Income Redistribution

[trueblue]

What is the justification for income redistribution? Isn't it just punishing success?

[theHawk]

What is the justification for income redistribution? Isn't it just punishing success?

Yes it is punishing the successful, thats the point of it. The "justification" is that people who have success in life are getting it off the unsuccessful. This mentality is demonstrated by most any Obama speech about taxation and wealth. Its about satisfying the victim mentality of the bottom-feeders of society, yet providing them this form of welfare does nothing to elevate them out of poverty. Its just enough to string them along, keep them poor, and keep them angry. Keeping the masses poor and angry will keep those who promise them free hand-outs in power. I have to admit, its been a very successful tactic for the liberals for decades.

[Binky]

Yes it is punishing the successful, thats the point of it. The "justification" is that people who have success in life are getting it off the unsuccessful. This mentality is demonstrated by most any Obama speech about taxation and wealth. Its about satisfying the victim mentality of the bottom-feeders of society, yet providing them this form of welfare does nothing to elevate them out of poverty. Its just enough to string them along, keep them poor, and keep them angry. Keeping the masses poor and angry will keep those who promise them free hand-outs in power. I have to admit, its been a very successful tactic for the liberals for decades.

Yes, it has, and will for decades longer. The libs feed off those less fortunate.

[MtnBiker]

What is the justification for income redistribution? Isn't it just punishing success?

Because the wealthly are selfish greedy bastards that only enjoy their wealth because they take advantage of the poor.

[Agnapostate]

It's based on financial support for the provision of state programs that sustain capitalist economic structure.

[Little-Acorn]

It's based on financial support for the provision of state programs that sustain capitalist economic structure.

What complete bunk.

[Agnapostate]

What complete bunk.

I'm not interested in you regurgitating your standard rightist nonsense about "government = socialism"; anyone with actual economic knowledge knows better and is aware of the historical and present dependence of capitalist economic structure on a substantial government presence.

[Little-Acorn]

What is the justification for income redistribution? Isn't it just punishing success?

What do you mean by "income redistribution?

Sounds to me like you're implying that the income was somehow "distributed" by someone in the first place, and is now being "REdistributed", I guess in a different way.

But it was never "distributed" in the first place. A guy who wanted something you had, more than he wanted the money in his pocket, offered you a trade, and you agreed. You wound up with the money and he wound up with the thing (goods or your labor or whatever), and both of you are happy. And you made similar deals with other people, too.

But the money you got, wasn't "distributed" to you by somebody in charge of distributing, somebody who planned it all out. Many different people made transactions with you, and they were probably making other transactions with other people too at the same time, just as you were. And it all worked out, without having to be overseen by some all-knowing "distributor".

When somebody says he wants to "redistribute" it (or "spread the wealth around" as someone recently put it), it means he thinks all those transactions somehow "weren't good"... and that he thinks he can do better.

And that notion is completely ridiculous. There's no way he can make a fairer "distribution" of your money (and all those othe peoples') than you and they already have. What could be fairer that the "distribution" you and all the others have already happily agreed to?

When someone talks about "redistributing income", they are saying they think the money is theirs to take, and give to whom they want.

It's silly on several different planes. And arrogant wishful thinking, too.

[trueblue]

Because the wealthly are selfish greedy bastards that only enjoy their wealth because they take advantage of the poor.

But don't the poor choose to give their money to the wealthy, selfish, greedy bastards in exchange for goods or services? How is that taking advantage of them?

[trueblue]

What do you mean by "income redistribution?

Sounds to me like you're implying that the income was somehow "distributed" by someone in the first place, and is now being "REdistributed", I guess in a different way.

But it was never "distributed" in the first place. A guy who wanted something you had, more than he wanted the money in his pocket, offered you a trade, and you agreed. You wound up with the money and he wound up with the thing (goods or your labor or whatever), and both of you are happy. And you made similar deals with other people, too.

But the money you got, wasn't "distributed" to you by somebody in charge of distributing, somebody who planned it all out. Many different people made transactions with you, and they were probably making other transactions with other people too at the same time, just as you were. And it all worked out, without having to be overseen by some all-knowing "distributor".

When somebody says he wants to "redistribute" it (or "spread the wealth around" as someone recently put it), it means he thinks all those transactions somehow "weren't good"... and that he thinks he can do better.

And that notion is completely ridiculous. There's no way he can make a fairer "distribution" of your money (and all those othe peoples') than you and they already have. What could be fairer that the "distribution" you and all the others have already happily agreed to?

When someone talks about "redistributing income", they are saying they think the money is theirs to take, and give to whom they want.

It's silly on several different planes. And arrogant wishful thinking, too.

Of course your points are very good ones. Income redistribution is simply the term used and understood for the process of taxing the rich to give handouts to the poor. I suppose the original distribution implied would be the wages that some people suppose are unfair because some people end up rich and others poor. They see redistribution as evening the playing field.

Your points here are very good ones for a capitalist economy, however, and make the idea of income redistribution appear a practice more likely to occur in a communist-type system. Interesting.

[trueblue]

I'm not interested in you regurgitating your standard rightist nonsense about "government = socialism"; anyone with actual economic knowledge knows better and is aware of the historical and present dependence of capitalist economic structure on a substantial government presence.

I guess I'm becoming a pain in your side, but you keep claiming to know so much about economics without backing it up. So, please, what economics do you have to back this up? I am an economist. I like to think I know a thing or two about economics. I'm unaware of the need for government in capitalist markets. Enlighten me.

[Little-Acorn]

The only role government has in a capitalist economy, is that of contract enforcement and fraud prosecution. If it does not do a good job of these, then coercion, bribery, and fraud can cripple or destroy the economy.

This was the principal problem of the economy in the 1800s and early 1900s. Government didn't prosecute various forms of coercion and fraud. So monopolistic practices emerged - something possible only in an economy where competitors can be destroyed by non-economic means, thus enabling the most destructive to control their part of the economy. They then raised prices indiscriminately, and destroyed anyone who tried to undercut those prices legally.

"Capitalism" is simply an economy that's free from government influences. It runs by mutual agreement of the parties involved. Only where lying, misrepresentation, and force are used, does the government have a role in stepping in, eliminating those practices, and then getting back out until the next kneecapper shows up.

[Trigg]

To see this is akin to the F student and the A student.

The lazy F student isn't going to get into a good college, that's so UNFAIR!!!!

If the selfish (hardworking) A student would only redistribute their good grades both students would have C's and then they could both go to college.

Look, I agree with social programs, we need them. There are many people out there that need temporary help and people should pay taxes in order to help out the less fortunate. HOWEVER, the wealthy who have worked hard to accumulate their wealth should not be taxed into oblivion and essentially punished for their good work ethic.

[Agnapostate]

I guess I'm becoming a pain in your side, but you keep claiming to know so much about economics without backing it up. So, please, what economics do you have to back this up? I am an economist. I like to think I know a thing or two about economics. I'm unaware of the need for government in capitalist markets. Enlighten me.

In the context of the capitalist economy, the state's role in sustaining regulatory structure is integral. I most often mention Yu's A new perspective on the role of the government in economic development: Coordination under uncertainty (http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewContentItem.do;jsessionid=EE3F8FBEC862BFAC38C6 476C36557683?contentType=Article&contentId=847649) to illustrate this. As noted by the abstract:


This paper argues that the government possesses certain unique features that allow it to restrict competition, and provide stable and reliable conditions under which firms organise, compete, cooperate and exchange. The coordinating perspective is employed to re-examine the arguments for industrial policies regarding private investment decisions, market competition, diffusion of technologies and tariff protection on infant industries. This paper concludes that dynamic private enterprises assisted by government coordination policies explains the rapid economic growths in post-war Japan and the Asian newly industrialising economies.

Also consider this portion:


[The government] possesses some unique features that distinguish it from the firm. Such features allows the government to regulate competition, reduce uncertainty and provide a relatively stable exchange environment. Specifically, in the area of industrial policy, the government can help private enterprises tackle uncertainty in the following ways: first, locating the focal point by initiating projects; providing assurance and guarantees to the large investment project; and facilitating the exchange of information; second, reducing excessive competition by granting exclusive rights; and third, facilitating learning and diffusion of technologies, and assisting infant industry firms to build up competence. The history of developmental success indicates that the market and the state are not opposed forms of social organisation, but interactively linked (Rodrik, 1997, p. 437). In the prospering and dynamic nations, public-private coordination tends to prevail. Dynamic private enterprises assisted by government coordination explain the successful economic performances in the post-war Japan and the Asian newly industrialising economies. It is their governments' consistent and coordinated attentiveness to the economic problems that differentiates the entrepreneurial states (Yu, 1997) from the predatory states (Boaz and Polak, 1997).

