Time for a mass redistribution of wealth

I've been reading about "all those awful people with MONEY" and about how we should all be warned of the "evils of greed"...

Funny, I was raised in a Capitalist society.

Everyone has the same chance (with the exceptions which we as a culture are working on, such as Obama using equal pay for women as a stomping point) to make a living here in the US as everyone else.

I am a HS dropout. I have a GED. I have 45 college credits under my belt. I earn a good living for my family. Why?

BECAUSE I WASN'T SATISFIED WITH THE OPTIONS I HAD PREVIOUSLY MADE FOR MYSELF.

So what did I do? I CHANGED my options.

I'm hearing alot of young folks today chanting about how evil greed is. How we should redistribute wealth.

What utter BS.


Of course, greed, in as much as going so far as not doing your part socially, is bad. But, wanting more for you, yourself, and your family? MAKING something out of yourself?

No, this is an altruistic pipe dream that leads right into the hands of socialists and communism.

Redistribution of wealth? Are F$%ing kidding me?


EQUAL share of the pain. We all pay the same tax percentage. We all get the same legal opportunities.

LewsTherinThelamon
reply to post by beezzer

 

That's why I support a flat tax with no exemptions or exceptions.

If you hate your citizens enough to tax them (remember that internal taxation against individuals and businesses is a form of Marxism), a flat-tax is the most disproportionate way to do it. It is unequal.


Abolish all taxes against individuals and businesses

Flat tax, as in, a flat amount, of course is unfair.

But, a flat tax, in that everyone pays THE SAME percentage, is ENTIRELY fair.

And, you don't like taxes? Where in the world do you expect social needs to be taken care of from? Paved roads....police departments...etc....

How do those get paid for ?

Aloysius the Gaul

zeroBelief
[Let's look at it this way.

15% of a $30K annual salary....$4500.

15% of a $100K annual salary.....$15000.

Those earning less, PAY less...but it is proportionately the same.

And if you earn, so, $500K a year...you pay $75K a year in taxes.

Again, the idea is we all share the burden...but, we do it proportionately, which is fair.

Unless of course you are living at the poverty line - in which case taking that 15% away just sucks big time......

Family of four, powerty level is $23,550/year.

www.familiesusa.org... vocates/guides/federal-poverty-guidelines.html


First of all, WHAT IN THE HELL ARE YOU DOING WITH A FAMILY OF FOUR if you only earn $23,550 /year?

Just because you can procreate, doesn't mean you're financially prepared to be a parent.

Second...I am certain there are welfare and assistance plans out there that would more than make up for the difference.

And what would 15% of $23550 be? $3552.50.

Crap wages to begin with, crap minus a little bit is what you end up with.



Sorry, not even an option for me personally in my book. If you're ok with being at the poverty level, and not willing to better yourself....

Well.....

spiritualzombieThe 1% is a problem.

That's a partial diagnosis that stops at the outermost layer of the problem.

The real problem is the 1% + government which keeps the rest of us down (with over-regulation, over-taxation, war on some drugs,etc), so no small business can compete any more. For example, the big pharmaceutical companies are fine, but they become problem when they buy government muscle to suppress, often at gunpoint, all alternatives (banning supplements, traditional or natural healing techniques; carrying out war on entheogens). Big Agribusiness is fine, too, but the problem arises when they buy government ninjas to break down doors of raw milk or almonds farmer to shut them out. Monopoly on currency with debt money by large private banks is another one.

In short, the crony capitalism (government as enforcer of the big business monopolies) is the source of the current problems.

ketsuko
Who takes it? Who distributes it?

Actually, there are a lot of ways of accomplishing it and some countries are already taking steps to do just that.

For example, we could raise the top marginal tax rate on the uber wealthy and issue monthly minimum income payments to "every" citizen, including right back to the guy it came from. I think Switzerland is considering such a plan now. This is just one way that's currently being considered but I'm sure that creative minds can come up with other viable ways to accomplish the same thing.

ketsuko
At what point is an amount deemed to be greedy? What if a person with that amount started with nothing and earned it honestly? Who gets it? What if the person getting it has made a ruin of their life?

