The Flawed Concept of "Wealth Redistribution"

[rightwinger]

The super wealthy 1% of this country who control 34% of the available wealth do not get that way by taking risks. They get that way by making sure there are no risks.
The golden rule of "He who has the gold, makes the rules" ensures that the super wealthy just get richer

Your comment here is soooooo poorly informed and doesn't merit a response, so I will simply acknowledge it. You obviously have read none of the rebuttal already presented for it, or you blew it off as too inconvenient to your point of view perhaps?

I take that as your inability to refute what I posted

 

[sparky]

one would think that, after the bank bailouts here, the notion of a two tiered society would be indisputable

 

[editec]

One would think...

But one would only think that if the players are not ideologues.

When one is saddled with ideological POVs then evidence that refutes your ideology is either ignored, or refuted as not being true.

You can almost always tell when you're speaking to an idealogue because the first thing they typically do isn't to tell you what they believe, it's to misinform you about what their opposition beleives.

Generally they do that by introducing those false beliefs they are ascribing to their oppositions as givens.

For example as we saw in this thread.

The premise of "wealth redistribution" is that it is unfair when one person has more wealth than another. However, this whole assessment of fairness is based on a faulty principle. That principle is called "zero sum economics", and it is a flawed assumption.

Now it is easy to argue against a STRAW MAN argument.

Which is exactly what the above "given" really is.

 

[skookerasbil]

First of all, Kudos for wanting to discuss this issue at all.

The premise of "wealth redistribution" is that it is unfair when one person has more wealth than another. However, this whole assessment of fairness is based on a faulty principle. That principle is called "zero sum economics", and it is a flawed assumption.

No, actually, the argument for wealth distribution it is NOT based on a zero sum economic theory.

It never was, either.

It's actually based on the reconition of the power of compounding interest, and the theory that in a capitalist society, those with excess capital have such an advantage over those without it, that the game is wildly to their advantage, and that advantage compounds over time, too.

Which, just in case you have yet to notice it, it does.

There may be truly great arguments to refute wealth redistribution ( I can certainly think of a few good aruments not to redistrubute wealth) but the ZERO SUM ECONOMIC canard you're attmpting to foist onto the proponents of wealth distribution isn't one of them.

Your whole argument is, therefore, based on a false premise about what the rationale for wealth distribution really is.

This is what happens when you only listen or study one side of an argument, ya know.

You can't really argue with your opponents UNLESS YOU REALLY KNOW WHAT THEY BELIEVE.

meh...................


theres pursuing economic policies that create wealth and then there is Europe


Wealth redistribution policies for the gay............Europe tried it for 40 years FTL.........and they are now trying desperately to reverse course. They realize that when government interferes with the market, everything gets fcukked up..........just like it has for the past 40 years in the US.

 

[The Rabbi]

Your comment here is soooooo poorly informed and doesn't merit a response, so I will simply acknowledge it. You obviously have read none of the rebuttal already presented for it, or you blew it off as too inconvenient to your point of view perhaps?

I take that as your inability to refute what I posted

It doesn't need refutation. It needs to be taken out back and spanked.
I have already asked you for proof of what you assert. Your response was pitiful, a collection of generalized slogans.
Really, aren't you embarrassed at all?

 

[Immanuel]

It is interesting how many people think that Robin Hood robbed the rich... he actually robbed the government like you said.
haha.. no that hideous thing isn't me... it is my wife.

Well, actually, since the rich were the government in the days of Robin Hood, he robbed the rich not the government.

Immie

No, he was taking tax revenues from the government--tax revenues which he believed were unlawfully or unethically taken from the poor. Robin Hood gave no impression that he had any problem with or disdain for the rich. After all, in the most common accounts of the legend, did he not covet the hand of the fair maid, Marion, highborn lady of the court, probable at least distant royalty? She was certainly no poor peasant girl.

However, my point was that the rich (nobility) was the government at that time. Those "taxes" did not go to the government for the benefit of the people. Those "taxes" went to the rich landowners to sit in their coffers and collect dust, so in effect he was stilling from the rich, not the government.

Immie

 

[The Rabbi]

Well, actually, since the rich were the government in the days of Robin Hood, he robbed the rich not the government.

Immie

No, he was taking tax revenues from the government--tax revenues which he believed were unlawfully or unethically taken from the poor. Robin Hood gave no impression that he had any problem with or disdain for the rich. After all, in the most common accounts of the legend, did he not covet the hand of the fair maid, Marion, highborn lady of the court, probable at least distant royalty? She was certainly no poor peasant girl.

