Wealth Distribution

Amuk: I agree.

Doing it at the community level would be highly effective. The Social Security/welfare is an ineffective and overbloated social program which most of the time cannot manage a penny. Instead of a "national healthcare" service you would have a community health care service. Numerous smaller systems serving small areas is a good way to ensure proper distribution of the wealth.

Throwing money at the problem is not the solution, better management and localization of the current system is.

[edit on 9-9-2004 by RedOctober90]

[edit on 9-9-2004 by RedOctober90]

Originally posted by TheBandit795
www.dollarsandsense.org...

This is an excellent article and deserves to be quoted at lenght:

Economists William Easterly of New York University and Gary Fields of Cornell University have recently summarized this evidence:

� Countries, and regions within countries, with more equal incomes grow faster. (These growth figures do not include environmental destruction or improvement. If they knocked off points for environmental destruction and added points for environmental improvement, the correlation between equality and growth would be even stronger, since desperation drives poor people to adopt environmentally destructive practices such as rapid deforestation.)

� Countries with more equally distributed land grow faster.

� Somewhat disturbingly, more ethnically homogeneous countries and regions grow faster�presumably because there are fewer ethnically based inequalities.

In addition, more worker rights are associated with higher rates of economic growth, according to Josh Bivens and Christian Weller, economists at two Washington think tanks, the Economic Policy Institute and the Center for American Progress.

These patterns recommend a second look at the incentive question. In fact, more equality can actually strengthen incentives and opportunities to produce.

Equality can boost growth in several ways. Perhaps the simplest is that study after study has shown that farmland is more productive when cultivated in small plots. So organizations promoting more equal distribution of land, like Brazil�s Landless Workers� Movement, are not just helping the landless poor�they�re contributing to agricultural productivity!

Inequality hinders growth in another important way: it fuels social conflict. Stark inequality in countries such as Bolivia and Haiti has led to chronic conflict that hobbles economic growth. Moreover, inequality ties up resources in unproductive uses such as paying for large numbers of police and security guards�attempts to prevent individuals from redistributing resources through theft.

"A rising tide lifts all boats," President John F. Kennedy famously declared. But he said nothing about which boats will rise fastest when the economic tide comes in. Growth does typically reduce poverty, according to studies reviewed by economist Gary Fields, though some "boats"�especially families with strong barriers to participating in the labor force�stay "stuck in the mud."

Please read the rest of the article.

Both the rising tide and trickle down theories have been proven faulty wishful thinking.

I do not advocate stealing from the rich in a Robin Hood type fashion. I simply want to see limits placed on how rich someone can get. The argument that hard work and education is the solution is bull# in my opinion.

The person who is holding down two jobs to make ends meet is working just as hard and probably harder than say Bill Gates. They can work all the hours they want or as hard as they want and will never become billionaires!

How much do we really need? I can live VERY comfortably on between 50 and 100K a year. Note that this is very high compared to the majority of the population. So what about all those people who make over 100k per year? Are they better or smarter than me? (in my experience they are much dumber!)

We need a system that limits wealth beyond a certain level in order to ensure that anything �extra� goes to those who cannot achieve that level and for the good of the commons. The idea of the commons has largely been lost in industrialized countries to the detriment of humanity. I have read theories about guaranteed minimum incomes that are very attractive to my empathetic tendencies.

Another aspect of all of this is consumerism of �disposable� items, notions of fashion, unnecessary options etc. This is so wasteful in our current world situation that it becomes immoral.

Some of the comments above were given from a very selfish and narrow point of view demonstrating the depth of the problem humanity is facing. People don�t actually starve here in Canada and probably not in any �advanced� country since food and water are easily available. Housing is the problem our homeless face and it is a question of affordability not availability. In third world countries however the problems run much deeper.

Amuk,
Listen up you self proclaimed Hillbilly Biker.....
We do agree from time to time...

RedOct says greedily,

I keep saying that the system dosen't provide you with everything you desire.. it just provides you with the basic needs of life food/water which we have more than enough of, and often is wasted heavily.

We all desire things,
but...
The Rolling StoneS sang it best..."you cant always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you get what you need.."

Now I understand the feelings about the gap between the rich and the poor. Ive seen some of both worlds.
As Kid Rock would say..."Ive dined in dumpsters and got high with kings."

Growing up, we were poor, lived in the projects, "gov subsidised housing"
And i was friends with kids that were wealthy...heres what i learned...
The "rich" (upper middle class) kids were soo spoiled...they had all the latest and coolest things, but had no respect for any of it....theyd break their stuff and not care, waste food, and tear up $60 designer jeans and expensive sneakers just because...meanwhile I was wearing k-mart clothes and was extatic when i got a walkman for christmas....i appreciated EVERYTHING i had, and learned to take care of my things and make the most of what i had.

Ive also worked for some of the richest of the rich in Palm Beach...companies and clients, and have seen the pretty much SICK levels of $$$ that they too spend...yachts..cars...clothes...yet some of those that have seemingly everything are mean, miserable people...they treat others like dirt because they feel like dirt themselves.

