Why Not Redistribute Wealth?

you need sleep, or something.

You certainly are not thinking clearly.

Self-sufficient means without need for outside resources.

or from a reference

Able to provide for oneself without the help of others; independent.

Being self-sufficient PRECLUDES the need for automated production.

But you did manage to evede my earlier point (question)

Why SHOULD (greedy) businesses hire when they have no need for additional labor? In other words, if there is no work to be done?

Ah yea, you answer is to hire a robot plumber

Your entire premise is flawed. You want to redistribute wealth so all can have a better standard of living. We cannot redistribute factories and shopping malls, so we must assume you mean redistribute MONEY.

That is the flaw...money is not food, money is not shelyer, clothing or appliances. It can only be TRADED for those things. If everyone sufficient money, there is no need for them to labor. Labor is the method by which we produce the stuff that makes us happy, food, shalter, etc. Who will labor for a bigger share of money, or who will part with their stuff in exchange for money? No one, for if some accumulate an 'unfair' amout, it will again be taken and redistributed.

I don't want their money if I can't trade it for goods or services, and I can't use their house, car, pool, or factory.

OK, maybe my definition of self-sufficiency is a bit of a hybrid, limited to the basic needs. Food, shelter, energy, all of which can be created on-site where it's consumed.

I guess if the reason for a corporation to exist is solely to maximize profits, then they SHOULD outsource their labor needs to the cheapest market. But if we add social responsibility into the equation, they should hire locally even if it means their stockholders won't have as much to split up amongst themselves. The lack of spending power created by higher unemployment will negatively affect their bottom line if no one has the money to buy their products.

Redistributing wealth was just a question posed as a possible solution to the malaise the global economy finds itself in. A question, why not? And I've gotten lots of answers, mostly from those who have, why it's not a good idea, and agreement from those who don't have, why it's a good idea. Guess it all depends on what side of the fence you sit.

I'm just brainstorming for a better way than what we've built since the Gilded Age. This model simply isn't working any more, it's wasteful, it's consuming an inordinate amount of limited resources, it's a petri dish for exploition and subjugation of others, and it's likely to become even worse as time goes on.

I guess the top 2%-5% think everything is just peachy, and maybe it works for them. But what about the other 95%?

Hell with them, eh? That's the stuff revolutions are made of.

You are wrong right off/.

The purpose of a corporation is to pool resources and to limit (share)liability among the members. That was the original intent.

A sole propriettor, a partnership, a LLC (limited corporation) all exist for profit, and an efficient business does maximize profits. Just as most consumers try to minimize expenses.

One thing that might help, based on an idea you fluffed off earlier, tax an undesireable activity to curtail it and reward a desireable activity to encourage it.

We (in the US) need to totally change the tax structure from one based on income to one based on consumption. A natioan sales tax would do that. There have been proposals with numbers showing a revenue neutral result, enough revenue when sals tax applied to NEW items (first time sales only), revenue enough to replace ALL current payroll taxes. Not sure about capital gains, corporate tax and some others.

Our currect system discourages saving (tax on earned interest and loss of buying power by inflation). Cash for clunkers actually promoted waste (destroying useable autos) and rewarded comsumption.

We don't need to break all the eggs for this omelet, one or two will do nicely

then they SHOULD outsource their labor needs to the cheapest market. But if we add social responsibility into the equation, they should hire locally even if it means their stockholders won't have as much to split up amongst themselves. The lack of spending power created by higher unemployment will negatively affect their bottom line if no one has the money to buy their products.


OK, I get it now. You don't care about the poorest 2/3 around the world, you only care about keepng the wealth in the US.

Maybe the guy in Bangladesh whose income went from $2 per day to $20 per day will like hearing your atitude, and he might just become a customer of the terrible corporation.

