Wealth Distribution in the United States

[Cyc]

I don't get it.

When I say you're treating people as commodities, I mean that we are valuing people by the type and amount of work they do, as opposed to the work itself and how much is needed.

I'm trying to shift the focus on to the work itself, as that is what is important. Who does the work, and to what extent is only important insofar as credit and compensation. However, we can collectively benefit from the work of one person, or one person can benefit from the work of many.

I've used this example before, but if I created a replicator device (think Star Trek) that could synthesize any material from energy itself, then it really wouldn't matter whether Steve sits at home and plays X-box all day, while Jeff spends his days in a research laboratory. Both will have homes, clothes, heat, and access to health care and education. Jeff may have other benefits afforded him, such as prestige, respect, sexual appeal, and opportunity.. but the fact that Steve wants to sit around all day is inconsequential. It would be nice, but we don't really need Steve's contribution in order to live comfortable lives.

Now, we don't live in such a world.. but do you get what I'm saying? I believe that someday it's possible. In that world, long after we're all dead, capitalism too will be dead.. and good riddance.

I mean, can we all atleast agree.. good fucking riddance?

 

[kong]

Sure, I'm all for replicators and doing ketamine upside down under water in space. Work wouldn't serve a purpose save entertain us at that point.

Absent replicators this doesn't do us much good in the meantime. Its possible to get by in this country with little work. There are places with plenty of work and rent for $400 a month. A person could get by on 3 days of work a week. Most people want far more. They want healthcare, cars, giant tv etc...so long as most people want a lot, most people are going to have to work the required amount to obtain the standard of living they desire.

I think we are jumping the gun a bit taking this approach, there will always be new commodities being created by increasingly more elaborate processes. One person gets one and then everyone else wants one.

We don't value people we value their earning power. It seems fair that in an environment of scarce resources a person's buying power is dependent on the value they contribute to society themselves. Capitalism is an imperfect method to achieve this goal.

In an environment where resources are not scarce than it doesn't really matter how capital is allocated.

 

[Cyc]

Scarce resources? Resources aren't scarce.

If we had a more efficient (see: social) means of distribution, then I think you'd truly see just how not scarce resources truly are, and how much concentration of those resources leads to waste.

The fact that there is no effort to pool resources is a smudge on the nature of so-called civilized people.

 

[nuke]

The perfect solution is this:

We keep the current income tax structure, but add two more brackets. Dollars earned after $500,000 get taxed at 50%, and after 1 million dollars it will be 90%.

We treat all types of income the same. We don't need to separate capital gains and regular income. That is just unfair to people who work for a living.

We get rid of all special interest tax breaks.

We get rid of the cap on FICA taxes.

Estate taxes, gift taxes, and other miscellaneous things will be progressively larger, depending on the size of the estate. I'd say that we could just multiply my income tax brackets by ten and that would be good. BUT I don't think it should affect any estates worth less than 2 million, because I don't want to hurt small businesses too much.

That is all we need to do. That probably won't ever happen. But we could easily do one or more of those things, and it would be a step in the right direction.

Won't work, rich people like their money too much and they fund the political campaigns of the people in power who vote on the issue. The only way something like this would ever in a million years pass was if the system of government were to be revamped based on digital votes or something, where you could just vote yes or no on a bill through phone or internet.

And even then, people would figure out a way to funnel money through other things.

 

[tambourine-man]

Will someone please explain to me the difference between "redistribution of wealth" and theft?

Conscience.

 

[kong]

Scarce resources? Resources aren't scarce.

If we had a more efficient (see: social) means of distribution, then I think you'd truly see just how not scarce resources truly are, and how much concentration of those resources leads to waste.

The fact that there is no effort to pool resources is a smudge on the nature of so-called civilized people.

Of course resources are scarce. Until everyone gets what everyone wants (replicator) there will be scarce resources.

Sure you could make resources temporarily less scarce by redistributing them but I think its clear that would quickly lead to fewer total resources to distribute making them more scarce in the long run.

Article related to the subject.

http://reason.com/archives/2010/02/12/the-fable-of-market-meritocrac

 

[Cyc]

Do you realize how much meat and produce supermarkets alone discard?

I think the best weapon against scarcity is population control. We already have the automated technology to feed billions, what if we had that same technology, but there was only millions? We'd be laughing. The demand for labour would be high, but the yields would be astronomical.

 

[kong]

Do you realize how much meat and produce supermarkets alone discard?

