WashPo: Redistributing wealth upward

[alexey]

I'm struggling to understand how having the rich pay less, but still the overwhelming majority, of the income tax is "upward redistribution". Isn't that being a little bit arrogant? Like poor people have some sort of minimum amount that they are required to receive, and if they receive less it is upward redistribution? If your parents give you a less expensive birthday gift than they did last year, are they being selfish?

...

Utilitarian arguments don't really appeal to me. If you're asking for a handout, I don't want you to tell me why it's in my best interest to give you money. So I wouldn't be interested in wealth redistribution even if it made our economy come roaring back. What's the real moral reason for demanding others' money?

A business that employs 10 people makes $100. What is the process of figuring out how the money is distributed?

[gbear]

ncr2h,

http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/us_hunger_facts.htm

If you are hungry and presented with a choice between hunger and taking food, which would you do? If your child was hungry? Would you remain civil? I see the throw away lines about how our poor are fat...and I see them from people who probably haven't seen the inside of a soup kitchen or community food pantry unless it was on T.V.

As for how it helps you, I refer you back to Ford, the man not the car. He founded a company and made quite a bit of money on the premise of paying his workers enough to buy his products. It seemed to work for him. For society writ large, the economy and government only function when money is changing hands. The savings rate amongst the rich is far higher than amongst the poor. Thus money to the poor does more for an economy than money for the rich. A consumer consumption based economy is what we have now. With out a middle class, who will buy?

I also point to the American dream. Without it, a lot of people here will never get a chance to become the next great inventor or business man or president. The American dream requires everyone be given a chance, and we all benefit from the successes, even those already rich. However, the chances aren't free. The dream buys peace and stability, and I fear someday the rich will forget this and take it for granted. It's then we would need fear the uprising of the proletariat predicted by Marx.

[Corcaigh]

If you're asking for a handout, I don't want you to tell me why it's in my best interest to give you money. So I wouldn't be interested in wealth redistribution even if it made our economy come roaring back. What's the real moral reason for demanding others' money?

There are in excess of two thousand different handout and subsidy programs for businesses worth many billions, aside from many billions more in contracts which are allocated based on social engineering principles (SDB, Alaska Native, etc.). Redistribution of tax dollars from the middle class to large businesses is practiced today, or in the wealthy paying much lower effective tax rates because of incentives and loopholes. So any commentary about redistribution shouldn't just be about the top 5% paying a few extra percentage points on their top rate.

[gbear]

I see a significant difference between government owning means of production and government regulating means of production.

That's the difference between communism and socialism in a nut shell.

[alexey]

That's the difference between communism and socialism in a nut shell.

I'm pretty sure that socialism involves actual social ownership of means of production... However, it looks like these terms do not have a standard definition and have evolved over time.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_difference_between_socialism_and_communism

Still, I think it is incorrect to say that government regulation is socialism. Government passing a law against led paint in toys, for example, is clearly not socialism. Perhaps you have a different kind of regulation in mind.

[gbear]

alexey,

no, I view the lead paint as not a purely free market. in a free market, the government doesn't care.

Regulation does not happen in a totally free market. The lead paint is an example where the people through their government said, "you may not produce our toys this way." In effect, they chose to control the means and/or distribution of the products. Regulation is socialism. If you sell here, (distribution), you may not make them with lead paint (production).

from google the definition of socialism:"A political and economic theory of that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated."

note the last 2 words. Regulation counts

[alexey]

alexey,

no, I view the lead paint as not a purely free market. in a free market, the government doesn't care.

Regulation does not happen in a totally free market. The lead paint is an example where the people through their government said, "you may not produce our toys this way." In effect, they chose to control the means and/or distribution of the products. Regulation is socialism. If you sell here, (distribution), you may not make them with lead paint (production).

from google the definition of socialism:"A political and economic theory of that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated."

note the last 2 words. Regulation counts

Strange to see the "regulated" part in google's definition. Other dictionaries only have ownership and administration.

Government issues money, government defines fraud and regulates against it, etc. Government builds roads and provides rules about what kind of vehicles can and cannot drive on it. You cannot avoid the government when transacting unless you are dealing with most primitive transactions. Two stone age people bartering a stone for a stick or something like that. I do not think you have provided a clear guideline here.

[gbear]

The webster's dictionary at my desk at work has the same "regulated" and it's what I was taught in my history of Economic thought class. The money example is interesting, because there was a time not too long ago whe nbanks were not regulated, and bad things happened with the great depression and again the great recession. When you speak of issueing currency, I think there is some interesting case law there...thinking of the e-currency a little while back and some state currencies. One might even note the issueing of money as an example of the ownership side.

The real difference in the definitions between yours and mine is the "and" versus "and/or." For regulating is another form of administration.

[alexey]

...

The real difference in the definitions between yours and mine is the "and" versus "and/or." For regulating is another form of administration.

If you equate regulation to administration and to socialism, then pretty much everything is socialism and free market is virtually impossible. I do not see that definition as being particularly useful.

I see an important difference between ownership/administration, and regulation. Let's take a mining company as an example.

Case 1: Privately owned and privately operated mining company has to follow safety rules set by the government.

Case 2: Government owned mining company is owned and operated by the government.

In one case the government sets the rules, in another case the government actually owns and operates a company. I see the word socialism as a useful and meaningful distinction between these two cases. If you want to refer to call both of these cases as socialism, then everything is socialism and the word becomes useless and pretty much meaningless.