Back to the issue of fairness vs redistribution. We're talking about taking wealth from someone who has earned it and giving it to someone else who has not. I see no moral or ethical way to justify that as "fair". One could say that a compassionate society should support those who cannot do support themselves, but the extent to which that is done and also the methods used are open to question. One could also make the argument that temporary support should be given to those who could support themselves but cannot due to misfortune or injury; most people are not adverse to giving a helping hand to get somebody else back and their feet and becoming productive again. Key word being temporary, when temporary stretches into year after year, at some point the aid has to stop or people become dependent and lose the motivation to provide for themselves.
But redistributing money to someone for the sole reason that they have less than someone else is not 'fair'. It is tantamount to theft, we should be looking at ways to improve opportunities for the lower income people so they can boost themselves up. I don't think most rich people mind a progressive tax rate, most are already very philanthropic with their wealth anyway. But when those tax rates get too high, at some point tax avoidance measures come into play and that is counter productive to the economic health of the country. The higher the tax rate, the more avoidance you get, and eventually they sell out, pack up, and leave. These people are very helpful to starting or expanding businesses, which grows the economy and creates jobs. That is why raising taxes on them when your economy is not strong is such a poor idea; you want them to be acively tring to make mney by investing inour economy rather than looking for ways to preserve what they already have.
In terms of economics, Wiseacre, I don't see redistribution (I prefer to call it, "distribution") as an option. If the working, productive persons in a society are not adequately compensated, then they will not spend money. If no money is spent, demand disappears; if demand disappears, there is no driver for production . . . and the economy collapses.
Let's start with the definition of "adequate". I presume you are talking about the so-called 'living wage', IOW paying somebody more than what the market will bear so they can live in a style to which they want to become accustomed. Sounds great, but that ain't realistic, nobody is going to pay an employee $20/hr when there are 10 other people who will do the same work just as well for $10. I do wish that particular foolish notion would disappear, it simply cannot and will not happen. As for the demand issue, I'll get to that later; it is IMHO a misconstrued as the living wage nonsense.
That is what is happening today. For some reason (I'll let you politicos hammer that out), too much wealth is concentrating in the non-producing top 1%--and far, far too little is being accrued (through labor compensation) to the working masses.
You say non-producing, I say otherwise. Capital and management are as necessary to production as anything else. And I have yet to hear of any economic idea that promotes full economic growth that does not benefit those at the top over those at the bottom.
This clearly cannot continue.
I have no problem with wealth, but the sort of divide that exists in the U.S. today is absolutely absurd. No society in history with this kind of concentrated and hoarded wealth has endured.
How many societies have endured for a long time where wealth wasn't concentrated? I am unaware of any gov't that redistributed income and remained prosperous. I would submit to you that prior to the industrial revolution, everyone outside of the nobility/royalty were living in abject poverty. I don't think you can say the same for today's lower income Americans.
This is insanity, and it's even crazier that so many Americans insist that it's okay.
