What is 'fair' wealth distribution?

[MikePowers321]

Attached is a pdf document. I pulled the chapter straight from a book. It is written in conversation form, attempting to give a potential guideline, a recommendation on how to handle monetary issues "fairly" Check it out with an open mind. Maybe it will resonate with you, maybe not. Just throwin it out there as it seems on topic.

 

[ward]

Some think that the Rawlsian veil of ignorance scenario is a good starting point for reflection: the fair distribution of goods is that dictated by the fair terms of cooperation, the basic rules of which are those which you would agree to live under prior to knowing your place in the society--your natural talents, your handicaps, your ideology, your parents' salary and education level, etc., etc. It's bit like having to cut a pie prior to knowing which piece you're going to get. Under this condition, the one cutting the pie tends to divide it fairly.

If I recall correctly, the difference principle states that social inequalities are acceptable provided they are to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged group. In other words, inequality is fair provided that the least fortunate members of society can still benefit from the arrangement. If you look around at a lot of low wage jobs, it is arguable that they do not really benefit the workers but just steal from them, materially and spiritually. I think Rawls suggests that maybe a fair distribution isn't the same distribution. Provided that organizations within the society are open and people can advance themselves and cultivate their abilities, I think some degree of inequality is inevitable and necessary. One thing to remember is that unlike the other social goods (liberties, rights, etc), wealth is not "distributed" by a single entity, like the guy who cuts up the cake. Wealth is earned through the turnstiles of capitalism, both in its free and in its subsidized forms. Don't expect anyone to distribute wealth from on high. Even the socialist countries require work of their citizens. What we want is not equality of outcomes, but equal opportunity to advance. And there is the rub with the whole system: it is set up in such a way that few people can become wealthy from their starting point. Most will "die tryin'"

 

[BRT]

At what point would I feel ok if it was my decision to redistribute some else's money?

The question is--do you have the right to make that decision? Does anyone else?

The problem with the question is--everybody's opinion would be different. In capitalism, we are all allowed to "march to the tune of a different drummer", and all that. Merle_Nelson summed it up several posts ago, "Hmm,....sorry but, I think we are all about where we want to be." That's only one of the reasons capitalism answers this question better than any other system. Notice I did not say perfectly--but better by far.

 

[Oroboros]

The question is--do you have the right to make that decision? Does anyone else?

The problem with the question is--everybody's opinion would be different. In capitalism, we are all allowed to "march to the tune of a different drummer", and all that. Merle_Nelson summed it up several posts ago, "Hmm,....sorry but, I think we are all about where we want to be." That's only one of the reasons capitalism answers this question better than any other system. Notice I did not say perfectly--but better by



Perhaps we can ask ourselves if we collectively have the right?

 

[BRT]

Attached is a pdf document. I pulled the chapter straight from a book. It is written in conversation form, attempting to give a potential guideline, a recommendation on how to handle monetary issues "fairly" Check it out with an open mind. Maybe it will resonate with you, maybe not. Just throwin it out there as it seems on topic.

Interesting. Possible? Beneficial?

Still, interesting.

 

[BRT]

"Perhaps we can ask ourselves if we collectively have the right?"

Just how are "we" going to decide who gets to take people's possessions and distribute them around to others? See, this is the crux of the whole thing. And you were good enough to take a stab at the root question: "What ratio would be acceptable". It's all well and good to look at the "super rich" and say, well, they don't need/deserve all that money. So after you break all the billionaires, there are only millionaires. Now, with their purchasing power, they are the "super rich." Sooooo.....they're the next ones you go after. Break all the millionaires. Now there are only people with $500,000. With their purchasing power, they are now the "super rich." I'll assume you see the inevitable pattern. Now, when you're considered the "super rich," who's going to stop them from coming for your "wealth." This is the point--most are content with taking from the "rich." Different ballgame when it comes to their property. Question: Why shouldn't the "super rich" enjoy equal property protection under the law as you? The ugly fact is: they do. And they will, if those rights are taken away as well. It will still be equal protection (or lack thereof). Because you know what? --You won't have any protection either. Just like the Nazis came for one group at a time.... Winston Churchill once noted, "The inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries." You want Bernie--ie. more of Barry? --get ready for the miseries!