All the $$$ in the world cant buy happiness they say...(Im sure it helps)
Ive known many rich people with messed up lonely lives...divorce, drug habits, and noone that they can trust as so many seem to be out to GET THEIR MONEY!!!

But alot of these people are SLAVES to their fortunes too...some work +15hrs a day, have to deal with layers of employees and problems etc...some of them live with a cell phone 24/7..theyre never truely "off" work. Indeed they earn their fortunes.

Now while i wish i was that rich, this doesnt mean i would advocate FORCING them to do more that pay a little more in taxes. Its a matter of ratio....while they would shell out more in taxes, they would still be able to afford the BMW and boat for thier 2nd house on the lake. where as any discreationary capitol for people like me after taxes MIGHT buy a nice business suit so that i can better myself and get a nicer job with it.

Ive come a long way from the slums, and while im not rich, im now middle class...thru alot of hard work and sacrifice.
Life is good with friends, family, health, home and a mostly decent standard of living. While i might WANT more....anything else is icing on the cake and basically unnessisary.

Number one the rich do pay more, in fact the top 5%percent of the naton by income pays over 50% of all collected taxes.

A typical tax distribution table shows that the top-earning five percent of all U.S. taxpayers account for about a third of the individual income earned. This same group pays more than one half of all the income taxes collected, a distribution that results from a progressive income tax structure designed to redistribute income. source taxfoundation.org
www.taxfoundation.org...

Second I recently posted ths in another thread which I believe has a direct bearing on this discussion so I will post a link here
www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 10-9-2004 by mwm1331]

Most proponents of wealth distribution assume finite wealth and finite resources.

But, in a rapidly changing world, with rapidly increasing technology, the means of wealth and the ideas to create wealth always evolves. Innovation and effort creates wealth. Ideas and sweat = $$$.

They money is always out there. The arguement is over how to get it...

Some people are just not good at it, or can't get near it. It's the fault of life, not man. I guess you can blame God for letting you be born in Sudan and not san Francisco, but you have to get over it and do something about it. You can enjoy life if you keep complaining about it...

Of course money isn't the key to happiness but I am sure someone would is starving would be happy to atleast recieve a loaf of bread to eat.

Like I said, with all the items of production which are often wasted could be used for the common good of all. It has nothing to do with greed.. it's about ensuring everyone can live the highest standard of living possible. Naturally some will have more than others.. but nobody should be starving in a country where there are immense (and often intentionally wasted) resources.

And rememmber the majority of people are capable and *DO* work. It's not like the workers are a minority and the poor are a majority.

[edit on 10-9-2004 by RedOctober90]

[edit on 10-9-2004 by RedOctober90]

Red october what you and others fail to realise s that those goods you call wasted require money to produce, buying the materals, paying the workers etc. Who among the poor will pay for them? Should we pay for them?

Wealth distribution is a terrible idea. 'Rich' people are taxed quite heavily, right now.

Plus - everyone seems conclude that wealthy people hoard all there money. Look at the money some give to charities. Not to mention the obvious that their money is put into the market which grows the economy, creates jobs, and even brings in tax revenue. Now, if we start taxing the hell out of the wealthy we'll not have the wealthy to tax at the current rates, we won't have their money in the market. It will in turn stifle the economy. The rising tide truly does raise all boats.

Two comments on wealth (re) distribution:

(a) It seems to work in Scandinavia (or at least used to). In Norway or Sweden, the taxes on large incomes have been notoriously (and some would say outrageously) high. Was there a flight of capital? To a degree. Is the society at large unhappy? No, it is happy and enjoys very good lifestyle. Trust me on this one

(b) I think the original problem, as posted here, was deeper than taxing the rich. You have to ask yourself to what degree you have been programmed by the system, such that the welfare of the system is above the welfare of humankind in general. I for one can never call myself a truly moral person because, despite giving some money to charities, I would not pass getting a better car or a laptop (admittedly useful things) for sending a fat check which I know will help a few very, very disadvantaged individuals located in XYZ.

It's just the way we look at this world, which (the way) is out of balance. I understand it is a protected right of anybody, to have a $800 bottle of wine... But as a community of humans... We could do better than that.



[edit on 14-9-2004 by Aelita]

[edit on 14-9-2004 by Aelita]

Sweden at one point lowered taxes because there economy was in such a bad slump. A lot of European countries are a good example of what not to do. Look at their unemployement rates, lack of economic growth, to name a few. Not to mention the lack of people working to support the growing number of retired. How can an economy like that be sustained?

It's been said that France will have a 3rd world economy by 2050.

Originally posted by Aelita
It's just the way we look at this world, which (the way) is out of balance. I understand it is a protected right of anybody, to have a $800 bottle of wine... But as a community of humans... We could do better than that.

I could not have said it better myself!

I'm talking about the system as a whole, it's broken and it's not sustainable.

New cell phones every year, (do I need a phone that allows me to surf the net, play games, send text messages and take photos and films?) with old ones ending up in landfill ... all of the "upgrades" in technology are extremely wasteful. MORE technology is not the answer in my opinion, simplification is.

