How Should the Wealth be Redistributed?

[Dunemeister]

LDS.org - Ensign Article - And Who Is My Neighbor?

All voluntarily given.
No stealing from anyone involved.

We're not talking about sudden disasters but the ongoing, chronic disaster of perpetual poverty, homelessness, lack of medical coverage and so forth. That sort of redistribution isn't going to happen.

 

[Alceste]

We're not talking about sudden disasters but the ongoing, chronic disaster of perpetual poverty, homelessness, lack of medical coverage and so forth. That sort of redistribution isn't going to happen.

We're also not talking about the ideological whimsey of religious samaritans. Maybe they'll help out tsunami victims, but how do they feel about AIDS victims? Meaningful help requires a cool-headed, sweeping understanding of the issues that cause human suffering, objective analysis of how best to resolve them and a reliable and ongoing commitment in both financing and policy. Governments have the resources to do this work. Religions do not.

 

[Dunemeister]

We're also not talking about the ideological whimsey of religious samaritans. Maybe they'll help out tsunami victims, but how do they feel about AIDS victims? Meaningful help requires a cool-headed, sweeping understanding of the issues that cause human suffering, objective analysis of how best to resolve them and a reliable and ongoing commitment in both financing and policy. Governments have the resources to do this work. Religions do not.

That's not to say that religions can't play a part. I know that my church, for example, does a LOT of work with the homeless and with AIDS victims. It doesn't have the power of taxation so its response is limited by the amount of donations, but for the people helped, it's quite significant. If the government were to tackle the problems responsibly, the church could still partner with the government in various ways. It certainly wouldn't become redundant.

 

[Alceste]

That's not to say that religions can't play a part. I know that my church, for example, does a LOT of work with the homeless and with AIDS victims. It doesn't have the power of taxation so its response is limited by the amount of donations, but for the people helped, it's quite significant. If the government were to tackle the problems responsibly, the church could still partner with the government in various ways. It certainly wouldn't become redundant.

I hope I didn't imply that the work of religions plays no part - I think they're also important. They do a lot of the heavy lifting when it comes to real local help. But I think the partnership between religion and government is a pretty good idea as long as the government doesn't pick and choose which religions it wants to work with, and as long as tax dollars meant for aid aren't spent on bibles, talmuds or korans.

My cousin works with the Mennonites - I like their philosophy of setting a Christian example instead of preaching Christian gospel. Thought of volunteering for them myself a while back.

I only wouldn't count on religion to provide (for example) free condoms to combat the spread of AIDS though. And they wouldn't be able to help out with the relief of debt, which is the boot on the back of most third world nations.

I guess both have a place - I wouldn't like to see either stop trying to help, except for the preaching to a captive audience type of "help".

 

[The Voice of Reason]

All voluntarily given.
No stealing from anyone involved.

I'm glad that your church decided to help. That said, your assertion that taxation is a form of stealing is quite revealing of your character.

It turns out that not everyone belongs to your church, not every church participates, and when it is all said and done, the efforts of your church did not completely solve the problems you addressed - much less the problems you did not address.

When your church builds and maintains the interstate highway system, assembles and maintains an army for the defense of this nation, provides for the healthcare of every elderly person in our nation, pays for the education of the masses - and does all of this WITHOUT PROSELTYZING - then we can seriously discuss your position, as if it had merit.

Until then, just keep paying your taxes like the rest of us, and try not to trip over your artificially elevated sense of self worth.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Why we even tax the poor and the elderly is a mystery to me.

For the same reason that we tax unemployment benefits.

It gives the greediest people a warm fuzzy feeling.

 

[Dunemeister]

Until then, just keep paying your taxes like the rest of us, and try not to trip over your artificially elevated sense of self worth.

I have to say that I support the tax exempt status of churches and other religious institutions. Even though the proselytize, they make an extremely valuable social contribution as has already been mentioned. As for the proselytizing, I understand your objection. However, ALL government branches are doing or have done things to which at least some of us are ideologically opposed, and that doesn't seem to stand as an argument against those government branches.

