Should US wealth be redistributed?

[robby]

Do you think that redistributing the wealth of the richest people in the US should to the poorest people would make any difference at all?

[jmjj215]

Could you be a bit more specific? How would it be redistributed?

[sweeps]

Yes, some of it should be redistributed. Pure socialism can't work because there's no incentive for people to work hard and take risks. Pure capitalism can't work because the poor would become so desperate that crime would skyrocket and there would be civil unrest.

[Bruce Wayne]

If it should be redistributed it should be done via voluntary contributions and not state controlled taxation.

[barbara L]

I don't know if wealth should be redistributed. I think if we started with health care, than insured everyone had enough to eat and than began teaching them about money - kind of like Habitat for Humanity does, we would have a better chance that people could rise up out of their poverty.

How does that saying go "Give a person a fish and you teach them nothing, but train a person to fish and you teach them everything" (?)

[byusteeler]

In the US CEO pay has become obscene, at the same time many companies are laying off and lowereing the payscales of their workforce. In some countries CEOs or anyone for that matter can only make a certain amount of money anything more than that is taxed at 100%, So there is no incentive to screw their employees to give themselves more than they would ever need. (It seems in the US these guys can never have enough) I wish I knew the answer. I don't know if I can say business names here so I will be vague. A famous Ice Cream business started with the plan that in order for anyone at the top of the company to get a raise everyone all the way down to the bottom got a raise. They have since gone public( I think that is what they call it when you sell stock now) and unfortunately no longer do this. Other companies have had plans where the person at the top couldn't make more than a certain % of what the people at the bottom made. I think this kind of thing is better than simply taking from the rich and giving to the poor. Partially because I think there are already a lot of entitlement programs for the poor and it is always the middle class that gets the short end of the stick.

Seems my answers can never be short. So here is the short answer, It depends.

And to Bruce Wayne: voluntary contributions? that is already available and we see how well that is working. Sorry being cynical. Many people with money donate to very worthy causes.

[sweeps]

Originally Posted by barbara L

I don't know if wealth should be redistributed. I think if we started with health care, than insured everyone had enough to eat and than began teaching them about money - kind of like Habitat for Humanity does, we would have a better chance that people could rise up out of their poverty.

If you're providing health care and food for people who can't afford them, you're by definition redistributing wealth.

[sweeps]

Originally Posted by Bruce Wayne

If it should be redistributed it should be done via voluntary contributions and not state controlled taxation.

I don't know about the U.K., but in the U.S. the percentage of income that goes to charitable contributions is pretty small, almost inconsequential. If you cut taxes dramatically, charitable contributions would go up a little bit but not much.

[cercis]

So Ben & Jerry's stopped, huh? Well that sucks.

Costco guarantees that their CEO cannot make more than a certain percentage of the lowest paid employee. That's why I have a Costco membership.

The year we got laid off from our jobs (so they could hire less qualified people for a lot less money) the CEO and the board of directors all got 7 figure bonuses. Let's see, how many people could they have kept on for FULL salary for *1* 7 figure bonus - average salary $30k, the average bonus was $1.5million, that's *50* workers for one obscene bonus. There were 6-7 members on the board and the CEO - they could have kept our whole office going with no problem.

The US is greedy. We have insurance companies that pay their CEO's high 6 figure salaries with 7 figure "compensation packages" yet deny a simple immunization. The layers of insurance workers guarantee that the poorest will never be able to afford insurance. I paid more than my mortgage just to have poor health insurance for my family of 4. My mom is pissed that I moved 12 hours away, but it was the only way we could afford health insurance. She says that "everyone should be responsible for their own insurance" and then heaps on the guilt because taking that responsibility means I won't be home for xmas this year and she doesn't get as easy access to her grandkids.

I'm not sure about "redistribution" but I am sure that as a "community" we owe our other community members more. I'm also sure that something needs to be done to reign in the obscene salaries that CEO's make for shipping jobs out of the country.

[VJW]

Originally Posted by robby

Should US wealth be redistributed?

Wealth in the US has already been redistributed from the Middle-class and Working Poor up to the wealthy since the early ‘80s. There was some reversal during the ‘90s, but the redistribution has resumed since.

I favor RE-redistribution.

