• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Dispelling Myths About Income Inequality

It's not a matter of taking money from people "because [we] think they have too much." It is a matter of redistributing the national income more evenly so that the economy functions more efficiently.

Try this analogy: a society produces plenty of food for everybody, but it is distributed unevenly. If the uneven distribution isn't terribly egregious, everybody still gets enough to eat, so they can work a full day and continue to produce a surplus of food. But if the uneven distribution is so bad that a lot of workers don't get enough food to sustain themselves, then overall production is going to suffer.

This is the problem with income in today's economy - too much of it goes to too few, and demand suffers greatly for it.

You don't really give a crap about the poor. All you ever talk about is the economy and, according to your own admission, the better the economy does, the richer the one percent get.
 
You don't really give a crap about the poor. All you ever talk about is the economy and, according to your own admission, the better the economy does, the richer the one percent get.

Was your mother infected with the Zika virus before you were born?
 
All but the last sentence is quite true. The problem with inheritance is that the allocation of productive assets is not by where the highest efficiency is, as it is during the accumulation process. That is why I suspect that inheritance is probably economically inefficient under today's circumstances. Also probably our technology is not yet capable of handling the transfer of property rights in a way that does not do more harm to the economy than we would like.
Interesting theory, but I'm inclined to agree only partially.

Some of those accumulated assets (particularly the funds) are likely being put to use in some productive manner. High net-worth individuals will likely have the largest portions of their assets producing income, since they need to generate income to sustain their lifestyles and cover the expenses of their high-maintenance and depreciating assets.

They may have a high 7 figure house, but they'll also have an 8 figure investment portfolio.

Now their investment portfolio may not be as efficient as the start-up funds used by Steven Jobs and Bill Gates, but it may be reasonably efficient. Of course we really don't know, and it is likely to be extremely conservative unless the bulk of the family's assets are in a hard run family business.
 
Was your mother infected with the Zika virus before you were born?

There you go with the insults again when you can't make a counter point. Whenever you are hit with something you can't respond to, out comes the insults because that is all you got.
 
You don't really give a crap about the poor.
There you go with the insults again
schizophrenia-addiction.jpg
 
Interesting theory, but I'm inclined to agree only partially.

Some of those accumulated assets (particularly the funds) are likely being put to use in some productive manner. High net-worth individuals will likely have the largest portions of their assets producing income, since they need to generate income to sustain their lifestyles and cover the expenses of their high-maintenance and depreciating assets.

They may have a high 7 figure house, but they'll also have an 8 figure investment portfolio.

Now their investment portfolio may not be as efficient as the start-up funds used by Steven Jobs and Bill Gates, but it may be reasonably efficient. Of course we really don't know, and it is likely to be extremely conservative unless the bulk of the family's assets are in a hard run family business.

Oh, the question is not of a totally inefficient system needing a savior. After all, the wealth is in the hands of professional managers that have shown success in their specialties. Much of it would be in the same hands after introducing a different transfer mechanism. The main difference would be that the wealth would belong to persons that had made their money themselves and been successful at that. The assumption is that they would be more prone to investing in areas they understood and were themselves active. It would also have the effect of giving these persons deeper pockets with the capability of making larger investments.

The truth is, however, that the transfer mechanism is unclear and the risks of redistributing wealth have been and remain large. At this point in time I would suspect that we do not have social and economic instruments up to the job without major danger.
 
Back
Top Bottom