What happens when 6 months down the road, the rich are rich again and many of the poor are poor again?

I'm definitely not a religious scholar or anything like that but if I'm not mistaken, doesn't the old testament advocate periodic wealth redistribution? I think it's called the year of Jubilee. I think the whole idea behind the "year of Jubilee" being repeated on a periodic basis was the acceptance of the fact that in all likelihood, the wealth would indeed re-accumulate at the top and the process would need to be repeated.

Maybe that's why they had to re-write it, it was just to demanding of their greedy asses.

The only disagreement I have with the OP lies within his first sentence where he states, "The 1% is a problem." It should read, "The 1% is The problem.

Flatfish

ketsuko
Who takes it? Who distributes it?

Actually, there are a lot of ways of accomplishing it and some countries are already taking steps to do just that.

For example, we could raise the top marginal tax rate on the uber wealthy and issue monthly minimum income payments to "every" citizen, including right back to the guy it came from.

If they ever get around to that here, you can have my government check, mmkay? Just point them to this post and say "neno said I can have his check, right here."

I have NO desire to become dependent on a government tit, especially in light of the corruption rampant in government, you know? What they give, they can also take away or withhold as a control measure. You can have my share of THAT, too.

Where is the sense in taking some guy's money away, then giving it back to him? Just another government control measure.

ketsuko

I'm definitely not a religious scholar or anything like that but if I'm not mistaken, doesn't the old testament advocate periodic wealth redistribution? I think it's called the year of Jubilee. I think the whole idea behind the "year of Jubilee" being repeated on a periodic basis was the acceptance of the fact that in all likelihood, the wealth would indeed re-accumulate at the top and the process would need to be repeated.

Maybe that's why they had to re-write it, it was just to demanding of their greedy asses.

I'm not aware of any "wealth redistribution" during the Jubilee Year, but debts were cancelled.

The only disagreement I have with the OP lies within his first sentence where he states, "The 1% is a problem." It should read, "The 1% is The problem.

They're only a "problem" if you allow them to be. Why do you allow it? Can't find a 99%er to make you an ipod?

You have to fix the people and the culture, and that is not a mechanical (i.e. legal) fix. What is being advocated here is social justice. Social justice is the idea that you can use the law to give everyone equal outcomes by disadvantaging some to the advantage of others. What happens in the end is that there are always unintended consequences. The laws you pass wind up disadvantaging some you never intended for them to and over-advantage some beyond what you intended. So, you create in inequalities in the system that need yet more laws to address opening up even more problems in the system.

Since we are using game analogies here, I'll use one. For anyone who has ever played an MMORPG, you are likely familiar with the concept of "balance" between archetypes. This is especially true of games that have PvP systems. Most games enter into a cycle of neverending patches where different character archetypes are either "nerfed" (weakened) or "buffed" (strengthened) because of the perceived inequalities between them. Often this opens up new loopholes in the rulesets that can be exploited by savvy players that only lead to new rounds of nerfs and buffs in subsequent patches and "balance" where ever archetype is perfectly equal to every other is never, ever achieved.

reply to post by Flatfish


Go through the thread and find my post about social justice and why it doesn't work.

You can't use the laws to enforce an equal outcome for everyone.

It even has a nice analogy in it.

reply to post by spiritualzombie


What is with this 1% controlling the 99%?

I make $40,000 a year before taxes. I own a 1600 square foot house, a car, a nice TV, I go on vacation once every two years, and eat the food that I want to eat.

Would I like to live on the beach? Would I like to drive a Ferrari? Yeah of course I would.

I however am content and happy with what I own because I earned it. I also know that if I put in the blood, sweat, and tears I could live on the beach or own that Ferrari.

So please tell me how I am controlled?

In America the opportunity is there. It's not the "1%" fault if you don't take advantage of what we are blessed with as Americans.

I am a part of the "99%" too, but please don't speak for me.

nenothtu

If they ever get around to that here, you can have my government check, mmkay? Just point them to this post and say "neno said I can have his check, right here."

I have NO desire to become dependent on a government tit, especially in light of the corruption rampant in government, you know? What they give, they can also take away or withhold as a control measure. You can have my share of THAT, too.

