Redistribution

It is becoming more clear that those in power are intent on redistribution of wealth on many fronts. Some will even state openly what was once taboo : the principles of communism. One side effect ( or perhaps, bonus ) of this is additional government control. What organization does not want to expand if possible, have more influence, power ?

It can be argued that these intentions are contrary to the US constitution, but let's assume that they are permitted. I'm curious to hear some arguments for forced redistribution of wealth and power. Of course the "haves" will not want to give and the "have nots" will want a handout, both are human nature. Since it is economically and psychologically impossible for everyone to "have enough", there must be some winners and losers. Since being a "loser" or "not having enough" is the majority, a democracy says that the majority can take from the minority.
If this is the case, then don't we have a system of prejudice and intolerance toward those that "have". They are certainly taxed more, due to the progressive income tax and others. This seems no different than racism or discrimination or differential treatment based on a group. How does this differ from the past where the majority legally kept other races down ? Only the bold were able to see the damage to society from majority rule, and dividing ourselves into groups.

However, I'm only looking for practical arguments;

How does redistribution actually benefit society as a whole ?
How is redistribution good for all when it appears to again divide us into groups ?
Shouldn't every law benefit and impact each person equally ?
How does intolerance of the "rich" differ from racism or other forms of prejudice ?

I'm not interested in :

Emotional or moral arguments - these will never be resolved, I can remove the constitution from the argument, then the moral issues can be ignored as well.
It was Bush's fault or the Republicans fault - we are past that.

My personal view is that I respect and will defend the rights of anyone to their property and equal protection under the law.

I feel that it is not a great policy/desire at a national level...but what I truly fear is that it is "desired" on a global level. The New World Order and all that jazz. You see the reason for the fear is that all of North America/Europe/Japan ultimately falls under the "haves" and the rest of the world falls under the "have nots" The difference in wealth between the two groups is astounding and a leveling of the groups would be dramatically noticeable in group A. For example...how much money would it take to make all of Africa look like an average American suburb? How much money would it take to make all of China look like a moderately wealthy European city? You see by off-shoring work in ever increasing numbers and by not having tariffs on foreign goods equal to the tariffs placed upon our goods going there...that is ultimately what is being accomplished. America is victim to the largest redistribution efforts as America enjoys a disproportionate amount of wealth.

But why does America enjoy a disproportionate amount of wealth? THAT IS THE QUESTION. Resources? We do not have more than China. We actually have a good deal less. The sub-continent of Africa too is not w/o resources.

Instead of pouring money and technology into poor nations at the expense of our own nation...under the guise of cap n trade...we should instead be focused upon our own nation. Why? Am I heartless? No. But when the actual problem in other nations is their inefficient governments...there isn't much a foreign nation can do to change that. Rather than US emulating THEM to make it "even" THEY should emulate US.

The Right sees profit motivation as the engine of our economy and the reason for our success. If we look back in time to the first societies, specialization of labor is one of the key elements of a successful people. When each person is able to keep most of what he creates and trade it for that of another's, that person has incentive to be the best he can be and do the best he can do. When most of what a person produces is pooled with that of everyone else for the good of all, that person has a strong incentive to do the bare minimum. See "The free rider problem." Capitalism is nothing more than the natural order of human existence and is the natural expression of specialized labor. That is why it is so enormously successful.

The Left on the other hand doesn't see the above logic because they don't reason, they emote. Emotionally, they see some people having more than others and they FEEL that it isn't fair. Furthermore, they see life as a stacked deck in which everything is set up to profit the rich at the expense of the poor. And they see wealth not as something every person can create from nothing as in the case of specialized labor (think of an early day pot maker), but as a fixed quantity that is distributed by the powers that be.

