Wealth redistribution is dumb

[Hitta]

Progressive taxation actually does the opposite of its intended effect It slowly corrodes away at the middle class. This is because it restricts the market's ability to restructure which allows for mobility from the lower class to the middle or upper portions and vice versa. To understand this, think about the flow of money. If you tax the upper portion of the tax brackets for higher amounts and the money gets funneled back to the lower class, the lower class are already in debt and having very little savings. So the lower class uses the money in the only way it can.... to survive. The lower class spends the money on the commodities that it needs to survive which isolates these certain commodities and resources even more as being absolutely crucial. The taxes end up becoming a battery for the upper class/rich. Prices on these commodities will go up and it slowly erodes the middle class.
In the end it is very much like Jenga, you remove blocks from the middle and place them on the top.

[Hitta]

I agree with the conclusion and am in favor of smaller government and more money going back to/staying in the hands of citizens, as that has shown economically to help the most in the long-run in most every country, as any Austrian economist can tell you. However, I think your argument wasn't the best-formulated. You make many assumptions/oversimplifications.

First, you assume that because the lower class have very little savings, that giving them extra money means they will spend it. This can be insulting to those who would work in saving their money or paying off debt in order to get out of the lower class.

Second, you assume / make the argument that the rich are immune to the effect of higher taxes on them. History has shown that without taxes on the rich, there is truly no 'trickle down' effect - if you have less taxes on the rich, they tend to get richer. Yes, when you tax the rich, they will still ultimately stay wealthy because of their financial literacy, their understanding of owning assets and businesses and investing, etc., but some of that tax money will directly help both the middle and lower classes.

Finally, only discussing the point of taxes when arguing why wealth redistribution is dumb is a very isolated way of viewing things. If you are considering dissecting aspects of social class change from lower to middle or upper or vice versa, you should consider the availability of high-income jobs or opportunities, the overall strength of the country's money supply relative to it's federal reserve rate and GDP, and its long-term stance on international trade, whether the country is viewed as a major importer or exporter of goods and services and the country's stance on education, whether provided free publicly or funded, in order to supply its citizens with the skills to succeed within the country.

There is nothing insulting about it at all. They have to spend the money to survive. People in poverty are in debt. They have to pay off their bills, buy things to survive with, etc. They are essentially forced to do these things because of their situation.

Secondly on trickle down economics,money does trickle down... it's just that the money is pooled so densely at the top of the hierarchy that the trickling is very minor. Saying that money doesn't trickle down is akin to saying that there is no purpose for jobs at all. System monopolies mute the ability for money to be spread evenly. If you have more businesses competing, then those businesses have to compete for labor. This increases wages, limits earning potentials of businesses and overall balances things out.

[Hitta]

When you are being insulting, it's not your position to say you're not insulting. Besides, BEYOND all the things you mentioned - are you really assuming that 100% of every extra dollar will go for basic survival STILL? Then how do you formulate any 'lower class' person in your model of the world to be able to escape the lower class?

Actually it is my position to say it's not insulting, as I never said that every dollar would go to these things. I'm speaking in generalities, based on common sense.

Saying the money doesn't trickle down is NOT akin to saying that there is no purpose for jobs at all, AT ALL. But nice job trying to shiftily change the words of my argument.

In your world, if you don't tax the rich as much and expect the middle and lower classes to pick up the slack for tax (in proportion *hopefully* in your model for lower prices of commodities), then how will you expect more businesses to be competing, when small businesses have more costs to pay (in taxes), and thus would hire fewer people? Your model would make it more difficult for small business owners and would stifle job creation.

That is exactly what you are saying. If people do not get their money from jobs or by opening their own business... how else are they supposed to get the money? Wealth redistribution?

