Are you FOR or AGAINST redistribution of wealth?

Caty,

Preventing a surge in economic inequality should not be deemed "redistribution of wealth". For one thing, it is about ensuring that everyone has at least some legitimate avenue to wealth creation, and for another, any discussion which has the term "redistribution of wealth" in it, will necessarily be skewed.

I see lots of answers to your question where it seems clear that only the title was read.

Against. I shouldn't even have to explain myself.

If you redistribute all wealth equally . . . Harvard studies indicate that the .999% (Paul Krugman) who now have all the wealth, will have it all back in a few years. The people who have the wealth are the "efficient players" in the current economic model. The problem is not wealth redistribution. The problem is JOBS. Right now there are not a lot of jobs worldwide. People believe that jobs gives them wealth and will satisfy their needs. Donald Trumps University teachers teach that JOB only spells "Just over broke!" The real super rich have no jobs, they have "ownership." This is a long story . . . suggest We might start by re-examining Louis Orth Kelso's successful introduction of the ESOPs. That is employee ownership. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_O._Kelso Later he suggested a solution to "ownership" for the masses when you have a rich society. He was given the audiences of top corporate executives who listened, and then politely dismissed his ideas. So, maybe he had something there? Maybe we could create a system from his ideas of ownership, which is the key to success in capitalism. Income producing assets, instead of debt (expenses) producing assets like homes and low paying jobs.

The only professor brave enough to be teaching a course in Binary Economics, Professor Robert Ashford, Professor of Law, Syracuse University, College of Law. http://www.iaed.org/ashford

We may need some modification to our current Global Capitalist Economic System before there is some backlash. Many people are thinking about this now worldwide.

Good luck!

My simple answer: I'm against it.

Why? Here's my rationale: Say we’re in a class together of about 20 people. Five of us study hard and we get an “A” on a test. There are five who study just as hard, but only get a “B”. The rest of the class study little or none and earn a “D” or an “F”. The teacher feels badly that not everyone gets a decent grade, so she averages out all of the test scores and give everyone the same grade.

Is this fair? Is it right? How would you feel if you studied hard and got the “A” or “B” only to have that grade you worked so hard for spread out so that the ones that did not study received the same average grade as you?

Chris, I would love the teacher's grading system if I had a grade lower than an A but only if I were brain dead.

What kind of redistribution? Recently we have seen wealth being redistributed from the middle class to the wealthy. Is that the kind of redistribution we are discussing?

Redistribution of wealth through natural economic circumstance is good; confiscation of one person's assets in favor of another who did nothing to earn it is not.

Natural events of redistribution occur in a most pronounced manner during periods of economic upheaval, such as we are experiencing today. Aside from the everyday redistribution that occurs among winners and losers in the capital markets, a most glaring example occured during the S&L crisis of the 80's, when billion in real estate value changed hands. Those positioned properly took advantage and did quite well, by and large. Those who were highly leveraged generally did not do well. The outcomes of such redistributions were predictable, if not predetermined, by the choices those individuals made prior to the upheaval. Those poised to take advantage of the intersections of preparation and opportunity are the ones who accumulate wealth.

I camp with those who defend responsibility and self-detrmination, and respect those who pursue available educations, increasingly better job opportunities, and manage their resources with intelligence and hard work, accumulating wealth through individual talent and effort. I value the freedom we have to pursue happiness and fortune though the choices we make, and marvel at the multitude of paths we have available to attain them.

Not all of us are blessed with such talents, however, and so a compassionate nation establishes social safety nets to help those who cannot help themselves. Creating educational and economic programs designed to "level the playing field" for those who choose not to participate fully in a capitalist system leads to socialism; in our case, it has been a creeping socialism that is now knocking on the doorstep of those who have discovered the means to prosperity.

As Margaret Thatcher once said so succinctly, "the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." In the end, without freedom to enjoy the rewards of achievement, there will be precious little wealth to redistribute.

I'm in favor of wealth redistribution, as long as it continues to be redistributed to me. Ever since Reagan took office in 1980, I've benefited from government policies that have made it easier for me to get rich, stay rich, and keep my wealth in the family forever. I don't want this to change. Any new policy that makes it harder for me to keep my money is a bad policy. I'm against redistribution if it's the kind that goes against me. (Isn't it ironic?)

I was lucky during my time as an undergrad at the University of Oregon to take an upper division Economics offering toward my major with Peter Lambert, and spend 10 weeks discussing this issue. He literally wrote the book - http://www.amazon.com/Distribution-Redistribution-Income-Third/dp/0719057329. Even this expert's answer (if I remember correctly) was "It's complicated". His work would be a great resource if you're interested in learning more on the topic.

Why do you want to redistribute wealth? The same exact idea is central to the Marxist theme. The Proletariat and the Bourgeoisie in a continual struggle for balance that never comes to create the idyll Utopia. Sorry, but this is never going to work. Why does our President, who has the same outlook, think this same thing? All that Communism does is create an enemy of Capitalism, which you're currently seeing the product of.

When using the real numbers for unemployment, we are currently at 16% going by National Labor stats. This is far different than the 9.1% the media says we are at. By the way, this counts everybody on the roles currently, those who's dropped off the roles, those who've given up on finding a job and those who've recently lost their jobs.

Not to mention the continual growth of the governmental Leviathan that is placing more and more restrictions upon individuals than at any other time. With unfriendly business tactics our present administration has done more to increase unemployment, proving that government is causing more of the problems we have than any other administration before. Even FDR never did what the Obama administration has done. Also, increasing our debt by $5.5 trillion hasn't helped matters.