And yet even a subsidized steak still costs quite a bit. I know the shop up the street from me freezes and sells all its fresh meat at a discount before it expires. That might not be a good representation of what the big chains do though.

I think the best weapon against scarcity is population control. We already have the automated technology to feed billions, what if we had that same technology, but there was only millions? We'd be laughing. The demand for labour would be high, but the yields would be astronomical.

Our yields as a ratio of our population are already high. I'm for population control up to the point where government tells its populace how many children they may have, but thats another discussion.

 

[rant*N*rave]

Good, glad to hear it. Makes me happy.

Glad that it makes you happy while we're running out of money to pay medical bills as our house gets reassessed at a higher value almost every year - I'm lucky my dad is alive right now, and the only reason is because of the hard work my parents put in to make money to pay for exhaustive testing and treatment because the government hasn't decided that my dad's disease is worth any research (and my health falls in pretty much the same category). My parents work ridiculous hours in order to be able to afford nice things in life. Like SECURITY, probably the nicest thing there is, including security in health. The only reason we got by when my parents both ended up out of work at the same time is because they work hard and save their money for just those circumstances. They work their ASSES off, and have been doing so for DECADES, to make that happen. I think it's fucking ridiculous, and I can say for certain that it has changed my career goals completely - I decided against grad school, because the investment isn't worth it. I won't be able to keep as much money as if I go to school less, work less, and make less. I have no desire to work 80 hours a week like my mom so half of it can be frittered away. My parents specifically donate lots to charity even in lean years because they'd rather see it go to a good cause than the government.

We can start talking about increasing taxes when taxes actually buy us something. If I knew those dollars were going to feed and clothe a starving child, I'd be fine with it. But they're NOT. And it's ridiculous to suggest that raising taxes on a small percentage of society will change that.

 

[qwe]

We can start talking about increasing taxes when taxes actually buy us something. If I knew those dollars were going to feed and clothe a starving child, I'd be fine with it. But they're NOT

walk to a post office. or a hospital in more civilized countries

My parents work ridiculous hours in order to be able to afford nice things in life. Like SECURITY, probably the nicest thing there is, including security in health. The only reason we got by when my parents both ended up out of work at the same time is because they work hard and save their money for just those circumstances. They work their ASSES off, and have been doing so for DECADES, to make that happen

some end up both out of work early in their life, or before they have a spouse, or mental illness plays a role, or, or. and many of these people resume their productive lives thanks to the government. and you are angry that your tax dollars aren't going to starving innocent children... well your tax dollars ARE going to so many starving innocent children.

yeah, MORE starving innocent children should recieve benefits than currently are, so fight with progressives to get our defense budget chopped and buried so we have more money to do those things, and to change to a culture of acceptance and sharing rather than one of tough love and allowing people to starve or die of treatable diseases. stop fighting the libertarian front, who would have LESS tax dollars go to starving children

 

[qwe]

And yet even a subsidized steak still costs quite a bit

i think he was trying to get you to ask the question, couldn't there be a better social system of distribution?

there are easily enough resources in the world to ensure that everybody has a basic minimum of resources allowing them enough food and energy. so why not change to a system that takes advantage of that fact and *delivers*?

the way we organize and use resources has to look pretty absurd and self destructive to any alien anthropologist

probably why we're not taking ketamine in space yet. the aliens made an agreement with our government. they give us Velcro, we agree to keep their details secret. they could annihilate us, but they're freakin scared of us because we're that psycho

 

[kong]

I'm fully aware how good the alternatives to capitalism sound. They have admirable goals and offer solutions to problems capitalism doesn't come close to addressing.

They don't work though. At least not the suggestions I've been hearing around here. I'd love to see something *deliver*. As far as super high taxes go its clear what happens, they get passed down, investment slows, and everyone is poorer as a result.

And who needs space when you have ketamine

 

[Cyc]

I don't think anyone here is talking about radical change. As long as we have a progressive framework, I'm happy to plod along slowly in that direction.

I think the problem is that many people are failing to orient themselves, aren't looking ahead, and couldn't care less about the bigger picture.

The result is that people, after much duress finally say, "Well yeah, socialism works in a perfect world" then turn around and vote for what's familiar..

 

[Heuristic]

Scarce resources? Resources aren't scarce.

If we had a more efficient (see: social) means of distribution, then I think you'd truly see just how not scarce resources truly are, and how much concentration of those resources leads to waste.

The fact that there is no effort to pool resources is a smudge on the nature of so-called civilized people.

