Poll: wealth more distributed or concentrated

[Craig234]

Government policies affect the distribution of wealth. They can result in more distributed wealth or more concentrated wealth. That is my claim, not the thread topic.

The question here is to get people to think a little about which is better and to state their position.

If people support plutocracy, highly concentrated wealth, it changes the political discussion from 'how to prevent the concentration of wealth' to why it's a problem.

I considered and decided against having options for each choice for those who have a preference, but not enough of one to tax to have it.

The two choices are the distribution of wealth in the FDR to Carter era, or 1920's/today.

 

[Herr Kutz]

I think we should drastically increase defense spending. There appears to be a correlation between higher defense spending and more equal distribution of wealth.

 

[Murloc]

I voted 1.
Call me communist murrikans

 

[Matt1970]

Only by government perpetually seizing money from those who earned and redistributing it to others can society be fair.

 

[Zebo]

Only by government perpetually seizing money from those who earned and redistributing it to others can society be fair.

Only? Hardly. They don't even seize it they just print it into circulation in many cases. Money is simply the derivative of human production the two are interchangable. Money is the means to obtain anther's production. If the invent trillions and give it to banks or whomever it dilutes whatever you have saved and weakens your market position without taxing you what so ever.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Only by government perpetually seizing money from those who earned and redistributing it to others can society be fair.

Wow, that's a tangled mess.

"Fair" is defined relatively and subjectively. "Government" is also an elastic concept. The fulfillment of "Earn" is dependent on the particular subjective system of property rights and also ties back to "fair."

You should really learn to define your terms.

 

[matt0611]

Other, people should keep what they earned, since its their money, no redistribution of wealth. So whatever that comes out to be in terms of distribution, that's what I'm for.

I'll take the economy of the 1920s over today in heartbeat.

The distribution of wealth won't matter when you take the power of government to pick winners and losers away.

 

[Zebo]

Other, people should keep what they earned, since its their money, no redistribution of wealth. So whatever that comes out to be in terms of distribution, that's what I'm for.

I'll take the economy of the 1920s over today in heartbeat.

The distribution of wealth won't matter when you take the power of government to pick winners and losers away.

The govt always has picked winners and losers from he very beginning, what do you call stealing land from NA and giving for FREE to white settlers/ homesteaders

 

[cwjerome]

I'll say "other."

Because government shouldn't use wealth concentration as the major factor for policy. It's my claim that the top 1% can make ~25% of the income and we still have a vibrant middle class and strong economy. But that is not the case today.

The wealth concentration we have today is a byproduct of failed policy/mismanagement and odious cultural values, not the cause. Treating it as the cause and changing it will not get to the real causes.

If you take the current wealth concentration today as the cause of many of our problems -as most liberals do- and levy major tax increases on the top 1% for redistribution purposes to even things out, it will not improve our economic conditions much at all. It may make some liberals happy over perceived fairness or satisfy their envy-hatred, but the real issues that are at the crux of our economic woes remain ignored.

Given our current situation I believe some minor increases on the top 1% is warranted... not because of "concentration of wealth/income" bugaboos but because we have a particular situation within a particular context that requires more tax revenue, temporarily at least. Our long term economic health rests on tweaking our trade policies, monetary policies, tax policies, and our economic values. Basing tax policy on the idea of income/wealth disparity in and of itself is not sound policy and won't bring the fixes we need.

 

[matt0611]

The govt always has picked winners and losers from he very beginning, what do you call stealing land from NA and giving for FREE to white settlers/ homesteaders

If they took land by force I call that theft.

 

[child of wonder]

It's important we live in society that allows people to be rich. Everyone needs a "goal" to strive for and since our society and economy are so money-centric being rich is that "goal."

However, a natural consequence of people becoming rich is the hoarding of money by a select few. Those with money are more easily able to earn more money and protect it. As time goes by, their wealth will become more concentrated and stagnant.

To combat this, a progressive system of taxation is necessary. It shouldn't be outlandish, but it should clearly delineate rates between "normal" wage earners and the "rich." Say, for example, the highest tax rate shouldn't kick in until someone gets into the millions of dollars earned rather than $388,000 today. On top of that, all deductions and credits should be eliminated to completely simplify the tax system.

Something along the lines of:

Tax rate - Income taxed at rate
5% - $1-$29,999
10% - $30,000 - $49,999
15% - $50,000 - $99,999
20% - $100,000 - $149,999
25% - $150,000 - $249,999
30% - $250,000 - $499,999
35% - $500,000 - $999,999
40% - $1,000,000 - $1,999,999
45% - $2,000,000 - $4,999,999
50% - $5,000,000+

This would make the effective tax rate for someone earning $5M per year 41% -- a good deal higher than the 35% plus deductions and credits they would pay today, however it also makes lower income wage earners pay some modicum of taxes as well rather than getting a free EIC check every year. For example, a family earning $50,000 total would have an effective rate of 7% rather than some negative number once you factor in deductions and credits.

In this scenario, EVERYONE pays more and if we actually had responsible leaders, they'd use the extra money (along with spending cuts) to eliminate the deficit and begin paying down the national debt.

 

[glenn1]

Government policies affect the distribution of wealth. They can result in more distributed wealth or more concentrated wealth. That is my claim, not the thread topic.

The question here is to get people to think a little about which is better and to state their position.

If people support plutocracy, highly concentrated wealth, it changes the political discussion from 'how to prevent the concentration of wealth' to why it's a problem.

I considered and decided against having options for each choice for those who have a preference, but not enough of one to tax to have it.

