CDZ redistribution of wealth

[rightwinger]

Adjusting the tax code in reaction to an uneven existing distribution of wealth makes sense

 

[dblack]

'Redistribution', particularly as originally proposed in this thread, is not necessarily something reserved to government to do. Charities redistribute wealth, for example. The 'rich' could intelligently defuse the catastrophic consequences of excess by diffusing a portion of that excess.

I'm pretty sure the discussion of redistribution of wealth, especially on a political board, is centered on doing it with government. But I totally agree with you. We 'redistribute' wealth, according to our values, every time we spend our money.

 

[dblack]

Adjusting the tax code in reaction to an uneven existing distribution of wealth makes sense

It depends on why it was distributed unevenly in the first place. If it was distributed as the aggregate will of people freely spending their money as they see fit, attempting to counter this is thwarting the will of the people. If, on the other hand, the wealth was distributed through theft or malfeasance, someone should be prosecuted for the crime. In either case, playing games with the tax code is the wrong thing to do.

 

[rightwinger]

Is it only called socialism when government helps people, if so, what is it called when government helps private industry?

When government helps private industry it is called.....Patriotism

 

[rightwinger]

Adjusting the tax code in reaction to an uneven existing distribution of wealth makes sense

It depends on why it was distributed unevenly in the first place. If it was distributed as the aggregate will of people freely spending their money as they see fit, attempting to counter this is thwarting the will of the people. If, on the other hand, the wealth was distributed through theft or malfeasance, someone should be prosecuted for the crime. In either case, playing games with the tax code is the wrong thing to do.

The wealthy know better than to engage in theft. They don't need to

The Golden Rule states....He who has the gold makes the rules

The wealthy in our country get to construct the tax code in a way that enables them to gather and maintain more wealth. Rewriting that code is not a redistribution of wealth

 

[danielpalos]

Merely making a profit is not wealth creation. Wealth is not money, though money may be considered part of wealth. Education, heritage and other 'intangibles' are also wealth. Creating national parks could be considered 'redistribution', as it makes available to all what might otherwise be limited or reserved.

'Citizen's' examples express this realization that simply putting liquidity where it gains more liquidity does not make the market place function to the advantage of all.

The right only has a problem with "income redistribution" when they can't bailout the wealthiest first and then let it "trickle down".

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Instead of "redistribution of wealth", I prefer to think of it as "deciding who should pay for things".

I see no reason why those who have benefited the most by the very systems that helped produce it should not contribute more towards the general fund than those who have done so much of the actual work that created it.

We were once a middle class country and took pride in it. We now have extreme income inequality and the very people who champion the economic schemes that act to concentrate wealth at the very top are often the ones most disadvantaged by it.

 

[rightwinger]

By the way, the quotation was from Lincoln.

Which quotation?

 

[there4eyeM]

By the way, the quotation was from Lincoln.

Which quotation?

This one from back on page 5:

It is not needed nor fitting here that a general argument should be made in favor of popular institutions, but there is one point, with its connections, not so hackneyed as most others, to which I ask a brief attention. It is the effort to place capital on an equal footing with, if not above, labor in the structure of government. It is assumed that labor is available only in connection with capital; that nobody labors unless somebody else, owning capital, somehow by the use of it induces him to labor. This assumed, it is next considered whether it is best that capital shall hire laborers, and thus induce them to work by their own consent, or buy them and drive them to it without their consent. Having proceeded so far, it is naturally concluded that all laborers are either hired laborers or what we call slaves. And further, it is assumed that whoever is once a hired laborer is fixed in that condition for life.

Now there is no such relation between capital and labor as assumed, nor is there any such thing as a free man being fixed for life in the condition of a hired laborer. Both these assumptions are false, and all inferences from them are groundless.

Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights. Nor is it denied that there is, and probably always will be, a relation between labor and capital producing mutual benefits. The error is in assuming that the whole labor of community exists within that relation. A few men own capital, and that few avoid labor themselves, and with their capital hire or buy another few to labor for them. A large majority belong to neither class--neither work for others nor have others working for them. In most of the Southern States a majority of the whole people of all colors are neither slaves nor masters, while in the Northern a large majority are neither hirers nor hired. Men, with their families--wives, sons, and daughters--work for themselves on their farms, in their houses, and in their shops, taking the whole product to themselves, and asking no favors of capital on the one hand nor of hired laborers or slaves on the other. It is not forgotten that a considerable number of persons mingle their own labor with capital; that is, they labor with their own hands and also buy or hire others to labor for them; but this is only a mixed and not a distinct class. No principle stated is disturbed by the existence of this mixed class.