The aforementioned point about infant industries is perhaps the most illustrative aspect of the role of state protectionism in facilitating maximum development because of the simplicity of the infant industries argument. Rather than merely permitting the benefits of immediate unrestricted trade accrue to the benefit of one more powerful nation due to underdevelopment, a government protection of infant industries is established until such time as they "grow up" and can thus be expected to be legitimately competitive industries, thus maximizing dynamic comparative advantage in the long run. I'm certainly in favor of drastically minimizing and ultimately eliminating the role of the government in public affairs. But that objective is not consistent with the continuation of capitalism.

[Kathianne]

In the context of the capitalist economy, the state's role in sustaining regulatory structure is integral. I most often mention Yu's A new perspective on the role of the government in economic development: Coordination under uncertainty (http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewContentItem.do;jsessionid=EE3F8FBEC862BFAC38C6 476C36557683?contentType=Article&contentId=847649) to illustrate this. As noted by the abstract:



Also consider this portion:



The aforementioned point about infant industries is perhaps the most illustrative aspect of the role of state protectionism in facilitating maximum development because of the simplicity of the infant industries argument. Rather than merely permitting the benefits of immediate unrestricted trade accrue to the benefit of one more powerful nation due to underdevelopment, a government protection of infant industries is established until such time as they "grow up" and can thus be expected to be legitimately competitive industries, thus maximizing dynamic comparative advantage in the long run. I'm certainly in favor of drastically minimizing and ultimately eliminating the role of the government in public affairs. But that objective is not consistent with the continuation of capitalism.

Indeed both with the Meiji Revolution and the Chinese Revolution the governments were integral to their gains. Not so much so in the US, until FDR, from that point on, it's been government take overs, not assistance.

[Gaffer]

Redistribution of wealth.

I'm poor and on a fixed income. All the elected government officials and their appointee's are wealthy. Therefore I demand they redistribute their wealth to me. I want one third of their income immediately. It's theirs, they earned it (sorta) and many worked very hard to get it. I want it. They talk about giving other peoples money away. Well it's time for them to pay up. Lead by example. Gimme the dough. I'll use it as I see fit. I even have a race card to play being part Iroquois.

They need to pay up, they owe me. All the libs should support me in this as I'm taking from the rich. The senate, congress and even the dark lord should be happy to contribute. It's the FAIR thing to do.

[Agnapostate]

Indeed both with the Meiji Revolution and the Chinese Revolution the governments were integral to their gains. Not so much so in the US, until FDR, from that point on, it's been government take overs, not assistance.

That's decidedly untrue, as strategic trade policy in particular was historically based on the utilization of state protectionism to protect the appropriate development of infant industries, as I mentioned. I'd recommend consultation of Ha-Joon Chang's Kicking Away the Ladder (http://www.paecon.net/PAEtexts/Chang1.htm):


Contrary to the conventional wisdom, the historical fact is that the rich countries did not develop on the basis of the policies and the institutions that they now recommend to, and often force upon, the developing countries. Unfortunately, this fact is little known these days because the “official historians” of capitalism have been very successful in re-writing its history.

Almost all of today’s rich countries used tariff protection and subsidies to develop their industries. Interestingly, Britain and the USA, the two countries that are supposed to have reached the summit of the world economy through their free-market, free-trade policy, are actually the ones that had most aggressively used protection and subsidies.

I understand that the notion of the state being an integral agent in the capitalist economy is not compatible with rightist economic perspectives. However, that does nothing to dilute the logical soundness of that premise.

[trueblue]

I'm certainly in favor of drastically minimizing and ultimately eliminating the role of the government in public affairs. But that objective is not consistent with the continuation of capitalism.

I have to admit: I'm impressed that you found a source. He's a little-known (virtually unknown) economist, but an economist he is. And he provides some interesting points. My initial question about this research is about how it applies to the United States. He claims in his work that his theories are accurate for newly-industrializing nations, specifically newly-industrialized Asian countries, which is not the state of the U.S. at all.

Second, I question your line above. How exactly is eliminating the role of government inconsistent with the continuation of capitalism? Especially when, by definition, that is what capitalism is?

[Agnapostate]

He claims in his work that his theories are accurate for newly-industrializing nations, specifically newly-industrialized Asian countries, which is not the state of the U.S. at all.

Second, I question your line above. How exactly is eliminating the role of government inconsistent with the continuation of capitalism? Especially when, by definition, that is what capitalism is?

Are you joking? Capitalism and the state are interdependent entities in the context of our current economic structure. That's precisely the reason why libertarianism, specifically anarchism, originated as an ideology that was explicitly socialist in nature. The incompatibility of minarchy or anarchy with capitalism was quickly recognized. There are very few economists who claim otherwise, and they tend to be grouped among marginal heterodox schools, particularly one.

[trueblue]

Are you joking? Capitalism and the state are interdependent entities in the context of our current economic structure. That's precisely the reason why libertarianism, specifically anarchism, originated as an ideology that was explicitly socialist in nature. The incompatibility of minarchy or anarchy with capitalism was quickly recognized. There are very few economists who claim otherwise, and they tend to be grouped among marginal heterodox schools, particularly one.

You're crazy. And I don't know which economist you're talking about, but certainly none of the best-known economists like Mankiw, Krugman, etc.

[Agnapostate]

You're crazy. And I don't know which economist you're talking about, but certainly none of the best-known economists like Mankiw, Krugman, etc.

Mankiw's a rightist and a biased one at that even when he pretends to be objective, Krugman's neo-Keynesianism of course predisposes him to support the sustainment of capitalism, but of course he'd acknowledge that the state is an integral agent in the capitalist economy.

[REDWHITEBLUE2]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v313/rbees/barackside.jpg

[Agnapostate]

Is that alcoholic? I can't think of any other way for someone to believe that "free market" capitalism is anything other than a theoretical abstraction.

[trueblue]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v313/rbees/barackside.jpg

:laugh:

[Little-Acorn]

What do you mean by "income redistribution?

Sounds to me like you're implying that the income was somehow "distributed" by someone in the first place, and is now being "REdistributed", I guess in a different way.

But it was never "distributed" in the first place. A guy who wanted something you had, more than he wanted the money in his pocket, offered you a trade, and you agreed. You wound up with the money and he wound up with the thing (goods or your labor or whatever), and both of you are happy. And you made similar deals with other people, too.

But the money you got, wasn't "distributed" to you by somebody in charge of distributing, somebody who planned it all out. Many different people made transactions with you, and they were probably making other transactions with other people too at the same time, just as you were. And it all worked out, without having to be overseen by some all-knowing "distributor".

When somebody says he wants to "redistribute" it (or "spread the wealth around" as someone recently put it), it means he thinks all those transactions somehow "weren't good"... and that he thinks he can do better.

And that notion is completely ridiculous. There's no way he can make a fairer "distribution" of your money (and all those othe peoples') than you and they already have. What could be fairer that the "distribution" you and all the others have already happily agreed to?

When someone talks about "redistributing income", they are saying they think the money is theirs to take, and give to whom they want.

It's silly on several different planes. And arrogant wishful thinking, too.

Actually the misnamed "income redistribution" is a saccharin term for "theft", followed by the fencing of stolen goods. It is the act of someone taking from you what is yours, and giving it to someone who did not earn it.

"Income redistribution" is based on doing away with private property. As a result, it is the diametric opposite of "capitalism" (the operation of economics without government coercion or punishment except for contract enforcement and fraud prosecution). Capitalism requires that the concept of private property be held inviolate, while "income redistribution" requires that it be destroyed.

[Agnapostate]

As a result, it is the diametric opposite of "capitalism" (the operation of economics without government coercion or punishment except for contract enforcement and fraud prosecution).

Capitalism has and will never exist according to those naively utopian standards.

[Little-Acorn]

Capitalism has and will never exist according to those naively utopian standards.

