Originally posted by: blackangst1
I agree about giving government broad powers in regards to public welfare; but...how do propose the government take a piece of the richest's pie and distributing it to the poor? How do you base it? On income? Net worth? Raise taxes yet again?
The details don't matter too much compared to the principle of keeping wealth reasonably distributed. Remember one reason for that: so that it's incenting productivity.
Adjustments to the progressive tax rates, and the estate tax, can largely do it, for one answer.
When our nation has monopoly government-run healthcare, airlines, auto manufacturing, banking, and so on, you can say it's socialist; the fact it has some limited areas, like those mentioned or the post office and Amtrak, doesn't make this a socialist nation - which wouldn't be unconstitutional, anyway.
I completely agree; however, socialism as defined by Marx et al (for which the largest of socialist/communist countries build their framework) dictates more of a supply and demand economy than we have now. By doing so, the government decides what services are needed. If this were the case we wouldnt have as many airline companies, healthcare companies, drug companies, banking institutions, etc...thus removing competitiveness from the marketplace.
Right; but you didn't mention the other side of the coin, when doing things through the government works better for people, because a combination of profit and especially the things that can prevent competition can make the costs go up. For example, all credible analysis I've seen says that the Social Security system is efficiently run as far as overhead; and whatever the benefits of allowing riskier, more profitable investments, all the privatization schemes increase the overhead, taken out of those riskier higher returns.
That's why Wall Street drools at the chance to get its paws on the huge amount of money, and donates to get politicians elected who will do it, the price paid by the recipients.
If the inequality is at a moderate level, by which I mean the economy is operating with large incentives for productivity and not at the more extreme levels of wealth preservation by the wealthy, then you don't need to fix it; but unfortunately, "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer" and you do need to take steps to avoid the natural trend to what humanity has usually had, a few very rich and masses of poor.
I disagree that it's unfair. What should be rewarded most...the creator of a company that makes widgets or the guy who actually makes them? I say it's the creator. Such is the basis for an entrepenor-ish economy.
I'm all for rewarding the creator of a company that makes widgets more than the guy who makes them.
What I'm not in favor of is the guy who is simply wealthy having such a large share of the wealth that the guy who makes the company makes a lot less for doing it.
The wealthy dynasties tend to stop being very productive, and merely are wealthy, draining society of the money to be used for rewarding productivity.
For each Bill Gates you know of who earned his money, broadly speaking, you have not heard of some little-known family passing its wealth from generation to generation who merely has money managers use the money to get yet richer - something we're seeing as the top 0.01% go up hundreds of percent in wealth while the bottom 80% is flat after inflation. It's an oppression of capital. They give the illusion of everyone sharing through stock, but look at the breakdown of who owns what stock sometime.
The middle class owns a little bit that makes them keep favoring the system, but most is owned by few who are increasing the inequality of wealth, without productivity.
Rather than digress to the topic of the behavior of the poor and the rich, I'll say that I think you are neglecting the huge area of systemic issues which artifically protect the wealth of the wealthy not for any reason of earning it, but as a function of their power to protect their own interests; and that you're over-generalizing, while there's some truth to your point.
Well, yeah. The system is in place to PROTECT what has already been earned. Why shouldnt it?[/quote]
Because when it's protecting the wealth of the wealthy to an extreme, as they get a higher andhigher percetage ownership of society, it harms the economy and other citizens.
It's not as if the wealthy increasing how much they have is in a vacuum doing no harm; it's draining money for productivity for the economy. It's limiting the reward for others.
The Estate Tax is an outstanding measure, putting individual merit ahead of who your parents are for determining your share, which increases the nation's productivity.
I very strongly disagree... the point of view of the parent's side. Wouldn't you WANT to leave money to your kids? Wouldn't you WANT to protect the income and wealth you produced? Why would someone just throw it away? Wouldn't you WANT your grand-children to be taken care of? If not, why wouldn't you?
You can replace [wealthy] parent with any American: wouldn't you WANT more money for whatever use? Of course. What's singling out one group got to do with it?
You asked a question how to balance the extreme concentration of wealth is one great way. Don't think of it as a tax in a vacuum; think of it as dollars back in your pocket.
Perhaps we can agree to disagree, but if I accumulated $100,000, a million, or a billion..the thought of NOT leaving it with family and having to give it back after working hard for it makes me sick to my stomach. Maybe you're OK with it. *shrug* Oh and about the estate tax...what's so fair about double taxing money? ?Wouldnt it piss you off were it YOUR money?
You can better accumulate wealth if the estate tax is in place; only those who have done so pay it. the thought of not being able to acccumalte the fortune doesn't sicken you, because it's not as obvious the effect of removing the estate tax; it's easier to see the money it takes from the wealthy than to see the money taken from everyone else by not haveing the tax.
And it's mostly not double taxation; wealthy families can leave untaxed capital gains earning more for generations, increasing their wealth without any taxation.
It's a bit like your 401(k), which gives you the same type of option for a very limited amount of money, while they can do it with billions.
That's money out of your pocket, but it's not obvious.
The statisic I mentioned earlier about the 50-50 split on wealth going to 75-25 for the top 5% of people, and a new one I'll mention that nearly 100% of all productivity gains in the economy in the past 25 years have gone to the top 20% (after inflation) - unprecedented in the nation's history, as I understand, contrary to the idea that the gains are shared - it's clear that the system is not in the 'middle' situation. It's moving to the wealthy's favor.
Sign of a healthy and growning economy IMHO.
That's absurd. If the bottom 95% reducing their share of society's wealth from 50% to 25% is a sign of a healthy and growing economy, how low can you say that? 10%? 5%? 1%? 0%? Why not let all Americans share in the pie getting bigger, so the split remains 50-50? Are you confusing the idea of growing the size of the pie, with increasing the concentration of wealth?
What's the equivalent of "socialism" for describing the counterpart policies which INCREASE the inequality of wealth to extremes?
It's called capitalism.
No, it's not. You seem not yet to be seeing the other side of the spectrum from too much wealth equality, with too much wealth inequality.
Capitalism includes the 'middle' inequality I'm saying is good. You make my point, though, by showing how there is no easy word for 'too much wealth inequality' the way that socialism represents the other side, and is easy for people to argue against. If you're for a middle level of inequality and against extreme inequality, according to you you oppose capitalism, and that's wrong.
Clearly, we need some better, popular words for extreme wealth inequality that people can use for the issue to even get discussed.
Otherwise, all they'll do is keep arguing only the 'socialism' side, which is not where our economy is. Our economy is way over on the other side of high concentration of wealth.
And we're increasingly paying a price for most Americans both in terms of the economy and in terms of their share.