Save us, Wealth-Creator Man!

[Drewish]

Drewish, you seem to be unaware of the nature of the creation of wealth.

It's quite simple. You and I working together to build a house, and then working together to build a second house, will complete our task faster than you working alone to build one house while I work alone to build another. Ten of us working together to build ten houses will complete the task incredibly faster than ten of us working alone.

There is not a finite amount of money. We create more and more all the time. The more people we pay to work together, the faster they generate wealth.

I am very much aware of wealth creation through trade a productive labor (and artificial money creation that impacts wealth in the same way as splitting stocks) as well as wealth destruction through the use of reasources, waste, and other factors. I am also aware that increasing the population of a country will result in an increase in GDP but rarely in an increase in the average wealth per person (quite the contrary). Claiming I am ignorant, then goign into some house example, which is unrelated to anything, does nothign for the discussion at hand. If you address me in a future post in this thread, please quote me so that I can have some context for what exactly you are responding to because this post seemed to be entirely off topic.

[Drewish]

Good. So now we agree that wealth redistribution is in fact not a good thing for those who have wealth taken from them. Now let us move on to the point about whether it is in fact, "better for civillization." Any objections before moving on?

Shouldn't you define "wealth redistribution" first?

Technically speaking, using tax revenues to employ people to build roads and bridges is "wealth redistribution" (money is taken from me and given to someone else, i.e. construction workers).

I think we should focus on instances where services ar enot rendered in exchange for said funds. Things liek public housing, welfare, and medicaid are good examples in the American system. Government employees are another discussion and if we want to have any hope of having a reasonable conversation that doesn't simply become name calling and other such thigns, then we need to keep the discussion focused.

[Randydeluxe]

You asked how a person who has most of the wealth in a system could experience a net gain by spending a significant amount of his wealth. That question, if asked honestly, betrays an ignorance of how such an expenditure could create a great deal more total wealth among those to whom it was paid, and spike demand that would enrich the wealthy person tenfold or hundredfold. That fact of economics hinges on the many working together, where the individual wealthy person, working alone, cannot generate as much.

To the degree that your original question was on-topic, this answer to it is entirely on-topic.

[Drewish]

You asked how a person who has most of the wealth in a system could experience a net gain by spending a significant amount of his wealth.

This is where the issue lies. The question was not in regards to if he or she spent their money, but if their money was taken from them via wealth redistribution.

[Gerald McGrew]

I think we should focus on instances where services ar enot rendered in exchange for said funds. Things liek public housing, welfare, and medicaid are good examples in the American system.

But services are rendered in those examples. The gov't uses revenues to hire construction workers to build public housing, and a portion of the population lives in them. Food stamps help prevent people from going hungry. Medicaid provides health care for the poor and disabled. Those are all "services".

Government employees are another discussion and if we want to have any hope of having a reasonable conversation that doesn't simply become name calling and other such thigns, then we need to keep the discussion focused.

Sure, but the discussion also needs to be realistic and honest; arguing that public housing and medicaid are not services is neither.

[Randydeluxe]

The question was not in regards to if he or she spent their money, but if their money was taken from them via wealth redistribution.

Is this some sort of re-framing of the concept of "taxation"?

[Drewish]

The distinction of service rendered for the publoic at large (which those having wealth taken from would have access to) and those rendered for particular individuals is obvious, and I'm surprised that I need to clarify. Keep claiming that I'm being dishonest and throwing out other insults needlessly Gerald McGrew, and I will simply stop responding to you.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

And then there were none.

[Gerald McGrew]

The distinction of service rendered for the publoic at large (which those having wealth taken from would have access to) and those rendered for particular individuals is obvious, and I'm surprised that I need to clarify.

So which services would not be available to those having their wealth taken? They can live in public housing, receive food stamps, and get medicaid should they need it. Just because they may not need it now, doesn't mean they never will.

Keep claiming that I'm being dishonest and throwing out other insults needlessly Gerald McGrew, and I will simply stop responding to you.

I didn't say you were dishonest. Please don't become your ideas.

[Seth]

And it's a worthless piece of crap because it only asks what people would consider a "fair" distribution of wealth, an it does NOT ask what the respondent's opinion is on HOW THAT BALANCE IS ACHIEVED.

Because that wasn't the point of the study. The results show that everyone, regardless of political affiliation, recognizes that our current wealth distribution structure is unfair and less than ideal, and that most people greatly underestimate just how skewed towards the uber-wealthy it is.

I'm happy to say that I think everyone should be equally wealthy, but that doesn't mean that I agree that in order to achieve this desirable social condition wealth should be take by force from some and redistributed to others so that the wealth distribution is "fair" or "just.""

Which has nothing to do with the study, so your rant is a very good example of missing the entire point.

I didn't miss the point, I saw through the propaganda and lies to find the truth behind the study and therefore I'm responding directly to the point, just not the vacuous and obfuscatory point you and the authors are trying to make.

As I said, it's a worthless study because it tells us nothing about how to achieve a fairer distribution but is in essence a "push poll" that asks a vague and limited question that's being used as a justification for changing public policy regarding wealth distribution. It was created to support the Progressive/Leftist argument that because the current wealth distribution is "unfair" and (as you imply) everyone agrees that it could be "more fair," in order to achieve that "fairness" redistributive wealth transfer from those who "unfairly" hold most of the wealth is an appropriate method of achieving the desired "fairness."

But as I also said, I'm happy to agree that the wealth distribution could be "more fair" but the acceptable methodology of achieving that rebalancing of wealth is NOT what the socialist paradigm insists on; forcible seizure and redistribution of wealth. If a "more fair" redistribution of wealth is needed, it must be accomplished by causing the non-wealthy to work harder and smarter to achieve wealth rather than by stealing and redistributing the wealth of those who HAVE worked hard to achieve success.

[Drewish]

Gosh, the only reason I haven't given up on this thread is because PordFrefect seemed like he at least desired an honest discussion.

[Seth]

Good. So now we agree that wealth redistribution is in fact not a good thing for those who have wealth taken from them. Now let us move on to the point about whether it is in fact, "better for civillization." Any objections before moving on?

Shouldn't you define "wealth redistribution" first?

Technically speaking, using tax revenues to employ people to build roads and bridges is "wealth redistribution" (money is taken from me and given to someone else, i.e. construction workers).

No, it's not. Paying taxes to pay for the services and amenities provided by government is not "wealth redistribution" in any classic or rational meaning. "Wealth redistribution" is the taking of property from one person by the government, which then gives that property directly to another person to fulfill some need they have that is unrelated to anything the first person might have done to incur a debt, such as using a road or water system.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Andrew, so far you've made several reading errors and distorted other people's positions. If that bothers you you should rethink some things.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Good. So now we agree that wealth redistribution is in fact not a good thing for those who have wealth taken from them. Now let us move on to the point about whether it is in fact, "better for civillization." Any objections before moving on?

Shouldn't you define "wealth redistribution" first?

Technically speaking, using tax revenues to employ people to build roads and bridges is "wealth redistribution" (money is taken from me and given to someone else, i.e. construction workers).

No, it's not. Paying taxes to pay for the services and amenities provided by government is not "wealth redistribution" in any classic or rational meaning. "Wealth redistribution" is the taking of property from one person by the government, which then gives that property directly to another person to fulfill some need they have that is unrelated to anything the first person might have done to incur a debt, such as using a road or water system.

Has anyone proposed that in this thread?

[Seth]

Gosh, the only reason I haven't given up on this thread is because PordFrefect seemed like he at least desired an honest discussion.

Just because you don't like having your agenda deconstructed doesn't mean it's not an "honest discussion."