Of course not, because it is being pursued by imperfect people. Including thieves, liars, and people deliberately trying to undermine it, do away with private property, and install various kinds of socialism in its place.

But the closer they get to the capitalistic ideal, the more freedom they will have, the more prosperity... and the more responsibility, having to take the consequences of their decisions instead of waiting for a "benevolent" government to save them.

But the fact remains that the misnamed "income redistribution" is a saccharin term for "theft", followed by the fencing of stolen goods. It is the act of someone taking from you what is yours, and giving it to someone who did not earn it.

"Income redistribution" is based on doing away with private property. As a result, it is the diametric opposite of "capitalism" (the operation of economics without government coercion or punishment except for contract enforcement and fraud prosecution). Capitalism requires that the concept of private property be held inviolate, while "income redistribution" requires that it be destroyed.

[Agnapostate]

Those are among the most economically ignorant sentiments I've ever had the misfortune to encounter. Capitalism necessitates only the private ownership of the means of production, market exchange as the primary means of resource allocation, and the existence of wage labor. There's no basis for your attacks on state intervention, as the state is an integral agent in the capitalist economy, with the state and capitalism having historically functioned like two robbers in cahoots who occasionally squabble over the loot but ultimately need each other.

[Agnapostate]

We can openly laugh at the premise that extraction of wealth from the upper classes constitutes "theft" due to their inheritance of those assets from a long phase of primitive accumulation of capital when the state was openly allied with the capital class --- in other words, even if taxation allegedly constitutes some present "initiation of force," the lack of it permits the capital class to hoard assets gained from previous initiations of force. When we also consider the fact that class regimentation and the inequalities in the labor market permit them to coerce wage laborers into exploitative relationships where their surplus labor and consequently, surplus value is extracted, we can see that capital accumulation itself is based on theft in that context. More importantly, we can observe the economic benefits of redistribution through consultation of such empirical sources as Clemens and Heinemann's On the effects of redistribution on growth and entrepreneurial risk-taking (http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0198-367448/On-the-effects-of-redistribution.html):


If the presence of risk goes along with less entrepreneurial activity and subsequently lower growth, a natural question to ask is to what extent an appropriately designed public tax-transfer-scheme might stimulate firm ownership, if private markets for pooling individual risks are not available due to credit market imperfections or moral hazard problems. These considerations draw from an argument first brought forward by Varian (1980), Eaton and Rosen (1980) and Sinn (1996). The authors point out that redistributive taxation — being effective ex post — acts as a social insurance, thereby providing incentives to already increase risk-taking from an ex ante point of view.

Not something for the rightist palate, of course. ;)

[chloe]

Im all for opportunity and success and not living off the government, but I have to admit when Les Moonves from CBS is making this:

Compensation for 2008
Salary $3,513,462.00
Bonus $9,500,000.00
Other Annual Compensation $0.00
Long term incentive plan payouts $0.00
Restricted stock awards $11,560,836.00
Security underlying options $0.00
All other compensation $229,981.00
Option awards $ $6,833,750.00
Non-equity incentive plan compensation $0.00
Change in pension value and nonqualified deferred compensation earnings $324,035.00
Total Compensation $31,962,064.00

and cutting departments, jobs, and hiking up insurance on employees, even suing contestants over a $4,000.00 mic, I have to wish I could be part of his nepotism and be related like his wife Julie Chen , or Nephew Eric so I can get shows and benefits and never have to actually work hard to earn my honest living. Oh wait I can do that, I just take the hand out from the government because I'm poor, NOT !!! It's not right for upper class or lower class to be lazy or greedy imo.

[Little-Acorn]

Of course your points are very good ones. Income redistribution is simply the term used and understood for the process of taxing the rich to give handouts to the poor. I suppose the original distribution implied would be the wages that some people suppose are unfair because some people end up rich and others poor. They see redistribution as evening the playing field.


Some radio commentator recently said that this kind of "income redistribution" is similar to using a bucket to take water out of the deep end of the pool and pour it into the shallow end, in hopes of raising the level in the shallow end.

Perfect.......!!

[Agnapostate]

That indeed does sound like the sort of economic ignorance we've come to expect from talk radio commentators these days. Income redistribution serves various efficiency purposes in the capitalist economy, with progressive taxation taking advantage of the fact that diminishing marginal utility means that money is of less value to the wealthy few than to the masses of the working class, and sustaining their physical efficiency with welfare programs. There is also an important role of economic redistribution bolstering growth and entrepreneurial risk-taking in the context of the capitalist economy. For example, consider Clemens and Heinemann's On the effects of redistribution on growth and entrepreneurial risk-taking (http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0198-367448/On-the-effects-of-redistribution.html):


If the presence of risk goes along with less entrepreneurial activity and subsequently lower growth, a natural question to ask is to what extent an appropriately designed public tax-transfer-scheme might stimulate firm ownership, if private markets for pooling individual risks are not available due to credit market imperfections or moral hazard problems. These considerations draw from an argument first brought forward by Varian (1980), Eaton and Rosen (1980) and Sinn (1996). The authors point out that redistributive taxation — being effective ex post — acts as a social insurance, thereby providing incentives to already increase risk-taking from an ex ante point of view.

Of course, I'm a socialist rather than a capitalist, so I'd be content with an abandonment of the welfare state and redistribution programs. It would certainly cause a good deal of destabilization in the capitalist economy, which I'm all in favor of.

[MtnBiker]

Ahh, goverment controlled theft, what a great moral principle.

[Agnapostate]

Ahh, goverment controlled theft, what a great moral principle.

I'm inclined to think not, which is why I oppose capitalism. Unfortunately, my position's in the minority.

[Little-Acorn]

(leftist namecalling deleted)

diminishing marginal utility means that money is of less value to the wealthy few than to the masses of the working class

(yawn) The usual high-flown bunkum.

Money is worth exactly as much to the wealthy guy as to the poor guy. It can buy exactly the same amount of good for each.

The goods might be worth less to the wealthy guy than to the poor guy, because the wealthy guy already has lots of goods and so he doesn't desire more, as much as the poor guy desires more.

But the money is worth exactly the same to both: It is worth X amount of goods, in both cases.

Apparently the leftists govt thieves are now trying to bamboozle people out of their money, by substituting the "value of money" for the "value of goods" they should have used, in arguments such as agnapostate is trying to put over.

Nice try, but no cigar. "Progressive taxation" (another misnomer, the correct term is "inequitable taxation") is no more fair than any other attempt to get people to pay for what they haven't received.

A famous bank robber was asked why he kept robbing banks. He replied, "Because that's where the money is!".

That bank robber, and the people who push so-called "progressive" taxes, both have the same reasons for doing what they do.

And equal moral justification.

[Agnapostate]

Do you not get it? Let's explain the concept of diminishing marginal utility for you: If a person has a thousand dollars, ten dollars will be worth far less to him or her than to a person with a hundred dollars. How difficult is it to study basic economics?

[MtnBiker]

Taking property from one person to give to another person is theft, regardless of how much wealth each may or may not have.

[Jeff]

Taking property from one person to give to another person is theft, regardless of how much wealth each may or may not have.

Obama sounds a bit like Robin Hood :laugh2:

[Missileman]

Do you not get it? Let's explain the concept of diminishing marginal utility for you: If a person has a thousand dollars, ten dollars will be worth far less to him or her than to a person with a hundred dollars. How difficult is it to study basic economics?

The idea that it's acceptable to take money away from a rich person because he's not really using it and won't miss it was likely cooked up by some son of a bitch too lazy to acquire his own money or by some low life politician looking for more OPM to use to retain office.

On a side note, I've just proven the Fed Gvt is full of junkies...they're all hooked on OPM. Maybe it's high time to stop enabling them?

[Agnapostate]

Taking property from one person to give to another person is theft, regardless of how much wealth each may or may not have.

I'm a consequentialist, and am not inclined to see moral wrongness in "taking from the rich and giving to the poor," since the suffering imposed upon the rich person is not of comparable moral significance (in terms of intensity, etc.), compared to the happiness provided to the poor person as a result, since there is a greater focus on commodities than necessities.

Placing that entirely aside, though, capitalism is based on theft of surplus value from the working class by the financial class and this cannot be altered. That is the more relevant issue. Whining about progressive taxation and social welfare programs when they constitute efficiency builders in the capitalist economy isn't impressive.