I completely concur on the consumption tax. And believe that some form of capitalism is the best way to go. But there must be some throttle on the greed factor, and there needs to be social responsibility, some "mission" to only produce that which does not destroy nature or release poisons in the process. Capitalism should be creative--improve and enhance our lives and living environment, it should be humane, not destroy, exploit, or exist merely to maximize profits regardless of the consequences for the greater whole.

Maybe the family guy in Seattle whose income at the factory went from $200 a day to nothing will disagree with the boardroom decision to close down the factory and build a new one in Bangladesh to exploit the cheap labor and increase the value of their stock options.

Guess it's the factory worker's fault for not having the foresight 20 years ago to go get an MBA so he could sit in the boardroom.

I don't believe in the your false religion of "state". I should not be forced by you, to financially support your religion, or religious convictions.

Huh? Lost me. You reading the same thread I am?

You still have failed to provide evidence of legal standing to the property of other people.

The state, where you believe all redistribution and benevolence comes from, does not exist. There is no such thing as the state. Take your religious convictions, and shove them up your ass, right next to your head.

LOL, um, ok , right . . .

There is no way you are always missing my points unless it is intentional.

The point this time is, you are only concerned about redistributing the wealth within the US to all Americans as opposed to GLOBAL equality.

Are the people in Bangladesh somehow inferior or less human or less deserving than Americans?

The point is, for all humans to have anywhere near an equal share, EVERY American, even the poorest will be forced to lower their standard of living.

In the current system, ALL people are ejoying some improvement in standard of living, the disparity being that some acquire wealth at a FASTER rate than others.

So, then, you are advocating redistributing wealth from Americans to Bangledeshis? Take prosperity from the American factory worker and redistribute it to the Bangledeshi factory worker.

Redistributing wealth is ok as long as it is redistributed horizontally, but it's not ok to redistribute vertically from top to bottom. Bottom to top is ok, though.

Last Edited by TheTymeBeing on 09/12/2011 11:42 AM

You are being an ass now. I never said that, actually I am asking what exactly is you definition of redistribution. I need to ask that because it keeps changing.

Did you notice the word EVERY in caps in my post? Since every includes all Americans, rich and poor I felt no need to explain or interpret English for you.

Now, are YOU advocating universal redistribution or are Americans special and only Americans should benefit from American wealth? Are you saying the poorest in the world do not deserve compassion?

One more question. Is this 'brainstorming' exercize of your anything more than mental masterbation as a poster suggested earlier, or are you developing a plan on action to bring change and are you prepared and intending on following through with real action? Draw up proposals to submit to the wealthy, to the business community and to government officials?

Otherwise stop it with the pseudo intellectual bull shit

Last Edited by Real list on 09/12/2011 11:57 AM

Because people are greedy and some are lazy

So, you advocate taking from the world's richest people and dividing that wealth between the poorest?

All citizens of the US are wealthier than the 4 billion in less developed nations. The ONLY way the poorest can be brought to an equitable standard of living is for ALL Americans to be made poorer.

That is what you said, now you twist my words into making that my view.

You are sick

Last Edited by Real list on 09/12/2011 12:23 PM

Redistributing wealth is moving it from one to another. When corporations shut down factories here, lay off American workers, build factories elsewhere, and hire those workers cheaper, that is a form of wealth redistribution, and that seems ok to you. Not twisting anything. You disagree that wealth should be redistributed vertically, and give many reasons why it isn't a good idea. But then are ok (apparently) with redistributing it horizontally, from American workers to foreign workers. Where have I misunderstood you?

I am not advocating anything, simply asking a rhetorical question. All I know is that the wealth has accrued upward for the past 30-some years, the middle-class has remained nearly stagnant while wealth at the top has increased by a factor of 300, give or take. That is a very lop-sided prosperity, and if it continues we will soon be right back to serfdom, if we're not already there in a manner of speaking. The wealthy elite have not gotten there by "hard work," they have gotten there by bribing politicians to enact policies that are advantageous to them and detrimental to everyone else.

