RateItAll: The Opinion Network

Not realy I believe in the fair distribution of wealth but not
re-distribution

Actually, I believe more in power and opportunity distribution. Given that, the wealth will follow.

Widening inequality is hardly irreversible and inevitable. Between the mid-thirties and mid-seventies (the period of The New Deal, The Fair Deal and The Great Society), inequality was slowly declining because of the heavily redistributive policies that marked the period. At the beginning of this period, even many very ardent advocates of the capitalist system accepted that some redistribution of wealth was necessary so as to provide a broader consumer base. During this period, incomes of all Americans grew rapidly with a very slight bias to the poor (hence the slowly declining inequality). In contrast, during the eighties, the period when supply-side economics was implemented, the incomes of 85% of Americans rose an average of 2% per year (which didn't even keep pace with inflation for most, meaning most people's incomes were actually falling), whilst the incomes of millionaires increased by a whopping average of 243% per year. Simply put, redistribution is required to ensure healthy social mobility and to guarantee that all members of society can benefit from economic growth. A belief in re-distribution is an integral part of contemporary American Liberalism and one of the best reasons to be a Liberal. UPDATE: Those statistics come from the Internal Revenue Service, Lance. I did admittedly see those statistics put into that exact context by a lefty, but the source is still valid.

This simply doesn't work- nor does it benefit society on a whole. The reality is most of the rich people in this nation are what is referred to as new money- people who've become rich by moving up the income ladder. Depending on the economic innovation waves, investments fluctuate the ecomony expands at various rates, new jobs are created and old fields die or are shipped to other country's that will do them for lower costs; credit is cheaper or more expensive, interest rates are lower or higher, bond yields fluctuate. The economy is so complex to assume the government can take money from some today and redistribute it to another tomorrow and nothing will occur is pure ignorance. Nothing has proven better for those in the lower income brackets than lower taxes and a freer economy and nothing has proven more disastrous than forcing investments into low risk tax shelters and retarding growth with higher taxes. A quick examination of nations with lower tax margins and those with higher will quickly reveal that redistributive policies don't work. The composite EU unemployment rate is over 10% whereas the United States is currently at 5%. The average mobility rate in the United States is much quicker that anywhere in the world- yes this is the land of opportunity for a reason. More people own their homes here than anywhere in industrialized world. Things that are commonplace in the US are luxuries in other areas. Medical care is more advanced. The benefits to lower marginal tax rates is simply overwhelming- it does exactly what redistributive policies portend to accomplish. Update*** Magellan, there are a few reasons for the widening gap between rich and poor but that's not necessarily a bad thing: (i) The static poor are a fixed income group that only increases with the rate of inflation. With the rest of those actively working in the economy, accumulating wealth and human capital the ceiling is not fixed hence the gap is going to continue to increase- there's nothing wrong with that so long as the bottom bracket is still congruent with the cost of essential goods. (ii) The poor as an income group are not fixed and those individuals move up through the income brackets attaining wealth while new people enter the labor market. In a prosperous economy there is always going to be a greater chasm between the rich and poor- that's a good thing particularly when the costs of goods and services stay stable and mobility is rapid. Hypothetically if I said my economic policies will double everyone's income in two years- that would be a great policy no? But the gap would between rich and poor would widen greatly because now Joe Washbucket who was making 35k is making 70k but Joe Investmentbanker went from making 500k to 1 million. **** Jon, your statistics regarding the Reagan years are patently false- try utilizing labor department statistics and not regurgitating mendacious claims from leftists blogs and promulgating them as fact.

Liberals do some things wrong- but this nonsensical obsession with 'redistributing of wealth' as a terrible thing is a mantra for the retarded. There are wasteful and positive programs of wealth redistribution- but student loans and social security (in whatever form you wish) do help people who make intelligent decisions with their money. . .those are socialist programs, kids! You live in a capitalist culture with some measures of socialist policies to encourage opportunity and balance for those who want to participate in capitalism. A system where one is purely dominant cannot sustain itself. The wealth distribution that bugs me is welfare and the waste that comes with it. . .but this ridiculous notion that all monetary re-distribution is awful and all socialist tendencies are evil ought to travel more and visit countries where one system purely dominates thus it is actually harder instead of easier for people to move up through the social and educational classes. . .stop masturbating to FOX news and read more.

Outstanding suggestion from magellan. This is one of the bedrock beliefs of the liberal ideology, that the government is responsible (somehow) to assure that everyone's financial success is approximately equal. UPDATE: The Economist has done some excellent work on this point, as magellan aptly points out. There is one point that conservatives tend to do a poor job of articulating. There will always be a segment in every society of poor and they will always represent the baseline, or point zero. They are poor for any number of reasons, some their fault, some the fault of influences way beyond their control. But the rich get richer, there's no stopping the growth of that gap. The middle class gets richer every year also, but the poor remain poor. It's overly idealistic to manage one (the how high can we go line) and not the other and say, hey, the gap's getting larger. That's bad. As America becomes more and more affluent, which everybody wants, that gap is gonna grow and no amount of guilt or table-pounding will change that.

A great idea in concept that never works in REALITY.

I guess the biggest difference that I have with the liberal mainstream is that I believe in systems that promote wealth distribution (education grants, equality of opportunity, level playing field, etc.), not after the fact wealth redistribution through excessive taxation on the rich. Having lived in Latin America, I can tell you pretty authoritatively that having huge gaps between rich and poor is inherently unstable. But being the capitalist that I am, think that literally taking from the rich to give to the poor can have a deadening effect on an economy, and is a serious disincentive to get rich in the first place. While I agree with Lance in his analysis of the benefits of low taxes (though I differ from conservatives about the wisdom of creating a behemoth federal govt. in parallel with slashing taxes), what he doesn't point out is that the gap between rich and poor in the US is widening, and doing so rapidly. America is still the land of opportunity - no question about it - but we're heading the wrong direction in this area. There's been some excellent articles in the Economist on this subject recently, if anyone's interested in reading more.

I agree w/ EO. Superb suggestion that is at the heart of almost all liberals. People on the left will commonly exhibit disgust or revulsion when a conservative makes a statement in favor of tax cuts or small government. With the more emotional ones the terms greedy and selfish are commonly the accusations de jure. In the mind of a liberal/socialist, people who have made more money are somehow obligated to share this wealth because of their good fortune or debt to society for having made it possible for a wealthy person to come into possession of a large sum of money. No doubt about it. One of the things I hate most about the left is its willingness/sense of entitlement to dip its hand into my pocket.