Scarcity in economic terms simply means that there are a limited number of a given item, that the production or procurement of more has costs associated, and that demand for the item (excluding costs) is greater than the available supply.

So there are many cars, but they are limited, have costs associated with production and procurement, and the demand for them (excluding costs) exceeds supply.

Similarly, there are many tons of steel available, but they are still limited, have costs associated, etc. Same for hours of labor available in a given day, or anything else.

Capitalism uses a decentralized system of producers and consumers to generate relatively fast responses to changes in demand, and to incentivize efforts to meet actual demand. Socialism, in a pure form, relies on a centralized decision-maker to perceive demand and allocate resources in a way to meet them. The latter is usually an inferior alternative, because the amount of information necessary in a large complex modern economy exceeds the ability of a central decision-maker to adjust quickly. The market, by contrast, simply cuts off the supply of revenue to a firm that isn't meeting demand, and directs revenue towards firms that are. And when it comes to prospective investment decisions, those with large amounts of capital are fully incentivized to do as much research as possible into the proposed project, while bankruptcy protections and corporate personality enable entrepreneurs to take risks, essentially to experiment, in ways that they would otherwise refrain from.

I don't think pure capitalism is a great system, but in a limited form it works extremely well. Next time you walk out on the street, or browse the internet, notice how many resources are placed within your reach simply because many people want whatever is being offered.

 

[Pander Bear]

Next time you walk out on the street, or browse the internet, notice how many resources are placed within your reach simply because many people want whatever is being offered.

funny you chose roads (constructed by the state, to oversimplify) and the internet (developed by the government, and promulgated by exclusive deals from municipalities with telephone, cable and fiber carriers). to elucidate your point. I agree with you, but capitalism's shortcomings are fairly evident, if few.

 

[Heuristic]

That's a fair point. I agree that capitalism is not the best solution to every economic problem, and that regulations are generally necessary to have the market function in a way we desire. I also think we sometimes fail to utilize markets effectively, though, especially in poorer urban areas.

What keeps coming to mind as I read this discussion is Khrushchev's disbelief that the stores he saw during his visit were real.

 

[Pander Bear]

What keeps coming to mind as I read this discussion is Khrushchev's disbelief that the stores he saw during his visit were real.

And that certainly is a compelling anecdote. I think a lot can be extrapolated from a culture that has 20 different kinds of toilet paper, though, and not just how effective their market is at providing products. Is it any more fair, or more correct, to call us decadent or misdirected as it is to praise us as industrious and libertarian based on what one can find in a grocery store?

This is, of course, leaving aside the incredible externalized environmental and postcolonial costs associated with most of that panoply of products. Choice is not a good in and of itself, I suppose I'm saying.

 

[L O V E L I F E]

"Will someone please explain to me the difference between "redistribution of wealth" and theft?"

"Conscience."

I shall restate my question:

Will someone please explain to me the difference between "FORCED redistribution of wealth" and theft?"

 

[Pander Bear]

one is the law, the other is against the law.

you and titus should grit your teeth together somewhere private.

 

[qwe]

i have an idea, concerning distribution of wealth (so i'm putting it here...)

a lot agree it'd be a great thing if the government could actually deliver and *work*. well, government social services utilized by senators seem to work great

so the solution is to put every government official on the same resource-distribution network, outlaw politicians from recieving any other form of money or resource-for-purpose-of-barter (the media hounds will enforce that rule) so that they can't be bribed to become rich (if they become rich, it won't matter if the programs they and everybody else use to stay alive fail--rich people have insurance, it's called money... but if they can only survive based on the government, i think they'll fight pretty hard to keep the government running and effective. it'll make their lives and their families' lives much better. principle of self motivation should be a capitalist ideal right?)

so have a wealth-resource-distribution network, which pools resources and shifts them out. its goal is to ensure everybody who needs it recieves resources, with priority on the ones required for basic living. all the politicians' possessions will be from this public source from the time they start serving to the time they finish, with hopefully financial reforms in place to deter implied bribes. so the politicians better make sure the government is able to ensure everybody who needs it clothes, energy, food, etc. if there is a shortage, the politicians feel it just as much as the inmates, homeless, elderly, middle class (though they don't feel it so much), government workers, etc

i think that system would work. of course there will be flaws found by you bl hounds. that's a good thing though it's dialogue

---

at the very least, the idea of tying the politicians' standard of living to the minimum gauranteed standard of living is a radical and potentially earth-changing idea