3 ms·

This argument breaks down in a couple of different ways but lets just look at one: Assuming there is no wealth redistribution then you had Joe and Jane have $1

This argument breaks down in a couple of different ways but lets just look at one: Assuming there is no wealth redistribution then you had Joe and Jane have $19.128.28 and $69,330.20 respectively. Lets say they both die on the same day and leave all their wealth to Joe Junior ($19,128.28) and Jenny ($69,330.20). Now it turns out that Joe Junior works hard and is really smart. He can get a 5% per annum return. Meanwhile Jenny is a bit of a flake but can still get 1% per annum from her investment. After 50 years Joe Junior has $219,351.63 and Jenny has $114,022.65. So the hardworking Joe has turned his more modest beginning around and overtaken the less hardworking Jenny. The total wealth pool is now $333,374.28. However if we had equalised their wealth on the death of their parents so that they had both started with $34,816.57. Jackie would then have ended up on $57,260.44 while Joe Junior would be on $399,255.53 for a combined wealth of $456,515.97 - significantly more than if wealth equalisation had not taken place So that is one way it makes sense for the economy a a whole to redistribute wealth. Another is the fact that both Joe Junior and Jackie may have seen fixed costs (Medical bills?) on their life journeys. Jackies initial capital advantage measn she could weather those a lot more efficently then Joe Junior even if the return on her wealth she is generating is less. And of course the same is true without having to wait for the next generation. Just because person A made good use of their resources for 10 years is no indication that they will always continue to do so and so are going to generate the best return on those resources - and the opposite is also true. That said while past performance is no indicator of future success it is a whole lot better then nothing. TL;DR While completely flat wealth distribution is obviously a daft idea a simple argument shows some level of movement seems to be in the best interest of the economy as a whole.

logicchains 9y ago
>This argument breaks down in a couple of different ways but lets just look at one: >Assuming there is no wealth redistribution then you had Joe and Jane have $19.128.28 and $69,330.20 respectively. Lets say they both die on the same day and leave all their wealth to Joe Junior ($19,128.28) and Jenny ($69,330.20). I'd argue this is a categorically different case as it's taking wealth from a dead person. From economic perspective I agree there's less of an argument that this reduces growth. >And of course the same is true without having to wait for the next generation. Just because person A made good use of their resources for 10 years is no indication that they will always continue to do so and so are going to generate the best return on those resources - and the opposite is also true. That said while past performance is no indicator of future success it is a whole lot better then nothing. If past performance is some indicator of future success, then would it be fair to say that if a redistribution policy ignores this, and takes into account no other factors correlated with potential future returns in determining whom to redistribute to, then on average it will still result in transfer from better investors to worse investors? An opposed to e.g. redistribution in the form of scholarships to poor but well-performing students, which could increase overall growth.

logicchains 9y ago

>This argument breaks down in a couple of different ways but lets just look at one: >Assuming there is no wealth redistribution then you had Joe and Jane have $19.128.28 and $69,330.20 respectively. Lets say they both die on the same day and leave all their wealth to Joe Junior ($19,128.28) and Jenny ($69,330.20). I'd argue this is a categorically different case as it's taking wealth from a dead person. From economic perspective I agree there's less of an argument that this reduces growth. >And of course the same is true without having to wait for the next generation. Just because person A made good use of their resources for 10 years is no indication that they will always continue to do so and so are going to generate the best return on those resources - and the opposite is also true. That said while past performance is no indicator of future success it is a whole lot better then nothing. If past performance is some indicator of future success, then would it be fair to say that if a redistribution policy ignores this, and takes into account no other factors correlated with potential future returns in determining whom to redistribute to, then on average it will still result in transfer from better investors to worse investors? An opposed to e.g. redistribution in the form of scholarships to poor but well-performing students, which could increase overall growth.