4 ms·

> a society which taxes inelastic goods and negative externalities and returns that wealth to the public over one which does not. The problem is that this kind

by pdonis 3y ago

> a society which taxes inelastic goods and negative externalities and returns that wealth to the public over one which does not. The problem is that this kind of society, even if we assume for the sake of argument that it would be preferable, is not really achievable politically. The only way to implement it is to have a government that has the power to coercively tax people, and all history shows that governments will not use that power to redistribute wealth to the public at large; instead they will use it to enrich themselves and their preferred special interests.

jimbokun 3y ago
There are countless programs that redistribute wealth. Welfare payments. Public education. Public health insurance programs. Retirement programs. Recently there has been a down swing in willingness to fund new programs that redistribute wealth. But that could change.
- pdonis 3y ago
  > There are countless programs that redistribute wealth. They purport to, yes, but for most of them, when you dig into the details, you find that what redistribution actually occurs is not from richer to poorer, but the opposite. And much of the money spent on the programs doesn't go to the purported recipients of redistribution at all, but to third parties. (For example, you cite public schools as redistributing wealth--but government funds for public schools only pass through the hands of the families whose children need schooling in the case of school vouchers, which are fairly rare, and in any case the money doesn't stay with those people, it ends up in the hands of the schools themselves. Given the current state of education in the US, anyone who wants to make a case that whatever redistribution of wealth occurs actually benefits the children and families has a very tough case to make.)
  - gottorf 3y ago
    > They purport to, yes, but for most of them, when you dig into the details In other words: POSIWID, or "the purpose of a system is what it does" (and not what it purports to do, because anyone can purport to do anything).

by pdonis 3y ago

jimbokun 3y ago

There are countless programs that redistribute wealth. Welfare payments. Public education. Public health insurance programs. Retirement programs. Recently there has been a down swing in willingness to fund new programs that redistribute wealth. But that could change.

pdonis 3y ago
> There are countless programs that redistribute wealth. They purport to, yes, but for most of them, when you dig into the details, you find that what redistribution actually occurs is not from richer to poorer, but the opposite. And much of the money spent on the programs doesn't go to the purported recipients of redistribution at all, but to third parties. (For example, you cite public schools as redistributing wealth--but government funds for public schools only pass through the hands of the families whose children need schooling in the case of school vouchers, which are fairly rare, and in any case the money doesn't stay with those people, it ends up in the hands of the schools themselves. Given the current state of education in the US, anyone who wants to make a case that whatever redistribution of wealth occurs actually benefits the children and families has a very tough case to make.)
- gottorf 3y ago
  > They purport to, yes, but for most of them, when you dig into the details In other words: POSIWID, or "the purpose of a system is what it does" (and not what it purports to do, because anyone can purport to do anything).