Government has been corrupted, bought and paid for by the elites, the playing field is no longer level, and the middle-class, the one segment that makes for a strong economic foundation, has been weakened and fleeced, and the result is the house-of cards we have today.

I'm just looking for answers, and trying to find a better way. And yes, I am about halfway through a short book that I intend to publish once things come into focus. Call this research and distillation. I'm looking for divergent viewpoints and you are providing one. :-)

Based on what legal standing? Are you just too retarded to understand this question?

Tax codes, tax brackets, tax breaks, tax loopholes, tax shelters, tax subsidies, off-shore accounts, bank bailouts, QE, no-bid government contracts, fox-guarding-the-hen-house regulatory agencies, cronyism, and on and on . . .

Or are you just too retarded to notice all the corruption and bribery going on around you?

Last Edited by TheTymeBeing on 09/12/2011 02:29 PM

Write a book? You don't seem to have a clue pal

The term wealth redistribution as commonly used means taxing the rich and allocating to the poor. Paying someone for labor is not wealth redistribution, that is a fair exchange of value. The value of the labor traded for the value of the pay. Are you really so thick as to not grasp that?

You are calling people ignorant, and no doubt you will call me ignorant for simply pointing out the accepted meaning of the term.


I do NOT advocate wealth redistribution in any form, and btw, there is no such thing as lateral or horizontal wealth redistribution as per the statement above.

But if you do think, as I read the OP, that wealth is too concentrated at the top, the rich are too rich and the disparity between rich and poor is growing, and that That the rich should ??? spend more money? Share their money? Decline some profits? Give their product away for free? What?

But I have been trying to point out, you and many like you focus on the situation in the US. We are 20% of world population, the poorest in the US are rich beyond measure compared to 2/3 of the world. Yet in the OP I read you think we should take from the rich in the US and divide that among the poor in the US, without regard for the world's truely poor.

You want to make things fair globally. Start with this. Find a way to combine all the world's food supply and divide that equally amony the 6+ billion living today. Of course that will mean you can eat meat only rarely, fish occasionally and lots of grain based food. That would be a form of wealth redistribution.

If you want to dicuss subject at least undersatnd the terminology

Last Edited by Real list on 09/12/2011 03:31 PM

redistribution of wealth



Definition

Central tenet of most modern economies whereby a nation's wealth is channeled, from those who have more to those below a certain income level, through taxes that pay for welfare benefits.

[link to www.businessdictionary.com]

We are redistributing wealth. It's in the form of your taxes going in no-bid contracts to connected political donors, to causes lobbyists bribe your 'public servants' for, to any number of tricks and loopholes the wealthy use to steal from you.

The question is, can you scare the elite enough to get some of that wealth returned to you?

Btw-- the second is the only thing they'll call 'wealth redistribution', or 'class warfare'.

Fucking BULLSHIT!

It fails every single time its tried. The greedy are those who think they are OWED.

Lazy mother fuckers deserve NOTHING. Want more? Learn to be productive like the rest of us.

All this redistribute crap is pushed by quitters and losers.

Get a fucking job, asshat!

Corporatism

running of state by large organizations: a system of running a state using the power of organizations such as businesses and labor unions that act, or claim to act, for large numbers of people

cronyism

doing favors for friends: special treatment and preference given to friends or colleagues, especially in politics

These practices MUST stop. They have no part in a true frre market economy. I might agree that wealth gained throgh these methods should be returned, if it can be identified as such and who do we return it too?

But any wealth obtained by legal and FAIR means belongs to the owner and the amount any person or corporation may possess is unlimited. If one person or entity has no right to his property, eventually no one will have that right.

Last Edited by Real list on 09/12/2011 03:47 PM

The whole system is designed to make the wealth flow upward and those who have it are taking it from those who don't. It's gimme, gimme, gimme--it's mine, mine, mine--take, take, take--I have mine, get your own, fuck you.


[link to sociology.ucsc.edu]

Please look at table 3, about 2 pages in.