However, my point was that the rich (nobility) was the government at that time. Those "taxes" did not go to the government for the benefit of the people. Those "taxes" went to the rich landowners to sit in their coffers and collect dust, so in effect he was stilling from the rich, not the government.

Immie

With that logic, since "the government" is really the people then all taxes are merely paid back to the people. So we should be happy to be pay more and more since we are just paying ourselves.

 

[Immanuel]

No, he was taking tax revenues from the government--tax revenues which he believed were unlawfully or unethically taken from the poor. Robin Hood gave no impression that he had any problem with or disdain for the rich. After all, in the most common accounts of the legend, did he not covet the hand of the fair maid, Marion, highborn lady of the court, probable at least distant royalty? She was certainly no poor peasant girl.

However, my point was that the rich (nobility) was the government at that time. Those "taxes" did not go to the government for the benefit of the people. Those "taxes" went to the rich landowners to sit in their coffers and collect dust, so in effect he was stilling from the rich, not the government.

Immie

With that logic, since "the government" is really the people then all taxes are merely paid back to the people. So we should be happy to be pay more and more since we are just paying ourselves.

Well, if you believe that even our government is "a government of the people, for the people and by the people", I suppose you would be right.

I simply said that in the days of the mythical Robin Hood, they did not have a government as we do now. They had nobles that ruled the fiefdoms and collected taxes... and collected taxes... and collected taxes. The nobility was the government. They were the rich and it was they from whom Robin Hood took from to give to the poor.

Claiming that he only took from the government is the same as saying he only stole from the rich.

In today's world, you would be right IF our government had not been infiltrated by corruption to the extent it has. We could pay taxes and know that our taxes were going to serve the people of this country rather than the elite in Washington and those who put them there.

Immie

 

[antagon]

But 'barely getting by' for most folks is a strong incentive to improve one's lot ...

the primary function of taxes is to raise government revenue. other rational considerations are taken to reduce the impact on the population and the economy. progressive tax systems function with this in mind.

your idea that taxes that hold those near my 15k poverty line will incentivize them to raise out of their situation is not fitting with reality. its not comfortable down there, and these people already have a clear idea that wealthy folks have it better off. all that is going on in that model, is that a middle class person, albeit lower-middle class is not able to save or invest in anything to change his plight. upward mobility and consumption volume in the economy is strangled by focusing the burden of taxes disproportionately to the detriment of the middle-class.

progressive taxes, and other efforts to redistribute wealth are capitalist objectives aimed at re-introducing liquidity to the sweet-spot in the economy where profits are made and money is multiplied. this to avoid hoarding whereby the economy is suffocated by its top-heavy, comparatively stagnant wealth distribution.

have a look. find an economy which exports cheap goods or factors to the US, and you will see this setup. find a modern economy targeted by such nations and you will see progressive tax.

the incentive concept is a grade-school look at what nations are faced with, and uses logic to suit. first you'd say high taxes will incentivize the poor, then you'd say they'll punish the rich. whatever fits, huh?

theres plenty of room to strike conservative application of a progressive tax, but flat taxes simply dont take the health of the economy under consideration AT ALL.

 

[boedicca]

We have been having a redistribution of wealth for the last 30 years as the top 5% of the population has benefited from relaxed tax and business regulations and the standard of living for the remaining 95% of the population has diminished

I agree that the redistribution of wealth has been bad for the country

That's it in a nutshell.

The Reagan and Bush tax cuts for the rich, and the derivative bubble have stolen the wealth of ordinary Americans and given it to the rich.

It's a disgrace.

You've raised an interesting issue - but are incorrect on the cause.

The Cronyism of Big Government, Mega Corps, and Mega Banks has pretty much looted the entire middle class wealth created since WWII via:

- The massive growth of government in absolute and relative to GDP terms
- The debt used to funnel that growth
- Inflation
- Taxpayers absorbing the risk while the Cronies privatize the profits

Tax cuts actually enables some on the middle class to save money - they did not transfer middle class wealth to the cronies. The one aspect where you are right is the destruction of much of that wealth due to the gyrations in the market (again fueled by the Crony system).

If you want to protect the ability of the working and middle classes to save and accrue wealth, the only solution is to severely limit government so that the other two are not able to look the taxpayers.

 

[Foxfyre]

Well, actually, since the rich were the government in the days of Robin Hood, he robbed the rich not the government.

Immie

No, he was taking tax revenues from the government--tax revenues which he believed were unlawfully or unethically taken from the poor. Robin Hood gave no impression that he had any problem with or disdain for the rich. After all, in the most common accounts of the legend, did he not covet the hand of the fair maid, Marion, highborn lady of the court, probable at least distant royalty? She was certainly no poor peasant girl.

