Should US wealth be redistributed?

[shelbylovesmelby]

Re: Should US wealth be redistributed?

Cercis - I think that is a good strategy, universal health care is a must for everyone. We do need to keep the companies that are here, growing. Too bad we couldn't put companies that subcontract out overseas a higher tax bracket. If anyone has noticed recently that the person on the other end when you call various companies customer service lines, not based this country but is sitting in a call center in INDIA! Additionally in order for the US to compete with some of the goods we need to have a bit more give with the EPA. If anyone has ever noticed that most shoes are made in Asia? Not only wages & child labor fall into play but the EPA doesn't allow the use of certain chemicals used in the process of tanning leather.

[cercis]

Re: Should US wealth be redistributed?

I don't think the EPA should give at all. They aren't strict enough in most cases.

If companies can't do it within the bounds of the EPA, then they aren't trying, or they're making excuses.

Ever notice that we have majorly increased our incidences of autism, cancer and alzheimer's? Ever think that could be caused by manufacturing chemicals? Chemicals that aren't necessary.

[jmjj215]

Re: Should US wealth be redistributed?

Some requirements of the EPA make investment in various ventures extremely unprofitable. I think there's room for them to give some, and be stricter in other areas. That's probably pie-in-the-sky thinking though.

[VJW]

Re: Should US wealth be redistributed?

Quite.

One of the many RightWing myths the eight years of the Clinton administration roundly discredited was that tightening (not to mention actually enforcing) environmental regulations costs jobs and slows the economy.

#

[VJW]

Re: Should US wealth be redistributed?

But don't you think the wealthy 'influence' this policy much more than the middle/poor class (through campaign contributions and/or their network)?

Of course. Real campaign finance reform would produce elected officials that represent the people who elected them instead of the people who financed them.

Again, the system is rigged to benefit the wealthy.

#

[jmjj215]

Re: Should US wealth be redistributed?

Again, the system is rigged to benefit the wealthy.

...because the wealthy have the money. So how do you fix that? It's a viscious cycle.

[VJW]

Re: Should US wealth be redistributed?

The easiest way would be to encourage more working people that their VOTE would matter.

#

[sweeps]

Re: Should US wealth be redistributed?

The easiest way would be to encourage more working people that their VOTE would matter.

Be careful what you wish for. The Republicans were effective in convincing evangelical Christians that their vote matters, and look at the result.

[VJW]

Re: Should US wealth be redistributed?

Given the polling, I would have no problem with the Working Poor and Middle-class voting in much larger numbers.

#

[ChillPhatCat]

Re: Should US wealth be redistributed?

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" (?)

Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he will eat for a life time.

[bigdaddybus]

I had fun reading every post in this thread last night. Even though the last post was 7 years ago, the issue is alive and well

[Copper]

No way to do it. USA is a market based economy and the whole system depended in a way to spending into the market. Reshuffling this economic system may cause disaster.

[rennigade]

They already do! How many jobs have warren buffet and bill gates created?

As far as having the richest people just handing money to poor people, absolutely not. Its their money!! Not everyone inherited their fortunes, and even if they did its still theirs to do what they want with. A lot of these people actually worked and made it.

Im not sure why people that have less think that everyone that has more should give them free handouts. That kind of mentality will keep you at the bottom your whole life.

[Snodog]

Reshuffling this economic system may cause disaster.

Storm clouds are gathering.

[UnknownXV]

To redistribute wealth, government must be large and powerful. If the government has the power to give you someone else's labor or goods, it also has the power to take from you. Never forget that.

I don't believe government has a role in the financial welfare of its people. We are guaranteed the right to pursue happiness. Not to be happy at all times. Life isn't easy.

Unfortunately, due to excessive taxes on the rich, as well as manipulation of the currency itself by the "federal" reserve, the ability of hard, responsible workers who save their money to retire or even live a normal life is shrinking.

Capitalism works because it caters to the fundamentals of humanity. Most humans are greedy. Capitalism is a way for the bold to seize fortunes, while also giving opportunity to the risk adverse.

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).

He didn't exactly have a choice or the knowledge as a kid to understand the mechanics of public housing. Without it, odds are he would of been adopted. It's not like kids would just be tossed into the street without socialism.

Social security is unnecessary. It exists to protect the irresponsible, which shouldn't happen. Do not take my money and put it in a pot with a bunch of other people so I can have it later for retirement. I can manage my own money, thanks. More importantly, we see how this is easily abused, as the SS fund has been raided and will not even be around by the time I'm old enough to collect it. Every penny taken from me is gone for good, I'll never see it again. Same for Medicare and Medicaid. The unfunded liabilities of those programs gross over the entire annual GDP of the world.

Direct welfare programs are wealth transfer. You give from those who have, to those who don't have. It sounds good on paper, but in reality it marks down the economy. It makes life in the long-run harder for those without.

It also causes other economic issues, like out of control tuition costs thanks to easy student loans. It's almost a social ritual now. You get out of high school and go right into college without knowing what you want to do; and by taking out loans if you aren't one of the lucky ones who had parents who prepared a college fund for you. Because of this pressure for everyone to attend, and such easy loans, two things happen... prices skyrocket, and the value of each degree diminishes. That's a bad formula isn't it?

For the tax code, a universal % is fine, as long as that % is lower. If it was 10 or 15%, and you get ride of SS and all these other welfare programs, the poor wouldn't feel much change at all, and the middle class would get a boost. The rich would too of course, but either they hoard it in a bank (which gives the bank capital to loan it out to other people to keep the economy going strong) or they invest it themselves in expanding or creating new businesses and hiring new people which means more people with more money to save AND spend so investment and expansion are continuously fuelled. It's rather simple.

The argument against socialism isn't only moral, but practical. The government is highly inefficient and often corrupt.