The Morality of Wealth Redistribution

[rabbitcaebannog]

When you vote for the party that promises to expand welfare, provide you free healthcare or some other financial gift if they're elected, you're trying to vote yourself into other peoples' pockets.

Healthcare is hardly free. The concept of our universal healthcare plan is to have everyone pay toward it rather than having people show up at an ER and expect someone else to pick up the bill.

 

[Thrilla]

No. Im looking at it for what wealth redistribution actually is.

all money spend on anything is "wealth redistribution" .. congratulations... it's now a meaningless term to discuss.

 

[Papa bull]

Healthcare is hardly free. The concept of our universal healthcare plan is to have everyone pay toward it rather than having people show up at an ER and expect someone else to pick up the bill.

The point stands. If you vote for someone because they're promising you stuff that they'll make other people pay for, you're trying to vote yourself into other peoples' pockets. And as long as politicians can promise that kind of graft, there will be a lot of people with poor character following them around for handouts.

 

[Henrin]

Healthcare is hardly free. The concept of our universal healthcare plan is to have everyone pay toward it rather than having people show up at an ER and expect someone else to pick up the bill.

So basically the concept is to provide a fix for bad law. :doh

 

[TheDemSocialist]

all money spend on anything is "wealth redistribution" .. congratulations... it's now a meaningless term to discuss.

I thought it was meaningless to begin with. Which was my whole point.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

The point stands. If you vote for someone because they're promising you stuff that they'll make other people pay for, you're trying to vote yourself into other peoples' pockets. And as long as politicians can promise that kind of graft, there will be a lot of people with poor character following them around for handouts.

I highly doubt that the majority of people who vote for Democrats do so because they want welfare. Just a hunch. Maybe someone should do a poll:lol:

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

So basically the concept is to provide a fix for bad law. :doh

The concept of universal healthcare is to have a system where nearly everyone participates, mostly because everyone will more than likely need to access healthcare in some form.

 

[Visbek]

You regurgitate a few Marxist points and present yourself as superior.

I'm not a Marxist, nor does such a ridiculous misreading of my statement change a single fact of what I've uttered.

Child labor was the norm.

So it's OK, because it was the norm? Good to know.

Indians gave as good as they got.

So you justify the wide-spread theft of Indian lands because... they fought back?

Bank and market fluctuations were tiny compared to when government took control.

No, they really weren't. Before federal bank insurance, banks would routinely collapse, taking depositor accounts down with them. Central banking all but eliminated deflations. Economic recessions were both more frequent, and lasted longer, before 1940.

The Great Depression was caused by government.

Please! The Great Depression was caused by rampant private-sector speculation, which hyped the stock market completely out of control. When it crashed, it started a series of bank collapses that wiped out lots of wealth; it also caused a deflationary spiral, which further shrank consumption and employment. The government did make things worse, by the conservative/nativist approach of whacking foreign goods with tariffs, as well as making monetary policy mistakes -- but those happened well after the Depression started.

The recent housing bubble was likewise caused by government.

Please! The recent housing bubble was a result of people around the world throwing massive amounts of credit at obscure derivatives and real estate markets they didn't understand, while mortgage originators could generate crappy loans and sell them right away (thus having no skin in the game) to Wall Street banks who, in turn, packaged and repackaged and re-repackaged them so that they, too could sell them off (thus having no skin in the game) and, in some instances, hedging against the failure of those exact same derivatives.

Government's main mistakes were being the lapdog of Wall Street and keeping rates too low for too long; removing the Glass-Stegall regulations; failing to do even cursory checks on the mortgage and real estate businesses; and flatly refusing to regulate (let alone keep track of) derivatives. However, unlike the Great Depression, they actually did some things right -- namely, bailing out some of the banks and the auto industry, which basically kept the global and US economy from collapsing.

You big-government types always find an excuse to exercise undue power and authority and you always fail. But, it's we the citizens who pay your tab. We who suffer for your foolish ways.

Please! You think I'm not a citizen, and I don't pay taxes? Guess again.

America went from zero to twenty-percent of world GDP by 1900. It rose another almost twenty until government stepped in and permanently raised taxes. America was thus finished....

Erm. You do understand that world GDP started expanding dramatically around 1900?

As did US GDP?

The increases are so great, they barely fit on a chart.

