Wealth Redistribution - Not a conspiracy, entirely...

I read the article below the other day regarding wealth redistribution and income inequality:

www.vicopperman.com...

The author, who appears to be the owner of said website, raised some points that I felt were valid (though I quibble a bit with some of his data). I’ve read a fair bit on this subject and have a background in Economics so I find this stuff interesting. The linked article prompted me to come to a working theory I have in my mind right now:

Redistribution of wealth, absent enormous taxes on individuals/estates or a mandated wealth transfer, is effectively impossible due to the effects of compounding on existing wealth.

Said another way, the head start that those who are “wealthy” have is so significant that unless the government outright takes money from those who have it or the wealthy “lose”it via bad investments or spending there’s simply no catching up in our current system - specifically for what I’m going to call economically “unproductive humans” or “structurally unproductive humans”. By “unproductive” I mean they, individually, don’t contribute significantly to the economy or betterment of society. It’s cold to say it that way, but understanding the problem requires a certain degree of fact-based and unemotional thinking.

The core of the “wealth redistribution” problem, as I’m starting to see it, is we have a lot of humans when you think globally. With larger numbers chasing the same resources/jobs those who have an advantage most likely prevail and technology gains eliminate opportunities for many others. Despite the COVID year, the overall human population remains on an upward trajectory and that trend likely continues - particularly in (currently) less economically productive portions of the world. This is particularly true on the African continent as consider their general economic issue:

qz.com...

The issue then becomes, simply, societal unrest. You have too many humans who either are displaced from work by machines - be it through either doing their job or efficiency gains to where we need less labor - all while the under skilled labor supply is increasing. Those are what I’ll call “structurally unproductive humans”. Then you have the humans that simply didn’t make it - they offer essentially nothing of value to greater society beyond their families by virtue of being unemployable, addicted, uneducated or just simply lazy. Those folks will be called “unproductive humans” for the sake of this argument.

The number of humans in either of these categories will only get larger as the population grows and we continue to gain efficiency via AI and robotics.

Therefore, we need to figure out a way to make sure they’re taken care of so they don’t go completely off the rails and destroy life for those who do have wealth. Mind you, I’m not talking about saving the lifestyles of the rich and famous - I’m talking about middle to upper middle class family will also experience the consequences of unrest. We’re already seeing this on a small scale with the riots we had over the summer.

Knowing this, we have to “do something” to solve this problem - at least in the US. This is where the Universal Basic Income has come into play - which would be funded by wealth transference or “wealth redistribution” almost assuredly. The optics of that funding would be too good to pass up.

Looked at through the lens of “wealth redistribution” keeping the unproductive humans at bay, the transfer would equate to an insurance policy of sorts. Those who can pay more (taxes/estate taxes/corporate taxes), do, and thus the masses are kept at bay - and their lifestyles/lives/business engagements can continue.

Sounds like a raw deal for those who were able to achieve a high income or wealth, and i guess in some ways it is, but here’s why the wealthy or moderately wealthy shouldn’t fear it and frankly most people who are even remotely productive humans should not “fear” wealth redistribution:

Those whom that money is being “redistributed” to have essentially no money. That money you’ll be transferring to them will be paid back to land lords, utility companies, Amazon, the oil industry and so on. It won’t be enough for those folks on the receiving end of the “wealth transfer” to over take those who already made money - to the contrary, if you pull money out of a billionaire’s pocket and then transfer that money to lots of people who then spend said money, you may actually increase the number of “wealthy” people as that money gets spent into the economy - which then makes it back around to the corporation in the form of revenue. It also pushes up wages for productive humans - the gap doesn’t close. Or, the corporation spends more in the form of business reinvestment which has a similar effect as taxes. Efficiency gains make up some of the difference, but also make the problem worse. Therefore, there’s a limit to how far this could functionally go.

Or, and this is where wealth redistribution backfires in my view given a real-world application, is that the decrease in margins is turned into effectively a tax on the citizenry when the prices go up... which requires more wealth redistribution... and so on. Thus, it can’t really be done the way it’s billed as being done by some of the more liberal members of Congress, for instance.

So what could we do about it?

Here’s a way to see it as things stand...

We can pretty much bake in an assumption that taxes will go up under Biden and the drum will be beaten for “wealth redistribution”. It’ll be pretty “shocking” but it won’t be the end-all of society or wealth - if you have wealth, you’ll always be wealthier on a relative basis at least in iteration one of “wealth redistribution”. This is particularly true as politicians have to tread lightly around the wealthy who help get them elected. It won’t be that bad.

