[Poll] Wealth Re-distribution?

Hmm lets see just about every modern free capitalistic country in the world(read most of Europe, Canada, Australia and British Isles) have some sort of wealth distribution in the form of more developed social safety nets. Including health care, welfare, affordable housing etc etc. And the whole time they still have millionaires and billionaires...I don't see why Americans are so afraid of reformed taxation and providing for the people who drive the economy.

PS and this is for Big Monkey. Substitute Oranges for every time I said wealth and Side of the Road for everytime I said country :)
 
"I'm sure there are economists crunching the numbers as to where the line has to be drawn to bring in the necessary revenue while minimizing tax burden"

Yes its called the Laffer curve. Unfortunately no one has any idea about the quantitative value it must take (most likely its a ridiculously complicated function with time dependance and self interaction), nor are they even sure whether its a good thing or not for the economy in general (maximizing government revenue that is).
 
Prophecy said:
Hmm lets see just about every modern free capitalistic country in the world(read most of Europe, Canada, Australia and British Isles) have some sort of wealth distribution in the form of more developed social safety nets. Including health care, welfare, affordable housing etc etc. And the whole time they still have millionaires and billionaires...I don't see why Americans are so afraid of reformed taxation and providing for the people who drive the economy.

PS and this is for Big Monkey. Substitute Oranges for every time I said wealth and Side of the Road for everytime I said country :)
Click to expand...

:heart:

I wonder what would really happen if the rich got their way and the impoverished really had to depend only on their own financial decisions from birth to death?

Would the money continue to keep coming in? Doesn't the money eventually keep coming back to the same people through various standard channels of living?

If only the wealthy have money to spend, how do you continue your income unless other rich people decide to give you their money in some fashion?
 
Last edited:
"Hmm lets see just about every modern free capitalistic country in the world(read most of Europe, Canada, Australia and British Isles) have some sort of wealth distribution in the form of more developed social safety nets. Including health care, welfare, affordable housing etc etc. "

The US does all of that, so its not like its a black and white thing. About 50% of all healthcare spending in the US is government driven, the safety net is perfectly adequate, and housing has always been state subsidized in various circumstances

Its just a question of degree and specifics. Many countries in the world that are dubbed 'socialist' can have either more or less entitlement in any one specific area.
 
Big Monkey said:
It's not like the wealthy would cease to be wealthy.

If you work hard and are successful, you're going to be seriously well off.

The question is: Are you and/or should you be OK with making a smaller, but not tremendously significant, percentage than you would if you didn't have to deal with progressive taxation?
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with the wealthy, its the poor.

While I don't have a problem with programs that keep people fed, housed, and healthy, I do have a problem with programs that make make them content as well.
 
Livingdeath said:
"Hmm lets see just about every modern free capitalistic country in the world(read most of Europe, Canada, Australia and British Isles) have some sort of wealth distribution in the form of more developed social safety nets. Including health care, welfare, affordable housing etc etc. "

The US does all of that, so its not like its a black and white thing. About 50% of all healthcare spending in the US is government driven, the safety net is perfectly adequate, and housing has always been state subsidized in various circumstances

Its just a question of degree and specifics. Many countries in the world that are dubbed 'socialist' can have either more or less entitlement in any one specific area.
Click to expand...

50% of all bankruptcies in the US are health care related. The number is sad and staggering. That is black and white as it comes. I think it would be interesting to see the number of suicides related to those bankruptcies. What is the cost of a single death against a societies inadequacy to provide for ? Purely a rhetorical question...yes yes weak minded people blah blah blah, but the question remains.
 
Some of the largest suicide rates in the world are in socialist countries (eg Nordic countries). So I fail to see a cause and effect necessarily without more data.
 
Livingdeath said:
Some of the largest suicide rates in the world are in socialist countries (eg Nordic countries). So I fail to see a cause and effect necessarily without more data.
Click to expand...

I don't have the data and wonder if anyone has ever looked at it...I was just wondering about the relationship of the two.
 
Some questions I find more interesting

Why stop the redistribution at wealth?

If the goal is to try to raise the average level of happiness for US citizens, shouldn't we focus on the core components of happiness? Should we attempt to redistribute all benefits people receive by good fortune ie looks, sociability, IQ?

Is raising the average level of happiness the goal of government? Is it worth the loss of freedom and efficiency?
 
The top 50% of people pay 98+% of the taxes in the united states.

And people always bitch about tax cuts for the poor?