The US was not "over" in 1950. In fact, the 1950s were an immensely affluent and productive time for the US economy. The 80s, 90s and 00's weren't too bad either (though the 00's had quite a bit of bubble-driven growth). GDP has been going through the roof. US manufacturing output is near historic highs. The reason why US GDP shrank as a share of world GDP was not because of American weakness, but because of the growth of other nations -- first Russia, then Japan, then China.

You obviously do not understand the very chart you posted. Let me know when you figure it out.

 

[mbig]

You should try to find out what a zero sum game is because your trite comments indicate you haven't any clue about it's meaning.

Yet Another Ignorant and Inadequate reply that didn't address my original or subsequent post.

Your one-liners are Juvenile Baiting and transparent dodging what you cannot answer.
For the record, I manage and Invest money. Lots.
Your posts are obligatory and ContentLess CLOWN comebacks.

Try again Mr Whiff?

I prefaced the article/their quotes, with My Own rationale. (all-the-marbles/serf-castle/etc)
That remains Untouched.
I also Doubly highlighted the part about the founders overall INTENT, not just specific quotes. It was wholly fair.

That intent being that those starting (or even ending up with) with huge advantages have them diminished in the name of a more equal society in power and wealth. One cannot have a democracy of the vastly Unequal/the Few.

That was also the reason for the Modern Intro of the Income and Estate Taxes 100 Years ago by TR. (yes, another 'Devil'). Targeting the very Rich.
The Robber Barons, Morgan, Carnegie, Rockefeller, etc, were accumulating Vast, vast, sums and had wildly Undue influence and political power.
IOW, Another serf-and-castle was developing.
History, not ideology, is your friend....
.

 

[Henrin]

I find it interesting that people find deflation inherently bad. I also find it frankly bizarre that they think the economy should be in a state of constant inflation.

 

[Henrin]

As did US GDP?

The increases are so great, they barely fit on a chart.

That chart means literally nothing.

 

[Thrilla]

I thought it was meaningless to begin with. Which was my whole point.

well, it's not meaningless, but i can understand the desire to make it so.

 

[iguanaman]

I find it interesting that people find deflation inherently bad. I also find it frankly bizarre that they think the economy should be in a state of constant inflation.

That would be because you have no concept of modern economic theory and/or lack common sense. Tell me what happens to investment when sitting on your money makes a good return without any risk? Mild Inflation encourages growth and investment without which there is no economy. It also means demand is keeping up with supply. Isn't that the way a free market works best?

 

[AlbqOwl]

Because I thought that the thread had some relevance to politics and the real world; that it was about societies and governments, not just one individual demanding stuff off another individual. My apologies for not understanding your clearly.

It isn't just about one individual demanding stuff off another individual. It does have relevance to politics and the real world. But if we cannot understand the concept of what wealth redistribution actually is, we're dead in the water from the get go. The concept is whether the have nots have any claim to what the haves have when they did nothing to earn what the haves have.

It is much easier to focus on any concept at its most basic level. So whether we are talking about a million people or one person, the principle is the same. Do those who don't earn the wealth have any right to claim what the wealthy have?

 

[AlbqOwl]

Just saying wealth distribution is more than that. Its much more than that.



But in reality they are.

But why is "redistribution of wealth" the morally correct thing? Because it helps those in needs with social programs, its a way to pay for those systems that help the least among us.

To your first point wealth distribution is a different thing from wealth redistribution.

To your second point, forced labor has always helped those who wanted the benefits of that labor whether the one being forced benefitted in any way. But because it is beneficial to others, you think it is moral to force people to work for others without receiving any benefit themselves?

 

[AlbqOwl]

You're talking points are stupid. If you are taking from younger generations and racking up a massive debt, then you're obviously taking wealth and prosperity away from your children, grandchildren, etc.

I make be stupid but I can answer the question. I will take your post here, however, to be that you are incapable of understanding the question or you refuse to do so. You can pick.

 

[AlbqOwl]

As above, you don't really seem to understand how the system works. In the scenario you present, a significant portion of what you earn is being redistributed away from you already. Not to poor people. But to the top elites. Redistributing wealth away from workers towards owners is what our system does. It works by convincing the middle class that they're more like the wealthy elites than the lower class, which is far from the truth. You would have a lot less of your wealth taken in a more egalitarian system, even if you own a business.

You are going to an area that could be valid to the discussion. But it does not answer the question of why one or more persons are entitled to anything I or somebody else earns.

I am going to keep asking the question. It really isn't a hard question people. It might be a very uncomfortable question.

 

[Respecthelect]

I'm not a Marxist.

If you say so.