#

[VJW]

Originally Posted by Bruce Wayne

If it should be redistributed it should be done via voluntary contributions and not state controlled taxation.

Of course, “voluntary” has NEVER worked.

#

[VJW]

Originally Posted by byusteeler

In the US CEO pay has become obscene, at the same time many companies are laying off and lowereing the payscales of their workforce.

This is a good article in that regard:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/compan...04-cover_x.htm

#

[VJW]

Originally Posted by Sweepsplayer

If you cut taxes dramatically, charitable contributions would go up a little bit but not much.

Actually, every time tax rates are cut for the wealthy, charitable contributions from the wealthy have gone down.

#

[PRICEPLUS]

I make a decent living. Re-Distribution does not in my opinion work. Have you ever noticed that Socialism makes for a poor economic system. God Bless you if you can make great money. Some people are multi-millionaires because they were frugal and worked hard and lived simply. Why would you want to take away what they worked so hard for? I am not jealous of what anyone else makes. I certainly can't blame folks for making 7 or 8 figures if thay can/ Truth be told I know of few folks who would turn it down. Even fewer who want to give it away.

I grew up in public housing and was very poor. I still don't believe in taking from others. Nope that is not right in my book. If I make it I sure don't want my money being taken from me!

[sweeps]

Originally Posted by PRICEPLUS

I grew up in public housing and was very poor. I still don't believe in taking from others. Nope that is not right in my book. If I make it I sure don't want my money being taken from me!

But by living in public housing, you did "take from others". Someone paid their hard-earned money in taxes to provide you with public housing.* That is redistribution of wealth.

No income redistribution means: no social security, no medicare and medicaid, no public housing, no welfare, no food stamps, no subsidized student loans, no grants for education, no free/reduced lunches in public schools.** And... 1 tax bracket for everyone: If Bill Gates pays 33%, someone making $10000 pays 33% too.

* Not criticizing you by the way. I too was very poor and lived in public housing. I was the beneficiary of many government programs. BUT, it was successful because both of us have become productive citizens and now we can help others who need help getting on their feet.

** One could argue that public schools, public libraries, etc. could be included in this list, but these services benefit everyone rather than individuals (kinda like military and defense spending).

[jmjj215]

And... 1 tax bracket for everyone:

I don't necessarily agree with that when seen through the lense of what I feel is redistribution - since a large portion of taxes DO go to benefit "everyone rather than individuals", that wouldn't be a redistribution vehicle. The others you mentioned definitely would be though.

I liked the post that stressed that extreme socialism or capitalism makes for a lousy economic system.

I think we take away from a lot of hard work that high-income earners have put in by immediately shunning them for being financially successful. I think we judge a lot of low-income earners who have put in a lot of hard work and haven't had the same circumstances to enable themselves to be financially successful.

One thing's for certain - if you make it big in the US you never did it alone. The system, structure, market, regulations, laws, etc. all helped along the way. Let's be grateful for a free country, work hard to provide for ourselves, and be generous with what we accumulate.

[sweeps]

Originally Posted by jmjj215

I don't necessarily agree with that when seen through the lense of what I feel is redistribution - since a large portion of taxes DO go to benefit "everyone rather than individuals", that wouldn't be a redistribution vehicle. The others you mentioned definitely would be though.

Actually if you look at it that way, Bill Gates pays a grossly disproportionate amount of money on things that benefit everyone. Take national defense, for example. Theoretically, Bill should only have to pay for 1/300,000,000th of the national defense budget for his share. Of course he pays a lot more than that.

(Not that I actually believe in a flat or regressive tax system.. just making a point. :-) )

[Bruce Wayne]

Plus of course Bill Gates has created thousands of jobs both in the US and around the world thus distributing wealth in a far more effective manner than any government program.

[jmjj215]

Originally Posted by Bruce Wayne

Plus of course Bill Gates has created thousands of jobs both in the US and around the world thus distributing wealth in a far more effective manner than any government program.

This is true.

[VJW]

Originally Posted by PRICEPLUS

Re-Distribution does not in my opinion work.

It’s never been tried, other than on a smaller scale during the ‘90s, when it was a smashing success.

Have you ever noticed that Socialism makes for a poor economic system.

Just WHO is advocating “Socialism” ?

#