Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: Wealth Redistribution -- What, if any, is the justification for it?  (Read 42234 times)

Re: Wealth Redistribution -- What, if any, is the justification for it?

Reply #75 –
We're also talking about the policy that's been shown to balance the Federal books. Simply speaking, the idea the continued tax cuts to the rich will create more jobs is no longer true in the American economy, if it ever was. Bush cut the taxes, it did squat. Obama continued the tax cuts and offered more tax incentives to no avail. In the American economy, all that seems to do is increase the deficit. 

"Underpossessing of rich?" You do know there's a lot of middle ground between the extremes and that's where the economic problems come in.  Oh yeah, it's not one guy that builds the skyscrapper it's a stockholder owned corporation :p Not to mention most of the construction workers actually build homes for the middle-class, not to the rich. Everyone knows this except people that drank too much GOP Kool-Aide (or the Russian equivalent :p )

It's not "wealth redistrubtion"or "soak the rich." It's about returning to policy that enriched everyone, including people that were already rich to begin with.  Bush cut the taxes and deregulated. What happened? Unsustainable deficits, There was also banks doing formerly illegal financial instruments such as credit swap derivatives. End result, the Great Recession. You folks that claim to be a conservative, actually be conservative and learn from the past. Every time Supply Side is implemented in the US, the deficit increases, there's an economic bubble followed by a crash. I repeat, every fucking time. Then again, the GOP hasn't been noted for its learning ability nor intelligence lately.

Re: Wealth Redistribution -- What, if any, is the justification for it?

Reply #76 –
Quote from: Josh on
The actual difference between the underpossessing and rich is that the latter have wider ACCESS to commodities and other things to buy -- which, as Smiley fairly pointed out, doesn't make them ACTUALLY CONSUMING significantly more than those balancing on the verge of survival.

I'm pretty sure that was me, as part of my argument that the term "job creator" isn't very accurate.

Re: Wealth Redistribution -- What, if any, is the justification for it?

Reply #77 –
Quote from: Frenzie on

Quote from: Josh on
The actual difference between the underpossessing and rich is that the latter have wider ACCESS to commodities and other things to buy -- which, as Smiley fairly pointed out, doesn't make them ACTUALLY CONSUMING significantly more than those balancing on the verge of survival.

I'm pretty sure that was me, as part of my argument that the term "job creator" isn't very accurate.

I'm pretty sure that the arguments against the term "job creator" in this thread first occurred in the video I linked.

Re: Wealth Redistribution -- What, if any, is the justification for it?

Reply #78 –
Quote from: ersi on
I'm pretty sure that the arguments against the term "job creator" in this thread first occurred in the video I linked.

I'll try to watch it later. A big boon of accepted TED talks is that they come with a transcript.

In any case, you aren't Smiley either. :P

Re: Wealth Redistribution -- What, if any, is the justification for it?

Reply #80 –
Wealth distribution has ceased to exist in the ex-colonies. More and more the top get more and the rest get static incomes and worse off.
"Quit you like men:be strong"

Re: Wealth Redistribution -- What, if any, is the justification for it?

Reply #81 –
Quote from: ersi on
I'm pretty sure that the arguments against the term "job creator" in this thread first occurred in the video I linked.

Here's an interview with him on MSNBC  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTG7RHXnUMM&feature=em-subs_digest-vrecs  He notes that the very rich sock money away, creating a clot in the economic circulatory system.

Re: Wealth Redistribution -- What, if any, is the justification for it?

Reply #82 –
Quote from: rjhowie on

Wealth distribution has ceased to exist in the ex-colonies.

It's alive and well, it just works in the opposite direction - take from the poor and give to the rich.

Quote from: rjhowie on

More and more the top get more and the rest get static incomes and worse off.

See, wealth distribution at work.

Re: Wealth Redistribution -- What, if any, is the justification for it?

Reply #83 –
Who do you mean by 'the poor'? Those who can't afford a yacht?

Re: Wealth Redistribution -- What, if any, is the justification for it?

