5 ms·

Why is the redistribution of societal wealth "stealing" when it comes from rich people, but "earned" when it comes from poor people? Poor people suffer far mor

Why is the redistribution of societal wealth "stealing" when it comes from rich people, but "earned" when it comes from poor people? Poor people suffer far more theft on a daily basis -- they are forced to pay higher rates for credit, they spend vastly more time interacting with the bureaucracy while receiving substantially fewer benefits, and the terrible options available to them for healthy living robs them of quality twilight years -- but we rich folks kick up an almighty fuss any time it's suggested that we redress this balance by paying tiny bit more in taxes. So little, in fact, that it wouldn't likely impact our lifestyles in the slightest. I live in a high-tax country now and, although I receive a smaller paycheck than I did back in the US, I'm richer in almost every other way. The crime rate is effectively zero. There's no homelessness. Substance abuse and its associated ill effects are exceedingly rare. My family and my neighbors' families are healthy -- owing to the free universal health care we all receive, regardless of income or status -- so the risk of communicable disease is extremely low. So don't think of wealth redistribution as "stealing from the wealthy and giving to the poor". Think of it as "investing in a healthy and sizable middle class". Like the one our parents grew up in. The one that oversaw the most prosperous period in world history. The one now being systematically dismantled by we privileged few.

jernfrost 9y ago
It is only stealing, when the premise is that there is no society, democracy or state, and everything you ever earned was earned completely independent of everything else. At least that is what the neo-liberal fantasy world seems to be. They treat capitalism as if it some natural law of nature. Every capitalist has to make their money within a society. That society is what enables them to become rich. Put Bill Gates in Somalia as a child, and there never would have been a Microsoft and he never would have been a billionaire. Bill Gates and his fortune is a product of the society he grew up in which is shaped by democratic participation, deciding on what should and should not be taxed. If a democracy says we can increase taxes on the wealthy, then that is just a choice, not stealing.
- AnimalMuppet 9y ago
  > That society is what enables them to become rich. Somewhat true. Where you go with it is false, though. You seem to think that the society is all that enabled them to become rich. But if that's true, why does Bill Gates have more money than me? I'm in the same society. > If a democracy says we can increase taxes on the wealthy, then that is just a choice, not stealing. That presumes that everything a democracy decides on is just a choice - that it can't be wrong. I disagree with that statement. More, I think history disagrees with that statement.
  - Mz 9y ago
    You seem to think that the society is all that enabled them to become rich. But if that's true, why does Bill Gates have more money than me? I'm in the same society. Billionaires didn't really exist until there were billions of people. You can't amass that kind of wealth if there aren't people to generate it. Wealth is a means of capturing value and part of the value it captures is the value created by human intelligence and labor. The fact that some people are both talented at capturing value created by society as a whole and well positioned to do so is a large factor in why some people have vast wealth and some do not. It doesn't mean someone like Bill Gates is "better"/smarter/whatever overall than other people. There is a combination of factors that lead to the concentration of wealth in the hands of one person like that. This is why people argue so much about it. That wealth is created by the very existence of all of society, but inordinately benefits a small percentage of people. I don't know how we do this better. I am not for Basic Income, nor am I for trying to manipulate things with a goal of creating "level" outcomes. I think both of those approaches are inherently problematic. For one thing, society as a whole benefits when we actively reward certain behaviors. Being too punitive and too angry about some folks being rich hurts society as a whole. Bill Gates helped create real value for society by making the PC available to the masses, thereby revolutionizing life and business for pretty much everyone. We need to not be discouraging things like that (things like people creating real value for society by being business people, etc). But I do think we need to do a better job of not shafting the masses.
    - AnimalMuppet 9y ago

jernfrost 9y ago

It is only stealing, when the premise is that there is no society, democracy or state, and everything you ever earned was earned completely independent of everything else. At least that is what the neo-liberal fantasy world seems to be. They treat capitalism as if it some natural law of nature. Every capitalist has to make their money within a society. That society is what enables them to become rich. Put Bill Gates in Somalia as a child, and there never would have been a Microsoft and he never would have been a billionaire. Bill Gates and his fortune is a product of the society he grew up in which is shaped by democratic participation, deciding on what should and should not be taxed. If a democracy says we can increase taxes on the wealthy, then that is just a choice, not stealing.

AnimalMuppet 9y ago
> That society is what enables them to become rich. Somewhat true. Where you go with it is false, though. You seem to think that the society is all that enabled them to become rich. But if that's true, why does Bill Gates have more money than me? I'm in the same society. > If a democracy says we can increase taxes on the wealthy, then that is just a choice, not stealing. That presumes that everything a democracy decides on is just a choice - that it can't be wrong. I disagree with that statement. More, I think history disagrees with that statement.
- Mz 9y ago
  You seem to think that the society is all that enabled them to become rich. But if that's true, why does Bill Gates have more money than me? I'm in the same society. Billionaires didn't really exist until there were billions of people. You can't amass that kind of wealth if there aren't people to generate it. Wealth is a means of capturing value and part of the value it captures is the value created by human intelligence and labor. The fact that some people are both talented at capturing value created by society as a whole and well positioned to do so is a large factor in why some people have vast wealth and some do not. It doesn't mean someone like Bill Gates is "better"/smarter/whatever overall than other people. There is a combination of factors that lead to the concentration of wealth in the hands of one person like that. This is why people argue so much about it. That wealth is created by the very existence of all of society, but inordinately benefits a small percentage of people. I don't know how we do this better. I am not for Basic Income, nor am I for trying to manipulate things with a goal of creating "level" outcomes. I think both of those approaches are inherently problematic. For one thing, society as a whole benefits when we actively reward certain behaviors. Being too punitive and too angry about some folks being rich hurts society as a whole. Bill Gates helped create real value for society by making the PC available to the masses, thereby revolutionizing life and business for pretty much everyone. We need to not be discouraging things like that (things like people creating real value for society by being business people, etc). But I do think we need to do a better job of not shafting the masses.
  - AnimalMuppet 9y ago