The Left sees the world according to playground rules. Wealth, to them, is like a box of candy given to the class by the teacher. Of course, the teacher must see to it that all students receive an equal amount of candy least things not be fair. The Left sees Government and business as the teachers (the controllers of wealth) and feels that this wealth ought to be distributed more fairly. They can not grasp the notion that wealth is something that is created, not distributed. One would think a person growing weed would have a grasp on the notion that wealth can be created, and that sitting in your nest with your head back and your mouth open waiting for a worm is not the only way of attaining it.

It is the belief that wealth is merely distributed and not created that makes people feel that wealth ought to be equally distributed.

redistribution of wealth?
give me a fucking break.
intolerance of the rich?
give me another fucking break.

i want to hear these arguments used to defend wesley snipes
and his tax problem.

We live in a society that is more free then in days past, yet remnants of the old Feudalism system still remain today. A very small percent of the population still owns a disproportionate amount of both wealth and power, and their children inherit a disproportionate amount of that wealth and power.

The facts of the matter are this: poor people become poorer over time, because the cost of their lifestyle is greater then their value, or the potential of their earnings. In other words, this Feudalism derived system makes it hard for poor people to create wealth because they are constantly in debt to their own survival. These are the class of people who must first WORK TO SURVIVE and who have little or nothing left over to invest afterward. It's not just the poor, most middle class in this country are victims to this trap as well, they don't realize it but generation after generation they are becoming poorer.

The problem is not that some have more then others. The problem is the de-stabilizing effect of an ever increasing debt of existence.

What happens when poor people suffer a hardship, like being fired? They struggle to get back into the position they were in before (all work until death, no gain in wealth) or are forced to go without food, clothing, shelter and access to medical care; as a result, their value in society only remains stagnant or goes down (hungry/injured/tired workers are less productive) until the debt/survival ratio becomes un-sustainable. At which point, any number of bad things tends happens, both to the individual and to the rest of society.

What happens when rich people suffer a similar hardship? Very very few will drop down a rung in society; most will stimulate the economy with increased consumption of expensive luxuries to get over it, OR they make relationships with other rich people as part of the recovery process and get access to even more opportunities. This stimulates the economy in the short term, and effectively amounts to no net loss of personal wealth and sometimes acts as a catalyst for net gain of personal wealth.

Do you see the difference wealth creates? Wealth is a buffer, a stabilizer, that affords greater wealth.

100% access to little things, like electricity, housing, food, clothing, and medicine, is what allows rich people the time to make investments in themselves, and thus become richer. Poor people struggle to meet these basic necessities, and where they fall short they loose access to opportunity and thus can never become rich as long as they are vulnerable to the very things rich people are immune.

The point of "redistribution" is to create opportunities for the majority that are otherwise only available to the rich; feudal lords kept their peasants poor and ignorant, much as the rich of today keep the middle and lower classes in ignorance of even their own value in the jobs they work and the economy as a whole.

The truth is, there is enough wealth in this country that everyone can be rich, no one needs to be in poverty. Poverty serves no purpose in society, neither for the rich nor for the majority.

When all the basic needs of survival are met only then can individuals evolve, and by doing so they naturally tend to create wealth for themselves; they educate themselves, start businesses, invest in retirement plans. By virtue of creating opportunity through wealth redistribution, a significantly larger portion of the population can lift themselves out of serfdom (lower/middle class) by creating wealth for themselves as individuals. This has a profoundly positive effect on the economy not only because of reduced crime and more individuals have access to more wealth and thus spend more, but because whole industries can be created practically over night as more valued workers enter the market place.

The point is not to pay for poor peoples existence outright generation after generation, the point is to extend the same leverage of existence the rich have so poor people can rise out of serfdom. No one benefits by allowing poor people to continue to fall victim to helplessness, addiction and crime, the same as it's been for thousands of years. However, even the already rich can benefit from a flood of educated workers, workers who can afford to invest in themselves by making themselves more valuable rather then be criticized for failing to meet the basic needs of survival.

Trickle down economics worked real well right?

ink the world said:

Trickle down economics worked real well right?

