4 ms·

Unfortunately human nature being what it is, everyone will have to agree together that income (not necessarily wealth) will need to be re-distributed. So in ord

Unfortunately human nature being what it is, everyone will have to agree together that income (not necessarily wealth) will need to be re-distributed. So in order to do this the high earners (1%, highly profitable companies) will have forgo some income to re-distribute to the lower income earners; this doesn't necessarily mean that some people will make more without working. This means not only do some people need to be employed that are currently unemployed, but also some people (middle class?) need to be paid more for what they do. From what I can see there are two ways to do this; both of which effectively force _all_ high income people (both natural and legal) to employ and pay more. Both of these methods are generally denigrated in the US media, and I suspect by a largish number of the people who would benefit most by these methods. Taxes and unions. Both of these lead to higher pay and employment, one is forced and paid for by the government, the other is forced by employees and paid for by employers. Can anyone think of any other options that would force all high income people to re-distribute their income largely together? EDIT: I should have said distributed by government and distributed by employers, not paid.

cobrausn 14y ago
Can anyone think of any other options that would force all high income people to re-distribute their income largely together? A failing economy or, failing that, an economic meltdown? The problem I see with taxes as a solution is that it generally doesn't redistribute wealth to the middle class (if that is your goal) as much as it does redistribute wealth to those with political connections, and the rhetoric tends to catch the upper-middle class in the crosshairs - which, if I'm reading this correctly, would make the problem worse.
- tankenmate 14y ago
  I could be wrong but most government employees I have met in management normally gauge themselves and their peers by the number of reports that they have. Also, an area where I feel government does a good job of driving economic growth is infrastructure; these tend to employ more in the lower income brackets, the "builders" and and middle income brackets, the "designers" and "managers". Obviously you can have too much infrastructure, like some examples of housing in China. However I don't think the US is suffering too much from over infrastructure. Another point is that government jobs could be paid more, especially for critical jobs for "future proofing" like teachers, however in the US there is a disconnect between federal taxation and local / state employment in teaching, especially at the earlier age portions of education. Another idea may be to extend unemployment benefits if you elect to work part-time for your local / state / federal government on short term projects; I realise that normally short term and government don't always wind up on the same page.
  - ams6110 14y ago
    The problem with most government jobs is that they don't involve adding value to anything. A business's profits come from the value that its activities create. Government jobs on the other hand are mostly bureaucratic, and just tap money from one source (taxpayers) and give it to another, inefficiently, and without creating any value anywhere in the process. So increasing government employment can function as a wealth transfer mechanism, but in the grand scheme of the economy it doesn't really help.

cobrausn 14y ago

Can anyone think of any other options that would force all high income people to re-distribute their income largely together? A failing economy or, failing that, an economic meltdown? The problem I see with taxes as a solution is that it generally doesn't redistribute wealth to the middle class (if that is your goal) as much as it does redistribute wealth to those with political connections, and the rhetoric tends to catch the upper-middle class in the crosshairs - which, if I'm reading this correctly, would make the problem worse.

tankenmate 14y ago
I could be wrong but most government employees I have met in management normally gauge themselves and their peers by the number of reports that they have. Also, an area where I feel government does a good job of driving economic growth is infrastructure; these tend to employ more in the lower income brackets, the "builders" and and middle income brackets, the "designers" and "managers". Obviously you can have too much infrastructure, like some examples of housing in China. However I don't think the US is suffering too much from over infrastructure. Another point is that government jobs could be paid more, especially for critical jobs for "future proofing" like teachers, however in the US there is a disconnect between federal taxation and local / state employment in teaching, especially at the earlier age portions of education. Another idea may be to extend unemployment benefits if you elect to work part-time for your local / state / federal government on short term projects; I realise that normally short term and government don't always wind up on the same page.
- ams6110 14y ago
  The problem with most government jobs is that they don't involve adding value to anything. A business's profits come from the value that its activities create. Government jobs on the other hand are mostly bureaucratic, and just tap money from one source (taxpayers) and give it to another, inefficiently, and without creating any value anywhere in the process. So increasing government employment can function as a wealth transfer mechanism, but in the grand scheme of the economy it doesn't really help.