Redistribution of wealth... A thorny issue!.. An alternative?

So I was just pondering redistribution of wealth...

A sort of reset button on wealth...



And it got me thinking...


Rather than sticking 50k into everyone's bank account and saying...
There you are, help yourself from now...




Would a better and more reasonable alternative be to redistribute prexious metals and minerals...
As well as energy sources...



So we all get a fair share of the Earth's resources...




Now I understand, I haven't worked for that imaginary 50k...
So I don't deserve it to be honest...



But I was born on this planet and shouldn't be charged to use its commodities as such...
Not to the extent we are forced into paying...




So how would this work?

Shares?
A monthly sum?



I'll add to the OP...

Medication time!



Discuss amongst yourselves if you wish.




Edit;

Ok where was I...


Shares?
Monthly sum?


Maybe a limited monthly reserve but free of charge and rig worker wages and energy worker charges become a tax contribution rather than out of our pockets, to pay to fix something that should be free, out of our pockets.




Or better ideas maybe, I'm all ears.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

I think we should abolish the monetary system and go back to bartering and that way wealth would not mean squat!

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

I think placing a profit to worker pay ratio would be more easily accomplished.

Something like at least 50% of a companies profits must be met as hourly workers pay.

So if a company makes $1 million in profits, it hourly workers must have been paid at the least $500,000.

All exec and managerial pay must come out of the companies side of the equation.

Just seems the easiest most logical way to ensure crony capitalism doesn't run unchecked.

originally posted by: soulpowertothendegree
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

I think we should abolish the monetary system and go back to bartering and that way wealth would not mean squat!

Too many manufactured goods nowadays imo...


Washing machine...
Traded for what?

A fridge?

Where would the original come from?


Has to be factory built and those people building and engineering them should be recompensed...


I used to feel the same though.

Hard to work into this era it would seem.

originally posted by: soulpowertothendegree
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

I think we should abolish the monetary system and go back to bartering and that way wealth would not mean squat!

That can't work.

Nobody owned anything anymore.

Most people rent homes, with no room to farm.

Besides, money was created for a reason.

What if you want my beef, but I don't want to trade for your rye bread?

a reply to: johnwick

Sounds good to be honest...


But say a factory of 50 workers works for a company that makes 1m that's ten grand in a day...

And once that's done over a year where is the incentive to work once your a millionaire?




Still like the idea, just wondering about the nuanced cons of such an endeavour.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
But I was born on this planet and shouldn't be charged to use its commodities as such...
Not to the extent we are forced into paying...

Agreed! I'd fully support abolishment of all taxes and abolishment of the regulations preventing people from acquiring resources for their own personal use. Hand every man and woman a shovel, an axe, and a bucket point them towards the source of whatever resource they're complaining about having to pay for (In it's non-native, conveniently processed and packaged form most people purchase it in) and allow mankind to mine their own again!

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Trouble i see with the idea of sharing out all the world's metals/minerals/precious resources between all peeps, is that it presupposes that it all belongs to humans.
But animals and plants need nutrition and water and unruined environments too.

Redistributing money at any significant level would (imo) require/initiate some kind of apocalypse war. I think it would way outstrip the various horrific massacres committed as communist regimes "re-organised". Not that i believe that the people who would want it actually have the numbers/support to make it happen.

But if it did, then at least the world would (possibly) be so depopulated that we could start again, form small war bands and kill each other for stuff we don't really need all over again.

Yes, i'm really cheery tonight.

It's just a pipe-dream sadly. I'd love there to be some kind of re-reckoning of how we all live, but it's still just some group imposing their will on another because they think that their view is more valid than another group's.

I think we should abolish the fed, and any profits they made for collectinf interest on OUR OWN MONEY will be repaid not to the gov but to the people who paid for it !

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

It's information that needs to be redistributed first and foremost.



👣

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

The problem with wealth redistribution is that it won't stop with the wealthy.

The second problem with wealth redistribution it that there will always be a small group of people that will end up with more and they will always call the shots.

Wealth redistribution is just changing the names on the checking accounts.

Another problem with wealth redistribution is that even if you did give everyone 50,000 or 100,000, then everything that costs anything would rise exponentially.

So you'd still be as poor as you were, you'd just have a lot of toilet tissue that looks like currency.

Whereas I'd agree that a lot of things are probably over-priced and a lot of workers are probably underpaid, where would you start to correct it all?

Let's take house prices. People don't see a house as a home any more, they see it as an investment. Live in it for a few years and then see if you can sell it for twice what you paid for it. Now, I'd question the morality of that. Unless someone had done extensive work to improve their house what right have they to make thousands and thousands out of the next purchaser?

Also, it seems to me that its not sustainable - BUT, if a person can find a buyer to pay an exorbitant amount for their house they'd be a fool to sell it for a fairer price.

