Replies to post #16649 on Zeev's Turnips Patch-No Politics (ZEEV)

[Joemoney]

If one works for it, then gives it back in taxes, one has nothing left to reinvest in new business, creating new jobs, creating more opportunities for the poor to earn their living and take their own shot at wealth-building.

You can say that because you're not poor. (I'm not getting into politics here) But for the people who grow up in poverty, they have more obstacles to face, and less ability to face them with. Yes, some money should be given to the poor for their education and health. Why do you think most of the time wealthy kids are smarter than poverty stricken kids?

I agree that we shouldn't sway towards communism, but aid should be given to the poorer through education and health care. Perhaps the government should put more money in providing conseling services to the poorer people too.

Saying "It's you're own darn fault you're poor!" is being arrogant and INGNORANT, IMO.

[Public Heel]

Newly2b... redistributive taxation

"I fail to see how decreasing the wealth of the creators of wealth and redistributing it to the consumers of wealth is economically beneficial."

Sure, if the "creators" as you call them, are really doing all the creating, rather than just controlling the creation, and if the "consumers", as you call them, are only consuming, and not helping with the creation.

Even if that's really the case, you still need to redistribute wealth to some extent, just to maintain social stability. Also, to keep the discussion relevant to this board, it's important to redistribute wealth "downward" to those who will spend it the fastest (the "velocity" concept). Another economic reason for redistribution is that, when division of wealth gets too extreme, society has to spend too much money on non-productive jobs (police, security guards, etc).


"The communists already tried that -- it didn't work."

Sure, but let's face it, we have tried it too, with fair success. The problem is with the extremes. The Communists went so far that they removed too much of the incentive for the "creators" (I'll use your term) to create. They also went so far in suppressing people's natural intentions that they had to create a totalitarian state, which further exacerbated their economic problems.

The other extreme, though, can be equally destructive. There have been many examples of it throughout history, but one of the most illustrative is that of the late stages of the Roman Empire, when socioeconomic rididity was such that the politico-economic structure collapsed.

I think we need a carefully selected middle path. The philosophy that you stated, if that truly were our guiding principle, would mean NO redistribution of wealth, which would, for one thing, mean horrific public schools for the poor (even worse than they already are).

"Besides, right here at home the consumers have been consuming throughout this downturn and it hasn't prevented our deteriorating fundamentals!"

It has prevented a depression, which is, essentially, a collapse of demand. If the Great American Consumer stops spending, we'll see one in a hurry.

"I don't think creating false wealth for the poorer classes solves anything. "Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime.""

OK, but how do you teach them? You have to have schools, right? And in order to give the poor something like an equal footing, you have to redistribute wealth, don't you?

[WinLoseOrDraw]

"teach a man to fish"

you just described exactly why some level of income redistribution is necessary...

[Sir Realist]

I can only add to what others have said that some people work hard, save, and create. Museums and libraries are full of the stuff of genius that spent its lives in poverty. Without enough redistribution of wealth, much genius is lost. As well, we lose some of the greater wealth generation within our hearts.