 

[BRT]

Second, I am big on tests. Take those sixty nine people and remove all of their wealth. If you allow them a reasonable period of life most that were self made will have it all back again, OR, have had a great time trying to produce similar results. Conversely, haven't you heard about most lottery winners? Broke or worse in x (2.3 years?) amount of time. This test of redistribution of wealth has been done and documented by the way.

Over, and over, and over, and over--yet, like the drunk to the bottle, we keep going back to the same old failed ideology.

 

[BRT]

What we want is not equality of outcomes, but equal opportunity to advance. And there is the rub with the whole system: it is set up in such a way that few people can become wealthy from their starting point. Most will "die tryin'"

"What we want is not equality of outcomes, but equal opportunity to advance." In one word--America.

"And there is the rub with the whole system: it is set up in such a way that few people can become wealthy from their starting point." Tell me: how many can become wealthy in Russia? Venezuela? China? I mean, this is all fluffy and fun, but how about some perspective? We're getting ready to wreck the "Last Great Hope" with Socialist Bernie Sanders. To become what? Cuba? North Korea? Greece?

And if you say---"No, no, wait, you only mentioned the worst ones." I tell you it is only a matter of time--and it will be preciously short--that the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, etc. will be filing bankruptcy and asking the EU to prop them up.

 

[BRT]

Attached is a pdf document. I pulled the chapter straight from a book. It is written in conversation form, attempting to give a potential guideline, a recommendation on how to handle monetary issues "fairly" Check it out with an open mind. Maybe it will resonate with you, maybe not. Just throwin it out there as it seems on topic.

Here's a good read for you Mike: http://fee.org/freeman/why-socialism-failed/

 

[Treezybreez]

Visited Russia in 08. I remember seeing a sign leftover from the socialist days that translated, " Glory to Work ". It even had the old sickle/hammer emblem. It is sad that they had to try and convince people that work was worth pursuing.

 

[Richard Mumford-yoyoman]

Maybe knowing what is not fair is easier than know what is fair.
At the very base I would say it should resemble ones own contribution to the society they are part of.
A fair distribution would probably resemble the bell curve that represents a populations attributes.
Distributions of wealth are pretty far from any bell curve I have seen.

 

[BRT]

In a very similar or, perhaps the same, vein as Stihlmadd mentioned. The people who are wealthy are so because of the abundant resources in our country, whether it be gold, timber or labor etc. Why shouldn't we all share in that to some degree? Why should we not have more social programs?

Found this on a personal finance blog:
"In my country the wages are pretty small. Let’s say many Romanians make 400-500 dollars/month and consider themselves lucky (others make maybe 250). And yet most of these hard-working people would give money to beggars, since we’re Christians, aren’t we, and God likes seeing us take care of other men.

The nice thing is that once in a while someone gets more details about the ‘business’ (because it is a business). Either the beggar (if he’s working ‘alone’) makes 1-2K dollars/month (way more than many Romanians in half an year) or he’s just a ‘pawn’ in a bigger ‘mob’ scheme, where others are collecting quite some money.

All while the hard-working people have jobs which are paying crappy wages, and our ‘wonderful’ State is also robbing them blind with huge taxes (and 24% VAT on anything other than bread)." signed, Dojo



Levi, would you care to guess how much money beggars in the US make? --> $15 per hour; or about $30,000 per year. Keep in mind; they get their money from ordinary citizens--there is no way the government could or would pay them such a sum. Remember the doctor analogy--the government would waste %75 of every dollar before it handed the money to the beggar.

So the American beggar makes considerably more than his Romanian counterpart. That is to say-- American beggars are, "shar(ing) in the abundant resources of our country" to a large degree.

 

[baumeister]

I don't understand why you are asking what is fair wealth distribution. There is only one way wealth get distributed: when you spend your money. So always buy local.!!! Get off the grid and don't use vehicles anymore. If everyone did that I guarantee we would have a huge wealth re-distribution.

 

[Nish]

Tree work has been an eye opener for me. Some of the groundies I've worked alongside or employed have a pretty good claim on belonging to that least advantaged group Ward mentions (Ward, I envy your memory). They're at least a lot closer to that group than anyone I knew in the universities. This has helped me appreciate the obstacles to improving their lives, whether privately or through legislatively enacted policy changes specifically aimed at that end. Give Bernie Sanders the White House and full control of both houses, and fill the courts with progressive justices. Is this really going to help the prospects of these groundies and their cohort, and the next generation of them?