You will see that the lion's share of wealth held by the rich is in liquid assets, that is, cash and investments. The liinos sahre of the poorer segment's wealth is in their house, insurance, pensions and other 'hard' assets.

So the rich have the money and the poor have more (relatively) stuff.

As I said before, we can eat money or use it for shelter or drive it around town. As long as the poor have the stuff that makes life comfortable, why should we care if someone has money?

OK, split semantical hairs then.

I guess the uber-rich are just taking what their well-paid lobbyists are providing for them, and going along with the legislative advantages and favors their elected officials are giving to them in exchange for their ample campaign contributions.

The electoral process needs cleaned up, so that elected offices cannot be bought. Get rid of bribery/lobbying, reconsider the SC ruling that corporations are the same as people and that money is "speech," enact the Fair Tax, close loopholes. Restore integrity to governing so the process is not auctioned off to the highest bidder, but implemented as a result of common sense that benefits the greatest number of people.

You can't be serious about combining the world's food supply and dividing it equally? A good example of the stupidity of globalism. Food is something that should be grown locally and eaten where it is grown, not "combined" into a centralized pile, then rationed out and shipped across the world.

But you want to talk about food. OK, let's consider that the war in Afghanistan costs $200 million a day, a significant portion of which is profits to numerous corporations in the destruction business, which is no doubt increasing the wealth of lots of investors. Meanwhile, it costs $3 a day to feed someone in Somalia who might be starving. That one day of war cost redirected, would feed 67 million hungry people of the world for that day.

And if we extend that to the entire Pentagram budget, redirected we could pretty much eliminate hunger in the world. Problem is that the whole Military-Corporate-Political Complex is so entrenched, their "friends" in CONgress so well-endowed by campaign contributions, that chances of actually getting people in there to dismantle the whole sordid Beast is virtually nil.

So, maybe my terminology is inexact, but the fact remains that the priorities of the Corporate State we have nowadays is an immoral travesty, bent on destruction and waste, and has little to show future generations of humanity except death, pollution, destruction, corruption, and greed. The wealth at the top is not being used to better humanity. Rather, it is being used to subjugate, brainwash, control, and yes, kill. That wealth could be put to better use in endeavors that actually benefits mankind.

Like I said, you can't write a book, not one that anyone can comprehend. Writing is 100% semantics. If you can't articulate a thought in recognizable terms, who will understand your book?

And what I did was not hair-splitting bya any means. There is no other way to define the term you used except as I did. It has no other meaning, at least not accepted by the mainstream.


So, the bottom line, according to your last post, you are NOT willing to fairly redistribute the wealth. You are not willing to give up any of your personal pleasures to make the world a more fair place.

You are good at inferring hidden meanings in the words I use, but I am clear as can be. I believe in semantics, remember? Where did I say food is to be brought to a central location? We can tally the value of the world's food supply, divide that amount per capita, then allot each person a nutritional ration equally for everyone. You ok with that? Your meat protien would be cut by about 90%. Yiou say you want fairness, but not at your expense. You want to lay out rules for others to sacrifice, for our nation to be undefended, so that corporations composed of people are not given rights afforded to people individually.

In the US, if you want to accomplish something, instill in the common man his right and resposibility to be educated and involved in the political system, from local primaries to the presidential general election. Vote in people with character, ones who believe in America as the founders did, and who will run government the way it was meant to be run. Ones who believe in free market instead of the ones you describe.

There are unscrupulous people in every walk of life, yes, even politics. Fire them. Get back to the founding principles. That's all

Last Edited by Real list on 09/12/2011 09:10 PM

it costs $3 a day to feed someone in Somalia who might be starving [from OP's post]


1/3 of the world's population live on less than $2 per day. If they can live on $2, why spend $3 for food?

And would you live on $3 worth of food a day? Rice and beans combined form a complete protein, a little wheat flour for carbs and you are fed. If you want equality you should be happy to share from your bounty. If anyone else wishes, that should be their choice also.