Click to expand...

Of course it did, trickle down worked amazingly well! Top level management wages have skyrocketed and the majority of workers wages have actually gone down in proportion to the cost of living.

vh13 pretty much said it all.

vh13 said:

Of course it did, trickle down worked amazingly well! Top level management wages have skyrocketed and the majority of workers wages have actually gone down in proportion to the cost of living.

Click to expand...

Exactly!!

I guess the sarcasm in my post wasnt obvious enough

trickle down economics = rich get richer poor get poorer.

How is forced redistribution not involuntary servitude? Is it not because I can play in the black market to avoid it? Is it not because I dont have to work, I have the choice to sit here and die? Is it not involuntary servitude because it isnt direct?


Amendment 13
1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime
whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United
States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate
legislation. (this means enforce the constitution on states in violation, as all US. properties are to conform to the constitution)

ink the world said:

Exactly!!

I guess the sarcasm in my post wasnt obvious enough

trickle down economics = rich get richer poor get poorer.

Click to expand...

No worries mate, I could tell. I already have a feel for your tone from seeing you around in the forums.

I only meant to add to your sarcasm with my own in punchline form.

redistribution of wealth = the end of human evolution.

think about it.

meowmix said:

How is forced redistribution not involuntary servitude?

Click to expand...

So is the system the way it is currently. I dont expect the hedge fund manager that made $5.5 billion last year to have a complaint about Reaganomincs. I bet the poor bastard working at Walmart to feed a family would though.

My only gripe is that the gap between rich and poor has gotten larger. While at the same time the middle class has nearly evaporated.

vh13 said:

No worries mate, I could tell. I already have a feel for your tone from seeing you around in the forums.

I only meant to add to your sarcasm with my own in punchline form.

Click to expand...

Nice touch...the last time someone noticed my posts it turned into a Right Wing gang bang on me.

meowmix said:

How is forced redistribution not involuntary servitude? Is it not because I can play in the black market to avoid it? Is it not because I dont have to work, I have the choice to sit here and die? Is it not involuntary servitude because it isnt direct?


Amendment 13
1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime
whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United
States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate
legislation. (this means enforce the constitution on states in violation, as all US. properties are to conform to the constitution)

Click to expand...

Force of collective will with good intent for all (even the wealthy benefit from re-investment, it's how most became wealthy in the first place), or force of selfish desire with good intent only for one... you're right, I suppose being rich and forced to pay taxes is identical to a slave (to wages or otherwise) who is forced to work or die.

Don't forget, rich have the choice to live somewhere else if they don't want to live in such a high profit potential environment. Poor people have no options.

You guys realize the black market grows in direct correlation with taxes.

Grace Commission Report.

Ask for more, get less. And piss everyone off in the process. While shitting on the constitution.

They don't just tax the rich guys, and taxing huge companies only costs the consumer more.

the only wealth distribution these guys in power want is from the pockets of the poor into the swiss bank accounts of the rich



nothing more nothing less

medicineman said:

vh13 expressed the point very succinctly. Under a "capitalist" system, the rich definently have the advantage. Think about it, "capitalism", The ability to use capital, (Money) to grow wealth. If one lives on the subsistence level or below, (and there are plenty of us) they have no capital to invest. Without investment capital, they are fated to a very poor existence, with no way to escape. With jobs that pay minimum wage or slightly higher, it takes two incomes just to survive, where do these people fit in the capitalist system, that's right, they are the pawns. It takes a giant opportunity, (they are few and far between) to escape the poverty of the inner city and the slums, even lower middle class can't move up. The most movers are in the upper middle and up. If you aint born there, forget it. I worked my ass off for 50 friken years, survival wages, I have not much to show for it, and I made above average slave wages.

Click to expand...

obviously you didn't step on enough heads or stab enough backs.

Anyone want to tackle the problem of discrimination against people with wealth ?