Opinion of redistribution of income/wealth

[Gustaf]

The nature of capitalism is to redistribute wealth/income upwards. The whole model is based on the idea that you only have a job if the value of your labour exceeds the cost of it; if you are paid less than you produce for your employer.

So really, the only morally acceptable solution to this is a redistribution of income so that workers incomes can approach the value of the wealth that they generate for owners.

what

[ApatheticAustrian]

Inherently evil.

you are a Jeb!-populist. :-/

What?

low energy!

redistribution is a good addition to the populist mindset!

[courts]

obviously extreme concentration of wealth and power is bad. i wouldn't think that would be a particularly controversial opinion. but i guess not.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Inherently evil.

you are a Jeb!-populist. :-/

What?

low energy!

redistribution is a good addition to the populist mindset!

I define wealth as being legitimately earned. "Wealth" that is not legitimately earned is not wealth. I'm a believer that any true free-marketer should oppose free trade, since there is no guarantee that other countries like China won't subsidize companies in exchange for kickbacks to party grandees. In what way is allowing Apple to have unfair foreign support a "free market" principle?

So, in that sense, I can see circumstances where "wealth" can be "redistributed."

See, some posters here just downright think my dad should have to turn over every dollar he earns after he hits a million dollars (I suspect he will in his lifetime). What has he done to be punished that way?

I favor universal, single payer care. I think a millionaire in Hollywood and a homeless crackhead in Baltimore should have the same access to free healthcare, as they would pay into it equally through a sales tax in my ideal system. Why should the millionaire be less worthy than a literal crackhead and have to pay for their own healthcare on top of the crackheads? That is an example of the inherently evil nature of wealth redistribution.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The nature of capitalism is to redistribute wealth/income upwards. The whole model is based on the idea that you only have a job if the value of your labour exceeds the cost of it; if you are paid less than you produce for your employer.

So really, the only morally acceptable solution to this is a redistribution of income so that workers incomes can approach the value of the wealth that they generate for owners.

what

What "what"? Don't tell me you've never heard that argument before.

[DPKdebator]

While income/wealth redistribution might sound fantastic, in reality it just wouldn't work. First of all, wealthy people would be furious that their money is being taken and given to people that don't necessarily need or deserve it (although there definitely are plenty that do). Second, what would the regulation of the redistributed money? There's plenty of welfare abusers out there, and throwing money at them won't help.

[courts]

While income/wealth redistribution might sound fantastic, in reality it just wouldn't work. First of all, wealthy people would be furious that their money is being taken and given to people that don't necessarily need or deserve it (although there definitely are plenty that do). Second, what would the regulation of the redistributed money? There's plenty of welfare abusers out there, and throwing money at them won't help.

well obviously details matter. i know there's been a lot in the news about people scamming the government for opiods or whatever. of course certain things could be improved. but we've had many cases of redistribution working just fine. look at how much lower senior poverty is than when social security was instituted for example. or the gi bill. infrastructure even. i mean people tend not to think of that as "redistribution" but in essence that was subsidization of different industries and the suburbs by the feds. in some cases that might have been bad or had unintended consequences sure. but we're not really talking hypotheticals. without serious redistribution the mid 20th century just wouldn't have happened. they called it shared prosperity for a reason.

[courts]

i know it's a tired point to certain people here by now but... from the end of world war 2 to around nixon income inequality was falling. not even 'stable,' falling. it seems almost impossible to imagine now but it's true. the idea that it would actually *grow* was just not something people thought about. this trend towards rising inequality since the late 70s was not inevitable by any means. a lot of it really was policy choices. not all of it.. i mean i think some decline was going to happen in the 70s-80s. just because of globalization and the recovery of europe and japan and all that. but a lot of it. it didn't need to get this bad by any means.

[parochial boy]

i know it's a tired point to certain people here by now but... from the end of world war 2 to around nixon income inequality was falling. not even 'stable,' falling. it seems almost impossible to imagine now but it's true. the idea that it would actually *grow* was just not something people thought about. this trend towards rising inequality since the late 70s was not inevitable by any means. a lot of it really was policy choices. not all of it.. i mean i think some decline was going to happen in the 70s-80s. just because of globalization and the recovery of europe and japan and all that. but a lot of it. it didn't need to get this bad by any means.

I would point out technology is another reason for inequality, to a smaller extent now, but probably even more in the future.

That would seem to be the case, although it is at least in part due to the fact that we haven't yet developed, and there is seemingly no real political will to implement, policies to mitigate the effects of technology.