Where is the sense in taking some guy's money away, then giving it back to him? Just another government control measure.

I've got an even better idea, how about I just have them send your check to me?

nenothtu
I'm not aware of any "wealth redistribution" during the Jubilee Year, but debts were cancelled.

The cancellation of debt is the exact same thing as wealth re-distribution. If 1% of the population holds the wealth which includes the banks and their loans, when those debts are cancelled, you have effectively reduced the net worth of the 1%er and increased the net worth of the guy who no longer has any debt. I think that would qualify as wealth re-distribution. Oxymoron, anyone?

nenothtu
They're only a "problem" if you allow them to be. Why do you allow it? Can't find a 99%er to make you an ipod?

I doubt there are any 1%ers making ipods today. If I'm not mistaken, they're more than likely being manufactured by child labor in sweat shops spread across Asia.

ketsuko

You have to fix the people and the culture, and that is not a mechanical (i.e. legal) fix. What is being advocated here is social justice. Social justice is the idea that you can use the law to give everyone equal outcomes by disadvantaging some to the advantage of others. What happens in the end is that there are always unintended consequences. The laws you pass wind up disadvantaging some you never intended for them to and over-advantage some beyond what you intended. So, you create in inequalities in the system that need yet more laws to address opening up even more problems in the system.

Since we are using game analogies here, I'll use one. For anyone who has ever played an MMORPG, you are likely familiar with the concept of "balance" between archetypes. This is especially true of games that have PvP systems. Most games enter into a cycle of neverending patches where different character archetypes are either "nerfed" (weakened) or "buffed" (strengthened) because of the perceived inequalities between them. Often this opens up new loopholes in the rulesets that can be exploited by savvy players that only lead to new rounds of nerfs and buffs in subsequent patches and "balance" where ever archetype is perfectly equal to every other is never, ever achieved.

reply to post by Flatfish

 

Go through the thread and find my post about social justice and why it doesn't work.

You can't use the laws to enforce an equal outcome for everyone.

It even has a nice analogy in it.

If the quote you pasted in this post is an example of your argument against social justice, I think I'll just reserve my time for looking into things that actually make sense.

zeroBelief


I've been reading about "all those awful people with MONEY" and about how we should all be warned of the "evils of greed"...

Funny, I was raised in a Capitalist society.

Everyone has the same chance (with the exceptions which we as a culture are working on, such as Obama using equal pay for women as a stomping point) to make a living here in the US as everyone else.

I am a HS dropout. I have a GED. I have 45 college credits under my belt. I earn a good living for my family. Why?

BECAUSE I WASN'T SATISFIED WITH THE OPTIONS I HAD PREVIOUSLY MADE FOR MYSELF.

So what did I do? I CHANGED my options.

I'm hearing alot of young folks today chanting about how evil greed is. How we should redistribute wealth.

What utter BS.


Of course, greed, in as much as going so far as not doing your part socially, is bad. But, wanting more for you, yourself, and your family? MAKING something out of yourself?

No, this is an altruistic pipe dream that leads right into the hands of socialists and communism.

Redistribution of wealth? Are F$%ing kidding me?


EQUAL share of the pain. We all pay the same tax percentage. We all get the same legal opportunities.

Read Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers to grasp the fact that "success" is mostly a matter of LUCK. Right place, right time. If you think we all have equal opportunity, you are kidding yourself.

Rather than "redistributing" wealth, redefine it. Remove the barriers to survival (exchanging products of human energy to survive) and eliminate money, defining wealth as good character, friendships, accomplishments, and other social currencies. (See my post, page 8, bottom post.)

Flatfish

nenothtu

If they ever get around to that here, you can have my government check, mmkay? Just point them to this post and say "neno said I can have his check, right here."

I have NO desire to become dependent on a government tit, especially in light of the corruption rampant in government, you know? What they give, they can also take away or withhold as a control measure. You can have my share of THAT, too.

Where is the sense in taking some guy's money away, then giving it back to him? Just another government control measure.

