Just a basic question. Do you think it necessary for a healthy society to have some sort of system for wealth redistribution?
ƒ³
Poll
Is a system for the redistribution of wealth necessary for a society?
| Yes | 54% | 54% - 32 | ||||
| No | 45% | 45% - 27 | ||||
| Total: 59 | ||||||
Yes otherwise you wind up with a small number of people holding all the wealth.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Yes.
1. Moneyz = power.
2. To annoy lowing.
1. Moneyz = power.
2. To annoy lowing.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
Capitalism fails to put protections in to counter mans basic greedy nature.
So, maybe.
So, maybe.
CEO salaries spiked 4 or 5 times, same with top 0.5% earners... hmm... Only the redistribution from the extremely rich tbh
Define "healthy" plz.
There is the assumption that all wealthy are corrupt, just like the assumption that all poor are lawless.
But with that said, I can't really think of any nation that doesn't have a redistribution of wealth.
But with that said, I can't really think of any nation that doesn't have a redistribution of wealth.
In the interests of preventing periodic revolutions, probably to a certain degree.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2009-11-08 08:48:38)
Idealistic, Poe. The assumption is everyone will work within the system. Whenever there's a system, often times there are work arounds.
I'd argue a system only delays the inevitable.
I'd argue a system only delays the inevitable.
The vast majority do. The systems exist today. You will always get a small degenerate stratum of society but anyone with an interest in life, luxury and comfort will work for it. We aren't discussing whether communism should be rolled out here.Pug wrote:
Idealistic, Poe. The assumption is everyone will work within the system. Whenever there's a system, often times there are work arounds.
I'd argue a system only delays the inevitable.
You can't expect people to work for less money than it would take to live a healthy life and reproduce the next generation of labour. That was the 1800s.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2009-11-08 08:55:37)
Taxes = redistribution of wealth. I'm not sure what system you're looking at, but Imma jus sayin when I see law changes, the behavior changes to the benefit the individual and not the society.
Of course, but that is just a constant battle that will play out forever. I wasn't just looking at taxation but at wages too.Pug wrote:
Taxes = redistribution of wealth. I'm not sure what system you're looking at, but Imma jus sayin when I see law changes, the behavior changes to the benefit the individual and not the society.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2009-11-08 09:05:57)
It's usually not a battle the government wins...
It isn't meant to be won, it's meant to continue forever. Keeping things in check.Pug wrote:
It's usually not a battle the government wins...
Taxation are not wealth redistribution. Taxes are collected to support the functions of govt.Pug wrote:
Taxes = redistribution of wealth. I'm not sure what system you're looking at, but Imma jus sayin when I see law changes, the behavior changes to the benefit the individual and not the society.
Taking money from one group for no other reason than to make things "fair" or in the name of "neighborliness" http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/35377 , or because you think it is the right thing to do, is wealth redistribution and is not a function of our govt. It is a punishment of achievement and a rewarding system for failure.
Last edited by lowing (2009-11-08 10:21:48)
It depends on your idea of a society.
Primarily on what you believe the highest tenents of your society are, what you believe your ideal citizen to be.
Primarily on what you believe the highest tenents of your society are, what you believe your ideal citizen to be.
Taxation supports the functions of the govt...the govt represents the society...the society is made up of people of different economic groups...therefore the costs associated with running a govt are a societal expense.lowing wrote:
Taxation are not wealth redistribution. Taxes are collected to support the functions of govt.Pug wrote:
Taxes = redistribution of wealth. I'm not sure what system you're looking at, but Imma jus sayin when I see law changes, the behavior changes to the benefit the individual and not the society.
A tiered tax system is in place so that people don't have to be overburdened by taxes to the point where the sacrifice to pay your taxes does not involve a massive shift in standard of living. What I mean is - a flat tax, with no breaks at all - would be easily within the budget of the wealthy, but may make it very difficult for the poor. But even in a flat tax society, there are govt programs in place to provide the poor tax breaks.
So if the tax system is set up to collect and pay for the gov't activity, since all economic groups are part of the society, it's a form of wealth distribution because the programs funded and the tax burden by economic group is not equal.
Now, with that said, I'm not one to believe overburdening the wealthy with more tax will create more jobs.
Taxation does not have to be tiered, it can be flat. Not flat with tax breaks for poor people, flat.
Taxes could only provide services that are of equal value to everyone, such as national defense.
Taxes do not automatically equate with redistribution of wealth. Social programs automatically equate with redistribution of wealth, but people in the liberal context of today in correctly go from A -> C while A -> B is not necessarily true.
Taxes could only provide services that are of equal value to everyone, such as national defense.
Taxes do not automatically equate with redistribution of wealth. Social programs automatically equate with redistribution of wealth, but people in the liberal context of today in correctly go from A -> C while A -> B is not necessarily true.
Right, but a flat tax with no breaks cannot work. Let's say its 10% of your income. 10% of someone making $25,000 is a massive hit on someone's standard of living compared to a millionaire. Therefore, it becomes tiered. But note that 10% of nothing = nothing, and therefore get benefits they did not pay for, which is a form of wealth redistribution.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Taxation does not have to be tiered, it can be flat. Not flat with tax breaks for poor people, flat.
Taxes could only provide services that are of equal value to everyone, such as national defense.
Taxes do not automatically equate with redistribution of wealth. Social programs automatically equate with redistribution of wealth, but people in the liberal context of today in correctly go from A -> C while A -> B is not necessarily true.
Hell, you don't need to be poor - how about a six year old kid? I'm paying for that a-holes national defense while he watches Sesame Street.
And if taxes were spent on an equivalent benefit to everyone, the cost of living would be impacted by economic group.
You are aware that universal health care would not be available under your suggestion as the wealthy old folks would have more benefits than the younger tax brackets.
So yeah, a simple question but not that simple in reality. Where do you draw the line between theory and reality?
Another thought: given that capitalism demands unemployment in order to cope with fluctuations in markets/demand/etc. then shouldn't there be some level of redistribution to pay these people (or at least keep them alive) for the role they are playing in the capitalist system? Of course they should demonstrably be seeking employment and should not be allowed to refuse employment if offered.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2009-11-08 11:07:24)
Also the more massive the underclass, the more likely a violent uprising is.
Look at France in the 1780's, or Russia in the 1910's. That came out of massive disproportions of wealth.
Look at France in the 1780's, or Russia in the 1910's. That came out of massive disproportions of wealth.
You mean welfare right?CameronPoe wrote:
Another thought: given that capitalism demands unemployment in order to cope with fluctuations in markets/demand/etc. then shouldn't there be some level of redistribution to pay these people (or at least keep them alive) for the role they are playing in the capitalist system? Of course they should demonstrably be seeking employment and should not be allowed to refuse employment if offered.
Pretty much.Pug wrote:
You mean welfare right?
Do you read any of my other posts in this section?Pug wrote:
You are aware that universal health care would not be available under your suggestion as the wealthy old folks would have more benefits than the younger tax brackets.
You and CameronPoe are making it not work by making an assumption that the society must look similar to modern western society. You are making assumptions that you can't make in context of the question.
You can't make that assumption.Pug wrote:
10% of someone making $25,000 is a massive hit on someone's standard of living compared to a millionaire. Therefore, it becomes tiered.
You can't make that assumption.CameronPoe wrote:
Another thought: given that capitalism demands unemployment in order to cope with fluctuations in markets/demand/etc.
As an aside I think most people would differentiate between unemployment benefits (that CP outlined) and welfare.
Welfare abuse is an example of what I posted earlier - an individual can abuse the system by being on welfare for way too many years. Why? Because the rules are such that allows that behavior.