Now before anyone accuses me of being a Ted Kasinsky (sp?) or a Pol Pot, I know who those people are and what they did.

The basic fact is that there are not enough resources for the entire planet to live like the G8, nor is there enough energy (oil). We will be FORCED to simplify. This process is looking like it will be long, chaotic and very bloody. The oil wars have already begun.

We can either change what the phrase "our way of life" means and make sure all people can be fed, housed and clothed, or we keep the current definition of "our way of life" and amass the world's riches behind gated communities linked by SUV filled highways, while all those who are excluded starve and fight to death.

I prefer the former.

I have a very strong reaction any time I hear someone say they want to "redistribute" wealth. Similar to stepping in doggy-doo.

The ones espousing the idea never create wealth, they only want to redistribute other people's wealth. They say they are doing it out of a sense of compassion for everyman, but they want to be in control of the pursestrings. They want to be the ones who determine who gets what. It's a power trip. It degenerates into a system of nepotism and bootlickers that curry favor to get what they want.

Let them redistribute their own wealth.

Originally posted by jsobecky
The ones espousing the idea never create wealth, they only want to redistribute other people's wealth.

I don't this that's correct at all.

They say they are doing it out of a sense of compassion for everyman, but they want to be in control of the pursestrings. They want to be the ones who determine who gets what. It's a power trip.

I don't think the originator of the thread wanted to control anything.

Again, the problem is that the world as whole is out of balance, and bringing it into balance would be a very human, and humane thing to do. Distribution of wealth is not an end in itself nor it is a decisive factor and achieving sanity on this planet. It's a small compenent of the systemic change that needs to take place.

Let's compare the worlds population to the human body.

So in other words, you want your brains and your feet to get all the blood in your body, but not your eyes, heart, lungs, arms, intestines etc... How will your body survive then???

Originally posted by Aelita

Originally posted by jsobecky
The ones espousing the idea never create wealth, they only want to redistribute other people's wealth.

I don't this that's correct at all.

Then where will this wealth that is to be redistributed come from?

They say they are doing it out of a sense of compassion for everyman, but they want to be in control of the pursestrings. They want to be the ones who determine who gets what. It's a power trip.

I don't think the originator of the thread wanted to control anything.

Except how wealth is distributed.

Again, the problem is that the world as whole is out of balance, and bringing it into balance would be a very human, and humane thing to do. Distribution of wealth is not an end in itself nor it is a decisive factor and achieving sanity on this planet. It's a small compenent of the systemic change that needs to take place.

Define "bringing it into balance", please.

If you look at the essence of altruism, which is what communism and socialism are based upon, these philosophies require victims in order for the philosophy to succeed. If there are no victims, no poor and downtrodden, then there is no reason for their philosophy to exist. They also require winners, achievers, producers, so that they have a source of life to drain for their victims. If there are no achievers, then they cannot exist because they are incapable of producing wealth.

Everybody is capable of producing wealth. Only the right attitude and mindset is needed. Sadly.... due to their enviroment and upbringing, people in poorer countries almost always have the mindset and attitudes that will keep them poor. It doesn't matter how hard they work, or how hard they study. Setbacks will keep coming. Poor people often work much harder than people who happen to make money. Just look in any third world country and you will see that. Working hard doesn't have anything to do with making money or being succesful, or else there would be billions of very wealthy people living on the planet.

Therefor it's best IMO to help them out to survive and to help them learn to have the right attitudes and mindsets to achieve succes in whatever way they want, material or not. Everyone deserves a chance. I don't give a rats behind about their background, their habits or their enviroment.

If working hard ever guaranteed success, Nikola Tesla would be one of the wealthiest people ever... Instead he died a poor and broken man.

That doesn't mean that everyone should be lazy bums...

[edit on 15-9-2004 by TheBandit795]

People ask "where will this wealth come from"

Could easily come from the billions and billions and billions of my money being spent to feed Iraqis, when it could be used to help out the poor here. Why feed the poor in Iraq when we could feed our own people.. let the UN or something feed Iraqis, all they seem to do is complain about the USA, so let them fix the problem.

There would be plenty of achievers under a socialist system, you think everyone is going to sit around like bums? The system doesen't provide you with cars, big private houses, excessive spending cash. Just the most basic of needs necessary for survival.

Most people will work in order to obtain all the fancy stuff to desire.. but atleast there is system in place. Why should someone suffer for things like lack of intelligence, disabilities, lack of opportunities... things beyond our control. However this represents a small portion of society.. rememmber the majority can and do work... and it will always remain that way as long as people want big houses, fancy cars.. and all the extras of life. But for those lacking basic abilities due to uncontrollable circumstances, they will have the most basic needs covered.

And I am for such a system, however covered at the community level. I dislike any attempt at a national service because it ends up being an overbloated and ineffective program. Too much mismanagement and corruption causes this. Smaller, localized programs would work fine.

It's like how the Bush admin is conducting all these cowboy style middle east wars when peoples basic needs at home go unmet.

[edit on 16-9-2004 by RedOctober90]

[edit on 16-9-2004 by RedOctober90]