So while i suspect that will happen, perhaps for all the reasons I outlined above about the need for taking care of unproductive/structurally unproductive humans and then some, the real solutions here take a long time to play out or get to an end state that’s sustainable. That would look like:

- Reducing the world population by a few billion people.
- Fully integrating “under represented groups” into positions of power to lobby on behalf of those groups, globally.
- Increasing taxes materially on those making $500k/year or more into perpetuity.
- Getting the wealthy out of the cities and into suburban or more rural areas.
- Make getting a loan for just about anything, for anyone.
- Forgiving (e.g. Federal Bailout) all student loan debt and potentially all credit card debt up to a certain threshold. Or, perhaps just paying off al debt up to a certain dollar amount. While not necessarily stated this way, this could be where the “Great Reset” comes in... “You own nothing, and you’ve never been happier”. Gets appropriated by the government via “paying off debts” and those who didn’t own anything before will own nothing now and likely won’t going forward.
- Figure out a way to get “off-world” at some degree of scale.
- Increase investment in underdeveloped countries and incentivize private investment in said countries.
- Aggressively develop renewable energy sources.

Cont.

It’s these points above that become the points of “conspiracy theories” - yet a number of those points have been widely discussed but all in different ways at different times but not really “tied together”. As I consider those points, i have to remind myself that the folks who are involved in the decision making for all of this are thinking big - and I mean BIG. Like “where are we going to take the world in the next 100 years?” Big. If they’re thinking that way, the points above are very much on the table and not “conspiratorial” in the least - people who dismiss research and analysis on the points above just simply aren’t thinking big enough to get why they’re entirely valid points to look into.

Good news, however. Given everything above, you have one tried and true, surefire way of getting along just fine in the face of all of the above - with headwinds for some and tailwinds for others...

Be a productive human. Grow. Become valuable in a way that will be valuable in 5/10 years. Look to whatever technology is the cutting edge to find the direction that field or sector is going and gain knowledge in those areas - don’t look to the past, don’t wish for it to be like it was - figure out where it’s going and accept that change. The more someone remains stuck thinking our economy should work like it did 60 years ago with the same makeup and jobs, the more they will be left behind given where this ship is headed.

I’d say the future has a materially greater than zero probability of looking something like what I have posted above. It’s a big step towards the “advanced future” many of us hope for. And the future, like the present, needs productive humans.

5% tax on Wall Street.

Done!

US Debt would be paid back in just a few years.

No need to tax citizens so citizens available funds increases.

Job done.

P

Time to pull the plug.

No more passing wealth forward.....once you croak you can leave your kids one lifetime worth of assets......that it thats all...no cap on your earnings if you want to be a societal hero and donate copious volumes of assets its up to you go earn them....but no more Dynastic families and we now must disempower the currently embedded ones.

Life is not that long that any man nor woman should be able to make decisions during their time that impact others for CENTURIES....no one has a right to that type of power to influence he future once they are dead.

If you're into wealth redistribution, start with the politicians. Redistribute their money. They're lying, scheming con artists who don't provide any service whatsoever to their supposed constiuents. They're parasites. At least the corporate folks employ people and stimulate the economy.


The wealthiest members includes career politicians who boosted their portfolios over decades in Congress and recently elected lawmakers.
Millionaire congress members

This will not work for the same reason that increasing the minimum wage has never worked.

As soon as more money is available at the bottom, all prices go up to compensate for it. While this keeps the bottom the same and the top do not even notice, the middle loose buying power as they are not included in the increase and have to pay more for everything.

As for the depopulation part, are you volunteering? Everyone likes the idea until it is about them.

Depopulation will happen in time as the antibiotics became more and more ineffective.

originally posted by: pheonix358
5% tax on Wall Street.

Done!

US Debt would be paid back in just a few years.

No need to tax citizens so citizens available funds increases.

Job done.

P

Wall Street already pays a boat load of taxes.

When you say "Wall Street" you need to be more specific. Are you talking a small investor or large institutions? If you have a 401k, you are technically part of Wall Street. Do you want your retirement income reduced for this 5% tax?

a reply to: EnigmaChaser

Thank you for your thoughts. My brothers and I have had extensive debates on UBI or Universal Basic Income.
The problem with trying to make a society that has income equality is that for a government to achieve that goal there has to be income inequality to achieve income equality.
The issue I have with wealth distribution is a moral one.

Who are you or I or anyone to say that anyone else “makes
Too much money? Jeff Bezos founded Amazon and employs
Over a million people. His company provides a service that hundreds of millions use abs enjoy. In a capitalist system (which by the way is NOT a political system) the customers
Of Amazon have rewarded him for the product abs services
He provides.

I have no problem with Bill Gates being rich. His company
Transformed the world with windows and his company’s software has been a part of millions of people having
Gainful employment.

