Wealth re-distribution

[Peterw]

I a society where the distribution of wealth means that some people cannot eat whilst some people spend hundreds of millions on custom built private yachts what legal, ethical and realistic methods currently exist to redistribute wealth to sort out some of the most basic problems our species faces?

[supertom]

None, rich people spending millions on yachts is great, the yacht company earns money is able to employ yacht builders and the money keeps flowing. Rich get richer as it should be.

[James Fletcher]

Mandatory redistribution of wealth by a government hampers growth and innovation. Top income earners are less likely to take risks on new business ventures since their income is restricted by high taxes. Low income earners are less likely to contribute to the economy and society because they are guaranteed handouts, or those who want to work and improve their circumstances can't because the top earners would cut jobs as the only way to make a profit.

[Sfumato]

Oh course in this method you also have accept a cycle of High profit followed by severe depression. For example the United states, from the early 1800 through to the New Deals, experienced about a 15 year cycle of Boom and Bust which resulted in the deaths of many people.

Its also disingenuous to believe that the planer has ever engaged in "free market capitalism". Although I am more of an American History guy, i have not seen any evidence that indicates free market was ever allowed to happen with Gov. influences.

I can present evidence if you folks want to discuss this here.

[LostMyMap]

The US Federal Budget:

19.63% - Social Security
16.13% - Unemployment/Welfare
12.79% - Medicare
8.19% - Mecidaid

Over 56% of the Federal Budget for 2010. There are other Federal programs as well (VA for example). And that doesn't even count social programs funded by the States.

How's that for some wealth re-distribution?

File:Fy2010 spending by category.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[beast]

I'm a socialist at heart - I'm obsessed with Scandinavia, what can I say.

[Andrew Brunelle]

I don't think mandatory wealth distribution is good in itself. Some people contribute more and deserve more money, although some people destroy the world and get more money as well, so it's tough to truly make a good call on wealth distribution. I think the rich should pay higher taxes in proportion to their income, but not anything insane, like 50%. Maybe 10% more than they do right now. That would balance the budget, especially if you only did it to the top 1% or even the top 0.1%.

[Peterw]

Hmm interesting answers..

Next question:

Where is a large potion of the world's wealth kept?

[Sfumato]

Originally Posted by LostMyMap

The US Federal Budget:

19.63% - Social Security
16.13% - Unemployment/Welfare
12.79% - Medicare
8.19% - Mecidaid

Over 56% of the Federal Budget for 2010. There are other Federal programs as well (VA for example). And that doesn't even count social programs funded by the States.

How's that for some wealth re-distribution?

File:Fy2010 spending by category.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Can it be considered "Wealth" when its deficit spending?

[Carlos Portillo]

Greetings,
Very entertaining topic,
The rich get richer the poor stay poor, redistribution of wealth, money is the root of all evil and the rest of nonsense, that we has created in order to justify our distorted thinking.
We had being debating This crap since the very beginning of our existent and still until today we have not accomplish the nescerasy balance to create a world that is suitable for all human beings.
We cannot exist much longer and a world that is half-naked and half-clothed, half-hungry and half full.
Moreover, I am not talking about a utopian society; I am talking about a civilized world where we as a human race has the chance to sustain life with dignity and provide proper education, for the raising generation.
There is no reason absolutely any reason to continue feeding the feelings of Pride, Envy, Lust, sloth, Anger, Gluttony and Greed. This are the factors that has diluted us and will continued to do so until we decide to put an end to this nonsense.
The deceptive thinking of power is what corrupt our mind and is exactly what keep us a part hindering us from becoming a great world society.
These tell of the peasant and the mighty prince is nothing but a role, we all play a role in this physical world, after all we are collective creatures.
No man is an island.
Carlos.

[AlmostGodess]

Charity and taxation are between my favorite means of wealth re-distribution.

