• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Entrepreneurship vs Redistribution

... I do not agree that a U.S. court should address land title claims made "legal" by a long dead king of England. England may have "stolen" the land but the U.S. then took that land from England. Would you advocate refunding the taxes paid on that land and awarding the current land holder compensation for any improvements made to that land over the last 300+ years?

The current owner of the land may have a clear title to it and hold it lawfully. That's not the issue. This is a question of morality. Is their possession of the land just. Someone took the land from its rightful owner, native Americans, and profited from it. Presumably the benefit of that seizure has been passed along to all subsequent holders. Taking the land or a portion of its value is no more unjust than making the possessor of stolen personal property return it to its rightful owner.
 
The current owner of the land may have a clear title to it and hold it lawfully. That's not the issue. This is a question of morality. Is their possession of the land just. Someone took the land from its rightful owner, native Americans, and profited from it. Presumably the benefit of that seizure has been passed along to all subsequent holders. Taking the land or a portion of its value is no more unjust than making the possessor of stolen personal property return it to its rightful owner.

No ... The native Americans didn't "Own" the land, it was the commons, you cannot "own" the commons, no one can.
 
The current owner of the land may have a clear title to it and hold it lawfully. That's not the issue. This is a question of morality. Is their possession of the land just. Someone took the land from its rightful owner, native Americans, and profited from it. Presumably the benefit of that seizure has been passed along to all subsequent holders. Taking the land or a portion of its value is no more unjust than making the possessor of stolen personal property return it to its rightful owner.

Nonsense. The sentence and any associated restitution requires the due process of law, not simply some hopey, changey feelings of guilt for perceived past wrongs. That is like spanking the kid for the sins of their great, great, .... grandfather's king or taking away a diamond ring from someone because it was once stolen 320 years ago. I suppose that you live, work and travel only on land bought for a fair market price from native Americans and can show proof of that.

That is as loony as those favoring reparations for slavery and racial discrimination being taken from one that had lost realtives fighting for the union forces and being given to a recent immigrant from Jamaica that just graduated from college. Even in a class action lawsuit you must first come up with a clear definition of just who are in the defendent and victim classes; all descendents of native American's vs. everyone else in the U.S., or all black people now in the U.S. vs. everyone else now in the U.S., is not going to work out well.
 
It certainly isn't ALL luck, but in completely denying the existence of luck, you are falling straight into the Fundamental Attribution Error.

Humans are not perfect and theoretical models based on that assumption are flawed. Nobody is omniscient about market conditions and many agents intentionally muddle and obfuscate knowledge to maximize their own gains. Also, expecting everyone (or even a strong minority of people) to expend every last cognitive resource maximizing their economic output is unrealistic.

Designing an economic system around those that live to work runs roughshod over those that only work to live. The former should certainly be remunerated for their dedication, but they are driven more by their need to be productive than the possibility of endless accumulation. Establishing diminishing returns on their accumulation will not thwart their impetus, but it will prevent their accumulation from causing the economy to sputter and stall out.

I definitely agree that the latter should be discouraged from burdening society with their lack of productivity. But my view is that wealth pooling at the top and stagnating the velocity of money is a much larger problem than the freeloaders.

(I have AdBlock filtering out all Youtube videos, so sorry for not even mentioning its content)

That is one of the most cogent and salient statements I've ever read. Well done.
 
You're smarter than that...That or you're insulting our intelligence.
Either I corrected Northern lights error with the appropriate facts, or I did not. Which are you claiming? You appear to be making some ad hom, and then proceeding to detail some entirely irrelevant claims of your own. I may address them, but I need to be clear if you first accepted my correct of his misinformation, with the clearly understandable CBO documentation on the fact that the top 1% pays the highest federal tax rate, and the highest share of the overall federal tax burden.
 
EDIT: Mach's reply above is to this post, which I did not change content, just the attachment.