I've got an even better idea, how about I just have them send your check to me?

nenothtu
I'm not aware of any "wealth redistribution" during the Jubilee Year, but debts were cancelled.

The cancellation of debt is the exact same thing as wealth re-distribution. If 1% of the population holds the wealth which includes the banks and their loans, when those debts are cancelled, you have effectively reduced the net worth of the 1%er and increased the net worth of the guy who no longer has any debt. I think that would qualify as wealth re-distribution. Oxymoron, anyone?

nenothtu
They're only a "problem" if you allow them to be. Why do you allow it? Can't find a 99%er to make you an ipod?

I doubt there are any 1%ers making ipods today. If I'm not mistaken, they're more than likely being manufactured by child labor in sweat shops spread across Asia.

edit on 31-1-2014 by Flatfish because: (no reason given)

The 1% are designing Ipods, and organising their manufacture and distribution.

Flatfish

ketsuko

You have to fix the people and the culture, and that is not a mechanical (i.e. legal) fix. What is being advocated here is social justice. Social justice is the idea that you can use the law to give everyone equal outcomes by disadvantaging some to the advantage of others. What happens in the end is that there are always unintended consequences. The laws you pass wind up disadvantaging some you never intended for them to and over-advantage some beyond what you intended. So, you create in inequalities in the system that need yet more laws to address opening up even more problems in the system.

Since we are using game analogies here, I'll use one. For anyone who has ever played an MMORPG, you are likely familiar with the concept of "balance" between archetypes. This is especially true of games that have PvP systems. Most games enter into a cycle of neverending patches where different character archetypes are either "nerfed" (weakened) or "buffed" (strengthened) because of the perceived inequalities between them. Often this opens up new loopholes in the rulesets that can be exploited by savvy players that only lead to new rounds of nerfs and buffs in subsequent patches and "balance" where ever archetype is perfectly equal to every other is never, ever achieved.

reply to post by Flatfish

 

Go through the thread and find my post about social justice and why it doesn't work.

You can't use the laws to enforce an equal outcome for everyone.

It even has a nice analogy in it.

If the quote you pasted in this post is an example of your argument against social justice, I think I'll just reserve my time for looking into things that actually make sense.

Explain then how you can make things fair with an unfair legal system. Tax one person more and the other person less. How is that fair and how does it make things fair? Answer, it doesn't.

But since you seem so much smarter, explain it.

AlwaysIdeaMan

zeroBelief


I've been reading about "all those awful people with MONEY" and about how we should all be warned of the "evils of greed"...

Funny, I was raised in a Capitalist society.

Everyone has the same chance (with the exceptions which we as a culture are working on, such as Obama using equal pay for women as a stomping point) to make a living here in the US as everyone else.

I am a HS dropout. I have a GED. I have 45 college credits under my belt. I earn a good living for my family. Why?

BECAUSE I WASN'T SATISFIED WITH THE OPTIONS I HAD PREVIOUSLY MADE FOR MYSELF.

So what did I do? I CHANGED my options.

I'm hearing alot of young folks today chanting about how evil greed is. How we should redistribute wealth.

What utter BS.


Of course, greed, in as much as going so far as not doing your part socially, is bad. But, wanting more for you, yourself, and your family? MAKING something out of yourself?

No, this is an altruistic pipe dream that leads right into the hands of socialists and communism.

Redistribution of wealth? Are F$%ing kidding me?


EQUAL share of the pain. We all pay the same tax percentage. We all get the same legal opportunities.

Read Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers to grasp the fact that "success" is mostly a matter of LUCK. Right place, right time. If you think we all have equal opportunity, you are kidding yourself.

Rather than "redistributing" wealth, redefine it. Remove the barriers to survival (exchanging products of human energy to survive) and eliminate money, defining wealth as good character, friendships, accomplishments, and other social currencies. (See my post, page 8, bottom post.)

You can't eliminate money, the token system is the only thing that makes a large complex trading culture possible.

Wealth is housing, food, shelter and a bunch of necessary stuff as well as toys like ferraris. And what do you do if you have problems making friends?

Antigod
The 1% are designing Ipods, and organising their manufacture and distribution.

That's a load of B.S. if I ever heard one!