The idea that it's acceptable to take money away from a rich person because he's not really using it and won't miss it was likely cooked up by some son of a bitch too lazy to acquire his own money or by some low life politician looking for more OPM to use to retain office.

Actually, it was cooked up by textbook economic theory.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6e/Indifference_curve_example.png

[Little-Acorn]

Do you not get it?
Clearly one of us doesn't.


If a person has a thousand dollars, ten dollars will be worth far less to him or her than to a person with a hundred dollars.

Already debunked in my previous post.

Repeating a falsehood doesn't bring it any closer to being true. I know, Goebbels said otherwise. But in his case, as in yours, we need to consider the source.

Back to the subject:
These so-called "income redistributionists" are all cut from the same cloth: They want desperately to get you to turn over the products of your time and effort to them for a less-than-just return. Some use higher-sounding rhetoric than others, but for all of them the goal is the same. The same goal, and the same means of doing it, as that famous bank robber I mentioned.

The only difference, is that the bank robber never tried to pretend what he was doing would help his victims.

[Agnapostate]

Already debunked in my previous post.

You didn't "debunk" anything, you idiot. Since necessities provide a more intense form of happiness than commodities, the concept of diminishing marginal utility holds. Please, go to the library and look for an economics textbook.

[Little-Acorn]

Obama sounds a bit like Robin Hood :laugh2:

Hardly.

Check out the Robin Hood legends. He actually DIDN'T "take from the rich and give to the poor".

Guess who he was taking all that money from? GOVERNMENT TAX COLLECTORS! And treasury agents, etc. Because he didn't like the way those people were constantly taking excessive amounts from the people who actually earned it, and not spending it on things that would protect or help them.

And who did he give the money to? The people who had earned it in the first place! Peasants, farmers, craftsmen etc.

Robin Hood was a conservative.

:thumb:

[SassyLady]

I'm a consequentialist, and am not inclined to see moral wrongness in "taking from the rich and giving to the poor," since the suffering imposed upon the rich person is not of comparable moral significance (in terms of intensity, etc.), compared to the happiness provided to the poor person as a result, since there is a greater focus on commodities than necessities.

Aggie - if the government doesn't keep their nose out of it, the rich (i.e., capitalists) will no longer be inclined to continue doing what they do..........they can cut their production by half, quit contributing as much and let the government figure out who to borrow from (i.e., China) to make up the difference.

Why in the hell would I want to continue working my ass off in order to give half of it to you just because you don't have what it takes to make enough to cover your necessities and commodities. It is absolutely ignorant to think otherwise and the only way out for the government is to enslave all of us to continue producing but expect less for our labors.

It is not about whether the rich are suffering when the government takes a greater percentage of their money, it's what is morally right. If a individual makes one dollar or millions, pick a percentage that he has to pay and it is then equitable.


Placing that entirely aside, though, capitalism is based on theft of surplus value from the working class by the financial class and this cannot be altered. That is the more relevant issue. Whining about progressive taxation and social welfare programs when they constitute efficiency builders in the capitalist economy isn't impressive.

Aggie - if you think capitalism is evil, then move to a country that is not capitalistic........because you are an American you have that choice. Instead of wasting your time and energy trying to change America, just take your pick of any of the communist/socialist/dictatorships you want and just goooooooooooo!

[SassyLady]

Argument against consequentialism:


It is in the spirit of consequentialism to look at goodness ultimately from an impartial, impersonal point of view. For example, a Consequentialist who thinks the kind of consequence that matters is happiness is unlikely to think that one person’s happiness is more important than another’s (so long as the amounts of happiness in question are the same). Hence consequentialism tends to hold that in deciding what to do, you ought to give just as much weight to the needs of total strangers as to the needs of your friends, your family, and even yourself. And since your dollar can usually do more good for desperate refugees than for yourself or your friends, consequentialism seems to hold that you ought to spend most of your dollars on strangers. But when you are deciding whom to spend your money on, common sense seems to hold that you are normally morally permitted to favor yourself over strangers and often morally required to favor your children over strangers. Hence consequentialism conflicts with common sense.

[Agnapostate]

Aggie - if the government doesn't keep their nose out of it, the rich (i.e., capitalists) will no longer be inclined to continue doing what they do..........they can cut their production by half, quit contributing as much and let the government figure out who to borrow from (i.e., China) to make up the difference.

Capitalists don't produce much at present, and their role in the economy is one bred by social conditions, as opposed to fundamental ones. For example, an ore mine will require the presence of ore miners regardless of the broader economic structure in place. However, it will not require financial or other provision by capitalists unless the premise that capitalists own the value of their finances and land/capital is honored as valid. That said, that's not the topic of this post. Your own comment is based on the fallacious rightist assumption that the state and capitalism are opposing interests. They are not. The state is and has traditionally been an integral stabilizing force in the capitalist economy.


Why in the hell would I want to continue working my ass off in order to give half of it to you just because you don't have what it takes to make enough to cover your necessities and commodities. It is absolutely ignorant to think otherwise and the only way out for the government is to enslave all of us to continue producing but expect less for our labors.

It's a necessary component of maintaining efficiency in the capitalist economy. Since diminishing marginal utility ensures that progressive taxation will constitute a mild imposition on the wealthy in contrast to the substantial benefits the taxed revenue provides in terms of sustaining the physical efficiency of the working class through social welfare programs, it's pure common sense.


It is not about whether the rich are suffering when the government takes a greater percentage of their money, it's what is morally right.

And happiness and suffering are inexorably linked with moral rightness and wrongness, even aside from the obvious efficiency issue.


If a individual makes one dollar or millions, pick a percentage that he has to pay and it is then equitable.

Flat taxation is inherently regressive and at odds with basic economic rationality...due to the diminishing rate of marginal utility.


Aggie - if you think capitalism is evil, then move to a country that is not capitalistic........because you are an American you have that choice. Instead of wasting your time and energy trying to change America, just take your pick of any of the communist/socialist/dictatorships you want and just goooooooooooo!

Communism and socialism are incompatible with dictatorship, as a result of the fundamentally democratic/participatory nature of the ideology. That's why libertarians always condemned any attempts to implement such theories through repressive state action as inherently anti-socialist/communist, with the earliest anarchist critiques of Marxism even being based on that to some extent.


Argument against consequentialism:

That isn't an argument against consequentialism; that's an argument against logical objectivity. Since we're guided by emotion rather than logic, it wouldn't be unexpected for a person to save his own son from death rather than save forty strangers, even though consequentialism would dictate that. But it also wouldn't be logical, and would be based on subjective perception, even though most people would obviously sympathize.

[HogTrash]

Originally Posted by MtnBiker
Ahh, goverment controlled theft, what a great moral principle.
I'm inclined to think not, which is why I oppose capitalism. Unfortunately, my position's in the minority.Ever wonder why you idiot?!

Isn't it odd that most people who don't live under communism don't wish to and people who do wish they didn't?!

Either your mommy and daddy or the taxpayers wasted alot of money on your education einstein.

Duhhh...Whata moron...

[Agnapostate]

Ever wonder why you idiot?!

Isn't it odd that most people who don't live under communism don't wish to and people who do wish they didn't?!

There's no one that lives "under communism," since the implementation of communism entails the abolition of money, markets, and the state, and has been scarce as a result. That said, while I personally oppose the nature of the so-called "socialist" countries, the depiction of universal aversion to their internal conditions by their citizens that is spread by the U.S. media is hype. The vast majority of the citizens in the Soviet Union supported its continued existence and a substantial number professed to support "socialism," with a lesser but still significant number supporting social democracy.

[HogTrash]

There's no one that lives "under communism," since the implementation of communism entails the abolition of money, markets, and the state, and has been scarce as a result. That said, while I personally oppose the nature of the so-called "socialist" countries, the depiction of universal aversion to their internal conditions by their citizens that is spread by the U.S. media is hype. The vast majority of the citizens in the Soviet Union supported its continued existence and a substantial number professed to support "socialism," with a lesser but still significant number supporting social democracy.LOL!...Whata fuckin moron...ROFL...Please stop, you're killin me! :lmao:

[Agnapostate]

you're killin me!

I'm not quite that optimistic.

[Luna Tick]

What is the justification for income redistribution? Isn't it just punishing success?