False, Please revise your premise and all subsequent conclusions.
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43373-AverageTaxRates_screen.pdf
Top 1% pays, progressively, the very highest share of the overall tax burden compared to all other percentiles.
Top 1% pays, progressively, the very highest average federal tax rate.


You're smarter than that...That or you're insulting our intelligence.

First, when you make approx 20% of all the income and own 42% of all the wealth, it's not at all surprising that the top 1% pay the greatest share in absolute dollars. Especially when you consider the income distribution.

Second, the top 1% earn 20% of their "income" as investments which are taxed at the capital gains rate of 15%. It's even more absurd when looking at the top .1% (315,000 people) who earned 50% of their income in capital gains and the Forbes 400, who make about the same 50% of wage earners (1.25 trillion approx), make 60% of their income in capital gains. Nice loophole that allows people to quote statistics about income taxes without lying, just by omitting the whole story.

The reality is that trillions of dollars are taxed at 15%, 20% lower than they would if they were treated as income. Let's not even bring up payroll taxes.

The tax rate curve doesn't look all that progressive to me.....An indication of how money can change policy. I'm certain I don't need another infographic showing how the top tax rate for the 1% has declined since 1960.

Capture.jpg
 
Last edited:
Either I corrected Northern lights error with the appropriate facts, or I did not. Which are you claiming? You appear to be making some ad hom, and then proceeding to detail some entirely irrelevant claims of your own. I may address them, but I need to be clear if you first accepted my correct of his misinformation, with the clearly understandable CBO documentation on the fact that the top 1% pays the highest federal tax rate, and the highest share of the overall federal tax burden.

I was pointing out that there appears to be a distinction between "income" and "capital gains", which for all intents and purposes are the same thing (at least in the real world) in that they are both ways to earn money. When one is taxed at a lower rate, the wealthy forgo some of their "income" and are paid in investments like stock, so that they don't have to pay any taxes until they decide to cash them in. In reality its even more insidious. If I'm a billionaire and I want to spend 100 million dollars, do I cash in 100 million in stock and pay the taxes, or do I borrow the money at an insanely low rate using my unrealized stock as collateral?

The trick is that you get to make semantic claims about "income" that have little to do with the reality of the way that the top 1% can use their money and exploit loopholes in the system.

So again, while technically you are correct, your claim is incomplete and meaningless, unless you're pushing an agenda....
 
After accumulating a certain level of wealth accumulating more is just keeping score. The accumulator is doing it more because of his competitive instinct that to serve the needs of the community. Taking some of his wealth won't diminish his efforts because it's just part of the game.

Exactly. Once someone has "enough" (whatever that might be for a particular person), then all the additional wealth that they accumulate is essentially just "points" in the financial game of life. If we reduced the number of points, or the rate that they could accumulate points, then we aren't really doing anyone harm, as long as everyone's ability to obtain those points is retarded equally (and yes, I fully expect someone to make a crack about me using the word "retarded").
 
It certainly diminishes the efforts of those given "help" in the form of income redistribution. If you require $X, in order to live comfortably, does it then really matter what portion of $X is earned by your own efforts verses simply handed to you because you are deemed to "need" or "deserve" it?

Thats true, but redistribution doesn't have to happen by directly "giving" anyone anything. It could be done by just having a more progressive income tax rate, or a higher minimum wage.
 
Exactly. Once someone has "enough" (whatever that might be for a particular person), then all the additional wealth that they accumulate is essentially just "points" in the financial game of life. If we reduced the number of points, or the rate that they could accumulate points, then we aren't really doing anyone harm, as long as everyone's ability to obtain those points is retarded equally (and yes, I fully expect someone to make a crack about me using the word "retarded").

Those "points" create jobs. Why would I ever open an additional business if you were just going to take all my profits away and leave me paying for all my losses?
 
Thats true, but redistribution doesn't have to happen by directly "giving" anyone anything. It could be done by just having a more progressive income tax rate, or a higher minimum wage.

