Well, because that was the statistic I had, frankly. But I thought we had said before that higher income groups earn more of their income from investments. It seems from your numbers that they do not do very well. If 60% of the wealth owners earn 31% of the income, then they are not getting very good returns at all. In fact, it seems that 4.7% of the wealth is earning 23% of the income which does not seem like a bad investment at all.
Once again, you seem to be arguing that we need to structure society for an equality of outcomes. I do not see how else to interpret your dogmatic adherence to the idea that income or wealth distribution inequality is automatically bad. Perhaps if you were to insert qualifiers into your theses containing possible amounts by which you would change things?
I composed a long response to your earlier post, but the hamsters ate it. I will rebuild it if I can muster the strength. Meanwhile I am reduced to good natured poking at your (or mine, perhaps) strawmen. Sad, but true.
In terms of my idea, using your figures, I think we could safely start with the top 1 percent who control almost half the wealth in this country. I bet they wouldn’t feel it too much at all if we put the squeeze on them so our poor could have health benefits and housing.
And no, you can’t solve poverty by throwing money at it, but yuou can solve hunger by throwing food at it and you can solve lack of health care by throwing single=payer health insurance at it. Medicaid fucking works, man, and so does Aid to Women with Dependent Children.
Granted, we’d have to rethink some of the welfare programs of the past, but I’m cool with learning from mistakes.
The unfunded liability for our obligations regarding healt care in the next couple decades are too high to measure. Simply adding more people to medicaid will not solve the health care problem. The reasons for rising healthcare costs are complex, but include many major issues not even addressed, and possibly made worse, by this suggestion.
Really, like which ones? I don’t mean that disrepectfully. I’m willing to learn from mistakes too. I agree that corporations are granted too many legal subsidies. Can you name a couple welfare mistakes we could learn from?
You stated we differed and that you favor growing the economy and allowing more opportunity for people to create wealth. That implies I don’t favor those options which, as I explained, is incorrect. Then you said that I, "prefer to loot wealth from those who create and simply transfer it to those who do not." That is also an incorrect assumption.
No that’s not logical. “Confiscated” property remains available unless it is destroyed. It’s just no longer controlled by the person it was “confiscated” from. Perhaps your post wasn’t specific enough. You have certainly added something to the discussion. Exactly what and why I’m not certain.
I have been talking about gathering wealth. Having wealth and creating it are 2 different things. If we both have a hundred dollars and I confiscate half of yours ( or blow you for it ) there is no difference in the amount of wealth. None has been created.
In addition to the confusion over creating and gathering wealth you also seem to have mistaken my posts for an assertion that I think fairness in taxation is irrelevent. I also have said nothing about giving money to others. What we are talking about are taxes, not charitible contributions. If you want to help the less fortunate out of your own pocket I would commend you but that isn’t taxation. Taxes pay for government. Government benefits everyone.
Cite? ( Or to put it more politely for a new person: Here in Great Debates we expect posters to be able to back up their assertions. Do you have any evidence this is true? )
This liberal has been saying it all his life without attempting to deceive anyone. ( OK, I usually say “Eat the Rich!” but whatever… )
Pish! Do you know what happens to governments that don’t resolve socially intolerable imbalances? They become defunct. The system doesn’t have to be fair but it does have to remain tolerable. See: the Articles of Confederation.
What I am talking about are indirect, as well as direct benefits. Since this is the part of your post that deals with indirect benefits I’ll use this as my example. Sure the owner of a ( sucessful ) business and its employees all benefit financially from the fact that roads exist to transport the goods the business is selling. But who benefits more? The business owner, of course. S/he takes home the most money.
There are caveats to luxury taxes and I believe some have been already mentioned in this thread. For my part I have no interest in taxing anyone until it hurts. If some elderly people are inadvertently endangered by tax policy it should be modified to eliminate that problem. There’s no need to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
You aren’t disagreeing with anything I said. I said nothing about how to determine “not needed for survival”. I was offering a general statement. Certainly the details are messy. So what?
As I have already pointed out to pervert, taxation is not charity. And as I have also already pointed out, welfare is beneficial to everyone living in America who doesn’t worship Chaos.
Fair enough…I was a little hard on you. But, hey, you give it to me too.
I never claimed that returns on wealth is the only source of income. In fact, for the poor and most of the middle class, it is a negligible source of income. For the wealthy, it can be a very large…even the dominant…source of income.