[Peterw]

Originally Posted by LostMyMap

The US Federal Budget:

19.63% - Social Security
16.13% - Unemployment/Welfare
12.79% - Medicare
8.19% - Mecidaid

Over 56% of the Federal Budget for 2010. There are other Federal programs as well (VA for example). And that doesn't even count social programs funded by the States.

How's that for some wealth re-distribution?

File:Fy2010 spending by category.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is based on people in the US.

I'm talking about people who can't eat and get basic healthcare whilst others have more than they know what to do with.

Taxation isn't effective - charity on the other hand....

How do we get wealthy people to contribute more to charitable causes?

How do we get more wealthy people to become like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet?

[AlmostGodess]

Originally Posted by Peterw

How do we get wealthy people to contribute more to charitable causes?

How do we get more wealthy people to become like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet?

I think the richest people of this world contribute the most. The big difference would be made if the worldwide middle class would give something every month to the poor. That day will come, I am sure.

[LostMyMap]

Originally Posted by Sfumato

Can it be considered "Wealth" when its deficit spending?

Sort of negative wealth I guess. Spending our future generation's wealth before they are even here. But it is still pouring an enormous amount into social programs. I'm not saying it's wrong, but it is a lot.

[LostMyMap]

Originally Posted by Peterw

This is based on people in the US.

I'm talking about people who can't eat and get basic healthcare whilst others have more than they know what to do with.

Taxation isn't effective - charity on the other hand....

How do we get wealthy people to contribute more to charitable causes?

How do we get more wealthy people to become like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet?

Now that's a really good question. It would be interesting to have a survey of how much the world's wealthiest really do contribute. One thing about charity, some organizations are inefficient and not that effective. When Gates started his, he mandated that it had to be run efficiently and have measurable results. How do we get them to want to contribute more? Hmm, send Bono to talk to them. He seems to be pretty influential on his causes.

[secrets0stolen]

Originally Posted by AlmostGodess

I think the richest people of this world contribute the most. The big difference would be made if the worldwide middle class would give something every month to the poor. That day will come, I am sure.

Actually in the US the middle class gives a higher percentage of their wealth to charity than the top earners. Sometimes through loopholes the very wealthy pay even a lower percentage in taxes than the middle class.

[AlmostGodess]

Originally Posted by secrets0stolen

Actually in the US the middle class gives a higher percentage of their wealth to charity than the top earners. Sometimes through loopholes the very wealthy pay even a lower percentage in taxes than the middle class.

Yes, I know this is a tradition in the US. But this is not the case in the rest of the world. There is a middle class in all countries and a good earning one in every second country probably.

It is one thing to know you have an obligation to pay taxes and another thing to feel responsible for someone who is in a more vulnerable position and to voluntarily contribute to their good. Also, it is one thing to give to charity because you receive some benefits and another thing to give away because you want to help. I am arguing for a total different mentality for approaching charity.

[JSB]

This is why high-rate estate taxes were originally introduce in the US: to prevent super-wealthy families from creating multi-generational dynasties.

Of course, a megabillionaire only being able to pass on 50% of his fortune to his kids means they can still be billionaires themselves. I guess 50% estate taxes is preferable to 50% income taxes. As Warren Buffet is fond of saying: "Why should someone be a billionaire just because they were lucky enough to be come out of the right womb?"

Wealthy, successful entrepreneurs are usually very smart and creative people, whereas the kids who inherit the family fortune and never really needed to earn anything are often spoiled, entitled, pompous dopes (see trust fund/inheritance recipients Paris Hilton and Donald Trump, for example).

Originally Posted by Peterw

I a society where the distribution of wealth means that some people cannot eat whilst some people spend hundreds of millions on custom built private yachts what legal, ethical and realistic methods currently exist to redistribute wealth to sort out some of the most basic problems our species faces?