And lastly, let's not be too quick to attack a person's "artificially elevated sense of self worth." I think the LDS church and many others have a great deal to be proud of. I don't know where I got the statistic from, but apparently over 85% of NGOs have been created by or are still being run by religious groups. There seems to be a strong impulse within religious groups to put their asses on the line for the poor, the suffering, and the disadvantaged. This is something that ought to be encouraged by more than a chuck on the shoulder. Tax exempt status seems appropriate. For if that status were taken away, the job they do would simply not get done. You'd get the rather hollow victory of forcing them to pay tax in exchange for a net increase in suffering around the world.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Dune -

Perhaps you missed my opening statement, wherein I expressed my gladness that his church decided to help. I truly appreciate the efforts of ANYONE that helps, or any ORGANIZATION that helps.

My post said nothing about the tax exempt status of churches, so I have no idea where that part of your post comes from.

If a church decides to help, that is great. I am extremely grateful for the efforts that most churches put into things like Habitat for Humanity, and I have no problem with them handing out pamphlets and praying for guidance as they contribute to such efforts.

My response to Idea was an attempt to point out that all of the efforts of all of the churches and all of the efforts of all of the volunteers in this world (when combined) do not even begin to approach the amount of work that is done by our government.

Idea strongly implied that governments are stealing by extracting taxes, which is the engine that allows governments to provide the services that they provide. Services which, despite the best of intentions, cannot be duplicated by the private sector. Not even close.

Even if those services could be replaced by voluntary efforts, I would object if they did proselytize while replacing the services that our government provides, since not all of the people volunteering would be of a theistic bent (just as they are not now).

 

[Mathematician]

Preferably we would live in a system where wealth would already be distributed fairly, as opposed to redistributed to cure some problems. I think that is the core divide between socialists and the Democratic Party.

Here's what I think needs to be done:
- Eliminate income tax for anyone making less than $1,000,000. It only hurts working men and women, while investors can get away with millions at only 15%. It's also susceptible to fraud. I would argue to get rid of it completely, but I think there needs to be some policy that targets absentee landlords (business owners who make money by doing absolutely nothing).
- Eliminate corporate taxes, but alongside it, eliminate corporate charters. No limited liability unless you can find a bank stupid enough to go along with the idea. No corporate personhood. No subsidization. Corporations and big business in general needs to be thrown into the bin basket of failed ideas.
- Reduce copyrights to the life of an author, and make a clause that would allow him/her to voluntarily relinquish his/her rights.
- Get rid of patents. There's no evidence they work.
- Tax land values by 100%, collect all the revenue, and divide it equally between everyone. People shouldn't have an advantage by simply owning the Earth. You should make money from your contributions. (This should be done on a state level so that Californians aren't hurt by Texans)
- Introduce mutual banks on the local level which would give home loans at the smallest possible interest rate.
- Stipulate that every state must find a way to cover 98-100% of its population for health care by 2012.
- Repeal all market barriers to cooperatives, trade unions, and credit unions.
- If selling federal property or services to the private sector, break it up to the smallest possible denominator and then sell it, stipulating that a company can't possess more than 20%.
- Tax all private/public deals (airplanes, television stations).
- Create an agency where workers can negotiate a purchase of failing businesses.
- Establish a new Public Works Program to improve our infrastructure by creating canals and fixing the highways.
- Create a weekly federal lottery to help with funds, which has a stipulation that you must partake in a community service. The lottery would not be a "one pot luck." There could be ten winners for $10,000.

 

[Sunstone]

Gene, I think it's absurd to try to redistribute wealth fairly -- for how do you determine whether this or that distribution of wealth is fair. That would seem to raise philosophical issues over which honorable people could endlessly disagree honorably. Instead, I am going with what you term the Democratic position on this one -- wealth is best redistributed to solve problems, rather than to achieve some notion or other of fairness.