No, I have said nothing about wanting equality of outcomes. Thinking that 1% of the people owning 38% to 47% of the wealth, depending on how you measure it, however, is so far removed from equality of outcomes that mentioning the two in the same breath is sort of like saying that if someone doesn’t like the climate on Venus, they must want to live in the climate of Pluto.
I didn’t say that all inequality is bad. Certainly any society that rewards hard work and accomplishment is going to have inequality. I said that this degree of inequality is bad. I also felt that our society circa the late 70s already had plenty of inequality and it has gone up quite dramatically since then.
[What I have said in regards to outcomes is that I think one does have to look at outcomes and not just say “We will try for equal opportunities and not worry at all about outcomes.” I say this for at least three reasons: (1) It is impossible to have anything even remotely approaching equal opportunity when there is so much inequality in society. In fact, I challenge anyone who claims that they are actually striving for equal opportunity to demonstrate that they are achieving anything remotely close to this because by any reasonable definition of “equality of opportunity,” I don’t think that they will be. In fact, I would argue that true equality of opportunity is an ideal but really not realistically achievable because it would probably involve equalizing outcomes to an extent that even I think is over the line. However, I do think that we should strive for everyone having at least some certain minimum level of opportunity. (2) Since our various laws, the way we structure society, and such are not set in stone but are decisions that we have made, I think we always have to consider the outcome of those decisions and decide how that outcome appears to be relative to our values. (3) In a society with “winner-take-all” markets, some of the extreme inequalities that accumulate will be arbitrary and capricious and society likely won’t even run most efficiently if these are not tempered.]
No, you weren’t hard on me at all. I am much nastier to you. I’m not sure why you push my buttons so easily. I am still trying to figure it out.
Ok, but where is your evidence that the inequality we see has anything to do with anything except simple differences in outcomes? I think, again, that you are saying inequality is bad all by itself regardless of the source. What have I missed?
Well, I think you interpret the phrase equal opportunity too literally. I don’t think it means, for instance, everyone will have identical education, everyone will have a similar starter home and everyone will have the same job interviews. You are correct in seeing that this would be over the line. What the phrase means when applied to society (and more specifically to laws) is that everyon should be treated the same with regards to limits placed on them by the law. That is no one should be limited to working in specific areas just because they are black, no one should be limited to hiring only certain people just because they are <whatever>. The idea is not to provide equal opportunity so much as it is to provide an equal limitation on government.
This is another way to put the same thing. That is, I agree.
Agreed. So long as we do not use this as an excuse to through away everything we have done in the past all at once on a whim. I realize you have never advocated this. I think, however, the people advocating a redefinition of property are advocating this.
You keep using the phrase winner=take-all. I thought I understood it, but now I am not so sure. Certainly you do not mean that most transactions in our society are anything akin to theft, do you?
On review I think I mixed my response to you with my thoughts on other posters positions. I appologize.
Well, the thing remains, certainly. But some of its value is lost. Value is a characteristic of individuals. It is not inherent in the object, not even money. Property which is subject to confiscation is simply not as valuable as property which is not.
I disagree. In the second case I have experience something I value more than $50 dollars and you have $50 dollars for a service which you valued less. We both are richer for it. I agree ther is no more money between us, but the wealth has increased. In the first example, however, you now have $50 which you did not earn and which you will not value as highly as $50 dollars worth of your own effort. You certainly won’t value it as highly as $50 dollars woth of my effort. The amount of value in the system in a whole has decreased.
Ok, but fully half of government spending goes directly to wealth redistribution. You cannot say that we need more taxes without meaning we need more government. You cannot say this without meaning that we need more wealth redistribution. Unless you are advocating more taxes for some other purpose which you have not made clear.
pervert:In the second case I have experience something I value more than $50 dollars and you have $50 dollars for a service which you valued less. We both are richer for it. I agree ther is no more money between us, but the wealth has increased. In the first example, however, you now have $50 which you did not earn and which you will not value as highly as $50 dollars worth of your own effort. You certainly won’t value it as highly as $50 dollars woth of my effort. The amount of value in the system in a whole has decreased.
This strikes me as odd. I often hear people saying that money is just a measure of value. If so, how can the amount of value in the system have changed if the amount of money hasn’t?
Moreover, if your second example (i.e., being blown by 2sense in exchange for half your hundred bucks :eek: — geez guys, couldn’t we think of a little more decorous illustration? :)) is really an illustration of the creation of wealth, then I don’t really see how 2sense as the blower—er, producer—is more entitled to be designated the “creator of wealth” than you as the blowee—er, consumer. (For mercy’s sake, let’s not dwell on who is really producing or consuming what here, eh? ;))
Rather, the situation seems to me a perfect illustration of the fact that the creation of wealth is in fact the combined achievement of all the participants in the transaction.
