Should US wealth be redistributed?

[elessar78]

What I'm confused about is how mandatory redistribution (aside from taxes going toward entitlements) would be handled. Would the minimum wage walmart worker get a Bonus Check just because they earn less? What would be used to calculate how much of my money is to be taken away: income or net worth?

Not exactly. It just skims money from the wealthy and turns it into what is termed "transfer payments" to your min wage walmart worker. It's not a check per se, but various forms of gov't assistance: cash assistance, food stamps, subsidized day care, subsidized transportation, etc.

It's usually calculated through income.

But you'd be surprised how the vast majority don't understand the difference between net worth and income. There is a strong assumption that a high income makes you a wealthy person.

[elessar78]

The scary part is that revolts like the French Revolution or any other kind of revolution are no longer realistic. The masses have absolutely no leverage against the very powerful anymore, even if they somehow experienced some magical awakening from this extreme individualistic way of thinking and seriously considered global collective action.

The means of suppression the powerful have today are historically unparalleled. You just don't get to attack the king's palace anymore, take him by the collar, and threaten him with the guillotine.

I always wondered...if the global masses saw their living conditions deteriorating more and more ...exactly what are they gonna do?

The truly scary thing is how the powerful have "played" a big segment of the underclasses into thinking that they are acting in their best interest. A certain party's policies actually work AGAINST the interests of their voting base.

[syracusa]

The truly scary thing is how the powerful have "played" a big segment of the underclasses into thinking that they are acting in their best interest. A certain party's policies actually work AGAINST the interests of their voting base.

Sure. The Powers That Be don't have just wealth, they also have smarts. They are no longer your run-of-the-mill degenerated and feeble minded aristocrat. They don't have "ethical smarts", but they do have smarts.
Since Freud and Edward Bernays, they learned a thing or two about how to manipulate the psyche of the masses. It has worked beautifully.

[~bs]

US wealth is constantly being redistributed.

I think one big reason for "the rich getting richer" at least in the US is the capital gains rules. You can have a business owner make 200k, and his marginal tax rate will be near 50% (federal + state + self employment+ sales), and you can have a wealthy person with assets doing no work and making $200k through capital gains/dividends, and he pays 15%. Of course you have the double taxation argument, which is true... but fact is it's way easier to retain or accumulate more money once you have it. Of course it's easier for a poor person to foolishly waste 10k than it is for a rich person to blow 10 million. Anyways, an argument could be made that active working income should be subject to less taxation, and passive income should have higher rates.

[UnknownXV]

US wealth is constantly being redistributed.

I think one big reason for "the rich getting richer" at least in the US is the capital gains rules. You can have a business owner make 200k, and his marginal tax rate will be near 50% (federal + state + self employment+ sales), and you can have a wealthy person with assets doing no work and making $200k through capital gains/dividends, and he pays 15%. Of course you have the double taxation argument, which is true... but fact is it's way easier to retain or accumulate more money once you have it. Of course it's easier for a poor person to foolishly waste 10k than it is for a rich person to blow 10 million. Anyways, an argument could be made that active working income should be subject to less taxation, and passive income should have higher rates.

If you do that, less people will invest, which means less capital is available to lend out, so less people will have access to loans for their businesses and other ventures as well as higher interest rates.

Terrible idea.

[bUU]

Explain what passive investors will do with their money instead of investing it.

[elessar78]

Anyways, an argument could be made that active working income should be subject to less taxation, and passive income should have higher rates.

At least at the same rate anyway.

[~bs]

If you do that, less people will invest, which means less capital is available to lend out, so less people will have access to loans for their businesses and other ventures as well as higher interest rates.

Terrible idea.

Funny, seems like we did just fine with that type of income at marginal tax rates pre-bush tax cuts.

So people will choose to put all of their income in non-interest bearing accounts instead of investing? News to me.