I am against any type of UBI or wealth distribution because
It’s morally wrong to steal from another to give to a person
You think is more deserving. Let’s call it what it is.
It’s stealing. You can’t mask that it’s stealing with the the argument that they have too much money or they don’t need that much money. Says who? You? The government?
Who made you or the government god?

If you really care about the poor why don’t send 30%
Of your paycheck every two week to the Salvation Army?

Also I don’t care what studies are done on a localized area
Regarding UBI in regards to inflation. Nothing has ever been done like this on a nationwide scale before and I can
Guarantee that if $2k a month for everyone would be highly inflationary. If everyone has the same about of money that money is not worth as much. That is a economic fact. That would massive increase the M2 money supply.

originally posted by: one4all
Time to pull the plug.

No more passing wealth forward.....once you croak you can leave your kids one lifetime worth of assets......that it thats all...no cap on your earnings if you want to be a societal hero and donate copious volumes of assets its up to you go earn them....but no more Dynastic families and we now must disempower the currently embedded ones.

Life is not that long that any man nor woman should be able to make decisions during their time that impact others for CENTURIES....no one has a right to that type of power to influence he future once they are dead.

What is one lifetime of earnings?

So are you going to leave your kids with nothing? Why wouldn't you want to give your kids a head start in life?

Maybe the long-game here is an economy that’s more like that of Nazi Germany. Most everything is done for the benefit of the state/owned by the state/sanctioned by the state and unemployment would be extremely low. Poverty would largely be eradicated, upward mobility would still exist in a way but the overall standard of living would be reasonably good and you’d diminish the unproductive human population because they’d be shamed - if they’re not working, they’re not helping society/the government. So there would be fewer, whom we could easily care for.

Interesting angle if you’re a believe that the Reich never totally disappeared, it just changed forms.

originally posted by: EnigmaChaser
Maybe the long-game here is an economy that’s more like that of Nazi Germany. Most everything is done for the benefit of the state/owned by the state/sanctioned by the state and unemployment would be extremely low. Poverty would largely be eradicated, upward mobility would still exist in a way but the overall standard of living would be reasonably good and you’d diminish the unproductive human population because they’d be shamed - if they’re not working, they’re not helping society/the government. So there would be fewer, whom we could easily care for.

Interesting angle if you’re a believe that the Reich never totally disappeared, it just changed forms.

Poverty has never been eradicated. In communist and socialist countries, poverty is more of an issue than in capitalistic societies.

America is so prosperous, our poor people are actually rich when compared globally. To be poor in America is to live like the middle and upper class in most countries.

a reply to: Brassmonkey

Fair points.

To be clear, I’m not advocating for a wealth transfer. Nor a UBI, nor any other Robin Hood scheme.

I approach this subject from trying to understand what is and why. My fear with a UBI or “Wealth Redistribution”, for instance, is that it will stop people from being able to move upward in society from a financial perspective - better themselves. And in doing that, hold everyone back. That’s scary stuff.

So, to satisfy my worry/itch, I’m trying to see this subject as practically and clearly as I can given known information.

To me, my post is a reflection of how I’m starting to think things will go and the reasons behind that. Hell, I can profit off that type of understanding. So it’s not about what I want to believe, it’s about trying to most accurately understand what is to navigate the future as effectively as possible.

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: EnigmaChaser
Maybe the long-game here is an economy that’s more like that of Nazi Germany. Most everything is done for the benefit of the state/owned by the state/sanctioned by the state and unemployment would be extremely low. Poverty would largely be eradicated, upward mobility would still exist in a way but the overall standard of living would be reasonably good and you’d diminish the unproductive human population because they’d be shamed - if they’re not working, they’re not helping society/the government. So there would be fewer, whom we could easily care for.

Interesting angle if you’re a believe that the Reich never totally disappeared, it just changed forms.

Poverty has never been eradicated. In communist and socialist countries, poverty is more of an issue than in capitalistic societies.

America is so prosperous, our poor people are actually rich when compared globally. To be poor in America is to live like the middle and upper class in most countries.

I’m aware of that - and you’re right. But that doesn’t fit the narrative of the incoming administration very well.

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: pheonix358
5% tax on Wall Street.

Done!

US Debt would be paid back in just a few years.

No need to tax citizens so citizens available funds increases.

Job done.

P

Wall Street already pays a boat load of taxes.

When you say "Wall Street" you need to be more specific. Are you talking a small investor or large institutions? If you have a 401k, you are technically part of Wall Street. Do you want your retirement income reduced for this 5% tax?

