Forum Post: A government that can redistribute wealth is not a good thing!
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 18, 2011, 2:32 p.m. EST by Kulafarmer
(82)
from Kula, HI
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
If you really think that all things should be made equal by the government you may be asking for trouble, if the government can limit your wealth then maybe they would als limit the rest of your posessions, this would go against all that America stands for and im sure that i am not alone when I say that I would oppose this with my life. If the government can say hey you are making too much money you need to give it to us, what is to stop them from saying you over there, you have 8 acres of land we decided that nobody can own more than 1 acre, is that fair? NO ?? NO? Well then why is it fair to say you, dude who worked hard and paid dues for years and made a bundle investing well, you have too much, we are going to tax you and take it away! Sort of kills any motivation to succeed doesnt it, not really the American way is it. So chew on that for a bit. The USA is a great country where all men and women can achieve whatever the want to if they get the formula right, nothing is a sure thing but taking from the rich because sombody thinks they dont deserve it will be a bigger can of worms than the one we have now.
The second that a government taxes anything, it is in the business of wealth distribution. Decisions need to be made as to how money will be collected and who it will come from. These decisions are not without social ramifications.
What we need to understand is that re-evaluating the distribution of taxes is not an establishment of a policy to re-distribute wealth. The re-distribution exists. The question is are we content with the nature of the current tax code and how it shares the tax burdens.
Good point
I would oppose it too. However, there is a grey space, it's not black and white. There is a difference between asking the wealthy to pay more in taxes, and having a communist revolution. I support asking the wealthy to pay more, because they can afford more. I don't like handouts, and I want to avoid them, but I'd rather the government take my wealth than another man's bread.
I support the governments responsibility to educate. I support the governments responsibility to ensure that people are not pointlessly starving or suffering treatable medical conditions. It's not about redistribution, it's about caring. I don't want to give handouts more than the handouts needed to stop suffering. Most people want more out of life than a meal, a bed, and a healthy body and will work to get that more, but there is no excuse to let them suffer with less than those simple things, as long as we have the wealth to stop it. That said, $25 minimum wage is just dumb. I'm not even sure my salary is that high, but I'm more than comfortable, so if you are speaking against liberal greed then I'm right there with you, I don't like greed whether it's liberal or conservative.
That's my point of view, and it's a bit of a side-track from the real mission of OWS.
It is a wise statement, and as far as I am concerned, finding wise statements that we can center ourselves around is the real mission of OWS.
Good points, the many loopholes legislated by OUR representatives need to be addressed, i agree that government has a certain amount of responsibility to educate etc. But it cant be the sole provider of these services, this would be where we as humans need to step in and do these things too, if we rely too heavily on governmemt for these things we risk fostering an environment where people will feel they are entitled to these things and wont do their part to feed themselves, educate themselves and their kids, etc etc... Delicate subject to be sure.
Indeed, which is why the current political climate is so frustrating. How can the Republicans do their job and make sure the Dems don't overstep the bounds if they just declare everything out of bounds. As a liberal I would never support the abolishing of private hospitals or private schools. I stand firmly in favor of charter schools. But, I do think the government should have public clinics instead of just pushing it off on emergency rooms around the country.
My response to the notion that we as humans need to do it, not the government, is this: We are the government. We live in a democratic republic. If we the people want to make sure that no person has to suffer needlessly, then we the people should. Should we make sure everyone has enough money for a TV and a new car? NO! But we can afford health care. We're already paying for it anyway! It's not easy to stomach handouts, but it's even harder to stomach suffering when there is plenty of wealth in this nation. My stance is, meet people's needs but not a single one of their wants, and they will work to fulfill those wants. And if they don't, it really won't cost us that much to carry a few freeloaders and it would cost us more to throw them all in prison for steeling their food.
Totally agree with you, the healthcare issue is a tough one, i personaly wish we had a good one payer system with various threasholds for our own contribution to the costs, a copay as it were, i know i dont have health insurance, am asthmatic, have high blood pressure, not unhealthy though, the cheapest policy i can get that covers everything with a 5% copay is going to be between 950 and 1100 per month, really sucks, especially dince i never go to the doctor, the minute you dont pay you are dropped and your premium goes up next time.
There's no doubt that health-care and insurance can be expensive. The thing is that the whole notion of insurance is socialist too. We all pay into the same pot for the well-being of the unlucky. Why would you trust a corporation with your socialism more than the government? That part doesn't make sense to me. It is also absolutely absurd that hospitals will charge someone without health insurance more than two or three times what they bill an insurance company. That just seems criminal. I wish you luck and good health.
There is a difference between owning a house, car, computer or other personal possession and owning a factory. One is a personal item which gives you necessities or luxury, the other is something which is used to produce wealth.
It is okay to own a house because it is your personal property but when you own the means of production what you really possess is control over other people's labor.
Thus, "wealth" in this discussion describes the means of production beyond that which encompasses one's own labor. (Therefore, a box of tools is not "wealth" but a factory is)
... I hope this makes sense. It's definitely not an easy concept to understand if you've never been exposed to it before!
Do you like facsism?
