4 ms·

While I would love to live in a more equal society, history shows time and again that government efforts to redistribute wealth mostly destroy it. We should tr

While I would love to live in a more equal society, history shows time and again that government efforts to redistribute wealth mostly destroy it. We should try to devise systems that prevent power from centralizing in the first place.

aaron-lebo 9y ago
Wealth has been redistributed via various government means for centuries. Did the income tax help society or destroy it? What would this discussion look like without it? There are ways of gradually doing it that don't involve mass upheaval.
tnzn 9y ago
Is that because the government redistributes the wealth, or because the powerful ones make it so that redistributing the wealth doesn't work ? (ie tax evasion)
- crusso 9y ago
  Yes.
- weberc2 9y ago
  The explanation I've heard is that it disincentives people from the hard work which creates wealth. Anyway, I don't think your explanation "the rich undermine wealth redistribution" explains the parent's conclusion that wealth is destroyed (a failure to redistribute wealth doesn't necessarily result in less wealth overall).
jamescostian 9y ago
> efforts to redistribute wealth mostly destroy it Not sure what you mean by this. Isn't the goal here to destroy a lot of wealth? Wealth is a relative term - someone with $1B is not rich because 1B is an inherently big number, they are rich because $1B is orders of magnitudes greater than what most people will make in their lifetimes. Making people all have about the same in the bank other would destroy wealth.
- weberc2 9y ago
  He means that by trying to redistribute wealth, we end up with less overall to go around. Something like a smaller GDP, though I don't know if that's the metric the parent has in mind. I also don't know how true this argument is; I'm just the messenger.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- mac01021 9y ago
  While relative wealth definitely has value (mostly because it enables you to afford the labor of others), wealth itself is not fundamentally relative. - Almost everyone today (in western, developed nations) has more purchasing power than almost everyone did 100 years ago. Doesn't that mean that everyone is more wealthy? - As new technology is developed, Alice's wealth depends less on Bob's poverty, because she can rely more on automation and less on Bob's labor. This might cause tremendous problems for Bob, but that's besides the point. Bob can now (if he manages to prosper) become immeasurably wealthy without reducing Alice's wealth in the least. - You could make millions of dollars selling farm equipment. It seems clear that, in doing this, you are accumulating wealth. But it is not clear that your success needs to be at anyone's expense. Presumably your customers are buying your wares because your product helps them build wealth too. If the market is saturated, your success might come at the expense of your competitor's, but that seems like a different phenomenon from the idea of relative wealth that you've described above.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
gizmo 9y ago
History shows no such thing. Making college free (or at least easily affordable) is highly redistributive and highly accretive. See also: public transportation, affordable childcare, and so. You're not just wrong when you say that government efforts to redistribute wealth mostly destroy it. The opposite is true: funding the commons through progressive taxation makes modern society possible. Redistribution is at the absolute core of everything the government does.
- jacob019 9y ago
  An interesting perspective, feels cynical to me. I fully support progressive taxation, free education, public transit, affordable health care and so-forth. I would argue that government is a service provider. We can't all be expected to maintain our own defense, so we do it together. When we are provided these services that are equal to or greater than the value that we pay for them, we are richer for it. There is no redistribution there. The more wealth you have the more valuable the local police force is to you. The wealthy need educated employees. Government is able to organize childcare services that keep low income workers in the workforce, that helps everyone.
  - gizmo 9y ago
    > government efforts to redistribute wealth mostly destroy it > I fully support progressive taxation, free education, public transit, affordable health care Choose one. (Hint: all taxation is redistributive)
    - jacob019 9y ago
      I do not accept the premise that all taxation is redistributive. When services are provided to the taxpayer that exceed the value of the taxes then wealth is created. We as a society choose to perform certain services collectively though our government because it costs less to do it together. There is a tipping point where taxation becomes redistribution.
      - 9y ago

aaron-lebo 9y ago

Wealth has been redistributed via various government means for centuries. Did the income tax help society or destroy it? What would this discussion look like without it? There are ways of gradually doing it that don't involve mass upheaval.

tnzn 9y ago

Is that because the government redistributes the wealth, or because the powerful ones make it so that redistributing the wealth doesn't work ? (ie tax evasion)

crusso 9y ago
Yes.
weberc2 9y ago
The explanation I've heard is that it disincentives people from the hard work which creates wealth. Anyway, I don't think your explanation "the rich undermine wealth redistribution" explains the parent's conclusion that wealth is destroyed (a failure to redistribute wealth doesn't necessarily result in less wealth overall).

jamescostian 9y ago

> efforts to redistribute wealth mostly destroy it Not sure what you mean by this. Isn't the goal here to destroy a lot of wealth? Wealth is a relative term - someone with $1B is not rich because 1B is an inherently big number, they are rich because $1B is orders of magnitudes greater than what most people will make in their lifetimes. Making people all have about the same in the bank other would destroy wealth.

weberc2 9y ago
He means that by trying to redistribute wealth, we end up with less overall to go around. Something like a smaller GDP, though I don't know if that's the metric the parent has in mind. I also don't know how true this argument is; I'm just the messenger.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
mac01021 9y ago
While relative wealth definitely has value (mostly because it enables you to afford the labor of others), wealth itself is not fundamentally relative. - Almost everyone today (in western, developed nations) has more purchasing power than almost everyone did 100 years ago. Doesn't that mean that everyone is more wealthy? - As new technology is developed, Alice's wealth depends less on Bob's poverty, because she can rely more on automation and less on Bob's labor. This might cause tremendous problems for Bob, but that's besides the point. Bob can now (if he manages to prosper) become immeasurably wealthy without reducing Alice's wealth in the least. - You could make millions of dollars selling farm equipment. It seems clear that, in doing this, you are accumulating wealth. But it is not clear that your success needs to be at anyone's expense. Presumably your customers are buying your wares because your product helps them build wealth too. If the market is saturated, your success might come at the expense of your competitor's, but that seems like a different phenomenon from the idea of relative wealth that you've described above.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

gizmo 9y ago

History shows no such thing. Making college free (or at least easily affordable) is highly redistributive and highly accretive. See also: public transportation, affordable childcare, and so. You're not just wrong when you say that government efforts to redistribute wealth mostly destroy it. The opposite is true: funding the commons through progressive taxation makes modern society possible. Redistribution is at the absolute core of everything the government does.

jacob019 9y ago
An interesting perspective, feels cynical to me. I fully support progressive taxation, free education, public transit, affordable health care and so-forth. I would argue that government is a service provider. We can't all be expected to maintain our own defense, so we do it together. When we are provided these services that are equal to or greater than the value that we pay for them, we are richer for it. There is no redistribution there. The more wealth you have the more valuable the local police force is to you. The wealthy need educated employees. Government is able to organize childcare services that keep low income workers in the workforce, that helps everyone.
- gizmo 9y ago
  > government efforts to redistribute wealth mostly destroy it > I fully support progressive taxation, free education, public transit, affordable health care Choose one. (Hint: all taxation is redistributive)
  - jacob019 9y ago
    I do not accept the premise that all taxation is redistributive. When services are provided to the taxpayer that exceed the value of the taxes then wealth is created. We as a society choose to perform certain services collectively though our government because it costs less to do it together. There is a tipping point where taxation becomes redistribution.
    - 9y ago