[Sfumato]

Originally Posted by Carlos Portillo

Greetings,
Very entertaining topic,
The rich get richer the poor stay poor, redistribution of wealth, money is the root of all evil and the rest of nonsense, that we has created in order to justify our distorted thinking.
We had being debating This crap since the very beginning of our existent and still until today we have not accomplish the nescerasy balance to create a world that is suitable for all human beings.
We cannot exist much longer and a world that is half-naked and half-clothed, half-hungry and half full.
Moreover, I am not talking about a utopian society; I am talking about a civilized world where we as a human race has the chance to sustain life with dignity and provide proper education, for the raising generation.
There is no reason absolutely any reason to continue feeding the feelings of Pride, Envy, Lust, sloth, Anger, Gluttony and Greed. This are the factors that has diluted us and will continued to do so until we decide to put an end to this nonsense.
The deceptive thinking of power is what corrupt our mind and is exactly what keep us a part hindering us from becoming a great world society.
These tell of the peasant and the mighty prince is nothing but a role, we all play a role in this physical world, after all we are collective creatures.
No man is an island.
Carlos.

Actually we only started the economy system about the same time sections of our species went from Hunter/gatherer Kin groups to Horticultural agrarian communities. Sometime between 12 and 10 thousand BCE. You are right that we have been arguing over it for a very long time. One needs only to review some of the codified Law codes of King Hammurabi to get the idea.

Our species cannot do away with the 7 deadly sins as you speculate because these are the emotions that bring forth change. Our species is designed to strive against adversity, without some type of adversity (even small amounts) we would stagnate and eventually cease to be.

As for power; peasant vs monarch and all that- The only society that can exist without some form of power structure is one which all people are identical to each other in every respect. It is our differences and the choices we make based on those differences that make us Human.

[Carlos Portillo]

Originally Posted by Sfumato

Can it be considered "Wealth" when its deficit spending?

I believe that concentrated wealth and power undermine the economy, corrupt democracy, deepen the racial wealth, divide, and tear communities apart.
From my perspective, the gap between the rich and the poor is a better measure of the health of our economy rather than the stock market. Today, the concentration of privately held wealth at the top is at its highest peak since 1929, the year the financial markets crashed and gave rise to the Great Depression of the 1930s. At that time, 25% of the population was out of work.
Despite of bad economy, people in the top 1% continue to own as much wealth as those in the bottom 90%.
However, does wealth redistribution actually help society? Is it more beneficial to the rich than it is to the poor? I think it’s a cheap stunt used by politicians to get votes.
programs turn out to represent an approach to redistribution that is both misguided and
excessive. Almost all of our means of redistribution today lack convincing
philosophical or empirical justification. They are poorly targeted,
expensive, economically inefficient and in many cases do more harm
than good.

Carlos.

[Johnnymc]

I'm shocked to see that some of you who have written in the LOA Threads on this site are the same people who are calling for wealthh redistribution.
Yes, there is a certain segmant of the population in any country that will need help just to survive. Drive through any inner city and see what all of this generosity has "bought" us. Ghost towns, abandoned buildings, crime, etc..Welfare and other public assistance has turned into a way of life in the U.S.

How about a government program that demands that people pull themselves up by their boot-straps?

Socialism does work.........
Until you run out of other people's money.

[AlmostGodess]

Originally Posted by Johnnymc

I'm shocked to see that some of you who have written in the LOA Threads on this site are the same people who are calling for wealthh redistribution.

Why are you surprised? Wealth re-distribution can be a form of LoA.

[Monty]

A re-worked form of capitalism could be the answer. There is just too much disparity between the call centre worker on minimum wage living below the poverty line and the big shot CEO on millions in bonuses (provided by the shop floor workers) in the same company.

[Velorien]

Economics isn't my strong point, but what about some sort of income cap? I think we can all agree that there is a maximum to how much personal income one person could need to lead a satisfactory life. Even if we said that the most a person can earn is (completely arbitrary figure) $150,000 per annum, that would still be more than the overwhelming majority of the human population lives on.