 

[Mathematician]

Gene, I think it's absurd to try to redistribute wealth fairly -- for how do you determine whether this or that distribution of wealth is fair. That would seem to raise philosophical issues over which honorable people could endlessly disagree honorably. Instead, I am going with what you term the Democratic position on this one -- wealth is best redistributed to solve problems, rather than to achieve some notion or other of fairness.

Without a fair distribution of wealth, you can invite any sort of method of extracting wealth, including dishonest business practices.

It's not fair that corporations are subsidized by the state. It's not fair that unearned income is taxed below the average tax rate of earned income. It's not fair that people make fortunes off of land speculation. (Sounds like a toddler with my use of fair)

Of course, if you want, just change the word "fair" with "right" and view it as a problem. What I'm basically getting at is that a lot of laws on the book create some of these problems. The Democratic Party keeps these laws and creates new ones... it doesn't make sense.

 

[Dunemeister]

Dune -

Perhaps you missed my opening statement, wherein I expressed my gladness that his church decided to help. I truly appreciate the efforts of ANYONE that helps, or any ORGANIZATION that helps.

My post said nothing about the tax exempt status of churches, so I have no idea where that part of your post comes from.

By "pay your taxes" I assumed you referring to the LDS, not the individual. Sorry if I misread you there.

My response to Idea was an attempt to point out that all of the efforts of all of the churches and all of the efforts of all of the volunteers in this world (when combined) do not even begin to approach the amount of work that is done by our government.

Really? In which areas (besides the ones involving police and military)?

Idea strongly implied that governments are stealing by extracting taxes, which is the engine that allows governments to provide the services that they provide. Services which, despite the best of intentions, cannot be duplicated by the private sector. Not even close.

I actually agree with you on this one. But I also see the sense of the metaphor of stealing for taxation. The sad fact is that humans don't readily respond to the needs of their neighbors and so by and large must be forced to contribute to their well-being by having a gun-toting authority extract the money from them, which that authority then uses (theoretically) for the common good. The fact that people see this as "stealing" underscores the basic greediness and sense of entitlement felt by most humans.

Even if those services could be replaced by voluntary efforts, I would object if they did proselytize while replacing the services that our government provides, since not all of the people volunteering would be of a theistic bent (just as they are not now).

I guess we're talking past one another a bit here because I was thinking of organizations getting tax exempt status. I wasn't thinking of organizations like churches taking over government services wholesale.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

By "pay your taxes" I assumed you referring to the LDS, not the individual. Sorry if I misread you there.

Not a problem. I probably wasn't clear in my original response.

Really? In which areas (besides the ones involving police and military)?

I would submit that the overwhelming majority of the programs run by the government could not be replaced by volunteerism. Education, the CDC, the NIA, etc. I think the real objection is whether all of these "services" are truly needed (or, much less, helpful). That is another question altogether, though.

I actually agree with you on this one. But I also see the sense of the metaphor of stealing for taxation. The sad fact is that humans don't readily respond to the needs of their neighbors and so by and large must be forced to contribute to their well-being by having a gun-toting authority extract the money from them, which that authority then uses (theoretically) for the common good. The fact that people see this as "stealing" underscores the basic greediness and sense of entitlement felt by most humans.

At the beginning of this paragraph, I was in disagreement with you. By the time I got to your summation, I realized that your point is spot on. The part that I "bolded" is correct, though I would disagree that "most" humans feel that way. Then again, I could be wrong about that. I have no doubt that the overwhelming majority of Republicans feel that way. In my opinion, it is probably their single strongest commonality, as a group.

I guess we're talking past one another a bit here because I was thinking of organizations getting tax exempt status. I wasn't thinking of organizations like churches taking over government services wholesale.

Agreed.

 

[Sunstone]

Without a fair distribution of wealth, you can invite any sort of method of extracting wealth, including dishonest business practices.

Obviously, you can deal with dishonest business practices without making them distribution issues.

It's not fair that corporations are subsidized by the state. It's not fair that unearned income is taxed below the average tax rate of earned income. It's not fair that people make fortunes off of land speculation.

You honestly believe those things are not fair. There are others, just as honest as you, who honestly believe those things are indeed fair. How are you going to compellingly demonstrate you are right and they are wrong?