Also it is obvious you don't understand my model at all, as my model wouldn't hurt small business, it'd help it. The liquidity would be spread more to different businesses as the consumer would have a broader range of places to buy their goods and services. With more businesses, there would be more jobs. These businesses would work very hard to out do the other businesses so they'd compete for the best employees, meaning they'd put a premium on the wages they pay as they progress for the better crop of employees. With the wealth being spread out more, due to the increased competition the ability for businesses to hold a monopoly on the market would diminish meaning there would be a kind of pseudo upper cap on the earnings potential.

[Kalinoche buenanoche]

That is exactly what you are saying. If people do not get their money from jobs or by opening their own business... how else are they supposed to get the money? Wealth redistribution?

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/ben-b...licopter-money

toying around with basic income and group utility functions

The liquidity would be spread more to different businesses as the consumer would have a broader range of places to buy their goods and services. With more businesses, there would be more jobs.

to what extent will the average consumer want to have a broader range of places to buy their goods and services?

it could be that we are heading towards some sort of controlled pluralism when it comes to funding sources for small firms. keep in mind that a more elaborate incubation industry is expanding. also, there is the post-GFC aspect that allows for an agambian state of exception

[Sol]

Progressive taxation is useful as soft method to reduce exploitation and hence desctructive effects of it. More effective economical format is only socialism.
The modern economics becomes more liberal and progressive taxation takes less place in it. As result we see today the reduction of middle class and rising of social decile coefficient.

[End]

Also, this man disagrees with you and will steal your money

Robin Hood is the most misunderstood and flat out lied about story I've ever seen. Nobody, nobody, (I'm look at you liberals) ever remembers to put in the context. Robin Hood didn't steal from "rich" people, he stole from the state apparatus itself. Taxation, being a form of theft, is evil. Robin Hood, realizing this, decided to act. It is not, after all, necessarily wrong to "steal back" something that was stolen from you. Ergo, Robin Hood decided to steal from tax collectors (thieves) and give back to the poor (victims of theft).

Given that context, Robin Hood is indeed a legendary hero worthy of praise, song, and all the accolades heaped upon him. Would you shoot an IRS agent? Would you have the balls to blast a tax collector, take his ill gotten filthy lucre, and give it back to the innocent person who was just robbed by them even if they, say, happened to be wealthy, owned a business, and gave work to local people? Not many would, for most people are but slaves in a slave mentality. Oh? I can be free? No! Mastahs nice to me, they gives me food and don't whip me as much as last mastah did. Go get from here! No more of this freedom talk you speak of! Mastah! We got a freeman putting bad ideas in the heads of yo' faithful servants, kill him!

Seriously, it's the major issue I have. The slaves had to know, they had to know they so badly outnumbered the masters that they could easily just bum rush the bastard, kill his ass, and leave the plantation as free men and women. Why didn't they? Slave mentality that's why. They accepted the proposition that they were beneath the masters, an inferior life form. Damn those morons, they should have choked those fuckers in their sleep! The masters I mean, the slaves should have killed the masters in their sleep. It's what anyone with a spine and a moral code would have done.

[Beautiful sky]

Well you also have to consider the shift in the economy. The jobs like manufacturing that were held by the middle class are not here anymore. So the jobs that will replace them are in the technology and computer industry, medical, and service industries. But what we're doing now is teaching kids in schools and preparing them for these jobs while the jobs that were lost to the people who worked in mines can not be recovered because they aren't qualified to take up technology jobs.

I'll have to think about taxation to the upper class. Certainly it makes no sense to be able to afford a Swiss account in the millions and billions and have three four houses.

[Beautiful sky]

The problem is that when reeducation funds are available to the lower income families they can't make ends meet efficiently enough to take advantage of them because there's more than just going to school. You have to pay rent often child support, transportation, and food. The cost distribution of these doesn't alow them enough to truly take classes with ease of mind especially if they are a single parent.

[Hitta]

Second, you assume / make the argument that the rich are immune to the effect of higher taxes on them. History has shown that without taxes on the rich, there is truly no 'trickle down' effect - if you have less taxes on the rich, they tend to get richer.

Also, I'd love to know when history has shown this.