Many low income folks already pay ZERO federal income tax, you can't get more progressive than that without giving them something. Minimum wage hikes would have to be huge to beat what is now offered - remember that social "safety net" benefits are based on household size not working skills. To "earn" enough to get to 150% of the federal poverty level for 3 person household ($29,295) would require over $14/hour for a single full-time worker. Much of that added "earnings" would add nothing to their current household budget, since it would be offset by reductions in social "safety net" benefits.
 
Those "points" create jobs. Why would I ever open an additional business if you were just going to take all my profits away and leave me paying for all my losses?

Thats why we shouldn't have a 100% income tax. I'm not advocating for that, it would result in the ruination of our economy. Thats why I said "if we reduce...the rate that they could accumulate points". I never said that we should have an absolute maximum wage or wealth level.

We need just enough redistributive mechanisms that all income classes increase in income/wealth at about the same rate. A rising tide lifts all boats at the same rate.

Otherwise, eventually, all wealth would accumulate in the hands of the few, and our economy would end.

If we could find that amount of redistribution, I believe it would result in the best possible economy, with the vast majority of people, rich or poor, living the best standard of living that our technology would allow.
 
Thats why we shouldn't have a 100% income tax. I'm not advocating for that, it would result in the ruination of our economy. Thats why I said "if we reduce...the rate that they could accumulate points". I never said that we should have an absolute maximum wage or wealth level.

We need just enough redistributive mechanisms that all income classes increase in income/wealth at about the same rate. A rising tide lifts all boats at the same rate.

Otherwise, eventually, all wealth would accumulate in the hands of the few, and our economy would end.

If we could find that amount of redistribution, I believe it would result in the best possible economy, with the vast majority of people, rich or poor, living the best standard of living that our technology would allow.

Still won't work. Whether or not I choose to going shopping at Walmart or on Wall Street will affect my wealth accumulation more so than any government policy can. In addition, giving everybody twice as much money will make no difference because the poor will still be relatively poor. You would be be removing the incentive for people to make better decisions.
 
Many low income folks already pay ZERO federal income tax, you can't get more progressive than that without giving them something. Minimum wage hikes would have to be huge to beat what is now offered - remember that social "safety net" benefits are based on household size not working skills. To "earn" enough to get to 150% of the federal poverty level for 3 person household ($29,295) would require over $14/hour for a single full-time worker. Much of that added "earnings" would add nothing to their current household budget, since it would be offset by reductions in social "safety net" benefits.

Sure.

To create an economy where we could end means tested welfare, and in which all income brackets increased in income at about the same rate, we would have to look at increasing minimum wage AND making the income tax system more progressive.

I doubt it would have to be too drastic. Our rich are only increasing their wealth and income a tiny bit faster each year than minimum wage workers. We are actually fairly close to what I advocate now.

We probably don't even need to increase the top tax bracket rate, we just need to tax all income the same, by taxing inheritance and capital gains exactly like income from work. At the same time, we could increase the standard deduction, and/or reduce the lower few income tax rates. I'd even be an advocate for a two tier tax system, with a 2% income tax rate for all income less than $400k (so that everyone pays something), and the current 38.6% rate for all income over that amount.

And since minimum wage has been the equivilent of over $10.50/hr in the past, without causing significant unemployment or inflation, I suspect that we could return to at least that rate today (phased in over several years). In theory, we should be able to increase minimum wage to at least as high as it is in Australia or the scandinavian countries or Germany.
 
Still won't work. Whether or not I choose to going shopping at Walmart or on Wall Street will affect my wealth accumulation more so than any government policy can. In addition, giving everybody twice as much money will make no difference because the poor will still be relatively poor. You would be be removing the incentive for people to make better decisions.

I didn't say that we should "give" everyone twice as much money. I said that we should pay lower end workers more.