Upon consideration, I think fairness might in some limited cases be a factor -- say you have a situation that offends the sense of fairness of an overwhelming majority of people. But I still cannot see fairness as a basic guiding principle for all cases. Best, in my view, to redistribute wealth to solve problems rather than to redistribute wealth to ensure fairness.

 

[Mathematician]

Obviously, you can deal with dishonest business practices without making them distribution issues.

You honestly believe those things are not fair. There are others, just as honest as you, who honestly believe those things are indeed fair. How are you going to compellingly demonstrate you are right and they are wrong?

Upon consideration, I think fairness might in some limited cases be a factor -- say you have a situation that offends the sense of fairness of an overwhelming majority of people. But I still cannot see fairness as a basic guiding principle for all cases. Best, in my view, to redistribute wealth to solve problems rather than to redistribute wealth to ensure fairness.

I could reverse this question and ask you why we should fix "problems" when they're not recognized as universal. Objectivists could see 30% of the country starving and say it's not a problem.

Fairness is the basis for all complex social systems. We use fairness to justify liberty, democracy, and even capitalism (ironically).

 

[Sunstone]

I could reverse this question and ask you why we should fix "problems" when they're not recognized as universal. Objectivists could see 30% of the country starving and say it's not a problem.

Reversing the question does not logically allow one to escape answering it, though. So the question remains for you: How can you make a compelling case that something is fair or unfair. (Please note, Gene, that is a significantly different question that the one you have represented as the question.)

Fairness is the basis for all complex social systems. We use fairness to justify liberty, democracy, and even capitalism (ironically).

Who is "we"? And what does this "we" think is fair?

At this point, however, I suspect we have each expressed our opinions on the issue clearly and to the extent needed. I intend, therefore, to get back to the OP -- how should wealth be redistributed?

 

[Sunstone]

I personally believe the disparity of wealth between rich and poor threatens representative government in America. That, and not the issue of whether the wealth is fairly distributed, is my primary motive for redistributing wealth.

 

[Jeremy Mason]

For some reason, these two sentences had me puzzled a little bit.

I personally believe the disparity of wealth between rich and poor threatens representative government in America.

So a fiscally polarizing nation is the threat to government, right?

That, and not the issue of whether the wealth is fairly distributed, is my primary motive for redistributing wealth.

And the subject of what's fair is not the issue at hand?

 

[Worshipper]

We're not talking about sudden disasters but the ongoing, chronic disaster of perpetual poverty, homelessness, lack of medical coverage and so forth. That sort of redistribution isn't going to happen.

That ongoing redistribution does in fact happen regularly in the LDS church, and it's designed to meet people's housing, clothing, food, health, and educational needs.

As tVoR points out, not everyone belongs to the LDS church, so not everyone receives all these benefits. But within the church, ongoing redistribution of wealth to meet everyone's basic needs is the idea of our welfare program, and the funds for it come from voluntary donations.

and does all of this WITHOUT PROSELTYZING

For the record, we don't do any proselytizing (as a church, that is) when we provide humanitarian aid for those who aren't of our faith. Even LDS missionaires, when they perform the humanitarian service they are required to perform as part of their missions, are instructed not to proselytize while doing so.

Until then, just keep paying your taxes like the rest of us

An interesting approach.

This kind of reminds me of the issue of marriage. Marriages can be performed by the state, but the state also recognizes the equal validity of marriages performed by religious leaders. Couldn't it also be the case that wealth redistribution be performed by the state but that the state also recognize the equal validity of wealth redistribution performed by religious leaders?

I know that there's a tax cut for charitable donations to churches, but that's not recognizing the churches' wealth redistribution with equal validity. To be equal, it would have to be a dollar-for-dollar tax credit.

Of course, the state would have to verify that a given NPO's wealth redistribution program functions at least as well as and accomplishes at least the same basic goals as the wealth redistribution programs of the state. And of course, there are issues like roads (which are paid for out of gas taxes anyway) where the state might still be able to tax everyone. And it should probably be the NPO that proves the equality of their wealth redistribution program (and at their own expense). But once that equality is proven, anyone donating to that program could get a dollar-for-dollar tax credit.

