4 ms·

Good argument for socialism. The question that follows any argument that advocates some form of wealth sharing is "what do I get in return?". I think, as a soci

Good argument for socialism. The question that follows any argument that advocates some form of wealth sharing is "what do I get in return?". I think, as a society, we should be valuing the non-materialistic impact we can all have on each other. I am a software developer. I can build things and make money off that, great. I create some value and am compensated in return for that. I can now go seek things I cannot do myself like writing a song, or playing a sport in a manner worthy of my audience and go support the artist or the sportsperson. There now is a working model for wealth sharing. Once we come out of the basic shell of "socialism will breed a generation of welfare seekers", and look at a pivot of capitalism with wealth distribution in mind, it could see some success.

pmiller2 8y ago
Historically, the answer to "what's in it for me" for the elite when it comes to wealth sharing is that it acts as guillotine insurance.
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  And for those who are wealthy but not part of the 1%, the answer is that the guillotine doesn't stop at the 1%.
- Thlom 8y ago
  The social democracies in Scandinavia were basically a class compromise. The capital class accepted the welfare state, relatively high taxes, an organised working class and a organised labour market. In return the working class gave up their struggle for socialism and would follow rules of conflict resolution with the capital class to avoid un-necessary strikes.
hashkb 8y ago
> The question that follows any argument that advocates some form of wealth sharing is "what do I get in return?" This is a ridiculous question to ask. The basis of society is sharing resources; some of us have just forgotten because it's convenient. What do you get in return? To live in a society where nobody is starving, everyone is educated and free to do whatever makes them happy.
- freeone3000 8y ago
  I'm already fed, educated, and free to do whatever I want. It doesn't help me for other people to get the same.
  - rosser 8y ago
    Yes it does. A broadly better-educated citizenry makes for a richer, more robust economy. Reducing or eliminating poverty, the same. "A rising tide lifts all boats," as they say. If you actively think that's not somehow fundamentally helpful to you, or in your best interests, maybe you don't belong in society. If your notion of "freedom" is predicated on other people starving (which I take people to mean when they say it's an infringement upon their freedom to be "forced" to participate in other people's not starving), then I think it's a pretty terrible one. If anyone, anywhere is starving, or enslaved, and you trumpet your own freedom in the face of that, you are necessarily treating freedom as zero-sum, and washing your hands of the costs the people on the other side of that coin are paying — often with their lives. When "freedom" is propped up on someone else's lack of it, I don't personally find it worth celebrating, or being all "Welp, I got mine!" over, myself. EDIT: Phrasing
CodeMage 8y ago
In this context, "what do I get in return?" is a question that is only (seriously) asked by two kinds of people: those who can't stand the thought of having less than the absolute maximum they could get, and those who parrot the words of the former group without thinking. In my opinion, it's pointless to reason with the former, but if I had to try, my answer would be "You still get to be rich, you know, nobody's saying we'll take everything you have." It's the latter group that is a lot more important to convince, though.
- eigen-vector 8y ago
  I think the uber rich—top one percent of the top one percent—have realized that staying rich requires less than 99% of their net worth. This resulted in the 99% pledge aka the giving pledge and similar movements. It's those that are wealthy but not wealthy enough to be a Warren Buffet or Bill Gates that seem to feel like the welfare seekers are coming for them. In my opinion, what would actually convince them are studies and experiments that show that wealth sharing improves the collective health of the society rather than just bringing up the downtrodden. The UBI experiments and higher taxes are small but non-trivial steps towards that.
  - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
    I pay plenty of taxes. The amount of willingness I have to pay more represented as an integer is a very large negative one until capital gains, corporate profits, etc. are taxed at a rate similar to the money I make. This all assumes that pumping money into the problem will solve it. In my estimation there will be more ~100k middle management positions and boondoggle infrastructure projects in government (which are really just middle class welfare programs depending on how you think about it) and poor people will be just as poor.
    - eigen-vector 8y ago
      >The amount of willingness I have to pay more represented as an integer is a very large negative one until capital gains, corporate profits, etc. are taxed at a rate similar to the money I make. I agree. There needs to be reform in multiple dimensions. You also bring up the point about governments being inefficient. That needs fixing. I think it calls into question how much our elected representatives are choosing to look away from the problem. Adding to your point about how inefficient jobs are just welfare programs, the welfare programs themselves are more inefficient than what it seems. It takes way lesser money to push the people at the bottom 10th percent onto the next tier, say, the 20th or even the 30th percent in terms of income than what it takes to push the middle class to upper middle class. The leap is also more significant for someone who cannot afford 3 meals a day to become someone who'd able to afford that, compared to say a family of 4 that makes median income to be able to afford a vacation. To significantly improve the condition of the middle class, it requires way more resources than compared to those that are required to improve the conditions of the poor. If you channel the latter toward the former, almost all the resources go to waste. The problem seems to be that the middle class is a very broad spectrum. Anyone who isn't going through abject poverty or doesn't consider themselves rich is going to consider themselves middle class. This leads to the government pandering to this broad spectrum as part of their vote bank politics. The result is wasted resources and an illusion of efforts spent to bring up the middle class.

pmiller2 8y ago

Historically, the answer to "what's in it for me" for the elite when it comes to wealth sharing is that it acts as guillotine insurance.