Not necessarily. When you buy something, that's redistributing your income. You go to Target, find some clothes you want, and buy them. Your income has been redistributed to Target and you got value in return for it. Everyone wins. Income is also redistributed by the government. I'm glad the government paves roads, builds schools and libraries, provides for the common defense, builds damns, protects the environment, etc. In these cases, the government is creating value for the public. It's essential value that we're obligated to support. Almost everyone would be worse off if we didn't support these things. Any socially responsible person supports these things.

However, some people are greedy and would prefer not to be socially responsible. To such a person, keeping taxes low is more important than being responsible to his fellow human. He would rather see others die a horrible death than pay more taxes. Such people are known as Republicans, and they're evil parasites preying on humankind. They refuse all social responsibility and instead yield to corporate tyranny in which corporations are the new aristocracy and everyone else are enslaved peasants. They're disgusting, sick, and evil human beings, brainwashed by religion, into being corp-whore minions, supporting total social irresponsibility, even if it means citizens suffer and die. It's why they refuse to support universal health care. They're greedy and believe property is more valuable than human life. They're not conservatives. They're fascists. In the United States, the Republicans are the fascist party, the Democrats are the conservatives, and the Greens are the liberals. Republicans are corporate fascists, protecting the elite aristocracy of the country -- the huge corporations. Most of us are their oppressed peasants.

It's vitally important to redistribute wealth, that is the power, of the corporate megaliths in order to have any semblance of a just and fair society. The Republican fascists oppose this because they're evil. They're the enemies of America and are much more destructive than any enemy we've ever had. They cause much, much more harm than Al Quaida does today or Nazi Germany or the USSR did yesterday.

Republicans are the enemy within. The Republican party must be destroyed if America is to have any hope of becoming a democracy again. We're not one now. We're a corporate fascist state with our original freedoms destroyed in order to create more and more corporate power. We're slaves to corporations. A Republican is a person who has been brainwashed into supporting our corporate slavery. They believe if we can just destroy every bit of power the government has and give it to the corporations, we'll all somehow become rich. The truth is that's what makes us all poor and enslaved.

We're all peasants. We're all being raped. We're all being oppressed by the megacorporations. The only way to get our power back is to drain their ill-gotten wealth and restore it to the people whom they've raped it away from.

[Little-Acorn]

Capitalists don't produce much at present,

Is there no end to the parade of transparent lies you will put forth to defend the institutionalized theft called socialism?

[Agnapostate]

Is there no end to the parade of transparent lies you will put forth to defend the institutionalized theft called socialism?

Your comments are nothing if not purely Orwellian, ludicrously asserting that capitalism promotes productivity and socialism theft when the precise opposite is true:

http://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo18/Dolgoff/ed4a754f.png

[SassyLady]

Not necessarily. When you buy something, that's redistributing your income. You go to Target, find some clothes you want, and buy them. Your income has been redistributed to Target and you got value in return for it. Everyone wins.

You are correct - I chose what I wanted to exchange my earned income for - what I valued, not what the government values.


Income is also redistributed by the government. I'm glad the government paves roads, builds schools and libraries, provides for the common defense, builds damns, protects the environment, etc. In these cases, the government is creating value for the public. It's essential value that we're obligated to support. Almost everyone would be worse off if we didn't support these things. Any socially responsible person supports these things.

Agree with this because my income that is given/taken by the government is creating something of value that I need to use at some point in time.


However, some people are greedy and would prefer not to be socially responsible. To such a person, keeping taxes low is more important than being responsible to his fellow human. He would rather see others die a horrible death than pay more taxes. Such people are known as Republicans, and they're evil parasites preying on humankind.

This is where you lose me...........although I am not Republican, I think this statement is the stupidist thing I've ever heard of. How you get from point A to B eludes me. Lower taxes = wanting to watch people die a horrible death. Stupid logic.


They refuse all social responsibility and instead yield to corporate tyranny in which corporations are the new aristocracy and everyone else are enslaved peasants. They're disgusting, sick, and evil human beings, brainwashed by religion, into being corp-whore minions, supporting total social irresponsibility, even if it means citizens suffer and die. It's why they refuse to support universal health care. They're greedy and believe property is more valuable than human life. They're not conservatives. They're fascists. In the United States, the Republicans are the fascist party, the Democrats are the conservatives, and the Greens are the liberals. Republicans are corporate fascists, protecting the elite aristocracy of the country -- the huge corporations. Most of us are their oppressed peasants.

Again, stupid logic. Are you saying that during the last 230+ years that anyone who did not support universal health care were evil facisits? Are you truly that delusional to think that Democrats have never voted against universal health care?


It's vitally important to redistribute wealth, that is the power, of the corporate megaliths in order to have any semblance of a just and fair society. The Republican fascists oppose this because they're evil. They're the enemies of America and are much more destructive than any enemy we've ever had. They cause much, much more harm than Al Quaida does today or Nazi Germany or the USSR did yesterday.

:link:


Republicans are the enemy within. The Republican party must be destroyed if America is to have any hope of becoming a democracy again. We're not one now. We're a corporate fascist state with our original freedoms destroyed in order to create more and more corporate power. We're slaves to corporations. A Republican is a person who has been brainwashed into supporting our corporate slavery. They believe if we can just destroy every bit of power the government has and give it to the corporations, we'll all somehow become rich. The truth is that's what makes us all poor and enslaved.

Once again - I'm not Republican, but I do own my own business and that must make me a facist. You sound like you are just a run-of-the-mill type of person who doesn't have what it takes to get out there and make it on your own so you want to shut down the opportunities for the rest of us by giving your soul to the bureaucracy of the government.


We're all peasants. We're all being raped. We're all being oppressed by the megacorporations. The only way to get our power back is to drain their ill-gotten wealth and restore it to the people whom they've raped it away from.

Wow...........here I am, a 58 year old grandmother and for the first time in my life I am accused of raping and oppressing others just because I used my intelligence, skill set and moxie to help others succeed rather than sitting on my ass and letting the government dictate what, where and when I get anything.:eek:

Once again, I ask you ........... if those of us who have busted our asses just went on strike tomorrow, what will the government do? Where will they get the money that they need to build roads, schools, libraries, etc.?

Oh wait, I see it now, they won't need money because all the resoures and assets will belong to them instead of individuals and we will all be slaves working for the government instead!! Wow..............what an inspiration that is! :coffee:

I can't believe there are idiots who still believe working for a corporation is slavery, but working for the government isn't.:slap:

[SassyLady]

Capitalists don't produce much at present, and their role in the economy is one bred by social conditions, as opposed to fundamental ones. For example, an ore mine will require the presence of ore miners regardless of the broader economic structure in place. You are absolutely correct - whether or not the ore is owned by the government or owned by private industry there will still be workers. Do you think there will be the same compensation structure no matter who owns the resources? If not, what will be the compensation structure for the workers if the ore mine is owned by the government?


However, it will not require financial or other provision by capitalists unless the premise that capitalists own the value of their finances and land/capital is honored as valid. That said, that's not the topic of this post. Your own comment is based on the fallacious rightist assumption that the state and capitalism are opposing interests. They are not. The state is and has traditionally been an integral stabilizing force in the capitalist economy.

However, in the capitalistic society I chose which capitalistic company I want to work for............I am not assigned a "career/job" by some bureaucrat of the state.


PS - if you haven't caught on by now Aggie, I don't quote from critical thinking theory when I state my case (i.e., fallacious rightist assumption); however, when I was younger, and a college student, I thought it made me sound smarter than people with common sense, but it just made me look like an ass.



It's a necessary component of maintaining efficiency in the capitalist economy. Since diminishing marginal utility ensures that progressive taxation will constitute a mild imposition on the wealthy in contrast to the substantial benefits the taxed revenue provides in terms of sustaining the physical efficiency of the working class through social welfare programs, it's pure common sense.

When you are wealthy then I think you will have earned the right to make this type of statement. Until then you are pretty cavalier with other people's assets. Plus, you make it sound as if the wealthy are not already contributing to the poor. Perhaps you should take a look at how many liberals contribute to charities vs. how many conservatives contribute.


And happiness and suffering are inexorably linked with moral rightness and wrongness, even aside from the obvious efficiency issue.

Each individual is first and foremost responsible for their own happiness before it becomes the responsibility of the group. If an individual does nothing for themselves, why should anyone else?



Flat taxation is inherently regressive and at odds with basic economic rationality...[I]due to the diminishing rate of marginal utility.