We have already established that increases in the minimum wage have NEVER in history caused inflation to the same degree (%) as the min wage increase.

And I guess that you don't think that my suggestions on taxation would "work" either.
 
I didn't say that we should "give" everyone twice as much money. I said that we should pay lower end workers more.

We have already established that increases in the minimum wage have NEVER in history caused inflation to the same degree (%) as the min wage increase.

And I guess that you don't think that my suggestions on taxation would "work" either.

The only thing increasing minimum wage does is freeze out more entry level people the would like to enter the workforce...
 
The only thing increasing minimum wage does is freeze out more entry level people the would like to enter the workforce...

Do you have any actual historic facts which prove that?
 
You should look at teen unemployment levels...

How does that prove anything?

We don't have enough demand to have enough jobs for everyone. Paying people less money certainly isn't going to increase demand.
 
I didn't say that we should "give" everyone twice as much money. I said that we should pay lower end workers more.

We have already established that increases in the minimum wage have NEVER in history caused inflation to the same degree (%) as the min wage increase.

And I guess that you don't think that my suggestions on taxation would "work" either.

Doesn't change that people will not accumulate wealth. We need to have consumption taxes, not more income taxes. It encourages people to invest by punishing them for consuming. It will lead to more thoughtful purchases over time. People say we shouldn't do it when the economy is bad because it costs jobs and we shouldn't do it when the economy is good because it will derail the economy. It is the only rational way we are going to close the wealth gap unless we completely overhaul the pay system to away from an hour's cash for an hour's work.
 
Doesn't change that people will not accumulate wealth.

Of course it doesn't change that. I wouldn't want people not to be able to accumulate wealth. What it does do is to allow people to accumulate wealth at a more even rate (between income classes).
We need to have consumption taxes, not more income taxes. It encourages people to invest by punishing them for consuming.

So you want more unemployment and worse business profits? Why in the world would you want to punish people for consuming? And if you reduce demand like that, then what are people going to invest in? If businesses aren't expanding, they don't need more investment. And how are all of these people that you put out of work by reducing demand people going to invest?

The consumption tax is just another right wing scheme to shift the tax burden from the rich to the middle class. You admit it yourself, you want to "punish" the poor and middle class for living a decent standard of living.

Now think about what you are saying, let's say that today everyone decided to live like misers so that they could save and invest. Don't you realize that tomorrow they would HAVE to live like misers because half of them would become unemployed? If people ain't buying the goods and services that you produce, then your out of a job.

Wouldn't make sense to purchase stocks when business profits are collapsing due to reduced demand, and companies would stop issuing bonds if they don't need to expand. Unemployed people generally can't get bank loans, so the banks not gonna want to pay you any interest any more. Whatcha gonna invest in? Gold?

It will lead to more thoughtful purchases over time. People say we shouldn't do it when the economy is bad because it costs jobs and we shouldn't do it when the economy is good because it will derail the economy. It is the only rational way we are going to close the wealth gap unless we completely overhaul the pay system to away from an hour's cash for an hour's work.


Sorry, but unemployed people and people with low wages don't have any money to save or invest thus they certainly can't close the income gap.
 
People being held responsible, or in this case, having real goods taken from them, for what was done under 'proceeds of war' would open a Pandora's box of unimaginable proportions. We're not talking one or two generations here.

Justice is justice. If we don't do everything necessary to remediate the injustice, those who would commit injustice can be successful by making it overwhelming. We can't say fixing it is too hard because that would create an advantage for the offender.
 
Justice is justice. If we don't do everything necessary to remediate the injustice, those who would commit injustice can be successful by making it overwhelming. We can't say fixing it is too hard because that would create an advantage for the offender.

So, with that thinking, you believe that reparations should be made to descendants of slaves, even though they themselves were not enslaved, nor were the people who would be paying for those reparations slave owners.

Do you not see a problem with that thinking?
 
Back
Top Bottom