And this is why the “tax Wall Street” crowd is consistently disappointed... you’d be hurting the very people you think you’re trying to help.

a reply to: EnigmaChaser

You had to bring the Nazis into this? Who is the government going to eliminate to take their wealth?

www.marketwatch.com...

I'll say it again. Buy bitcoin. There is a reason tons of money is flowing into it right now.

Black Rock has something like 7.5 trillion dollars of assets under management. They are now getting into bitcoin.

This all stems from the private centralized banking system. Take your money out of their control.

fortune.com...

Remember in 2017 when JP Morgan was saying bitcoin is garbage. Well they're not stupid, that was to manipulate it so they can buy cheaper.

Get yourself familiar with cryptocurrency because it will be the money of the future.

originally posted by: beyondknowledge

As for the depopulation part, are you volunteering? Everyone likes the idea until it is about them.

Depopulation will happen in time as the antibiotics became more and more ineffective.

I want to address this specifically for the thread.

First, the overwhelming majority of my posts and views on a subject aren’t always consistent with what I want to see happen. For me, personally, talking about what I want takes away from understanding what is. Since what is, is, what I want is irrelevant. So I try to post what I either see as or am contemplating on as it pertains to understanding the reality of where we’re going and why. My comments on population are said in that light.

From my take, the hole “line up for the depopulation camp” notion is totally bogus. They don’t need to exterminate existing humans. They need to have fewer humans being born going forward, under this scenario. That’s very different and actually a reasonably human take on things when you consider the collective impacts on the planet and living humans in a scenario with an exponentially growing human population and finite resources/no ability to get off planet.

I also would go all-in against “death camps” or whatever because you have to remember something about the outcome:

It needs to be peaceful/compliant/calm/etc.

Otherwise, you shift the uprising from the poor to those who might be “depopulated”. Now you have a war on your hands and the agenda takes a big step back. Can’t have things go on that set the agenda back - clock is ticking and population is growing. This, to me, is the entire basis for the media’s obnoxiously negative bias against Trump. He set the agenda back - now they have to fix it. So, I doubt that would happen as it defeats the purpose of the whole exercise, in my view.

originally posted by: beyondknowledge
a reply to: EnigmaChaser

You had to bring the Nazis into this? Who is the government going to eliminate to take their wealth?

Not in the way you’re referencing, no.

I’m saying we could be moving towards a system that looks different than the one we’re used to. Given the problems we had, the Germans had, and the fact that the people who laid this foundation were in many cases far more supportive of the Nazi agenda than the typical history book in school says it doesn’t feel too out of bounds to me.

In thinking through a way that could play out.....

I could logically imagine a scenario where we end up forming some sort of nation, and not in the EU sense, between several NATO countries. My first thought is the US, UK, Germany, Japan and perhaps a few more countries. It would be governed more like the UN but it’s, in fact, one unified country. With resources pooled, that becomes the basis for the one-world government.

In a way, for corporate interests to survive/thrive around the world via a non-war based economy we would need to have something like this in place, long-term.

a reply to: EnigmaChaser

First, I want to give you a tip of the hat for an eloquent, well thought out post.

There are quite a few things I'd like to touch upon here, I probably will later, but there is one I'd like to point out now.

"Be a productive human."

Why? More importantly, productive for whom? Society? Humanity? Who determines what is "productive?"

One of the main reasons that humanity has survived is because a certain percentage of people decided, "Screw this [Cheiftan, King, Queen, Dictator, whatever], I'm outta here. I'm going to find somewhere else to live where I can be free from these jerks who just want to take what I've worked for."

If it wasn't for people like that, humanity probably would have stayed on one continent and eventually gone extinct through some natural disaster, or plague, or something.

We all get only one life (so far as we know). I believe humans have the right to determine how they wish to live that life. Einstein could have chosen to remain a "productive" patent clerk. Make enough money for food and shelter for himself and his family, and just spend his spare time painting and enjoying the flowers in the spring. He chose differently, and all of humanity benefited.

I believe the true destiny of humankind isn't to imitate ants or bees, where every individual exists to serve the collective. True, those are evolutionary success stories, but there will be extinction level events on Earth they will not survive. If we emulate their behavior, we won't survive either. We may not survive in any case. But if we do, we should survive extinction because of what we are: individuals who work together because we choose to, not because we're forced to. If we don't survive, let nature try again with something maybe better.

As Captain Picard said, "If we're going to be damned, let's be damned for what we are."

a reply to: EnigmaChaser

They don’t need to exterminate existing humans. They need to have fewer humans being born going forward, under this scenario.

So you thank that giving medical help to third world nations is very bad then? That is what caused the population increase. They were given a higher childhood survival rate without all the other parts of the modern world that would allow them to understand that they did not need as many children.