Let's Debate Inequality

[PureX]

Government has repeatedly demonstrated it’s bad at handling money and inefficient at getting things done (making projects and legitimate worthy goals much more expensive than needed). We shouldn’t give the government more until the government demonstrates financial responsibility.

Grown ups understand that this is what governments are supposed to do. And that if the government is really so bad at it, that we all have a responsibility to fix it. Not whine and cry like toddlers and pretend we could survive without it.

 

[Yerda]

An even better solution would be to end capitalism and set up a socialist mechanism for conducting a business enterprise. Once the people being effected by a business enterprise have a say in how that business is being conducted, we will not have this constant disparity of wealth and power occurring in the first place. And yes, when it does occur, we should tax that accumulated excess wealth back into the economy.

Given where we are now, though, do you think this is achievable?

 

[Heyo]

An even better solution would be to end capitalism and set up a socialist mechanism for conducting a business enterprise. Once the people being effected by a business enterprise have a say in how that business is being conducted, we will not have this constant disparity of wealth and power occurring in the first place. And yes, when it does occur, we should tax that accumulated excess wealth back into the economy.

Contrary to what @Revoltingest may say about me, I'm not a socialist. I'm all for reigning in capitalism and more equality, but I prefer a mixed economy (with more socialist contribution than we have now).
And with a 100% estate tax, the government would gain possession of the means of production automatically - which they could then distribute to the workers.

 

[Yerda]

And with a 100% estate tax, the government would gain possession of the means of production automatically - which they could then distribute to the workers.

Oh, you radical. Man the barricades, Heyo's coming for your estates!

 

[Heyo]

Oh, you radical. Man the barricades, Heyo's coming for your estates!

As I said, I'll wait until you're dead. No need to worry. Your heirs on the other hand would get a fair chance like anybody else - with the added benefit of a decreased tax burden.
But as I've found out, most people don't like fairness if they can have privileges.

 

[PureX]

Given where we are now, though, do you think this is achievable?

No, we are collectively too stupid to even agree that we need to change. 150 years of predatory capitalism and it's insidious punishment/propaganda have brainwashed us into believing that we don't dare ever contradict it.

 

[PureX]

Contrary to what @Revoltingest may say about me, I'm not a socialist. I'm all for reigning in capitalism and more equality, but I prefer a mixed economy (with more socialist contribution than we have now).
And with a 100% estate tax, the government would gain possession of the means of production automatically - which they could then distribute to the workers.

Having to reign in the predatory and corrupting greed of capitalism by imposing laws to restrain it is like playing 'whack-a-mole'. It's a waste of time and energy and is doomed to always pkaying catch-up. But it never can.

I agree that a 'split system' may ultimately be required, wherein we have a strictly socialist system for the production and distribution of basic necessities, and another more capitalist system for unnecessary luxuries. But it would be complicated. And with complexity comes a greater propensity for incompitance, abuse, and corruption. One size will not fit all, but simplicity is important to strive for.

 

[PureX]

As I said, I'll wait until you're dead. No need to worry. Your heirs on the other hand would get a fair chance like anybody else - with the added benefit of a decreased tax burden.
But as I've found out, most people don't like fairness if they can have privileges.

The problem with taxing estates after we're dead is that it does nothing to thwart the corruption caused by allowing people to pile up great sums of money while alive. And they will simply use it to end the estate tax. As they already have done.

 

[an anarchist]

Because... what's the alternative?

Anarchism!!!!!
(Sorry, this response was obligatory.)

 

[Koldo]

Anarchism!!!!!
(Sorry, this response was obligatory.)

And then we go back to feudalism.

 

[Kfox]

Grown ups understand that this is what governments are supposed to do. And that if the government is really so bad at it, that we all have a responsibility to fix it. Not whine and cry like toddlers and pretend we could survive without it.

The average person can't fix it because the people in government don't want it fixed.

 

[Kfox]

The problem with taxing estates after we're dead is that it does nothing to thwart the corruption caused by allowing people to pile up great sums of money while alive. And they will simply use it to end the estate tax. As they already have done.

First of all, in the real world; nobody piles up great sums of money (only to have it destroyed by inflation) but even if they did, how is that corruption?

 

[PureX]

The average person can't fix it because the people in government don't want it fixed.

The average American still thinks capitalism is just a dandy idea, and all the alternatives are totalitarian dictatorships.
I think it's called "Stockholm Syndrome". We love our masters even as they beat and abuse us.

 

[Kfox]

And with a 100% estate tax, the government would gain possession of the means of production automatically - which they could then distribute to the workers.

What do you think that would do to the shareholders that invested in the stock based on how the company was ran by the original owner?

 

[Kfox]

The average American still thinks capitalism is just a dandy idea,

That's because for the average American, it IS a dandy idea.

 

[Kathryn]

As I said, I'll wait until you're dead. No need to worry. Your heirs on the other hand would get a fair chance like anybody else - with the added benefit of a decreased tax burden.
But as I've found out, most people don't like fairness if they can have privileges.

Have you already inherited an estate or are you planning on doing so in the future? Do you have kids and are you planning to leave them anything if you do have some?

 

[Kfox]

An even better solution would be to end capitalism and set up a socialist mechanism for conducting a business enterprise. Once the people being effected by a business enterprise have a say in how that business is being conducted, we will not have this constant disparity of wealth and power occurring in the first place. And yes, when it does occur, we should tax that accumulated excess wealth back into the economy.

Why would someone endure the risk, and trouble of starting a business under such circumstances? What's the incentive? And let's face it; in America, it seems the greater the wealth disparity, the better off the poor are, because the poor seems to suffer more when there is less wealth disparity between the rich and the poor.

 

[Nakosis]

This is a talk by Nobel Laureate in Economics on the current trends and future (grim) prospects of Inequality. Thought it would be a good place to start a debate and discussion on inequality. Do you think it is one of the most urgent problems facing the world today? If not, why not? If yes, what should be the solution.

First, I don't agree that "inequality" is the most urgent problem we face.
Why, because the amount of money Manny has in his pocket generally doesn't the amount of money Joe has in his pocket.
The only real issue is if Joe has enough to provide room, board and provide for the needs of his family if he has one.

Second, a little more than half the Federal budget already goes to public benefit. And yet, according to this inequality is on the rise. Throwing money into a program which isn't working is no guarantee that the program will suddenly start working.

The other almost half of the Federal budget goes back into the hands of the rich through government contracts. There is a set of wealthy folks who make their money through these government contracts. So the more money the government has to spend, the richer these folks get.

For these folks, as was stated, since they make more money than they could possibly spend, more taxes ain't going to hurt them or affect their lifestyle especially since it also means more money for government contracts they can bid on.

Also as was mentioned, companies who don't benefit directly from government spending have plenty of tax havens available to them.

So the rich can directly benefit from a tax increase or avoid it all together.

None of this "additional" taxing is a guarantee to improve Joe's life, however a number of the already wealthy stand to gain quite a bit from additional government taxing.

 

[PureX]

Why would someone endure the risk, and trouble of starting a business under such circumstances? What's the incentive?

The same incentive as now ... profit, ego, and an entrepreneurial spirit. Just not as much of it, and the risk will also be lessened. Mostly because competition will be recognized as wasted effort.

 

[Kfox]

The same incentive as now ... profit, ego, and an entrepreneurial spirit. Just not as much of it

Then it is not the same as it is now. You will kill the incentive to start new businesses

, and the risk will also be lessened. Mostly because competition will be recognized as wasted effort.

Yeah; competition will be lessened because few people would be willing to start a business; thus killing the economy.