Think of it this way, the richer people pay the lions share of taxes, while the poor pay virtually none. When it comes to government services, the poor use the lions share while the rich get virtually none. (budget minus military)

We already have "wealth redistribution", Obama just wants to make it worse, and more lopsided.
 
This whole debate hinges on how u are defining "wealth redistribution".

I'm against it in the Marxist sense.
 
Fuck redistribution. You fuckers that are for huge welfare programs and the like have obviously never even been to a poor fucking neighborhood. You see some bum on the street standing outside a Popeye's opening the door for people and asking for change, and you give him a quarter, and you think to yourself, "Man, if he got welfare or benefits, he could get back on his feet and be like me!"

Some people deserve welfare and public assistance. Most don't. The system needs fixing, badly.

I have worked in tons of shitty neighborhoods in Brooklyn, and been in tons and tons of different homes and have stopped tons of people. There is no reason a healthy 20 year old with $100 Jordan's and bling bling earrings should hand me over a public assistance benefit card as a form of ID when I catch him doing something wrong. There's no reason an woman with 3 kids should have a 46" HDTV, better computer than I have, and 3 cats, and still be on welfare.
 
Livingdeath said:
Some of the largest suicide rates in the world are in socialist countries (eg Nordic countries). So I fail to see a cause and effect necessarily without more data.
Click to expand...

The Nordic countries' suicide rates are always thrown around, but totally overblown. Here are some statistics showing that Swizerland, Austria, Poland, and France all have higher suicide rates than Sweden, Norway and Denmark. Finland has a pretty high rate, but I guess the point is that if you restrict yourself to the Scandinavian countries (Sweden, Denmark, Norway), then those countries don't really have very high suicide rates. (You could even argue that this is because they have good social nets...I would argue it's because they tend to be richer.)


Livingdeath said:
"I'm sure there are economists crunching the numbers as to where the line has to be drawn to bring in the necessary revenue while minimizing tax burden"

Yes its called the Laffer curve. Unfortunately no one has any idea about the quantitative value it must take (most likely its a ridiculously complicated function with time dependance and self interaction), nor are they even sure whether its a good thing or not for the economy in general (maximizing government revenue that is).
Click to expand...

Thank you. The Laffer curve is this ridiculously over-simplified idea that is actually so complicated that it's practically completely unusable. It's incredible it's referred to so often, yet it's so devoid of practical significance.
 
Musashi said:
The top 50% of people pay 98+% of the taxes in the united states.

And people always bitch about tax cuts for the poor?


Think of it this way, the richer people pay the lions share of taxes, while the poor pay virtually none. When it comes to government services, the poor use the lions share while the rich get virtually none. (budget minus military)

We already have "wealth redistribution", Obama just wants to make it worse, and more lopsided.
Click to expand...

Considering it's exactly the government's services that allow so many people to become rich, I find this statement completely ridiculous. Do you think that we'd have as much trade/commerce if we didn't have roads? Do you think that our financial system would work without the laws/regulations put in place to protect traders/investors/etc.?
 
iNVAR said:
Fuck redistribution. You fuckers that are for huge welfare programs and the like have obviously never even been to a poor fucking neighborhood. You see some bum on the street standing outside a Popeye's opening the door for people and asking for change, and you give him a quarter, and you think to yourself, "Man, if he got welfare or benefits, he could get back on his feet and be like me!"

Some people deserve welfare and public assistance. Most don't. The system needs fixing, badly.

I have worked in tons of shitty neighborhoods in Brooklyn, and been in tons and tons of different homes and have stopped tons of people. There is no reason a healthy 20 year old with $100 Jordan's and bling bling earrings should hand me over a public assistance benefit card as a form of ID when I catch him doing something wrong. There's no reason an woman with 3 kids should have a 46" HDTV, better computer than I have, and 3 cats, and still be on welfare.
Click to expand...

There are always people who game the system.

America apparently hasn't found a solution to implement the proper regulations to police those people effectively.

I agree the system needs fixing, very badly. I haven't seen a real solution on how to distinguish between people who need help and those who are just lazy and unwilling to try. And then there are the disabled people who, for various reasons, can't work even if they wanted to. Should they fall under a separate umbrella?

There are too many intelligent people in this world for something to truly not have been done by now. I'm nearing the point where I'm starting to believe there's a reason why a true answer hasn't been provided and it has to do with keeping the rich...very rich. :tinfoil:

If there were more people who understood how to properly manage money and knew how to prioritize and not waste dollars on stupid shit, would the wealthy continue to easily stay wealthy?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top