The 1% hire people do perform every aspect of their businesses including design, manufacture & distribution. If you don't believe me, just try this little experiment;

Take the 1%er and send him/her on vacation and see if the business continues to run without their input. I'm betting that it will. Now do the same thing with the workers, send them on vacation and let's just see what that 1%er is able to produce by his/her self.

I think John Boehner said it best the other day when he said; "A leader must have followers in order to be effective, because a leader without followers is really just a guy taking a walk."

Flatfish

Antigod
The 1% are designing Ipods, and organising their manufacture and distribution.

That's a load of B.S. if I ever heard one!

The 1% hire people do perform every aspect of their businesses including design, manufacture & distribution. If you don't believe me, just try this little experiment;

Take the 1%er and send him/her on vacation and see if the business continues to run without their input. I'm betting that it will. Now do the same thing with the workers, send them on vacation and let's just see what that 1%er is able to produce by his/her self.

I think John Boehner said it best the other day when he said; "A leader must to have followers in order to be effective, because a leader without followers is really just a guy taking a walk."

It's not BS. You seriously think that the guy who designed the Ipod is broke? That Steve Jobs was broke? Why shouldn't he have profited from his creativity?

The point is it requires the 1% er to set up the business in the first place, as cooperative groups of workers setting up thriving co-op businesses are rarer than hens teeth.

People with the drive and organisational abilities to set up a big business (and keep it afloat long term) and statistically uncommon. Worker drones are common.

ketsuko

Flatfish

ketsuko

You have to fix the people and the culture, and that is not a mechanical (i.e. legal) fix. What is being advocated here is social justice. Social justice is the idea that you can use the law to give everyone equal outcomes by disadvantaging some to the advantage of others. What happens in the end is that there are always unintended consequences. The laws you pass wind up disadvantaging some you never intended for them to and over-advantage some beyond what you intended. So, you create in inequalities in the system that need yet more laws to address opening up even more problems in the system.

Since we are using game analogies here, I'll use one. For anyone who has ever played an MMORPG, you are likely familiar with the concept of "balance" between archetypes. This is especially true of games that have PvP systems. Most games enter into a cycle of neverending patches where different character archetypes are either "nerfed" (weakened) or "buffed" (strengthened) because of the perceived inequalities between them. Often this opens up new loopholes in the rulesets that can be exploited by savvy players that only lead to new rounds of nerfs and buffs in subsequent patches and "balance" where ever archetype is perfectly equal to every other is never, ever achieved.

reply to post by Flatfish

 

Go through the thread and find my post about social justice and why it doesn't work.

You can't use the laws to enforce an equal outcome for everyone.

It even has a nice analogy in it.

If the quote you pasted in this post is an example of your argument against social justice, I think I'll just reserve my time for looking into things that actually make sense.

Explain then how you can make things fair with an unfair legal system. Tax one person more and the other person less. How is that fair and how does it make things fair? Answer, it doesn't.

But since you seem so much smarter, explain it.

It's called a progressive tax system with a top marginal rate substantial enough to sustain the collective social needs of the nation. In the good ole days, as some like to call them, the top marginal rate here in America hovered between 70% & 90%, not the 35% to 38% we see today. But somehow now, the wealthy are over-taxed, please!

reply to post by AlwaysIdeaMan


My husband is reasonably successful, but he worked hard to get there and took quite a few risks along the way. I suppose you can call the risks paying off LUCK, but he still had to have the gumption to take the risks in the first place.

He started with $50 and bicycle when his own father abruptly moved after the death of his mother leaving him to either move too or fend for himself. He chose the latter. Huge risk.

When he graduated, he didn't have a job opportunity. He flipped burgers and worked odd jobs in various labs until he managed to get a contract job at a nearby military base that become a GS position. Then, he got offered a temp to hire shot at a big corporation _if_ he could pull up stakes be there in a week and a half with no guarantee of permanent employment. We did it. Huge risk.

Since then, he's worked his way up the ladder by taking on positions that need fixing and taking projects that no one else wants and making them work. All huge risks.