If i have something I want to sell - why wouldn't I want to make as much money as possible out of it?

Who does this wealth you want to re-distribute belong to? Someone who worked hard at a well-paid job? Someone who inherited a fortune?

What if someone dipped their hand into your wage packet and said someone up the road needed a new winter coat more than you needed that TV you'd been saving up for?

We're all better off than someone and, once our money is in our back pocket, it's ours to do with as we wish.

If someone on benefits chooses to live on bread and butter for a couple of months so they can afford a holiday in the sunshine, who are we to complain?

The rich bosses and land-owners - how much might they need their money to re-invest in the land or their business?

I don't have the answers but, I can tell you, I become very worried if people start talking of re-distributng wealth.

I don't want anyone getting their mitts on my little bit of wealth and I imagine most people would feel the same. I can decide for myself how best my money is spent to help the unfortunate in the world. See my grocery bill this week - I've got half the local wildlife on my doorstep looking for their dinner

As I look at this problem, it doesn't strike me as viscerally a problem of wealth redistribution, but rather one of wealth theft. There exists, however, an inherent problem of its own in this realization, in as much as the system itself enables, promotes and rewards said theft. To put it simply, it's a rigged game, and the beneficiaries are those making the rules. If the system itself were fair, wealth would be intrinsically distributed with a semblance of equality (I'm not again disparity in wealth, only ridiculous and self-perpetuating disparity).

Look at our economy, everyone is hurting. Yet everyday I read an article about the boon to some extravagant market (I just read about BMWs soaring sales figures or their release of a $200,000 SUV). Private jets are selling like hot cakes, yet people can't afford basic living necessities. Gas prices continue to rise, yet every quarter the oil companies post record profits. Even if you look at food, in order to eat healthy one need be rich. Hot dogs are cheap. And so the problem is systemic. There is no band-aid that is going to cure these societal woes. Only a reboot.

The Electric Priest

Redistribution of wealth is a communist manifesto plank.

You pose this as if it is a foregone conclusion, not gonna happen in our lifetimes but I am sure you will get lots of delusional comrades to dream with you during medication.

The fairest way to redistribute wealth is to increase the transparency of just where it all is. The Swiss banks are making some progress in giving up a few of their clients.

There is a big cultural influence to keep financial information secret and this does need to be cracked open. The adversity is the whole dark underground with streaks of deception covering the tracks.

There are many reasons to keep the secrets, like security, embarrassment, retribution or control. In the time before money we had things like self respect, community acceptance and ongoing dialogue of fair and reasonable give and take. Now as our community has grown the dialogue has reduced to the lowest common denominator, there is no trust.

As for those that want to end the fed, great. But what is the plan? The idea of just shutting all the banks is not practical.

So again, the alternative is to bust open the books and show just where all the money is. Sounds like some will get very angry and do what they can to remain hidden in the dark.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs


One single day.....Global Fiscal Emancipation.....ALL debts in ALL nations are forgiven at once,and ALL fiat money and userage are disenfranchised and taken out of play .

Best of all is we dont need permission,just agreement.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Wealth has already been redistributed.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

The problem with wealth redistribution is that it won't stop with the wealthy.

The second problem with wealth redistribution it that there will always be a small group of people that will end up with more and they will always call the shots.

Wealth redistribution is just changing the names on the checking accounts.

Another problem with wealth redistribution is that even if you did give everyone 50,000 or 100,000, then everything that costs anything would rise exponentially.

So you'd still be as poor as you were, you'd just have a lot of toilet tissue that looks like currency.

Yeah this about sums it up. More money in everyone's pocket means - everything they buy will cost more. Basic principle of supply and demand. This is the reason the minimum wage thing is a red herring.

Those people "benefitting" from the minimum wage increase will get more money as a salary, but will pay more taxes and the things they purchase will cost more. They will still be the lower tier of earners and no better off than the day they woke up before the raise. The only benefit of raising the minimum wage goes to those pushing it for it - the political gain they know they'll garner from that constituency.

Oh and yes, when wealth redistribution happens, it is only the names changing on the accounts. There will always be people who want more and will take it any way they can. Those leading the charge in this will be at the top and those they led into this battle for "equity" will still be on the bottom.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

Where did I pose it as a forgone conclusion ma'am?


Delusional?

Is that an attack on my mental health?

I expected better from you madame!

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

I like the idea of a trial run where people are allotted a certain amount of time to garner a database of their spending habits in order to predict future spending needs. This could be accomplished via a government issued debit card. Once the general sum of a yearly income is tallied over a period of say, five years or so, depending on the client, we can then adjust according to life's little miracles or economic inflation. In a digital world, this shouldn't be too hard.

And if we keep "other earned" income separate for luxury items, we could maintain the gold/silver/resources and tangible currency markets going strong alongside the new digital benefit amounts that cover reasonable food, shelter and job transportation costs.