However, my point was that the rich (nobility) was the government at that time. Those "taxes" did not go to the government for the benefit of the people. Those "taxes" went to the rich landowners to sit in their coffers and collect dust, so in effect he was stilling from the rich, not the government.

Immie

I understand your point and there may be some historical validity. But the twist you are putting on it is that the emphasis was class envy and/or resentment within a belief that the rich only get rich and idle on the backs of the poor. In any of the more well known Robin Hood legends or the more obscure ones, I can recall no phrase or instance in which that was the case or the motive for Robin Hood's ummmm occupation. He was going after only those collecting debilitating and unethical taxes.

Your version is that Robin Hood was an early Marxist, attacking or taking the wealth from the rich to help the poor. I don't see that in the Robin Hood lore. His mission was to punish and correct government injustice. A motive to get even with the rich simply isn't there.

 

[boedicca]

In some of the versions of the Robin Hood legend, he is Sir Robin of Locksley, a landed nobleman. His wealth is seized by the Prince John Regime - so he does have a bit of a personal ax to grind.

In any case, it's folklore (somewhat mythic). How we each interpret that myth is rather telling of our outlook

 

[Immanuel]

I understand your point and there may be some historical validity. But the twist you are putting on it is that the emphasis was class envy and/or resentment within a belief that the rich only get rich and idle on the backs of the poor. In any of the more well known Robin Hood legends or the more obscure ones, I can recall no phrase or instance in which that was the case or the motive for Robin Hood's ummmm occupation. He was going after only those collecting debilitating and unethical taxes.

Your version is that Robin Hood was an early Marxist, attacking or taking the wealth from the rich to help the poor. I don't see that in the Robin Hood lore. His mission was to punish and correct government injustice. A motive to get even with the rich simply isn't there.

I don't see that as "My" version of Robin Hood at all. What I see is that the nobility was corrupt in those times and that when Robin Hood took from the government, he was really taking from from the rich nobility, not out of some hatred for the rich nobility but rather for the benefit of the poor or more accurately, the over-taxed. I will admit that I am no expert on Robin Hood, but my understanding is he didn't care about punishing the government.

His motivation as I have always understood it was that the people were over-taxed and unjustly so. Thus returning unjust taxes to the people.

But, once again, the only point I made was that in those times, the rich were the government. That is all I said. I don't think I even mentioned his motivation until this post.

Immie

 

[Foxfyre]

Your comment here is soooooo poorly informed and doesn't merit a response, so I will simply acknowledge it. You obviously have read none of the rebuttal already presented for it, or you blew it off as too inconvenient to your point of view perhaps?

I take that as your inability to refute what I posted

Well you can take it as you please, but I think most informed people would take it as a statement that what you have posted has already been refuted.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

So what? Nobody is arguing that people shouldn't be rewarded. What I'm arguing is that someone shouldn't be discriminated against because of what they do. That is what you are arguing. You are arguing that certain professions are more worthy than others. Why not tax doctors less than waiters then? I think we can all agree that doctors are way more important than waiters, and even though they make much more money, we should tax doctors less because they are more important than waiters.

That's your logic.

Incorrect again. First of all let's get this straightened out....the income tax system is a progressive tax structure and capital gains is a flat tax....payment of income taxes and payment of capital gains taxes are covered by 2 entirely different statutes unrelated to each other. Certain professions are more worthy of what? I never said that...that's an ASSUMPTION on your part. Your whole analogy between the doctor and the waitress is flawed because doctor's do not pay taxes on their salary based on the capital gains tax structure. They pay taxes based on their AGI just like the waitress. If the Doctor is able to lower his tax burden based on the laws on the books good for him!!!! If the waitress can't then perhaps she should educate herself and start looking for a better paying job. If they have capital gains?...they pay taxes based on when they realized those capital gains. If you have someone living strictly off of capiatl gains then good for them...they risked their money and deserve to be rewarded. You sound like your saying it isn't fair ..."Well if they get this break why can't I...make them pay at my rate because I don't have a damn dime to risk like they do so it's not fair."....that's your logic(?)

It's not my job to work my ass off to become successful only to have the government take it all away and give it to people who have no motivation to better themselves and want to wallow in mediocrity.

 

[Foxfyre]

I understand your point and there may be some historical validity. But the twist you are putting on it is that the emphasis was class envy and/or resentment within a belief that the rich only get rich and idle on the backs of the poor. In any of the more well known Robin Hood legends or the more obscure ones, I can recall no phrase or instance in which that was the case or the motive for Robin Hood's ummmm occupation. He was going after only those collecting debilitating and unethical taxes.