Ok, but fully half of government spending goes directly to wealth redistribution.
Do you have a cite for that? The number seems kind of high to me, given that the usual federal budget pie chart breaks down expenditures at (for 2005) 41% SocSec/Medicare, 18% military, 20% non-military discretionary spending, 13% “other”, 8% national debt service. Seems to me that to get “fully half” out of that, you’d have to assume that all SS/Medicare spending is “wealth redistribution”, which would mean that all of it is going to people who are less wealthy than the people who contributed it, which is certainly very far from true.
I have to go with Kimstu on this as well as your next paragraph. Whether $100 is collected in taxes or kept in your pocket its value remains $100. I can agree that whether or not that amount seems like a lot is subjective.
Here I don’t agree with Kimstu but don’t get your hopes up. I don’t agree with you either. I say that all government spending is wealth redistribution. All the taxation is too. We haven’t found a definition of wealth creation we can agree on but once it is created it doesn’t stay in one place, it gets redistributed. Spending redistributes wealth, no matter who does it. If you buy an ice cream cone you have redistributed some wealth. If Bill Gates donates millions of dollars to charity then wealth has also been redistributed. What I am saying is that there is nothing special about it. It happens all the time.
Since the government needs a budget to operate it can’t avoid redistributing wealth. I see nothing objectionable about that. Now if the wealth were being deliberately redistributed I might agree you had reason to object. But that’s not the case. With our social programs the wealth redistribution is incidental to the program’s goal. Social Security’s goal isn’t to take money from working people and give it to retired people; that’s just the process used to achieve their purpose of promoting social stability.
For the same reason that the amount of value, or wealth does not change simply by adding more money.
I agree that in an economy of over 10 trilliion dollars a small transaction involving $100 will not alter the value of the dollar. My point was that this principle does not apply when you get governments and the amounts of money they are capable or redirecting within an economy.
There is something seriously wrong with me that I did not change this example to some more palitable service. I wanted to really I did. I simply could not make myself do it. I had to follow the funny. “I’m-sick-I-need-Help”.
Yes, indeed let’s not dwell on it. My only point was that value is created by both participants in a trade. As always assuming that the trade is done voluntarily.
This cbo page suggests that nondiscretionary spending has been at or above half of the federal budget since 1975 (Programatic spending in Table 5 and 6). Nondiscretionary spending is listed as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Income Support, Other Retirement and Disability, and Other Programs. This does not include the state budgets which I tend to think of as more redistributionist, but that is only a predjudice of mine. If I said that this all represents redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor, then I obviously overstated. However, I think it is pretty clear that this is all wealth confsicated from one group and granted to another in a way completely different from the similar effect that road building or the army does.
I agree, but this is exactly my point. Wealth is created by all the participants in the transaction. Not by the wealfare mother who lives 4 or 5 states away.
Well, I agree with you on this, but don’t get your hopes up either.
Well, ok, your right, there is nothing special about wealth redistribution, or wealth transfer if you prefer. However, that does not mean that there are not qualitative differences between different types of transfers. In your example, for instance, one is naughty and the other is right out.
Here, I have to disagree with you. If this were the case, the political rhetoric would be much less class divisive. I remember clearly back in 2000 when I was thinking seriously about voting for Al Gore (I know you don’t have to believe me) he said something in one of the debates which really turned me off. He said something along the lines of “I’ll fight for you” with the emphasis on fight. I remember thinking that I was not at war with anyone, and did not need anybody fighting for me.
My point is that the political purpose of these programs most definately is wealth redistribution. Even if they accomplish this with a modicum of other purposes. (Feeding the naked, clothing the hungry etc)
pervert:For the same reason that the amount of value, or wealth does not change simply by adding more money.
Well then, why are you trying to argue that rich entrepreneurs, for example, are creating wealth, if we can’t measure wealth creation financially? Why should we be deterred from taxing a higher percentage of their money on the grounds that they’re creating wealth, if there’s no quantifiable relationship between wealth creation and money acquisition?
I don’t think I said that we cannot measure wealth financially. I think I said it is not the only way to measure value. Although, I admit in a very flipant and round about way.
Just so we are clear, money aquired from voluntary trade does in fact create wealth. There is most certainly a relationship between how much money a person has and how much wealth he has created unless you can show that he stole it.