I disagree that owning a factory puts the owner in control of other people's labor. It puts him in a position to offer someone a wage in exchange for their labor--a contract which they can choose to enter into or not.
Yes but suppose you design a toy, kids love it, gotta have it, you build a factory to manufacture it and build it into a business worth billions, you live in a big house have a couple nice cars, then somebody says you cant keep it because we think these people over here deserve it more, how would YOU feel about that? I understand taking care of those who cant take care of themselves, and no i dont think a corporation should have more influence than the people, but only about half the people who could vote did, so whose fault is it that washington does the things it does?
Actually, if you designed a toy and wanted to build a factory you're either independently VERY wealthy (in which case you already own the means of production, maybe different means of production but means of production nonetheless) or you're going to have to go and get a loan or sell stocks. Surprise! You don't actually own the means of production! The banks/shareholders do!
In our system money is a means of production. This is a huge part of the problem.
Well suppose you went into it with 5 of your close friends and started small and built the factory etc from your sales? Not all corporations are publicly traded, i have a few friends who have done real well, stuff like surf shops, clothing lines, auto shops, are allincorporated but built with their own sweat and sacrifice, the tax laws dont diferentiate the corporation based on the way they are built. I get your point but know there is more than one side to every story
I actually think we agree with each other but don't quite realize it yet. Let me try to explain. When you start the business with your associates you each buy a part of the factory and then you each work the factory. When you divide up the ownership by the number of people, who are owners, who work the factory you find that each person owns a share equal to their own personal means of production. So, even though they share the means of production their personal share of the collective means of production is no larger than their "personal share." Please let me know if that doesn't make sense.
Now, as you work and produce you and your associates invest more and more into the company and the company grows. Soon, you need more employees because you now have more means of production than you have people to work said means of production. It is only reasonable that you should hire people to help you produce. It is also only reasonable that you and your starting associates should be compensated for the work you have put into growing your enterprise. Therefore, new hires should not earn as much from the company as you do as they have not invested (work) as much in the company as you have.
Over time, as your new hires work in your business and themselves invest in the company their share of the profits should increase to reflect their larger share of investment. In all but the most exploitative workplaces this happens already as people's wages increase with their seniority.
This of course assumes they invested nothing but their labor when you hired them. If five more workers came with money to invest in a new factory and an offer to partnership then their earnings should reflect their later investment in a way that is fair to all. You have your initial investment which is worth something, your knowledge and expertise, your work towards developing the brand, ect ect... They bring to the table their labor and the new factory/equipment they have bought.
This is all fair. Each person in these arrangements is earning dividends from their own labor.
The problem arises when outside parties own the means of production. Suddenly you have someone who has entitlement to some of the profits of your labor without actually contributing anything other than merely owning the machinery you need to work! Their only contribution to your business is the fact that they own it. This is unfair.
When I speak of wealth controlling labor I am talking about how the ultra wealthy and those with the power to control the flow of money have a monopoly on the ability to obtain the means of production. Because they have a monopoly on the ability to obtain the means of production they have an effective monopoly on the means of production. Because you need access to the means of production in order to produce labor you are not in control of your own labor. If you wish to work you must work for them simply because they are already in ownership.
This situation, of course, serves to further concentrate wealth in the owner's hands.
The economic system we are in, right now, works this way. There are of course, exceptions. But they are the exception and not the rule. We're fighting to make the exceptions the rule. We want people to be able to obtain what they need to work and to be able to earn a fair wage from their labor.
In other words:
I get what you are saying though, only thing i know for sure is that not all corporations give their employees the opportunity to buy into the company.
I wasnt any where near that complicated, i have a couple friends who own a coffe company, they grow it, pick it, roast it, no extra labor, just the two of them, Entirely mechanized, the company is worth about 3 billion, just because of the improved land, their mechanical hardware and their branding and customer base, and their gross volume is way over 2 million a year, they have done very well, why should they be penalized for being hard working entrepeneurs when they have earned every dime because of their own sweat and intellectual strength? They are just one example of a private brand that places their owners in the upper 1%.
Good for them. I never said people shouldn't be able to make as much money as they can from their labor. I said the problem is when that money becomes a tool to control, and thus own other people's labor.
Ah, but i know none of us is forced to work for anyone. We are responsible for our own destiny.
Watch out slippery slope.
"If you really think that all things should be made equal by the government you may be asking for trouble."
No one is asking for the government to make things equal. We are asking for the government to make things fair and consistent with the rule of law.
"if the government can limit your wealth then maybe they would als limit the rest of your posessions, this would go against all that America stands for and im sure that i am not alone when I say that I would oppose this with my life."
The government limits our wealth by shifting most of it to the top 1%.
Rather than dying for material possessions, you might want to consider dying for something else, like freedom.
"If the government can say hey you are making too much money you need to give it to us, what is to stop them from saying you over there, you have 8 acres of land we decided that nobody can own more than 1 acre, is that fair?"
The Government makes those kind of decisions everyday. They take property from the poor and middle class to give to the rich. This is the point of the protest.
"Well then why is it fair to say you, dude who worked hard and paid dues for years and made a bundle investing well, you have too much, we are going to tax you and take it away!"
