Redistribution

[Nebulous's iconNebulous]

Source: http://www.debate.org/redistribution/

Redistribution of wealth is simply the transfer of wealth, property or income from one individual to another. This redistribution is caused by some social mechanism, such as nationalization, charity, taxation, welfare or tort law. Typically the redistribution is progressive, referring to a transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor. Redistribution is sometimes regressive, however, referring to a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich. The redistribution debate is widely controversial, with both sides arguing a number of different pros and cons for the redistribution of wealth.

Pros to the Redistribution Debate

One positive aspect of the redistribution of wealth is that it applies to the human sense of fairness. Humans have an intrinsic sense of fairness, proven by psychological studies and experiments. Fairness within the world of wealth certainly does not always exist, particularly in the United States. Redistribution of wealth allows citizens to feel that a sense of fairness is established. Next, redistribution of wealth is good for both the poor and the rich. When the disparity between the rich and poor is too large, economic inefficiencies occur. The rich want to stay rich, but without allowing the poor some sort of cash flow the rich cannot stay rich.

Redistribution can also help contribute to the peace and stability of the nation. As demonstrated with protests such as the Occupy Wall Street movement, when the disparity between the rich and poor is too great society falls out of balance. This leads to social unrest and eventually civil disturbances, looting and even revolutions. Lastly, if redistribution of wealth is constantly scrutinized it can work wonders for society. As long as the money is carefully analyzed and spent, the redistribution can help to eliminate poverty and starvation for a great deal of the population.

Cons to the Redistribution Debate

However, there are also arguments against the redistribution of wealth. First, redistribution works against America's economic system of free capitalism. Government interference and calls for redistribution oppose the fundamental values of capitalism. Also, redistribution may take away from a society's growth opportunities. Redistribution may mean that the rich cannot start new businesses or hire new employees, and ends up hurting the economy.

Another argument against redistribution of wealth is that it may cause laziness. Those who are dependent upon the redistribution of wealth might become reluctant to do their fair share, as they no longer have to work in order to live. Redistribution is often considered bad because it is a form of forced charity. The wealthy might not choose to donate the money of their own accord, and are instead are forced to give up their money. Those who argue against the redistribution debate believe that the poor should only receive help from private groups that willingly help the poor, such as the Red Cross and the Salvation Army.

Thoughts on this issue?

 

[Dee]

This is a hot issue that I feel would work best if redistribution happened at a gradual, small pace. For instance, we don't need to be paying CEOs even HALF the money they make, but we do and they're constantly getting raises for something they do, which doesn't demand them to increase in skill or education. Yes, they can and do have tough jobs, but the amount of money they are paid is ridiculous in my opinion. However, if we redistributed even a fraction of their yearly pay to, let's say the poor or the middle class, it could greatly improve the economy all around.

The arguments that I see out there the most are, "This is a capitalist society and I work for my money. Why should I have to give away my hard-earned cash to someone I don't know?" Or, "Many of the workers out there are unskilled and don't deserve a raise for the labor they do. Why should they get more money when all they're doing is flipping burgers?" There are so many aspects that go into WHY these things are they way they are, and why certain people can't or don't find jobs that increase their skill set or require them to obtain a better education, which is where it gets rather grey in terms of answering those questions I posed above.

But living in such a westernized, 'me-me-me' society where everyone is on their own and only looking out for themselves and their immediate family that it's going to be nearly impossible to bring about any change, especially with how corrupt the government is and our allowance of companies to monopolize the industries they provide service to (whether good or not).

I, personally, would not have any issue with redistributing SOME of the wealth in this country, but I don't think it needs to happen on a flat scale, all across the board, or even come from anywhere near the low or middle class. If it were to happen, we need to stop giving certain people ridiculous pay raises and bonuses for not doing anything, like company CEOs and certain shareholders.

 

[DrLeftover]

The problem I've got with forced redistribution is this:

Nebulous works for a living in a skilled trade, and he is very good at his job. He has been at it for a long time and has taken special training. His ability is in high demand, say, as an underwater welder, and he works long hours and a lot of overtime doing his job.

Sam is a lazy bum who's only appreciable skill is being able to open a beer can with one hand. He sits on his couch and watches TV and waits on his welfare check 6 days a week.

Why should ANY of Nebulous's wages go to support Sam?

 

[seasidemike]

I would love to meet one person who preached redistribution of wealth and ask if they would be wiling to give up and share what they have.

It is a great plan if you thing you will be getting something from it, but I doubt that those in favor would be the first to offer to give away what they worked for.

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

the friendly word called redistribution which is actually stealing

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

There are no pros for stealing other peoples money. It makes lazy people lazier. It makes people with a dream to do something with there lives less motivated to it when they know what they earned will be taken. And it just makes me laugh with sadness when others want to determine what a CEO to a burger flipper makes under force when it's not theirs to do so. Who comes up with this arbitrary number on what someone makes?

The only redistribution that should be going on is under free will.

 

[Dee]

I would love to meet one person who preached redistribution of wealth and ask if they would be wiling to give up and share what they have.

It is a great plan if you thing you will be getting something from it, but I doubt that those in favor would be the first to offer to give away what they worked for.

I would! I've given away plenty of stuff I don't technically need. Yes, given away for free to people I don't know. There are some of us who would actually keep our word, and have done so in the past. But I can see where you're coming from. A lot of those people who say they would do it might not actually pull through.

 

[DrLeftover]

You need, give or take 1200 to 1600 calories a day, 4 liters of water, two pair of pants, two shirts, two sets of underwear, a pair of shoes that fit, a reasonable bed, something resembling shelter in inclement weather, and maybe a shower once a week.

THAT is what you need. You will notice the list does not include cable TV or a Lexus.

That is what you are given in most US prisons, and a handful of monasteries.


I worked for a living for 30+ years to have a bit more than that, including the choice of my own menu, and the freedom to decide if I want to go fishing tomorrow afternoon or not.

And I'll be damned if I will willingly support somebody elses lifestyle at a higher level than my own just because some Liberal (see definition below) decides they want to redistribute my income to somebody that is simply lazy. "oh, my feet hurt because I'm fat" is Not a disability, and I know some of those.

Yes, if a vet has had both legs blown off, fine, take my tax money, buy him a wheelchair that gets NFL network, I'm good with that. But not the other, comrade.


Liberal, defined:

"A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money."
- G Gordon Liddy (born 1930)