AnimalMuppet 8y ago
And for those who are wealthy but not part of the 1%, the answer is that the guillotine doesn't stop at the 1%.
Thlom 8y ago
The social democracies in Scandinavia were basically a class compromise. The capital class accepted the welfare state, relatively high taxes, an organised working class and a organised labour market. In return the working class gave up their struggle for socialism and would follow rules of conflict resolution with the capital class to avoid un-necessary strikes.

hashkb 8y ago

> The question that follows any argument that advocates some form of wealth sharing is "what do I get in return?" This is a ridiculous question to ask. The basis of society is sharing resources; some of us have just forgotten because it's convenient. What do you get in return? To live in a society where nobody is starving, everyone is educated and free to do whatever makes them happy.

freeone3000 8y ago
I'm already fed, educated, and free to do whatever I want. It doesn't help me for other people to get the same.
- rosser 8y ago
  Yes it does. A broadly better-educated citizenry makes for a richer, more robust economy. Reducing or eliminating poverty, the same. "A rising tide lifts all boats," as they say. If you actively think that's not somehow fundamentally helpful to you, or in your best interests, maybe you don't belong in society. If your notion of "freedom" is predicated on other people starving (which I take people to mean when they say it's an infringement upon their freedom to be "forced" to participate in other people's not starving), then I think it's a pretty terrible one. If anyone, anywhere is starving, or enslaved, and you trumpet your own freedom in the face of that, you are necessarily treating freedom as zero-sum, and washing your hands of the costs the people on the other side of that coin are paying — often with their lives. When "freedom" is propped up on someone else's lack of it, I don't personally find it worth celebrating, or being all "Welp, I got mine!" over, myself. EDIT: Phrasing

CodeMage 8y ago

In this context, "what do I get in return?" is a question that is only (seriously) asked by two kinds of people: those who can't stand the thought of having less than the absolute maximum they could get, and those who parrot the words of the former group without thinking. In my opinion, it's pointless to reason with the former, but if I had to try, my answer would be "You still get to be rich, you know, nobody's saying we'll take everything you have." It's the latter group that is a lot more important to convince, though.

eigen-vector 8y ago
I think the uber rich—top one percent of the top one percent—have realized that staying rich requires less than 99% of their net worth. This resulted in the 99% pledge aka the giving pledge and similar movements. It's those that are wealthy but not wealthy enough to be a Warren Buffet or Bill Gates that seem to feel like the welfare seekers are coming for them. In my opinion, what would actually convince them are studies and experiments that show that wealth sharing improves the collective health of the society rather than just bringing up the downtrodden. The UBI experiments and higher taxes are small but non-trivial steps towards that.
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  I pay plenty of taxes. The amount of willingness I have to pay more represented as an integer is a very large negative one until capital gains, corporate profits, etc. are taxed at a rate similar to the money I make. This all assumes that pumping money into the problem will solve it. In my estimation there will be more ~100k middle management positions and boondoggle infrastructure projects in government (which are really just middle class welfare programs depending on how you think about it) and poor people will be just as poor.
  - eigen-vector 8y ago
    >The amount of willingness I have to pay more represented as an integer is a very large negative one until capital gains, corporate profits, etc. are taxed at a rate similar to the money I make. I agree. There needs to be reform in multiple dimensions. You also bring up the point about governments being inefficient. That needs fixing. I think it calls into question how much our elected representatives are choosing to look away from the problem. Adding to your point about how inefficient jobs are just welfare programs, the welfare programs themselves are more inefficient than what it seems. It takes way lesser money to push the people at the bottom 10th percent onto the next tier, say, the 20th or even the 30th percent in terms of income than what it takes to push the middle class to upper middle class. The leap is also more significant for someone who cannot afford 3 meals a day to become someone who'd able to afford that, compared to say a family of 4 that makes median income to be able to afford a vacation. To significantly improve the condition of the middle class, it requires way more resources than compared to those that are required to improve the conditions of the poor. If you channel the latter toward the former, almost all the resources go to waste. The problem seems to be that the middle class is a very broad spectrum. Anyone who isn't going through abject poverty or doesn't consider themselves rich is going to consider themselves middle class. This leads to the government pandering to this broad spectrum as part of their vote bank politics. The result is wasted resources and an illusion of efforts spent to bring up the middle class.