Your version is that Robin Hood was an early Marxist, attacking or taking the wealth from the rich to help the poor. I don't see that in the Robin Hood lore. His mission was to punish and correct government injustice. A motive to get even with the rich simply isn't there.

I don't see that as "My" version of Robin Hood at all. What I see is that the nobility was corrupt in those times and that when Robin Hood took from the government, he was really taking from from the rich nobility, not out of some hatred for the rich nobility but rather for the benefit of the poor or more accurately, the over-taxed. I will admit that I am no expert on Robin Hood, but my understanding is he didn't care about punishing the government.

His motivation as I have always understood it was that the people were over-taxed and unjustly so. Thus returning unjust taxes to the people.

But, once again, the only point I made was that in those times, the rich were the government. That is all I said. I don't think I even mentioned his motivation until this post.

Immie

Okay, I may have misunderstood your intent. The flaw in your argument, however, is that the rich were the government. Those in government may have been rich, but it does not follow that the 'rich were the government'. The King of England, head of the government, appointed the Sheriff of Nottingham and most likely his assistant, mentioned in some of the legends, Sir Guy of Gisbourne. In the "Prince of Thieves" the Sheriff became so powerful he had ambitions for the throne itself.

So again the Robin Hood legends are not a criticism of the rich, but rather criticism of a government that oppresses the people.

 

[Immanuel]

I understand your point and there may be some historical validity. But the twist you are putting on it is that the emphasis was class envy and/or resentment within a belief that the rich only get rich and idle on the backs of the poor. In any of the more well known Robin Hood legends or the more obscure ones, I can recall no phrase or instance in which that was the case or the motive for Robin Hood's ummmm occupation. He was going after only those collecting debilitating and unethical taxes.

Your version is that Robin Hood was an early Marxist, attacking or taking the wealth from the rich to help the poor. I don't see that in the Robin Hood lore. His mission was to punish and correct government injustice. A motive to get even with the rich simply isn't there.

I don't see that as "My" version of Robin Hood at all. What I see is that the nobility was corrupt in those times and that when Robin Hood took from the government, he was really taking from from the rich nobility, not out of some hatred for the rich nobility but rather for the benefit of the poor or more accurately, the over-taxed. I will admit that I am no expert on Robin Hood, but my understanding is he didn't care about punishing the government.

His motivation as I have always understood it was that the people were over-taxed and unjustly so. Thus returning unjust taxes to the people.

But, once again, the only point I made was that in those times, the rich were the government. That is all I said. I don't think I even mentioned his motivation until this post.

Immie

Okay, I may have misunderstood your intent. The flaw in your argument, however, is that the rich were the government. Those in government may have been rich, but it does not follow that the 'rich were the government'. The King of England, head of the government, appointed the Sheriff of Nottingham and most likely his assistant, mentioned in some of the legends, Sir Guy of Gisbourne. In the "Prince of Thieves" the Sheriff became so powerful he had ambitions for the throne itself.

So again the Robin Hood legends are not a criticism of the rich, but rather criticism of a government that oppresses the people.

My intent was only to say that those in the government, the nobility, were rich, thus when it was said that Robin Hood stole from the government, not the rich, he was, in fact, stealing from the rich.

Those taxes were not collected FOR the government. They were collected to make the nobility rich(er).

At least that is how I understood the story.

Immie

 

[antagon]

I mean, how DARE they earn more

if the rate is flat and 'fair' the burden is bottom-heavy and oppressive.

Yes.. .18 was a complete pull out the ass number.. I personally have to much to do at home and work to calculate the proper amount for the bloated US budget

i could understand that. i threw 20 pts out for the sake of ez math.

And yes.. I am a no deductions 'kook', even though I can personally benefit from deductions for mortgage interest on 2 properties, 2 kids, charitable deductions, etc

im inclined to accuse you of undermining the 'evil rich' with that one... nodeductionskookitis is an advanced phase of the flat, emotion-driven tax code you suggest is viable.

where the economy benefits from capital investment (to include human capital), you dont think that taxes should be laid in a way that incetivizes the same? while you make it out that wealthy people make the world go round, and the poorest grind it to a halt, the very mechanism you abhor incentivizes the wealthy continue to invest in the creation of their wealth (spinning the world), rather than indulge in profit-taking and hoarding (grinding halt). as it is, when i had it easy in '06, i acquired most of my business capital. part of that was that i had a good year with the last kick of the boom and all, but a crucial part was anticipation of the following april's ass-kicking.

the leftist government, as you call it, doesnt want to punish rich folks, but the tax system incentivizes businesspeople to invest in the future of their US businesses. because of deductions, the leftists only really aim to heavily tax businessfolks who use the vibrance of the economy as a get rich quick scheme, and dont reinvest. you mentioned charitable deductions, which is not really my thing, but what a superb way of giving a thumbs up to these important economic inputs, too.

i make the association between kooks and removing deductions from the tax code because deductions are what makes the code really work as an economic tool. it is the best way that the government offer the choice to the public, whether taxes work as income taxes or as consumption taxes, hence burdening only the last dollar, not every last dollar like you advocate.

