Should Weath Be Redistributed?

[Wells]

If you are from a country that has royal family (cba to look at your profile) then explain me why some inbred house of royaltys get to rule a country? Same fucking thing as paris hilton except paris can fuck around more freely. They just got lucky.

You think I'm from a monarchy because I'm a progressive?

[Powerogue]

I'm not sure. Any government needs taxes generally, that involves redistributing wealth from people to the government. We kind of need a government.

So at that point the main issue is how much of the wealth should be redistributed, and where should that money go?

That I have no idea, I'm not a politician.

[Nadev]

You think I'm from a monarchy because I'm a progressive?

More like he just doesn't know. You don't have it listed.

[Wells]

More like he just doesn't know. You don't have it listed.

I don't know, jumping to conclusions seems to be a strength of his.

[Deleted]

so... then you cant say "wealthy people all work hard for their money and therefore deserve it". some do. some dont.

I don't say that.

However people who got their money through inheritance have got it fair and square and according to the wishes of the previous owners - and thus "deserve" it (have the right to own and use it).

[Deleted]

Right. The amount of property/money should be limited to a certain amount. The rest would be taken over and administered by the state.

Something like this would ensure that Warren Buffet Jr doesn't get his dad's millions and continues to grow the wealth that his dad earned. This puts everyone on a more even field and similar opportunities to be successful in life.

And why exactly shouldn't the junior get hes parents wealth? If rich billionaire daddy wants to give hes wealth to hes son or daughter, it's hes business because he earned the money and should be able to do whatever he damn well pleases with it.

Why should everyone have the same opportunity in the first place? 95% is determined by what you inherit, wealth, good genes (look, intellect,ambitions etc.). Your logic seems to be somewhat flawed and along the lines of "look, we have 3 1-armed men in the village, lets make things equal and chop of everyone elses arms too". If parent decide to give their children a head start, it's more than fair.

[Punks]

Personal wealth absolutely not, but companies that make far too much, yes. Like OIL.

[Deleted]

Our entire society is predicated on the notion that success is a result of merit. Tell me on what merit Paris Hilton got her millions (billions?). Emerging from the proper vagina?

Essentially that (altough she has done some work herself, however little you may value it).

[Nadev]

Personal wealth absolutely not, but companies that make far too much, yes. Like OIL.

What's "far too much"? I'm curious.

[Wells]

Essentially that (altough she has done some work herself, however little you may value it).

Having a high station in society by birth is the opposite of meritocracy.

[Deleted]

Personal wealth absolutely not, but companies that make far too much, yes. Like OIL.

Where do you think this corporate profit goes to? Aliens?

[Punks]

Where do you think this corporate profit goes to? Aliens?

About two or three people.

[starlord]

I don't say that.

However people who got their money through inheritance have got it fair and square and according to the wishes of the previous owners - and thus "deserve" it (have the right to own and use it).

which really has nothing to do with capitalism, since its still "handouts".

[Yuyn]

Wealth needs to be redistributed in a capitalist society to have any hope of long-term survival. Now, I'm not referring to lumping together the entire net product of a society and dividing it by the number of people in that society -- I'm referring to providing a common baseline of subsistence that has been completely lost in neo-liberal capitalism (essentially Reagan-era to present).

The simple truth of the matter is that societies fall apart when inequality is too high. A capitalist system with extremes of rich and poor cannot survive in the long term -- you might be able to survive with some extremes of wealth, but definitely not of poverty. People who don't have enough money or resources to survive with a minimum baseline of comfort have incentive to tear down the system. Which is, if you actually read Karl Marx, what he predicted -- not the enforcement of communism, but it occurring naturally after the excesses and exploitation of capitalism has pissed off too many people.

So yes, wealth should be redistributed, significantly more than it currently is. If it's not, we're all going to have a hell of a lot of trouble on our hands, no matter if we make ten dollars a year or ten million.

[Deleted]

Having a high station in society by birth is the opposite of meritocracy.

Being able to use and give your wealth to others is part of a free and moral society. People also get high stations in society through good genes etc anyway, it's not like you "earned" them necessarily.

[Deleted]

When most people think of wealth redistribution, they think of a government taxing the rich and giving to the poor. While that certainly happens, the opposite is far more prominent. Because the government has a monopoly on the production of money, they are capable of inflating the money supply. The dollar is now worth but a few cents of what it was worth when the Federal Reserve was created, so this inflation is very real. The poor are always the last ones to get hold of any new money, by then the market has already adjusted to the new money supply. It's those connected to the banks, the rich, that get to spend the fresh money before the correction occurs.

Of course wealth redistribution is inevitable in any society with a state. The state has nothing itself, it produces nothing. Everything it has it has stolen. Whenever it spends money, it is redistributing wealth, by allocating resources where they would not have gone under market conditions.

[WingsofLiberty]

redistributed by who

that was basically the end of the thread.

[Deleted]

which really has nothing to do with capitalism, since its still "handouts".

What? Private, voluntary handouts are most certainly part of capitalism. Charity, gifts, inheritance and so on, are all part of capitalism.

[Wells]

Well then tell me if my jump to conclusion was spot on or a complete miss? Or dont, that wasnt the point anyways.

I was born in San Francisco. When I was young we moved to eastern Washington and now I live in western washington. I'm from a working class family of 4. I started college at 16 on the back of an awesome educational program here in Washington. I graduated college at 21 as a graphic designer and support myself and my girlfriend.

Care to make any more ridiculous assumptions about me or do you feel stupid enough already?

[raintrees]

its not my job to make sure everyone has money. its their own individual task. if they choose to be lazy or let something stop them, its their own fault. not mine. therefore i shouldnt be responsible for picking up the pieces of their failed life.