CDZ redistribution of wealth

[danielpalos]

That is what the social power to provide for the general welfare is for.

 

[Andylusion]

Now that the above has departed, just in case anyone else incapable of looking it up has a doubt about what 'wealth' means or thinks that Yellowstone National Park is worthless:

1.General: Tangible or intangible thing that makes a person, family, or group better off.
2.Accounting: Value of an entity's accumulated tangible cash, land, building, etc.) and intangible (copyright, patents, trademarks, etc.) saleable possessions minus liabilities.
3.Economics: Total of all assets of an economic unit that generate current income or have the potential to generate future income. It includes natural resources and human capital but generally excludes money and securities because the represent only claims to wealth. Two common types of economic wealth are (1) Monetary wealth: anything that can be bought and sold, for which there is market and hence a price. The market price, however, reflects only the commodity price and not necessarily its value. For example, water is essential for human existence but is usually very cheap. (2) Non-monetary wealth: things which depend on scarce resources, and for which there is demand, but are not bought and sold in a market and hence have no price. Examples are education, health, and defense.

So you can actually cite the truth, while claiming the opposite of it. You just made my argument, while denying my argument. That's really sad for you.

 

[fmdog44]

Churchill said it best, "Socialism lasts until it runs out of the peoples money".

 

[there4eyeM]

Redistribution of excessive wealth does not necessarily have anything to do with 'socialism'. Social consciousness, perhaps, wisdom surely, humanity absolutely, prudence of course.

 

[danielpalos]

Churchill said it best, "Socialism lasts until it runs out of the peoples money".

Only Bad Capitalists can't make more money, with an official Mint at their disposal.

You must spend money to make money
Titus Maccius Plautus

 

[Andylusion]

Redistribution of excessive wealth does not necessarily have anything to do with 'socialism'. Social consciousness, perhaps, wisdom surely, humanity absolutely, prudence of course.

That's a personal choice, and I have no problem with that.

I help charity myself, and I do so by choice.

Everyone has social consciousness.

The problem is when you try and enforce 'social consciousness' with government coercion.

But there is no such thing as excessive wealth. To people in most of Africa, what the lower class has in America is "excessive wealth". It's all subjective.

Who granted you are me, or anyone else, the right to deem what others have as excessive? That's just an argument by greedy politicians, and their greedy supporters, to steal from those who have earned, saved, and invested wisely.

 

[there4eyeM]

Is what Nazi Germany wanted 'excessive'?

 

[Andylusion]

Is what Nazi Germany wanted 'excessive'?

Does not follow. Explain your question.

 

[there4eyeM]

Most people would agree that the Nazis wanted too much. Of course, 'too much' is subjective, as is every word and concept, originating as they do with humans. Saying Hitlerism wanted too much isn't an argument from any other position than human.

 

[Andylusion]

Most people would agree that the Nazis wanted too much. Of course, 'too much' is subjective, as is every word and concept, originating as they do with humans. Saying Hitlerism wanted too much isn't an argument from any other position than human.

You seem to be comparing personal economic advancement, to a authoritarian political movement.

Apples and Cucumbers. Not similar.

If you are looking for world domination, yeah, you are wanting too much.

I haven't been told what to do by Warren Buffet lately, and I would likely laugh at him if he came and 'ordered' me to wash his car.

Nor has Warren Buffet increased his wealth by stealing my car. That would not work for me either.

Buffet has increased his wealth by his own wise choices. Same way I have increased my own wealth. Who are we to determine what is excessive?

Again, *YOU* are the excessively wealth person, relative to about 80% of the planet. How would you react to people in Africa telling you that you have too much, and should give most of it away to them?

 

[fmdog44]

Redistribution of excessive wealth does not necessarily have anything to do with 'socialism'. Social consciousness, perhaps, wisdom surely, humanity absolutely, prudence of course.

You and Maxine should do lunch. Having lived in a socialist state the distribution of $$$ is the backbone of it and socialism evaporates without ripping the wages from their workers. Take a few days off and go to beautiful Canada and ask how fond they are of giving the majority of their wages to their govt.

 

[usfan]

I'm new to this thread, but the major flaw of redistribution is it violates the basic rights of man. Any collective action (govt) is 'redistribution' as it compels the collective to contribute to the cause, whatever it might be. It could be roads or bridges, or it could be to raise an army to defend the nation from foreign invaders. Most govts throughout history used the force of taxation to pay for their 'services'.

But the modern usage of redistribution is for social justice, or wealth equality. It is taking from those who have & giving some of it to those who have not, after the govt agencies skim off what they need to force compliance.

I see 2 fundamental 'rights' of man that are pretty consistent in every culture.
1. The right to life. Murder is wrong & will be punished, in every society.
2. The right to property. Theft is wrong.

But if enough people can use the power of govt as an instrument of plunder, they can take from others & use if for their own benefit. This is a constant misuse of govt, throughout the ages, & usually triggers revolution, as the working producers of the nation tire of being fleeced by the hordes of moochers & looters. But as long as the producers can support the mooching classes, it continues.