Now, you can argue that it was all just luck, but he was never a passive actor in any of it. All of it involved seeing the opportunities and assessing his chances and going for it. It has paid off and he's more than doubled his initial salary in his time at his career. But it was an active process. No one saw his worth, he promoted it and made it stand out.

Flatfish

ketsuko

Flatfish

ketsuko

You have to fix the people and the culture, and that is not a mechanical (i.e. legal) fix. What is being advocated here is social justice. Social justice is the idea that you can use the law to give everyone equal outcomes by disadvantaging some to the advantage of others. What happens in the end is that there are always unintended consequences. The laws you pass wind up disadvantaging some you never intended for them to and over-advantage some beyond what you intended. So, you create in inequalities in the system that need yet more laws to address opening up even more problems in the system.

Since we are using game analogies here, I'll use one. For anyone who has ever played an MMORPG, you are likely familiar with the concept of "balance" between archetypes. This is especially true of games that have PvP systems. Most games enter into a cycle of neverending patches where different character archetypes are either "nerfed" (weakened) or "buffed" (strengthened) because of the perceived inequalities between them. Often this opens up new loopholes in the rulesets that can be exploited by savvy players that only lead to new rounds of nerfs and buffs in subsequent patches and "balance" where ever archetype is perfectly equal to every other is never, ever achieved.

reply to post by Flatfish

 

Go through the thread and find my post about social justice and why it doesn't work.

You can't use the laws to enforce an equal outcome for everyone.

It even has a nice analogy in it.

If the quote you pasted in this post is an example of your argument against social justice, I think I'll just reserve my time for looking into things that actually make sense.

Explain then how you can make things fair with an unfair legal system. Tax one person more and the other person less. How is that fair and how does it make things fair? Answer, it doesn't.

But since you seem so much smarter, explain it.

It's called a progressive tax system with a top marginal rate substantial enough to sustain the collective social needs of the nation. In the good ole days, as some like to call them, the top marginal rate here in America hovered between 70% & 90%, not the 35% to 38% we see today. But somehow now, the wealthy are over-taxed, please!

Oh, you mean the good old days when the rest of the world was bombed out from World War II so we had the only developed industrial base so there was nowhere else for business to pull up stakes and go?

You mean the good old days when red tape from the regulatory process was such that the wealthy could shelter the lion's share of their money back into their business ventures without having to fight their own government every step of the way in the form of punitive regulations and yet more taxes so that business and manufacturing were booming?

And a progressive tax system isn't. It's actually regressive and punishes what you say you want more of. Why should anyone try to succeed when you just take away the fruits of his or her efforts? What's the point?

Antigod

It's not BS. You seriously think that the guy who designed the Ipod is broke? That Steve Jobs was broke? Why shouldn't he have profited from his creativity?

The point is it requires the 1% er to set up the business in the first place, as cooperative groups of workers setting up thriving co-op businesses are rarer than hens teeth.

People with the drive and organisational abilities to set up a big business (and keep it afloat long term) and statistically uncommon. Worker drones are common.

No, the guy who designed the ipod is not broke. He's not a 1%er either.

Yes, Steve Jobs was broke. That why the first Apple was designed and made in his garage.

No one ever said that he shouldn't profit from his creativity.

It does NOT take 1%ers to set up business in the first place, that a total fallacy and the fact that Steve Jobs was indeed broke when invented the Apple proves it.

In order for Steve Jobs or anyone else to perpetuate the business model he has built, it requires that he take advantage of infrastructure that's already in place. Taxpayer funded infrastructure, like the internet he uses to market his products or the highways he uses to distribute them nationally. Or how about the taxpayer funded airports and seaports he would utilize for overseas transport and distribution. Not to mention the Customs inspectors who insure that his products, along with others, enter this country safely and devoid of contraband.

The point is, he didn't acquire what he has all by himself and/or without the help of others, I doubt it's even possible. This is exactly what President Obama was talking about back when he made his famous statement; "You didn't built that."

Everyone is entitled to profit from their creativity, just don't forget that in order to have a system where that is even possible, you have to return a certain portion of the proceeds to the system for maintenance and upgrades. Return too little and the system falls apart.