I don’t think I am saying this either. I don’t think I have said that we should not have a progressive tax. I’ll admit that I have not stated clearly that we should have a progressive taxe, but I don’t think I’ve come out in favor of any flat tax. My objection (and unless I am completely misremembering my participation in this thread) is to the idea that money does not rightfully belong to those who earn it and to the idea that we need to tax the American economy more than we already do.
pervert: *Just so we are clear, money aquired from voluntary trade does in fact create wealth. There is most certainly a relationship between how much money a person has and how much wealth he has created unless you can show that he stole it. *
We’re not clear at all. You just said, about your and 2sense’s hypothetical voluntary, er, trade:
I have experience something I value more than $50 dollars and you have $50 dollars for a service which you valued less. We both are richer for it. I agree ther is no more money between us, but the wealth has increased. […] Wealth is created by all the participants in the transaction.*
So you and 2sense have collaboratively created wealth from this transaction. However, in the process, in terms of actual money one of the participants is now $50 poorer and the other is $50 richer. So how on earth can you claim that there is a quantifiable “relationship between how much money a person has and how much wealth he has created”?
Certainly different transfers of wealth should be judged differently. Which begs the question of why you have a problem with the transfer known as “taxation”.
Um, how exactly does arguing that wealth distribution is incidental to the political goal of successful electoral outcomes rebut my assertion that wealth redistribution is incidental to governmental programs rather than the goal itself?
Well, certainly on the involuntary nature of it. Let me stress, that I am not arguing here for a reduction to 0 of taxes. Neither am I arguing for some sort of regressive tax system. I am simply arguing that if we are going to take money by force from people we should make sure it is for a very necessary purpose. I feel that fully half of the federal and probably a similar portion of State budgets do not qualify.
Because the goal is not necessarily in the details of the program. The goal is the purpose for which voters vote for politicians who promise certain programs. These promises are much more often than not in the form of soundbites. These sound bites are very rarely (in my experience) We simply want to make things fair. They are much more often of the 2 americas variety with an emphasis on the divisions.
Because one has $50 dollars that he did not have before in exchange for a service which he did have but valued less. He transformed his labor into dollars at a profit. The other has had an experience which he valued more than $50 dollars. He transformed his money into another form of value, also at a profit. There was a transaction in the amount of $50. This amount was added to the total which will be reported at the end of the year as the GDP. Oddly enough, the money which does not show up in the GDP is the $50 dollars not spent on tawdry adventures. Perhaps that is the moral?
Specifically, the amount of money a person has (unless he has aquired it through theft) is directly related to the amount of trade he has conducted. If you assume that the vast majority of trade is in fact free trade, and thus wealth creating trade, you have a fairly direct relationship between the amount of money a person has and the amount of wealth he has created.
pervert:Specifically, the amount of money a person has (unless he has aquired it through theft) is directly related to the amount of trade he has conducted. If you assume that the vast majority of trade is in fact free trade, and thus wealth creating trade, you have a fairly direct relationship between the amount of money a person has and the amount of wealth he has created.
That’s just restating your assertion without answering my objection. You and 2sense have created wealth together through your voluntary transaction, but the only monetary result is that he is $50 richer while you are $50 poorer. He’s now got money and you don’t.
So, based on your hypothesis that there’s a “direct relationship between the amount of money a person has and the amount of wealth he has created”, that would imply that he’s the only one who created wealth. Your role in the wealth creation is totally overlooked if it’s judged on “the amount of money” you got from it.
So which is it? Are all participants in free trade creating wealth, or only the ones who get money from it? If it’s the former, than your alleged “relationship” between wealth created and money owned is useless as a guide to who is really creating wealth.
Taxes are not involuntary. In America we have income tax. If you don’t want to pay it you can leave. If you choose to stay and enjoy the benefits of our nation then you can’t fairly complain about being required to help pay for those benefits. Thems the rules. If you don’t like it you are free to go find another game.
You are entitled to your opinion. Get enough of your fellow Americans to agree and you can enact your opinion into law. You know me, I can’t think of a better way for a government to decide which purposes should be considered necessary.
Why would you believe this? People are likely to support policies which promote their interests. Of course the elderly favor Social Security. That doesn’t mean its goal is to give them money. Military families support military spending. Does this mean that the goal of the armed forces is to give people money? My sister is a librarian and likely to support greater funding for books. Does this mean that the goal of libraries is to divert money into my sister’s pockets?