Readers here have confronted real hardship cases among the people they work with and their families. Most will probably have thought hard about what it takes, or might take, to help these folks succeed. I'd love to hear thoughts on this.

 

[BRT]

Tree work has been an eye opener for me. Some of the groundies I've worked alongside or employed have a pretty good claim on belonging to that least advantaged group Ward mentions (Ward, I envy your memory). They're at least a lot closer to that group than anyone I knew in the universities. This has helped me appreciate the obstacles to improving their lives, whether privately or through legislatively enacted policy changes specifically aimed at that end. Give Bernie Sanders the White House and full control of both houses, and fill the courts with progressive justices. Is this really going to help the prospects of these groundies and their cohort, and the next generation of them?

Readers here have confronted real hardship cases among the people they work with and their families. Most will probably have thought hard about what it takes, or might take, to help these folks succeed. I'd love to hear thoughts on this.

Encourage morals. Encourage traditional family values. The best thing that can happen to those groundies, and their children, and their children's children, is to live with their biological mom and dad, in a home with their siblings, for their entire childhood. Look up the statistics on fatherless children. No government can replace having a father in the home. It's plane and simple, but for some reason, we want to try every other way.

 

[Nish]

Encourage morals. Encourage traditional family values....

I'm all for insisting upon responsible parenting, a good work ethic, personal responsibility, keeping one's word, respecting others' property, etc. I'd happily opt for the widespread distribution of these virtues over any wealth redistribution plan I can imagine. But one reason why so many "want to try every other way" is that traditional morality and family values tend to also carry baggage. When progressives hear "traditional family values" they mainly hear restrictions on abortion, abstinence-only sex ed, preventing gay parents from adopting, and the reinforcement of arguably oppressive gender stereotypes. It's doubtful how any of this stuff helps the least advantaged.

 

[BRT]

I'm all for insisting upon responsible parenting, a good work ethic, personal responsibility, keeping one's word, respecting others' property, etc. I'd happily opt for the widespread distribution of these virtues over any wealth redistribution plan I can imagine.

Then promote it. And vote for public officials who promote it. The current administration has done everything within its power to undermine these values.

But one reason why so many "want to try every other way" is that traditional morality and family values tend to also carry baggage. When progressives hear "traditional family values" they mainly hear restrictions on abortion, abstinence-only sex ed, preventing gay parents from adopting, and the reinforcement of arguably oppressive gender stereotypes.

Of course. They want to live a lifestyle of their choosing void of consequences.

It's doubtful how any of this stuff helps the least advantaged.

Is it? For myself (and I venture to say most in this country who lead productive, fulfilled lives), I owe my happiness, purpose, success, etc. to my Judeo-Christian values. Take a look at those around you--I bet they can pretty much say the same. If not the values of their choosing, chances are good they were passed down by parents or grandparents.

There was a time in my life when I let go of those values. Several years went by and I reached a point where I could see the road ahead, and what lay in store. If I had not returned to my Judeo-Christian values, I would have surely ended up as your groundie.

Step outside of those values: decline, and ultimately, an early death is inevitable. Take a closer look at the "least advantaged". Most often, you will find personal choices that run counter to Judeo-Christian values. It's a simple fact. Care to join me in a visit to Union Mission here in Norfolk, VA?

 

[Nish]

I agree that, characteristically, progressives don't place enough emphasis on the responsibilities of parents and individuals for their own wellbeing and that of their offspring. It's a mistake is to always jumble together these responsibilities with the full suite of "Judeo-Christian values," and, even worse, the traditionally associated metaphysical commitments.

 

[BRT]

I agree that, characteristically, progressives don't place enough emphasis on the responsibilities of parents and individuals for their own wellbeing and that of their offspring. It's a mistake is to always jumble together these responsibilities with the full suite of "Judeo-Christian values," and, even worse, the traditionally associated metaphysical commitments.

Hey--it's free choice. Just don't be disappointed when humanism leaves you empty and hopeless. And--on a macro level--society will experience the same plight.

 

[baumeister]

Imo empty and hopeless is also a choice , not something humanism may leave you with.
Find what brings you joy and go there. Don't assume is is religion to everybody.