The Fed was instituted in 1913, yet they caused the Great Depression. I assert they caused it, but even if they merely failed to prevent it, my point is made. Why give government all that power, if their primary justification (to prevent market instability) remains unmet?

Deflation is a natural result of market efficiencies. If factories make bread and butter more efficiently tomorrow than today, that is deflation - by definition. Of course markets and society seek efficiency in production, the financial system must be able to deal with it. Government took on the responsibility, then blamed the free-market for its efficiency. Typical Marxist finger-pointing.

Government recently forced banks to make bad loans, then blamed the banks. Telling, is how many people went to jail over that crisis? Zero. Zero, because the banks did exactly what government told them to do. Exactly followed (fascist) government orders that caused the mortgage lending crisis.

World GDP grew, because the world followed America's recipe of capitalism. That's how great this country is. Every country that followed America's nineteenth-century example prospered. Those that didn't, languished. U.S. relative growth stopped at WWII, because FDR and those who followed him abandoned the model and adopted socialist policies instead. While every successful country in the world turned toward free-markets, you and your commie friends turned America left and we've suffered for it. America's GDP relative to the rest of the world has been falling ever since. Falling so far, China surpassed America this year as the world's largest economy. All at your Marxist feet, my friend.

 

[Paschendale]

You are going to an area that could be valid to the discussion. But it does not answer the question of why one or more persons are entitled to anything I or somebody else earns.

I am going to keep asking the question. It really isn't a hard question people. It might be a very uncomfortable question.

Without getting into issues like moral obligation to help other people, I'm arguing that people should be taking less of what you earn. I'm arguing that the paradigm we currently employ involves taking a lot of what you earn to give to people who don't earn it. But the narrative that the people getting the windfall are the struggling poor is completely false. As is the narrative that the struggling poor are actually getting what they earn, as opposed to a pittance.

 

[Mithrae]

It isn't just about one individual demanding stuff off another individual. It does have relevance to politics and the real world. But if we cannot understand the concept of what wealth redistribution actually is, we're dead in the water from the get go.

Then I gave my answer in post #6 :roll: I understand that you don't like it, but pretending that I didn't answer is disingenuous.

Spoiler

We should be honest enough to acknowledge that wealth distribution is in part a function of society's legislative, executive and judicial branches in the first place. How are apportionment of a country's land and mineral rights decided? How was it decided that corporations are legally persons? Where is it written that Bob can't take the stuff that Jill 'owns,' and who authorizes and/or uses force to protect Jill's property?

Therefore, obviously, re-distribution can't be theft, if implemented democratically and without discrimination - it's simply a change of the rules by which property is held.

That said, giving money directly to people - be they poor and unemployed, or big corporations angling for subsidies and tax breaks - should be kept to a bare practical minimum. Regulation of standard working hours to manage unemployment rates, and social spending on infrastructure, education, healthcare and the like should be the primary means of ensuring a quality standard of living for all citizens. Handouts should be the exception not the rule.

The concept is whether the have nots have any claim to what the haves have when they did nothing to earn what the haves have.

While I don't entirely share their views, Rabbitcaebannog and Paschendale have both pointed out your problematic assumption here in numerous posts. The vast majority of what billionaires and mega-millionaires have depends on others' efforts. You don't think that they work tens of thousands of times as many hours as the rest of us, do you? Or that they're tens of thousands of times as smart or something?

Where I disagree with Rabbit and Pasch is that they express it in terms of exploitation, as if owners and bosses were unfairly taking advantage of their employees. In some cases that could be debateable, but as a general rule I'd disagree. But it is indisputable that merely working really, really, really hard cannot possibly account for the vastly disproportionate distribution of wealth we see: It comes about only through leveraging the efforts of workers, consumers and for that matter thousands of years of human scientific and technological development too.

That's fine - it's a good system, and it mostly seems to work fairly well. But let's not come up with any idolatrous nonsense that the rich are just so vastly superior to all the millions of other ambitious, talented, hardworking people who haven't done so well. They've just managed to get a little ahead - and kudos to them for that - but in a system which ultimately rewards those top few so vastly disproportionately to actual effort or talent.


TLDR: As workers and consumers and taxpayers, we all contribute to the wealth of the wealthy, as has the whole course of human progress on which some (eg. Henry Ford, Bill Gates) have so dramatically capitalised with incremental improvements.

