You love my poorly informed liberal misinformation. One thing I’ve noticed from your replies is you basically say ‘my definition of XYZ is the only correct definition, and by coincidence my definition supports the arguments I am going to make’. Ie you get to define risk, then make arguments on risk/reward. you get to define redistribution then make arguments about it. But not everyone thinks the definitions you’ve picked that support your pre-existing ideology are necessarily the same as objective definition. You may not be able to tell the difference between your viewpoint and objective info, but that doesn’t mean everyone else thinks the same way.
Union busting is a form of wealth redistribution since it decreases labors ability to negotiate for higher wages and benefits, as a result corporate profits increase and wages/benefits go down. Reversing environmental law is redistribution since it takes expenses that would fall onto corporations and passes them onto the public in the form of higher health costs or lost natural resources. If you outsource to China and there are no environmental or labor laws, then the workers pay billions in higher health and lost productivity costs so the employer can save on prevention and clean up. It is redistribution, you are distributing wealth and risk downward.
To my knowledge there are very few programs designed specifically for the wealthy that are paid for by taxes on the poor, so if you use that definition then redistribution isn’t very common (neither is it if you consider reversing progressive redistribution and promoting regressive redistribution to be totally unrelated, which I do not since they are the same thing). But the systems that both depend on to earn a living (military, legal system, educational system, infrastructure) are becoming more and more funded with regressive taxes despite both wealthy and poor people benefitting from the programs.
How does your wife deal with all her friends being so full of envy and jealousy that she is the one who gets to put up with this day after day and not them?
It depends on a variety of factors. The wealthy would not be wealthy w/o a military, legal system, educational system, infrastructure, scientific R&D, etc. Certain social programs do not benefit the wealthy much (medicare, SS and medicaid) but SS is paid for with a cap of 100k, leaving only medicare and medicaid.
But as I mentioned people like Walker have passed supply side tax cuts while raising taxes on the poor and working class. So the wealthy, like everyone else, depend on those programs to help them make a living but the cost is being shifted more and more downward via regressive tax hikes and progressive tax cuts. That is wealth redistribution. You can’t get wealthy or be working poor in antartica. Nobody gets rich in a vaccum, the system that allows wealth requires trillions in public funds.
Under the Bush admin the same thing happened. And it happened under Reagan too. Reagan passed federal income tax cuts but raised FICA taxes.
No really, I don’t. You used to have interesting thoughts and opinions. You used to ask interesting questions and appeared to be receptive to information. Now you spew garbage and rhetoric.
So you find that annoying, but here you are redefining “wealth redistribution” to suit your own needs, and making up and entirely new term “upward wealth redistribution.” The problem is that there are about a dozen others here that love to see rhetoric inline with their beliefs. So now “redistribution upwards” keeps showing up in other threads.
No, it’s not, you’re making shit up.
No, that is not the necessary result. It might happen, it might not. It also has nothing to do with wealth redistribution.
Again, you’re making shit. Your now just randomly applying “wealth redistribution” to actions you don’t like.
Again, bullshit.
Because that’s the definition. Taking money from those with wealth, and giving it to those without wealth, hence redistribution–of wealth. And you’re right, it’s not very common, so making up a new definition so it is more common doesn’t count.
Even a regressive taxation system will be wealth redistribution as long as the rich continue to contribute more in tax revenue than the poor. And while social services are designed to benefit the poor instead of the rich.
And it doesn’t matter if those services are for the betterment of society, it is still wealth redistribution.
And wealth redistribution isn’t necessarily a bad thing, I don’t really give a fuck how much or how little you redistribute wealth, use the fucking term properly.
They can “more and more” all you want, but while the rich contribute more tax revenue it will still be wealth redistribution.
Classy. But doesn’t make your new definition of wealth redistribution any more accurate. Nor would it help if I was getting corporate contributions for my involvement.
Bullshit. Can you prove that? No, you can’t. The US has had extremely small federal budgets and extremely large federal budgets. Meanwhile, people still get wealthy. Take Health and Human Services out of the budget and people will still make money. You are welcome to try and prove that the rich get richer the more the government spends.
No, it’s not. It is less redistribution, from what was previously a lot of redistribution.
False. You’re welcome to try and prove that it requires trillions in public funds. I’ll be here waiting.
Wealth redistribution UPWARDS would mean taking money from the poor, and giving it to the rich. Think feudal England where a rich king took all the crops of the hard working peasants without providing healthcare or education. Wealth was taken from one group and given to another, in this case upwards.
Currently in the US the top 10% of income earners are paying 63.5% of the taxes, while providing a myriad of services that benefit both them and the bottom 90%. That is wealth redistribution DOWNWARDS. Lowering it to 60% or even 50% is still downward redistribution, but less of it. Not upwards, just less downwards than before.
I don’t think anyone is arguing against a level playing field within reason. For example, If a level playing field meant a great amount fo suffering would be caused by market aprticipants, then I am not so in thrall with the amrket that i will allow that suffering to exist just so i can say “the market has done its will”
The “system” is not insular and more capital for investors does not always translate into more jobs.
I agree, wealth disparity is not the problem, unequal wealth is better than equal poverty but that is not the disparity we are seeing. we see the majority of Americans sliding backwards while the top increase3s its lead on the pack.
I think all economics believes that economies are not zero sums otherwise we would still be living at caveman stradards of living. But, that doesn’t mean that everything the free market does is efficient, or equitable and its certainly not pareto optimal.
While this may be true, I think teh question is whether the welath is distributed equitably in the first place.
Now you’ve lost me.
We have a constitutional amendment that authorizes the tax code. How is it unenforceable?