Again, as has already been said, there is not of necessity any such thing as the free hired laborer being fixed to that condition for life. Many independent men everywhere in these States a few years back in their lives were hired laborers. The prudent, penniless beginner in the world labors for wages awhile, saves a surplus with which to buy tools or land for himself, then labors on his own account another while, and at length hires another new beginner to help him. This is the just and generous and prosperous system which opens the way to all, gives hope to all, and consequent energy and progress and improvement of condition to all. No men living are more worthy to be trusted than those who toil up from poverty; none less inclined to take or touch aught which they have not honestly earned. Let them beware of surrendering a political power which they already possess, and which if surrendered will surely be used to close the door of advancement against such as they and to fix new disabilities and burdens upon them till all of liberty shall be lost.

 

[RKMBrown]

Is redistribution of wealth, aided by social institutions, from the top down wrong, but from up from the lower strata to the top OK?

Neither is ok.

 

[RKMBrown]

Adjusting the tax code in reaction to an uneven existing distribution of wealth makes sense

No it does not. The common sense reaction to the power wielded by uneven distribution of wealth should be to break up any monopolies that have caused said distribution.

Unfortunately, the democrats are using the tax code to stop people from building wealth, thus protecting these monopolies that hold the distribution of wealth. The democrat party is CAUSING this uneven distribution to protect the very people who own the majority of assets. And the democrat voters are "clueless."

 

[rightwinger]

Adjusting the tax code in reaction to an uneven existing distribution of wealth makes sense

No it does not. The common sense reaction to the power wielded by uneven distribution of wealth should be to break up any monopolies that have caused said distribution.

Unfortunately, the democrats are using the tax code to stop people from building wealth, thus protecting these monopolies that hold the distribution of wealth. The democrat party is CAUSING this uneven distribution to protect the very people who own the majority of assets. And the democrat voters are "clueless."

Doesn't seem like anyone is being stopped from building or maintaining wealth.....unless you are in the middle class

 

[Friends]

Is redistribution of wealth, aided by social institutions, from the top down wrong, but from up from the lower strata to the top OK?

Questions of right and wrong cannot be answered empirically. One either feels a certain way, or one does not.

It would be more fruitful to consider the results of income redistribution. No one I am aware of is advocating that everyone receive the same paycheck. Nevertheless, in the United States, when wealth and income have accumulated at the top, there has usually been less economic growth and job creation than when the government made some efforts at redistribution from the top downward.

 

[danielpalos]

An oil pump reduces friction in an engine and could by analogy, do the same for the "engine" of our economy. Oil as capital is accumulated in the oil pan and redistributed to "labor" to continue producing "power" through a well lubricated engine.

 

[RKMBrown]

Adjusting the tax code in reaction to an uneven existing distribution of wealth makes sense

No it does not. The common sense reaction to the power wielded by uneven distribution of wealth should be to break up any monopolies that have caused said distribution.

Unfortunately, the democrats are using the tax code to stop people from building wealth, thus protecting these monopolies that hold the distribution of wealth. The democrat party is CAUSING this uneven distribution to protect the very people who own the majority of assets. And the democrat voters are "clueless."

Doesn't seem like anyone is being stopped from building or maintaining wealth.....unless you are in the middle class

Which... was my point

 

[HenryBHough]

Were all wealth were to be redistributed daily to achieve equality how many days would it take until there was no wealth to redistribute?

 

[rightwinger]

Were all wealth were to be redistributed daily to achieve equality how many days would it take until there was no wealth to redistribute?

At the current level? Forever

 

[HenryBHough]

Forever?

Give me one penny today, double that tomorrow, double that the next day.

Take a penny from me today, take two tomorrow, four the next day, etc.

Now I'm sure Democrat Doctrine says the two premises are not the same but, then, mathematics never were the party's strong point.

 

[rightwinger]

Forever?

Give me one penny today, double that tomorrow, double that the next day.

Take a penny from me today, take two tomorrow, four the next day, etc.

Now I'm sure Democrat Doctrine says the two premises are not the same but, then, mathematics never were the party's strong point.

Well lets see....

40% of Americans have 2 tenths of a percent of our wealth. If we double their current existing wealth every day, it would take 200 days before they had 40% of the wealth

Mind boggling

 

[HenryBHough]

Well lets see....

40% of Americans have 2 tenths of a percent of our wealth. If we double their current existing wealth every day, it would take 200 days before they had 40% of the wealth

Mind boggling

Why stop at less than a year?

I think those of us who count higher than 20 without removing shoes and socks already know but please continue!