The progressive system is what is oppressive... with the 'no payers' playing the game with no stakes, while being able to cash out.... I am not into oppressive or whatever else you wish to call it... And I certainly am not into selective equality as experienced in our current bastard of a government led by the leftists

can you see from my A,B,C, scenario that a flat tax rate also offers 'selective equality', however, with a different selector?

'no payers' are the pawns in the game; their role is limited to some crude (but cumulatively important) roles which are subsidized by wealth distribution, in fact.

without these roles being played, like it is in countries which fail to tax progressively and (wait for it...) fail to actively put liquidity into the lower and lower-middle market, the back row of pieces struggle to play the game. they often leave their backwards countries and come to the US or other countries who have got it right.

dave.. i would like to hear why anyone would want to eliminate deduction, or any real economics behind flat tax schemes.

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't see that as "My" version of Robin Hood at all. What I see is that the nobility was corrupt in those times and that when Robin Hood took from the government, he was really taking from from the rich nobility, not out of some hatred for the rich nobility but rather for the benefit of the poor or more accurately, the over-taxed. I will admit that I am no expert on Robin Hood, but my understanding is he didn't care about punishing the government.

His motivation as I have always understood it was that the people were over-taxed and unjustly so. Thus returning unjust taxes to the people.

But, once again, the only point I made was that in those times, the rich were the government. That is all I said. I don't think I even mentioned his motivation until this post.

Immie

Okay, I may have misunderstood your intent. The flaw in your argument, however, is that the rich were the government. Those in government may have been rich, but it does not follow that the 'rich were the government'. The King of England, head of the government, appointed the Sheriff of Nottingham and most likely his assistant, mentioned in some of the legends, Sir Guy of Gisbourne. In the "Prince of Thieves" the Sheriff became so powerful he had ambitions for the throne itself.

So again the Robin Hood legends are not a criticism of the rich, but rather criticism of a government that oppresses the people.

My intent was only to say that those in the government, the nobility, were rich, thus when it was said that Robin Hood stole from the government, not the rich, he was, in fact, stealing from the rich.

Those taxes were not collected FOR the government. They were collected to make the nobility rich(er).

At least that is how I understood the story.

Immie

I guess we just understood it differently. I am unaware that the taxes were given to the rich, but then I may not have read all the Robin Hood legends and lore either. That certainly was not the case when the kings and queens of England were on the throne.

 

[Immanuel]

Okay, I may have misunderstood your intent. The flaw in your argument, however, is that the rich were the government. Those in government may have been rich, but it does not follow that the 'rich were the government'. The King of England, head of the government, appointed the Sheriff of Nottingham and most likely his assistant, mentioned in some of the legends, Sir Guy of Gisbourne. In the "Prince of Thieves" the Sheriff became so powerful he had ambitions for the throne itself.

So again the Robin Hood legends are not a criticism of the rich, but rather criticism of a government that oppresses the people.

My intent was only to say that those in the government, the nobility, were rich, thus when it was said that Robin Hood stole from the government, not the rich, he was, in fact, stealing from the rich.

Those taxes were not collected FOR the government. They were collected to make the nobility rich(er).

At least that is how I understood the story.

Immie

I guess we just understood it differently. I am unaware that the taxes were given to the rich, but then I may not have read all the Robin Hood legends and lore either. That certainly was not the case when the kings and queens of England were on the throne.

The Robin Hood legend

So Robin took to the greenwood of Sherwood Forest, making a living by stealing from rich travellers and distributing the loot among the poor of the area. In the process he gained a band of followers and a spouse, Maid Marian. Despite the best efforts of the evil Sherrif of Nottingham he avoided capture until the return of King Richard from the Crusades brought about a full pardon and the restoration of Robin's lands. In other versions he dies at the hands of a kinswoman, the abbess of Kirklees Priory. That, in a very small nutshell, is the legend, but is there truth behind it?

See!!!!

I'm not the only one that says he stole from the rich.

Hehe, semantics? Yeah, we're arguing over semantics here.

Immie