Union busting isn’t wealth distribution, union busting is merely knocking out one of the supports that level the playing field. Unions fix a problem with the free market, negotiating power between labor and capital (or at least power over capital) becomes concentrated in few hands while labor is dispersed.
Reversing environmental laws isn’t redistribution, its re-externalizing externalities that we had internalized. Pollution is the classic externality but there are a lot of others.
IOW, your instinct is correct but your vocabulary could be more precise. His definition of risk is … unique… but his definition of redistribution isn’t really far fetched. The question isn’t whether wealth is being fairly redistributed, the question is whether it is fairly distributed in the first place.
The things about the “you couldn’t have gotten rich anywhere else” argument is that despite the lack of absolute equality in opportunity, there is relative euqlity of opportunity in this country. Anyone can become rich if they have what this economy rewards. Anyone, from the derelict son of a former President to the black child of a mixed marriage and a single mother, can become president. The issue is what sort of society do you want to live in.
One semantic issue that always sticks in my craw when people talk about wealth redistribution. Wealth is distributed in the first place only in the sense that a set of data points are distributed across a continuum. It’s not distributed in the sense that it emanates from a central source and goes outward. I think some people incorrectly use it in the second sense.
Wealthy people are not wealthy because they are taking a bigger share of wealth from the wealth spigot. They are wealthy because they (or, sometimes, their parents etc.) created more wealth.
An insurance company collects premiums in return for protecting of your assets.
Without insurance, home owners would lose everything in a fire. The working class would be driven into poverty any time they had a car accident or got sick.
If you have a $200k house but can’t afford to replace it, I offer to use my cash to rebuild it in exchange for a monthly premium. You are paying to transfer your risk to me. I’ve offered a service and created wealth.
You are always free to self insure, but it means putting your cash reserves at risk. And if you have cash reserves large enough to replace your house, but don’t think it’s likely to be destroyed, you might offer to accept someone else’s risk in addition to your own.
Because you are paying me to take some of your risk, I am providing a service to you. My willingness to accept more risk is valuable to society.
If it helps, think of it like a garbage dump. You could bury your tray in your back yard but you don’t want to. I’m willing to turn my land into a waste site, but not for free. I’ll accept your burden for a fee.
In both cases, wealth created. Without someone willing to accept risk very little would happen. The thought of losing a $200k house to a fire is more than most people are willing to accept. So for a small fee they can transfer that risk to me. I have $200k in cash and I’m willing to risk it for a premium.
If you still don’t get it. Consider a casino where the minimum bet is $100. But you find that too much to lose on a single hand, so you sell some of the risk for $50 in exchange for 50% lower profits. Lowering the risk means you’re able to gamble, you are able to enter the market place, which means more wealth *can *be created. Without the option of insurance your $100 just sits there unused.
So without home owners insurance, you wouldn’t be able to get a house, the risk would be too high. Without auto insurance you wouldn’t be willing to drive.
The point though is that we all depend on the public sector to make and earn a living. If you have what this economy rewards yeah you can become rich. But you still need an educated, healthy workforce; scientific investments; public infrastructure; protection from domestic & foreign threats; etc to make and sell whatever product you are selling. Rich or poor, we all depend on trillions a year invested by the public sector to give the security and capability to earn a living with relative stability.
I see. So, they guy who owns the coal mine, he created the coal? And the miners who dig it out?
All of the resources of the nation belong to the nation, it is ours. This land is my land, this land is your land, so on and so forth. If a smaller number of people are permitted to exploit those resources and our people for their own benefit, that is a direct redistribution of wealth, from us to them. It was ours, now it’s his.
The guy that owns the coal mine invested his capital in the land before any coal was mined. That guy also invested his capital in the exploration and geological surveys. There is no guarantee coal is down there, or that you can sell it once you get it out.
The miner that digs it out gets paid for the time he puts in. If he doesn’t want to be a miner he’s lucky to live in the US where the government doesn’t assign him that job, or a caste system limits him to only that job.
With that said, if a thousand miners wanted to pool their capital they could go through the trouble of exploration, extraction, refinement, and distribution. But like I said in my other thread, that involves risking their capital.
Okay, I’d like your land now.
Except that that small number of people paid for the land rights. They transferred their wealth in exchange for land. Do you think a coal mine is free?
And once the coal is out it will be used to provide you and everyone else with electricity. You could always choose to go without electricity, and keep your wealth to yourself.
Now what about farm land? Should a farmer be entitled to the crops grown on his land? Or does it belong to call of us? What about the farm hand hired to help?
No, that is not true. You know it’s not true because you’ve said it before and were told it’s not true.
You’re welcome to try and prove that it’s true. But until you do I suggest you stop repeating it as fact.
Or don’t, I really don’t give a fuck. It seems to make you popular with other idiots that believe the same shit. If that’s important to you by all means continue spouting bullshit rhetoric.
Did you know 90% of what Planned Parenthood does is abortions?
How is that not true? public education, military and domestic legal systems cost about 2 trillion in public funds. That isn’t even including basic health care, infrastructure, public R&D, etc. which would probably add 500 billion or more to the price.
Actually I did know that 90% of what PP does is abortion. Did you know that over 500,000 mexican gays sneak into this country every year to unplug our brain dead ladies?
Agriculture, like coal mining, requires suitable land. Corn production in the US destroys the soil. It
requires huge amounts of fertilizer, pesticides, and irrigation. Fertilizer production alone accounts for 28% of the energy used in agriculture, requiring huge amounts of natural gas. Pesticides are oil based. And irrigation requires pumps.
The corn you see on top involve sucking the nutrients out of the soil, and then putting them back in using artificial fertilizer.
Rand Rover’s vision of capitalists “creating” wealth doesn’t have much to do with the current economic system, where men make fortunes betting against investment instruments made out of fairy dust that they sell TO their clients.