How should the wealth be redistributed? Should the wealth of the middle classes be redistributed to the upper classes like conservatives prefer? Or should the wealth of the upper classes be redistributed to the middle classes like liberals prefer? You decide!

First, how are we defining these classes? The way the word "middle class" gets used in U.S. political rheotric today is nothing like its historical use. Historically, the middle class are the businessmen — the capitalists.Bill Gates is middle class.

Back a hundred years ago when almost every American worker owned his own business, we really did have a large middle class. But today, most of us are employees — wage laborers for other capitalists. That makes us lower class, historically speaking. Sure, our lower class today is a lot richer than our ancestors a thousand years ago, but that doesn't change the fact that we only keep about a third of the produce of our labor and that we give a third of it to a fat capitalist who does nothing but milk us. Most people today are lower class.

The United States have no upper class. We outlawed it in the Constitution. The closest we have to an upper class are absentee landlords, who function economically in much the same way as the historical upper class. If we want to call them upper class on those grounds, that could make sense.

Redistribution between the middle and upper classes in America would be silly. It wouldn't affect us all that much.

The problem with trying to redistribute wealth from either the upper or the middle class to the lower class is that the two rich classes don't want to lose their money. And because they are already using a system designed to exploit the lower class, they can just adjust that exploitation to get their money back from the lower class.

The middle class is making everything we consume. The upper class is keep rooves over our heads and over the heads of the middle class's factories. Any tax hike on the middle class will represent a rise in business expenses. That rise in business expenses will lead to a rise in prices, and it will be a proportional rise in prices, since profits are calculated as a percentage. That rise in prices will be paid for by the consumer. A tax hike on the upper class will lead to a rise in rents in a similar fashion.

Notice that this is true regardless of whether the tax is on the business or on the businessman as an individual. If his personal taxes go up, he has to increase his salary to offset the tax. And when he increases his salary, the business expenses go up. And that gets translated into higher prices.

Either way, the tax put on the exploiting classes to enrich the working class will end up getting paid by the working classes when they shell out cash for their rent, for the rents of the stores they shop at, for the rents of the factories that make the goods they buy, and for the increased costs of producing those goods once the rent is paid. Because the rich are already geared up to exploit the poor, any tax on the rich will end up getting paid by the poor.

So a wealth redistribution plan that would tax the two exploiting classes to pay the working class would rob Peter to pay Paul. The poor may get more money to spend, but they have to pay just as much more for what they buy, so they stay where they are. Tax cuts for the rich would actually be a lot more likely to help the poor. In fact, since all taxes end up getting paid by the poor anyway, any tax cut is ultimately good for the poor.

But to really redistribute wealth, we'd have to shake up the whole system, along the lines of what Gene proposed. As long as this system is in place, the poor will get their faces ground everytime.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

That ongoing redistribution does in fact happen regularly in the LDS church, and it's designed to meet people's housing, clothing, food, health, and educational needs.

Noble deeds, and I am glad to see them carried out. What is the avenue of redress, if one of those seeking aid feels that they are not being helped as much as someone else is?

For the record, we don't do any proselytizing (as a church, that is) when we provide humanitarian aid for those who aren't of our faith. Even LDS missionaires, when they perform the humanitarian service they are required to perform as part of their missions, are instructed not to proselytize while doing so.

I am glad to see that restraints are in place, and I hope that they are effective. That being said, in this instance, I would say that the LDS church is more than entitled to proselytize when they render assistance. Obviously, someone in the church has decided that the deeds speak louder than a sermon delivered to those in need. Admirable. Very admirable.

Couldn't it also be the case that wealth redistribution be performed by the state but that the state also recognize the equal validity of wealth redistribution performed by religious leaders?

Again - I would ask what the method of redress is open to those receiving aid, in those instances where someone feels shortchanged, or in matters of dispute?