Businesses would obviously still need to earn more, but they'd be forced to invest their extra money in further growth and development rather than bigger bonuses for the wealthy few at the top of the pyramid - maybe even increase salaries lower down, since that money needs to be used, and better salaries attract better employees.

Money earned above the income cap would then be given over to good causes - whether they be welfare, science, arts or environment - as chosen by the government or a new and independent public body or democratic vote.

Presumably, some sort of incentives could be created for people to earn the extra money to donate - such as public recognition or a significant say in which of a list of causes their particular contribution went to.

Granted, motivation to become "even richer" for selfish reasons would decrease, but the advantages in terms of levelling the playing field and freeing up vast sums of money for the public good would be pretty huge.

What, if anything, is wrong with this idea?

[Peterw]

Originally Posted by Peterw

Hmm interesting answers..

Next question:

Where is a large potion of the world's wealth kept?

Anyone able to answer this?

[Johnnymc]

Not when it is forced.

[JSB]

Originally Posted by Peterw

Anyone able to answer this?

I'm not certain precisely what you mean by "where is wealth kept?"

Most money is in circulation in the economy (vs. cash or gold stuck in a vault somewhere), so it is invested in bonds or shares or land or whatever, and the funds made available to the borrowers is being used to build, buy, or reinvest in something else, or the land is being developed or mined or farmed.

Of course there are many more layers of complexity, but that's what it boils down to.

[AlmostGodess]

Originally Posted by Velorien

Economics isn't my strong point, but what about some sort of income cap? I think we can all agree that there is a maximum to how much personal income one person could need to lead a satisfactory life. Even if we said that the most a person can earn is (completely arbitrary figure) $150,000 per annum, that would still be more than the overwhelming majority of the human population lives on.

This is a form of theft for me You know dictators expropriate lands and metals to ensure such caps. Careful here

[Peterw]

Originally Posted by JSB

I'm not certain precisely what you mean by "where is wealth kept?"

Most money is in circulation in the economy (vs. cash or gold stuck in a vault somewhere), so it is invested in bonds or shares or land or whatever, and the funds made available to the borrowers is being used to build, buy, or reinvest in something else, or the land is being developed or mined or farmed.

Of course there are many more layers of complexity, but that's what it boils down to.

Kerching!!

I see it that there is a large chunk of the world's wealth tied up in the financial markets. Anyone with a computer connected to the internet and a bit of start up cash has the facility to extract this money..

I've spent the last year and a half learning about trading and got to a point where I'm setting myself up as a business like a financial institution/hedge fund. That is - using strict rules, risk management, systems and procedures, metrics etc to build up a long term successful business.

When I discovered levels of conciousness and started trying to work out my purpose I felt that surge of emotion they talk about when I read the page on Buying and Selling in "The Prophet" by Gibran.

I might need to drill down further and spend more time but I *think* my purpose involves extracting money from the markets and redistributing it. How exactly I don't know but I know now that trading and developing the business side of it has taken on a new life now that it's not all about getting rich for myself..

[JSB]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but making money in financial markets doesn't appear to me to be "extracting" unless there's some sort of short-selling or other options trading with a clear winner and loser in the transaction.

What I mean by this is that you can make money without extracting it from circulation, without someone else losing their money.

Originally Posted by Peterw

Kerching!!

I see it that there is a large chunk of the world's wealth tied up in the financial markets. Anyone with a computer connected to the internet and a bit of start up cash has the facility to extract this money..

I've spent the last year and a half learning about trading and got to a point where I'm setting myself up as a business like a financial institution/hedge fund. That is - using strict rules, risk management, systems and procedures, metrics etc to build up a long term successful business.

When I discovered levels of conciousness and started trying to work out my purpose I felt that surge of emotion they talk about when I read the page on Buying and Selling in "The Prophet" by Gibran.

I might need to drill down further and spend more time but I *think* my purpose involves extracting money from the markets and redistributing it. How exactly I don't know but I know now that trading and developing the business side of it has taken on a new life now that it's not all about getting rich for myself..