This is false, a straw man argument. See my comment above.
"Sort of kills any motivation to succeed doesnt it, not really the American way is it."
Again, a false argument. There is no data to show that a fairer society kills motivation. The data shows that by opening the door of opportunity to more people, motivation increases. Steven Jobs would never have been able to create Apple in today's society. The corporations he was competing against would have shut him down.
"So chew on that for a bit. The USA is a great country where all men and women can achieve whatever the want to if they get the formula right, nothing is a sure thing but taking from the rich because sombody thinks they dont deserve it will be a bigger can of worms than the one we have now."
The rich are taking from the poor and middle class to fund excessive consumption.
Join us.
Sorry, im not buying this, there are laws, if we dont like them it is up to us to pursue the majorities and votes that bring about change, the government at present isnt doing anything like any of what you are saying but then again these are all OPINIONS, everyone is entitled to them you and i included.
Define "pay more" as regards to the wealthy and their taxes. Are you saying that you support raising the income tax level from %36 to say %39? Or, to %45? Or, to %50? Is the point to just take more money from a wealthy person so that this wealthy person is LESS wealthy, or is the point to increase revenue in general to the government? I'm very confused by the 99% movement. It seems that they hate wealthy people (or at least those who have more money than they do.) Also, what about people who are worth millions of dollars because of their real estate or because of their share of a business, but who don't have any cash in the bank or income to speak of? My parents sat on a million dollar house until they died....should these wealthy net worthers be included in the "pay more" group and be forced to pay more? Just trying to understand what you want. Also, what is with the "Wall Street" thing? Most Wall Street donations in the last election went to Obama, and many on Wall Street are registered democrats and some are quite liberal. How is Wall Street getting attached to the Republicans? I'm sooooooooooo confused!
I actually don think i said anything about anyone paying more? Sorry, im the guy who wrote the main post at the top o the page.
Communism has already been tried. I don't think anyone promotes going back to that; However, Taxation has always been a Government function from the earliest days of mankind. Redistribution is nothing new. The basic function of government is to keep all of us from inflicting violence on one another. We know from history, when some are so stingy and selfish while others have nothing, revolutions happen. Everyone would like to avoid that, so just pay your fair share!
I think a revolution isnt that far off base, our country is a baby compared to most, and we have only had 1 shake up in the 200+ years weve been in existence. Know what i mean. I just know it will be a slippery slope for the government to get too heavy handed with regards to taxes, inevitible with our national debt and all but will be a slippery slope none the less.
I don't think you understand what OWS is really about. Where did you get the information that caused you to formulate this opinion?
Witch one, the government side or the wealth distribution side?
Your argument is a strawman that avoids the core issue. Billionaires should not exist. anyone with more than 20 million USD is in a position of power and can abuse democracy, cause corruption in pollitics under the pretense of the so called "Free market". Do you think anyone of who has that amount of money is honest or fair?
if your individual ownership of a property exceeds that of the wealth limit then you must share the ownership with others
Sorry but i disagree with that, it isnt in line with being a free country and a free market economy, sorry but you know the ssying opinions are like assholes and i have both.
I am saying that you are free to make 20 million in assets.. and live a very comfortable life, but more than that ... you become sick like the 1% , whose sole intention in life is profit.. should that be the american way?
I am suggesting a middle path.. i could advocate a moneyless society like the zeitgeist people.. but i dont
Over the last 30 years vast amounts of money have moved from the "real economy", the one 99% of the people operate in and that we earn our wages in, pay our rent with and our daily needs, to the "financial economy", where money is used for speculation and investment.
Due to this transfer of wealth from the "real" to the "financial" economy, demand for products has dried up. No demand = no jobs.
As a result of this transfer of wealth, the financial sector has grown disproportionately without adding real productivity. On top of that, the financial sector is a brain drain. The financial sector hires more physicists than the manufacturing sector does.
Wealth transfer is necessary, not because of any "fairness", but because it makes economic sense.
redistributing wealth? you mean giving billions of taxpayers dollars to banks? giving endless breaks to corporations that the taxpayers have to make up? yeah
"made a bundle investing" you're unaware wall street was involved in criminal activities in relation to derivatives?
Yes but again you can thank washington, if the laws were more tailored toward the general public than whatever they are now, that might help, but we need to remind our representatives what their constituemts stand for or dont, if we dont organize to directly address the representatives of our own state then how can anything change?
dont you get it? They dont listen in DC, the system is rigged
It takes 100's of millions of dollars to run for president. It simply is not feasible to put forth another candidate. Congress is mostly bought and paid for. In some instances, guess what? Congress people dont care if they arent reelected, if it comes right down to it. They can go and get a nice n cushy job after as a lobbyist, esp for weapons manufacturers...and so it goes
This is why we must have OWS. The big money needs to be out of politics. Of course much else needs to change too
Yes, i agree, but who do you think is going to write the legislation and vote on it? Its going to be politicians, under the system that we have, all laws need to come through the house and senate and be signed or vetoed by the president, this is the framework that is in place, to rally support like OWS is excellent but to effect real change is going to take turning your representstive and lobbying enough votes to pass the legislation for reform.