Who is the wealth being redistributed to?

[tniassaint.livejournal.com]

I find it astounding that so many people seem to buy into this teet suckling mythology. Yes, there are people on public assistance. No - the overwhelming majority of those people do not live large, get wealthy or even WANT to be on it...  The ones that do are rare and should be ferreted out as fraudsters. It's maddening. When we talk the real issue of social aid in the US, issues like what costs the nation more than NOT providing a social safety net, where is the cost /  benefit of providing it, even who actually gets aid... the most direct benefit - things look different.

I paid a HIGHER percentage of my measly income than Mittens... He got a tax deduction for owning a freakin SHOW PONY that was more than my family annual income... for a HOBBY HORSE! And that was one of the SMALLER deductions... And any company that actually PAYS the supposedly high corporate tax rate should fire their accountant as an incompetent. The real corporate tax rate is MUCH lower. We give companies breaks - they have racked up the largest coffers in history, they pay LOWER tax rates (wealthy people and corporations alike) than they have in my life time and they STILL think it is too much tax  - and here we find that ,because the lack of jobs, the shrinking real wages of workers are in decline, people are finding their company provided health care disappearing or becoming absurdly expensive, people feel like they need a small bit of help to get them over their immediate problems in ways that will ultimately help the economy at large...   - but these companies  and the wealth people of this country whine and complain that they pay too much taxes and these teet sucklers are not much more than greedy, lazy sheep. You cannot make these money sucking black holes happy for ANYTHING. This is not what the founders had in mind...

And these founders? They were mere men. They were not divine, they were not smarter than the smartest people of today. They had limitations, for sure. They used the rules and knowledge and philosophy of the Eighteenth Century to answer eighteenth century problems - they did a great job... but to pretend that it was the end product with no possibility of improvement is, well... regressive and illogical. Most people in the US know this is a morally bankrupted belief. It's illogical and a flat out lie. Trickle down economics doesn't trickle down. It is a failed economic fantasy proposed to defraud the masses for the sake of enriching the few. If there is a grand plan to redistribute wealth, then why is the wealth going up those that already have most of that money? It IS being redistributed... but not in the direction you think!

Comments

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Do you really think that those are all problems that can be fixed simply by shuffling some money around?

What exactly are we aiming to accomplish?

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

"Think" is the wrong word. I accept the evidence (http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/why), just like I accept the evidence for gravity and light. The book that presents that evidence (http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/resource/the-spirit-level) is a good read on the topic.

What exactly are we aiming to accomplish?

The Spirit Level cuts beyond the rhetoric and presents what happens when societies are/are not more equitable. Importantly, it doesn't matter why they are what they are. Japan has low taxes, but they have a cultural consensus on equity, so they experience very similar outcomes as, say, Denmark or Sweden.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

but they have a cultural consensus on equity

I have not read the book but the aboe line strikes me as being the 64'000 dollar question.

What exactly is your idea of equality/equity? Do you think a consensus exists?

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

An excellent question. The way Pickett and Wilkenson did the research, the "proper" amount of equity remains unanswered. Instead, they just took all the info they could on the various nations and states and compared that info to the GINI coeffficient, an international measure of financial inequality.

It's amazing how well some phenomenon track inequality. Please, head over to the evidence link I gave and see for yourself.

Before I read this book, I was pretty Meh about equity talk. I didn't give a rip how much someone made. (Voted Reagan, after all.) After that book, I'm not so sure. The gap between rich and poor has ripple effects throughout society. Narrowing that gap proves as good as throwing money at a societal problem, if not more effective. In fact, after reading the book, I would say cut back on the social programs and attack the gap instead. It seems the gap is if not the cause, at least an exasperating factor.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Like I said, I haven't read the book but problem I've always had with the gap argument is the underlying assumption that it's ok for people to starve so long as they all starve together

Likewise I don't see how the existance of multi-billionaires like Oprah or Bill Gates some how means that multi-millionaires are being somehow oppressed.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Their research points out what happens when a society is more or less equal. The effects of more/less inequality are measurable, and they extend far beyond mere diet and oppression.

[tniassaint.livejournal.com]

Ya know - in some / many cases that can make all the difference in the world.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Color me skeptical