The two choices are the distribution of wealth in the FDR to Carter era, or 1920's/today.

I give you credit for dropping the facade of even pretending to give a shit about the poor and making this entirely about rich people having too much. Makes it a lot clearer that wealth maximization doesn't matter to your brand of progressive - regardless that all income brackets (including the poor) have been doing better in the last few decades, the only thing that matters is that the rich don't grow at a faster rate.

 

[matt0611]

I give you credit for dropping the facade of even pretending to give a shit about the poor and making this entirely about rich people having too much. Makes it a lot clearer that wealth maximization doesn't matter to your brand of progressive - regardless that all income brackets (including the poor) have been doing better in the last few decades, the only thing that matters is that the rich don't grow at a faster rate.

You pretty much nailed it.
This speech by Thatcher sums up people like craigs position perfectly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okHGCz6xxiw

"You'd rather the poor were poorer, provided the rich were less rich."

 

[PeshakJang]

As long as stupid people keep having more kids than they can afford, the concentration of wealth will increase among those with enough sense not to.

As long as progressives keep insisting we subsidize poor decisions in life, people will continue making them, and will continue to deplete their and their childrens' wealth.

These are te facts that Craig and his friends refuse to even think about.

 

[Matt1970]

You pretty much nailed it.
This speech by Thatcher sums up people like craigs position perfectly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okHGCz6xxiw

"You'd rather the poor were poorer, provided the rich were less rich."

Yep, as long as everyone is equally screwed everything is fine. Tax revenue can be the lowest on record as long as it is a high percentage of GDP.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

The poorly kept secret a lot of you folks insist on ignoring is the bigger the gap between the rich and the poor, the richer the rich and the poorer the poor, regardless to what the absolute wealth and income numbers turn out to be. It's merely the nature of competing for finite resources, and the reason those at the top come out far sooner and way ahead during and after an economic downturn. You don't have to outrun the bear, just your buddy.

 

[matt0611]

The poorly kept secret a lot of you folks insist on ignoring is the bigger the gap between the rich and the poor, the richer the rich and the poorer the poor, regardless to what the absolute wealth and income numbers turn out to be. It's merely the nature of competing for finite resources, and the reason those at the top come out far sooner and way ahead during and after an economic downturn. You don't have to outrun the bear, just your buddy.

Resources and wealth are not finite.
Economics fail...

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Resources and wealth are not finite.
Economics fail...

I have to quote this for posterity. I mean, someone discussing economics, with internet access no less, to say such a thing... Just wow. You really are living in an alternate reality.

Wealth is debatable, but living in a world with limited resources is just fact.

 

[Matt1970]

I have to quote this for posterity. I mean, someone discussing economics, with internet access no less, to say such a thing... Just wow. You really are living in an alternate reality.

Wealth is debatable, but living in a world with limited resources is just fact.

When you depend on Government handouts for your wealth, than you will always have limited resources.

 

[Dman8777]

I give you credit for dropping the facade of even pretending to give a shit about the poor and making this entirely about rich people having too much. Makes it a lot clearer that wealth maximization doesn't matter to your brand of progressive - regardless that all income brackets (including the poor) have been doing better in the last few decades, the only thing that matters is that the rich don't grow at a faster rate.

Except the poor aren't doing better. Wages for 80% of Americans are the same or less today than they were in the mid-90's. When you factor inflation in, the poor are doing worse today than they were almost 20 years ago.

During the same period, the top 1% have seen something rediculous like 50% growth. Our economy obviously grew over the last decades but the benefits of that growth only went to the rich. That fact alone is enough to bother most logical people but then came the recession in 2008, caused by Wall Street and dumped on the rest of us.

 

[matt0611]

I have to quote this for posterity. I mean, someone discussing economics, with internet access no less, to say such a thing... Just wow. You really are living in an alternate reality.

Wealth is debatable, but living in a world with limited resources is just fact.

Limited at any one point in time, but resources GROW over time.
You know at one point the black goop in the ground was just seen as an annoyance and an inconvenience until some "rich guy" found a way to use it for fuel?

Resources and wealth increase over time due to the workings of capitalism.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Except the poor aren't doing better. Wages for 80% of Americans are the same or less today than they were in the mid-90's. When you factor inflation in, the poor are doing worse today than they were almost 20 years ago.

Except that it's not about making things better for the poor but making it worse for the rich. Getting "them" is what it's all about.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Limited at any one point in time, but resources GROW over time.
You know at one point the black goop in the ground was just seen as an annoyance and an inconvenience until some "rich guy" found a way to use it for fuel?

Resources and wealth increase over time due to the workings of capitalism.

Good grief. Resources are not growing over time. Our ingenuity and ability to exploit what's there might be, but what is there to exploit is still finite. Capitalism depends on scarcity, it doesn't do one thing to alleviate it, it only rations it out over the market.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Except that it's not about making things better for the poor but making it worse for the rich. Getting "them" is what it's all about.

Making things better for the poor IS making things worse for the rich. Hence the push against it by the rich and misguided folks like you. You hit the nail on the head with the bolded, you're just attributing it to the wrong folks.

 

[matt0611]

Good grief. Resources are not growing over time. Our ingenuity and ability to exploit what's there might be, but what is there to exploit is still finite. Capitalism depends on scarcity, it doesn't do one thing to alleviate it, it only rations it out over the market.

If you don't know how to use something how is it a resource?
More resources become AVAILABLE for use. It doesn't matter if its buried underground if we don't know how to exploit. Capitalism makes more and more resources available over time.
There are things that no one has even thought of as being resources yet that we will find out with the motive of PROFIT.