 

[274ina]

Wealth redistribution is a necessary function of DEMOCRATIC government.

you need to ad that.

and it is not "redistributing" wealth.

it is ALLOWING the WORKER to keep more of what HE CREATES, as the rich bourgeois create nothing.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Without getting into issues like moral obligation to help other people, I'm arguing that people should be taking less of what you earn. I'm arguing that the paradigm we currently employ involves taking a lot of what you earn to give to people who don't earn it. But the narrative that the people getting the windfall are the struggling poor is completely false. As is the narrative that the struggling poor are actually getting what they earn, as opposed to a pittance.

Okay I see where you were going with that. But doing my damndest to apply the KISS principle to the issue here, it really doesn't matter whether the one receiving what I have earned is rich, poor, or anything in between. I use the rich being required to share their wealth with the poor as the most common argument some will utilize when it comes to the morality thing. You know, the whole argument of wealth disparity and all that.

The question remains, what is the moral basis to demand that Citizen A give a portion of his lawfully and ethically acquired wealth to Citizen B who did absolutely nothing to earn it? How does that not force Citizen A to serve Citizen B?

And what portion of Citizen A's wealth is Citizen B entitled to?

 

[AlbqOwl]

Then I gave my answer in post #6 :roll: I understand that you don't like it, but pretending that I didn't answer is disingenuous.




While I don't entirely share their views, Rabbitcaebannog and Paschendale have both pointed out your problematic assumption here in numerous posts. The vast majority of what billionaires and mega-millionaires have depends on others' efforts. You don't think that they work tens of thousands of times as many hours as the rest of us, do you? Or that they're tens of thousands of times as smart or something?

Where I disagree with Rabbit and Pasch is that they express it in terms of exploitation, as if owners and bosses were unfairly taking advantage of their employees. In some cases that could be debateable, but as a general rule I'd disagree. But it is indisputable that merely working really, really, really hard cannot possibly account for the vastly disproportionate distribution of wealth we see: It comes about only through leveraging the efforts of workers, consumers and for that matter thousands of years of human scientific and technological development too.

That's fine - it's a good system, and it mostly seems to work fairly well. But let's not come up with any idolatrous nonsense that the rich are just so vastly superior to all the millions of other ambitious, talented, hardworking people who haven't done so well. They've just managed to get a little ahead - and kudos to them for that - but in a system which ultimately rewards those top few so vastly disproportionately to actual effort or talent.


TLDR: As workers and consumers and taxpayers, we all contribute to the wealth of the wealthy, as has the whole course of human progress on which some (eg. Henry Ford, Bill Gates) have so dramatically capitalised with incremental improvements.

Wealth redistribution is taking what one person earns and giving it to another person who did nothing to earn it. That's it pure and simple. For the purpose of this discussion however, we are going with the government forcibly forcing one person to give some of what he/she earns to those who did nothing to earn it. It is that concept that your Post #6 did not address and still has not answered as to how wealth redistribution defined in that way is moral.

Nor does it address the question of how much of what one person earns another person, who did nothing to earn it, should be entitled and why.

You can't use the argument that all taxpayers and workers contributed to the wealth of the wealthy without also acknowledging that the wealthy also contributes to the wealth of everybody else. So that part of it is a wash.

And corporate welfare, inadequate wages, the morality of caring for the poor etc. etc. etc. are all good topics for discussion, but they are unrelated issues to the simple question as asked.

 

[What if...?]

This is a patently incorrect fallacy that stems from erroneously viewing economics and wealth as a zero-sum game. The fact that some people are very good at making money doesn't mean that it is harder for everyone else to make money. Making money should best be framed as "creating wealth" and how much wealth one creates does not in any way impinge on the right or capability of everyone else to build wealth, as well.

This "capitalism isn't a zero sum game" thing.

It always seems to imply that everyone CAN be as rich as Bill Gates.

But capitalism is our response to scarcity, right?

So of capitalism is about distribution of scarce resources, isn't saying its not "zero sum" disingenuous?

Everybody CANNOT be a rich as Bill Gates.

So there's a "sum" in there somewhere. And its much closer to zero than it is to infinity.

 

[What if...?]

Yeah, that's the funny thing about infinitely growing wealth. At any point in time you can count the dollars if you can freeze time. That doesn't keep it from being potentially infinite. Practically speaking, you can make shoes for a living and in producing them, you produce your wealth..... and how many hats your next door neighbor makes as his wealth does not limit your potential for making more shoes.

It does if you use the same supply of a limited material.

Then you make ten hats or ten pairs of shoes. Or five pairs of shoes and five hats.