not annoying to readers.

I would liken it to nutrition: Lets say for example, you need 2,000 kilo calories a day, yet to satisfy a pleasure of tastes, and other impulses you consume 10,000 kcal. The excess is wasted almost to a detriment. Were a second individual starving and via a redistribution of kcal you were asked to give up even a mere 2,000 kcal, that would still leave you with your base needs met and an excess 6,000 kcal for your own enjoyment, pleasure, and potential future securities. At some point it should be enough. Now were society able to afford for you in down times via a RoW there should be less fear to instill the need to horde the excess.

But here is the issue. The guy with 10,000 cal. or more appropriately, the wealthy are already paying 40% of their salary in federal income taxes, up to 20% in state taxes, plus 40% on gains on investment, and even 15% on interest gained. How much more wealth should be redistributed?

BTW were we all to have 1 billion dollars, yet the distribution of wealth still be in the same ratios, all that would happen is the value of the dollar would plummet and a gallon of milk would simply cost $200,000 instead of $2. It's not about a specific numerical value but rather a means to provide a basic level of safety and security for the populace in perpetuity

True. I agree that the specific number is not the debate, but what we must realize is that while all men are created equal, what they do with the opportunities they are presented in life is what differentiates us. I'm sorry, I will maintain that the US provides everyone with a chance to succeed. I'm sorry that some people have to work harder, but it is the case, and these people need to raise themselves up instead of taking everyone down with them.

Come now, with his immigrant black Kenyan father and white American mother, his upbringing in Hawaii and Indonesia, and his Ivy League education (both undergrad at Columbia and post graduate at Harvard Law) with its connotations of social elitism and selectivity, Obama's life experiences differ markedly from those of most African-Americans. Race aside, his life isn't even typical of most white Americans. And he himself is hardly a billionaire. In fact he's barely a millionaire a few times over, the bulk of his wealth coming from sales of his books.

Watch the news. Every black person interviewed between the first week of November and the last week of January spoke of how they can tell their kids they can be anything without feeling as if they are lying. I didn't make this up. And Obama did not start at an Ivy. He started at Occidental College in Los Angeles. He took that opportunity and let that propel him into the Ivy, into politcs, the Senate, etc.

Now interestingly, you seem to equate the opportunity to be the President, a rarity to be sure, to the opportunity to be a billionaire. As can be seen from the previous talk of obama's life and road to the White House it is clear that it is exceptionally rare to become President (43 in 220 yrs) or even have the opportunities to be a viable contender. Like wise in achieving a billion dollars don't imply that opportunity, as you call it, is the equivalent to equal possibility/probability.

My example was that if an oppressed minority can enter the most elite of clubs in this country, then there is no excuse for anyone else who wants to attain knowledge, wealth, glory, etc. All anyone needs to do is work. There are many grants, social programs, and other governmental aids already available to students, inventors, and artists. So much wealth is already redistributed. President Obama's plans to redistribute more wealth from the top earners is unfair. These people went to extra school. These people put in extra time. These people learned as much as they could about their subject of interest, and worked hard to apply that knowledge. This is not a group of privileged kids, for the most part. Gates, Dell, Cuban, Allen, and Jobs all tell stories of heartache and sacrifice along the way to achieving their status and wealth. Why, exactly, should these people have to let the government take more of their money that is already taken?

Agreed. There is no causal link, however the fact remains that said money could foster a solution (via a RoW) to the problem. At this point I would like to mention that I am well aware of Gates' humanitarian efforts.
I'll not say that the individual in your example is a perfect display of the failing system, or that he is an example of those whose deserve to be propped up in times of need. Obviously he comes off like a jerk. I will agree that he sounds lazy and ignorant. However I must say that I can understand the last bit about unemployment benefits. Were the menial jobs you recommend he takes limit, reduce, or cause denial of his benefits thereby actually lowering his income I could understand his potential hesitance. Perhaps if he had a network of support, a better education, and marketable skills for potential proper long term employment, he wouldn't feel the need to stay on unemployment.

Once again, pride gets in the way of immediate concern. People are choosing to take unemployment instead of gaining employment. People refuse to do jobs they view as beneath them. I personally can't understand how people can continue to show up for government checks when they could work for their money. I'm sorry you got laid off, but it's time to go to work. I have too much pride to waddle into an office and say that I can't find work and need help. Unemployment was meant to be a safeguard against people losing their homes in hard times, not as a conduit for booze money while someone chooses not to work.

Were these supposed professions able to sustain an individual economically and perhaps not be so ridiculed by the population perhaps more people would indeed participate in these areas of opportunity.

I would rather be ridiculed and fed instead of being prideful and hungry. Once again we return to the troubles of the mommy society. Instead of letting us scrape our knees to learn a lesson, the government wants to keep us inside gluing macaroni to construction paper.