 

[there4eyeM]

But, again, wouldn't voluntary redistribution by the enormously rich not only be sensible on human terms, but on survival terms (for them) as well? Wouldn't it be intelligent for them to take 'preëmptive action?

 

[HenryBHough]

When the fruits of one's labour are averaged with those of others it doesn't take long for those who labour to expend less effort.

The result is true equality with everyone having nothing.

But, by God, they ARE equal!

 

[Andylusion]

But, again, wouldn't voluntary redistribution by the enormously rich not only be sensible on human terms, but on survival terms (for them) as well? Wouldn't it be intelligent for them to take 'preëmptive action?

I would suggest no. Everything that I've seen thus far, indicates that redistributing wealthy by any means or methodology, causes only harm, and virtually no good whatsoever.

Remember MC Hammer? He made millions on millions. He engaged in direct redistribution in the clearest form. All of his friends, his buddies, all his closest palls, he gave them nearly everything he had, and when he was done, he was broke, and they left him.

I know the stories of individuals who had tons of money, and gave it all away to those around them, and eventually they were impoverished and poor.

Meanwhile all the people they "helped" ended up impoverished and poor too. Just like 80% of those who win a million dollars or more, from the lottery, end up broke in 10 years, and 1/3rd of them actually declare bankruptcy.

The flaw in your logic, is that it assumes wealth is static, and that if you give wealth from one person to the next, the next person will now have wealth. But that isn't real life.

In real life, wealth is created and destroyed. If you have an individual that destroys wealth by their lifestyle, and you give them a ton of wealth, they'll destroy it. The reason wealthy people are wealthy, is because they learn how to create wealth, and not destroy it.

In fact, giving people wealth, who only know how to destroy wealth, actually harms them. Because in the act of being given stuff, you allow them to avoid changing the way they live. Thus they never grow up, and learn how to create wealth.

I learned this first hand. I had a co-worker that was getting kicked out of their apartment. So I offered them to rent my spare bedroom, at a steep discount. I thought I was helping them.

Instead, without utility bills, with a low rent payment, by me allowing them to live extremely cheaply, they became more irresponsible than ever before. They spent every single penny they earned, without exception. They were broke constantly, even though they had lower bills than ever before.

And lastly, look what it's got them. Look at how the rich and wealthy are treated, given all they do. Every job in American, is created by the rich. All the wealth in American, is created by the rich. The poorest people in our country, have a better standard of living, than 80% of the planet. And then you look at Charity. The rich and wealthy, have given more money to charity to help the poor, than ever before in human history.

And look at the response? They should give more. No matter how many billions they given.... more. Like a crack addict, there's no appreciation for what they have done, only an arrogant bitter demand for more.

When you give and give and give, and all you get back is bitterness at not giving more, my answer is no. You get nothing.

So no. The answer to your question is, "no". The rich should not redistribute anything. Zero.

 

[neither]

Because they are special!

 

[my2¢]

I believe it's wrong and Obama talking about the growing wedge between rich and poor sounds hollow while the Federal Reserve is propping up the stock market.

 

[there4eyeM]

But, again, wouldn't voluntary redistribution by the enormously rich not only be sensible on human terms, but on survival terms (for them) as well? Wouldn't it be intelligent for them to take 'preëmptive action?

I would suggest no. Everything that I've seen thus far, indicates that redistributing wealthy by any means or methodology, causes only harm, and virtually no good whatsoever.

Remember MC Hammer? He made millions on millions. He engaged in direct redistribution in the clearest form. All of his friends, his buddies, all his closest palls, he gave them nearly everything he had, and when he was done, he was broke, and they left him.

I know the stories of individuals who had tons of money, and gave it all away to those around them, and eventually they were impoverished and poor.

Meanwhile all the people they "helped" ended up impoverished and poor too. Just like 80% of those who win a million dollars or more, from the lottery, end up broke in 10 years, and 1/3rd of them actually declare bankruptcy.

The flaw in your logic, is that it assumes wealth is static, and that if you give wealth from one person to the next, the next person will now have wealth. But that isn't real life.

In real life, wealth is created and destroyed. If you have an individual that destroys wealth by their lifestyle, and you give them a ton of wealth, they'll destroy it. The reason wealthy people are wealthy, is because they learn how to create wealth, and not destroy it.

In fact, giving people wealth, who only know how to destroy wealth, actually harms them. Because in the act of being given stuff, you allow them to avoid changing the way they live. Thus they never grow up, and learn how to create wealth.

I learned this first hand. I had a co-worker that was getting kicked out of their apartment. So I offered them to rent my spare bedroom, at a steep discount. I thought I was helping them.

Instead, without utility bills, with a low rent payment, by me allowing them to live extremely cheaply, they became more irresponsible than ever before. They spent every single penny they earned, without exception. They were broke constantly, even though they had lower bills than ever before.

And lastly, look what it's got them. Look at how the rich and wealthy are treated, given all they do. Every job in American, is created by the rich. All the wealth in American, is created by the rich. The poorest people in our country, have a better standard of living, than 80% of the planet. And then you look at Charity. The rich and wealthy, have given more money to charity to help the poor, than ever before in human history.