Reply #86 –
Quote from: rjhowie on

Wealth distribution has ceased to exist in the ex-colonies. More and more the top get more and the rest get static incomes and worse off.

You just wait until the Socialist State of Scotland is formed, right after you lot's independence vote.  :right:

Re: Wealth Redistribution -- What, if any, is the justification for it?

Reply #87 –
Macallan, you behave very simplistic. There are poor - and poor!.. You can't pile them all up in one heap and say 'they are alike'. They are not alike!..

Re: Wealth Redistribution -- What, if any, is the justification for it?

Reply #88 –
Quote from: Josh on

Macallan, you behave very simplistic.

Look who's talking :rolleyes:

Quote from: Josh on

There are poor - and poor!.. You can't pile them all up in one heap and say 'they are alike'. They are not alike!..

Context. Do you know what that is? Go look it up and the answer should be obvious to anyone with at least two functional neurons.

Re: Wealth Redistribution -- What, if any, is the justification for it?

Reply #91 –
You seem to like arguing without argumenting.
I meant that there are poor - and there are poor: poorness being a formal characteristic only by one parameter - how much money do you - what? have? earn? spend? Again we have nuances.

Re: Wealth Redistribution -- What, if any, is the justification for it?

Reply #92 –
Quote from: Josh on

You seem to like arguing without argumenting.

Looked into a mirror lately? :rolleyes:

Quote from: Josh on

I meant that there are poor - and there are poor: poorness being a formal characteristic only by one parameter - how much money do you - what? have? earn? spend? Again we have nuances.

I know that. And the answer is right in front of your nose if you'd just read a few posts earlier in this thread.

Re: Wealth Redistribution -- What, if any, is the justification for it?

Reply #95 –
I think maybe the wrong kind of "wealth" is being distributed here. Not sure we need a surplus of idiocy.
What would happen if a large asteroid slammed into the Earth?
According to several tests involving a watermelon and a large hammer, it would be really bad!

Re: Wealth Redistribution -- What, if any, is the justification for it?

Reply #96 –
Hhm this is the second thread I have agreed with you on regarding a point. Only sorry now I did not include Chicago on my two former visits over there.
"Quit you like men:be strong"

Re: Wealth Redistribution -- What, if any, is the justification for it?

Reply #97 –
Quote from: jax on
Where this scenario really gets scary is when it combines with economic inequality. Although few people have been focusing on robot armies, many people have been asking what happens if robots put most of us out of a job. The final, last-ditch response to that contingency is income redistribution – if our future is to get paid to sit on a beach, so be it.
Yeah, I know it's not you whose writings these are.
I've brought this from another thread to note that "robots" started to unemploy people way long ago! Once upon a time, there existed some CRAFTY GUYS. Then came traders - who started to structurise that; some later came Archimedeses - exactly which started the tech progress on the scale sufficient to influence economy.
Quote from: jax on
To pay the poor, you have to tax the rich, and the Robot Lords are unlikely to stand for that. Just imagine Tom Perkins with an army of cheap autonomous drones. Or  Greg Gopman. We’re all worried about the day that the 1% no longer need the 99%–but what’s really scary is when they don’t fear the 99% either.
Quote from: jax on
There are weaknesses with this line of argument, but I leave that as an exercise for the reader.
Yup!..
1. The tax issues are far not in the root directory. To get closer to the root directory, we'd better remember that the "not-yet-rich" need the so called poor to become rich in the first place.
2. As it's happened, the rich can't live without the poor -- OR the very concept of being rich ceases to make any sense - just because such concepts can only exist when certain inequality is implied. It's like measuring ANYTHING -- you can't say, eg, it's far or close without a scale!!!

A scoop from another thread

Reply #98 –
I believe it fits here, too:   
Quote from: Josh on

Quote from: krake on
...people have to live in the present...
Wonder if you can grasp that.
Exactly.
Of course it is a background. What it seems to me you don't is that that is exactly the cause of any socialism - which in turn, leads to the exactly opposite to what "people want" - but for the whole lot of further generations. Which future and which generations inherit the consequencies of those "immediate wants" in the form of an untreatable disease.
Full stop.
Dead end...