Nor should it. But you must acknowledge that there are plenty of people who are unemployed or underemployed who are honest, hard working individuals who are capable but need assistance from those who have an abundance either directly, or via systems that promote a social equity for those in need.

Yes. These people do exist. And if our system wasn't so easily abused, we would have more than enough money to fix these problems. The problem is that people like the electricians in Tampa would rather bitch about life sucks instead of trying to make it better. I think that the government should offer vocational training, I think that the government should maintain a database of employers looking for health. I also feel that eliminating redundant jobs and programs with the government is the way to pay for these programs. I also think that sending half a billion dollars to Africa is a waste when we have so many here without homes, food, or shelter. We need to fix our problems before fixing theirs.

All in all, I just feel that more than enough wealth is already distributed, and asking for more is a way of promoting the mommy society instead of letting people help themselves.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

But here's the problem. Why should no one have over $1 billion in their bank account? Because it's not fair? Fucking tough. I agree with Shock 100%. People who have invented something integral to society deserve to reap those rewards.

Why would you need a billion dollars in the bank? This is the question I am asking. This has nothing to do with reaping rewards comparable to the value of your innovation. This has to do with the issue of whether or not you need more money than the amount that is necessary to live a comfortable life. With a hundred million dollars, I could easily live a nice life and make sure that my children and my grandchildren could live comfortably as well (I could probably do this with 25 million dollars). Having this tenfold would really serve no purpose, as it could be used for much better causes, whether these causes be charitable or not.

Our parents and grandparents came to this country on the promise that anyone could strike it rich. If I own land that has enough oil to sustain society for ten years, then why should I not get $100 billion? I can tell you why I should. Because if I didn't get what I felt was appropriate, I would horde the oil. I would wait until it was more of a necessity, then I would look for trillions. I would hamstring the world, and it would be completely within my rights.

Hoarding oil may or may not work to your advantage, but my thoughts on this are irrelevant to my belief that having a billion dollars in the bank is unethical.

If I invent a technology that eliminates the need for oil, the same scenario applies. Why would I sell it to anyone for $1 million when it's worth $1 trillion? I wouldn't, and once again, I would wait until it showed more utility to sicety and ask for $100 trillion.

Again, I think the issues of worth and necessity are being conflated. This has nothing to do with low-balling someone for an innovation. This has to do with what the innovator will do with his earnings once he has been rightly compensated for his effort and genius.

I am telling you now, that if people are taxed at a rate which makes their product or service less valuable, they will hold on to it until they get the value tehy feel they deserve. It will wind up costing more.

This is assuming they get a flat fee for their product or service and that they are not paid in yearly installments/royalties.

Taking money away from people will cause the haves to horde money, products, services, etc. and will lead to have nots to have less, and that, sir, is the true danger of redistributing wealth.

I did not grow up rich. I am not rich now. But what's mine is mine, and I will be damned if anyone is going to take it away from me.

Again, I am not so sure of this. If money was the only factor involved in innovation, then this might be true. But, even if you were not rewarded the full value of your invention's/innovation's worth (although you would still be handsomely rewarded for your invention/innovation), would there not be other factors in deciding whether or not to sell it (e.g., recognition and honor)?

 

[FromTheSouth]

How is it unethical to have a billion dollars? I don't understand how anyone thinks that there should be a cap on wealth. This is completely unthinable to me.

this country was founded by people who wanted to leave the harsh tariffs and taxes levied in Europe. We have INALIENABLE rights to life, liberty, and property. These things cannot be taken away from us.

I personally do not care what someone does with their money. It is none of my business. It is not the function of government to walk up to someone and say you have enough money, I'm taking it from you to give it to someone who deserves it more. This is fucking stupid.

I can't believe people argue on the side of of taking money from someone and giving it to others. People are taxed on everything now. And to decide that even though someone has paid these taxes their whole life, the government should now walk up and tell them that they are taking more in order to pay for things that are needed. First of all, the government takes away plenty to pay for everything now. Stop paying six people to proofread every public pamphlet that comes out. Stop paying five secretaries to work at national monuments. Stop hiring fifteen level of bureaucrats at every government program. Eliminate government programs that don't produce. Stop funding the arts with government money. These are realistic solutions to these problems.

Digle, why is it any of your business what one does with the profits of innovation? Why do you deserve any of that money? Why does the government deserve any more than they already take? Why is it unethical to have billions of dollars?

These questions cannot be answered. People come to this country for opportunity. Now we should tell them not to do TOO well, because that is unethical? That is unbelievable to me.

I don't care if Bill Gates decides to buy TV time to show American people how much cocaine one billion dollars can by and then shows us orphans doing every line of it. It's his fucking money, and no one has the right to tell him what to do with it. He is promised that in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and all the rules and definitions of capitalism. If you people want to live in a socialist nation, move to one. Don't try turning mine into one.