Really? So, if I make $1,000 and the government takes 10% and you make $100,000 and pay your 10%, how is that regressive and at odds? We still go to work and keep earning and keep giving and we each know that the more we make the more we give in dollars, but the basic concept is the same. We are each giving equal % of our earnings. What you are proposing is that I give 100% and you give 100%...........how does that become progressive?



Communism and socialism are incompatible with dictatorship, as a result of the fundamentally democratic/participatory nature of the ideology. That's why libertarians always condemned any attempts to implement such theories through repressive state action as inherently anti-socialist/communist, with the earliest anarchist critiques of Marxism even being based on that to some extent.

Once again I'll ask you .......... why not move to a country that already supports the type of structure you would rather live under.......why try to reinvent the wheel here in America?



That isn't an argument against consequentialism; that's an argument against logical objectivity. Since we're guided by emotion rather than logic, it wouldn't be unexpected for a person to save his own son from death rather than save forty strangers, even though consequentialism would dictate that. But it also wouldn't be logical, and would be based on subjective perception, even though most people would obviously sympathize.

Of course it is! Common sense dictates that we take care of ourselves and our family before we take care of strangers. Consequentialism dictates that nothing is done unless it is for the betterment of the group. Logic is that I've invested more into the sustainment and survival of myself and my family, therefore, logic says I put them first. It is not just emotion.

All I can say is that whoever brainwashed you did a bang up job because you truly do believe what you are saying and if you are as young as you say you are, then you have no personal life experience to guide your belief system when it somes to capitalism/socialism/communism/consequentialism, etc.! Bravo liberal progressive professors!! I'll bet you went to Berkeley or are transferring there. :clap::clap:

[Joyful HoneyBee]

The page at debatepolicy.com says
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to mrskurtsprincess again.

[cat slave]

Not necessarily. When you buy something, that's redistributing your income. You go to Target, find some clothes you want, and buy them. Your income has been redistributed to Target and you got value in return for it. Everyone wins. Income is also redistributed by the government. I'm glad the government paves roads, builds schools and libraries, provides for the common defense, builds damns, protects the environment, etc. In these cases, the government is creating value for the public. It's essential value that we're obligated to support. Almost everyone would be worse off if we didn't support these things. Any socially responsible person supports these things.

However, some people are greedy and would prefer not to be socially responsible. To such a person, keeping taxes low is more important than being responsible to his fellow human. He would rather see others die a horrible death than pay more taxes. Such people are known as Republicans, and they're evil parasites preying on humankind. They refuse all social responsibility and instead yield to corporate tyranny in which corporations are the new aristocracy and everyone else are enslaved peasants. They're disgusting, sick, and evil human beings, brainwashed by religion, into being corp-whore minions, supporting total social irresponsibility, even if it means citizens suffer and die. It's why they refuse to support universal health care. They're greedy and believe property is more valuable than human life. They're not conservatives. They're fascists. In the United States, the Republicans are the fascist party, the Democrats are the conservatives, and the Greens are the liberals. Republicans are corporate fascists, protecting the elite aristocracy of the country -- the huge corporations. Most of us are their oppressed peasants.

It's vitally important to redistribute wealth, that is the power, of the corporate megaliths in order to have any semblance of a just and fair society. The Republican fascists oppose this because they're evil. They're the enemies of America and are much more destructive than any enemy we've ever had. They cause much, much more harm than Al Quaida does today or Nazi Germany or the USSR did yesterday.

Republicans are the enemy within. The Republican party must be destroyed if America is to have any hope of becoming a democracy again. We're not one now. We're a corporate fascist state with our original freedoms destroyed in order to create more and more corporate power. We're slaves to corporations. A Republican is a person who has been brainwashed into supporting our corporate slavery. They believe if we can just destroy every bit of power the government has and give it to the corporations, we'll all somehow become rich. The truth is that's what makes us all poor and enslaved.

We're all peasants. We're all being raped. We're all being oppressed by the megacorporations. The only way to get our power back is to drain their ill-gotten wealth and restore it to the people whom they've raped it away from.

Oh, for gawds sake....what a mind numbed organism. Its laughable.
Business of any size is the only way others have jobs or money to invest
for their futures or build their own businesses. Get a grip lil commie.

At the rate this current administration is growing gov we will all be parasitized
and those who wont be good little worker bees to support the elitist class
will be swiftly eliminated.

Churches should minister to those in their communities....like helping those
who really cannot work....let the rest starve.

[KarlMarx]

Except for taxation needed to run the government, just where does the Constitution give the government power to redistribute wealth? Some claim the commerce clause, some point the "general welfare" clause. However, the framers of the Constitution did not have income redistribution in mind when they wrote those two sections.

A lot of the things that liberals believe nowadays, including income redistribution, came from the Progressives of the 19th century. The Progressives believed that society had to be reinvented in order to correct wrongs that they saw in society. They were more honest than today's liberals, many of them believed the Constitution was a bunch of crap and that the State, not the individual, was to have freedom.

The idea that the State should take away personal property from some and give it to others fits perfectly with the Progressives' ideas.

The best way to eliminate poverty is not through income redistribution or even through charity. The best way is through free market capitalism. This can best be seen in countries where the free market is allowed to work, especially after tossing out socialist economic policy.

[Agnapostate]

By all means, forgive the slight delay.


You are absolutely correct - whether or not the ore is owned by the government or owned by private industry there will still be workers. Do you think there will be the same compensation structure no matter who owns the resources? If not, what will be the compensation structure for the workers if the ore mine is owned by the government?

I'd imagine that there would be some replication of the failings of centralized economic structure and the dispersed knowledge problems that it spawns, which is why I advocate direct workers' ownership and management of firms, a decentralized model that escapes such problems. That an equitable share in firm profits is a characteristic of such firms is the reason that they prove more efficient than the orthodox capitalist firm even in the context of the capitalist labor market.


However, in the capitalistic society I chose which capitalistic company I want to work for............I am not assigned a "career/job" by some bureaucrat of the state.

And yet, transition between various firms in the labor market does not entail movement outside of the labor market, just as movement between various Soviet republics would not have entailed movement outside of the USSR. Freedom is characterized by more than the freedom to choose one's master, and as the capitalist labor market as a whole is defined by coercive exchange, you'll find me a bit unmoving.


I thought it made me sound smarter than people with common sense, but it just made me look like an ass.

Oh, I understand. Good thing that never happens now, then.


When you are wealthy then I think you will have earned the right to make this type of statement.

Perhaps when you are economically rational, you will understand the concept of diminishing marginal utility (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diminishing_marginal_utility#Diminishing_marginal_ utility).


Plus, you make it sound as if the wealthy are not already contributing to the poor. Perhaps you should take a look at how many liberals contribute to charities vs. how many conservatives contribute.

Perhaps you should consider the fact that I have only a marginal interest in liberal/conservative squabbles. I see a factional dispute within a party intent on upholding capitalism and the state.


Each individual is first and foremost responsible for their own happiness before it becomes the responsibility of the group. If an individual does nothing for themselves, why should anyone else?

Let me guess: Something along the lines of the naive and utopian fantasy that we all have a chance to prosper with these here two hands that the Good Lord gave us if we only put them to work, dang darn it! Pull yourself up by your bootstraps and you shall succeed! Try composing something that makes economic sense next time. :poke:


Really? So, if I make $1,000 and the government takes 10% and you make $100,000 and pay your 10%, how is that regressive and at odds?

Diminishing marginal utility


Once again I'll ask you .......... why not move to a country that already supports the type of structure you would rather live under.......why try to reinvent the wheel here in America?

Sorry, but there are no socialist countries in existence. Can't depart quite yet.


Of course it is! Common sense dictates that we take care of ourselves and our family before we take care of strangers. Consequentialism dictates that nothing is done unless it is for the betterment of the group. Logic is that I've invested more into the sustainment and survival of myself and my family, therefore, logic says I put them first. It is not just emotion.

Ah, very crude logical fallacy. Every ethical system is at odds with individual and subjective perceptions to some extent because of the insistence on objectivity that they mandate. They are useful for the implementation of societal guidelines, not for an omnipotent solution to every individual pain and protest. Try again.