And look at the response? They should give more. No matter how many billions they given.... more. Like a crack addict, there's no appreciation for what they have done, only an arrogant bitter demand for more.

When you give and give and give, and all you get back is bitterness at not giving more, my answer is no. You get nothing.

So no. The answer to your question is, "no". The rich should not redistribute anything. Zero.

Points well taken. At the same time, the emphasis in the post seems to be purely on money. That is merely one form of wealth, not the only one. For example, giving the poor an education is redistributing wealth, and creating it, without giving them money as such. Opening parks, building libraries (or their equivalent in the computer age) is similar. Hospitals, day care and many other facilities spread and increase real wealth without handing out dollars.

 

[Andylusion]

But, again, wouldn't voluntary redistribution by the enormously rich not only be sensible on human terms, but on survival terms (for them) as well? Wouldn't it be intelligent for them to take 'preëmptive action?

I would suggest no. Everything that I've seen thus far, indicates that redistributing wealthy by any means or methodology, causes only harm, and virtually no good whatsoever.

Remember MC Hammer? He made millions on millions. He engaged in direct redistribution in the clearest form. All of his friends, his buddies, all his closest palls, he gave them nearly everything he had, and when he was done, he was broke, and they left him.

I know the stories of individuals who had tons of money, and gave it all away to those around them, and eventually they were impoverished and poor.

Meanwhile all the people they "helped" ended up impoverished and poor too. Just like 80% of those who win a million dollars or more, from the lottery, end up broke in 10 years, and 1/3rd of them actually declare bankruptcy.

The flaw in your logic, is that it assumes wealth is static, and that if you give wealth from one person to the next, the next person will now have wealth. But that isn't real life.

In real life, wealth is created and destroyed. If you have an individual that destroys wealth by their lifestyle, and you give them a ton of wealth, they'll destroy it. The reason wealthy people are wealthy, is because they learn how to create wealth, and not destroy it.

In fact, giving people wealth, who only know how to destroy wealth, actually harms them. Because in the act of being given stuff, you allow them to avoid changing the way they live. Thus they never grow up, and learn how to create wealth.

I learned this first hand. I had a co-worker that was getting kicked out of their apartment. So I offered them to rent my spare bedroom, at a steep discount. I thought I was helping them.

Instead, without utility bills, with a low rent payment, by me allowing them to live extremely cheaply, they became more irresponsible than ever before. They spent every single penny they earned, without exception. They were broke constantly, even though they had lower bills than ever before.

And lastly, look what it's got them. Look at how the rich and wealthy are treated, given all they do. Every job in American, is created by the rich. All the wealth in American, is created by the rich. The poorest people in our country, have a better standard of living, than 80% of the planet. And then you look at Charity. The rich and wealthy, have given more money to charity to help the poor, than ever before in human history.

And look at the response? They should give more. No matter how many billions they given.... more. Like a crack addict, there's no appreciation for what they have done, only an arrogant bitter demand for more.

When you give and give and give, and all you get back is bitterness at not giving more, my answer is no. You get nothing.

So no. The answer to your question is, "no". The rich should not redistribute anything. Zero.

Points well taken. At the same time, the emphasis in the post seems to be purely on money. That is merely one form of wealth, not the only one. For example, giving the poor an education is redistributing wealth, and creating it, without giving them money as such. Opening parks, building libraries (or their equivalent in the computer age) is similar. Hospitals, day care and many other facilities spread and increase real wealth without handing out dollars.

It wasn't purely on money. That's why I said 'wealth'. If you give people a car, when they do not have the skills or attitude to handle having a car, they will destroy that car, and then need another.

If you give them a home, such as "The projects" built in the 1950s, and by the 1960s were demolished, same thing. People who do not know, or refuse to take care of what they have, will simply destroy what they are given, and then demand more.

You remove the ability of insurance companies to charge extra, or deny service for, pre-existing conditions, and the people have less reason to change their life style than ever before.

We had a girl working with us back in 2009, and she was 100lbs over weight, and drank beer more than the next 10 guys put together. She was a walking talking health-care-bomb. She was in and out of the hospital a dozen times. She would joke about how she had the nurse at the hospital on her speed dial.

We talked to her about... maybe cutting back on the beer... maybe shedding a few pounds. She didn't care. She loved to drink, loved to eat, and she was going to drink and eat as much as she wanted, and was very prideful about it.

You think we should tell rich people to give her free-health care? Why? That's a waste of money. You are not helping her, the poor, or anyone.

The only thing that causes people to change for the better, is paying a price for bad choices.

Again, the rich already, even to this day, donate hundreds of millions to health care charity all the time. Every year. And what have they gotten back in response? Joy at their generosity? Or hatred that they haven't given even more? I think they should not be expected to give anything. Especially to the ungrateful.

 

[LOki]

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

The involuntary redistribution of wealth, via the initiation of coercive force, whether top-down or bottom-up, is always wrong for obvious reasons.