There is a major flaw with thinking redistribution of wealth can change everything. It doesn't due to the fact that government is never the solution, but is the very problem. Ronald Reagan was right in this respect, and this cannot be disputed. When government is increased in size, the direct relationship is that everyone else has to suffer for it.

Regarding wealth and property:

In the United States, some of the founding fathers and several subsequent leaders expressed opposition to redistribution of wealth. Samuel Adams stated: "The utopian schemes of leveling [redistribution of wealth], and a community of goods, are as visionary and impracticable as those that vest all property in the Crown. [These ideas] are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government, unconstitutional."[13] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redistribution_of_wealth

"Property is the fruit of labor...property is desirable...is a positive good in the world. That some should be rich shows that others may become rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another; but let him labor diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume VII, "Reply to New York Workingmen's Democratic Republican Association" (March 21, 1864), pp. 259-260.

Abraham Lincoln on justice, equality, liberty:

"With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow and his orphan - to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations."

"As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it, "All men are created equal, except Negroes." When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read, "All men are created equal except Negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some other country where they make no pretense of loving liberty - to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, without the base alloy of hypocrisy."

Best!
Shakti Saran

I really agree with what Ted Meredith has posted.

The quote from Margaret Thatcher, "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.” is right on.

Equal opportunity is important and essential in a free market. But when people begin to think that they are simply entitled to share in prosperity just because they showed up, that is not healthy for an economy or a society. Socialism has never worked and is a destructive way of thinking for economic development. Wealth redistribution is not about the “have’s” and the “have-not’s”. It’s about consumers and producers. Those with the consumer mindset, without any effort of their own, want what the producers have worked for and created.

I’m all for helping those who cannot truly help themselves. There should be “safety nets” of charity and assistance when there is actual need. But to redistribute what someone has earned to those who have not made an effort is not doing anyone a favor. Wealth redistribution is not equal opportunity and does not help people in the long run.

Tim, perhaps the people who want to redistribute wealth suffer from empathy overload; they feel so bad for some people that they want to force all of us to help. I personally feel that anyone who wants to redistribute wealth must first start by giving away their own wealth. Unless they do that their words have little meaning. Walk the walk, don't just talk the talk. Also, giving away your wealth before you die is not the same as giving it away as soon as you amass it. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is still robbery even if it makes you feel good.

Warren Buffet made it clear that there is no wealth without redistribution in some form.

The "Great Depression of 1929" (1921-1939) closely resembles the current Depression (2001-2019?), including identical action to stop the depression that exaggerated its effects, by Presidents Herbert Hoover and George Bush. In 1929, the richest 1% of Americans controlled 25% of all wealth. In 1980, the top 1% account for 10% of all wealth. In 2008, the top 1% account for 24% of all wealth (one theory of the Depression was decline of public buying power due to wealth hoarding). Hoarding is unhealthy, but more importantly, currency is a unit of trade and as its circulation is decreased then so is its true value. The churn of this currency is what Warren Buffet feels made his companies successful and himself rich. The "churn" or turnover of currency transactions echoed many times over creates our GDP number.

One reason for leaving the Gold Standard (that Ron Paul espouses) is that like other financial metrics it doesn't work in severe Depressions. In its first test, neither does Bretton-Woods. (Picture a freezing man burning Benjamins to keep warm.) The current true interest rate is negative which cannot fit into today's financial structure. The pegging of currencies against each other has a part in creating this 20 year recovery scenario. The easiest solution is for a worldwide financial system crash to RESET the financial system; this of course would have the side effect of wealth redistribution.

I'm actually hoping the US Government does go into default. The last Government shutdown, brought about by Newt Gingrich in 1995-6, had negligible effects on the average US Citizen but major repercussions throughout the world banking systems.

I would turn the question around. Who do you trust to decide how much wealth anyone should have? The problem is a lack of understanding of true economics by too many. Rich people do not become, or stay, rich by hoarding their money.
It is only by turning it over, through buying stocks, investing in business ideas, and buying personal items that they increase their wealth. When a rich person buys a bus, or plane, they don't do it solely to show wealth. It does two things. 1) Gives them more time to use creating greater income. 2) Permits them to travel more easily, with greater use of resources. I.e., allowing closer supervision of employees, and catching problems sooner.
No real person is like Scrooge McDuck, hoarding money. Not is they want to be, or stay rich. It's making every dollar earn more than its own value. IOW interest on money loaned out. Interest is not, in itself, bad. It is a reward for risk. If I have a 50% chance of getting it back, I want a high risk premium. If I have a 99.9% chance of getting paid back, I want 1% over inflation. usury, is charging more than a justified risk premium.
Some see "redistributing income" as a way of shearing the same sheep every day. Europe has seen the foolishness of the idea. When taxation (what you're really talking about) gets too high, people do one of two things. 1) They stop earning money above a certain point. 2) They move themselves/their income somewhere that they pay fewer taxes.
For example, if I can live on $1,000/month, and work 10 hours/month, why should I work/earn more? If I keep $0.99 of every dollar over that $1K, I can do a lot with that extra income. On The Other hand, if I keep $0.01 out of that dollar, why should I work/earn more. Let's say I can spend $0.25 of each extra dollar, to keep another $0.25, I may or may not earn/work more.
The real problem is that to "redistribute income," there must be sufficient income floating freely, to do it. There must also be an ability for people to acquire it. Just giving it away doesn't work. People want to earn it. But, Government wants to decide who should "earn" it, and how. This distorts the free flow of money, and prevents true redistribution.

Ayn Rand was wrong. True Capitalism is selfishly altruistic as part of its own best interest. Too many people confuse greed with Capitalism, they are not the same thing.