All I can say is that whoever brainwashed you did a bang up job because you truly do believe what you are saying and if you are as young as you say you are, then you have no personal life experience to guide your belief system when it somes to capitalism/socialism/communism/consequentialism, etc.! Bravo liberal progressive professors!! I'll bet you went to Berkeley or are transferring there. :clap::clap:

Don't make me laugh, as my own anti-capitalism is quite at odds with liberalism, which is a critical means of sustaining the private ownership of the means of production that defines capitalism. If you can do anything other than regurgitate a multitude of rightist talking points and anti-intellectualism (damn professors are working with the Masons!), I suggest you do so now, as this dog and pony show's getting a little worn out. Incidentally, I've never said that I'm young, and wouldn't welcome ad hominem logical fallacies if I had, so I'd advise you to look into a different line of inquiry.


Except for taxation needed to run the government, just where does the Constitution give the government power to redistribute wealth?

Wealth redistribution is itself an aspect of efficient economic policy. For an illustration of this, consider Clemens and Heinemann's On the effects of redistribution on growth and entrepreneurial risk-taking (http://www.springerlink.com/content/x42t622364325020/):


This paper investigates the effects of redistributive taxation on occupational choice and growth. We discuss a two-sector economy in the spirit of Romer (1990). Agents engage in one of two alternative occupations: either self-employment in an intermediate goods sector characterized by monopolistic competition, or employment as an ordinary worker in this sector. Entrepreneurial profits are stochastic. The occupational choice under risk endogenizes the number of firms in the intermediate goods industry. While the presence of entrepreneurial risk results in a suboptimally low number of firms and depresses growth, nonlinear tax schemes can sometimes compensate negative effects by ex post providing social insurance.

:beer:


Some claim the commerce clause, some point the "general welfare" clause. However, the framers of the Constitution did not have income redistribution in mind when they wrote those two sections.

A lot of the things that liberals believe nowadays, including income redistribution, came from the Progressives of the 19th century. The Progressives believed that society had to be reinvented in order to correct wrongs that they saw in society. They were more honest than today's liberals, many of them believed the Constitution was a bunch of crap and that the State, not the individual, was to have freedom.

The idea that the State should take away personal property from some and give it to others fits perfectly with the Progressives' ideas.

Your problem here, aside from the aforementioned efficiency issue, is that "laissez-faire" prescriptions offered by classical liberal thinkers during a period in which agrarian conditions and relatively egalitarian land distribution were expected to maintain equitable economic conditions are largely inapplicable to modern economic and more broadly societal conditions in which large-scale industrial development after the phase of the primitive accumulation of capital has spawned corporate capitalism, a state-supported economic structure that involves market and wealth concentration and thus, consolidation of primary influence over government and near-complete ownership and management rights over industry by an elite financial class. That problem exists even aside from the fact that many classical liberal philosophers and economists (most notably Adam Smith) were significantly more protectionist in nature than they are disingenuously depicted as by modern rightists. Moreover, the economy as a whole was not as drastically unregulated as is commonly perceived and support for regulation amongst the Founding Fathers was not as sparse as is commonly perceived. In fact, Alexander Hamilton, the first Secretary of the Treasury, was effectively the first to comprehensively advocate the infant industry argument (a protectionist trade argument, if you're unfamiliar with it) in his Reports of the Secretary of the Treasury on the Subject of Manufactures.

Regardless, the main point is that classical liberal philosophy generally offers a defense of property rights based on individual appropriation of the product of one's labor that many classical liberal theorists expected to result in relatively egalitarian conditions. No defense of vast corporate structure that modern propertarians defend as legitimate fixtures of fair market exchange and the massive concentration of wealth that they defend as the earned reward of entrepreneurial spirit can be drawn from that philosophy. It's an obvious reality that the conditions of presently existing capitalism are not those "without a formal class structure...and a dispersed and relatively diverse population composed of small entrepreneurs," as this article describes them. Our capitalist economy is not composed of independent producers and artisans, but of large-scale corporate structure and rampant concentration of wealth and property. The reality is thus that modern propertarians (disingenuously self-identified "libertarians") have effectively co-opted classical liberal arguments just as effectively as they stole the "libertarian" label from European anarchists, thus committing what appear to be property violations more severe than any that they regularly decry. For example, the political scientist Robert Dahl (A Preface to Economic Democracy, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985) notes this:


[A]n economic order that spontaneously produced inequality in the distribution of economic and political resources acquired legitimacy at least in part, by clothing itself in the recut garments of an outmoded ideology in which private property was justified on the ground that a wide diffusion of property would support political equality. As a result, Americans have never asked themselves steadily or in large numbers whether an alternative to corporate capitalism might be more consistent with their commitment to democracy.

Sound adaptation of the more libertarian elements of the classical liberal philosophy would thus probably lend support to libertarian socialism today, particularly libertarian market socialism, such as the mutualism of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (though more likely a minarchist variety, not his anarchist form). We could also look to more broadly democratic market socialism such as that today advocated by figures such as David Schweickart and the aforementioned Theodore Burczak. The reason for this is that democratic market socialism is able to maximize legitimately competitive market enterprise through its elimination of monopolistic and oligopolistic conditions, and more broadly, market and wealth concentration. It's also able to promote personal possession rather than "private property" in that their is greater focus on individual possession and consumption rights rather than the "right" to own massive corporate structure, which permits the utilization of hierarchical and authoritarian wage labor as an element of internal firm structure, which is flatly undemocratic in both de jure and de facto terms. There is a corresponding support for workers' democratic ownership and management in such market socialist models. I don't advocate democratic market socialism myself; I advocate decentralized participatory planning, specifically in the form of anarchist communism. I simply believe that democratic market socialism is more compatible with classical liberal principles as adapted to a modern context than presently existing capitalism is. If not, then massive wealth and property re-distribution at the very least would be necessary to imitate the egalitarian conditions that classical liberalism was then to be applied to, but I think this impractical, and not far from democratic market socialism anyway, so we might as well attempt to implement a framework of public ownership.


The best way to eliminate poverty is not through income redistribution or even through charity. The best way is through free market capitalism. This can best be seen in countries where the free market is allowed to work, especially after tossing out socialist economic policy.

There are none, as "free market" capitalism is a theoretical abstraction with no history of implementation and no application outside of the textbook. "Socialist economic policy" has also been implemented in few and far between places and times, though it at least has a record that "laissez-faire" capitalism cannot match by virtue of its nonexistence and that actual capitalism cannot match by virtue of its destructive nature.

[Little-Acorn]

Diminishing marginal utility


Looks like Aggie feels that enought time has gone by since this notion was debunked, that he can introduce it again and pretend it wasn't.

(yawn) The usual high-flown bunkum.

Money is worth exactly as much to the wealthy guy as to the poor guy. It can buy exactly the same amount of good for each.

The goods might be worth less to the wealthy guy than to the poor guy, because the wealthy guy already has lots of goods and so he doesn't desire more, as much as the poor guy desires more.

But the money is worth exactly the same to both: It is worth X amount of goods, in both cases.

Apparently the leftists govt thieves are now trying to bamboozle people out of their money, by substituting the "value of money" for the "value of goods" they should have used, and hope that people won't notice the substitution.

Nice try, but no cigar. "Progressive taxation" (another misnomer, the correct term is "inequitable taxation") is no more fair than any other attempt to get people to pay for what they haven't received.

A famous bank robber was asked why he kept robbing banks. He replied, "Because that's where the money is!".

That bank robber, and the people who push so-called "progressive" taxes, both have the same reasons for doing what they do.

And equal moral justification.

[Agnapostate]

Have you ever visited Conservapedia? I believe that Andy Schafly (son of Phyllis Schlafly) offers free online economics lessons there, though I can't vouch for their credibility. Some of us obviously desperately need an introduction to the basics, though.

[DragonStryk72]

What is the justification for income redistribution? Isn't it just punishing success?

Well, actually, that would be the more optimistic version of it. In reality, "income redistribution" is a ploy these days that politicians use to get the most number of votes on whatever new tax bill they want without fear of being asked what the spending is for.

Eventually, of course, the tax makes its way down, and everyone's paying for it, at which point that same politician jumps up to offer us a "tax break" from his tax, and gets even more votes. You know, sometimes I think we have a better class of people in prison. At least they KNOW they're con artists, and admit as such to themselves.

Our entire tax system of current days is based around the starting model from 1914: a flat tax rate against only the top 1% of the country. How's that working out so far? Yeah, didn't think so.

And people continue to buy into it, to let it fester more and more, but as always, the fault lies with the voters who keep letting them get away with it.

As to the OP, yes it does punish success, because let's just look at this: you're doing really well at your job, you're on time when you're not early, you take half-lunches, you get your work done on time, and do not call out sick. So your boss calls you in, and informs you that you're getting a raise. What your boss doesn't know is that he just gave you a raise to a new tax bracket, and that, because it only just clears the bracket, the new taxes have actually made sure that you'll be bringing home less.

But let's take another example: You've been with the same company even longer, and you've been promoted up a couple of times now. However, the business taxes have been raised again to help pay for universal health care, and so your company looks to cut expenses. They hire on a couple of efficiency experts who come in, and, since you've been getting regulars raises, you get laid off so that they can replace your job with someone younger who'll work for half what you were making. You have now been laid off for actually being a solid employee, why? because the company needs to its taxes. If someone's about to call foul on this, this is the exact run that my dad got, and he was the Executive VP for his company, the First Albany Corporation.

[Little-Acorn]

What do you mean by "income redistribution"?

Sounds to me like you're implying that the income was somehow "distributed" by someone in the first place, and is now being "REdistributed", I asume in a different way.

But it was never "distributed" in the first place. A guy who wanted something you had, more than he wanted the money in his pocket, offered you a trade, and you agreed. You wound up with the money and he wound up with the thing (goods or your labor or whatever), and both of you are happy. And you made similar deals with other people, too.

But the money you got, wasn't "distributed" to you by somebody in charge of distributing, somebody who planned it all out. Many different people made transactions with you, and they were probably making other transactions with other people too at the same time, just as you were. And it all worked out, without having to be overseen by some all-knowing "distributor".

When somebody says he wants to "redistribute" it (or "spread the wealth around" as someone recently put it), it means he thinks all those transactions somehow "weren't good"... and that he thinks he can do better.

And that notion is completely ridiculous. There's no way he can make a fairer "distribution" of your money (and all those othe peoples') than you and they already have. What could be fairer that the "distribution" you and all the others have already happily agreed to?

When someone talks about "redistributing income", they are saying they think the money is theirs to take, and give to whom they want.

It's silly on several different planes. And arrogant wishful thinking, too.

[BoogyMan]

Because the wealthly are selfish greedy bastards that only enjoy their wealth because they take advantage of the poor.

Wow, this would be a complete load of mental feces. :lame2:

[DragonStryk72]

Not necessarily. When you buy something, that's redistributing your income. You go to Target, find some clothes you want, and buy them. Your income has been redistributed to Target and you got value in return for it. Everyone wins. Income is also redistributed by the government. I'm glad the government paves roads, builds schools and libraries, provides for the common defense, builds damns, protects the environment, etc. In these cases, the government is creating value for the public. It's essential value that we're obligated to support. Almost everyone would be worse off if we didn't support these things. Any socially responsible person supports these things.

However, some people are greedy and would prefer not to be socially responsible. To such a person, keeping taxes low is more important than being responsible to his fellow human. He would rather see others die a horrible death than pay more taxes. Such people are known as Republicans, and they're evil parasites preying on humankind. They refuse all social responsibility and instead yield to corporate tyranny in which corporations are the new aristocracy and everyone else are enslaved peasants. They're disgusting, sick, and evil human beings, brainwashed by religion, into being corp-whore minions, supporting total social irresponsibility, even if it means citizens suffer and die. It's why they refuse to support universal health care. They're greedy and believe property is more valuable than human life. They're not conservatives. They're fascists. In the United States, the Republicans are the fascist party, the Democrats are the conservatives, and the Greens are the liberals. Republicans are corporate fascists, protecting the elite aristocracy of the country -- the huge corporations. Most of us are their oppressed peasants.

It's vitally important to redistribute wealth, that is the power, of the corporate megaliths in order to have any semblance of a just and fair society. The Republican fascists oppose this because they're evil. They're the enemies of America and are much more destructive than any enemy we've ever had. They cause much, much more harm than Al Quaida does today or Nazi Germany or the USSR did yesterday.

Republicans are the enemy within. The Republican party must be destroyed if America is to have any hope of becoming a democracy again. We're not one now. We're a corporate fascist state with our original freedoms destroyed in order to create more and more corporate power. We're slaves to corporations. A Republican is a person who has been brainwashed into supporting our corporate slavery. They believe if we can just destroy every bit of power the government has and give it to the corporations, we'll all somehow become rich. The truth is that's what makes us all poor and enslaved.

We're all peasants. We're all being raped. We're all being oppressed by the megacorporations. The only way to get our power back is to drain their ill-gotten wealth and restore it to the people whom they've raped it away from.

But what of all the corporation that give money back into the community, such as Target, Wal-Mart, and numerous others? Shouldn't they then, since they are not being "greedy", be allowed to get out of the extra taxes?

The big problem with this is simple ignorance. You tell me that corps are trying to make money, so let me pose this to you: should you succeed in putting down the kind of taxes that would make the rich not rich, you would kill the entire country off, one way or the other.

either the companies would pay the new unjust taxes, and be forced to raise prices to such extent that no one can afford basic goods and services any more, or they will do the more sensible thing, pack up shop, and head to a country that is neither villifying them, nor taxing them to hell and gone. This means that all those jobs attached to those corps are gone (not just workers, but also caterers, drivers, doctors, a whole slew of people), meaning that we will have unbearable levels of homeless and death.

Anything less than those kinds of taxes is just going to get passed on to us, and that level of taxation would kill us

[Little-Acorn]

Wow, this would be a complete load of mental feces. :lame2:

Leftists find it necessary to lie about people who succeed, and demonize them as much as they can. Otherwise no one would be interested in what the leftists had to say, and would recognize it as the complete load you mentioned.

[Agnapostate]

Leftists find it necessary to lie about people who succeed, and demonize them as much as they can. Otherwise no one would be interested in what the leftists had to say, and would recognize it as the complete load you mentioned.

That seems a pretty effective ad hominem logical fallacy itself. Up for any arguments? :poke:

[HogTrash]

That seems a pretty effective ad hominem logical fallacy itself. Up for any arguments? :poke:I believe people avoid debates with you because you're an idiot who never wins an argument yet never admits defeat.

You do however occasionally get something right but you always end up twisting it into something unrecognizable as reality.

Think about it?...You promote an ideology that is a proven failure time and again yet you continue banging your head against the wall like Homer Simpson.

Poor Aggy!...I don't think you will even be able to unite your little native brothers and sisters under your red flag of communism...They just won't go for it.

Before it's all said and done you guys will be all painted up and ignored by the pale faces while chuckin spears, toma hawks and arrows at each other...Sad.

[chloe]

I believe people avoid debates with you because you're an idiot who never wins an argument yet never admits defeat.

You do however occasionally get something right but you always end up twisting it into something unrecognizable as reality.

Think about it?...You promote an ideology that is a proven failure time and again yet you continue banging your head against the wall like Homer Simpson.

Poor Aggy!...I don't think you will even be able to unite your little native brothers and sisters under your red flag of communism...They just won't go for it.

Before it's all said and done you guys will be all painted up and ignored by the pale faces while chuckin spears, toma hawks and arrows at each other...Sad.

Agnapostate is too smart for me before he posts he's already won me:laugh2:

[Agnapostate]

I believe people avoid debates with you because you're an idiot who never wins an argument yet never admits defeat.

You do however occasionally get something right but you always end up twisting it into something unrecognizable as reality.

Think about it?...You promote an ideology that is a proven failure time and again yet you continue banging your head against the wall like Homer Simpson.

Poor Aggy!...I don't think you will even be able to unite your little native brothers and sisters under your red flag of communism...They just won't go for it.

Before it's all said and done you guys will be all painted up and ignored by the pale faces while chuckin spears, toma hawks and arrows at each other...Sad.

Well, there is the fact that I can eviscerate your idiotic posts time and time again. Just sayin'. :salute:

[HogTrash]

Well, there is the fact that I can eviscerate your idiotic posts time and time again. Just sayin'. :salute:I rest my case...

[Agnapostate]

I rest my case...

Son, you barely have two IQ points to rub together, let alone the ability to successfully engage me. I'd recommend devoting your meager intellectual resources to fixing any leaks that might spring up in your trailer. :slap: