Return to the Hot Topics Forum | Post a Follow-Up

 o
The Fallacy of Redistribution

Posted by markjames (My Page) on
Sat, Sep 22, 12 at 10:00

"The Fallacy of Redistribution
By Thomas Sowell
September 20, 2012 12:00 A.M.

The recently discovered tape on which Barack Obama said back in 1998 that he believes in redistribution is not really news. He said the same thing to Joe the Plumber four years ago. But the surfacing of this tape may serve a useful purpose if it gets people to thinking about what the consequences of redistribution are.

Those who talk glibly about redistribution often act as if people are just inert objects that can be placed here and there, like pieces on a chess board, to carry out some grand design. But if human beings have their own responses to government policies, then we cannot blithely assume that government policies will have the effect intended.

The history of the 20th century is full of examples of countries that set out to redistribute wealth and ended up redistributing poverty. The Communist nations were a classic example, but by no means the only example.

In theory, confiscating the wealth of the more successful people ought to make the rest of the society more prosperous. But when the Soviet Union confiscated the wealth of successful farmers, food became scarce. As many people died of starvation under Stalin in the 1930s as died in Hitler�s Holocaust in the 1940s.

How can that be? It is not complicated. You can confiscate only the wealth that exists at a given moment. You cannot confiscate future wealth � and that future wealth is less likely to be produced when people see that it is going to be confiscated. Farmers in the Soviet Union cut back on how much time and effort they invested in growing their crops when they realized that the government was going to take a big part of the harvest. They slaughtered and ate young farm animals that they would normally have kept tending and feeding while raising them to maturity.

People in industry are not inert objects either. Moreover, unlike farmers, industrialists are not tied to the land in a particular country.

Russian aviation pioneer Igor Sikorsky could take his expertise to America and produce his planes and helicopters thousands of miles away from his native land. Financiers are even less tied down, especially today, when vast sums of money can be dispatched electronically to any part of the world.

If confiscatory policies can produce counterproductive repercussions in a dictatorship, they are even harder to carry out in a democracy. A dictatorship can suddenly swoop down and grab whatever it wants. But a democracy must first have public discussions and debates. Those who are targeted for confiscation can see the handwriting on the wall, and act accordingly.

Among the most valuable assets in any nation are the knowledge, skills, and productive experience that economists call "human capital." When successful people with much human capital leave the country, either voluntarily or because of hostile governments or hostile mobs whipped up by demagogues exploiting envy, lasting damage can be done to the economy they leave behind.

Fidel Castro�s confiscatory policies drove successful Cubans to flee to Florida, often leaving much of their physical wealth behind. But poverty-stricken refugees rose to prosperity again in Florida, while the wealth they left behind in Cuba did not prevent the people there from being poverty-stricken under Castro. The lasting wealth the refugees took with them was their human capital.

We have all heard the old saying that giving a man a fish feeds him only for a day, while teaching him to fish feeds him for a lifetime. Redistributionists give him a fish and leave him dependent on the government for more fish in the future.

If the redistributionists were serious, what they would want to distribute is the ability to fish, or to be productive in other ways. Knowledge is one of the few things that can be distributed to people without reducing the amount held by others.

That would better serve the interests of the poor, but it would not serve the interests of politicians who want to exercise power, and to get the votes of people who are dependent on them.

Barack Obama can endlessly proclaim his slogan of "Forward," but what he is proposing is going backwards to policies that have failed repeatedly in countries around the world.

Yet, to many people who cannot be bothered to stop and think, redistribution sounds good."

---------------------------------------------------------

Speaking of teaching someone to fish, yesterday I taught a guy how to fish for Walleye. He'd been fishing for 5 years, but never caught one.

Here is a link that might be useful: The Fallacy of Redistribution


Follow-Up Postings:

 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

Thank you, markjames, for posting Sowell's prophetic and salient observations and historical reminder of what occurs when Obama's type of "redistribution" is put into practice.


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

He also favours decriminalisation of all drugs. You would need to to get a population to believe this nonsense.

Best wishes
Jon


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

This piece is a classic case of the strawman argument, deliberately interpreting Obama's words at the worst possible meaning, and then demolishing that far-out interpretation.

Markjames, your posts over the years have informed us about how you have successfully managed to live a decent life with plenty of time for family, boating, fishing on lakes, vacation properties etc. - all in a financial climate of the highest property and income tax rates in the US - you seem to do pretty well in that environment. And you often tell us of your own efforts to redistribute wealth - (I'd call it creating opportunity) - among your extended family by donating cars, computers, what ever.

Along with all the hundreds of thousands of other highly successful New Yorkers who live with property, state income, and sales taxes that many of us would consider confiscatory.

The flow of wealth within a society is an interesting study. Through out history, and abet on a smaller scale than the US economy, it works like a fountain - the money flows up the pipe and sprays out again - all kinds of mechanisms to do so - think the potlatch culture of the PNW, tribal chiefs distributing farm land, meat following the hunt, share cropping with built-in security. On a larger scale, we have the US Government and the homestead act, the GI Bill, the Scandinavian countries with their mix of tax rates and capitalism, and so on.

Every successful society has a means of keeping that economic fountain flowing, up and out, up and out. And when that doesn't work, when the wealth gets stuck somewhere in the piping, things go wrong.

Can anyone give an example of a stable society where wealth is increasingly concentrated at the top? Zaire? Maybe Kazakistan?


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

And you often tell us of your own efforts to redistribute wealth - (I'd call it creating opportunity) - among your extended family by donating cars, computers, what ever.

I try to help family with means of self sufficiency and income production - mostly guidance, knowledge and tools of production - vehicles, computers, cell phones, broadband/WiFi, vehicles, tools, equipment etc.

Unfortunately I can't redistribute motivation, discipline, work ethic, pride etc...


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

Unfortunately I can't redistribute motivation, discipline, work ethic, pride etc...

*

If only we could....


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

Unfortunately I can't redistribute motivation, discipline, work ethic, pride etc...

It is not realistic that you can be all things to everyone. But if you help one it helps many. I tried to get this across to someone on another post.

From experience, I helped one lady (one of my tenants) that had several children by helping her how to navigate through life with budgeting, spending and buying groceries vs fast food. It helped her children which has passed through helping more than just the Mom.

The children made better grades, they were not moving constantly due to being evicted from one home to another. Stability and nourishment is key in a kids life.

This helps our society and even me and my child. If you look at if 3 of her children become contributors to society vs 4 including the Mom as a drag of people to support they become contributors. To buy goods, pay taxes, which will help support our arm forces to keep us safe.

So in the end by giving to one can save my life and my child life. If the wealth is concentrated at the top who is going to pay those that protect us to spend that wealth? Who is going to protect us when the next 9/11 happens? Not one bank account is going to carry that gun to protect you.


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

From having listened to the Obama tape instead of just commenting on it It seemed to me that he was not at that point talking about taking money form the rich to give to the poor but taking money from other government funded programs and giving it to programs that would help people help themselves-like taking the money given to the Oil industry(at a time when the oil industry is making the biggest profits of any business in the history of mankind) and using that money for maybe jobs training programs. You cant just do that sort of thing-even within any government office budget money is fixed in place so there has to be action by congress to 'redistribute' the money...so people who get farm subsidy money but dont actually farm might have that resource taken away-that sort of thing. Is that a bad thing to do?


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

There's a whole lot of difference between Sowell's "confiscating" by the Soviets and using taxes to make our country run and give opportunity to people to better themselves. But, I guess Sowell's diatribe appeals to those who don't think critically and want the plutocrats to run this country.


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

salient observations and historical reminder of what occurs when Obama's type of "redistribution" is put into practice.

What does that mean? You mean the practice of taxing the citizens and using that money to run the country? OMG, what was he thinking?

Another example of ignoring facts that don't fit with the agenda.


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

This artcle goes to RUSSIA for answers? Mwahahaha

Did you guys know that during WWll when asked the Russians about oranges, they claimed to have plenty in their country and made LOTS of them in their factories....LMAO. A True story.
You have to give Russians credit for tenacity. Nobody can live in their circumstances. They are one resilient people.

REdistribution UP or down is NOT a good idea.

Tax Codes need to be brought up to date for the 21C type of living. This is a HUGE task, but it needs to be addressed and made FAIR, whatever it comes out to be. The politicians need to go to work, not point fingers at eachother!

We need to concentrate on creating good paying jobs, and not the 2 extremes- wealth and poverty!

1) How did the wealthy become so wealthy?
-changes in tax codes
-Outsourcing jobs
-paying any low wages and no benefits...

2) How did people become poor?
-Outsource of jobs
-Changes in tax codes
-taking on lower and lower paid jobs, no pensions ,or health benefits, or unemployment...job scarcity.

THEEEEEEEE only way to fix this is to address the problem , not a "redistribution" bandaid, up or down.
Just sayin.

I would start with Congress fixing the working and taxpaying laws that are bankrupting this country, nevermind sleeping with the large corporations.

All the taxpayer jobs should be done in the USA, to start.
and....
How do you think the investors make their money?....by making the poor worker work for min wage and no benefits. Any way you look at it, the GREED took over this country....and then they have the audacity to complain that there is a 47%! Shame on the top greedgrubbers who created this mess.

Capitalism is the best method, but there must be some check and balances in place.....


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

As patriciae says, this is, as usual, taken completely out of context.

"In the clip Republicans are pushing around and Romney now cites on the stump, then Illinois State Sen. Obama is heard speaking at a university conference in October 1998, appearing to endorse “redistribution” of wealth.
“I actually believe in redistribution, at least at a certain level, to make sure that everybody’s got a shot,” Obama is heard saying on the clip, which then abruptly ends.

In the full recording, obtained by NBC News, Obama continues to explain in the next sentence that he is speaking broadly about making city and state government more efficient in their use of resources" and endorses “competition” in the “marketplace.”

“How do we pool resources at the same time as we decentralize delivery systems in ways that both foster competition, can work in the marketplace, and can foster innovation at the local level and can be tailored to particular communities,” he says.

Here is a link that might be useful: link


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

Desperation. Do they really think nobody would look for the full quote? Oh, wait, I forgot, those that are voting for Romney just take it on faith. There was more to the quote? The rest doesn't fit the agenda. Therefore, ignore, twist, whatever it takes. Pathetic.


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

I was gonna jump in and explain it, Jill, but you got it right! ;-)


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

Markjames, your posts over the years have informed us about how you have successfully managed to live a decent life with plenty of time for family, boating, fishing on lakes, vacation properties etc. - all in a financial climate of the highest property and income tax rates in the US - you seem to do pretty well in that environment.

Some of the reasons I've done well in a high taxation, high regulation environment is that these things substantially limit competition, plus I've made much of my money buying the asssets of unsuccessful residents, homeowners and businesses for pennies on the dollar.

I've also owned many of my properties pre-regulation and zoning which is a huge advantage.

Most of my property taxes are paid with other people's money, so it's the tenants that are footing the bill. Most of my propeties are multi-units, so tax liabilities are divided among many different tax payers.

Much of our growth in new customers has come from competitors going out of business and few new competitors, not growth in population or demand.

New competitors in many industries don't last 2 or 3 years. They just can't compete with existing businesses, many of which have little or no debt and/or built or bought their businesses pre-regulation/zoning.

One of my businesses - rentals is highly successful since people can't afford homes and property taxes. Another that I sold recently - storage lockers is successful because many are renters, or moving.

Property taxes alone are unaffordable for many, so there are always bargins via distressed sales, foreclosures and tax seizures.


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

"Some of the reasons I've done well in a high taxation, high regulation environment is that these things substantially limit competition, plus I've made much of my money buying the asssets of unsuccessful residents, homeowners and businesses for pennies on the dollar."

Bingo! In the last decade alone, there are fewer and fewer business to contact if you need various services performed. There was a time when you could just go the listings and pick one - now you're lucky if you can find one and get someone (plumber, carpenter, HVAC tech) to come out in the same week because the few that are left are swamped with work.

Quite a few businesses have folded their tents and moved elsewhere, so there is indeed a lot less competition. Plus, with population loss, if you're a business you could be competing for an increasingly smaller piece of the pie. Why pay more taxes, tolls, heating & cooling costs, higher property taxes when you can go elsewhere and just either retire or start another business?

Also, noting a paradigm shift here: there is less of a reason to occupy buildings and commute to work for a large number of people who work in offices. Our company has mandated that all IT people work from home. There is no need to come into the office unless there's something going on that requires your presence, which is extremely rare. This has affected 1,000+ people across the country.

This results in offices being moved to smaller buildings, which means less rent and/or fewer taxes.

Personally, I love it. I haven't purchased gasoline in 8 weeks; haven't paid any tolls, haven't purchased snow tires this year. This means I'm not paying much to the government in sales taxes. That makes me happy. I get to keep more money for myself. The savings are incredible.

The other part is that, technically speaking, employees do not need to be confined to a geographical area. Some of us can do our jobs from just about anywhere, which means we have more choices. More than half of the IT people who work on our NY-based project do not live in NYS.

Of course, if you're a surgeon or an electrician or an auto mechanic, you can't do your work from remote locations. Still, there is a segment of the working population that has been freed of being tethered to a city or a state or even a continent. Which means they are free to move about the country. That, in turn, means states are going to have to be more competitive about motivating people to enter and stay.


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

Some of the reasons I've done well in a high taxation, high regulation environment is that these things substantially limit competition, plus I've made much of my money buying the asssets of unsuccessful residents, homeowners and businesses for pennies on the dollar.

Property taxes alone are unaffordable for many, so there are always bargins via distressed sales, foreclosures and tax seizures.

----------------------------------

Mark you did the same thing I did as the foundation of my portfolio.

As a stock the real estate stock even in this environment is still a good buy now.

Foreclosures were the best deal 20+ years ago in PA. When the steel mills were booming people brought homes and the homes were loaded with updates. When the steel mills closed there was not a industry to replace middle income unskilled labor and homes went into foreclosure.

The banks wanted to unload them even at a loss. 100 thou Homes could be picked up for 20 thou. or less. When banks did not want to have a foreclosed home dept they farmed it out to Real Estate companies and they now sell them at inflated market value. They sit longer on the market and some are never sold and become eye sores if the neighbors do not push the realtors to continue landscape up keep.


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

Obama favors redistribution. There is nothing to misinterpret. Incentives matter.

Sowell notes that when government confiscates wealth it changes incentives for individuals. Individuals respond to increased or decreased incentives by altering their behavior.

The kind of government Obama says he favors needs a steady infusion of funds to redistribute. Where would they come from? What would keep them flowing?


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

Sowell notes that when government confiscates wealth it changes incentives for individuals. Individuals respond to increased or decreased incentives by altering their behavior.

When President Eisenhower used confiscated wealth to create the Interstate Highway System, did that increase or decrease incentives to individuals and businesses? The same question for NASA and the space program. Confiscated wealth put a U.S. citizen on the moon - good or bad?


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

Also, noting a paradigm shift here: there is less of a reason to occupy buildings and commute to work for a large number of people who work in offices. Our company has mandated that all IT people work from home.

Many onsite service businesses that once had storefronts, shops, warehouses, equipment and parts inventory now operate out of service vans with very lean inventories.

Owners, service managers and employees often commute from home to jobsites, plus owners and management can work from home or on the road via cell phones and internet.

The same thing is happening in home health care.


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

Mark you did the same thing I did as the foundation of my portfolio.

As a stock the real estate stock even in this environment is still a good buy now.

Foreclosures were the best deal 20+ years ago in PA. When the steel mills were booming people brought homes and the homes were loaded with updates. When the steel mills closed there was not a industry to replace middle income unskilled labor and homes went into foreclosure.

It's an excellent time to buy in many regions currently, but like the saying goes, the best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago.

When I started buying tax auction properties as a teenager, properties were dirt cheap relative to income of many working people. I bought several homes for less than a week's wages, or a week's barter value.

We had many vacant homes due to closing of mills, tanneries, factories, heavy industry and supporting industries.

While many were unemployed, or unemployable, I had more work than I could handle performing plumbing, heating, hot water, electrical, refrigeration, oil/gas, automotive, marine and construction work.


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

I'm not in the state of NY but at the opposite end of the tax burden spectrum, where taxes are so low that basic community services like police, fire, roads, and schools are increasingly iffy, and we too are seeing an exodus of people - particularly young professionals who have school age children, small businesses, and people choosing to live elsewhere and commute here - even 100 miles each way - for the jobs with the gas drilling and pipelines.

We have the chance at a 50:50 matching state grant to build a new high school, replacing one thats going to be condemned within a few years - which would increase property taxes on $100,000 accessed value something like $12 a year - and its going to be a real fight to get it passed. Letters to the Editor by the anti-tax fanatics include "use some of them empty houses for class rooms!!!#@!


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

"When President Eisenhower used confiscated wealth to create the Interstate Highway System, did that increase or decrease incentives to individuals and businesses?"

Eisenhower had the new highway system designed with national defense in mind. Taxpayers got something they valued in return for their taxes, including the right to use those highways. That would be a wonderful incentive, don't you think?

Now how about you answer my question about that stream of money necessary for redistribution Where will it come from? What will keep it flowing? What incentives or disincentives come with such a system?


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

Now how about you answer my question about that stream of money necessary for redistribution Where will it come from?

The funds will be raised confiscated in the same manner as those that funded President Eisenhower's highway initiative.

I see that a glimmer of nuance is appearing. Wealth confiscation is permitted when a Republican is in the White House, such as President Eishenhower. I did notice that Nik gave no response to President Kennedy's initiative with the space program.


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

Eisenhower's highway initiative, which followed road bills passed by prior presidents, budgeted $25 billion for roads that would ultimately cost $130 billion and which weren't completed until 1993. Because various states had already started planning improved road systems, Eisenhower's suggested defense routes were never followed. A wide variety of taxes were increased or introduced to pay for these roads.

What Eisenhower suggested was simply a vast expansion of the Lincoln Highway, the first transcontinental road (by the way, the Lincoln Highway was an idea of early car parts manufacturers). Eisenhower's road system was HUGELY supported by the lobbyists for the auto industry, yet not paid for by them. Those interstates were the very beginning of the decline of many urban cities.

This particular redistribution of wealth was executed with zero foresight to the future. Thank goodness Obama is now bringng Eisenhower's folly to light again.


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

I see that a glimmer of nuance is appearing. Wealth confiscation is permitted when a Republican is in the White House, such as President Eishenhower.

I see it slightly differently. As long as the money goes UP, it's all OK. Which explains why they are all OK with Romney's tax plan. The little we know about it is that the middle class will pay more while the rich pay less.

This 'redistribution of wealth' talk is such BS. All of a sudden, since that scary man that doesn't look like me, is in the White House, taxes to run the country are a bad thing and "redistribution of wealth." When GWB was in the White House, and the redistribution was UP, it was all good.

What they really hate are taxes being used for any social safety net. And they thought it was a good thing to talk about this. They thought the American people would fall for it. My hope is the American people will send a very strong message on Nov 6th that it is not ok to want to decimate these programs. It's not ok to screw the average American to benefit the very rich.


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

This particular redistribution of wealth was executed with zero foresight to the future. Thank goodness Obama is now bringng Eisenhower's folly to light again.

When I see arguments against safety because of a party support I wonder if they have any value for life of their family themselves, their children.

Would you shed a tear if you, your husband jmc01 was on one of these bridges and they failed. Are you one of the people that live in Louisiana? Do you support the redistribution money for the levees? Is that folly?

I did not see a single person say anything when I asked was it wrong for Bobby to be screaming that Obama was not sending him enough government money fast enough during the hurricane last month.

That redistribution was okay.

Support your party but use your brain.

Report finds thousands of U.S. bridges in dangerous need of repair
Published 4 April 2011

Last week a new report found that nearly 12 percent of the bridges in the United States were "structurally deficient" and required replacement; the report found that major repairs and critical maintenance has often been delayed as states are struggling with budget shortfalls; the average age of bridges across the country is nearing forty-two years, and most were designed to have a fifty year lifespan before they were replaced or reconstructed; Transportation for America has called for increased federal funding for infrastructure to help make repairs; the American Society of Civil Engineers has recommended that the United States spend $17 billion a year on bridge maintenance, significantly more than the $10.5 billion that is currently spent each year


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

"The funds will be raised confiscated in the same manner as those that funded President Eisenhower's highway initiative."

Ahh. Back to the old days with more people paying income taxes. Sounds good.

What about incentives? What will taxpayers get in return for their smaller pay checks?


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

A bridge you can drive across rather than go down with.


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

Yes, frankly - as a taxpayer - I'd LIKE to have a safe bridge to cross. That's incentive enough for me. And safe roads and firefighters that are on duty when my house catches fire and policemen that are there and roads and dams that are strong and sturdy ... you know, INFRASTRUCTURE that actually works.


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

Infrastructure is not some sacred gift from the government. We the people built the infrastructure and we the people paid for it and we the people keep paying for it, year after year after year.

On top of that, the government is obviously doing a poor job of managing the repairs and maintenance because, despite billions of dollars ostensibly poured in by federal and state taxpayers, they can't seem to get the job done.


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

"...the government is obviously doing a poor job of managing the repairs and maintenance because, despite billions of dollars ostensibly poured in by federal and state taxpayers, they can't seem to get the job done."

Job? You mean as in "shovel ready"?


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

Job? You mean as in "shovel ready"?

*

ROTF!

Shovel ready--just another meaningless phrase like "hope and change."


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

"What about incentives? What will taxpayers get in return for their smaller pay checks?"

"A bridge you can drive across rather than go down with."
With Nancy's definition of redistribution, yes.

But that's not what the OP was talking about, it's not the kind of redistribution Obama meant when he said he favored it, and it has nothing to do with the question I asked.

Progressives know what redistribution means. It's their "cure" for income inequality. The government confiscates income from some individuals, and transfers it to other individuals.

There's no bridge built with that money. It is simply transferred to another individual.

Tell me what the incentive is for taxpayers.


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

The government confiscates income from some individuals, and transfers it to other individuals.

Just because you would like to believe this does not make it true. I know you would like to believe every dollar the government collects is going to some unknown lazy person that does not want to work but try reality for a day or two.

Tell me what the incentive is for taxpayers

"A bridge you can drive across rather than go down with.". You are starting to sound like 999.


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

I agree that infrastructure is not a sacred gift from the government but we expect the government to manage it. With dwindling tax revenues in the last 10 years, many projects have been pushed aside for later so that the reduced amount of money could be used for more urgent things (including education of an increasing population).

despite billions of dollars ostensibly poured in by federal and state taxpayers, they can't seem to get the job done.

Money that pours in from taxpayers goes to fight wars, pay interest on the debt, pay salaries, grant subsidies to oil companies and others .... how much of the tax pie is allocated for infrastructure?

Yet, we have billions of road trips on these roads each day and the business of America depends on dependable infrastructure to keep going.

Here is a link that might be useful: source of image


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

How much of that pie should be dedicated to the catch-all infrastructure category? We are talking about federal money here, but what about state money and local money?

After all, the state in which you reside may collect tolls and gasoline taxes and other sorts of taxes that, when they were initiated, were probably justified as a tax to support infrastructure. But we all know those funds are mismanaged, misappropriated, and used for other things instead. A lot of that money is thrown down a rat hole and never seen again.

Since they don't necessarily have great track records when it comes to those funds, the answer to that is not to give them even more money.


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

How much should be allocated? I don't know, but certainly what IS being allocated is not enough because things aren't getting done. There are quotes out there that China is investing way more into infrastructure than the US is. Investments that help their businesses develop and move their products.

Most federal money is distributed to the states to administer which on the surface seems like a good idea but obviously there are not good controls on how it was used.

I think that the approach can be twofold - investigate mismanagement of funds and fix those problems and allocate more as well.

Withholding money period is not the answer. Develop accountability rather than administer starvation.


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

Back to the OP:

Income redistribution to alleviate income inequality.

What's the incentive for taxpayers?


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

Ah, yes, redistribution of wealth. Over the last year, the Forbes top 400 saw an increase in their net worth of $400,000,000,000 - compared to a 4% drop in the median household income of the rest of the country.

I'll ask again for an example of a successful, sustainable society where the wealth is so concentrated at the top.

Here is a link that might be useful: the actual wealth distribution going on


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

Income redistribution to alleviate income inequality.

What's the incentive for taxpayers?

I heard that the theory is for wealth to trickle down to the little people when we redistribute wealth up via tax cuts to the wealthy.

So that is the incentive - give it to us and will sprinkle it back down to you.


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

Only opportunity trickles down. If you don't have the motivation, education, knowledge, skills, experience or means of production to take advantage of opportunity, you won't benefit much from trickle down opportunity.

Windows of opportunity (bubbles/boom times) are often relatively short in duration, so you have to be geared up to take advantage of them as well.

During boom times, the poor, uneducated, unskilled, low skilled and inexperienced are often worse off as things like rents and costs of many goods and services skyrocket due to demand.


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

"I heard that the theory is for wealth to trickle down to the little people when we redistribute wealth up via tax cuts to the wealthy."

Esh, What you describe is what redistributionists OPPOSE. They're getting rid of that trickle down stuff. What we are talking about here is redistribution Progressives SUPPORT.

In Progressive redistribution, money flows from the rich to the poor. Government confiscates income from some individuals, and transfers it to other individuals.
By this mechanism, government reduces income inequality.

What do taxpayers get in return for their smaller paychecks?


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

I'd argue that cutting Pell grants, cutting K-12 education funds on the local, state, and Federal level, cutting medicaid for children, etc. - is cutting opportunity - not increasing it.

Going further - increasing paid internships, work/study, gvt programs like Americorps, Teach for America, Peace Corps, etc. are pretty good ways to open doors of opportunity.


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

What I'm describing, nik, is the kind of redistribution that YOU support. Give all the money to the upper wealth brackets so that THEY can distribute it back down to the rest of us. Progressives support adequate taxation, not redistribution. Listen to Obama's whole quote not just the bit you want to exploit. Oh wait, you don't know how to do that.

Yes, mark, those are opportunities and like david says - folks on the right are all about making sure that those opportunities to take advantage of opportunities are very few thanks to cutbacks. What a vicious circle.


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

"Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work.

-- Thomas A. Edison"


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

July 9, 2012
The Opportunity Gap
By DAVID BROOKS

Over the past few months, writers from Charles Murray to Timothy Noah have produced alarming work on the growing bifurcation of American society. Now the eminent Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam and his team are coming out with research that's more horrifying.

While most studies look at inequality of outcomes among adults and help us understand how America is coming apart, Putnam's group looked at inequality of opportunities among children. They help us understand what the country will look like in the decades ahead. The quick answer? More divided than ever.

Putnam's data verifies what many of us have seen anecdotally, that the children of the more affluent and less affluent are raised in starkly different ways and have different opportunities. Decades ago, college-graduate parents and high-school-graduate parents invested similarly in their children. Recently, more affluent parents have invested much more in their children's futures while less affluent parents have not.

They've invested more time. Over the past decades, college-educated parents have quadrupled the amount of time they spend reading "Goodnight Moon," talking to their kids about their day and cheering them on from the sidelines. High-school-educated parents have increased child-care time, but only slightly.

A generation ago, working-class parents spent slightly more time with their kids than college-educated parents. Now college-educated parents spend an hour more every day. This attention gap is largest in the first three years of life when it is most important.

Affluent parents also invest more money in their children. Over the last 40 years upper-income parents have increased the amount they spend on their kids' enrichment activities, like tutoring and extra curriculars, by $5,300 a year. The financially stressed lower classes have only been able to increase their investment by $480, adjusted for inflation.

As a result, behavior gaps are opening up. In 1972, kids from the bottom quartile of earners participated in roughly the same number of activities as kids from the top quartile. Today, it's a chasm.

Richer kids are roughly twice as likely to play after-school sports. They are more than twice as likely to be the captains of their sports teams. They are much more likely to do nonsporting activities, like theater, yearbook and scouting. They are much more likely to attend religious services.

It's not only that richer kids have become more active. Poorer kids have become more pessimistic and detached. Social trust has fallen among all income groups, but, between 1975 and 1995, it plummeted among the poorest third of young Americans and has remained low ever since. As Putnam writes in notes prepared for the Aspen Ideas Festival: "It's perfectly understandable that kids from working-class backgrounds have become cynical and even paranoid, for virtually all our major social institutions have failed them - family, friends, church, school and community." As a result, poorer kids are less likely to participate in voluntary service work that might give them a sense of purpose and responsibility. Their test scores are lagging. Their opportunities are more limited.

A long series of cultural, economic and social trends have merged to create this sad state of affairs. Traditional social norms were abandoned, meaning more children are born out of wedlock. Their single parents simply have less time and resources to prepare them for a more competitive world. Working-class jobs were decimated, meaning that many parents are too stressed to have the energy, time or money to devote to their children.

Affluent, intelligent people are now more likely to marry other energetic, intelligent people. They raise energetic, intelligent kids in self-segregated, cultural ghettoes where they know little about and have less influence upon people who do not share their blessings.

The political system directs more money to health care for the elderly while spending on child welfare slides.

Equal opportunity, once core to the nation's identity, is now a tertiary concern. If America really wants to change that, if the country wants to take advantage of all its human capital rather than just the most privileged two-thirds of it, then people are going to have to make some pretty uncomfortable decisions.

Liberals are going to have to be willing to champion norms that say marriage should come before childrearing and be morally tough about it. Conservatives are going to have to be willing to accept tax increases or benefit cuts so that more can be spent on the earned-income tax credit and other programs that benefit the working class.

Political candidates will have to spend less time trying to exploit class divisions and more time trying to remedy them - less time calling their opponents out of touch elitists, and more time coming up with agendas that comprehensively address the problem. It's politically tough to do that, but the alternative is national suicide." end quote

With the great Bush Recession, kids participation in youth sports plummeted, and is still about half what it was prior to the economic collapse. Our High School can't field a junior varsity in many sports now, there are barely enough kids going out to field any team at all - it costs money, $55 athletic fees, additional expenses like cleats, team-colored socks, etc, then the travel expenses - so for each sport, the families are out several hundred dollars. Participation in the summer swimming league is now 1/3 what it was, and so on. This extends to band, knowledge bowl, they got rid of the theater department, and so on.

So I'm not seein' further massive tax cuts for capital gains and dividends and cutting Pell grants, loans, medicaid, and gutting public schools as a solution.

Here is a link that might be useful: link


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

Poorer kids have become more pessimistic and detached.

We see this attitude in nearly 100 percent of the kids in our non immediate family.

They all have defeatist attitudes, argue for their limitations, blame others for their shortcomings/failures and tend to surround themselves with others with similar attitudes.

Many have picked up these traits of unsuccessful people, or had these traits reinforced by parents, mothers' boyfriends siblings and friends.

Most lack confidence since they're overweight or obese as well.


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

Parents working extra jobs to make ends meet don't always have time to nurture and lift up their kids like those with higher income jobs that allow for more time at home.


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

People with higher incomes also often put in many, many more hours--14 hour days, and weekends devoted to work and also have less time to spend with their children.


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

I would agree with Esh... it's tough to "invest" time in your children that you do not have, because you're working two jobs to pay for the same things one used to cover. While the cost of living has continued to rise at a quick pace, wages and quality for that price have remained stagnant or have decreased in the rush to suck every penny out of the general public and place it in... someone's pocket.

My question is why?


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

Parents in low income households that put in those long hours, and extra jobs earn enough to keep a home and food on the table and pay taxes.

vs

People with higher incomes may not be physically there but have the extra income to spend past necessities, This higher income affords them dance classes, after school social events, and tutors to help their children that may be struggling with a subject or all of their subjects to succeed in life.

I have been blessed to be able to see both sides and have been able to help where needed.


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

We know many unemployed people that have nothing but time on their hands, yet spend little quality time with their kids and spend little time teaching/sharing valuable/marketable skills/knowledge.


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

This begs the question - going forward, how do you salvage the "lost generation(s)" and get them back into a world many were never prepared for in the first place?

Aside from the change in family structure and the loss of leisure to read "Hello Moon, jobs are gone; the nature of work has changed; some never had the basic tools to understand the value of work - that work required a commitment. And yes, some ran into obstacles not of their choosing and do the best they can with what they've been dealt.


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

I know many people with money that spend a lot of money buying their children out of trouble on a monthly basis. If it was not for their parents owning the company they would be unemployed and/or in jail.

Until we are all dead and are in heaven that will be the perfect world order. That is my Christian mind speaking.

If someone does not believe in a next life I still think all can agree we do not live in a perfect world.


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

Could well be true, but people with not so much money are buying their kids and partners out of trouble too. But instead of writing a check, they might take out a PayDay Loan at usurious rates or go to upstate NY and sell their toys to markjames for pennies on the dollar. And the end result is feeding into a cycle with no way out.

The fact is that at no time in the history of people has the playing field been level. It never will be. Nor will there ever be an era of non- exploitation of the classes. Platitudes aren't going to make it so.


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

The fact is that at no time in the history of people has the playing field been level. It never will be. Nor will there ever be an era of non- exploitation of the classes. Platitudes aren't going to make it so.

Exactly and demigod of any class will not help. JMO.... We should try to maximize and not minimize the outcomes.


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

Speaking of payday style loans, many poor people remain poor since they spend a small fortune via rent-to-own furniture/appliance/electronics businesses, high interest credit cards/loans, buy-here-pay-here weekly car payments, pre-paid cellular data/text/web minutes and selling off possessions for pennies on the dollar.

Many never acquire full ownership of rent-to--own items, or privately financed vehicles as they're turned in, or repossessed.

The many poor we know are constantly borrowing from Peter to pay Paul so to speak. The only way they can get ahead is by screwing the people that loaned them the money, but eventually they run out of people to screw.

Since the poor often have burned most, or all of their bridges (people that can help them physically and financially), they have nobody to help them get ahead.

The poor tend to spend much of their money on disposable goods/services and depreciating assets, so their few assets don't have much of a resale value.

The most valuable assets many poor own are LCD/LED televisions, or notebooks which have a poor out-of-warranty resale value, plus can be rendered worthless if they fail out of warranty.

The poor tend to own assets that are uninsured, or under-insured. Our poor and low income customers generally don't spend the extra money for service contracts, extended warranties etc. When their boiler fails out-of-warranty many can't afford 6/7/8K to replace it.

The same applies to other insurance policies. Many low income residents don't have renters insurance, flood insurance, upper tier vehicle insurance, boat/snowmobile/quad insurance or extended warranties on expensive electronics, so they pay out-of-pocket for loss, theft, damage, premature failure, accidents etc.

The poor generally don't take very good care of their possessions either. Many will spend small fortunes on cigarettes, scratch-offs, cable, broadband, pre-paid cellular minutes etc, but they're terrible when it come to vehicle and home maintenance and repairs.

Many of our poor and low income customers only call after their vehicles, or home mechanical equipment has failed due to serious neglect.


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

Speaking of toys, if you buy the right second hand toy at the right price, you won't have to sell it for pennies on the dollar.

I've sold many of the toys I've owned for as much, or more than I've paid for them after years of enjoyment.

Some second hand toys - Jeeps, aluminum boats, quads, motorcycles, guns etc really hold their value.


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

State and local funding for the schools have been cut every year for the past 5 years, and the district has had to eliminate German and reduce French and Spanish to two years. A requirement for many top private schools is 4 years of foreign language. Loss of opportunity.

This evening, I'm going to attend a meeting at the high school about a trip for the French language students to visit France in Nov 2014, the estimated cost is a minimum $5,000.

I can't imagine many people are going to be able to afford that, and doubt the trip will take place.

So much for opportunity to see how another people live.

But they're surrender monkeys anyway, and socialism.

Photobucket


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

U.S. and A - and I'd wager somebody had to tell this kid what the letters were.

This is the generation I asked about - and probably the one before it who produced him. What should be put in place to provide opportunity for him/them since available schooling either good, bad, or indifferent and anything out there in jobs market wasn't of interest. How do you replace years of lost time with something meaningful?

Did you mean demagogue/demagoguing, marquest?


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

The only letters many poor people need to know are D.S.S. - Department of Social Services.


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

Mark,

Progressives seem terribly eager to talk about anything but your OP. Usually they're eager to promote government redistribution to reduce "income inequality."

In your OP, Dr. Sowell has thrown them for a loop. He points out that government "can confiscate only the wealth that exists at a given moment." He says "You cannot confiscate future wealth..."

Oops! Our resident progressives have run into a problem with making their plan actually work. When asked to identify the incentive for taxpayers to keep the income redistribution money flowing, progressives are completely clueless. They won't even try to answer the question. The best they can do is change the subject.


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

David don't give up on the idea that it is not doable. We did one for a school district with both middle income and lower income students. They need to see how they can start fund raising drives. Get your local utility companies to donate, any local business. Leave no stone unturned for money. Write letters to all.

We ended up with leftover cash to buy each one a piece of luggage and a couple of side trips upon arrival. These were trips that otherwise even the parents that had the price of the ticket would not have been able to afford. You have to work that get out the money drive. We did not single anyone out as needy. We set it up that they were all in it together. The parents that had the money just kicked into the pot and it was added to the donations so everybody was treated equally.

These kids went to Germany.


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

Did you mean demagogue/demagoguing, marquest?

Yep duluthinbloomz4. I am in a bad place today. Mind is not firing on all levels. Weather does not help with my pain this time of year. Thanks for the help. I am glad you knew what I was trying to say.


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

Oops! Our resident progressives have run into a problem with making their plan actually work. When asked to identify the incentive for taxpayers to keep the income redistribution money flowing, progressives are completely clueless. They won't even try to answer the question. The best they can do is change the subject.

*

Exactly.

The producers will stop producing when too much is confiscated. The producers usually have enough, anyway, to live. Why should they work so hard to have even more taken to be redistributed when they're carrying the load in the first place?

Yep, it's going to get tricky if Obama is reelected.
I've heard people say they can't believe that people would intentionally reduce their income, but it can and will happen to some degree.

You can't depend on the producers to continue to knock themselves out and take the risks when they are continually castigated and more and more is taken from them when they're already carrying the heavier tax burden.

So, if revenue is down from the top revenue producers, who is going to pay for all of this spending and redistribution?


Ooops is right.


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

In your OP, Dr. Sowell has thrown them for a loop. He points out that government "can confiscate only the wealth that exists at a given moment." He says "You cannot confiscate future wealth..."

What's happening with much existing wealth is that it's not being invested due to numerous factors -uncertainty, risk vs reward, regulation, taxation and/or it's being hidden.

Even wives, close relatives and close friends don't know about the stealth wealth possessed by many.

The underground cash/barter economy continues to grow and grow and grow...

The greatest source of wealth many possess is their education, knowledge, skills, experience, discipline, experience, innovation, work ethic, fitness etc, but these things can't be redistributed.

Many of the lower classes actually have a fair amount of the knowledge necessary for success, but lack the motivation and discipline to become, or remain successful.

We see many people bouncing back and forth in economic status on the low end as they lack the cash, credit, leverage and multiple skills necessary to survive slow times and the unexpected.


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

You can't. You need to be there, in the moment, whether you're a parent or a teacher, or some other adult that has an opportunity to positively influence those children you work with, or call your own offspring.

What I'm talking about is the disparity between what we earn and what we spend on average cost of living... the wider that gap, the less time we have to devote to our youth. And then, as David so aptly mentions, education budgets are being slashed everywhere.

How can we expect the next generation to be well adjusted and intelligent if we don't have the means, the funding, and the cooperation of good teachers, mentors, school boards, etc. to help us achieve that? It's a group effort, really. Parents are not in it alone.


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

This thread is talking on several different levels. On the one hand, we have the good Dr. Sowell taking an Obama quote out of context, setting up a strawman, then blowing it away - then wondering why the progressives don't want to play with the soiled straw. Why would they? Do you think they're that stupid?

It started to get interesting when we start talking about trying to create opportunity and how to go about that - on an individual basis, as well as through public schools. I continue to point out that opportunities are becoming increasingly limited, Markjames points out he's knee deep in people who no longer see opportunity and start blaming everything around them, but none of this creates any more opportunity -

Now does eliminating taxes on dividends and capital gains create opportunity for those who now lack it, or does it just create even more opportunity for the class of people who already have a lot of it?

And I gather that the now well documented redistribution of wealth up to the wealthiest among us, the Forbes 400 increase their net worth by 400 billion while the net worth of the middle class decreases by 4%, should be further cheered on by eliminating taxes on dividends and capital gains, the sources of income for these billionaires, so that these people pay little or no taxes at all.

Anyway, I'm sure the French students will be able to work part time jobs, mop floors, wash cars, spend 20 months getting together the kind of money needed to take their trip.


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

Anyway, I'm sure the French students will be able to work part time jobs, mop floors, wash cars, spend 20 months getting together the kind of money needed to take their trip.

*

What's wrong with that?

Who ELSE should pay for a teenager to go to France?

No one paid for me to go, we saved and waited until WE COULD PAY FOR IT OURSELVES.

I was in my late forties before I went to France.

That's the problem with this line of thinking--"I want what I want when I want it, and if I can't afford it, it's someone else's fault I can't afford it and it's someone else's responsibility to make sure I get what I want when I want it."


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

That's the problem with this line of thinking--"I want what I want when I want it, and if I can't afford it, it's someone else's fault I can't afford it and it's someone else's responsibility to make sure I get what I want when I want it."

What an astounding non-sequitur so totally unrelated to the subject.

See, there are a lot of parents who look at this another way - they pony up the money to send their kids to France - or elsewhere on high school trips - and willingly do so because they realize the value of their kids learning at an early age about different cultures, practicing a foreign language so they are proficient when they apply to the better private schools, they will likely get some pen pals and be able to skype and practice their languages and all that. Its called giving your kids more opportunity later in life.

Thats the difference. While you think it 'builds character' or some tripe to mop floors and save the money for your trip, there are other kids whose parents paid for their early exposure to France and when they're 40, they're bilingual bank managers working in Switzerland, pulling down mid-6 figure salaries, and busy sending their kids to Germany to learn that language.

Can you comprehend the concept of giving your kids more opportunity?
Let alone other peoples' kids by paying taxes so they can go to decent schools?


 o
further along that thought

Mitt Romney put his children through private schools that cost $40,000 a year in tuition, then set up trust funds for his children so they each have access to about a million bucks, tax free. I'd say thats getting close to unlimited opportunity.

Warren Buffet set his kids up with something like $50 million a piece, so they could do what that they wanted - again pretty much unlimited opportunity.

Obama has his kids in Sidwell Friends, tuition $40,000 a year, they take trips to Mexico and learn Chinese.

And kids at my school district can't participate in sports, theatre, study trips, etc. because their folks can't afford the $300.

And the la-la libertarians want to further cut taxes and further cut the school budgets, again destroying opportunity, while lavishing more money on the capital gains/dividend set - the Romney, Obama, Buffet set.

And then screech away about personal responsibility


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

SO basically, because some kids' parents didn't become a successful businessperson, didn't become a community organizer that wrote books about his absent father, someone else should be taxed more so their kids can go to France, too?

"Can you comprehend the concept of giving your kids more opportunity?"

Yea. I did it. We sent my older daugher to live and study in Italy for four months.

She also, every summer in college, taught tennis and worked in a retail store at the mall six and seven days a week, she was out of the house at 6 am and home by 10pm-2 am, a good fourteen hour day.

Her money helped supplement what we contributed.

She got the best of both worlds--parents that could help and did help, and her own initiative in insisting on working hard and contributing herself. If she hadn't shown a willingness to work, we would not have contributed.

Not everyone will have these types of opportunities.

I didn't.

I don't feel cheated--I didn't expect anyone to pay MY way to France when I was a teenager although I'd have definitely wanted to.

If I'd wanted to go badly enough at that age, I'd have washed floors or done whatever work I needed to do to achieve my goals, and while you characterize hard work and personal responsibility as "tripe," it does do one thing--it proves that people can do what they want to if they spend their time wisely achieving their goals instead of blaming others why they haven't done so themselves.

Not everyone can go to France.

Not everyone should go to France if they can't pay for it themselves and no one else steps up as their benefactor.


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

someone else should be taxed more so their kids can go to France, too?

No, Demi, nobody is after you money to send their kids to France.

We're talking about my school where because of the la la land Libertarians and their tax cuts tax cuts tax cuts and blathering personal responsibility schtick, the kids can't even get 4 years of language, and since the school can no longer fund it and their parents can't afford it, half the kids no longer play sports, do knowledge bowl, do theater, or any of those other activities that create so many opportunities.


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

Public school budgets are always problematic; that's not new. Every region of the country, every school has unique problems. First priority has to be academics.

If you want your child to take driver's ed, play sports, or participate in school-related clubs (i.e., French Club), I'm afraid you are going to have to pay extra for it.

Expecting everyone to pay for the exrras for your child because it's school-related is as unreasonable as expecting gourmet meals at the school breakfast/lunch programs instead of basic nutrition, or expecting a big enough public assistance check to pay for a luxury apartment instead of safe and healthy public housing.

I'm fine with paying for good education in the form of academic studies, but I'm not into sending your kid to France; sorry. In return, I don't expect that from you either. I'm fine with part of my taxes going to assist the elderly and disabled, and to temporarily help the able-bodied during their "bump in the road". But the career moochers--I'm NOT okay with that.

Redistribution makes me think of a commune where everyone wants to sit and pay a sitar all day, and no one wants to dig the latrines.


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

We're talking about my school where because of the la la land Libertarians and their tax cuts tax cuts tax cuts and blathering personal responsibility schtick, the kids can't even get 4 years of language, and since the school can no longer fund it and their parents can't afford it, half the kids no longer play sports, do knowledge bowl, do theater, or any of those other activities that create so many opportunities.

*

"can't even get four years of langauge?"

How about four years of English?
Most have problems with that.

I only had the opportunity for TWO years of Spanish in high school, and instead took Chemistry and science and took a language in college.

It didn't kill me not to have four years of a foreign language in college. Ever heard of Rosetta Stone?
They make nice Christmas and birthday gifts.

Theatre--take your kids to see local theatre or get them involved.

Sports--yes, it teaches playing on a team, but there are opportunities for sports outside of school.

Families have to decide what is a priority.
PARENTS should make opportunities FOR THEIR CHILDREN or not have them if they can't do that.

To me, reading, writing and arithmetic should come before plays, basketball games and four years of a foreign langauge.

We don't have the money to do EVERYTHING the parents won't do. Right now we're feeding people breakfast, lunch, and in some instances, after school snacks.

If someone else will pull the cart, the parents won't.


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

So k-12 public schools should just be there to teach math and english, and rudimentary science, do that now famous copout 'personal responsibility' for languages, theatre, music, team sports, and everything else - all those things that open minds, create the opportunities to get into better colleges and universities.

And if the parents don't do that, well tough cookies, because I got mine, and tax cuts tax cuts.

La-La Land Libertarians running around clutching their copies of Atlas Shrugged.


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

If we're unwilling to invest in education for our children - and I mean as close to all children as humanly possibile - we're doomed as a nation. We are in this together, and we succeed or fail together. No society can hope to survive with what Jonathon Kozol called "savage inequality."


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

No, I believe that schools should offer what they can afford.

The local school districts determine what they can afford, and they get federal money too.

Of course it's nice to have extracurricular programs.
But if a school district doesn't have the funds for these "extras," no one is stopping parents from providing these for their children.

Participating in plays and playing team sports is not basic education.

It's "extra."


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

And the country is divided into school districts that offer the opportunities and those that don't. Families who can pay for extra-curricular activities and those that can't.

And tough cookies for those who made the poor choice of being born in the wrong household/district.


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

David, I can say life is tough, but you know that. Of course you know that. I'm not going to waste time explaining the obvious and in the process create new opportunities for pointless criticism. Suck it up; do what you can do as an individual. If that's limited to casting your vote, so be it. Your choice.

There is no Utopia, don't you get it?


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

The problem with schools not offering 4 years of language is that there are many colleges that require you to have taken that 4 years in high school. Thus, the schools are failing in their educational duties.

Raising money for the trip to France is strictly on a voluntary basis. If something does not want to use their money to enrich the lives of these teenagers, they are free not to do it.


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

Posted by david52 z5CO (My Page) on
Tue, Sep 25, 12 at 21:29

And tough cookies for those who made the poor choice of being born in the wrong household/district.

*

Sort of.

Tough cookies for children that have parents that won't take the initiative to do better for their children.


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

Reductio ad absurdum.


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

Lasagna.


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

Pepto Bismol!


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

Good old fashioned bicarb.


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

The problem with schools not offering 4 years of language is that there are many colleges that require you to have taken that 4 years in high school. Thus, the schools are failing in their educational duties.

Yes they are.


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

The trouble with opportunity is that many can't recognize it, can't create it, or don't take advantage of it as it requires motivation, hard work, discipline or getting knocked down a few times before you succeed.

The reason much opportunity exists is that there are a limited number of people willing to take advantage of opportunities.

Like our poor labor force participation rate, the opportunity participation rate is very low as well.


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

David, there's a new movie or tv show coming out soon that takes on the issues of teacher unions, parents getting involved in running their schools, etc... and part of it centers on that exact thing... creating more good opportunity while children are young. Leveling that playing field so success stories are greater in number. I can't recall the details of who acts in it, what it's called, when it comes out, or whether it's a movie or tv series... but it addresses these very issues, which was the part that caught my eye and made me stop to listen. It was on one of the Anderson Cooper daytime shows.

President Obama addressed this issue, also, as a guest on "The View", which aired yesterday. He wants to help create more opportunity, as well, and level the playing field in education. He recognizes that our systems need massive work, and states that if it weren't for grants and other small "hands up", he and Michelle might not have been able to attend the colleges they did, or attain the same level of success.

He also flatly states that families have to help themselves, too... which completely blows the socialism idea out of the water, as rational people have known all along... but he does recognize that without that level playing field, without those small created opportunities, all the self help in the world won't make a difference. He's definitely interested in getting folks involved, gaining that level playing field, and helping to create those opportunities that boost kids onto that bottom ladder rung so they can begin the climb.

As an aside, every time I see our President and First Lady, and hear them speak as a team, as a family, I'm more impressed by how solidly their feet are on the ground, how well they identify with and are connected to the American middle and lower income groups, and how typical an American family they really are. They present a united front as a couple, as parents, and as concerned citizens. I really respect that.



 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

As an aside, every time I see our President and First Lady, and hear them speak as a team, as a family, I'm more impressed by how solidly their feet are on the ground, how well they identify with and are connected to the American middle and lower income groups, and how typical an American family they really are. They present a united front as a couple, as parents, and as concerned citizens. I really respect that.

I watched it yesterday Jodi too and got the same feeling. You cannot fake what they have.


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

No, you can't, Marquest. They are the genuine article. I don't care what anyone thinks... I really like them and respect them as human beings. When I look at them, I see a loving couple, much like my husband and myself, who realize just how lucky they are, and are teaching that same appreciation to their daughters... who are typical teen girls! My respect grows as time goes by. I can't help it... they are inspiring.


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

However, don't forget that they have both been deep in the super-success machine for most of their lives. Certainly they are closer to the average American than the Mitten (and do a much better job of seeming to know what it's like), but they are a very long way from average by any metric.


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

pnbrown. I truly understand your point but there is a is big difference of the length of time they have been in that protected class. The most obvious of that would be the age difference.

They are young and did not have the level of big money and apples to oranges they are not Mitt and Anne distance in age and upbringing in that bubble.

They were married I think 20 years ago raising 2 children on two salaries. Good Salaries until he wrote his book and became President. I just do not think we can say they would be very far removed from the upper middle income family.


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

I could not believe what I heard on NPR the other night:

Believe it or not, it appears that it must be true.

Here's one such report from the LA Times

"The nation is making progress in increasing the high school graduation rate, according to a study released Monday, yet 1 in 4 Americans don't complete high school."

Another article from ABC News

If you want to read just one article, read the ABC one.

""It's a real fight. Every day you talk to someone who needs to be motivated," said Berrien High School Principal Mike Parker."

Hay


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

As I was saying, when asked to identify the incentive for taxpayers keeping the income redistribution money flowing, progressives are fresh out of ideas.

They have this lofty goal of ending "income inequality" via redistribution. But when asked to identify what the taxpayer gets in return, every one of them has "responded" by changing the subject.


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

Speaking of poor Graduation Rates.

NY Graduation Rates for Black, Hispanic Boys Lowest in Nation

Study: Only 37% graduate high school in four years

For African-American and Hispanic male students, New York has the worst four-year high school graduation rate in the country, according to a study by the Schott Foundation for Public Education.

In fact, the researchers say, a meager 37% of black and Hispanic boys are graduating for New York high schools in four years.

The number for male, white students is 78%, according to the foundation's report titled, "The Urgency of Now."

Here is a link that might be useful: Study: Only 37% graduate high school in four years


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

Hogwash. Republican talking points and words, Nik... nothing new to report on that front. Same old, same old.

Instead of rinsing and repeating, get the soap out of your eyes and read what the President actually says. It's a simple plan, really, to end old tax cuts and keep revenue rolling in, while at the same time, ending a war and... well, you look it up.

Redistribution... snort!


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

Nikoleta see below Esh has tried to explain to you 3 times. It is impossible for someone to argue your false facts. That will have to be augured with yourself to come up with the answer you want.

We do not deal with fantasy so we cannot give you an answer to YOUR fantasy.

If you read above Esh even supply you a link and a pie chart as to the distribution of funds.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- -

Posted by esh_ga z7 GA (My Page) on
Tue, Sep 25, 12 at 9:56

Income redistribution to alleviate income inequality.

What's the incentive for taxpayers?

I heard that the theory is for wealth to trickle down to the little people when we redistribute wealth up via tax cuts to the wealthy.

So that is the incentive - give it to us and will sprinkle it back down to you.

Posted by esh_ga z7 GA (My Page) on
Tue, Sep 25, 12 at 11:06

What I'm describing, nik, is the kind of redistribution that YOU support. Give all the money to the upper wealth brackets so that THEY can distribute it back down to the rest of us. Progressives support adequate taxation, not redistribution. Listen to Obama's whole quote not just the bit you want to exploit. Oh wait, you don't know how to do that.

Yes, mark, those are opportunities and like david says - folks on the right are all about making sure that those opportunities to take advantage of opportunities are very few thanks to cutbacks. What a vicious circle.


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

One of the school systems where many of our poor relatives, customers, tenants and employees send their kids had a 4 year graduation rate in the mid 50% range as of 2011.

We're paying tuition and transportation costs, or providing some of our relatives with a home address so they can attend a much better school in a neighboring district.

The poor performing school has many good teachers, but many of the students are troublemakers, slow learners, disruptive, special needs students etc.

The problem with many students in the poor performing school districts is poor parenting and poor home environments.


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

"I just do not think we can say they would be very far removed from the upper middle income family"

I would agree, not too far removed, but upper middle income is far from the median American.


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

At the meeting yesterday evening, its a fixed price trip through some outfit that does this for a business - guiding American High School kids on 10-12 day trips to Europe.

Only 14 easy monthly payments of $290, plus your pass port and shopping/lunch money, estimated at $500.

Interesting that the school district now has pretty much put a ban on soliciting support from local businesses for support of organized school activities, with the reason that there is now a formal "adopt a classroom' program where each business supports a class with stuff like note books, copy payer, library books, etc. which the district can no longer afford.

So it boils down to whose parents can afford to pay for their kids' trip. Which is the same thing as all the other things like sports, theatre, knowledge bowl, and all that. If you can cough up the $300-$500, you can participate.

/poor kids need not apply

//here in the land of opportunity


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

Oh, boo frickety hoo.

I remember the magicians coming to our school and the poor kids didn't have .25 to go to the auditorium for the show and had to stay in the classroom and draw. Sometimes the teacher would pay, and after a few years some of us kids would give an extra dime or nickel so the kids that couldn't afford it couldn't go. It was always sad to see those kids that had to stay and hear others talk about it.

No one is owed a trip to Europe or anywhere else through a school program.

Kids should WORK in car washes, bake sales, yard work, etc. and not ask for donations outright--it sends the wrong message for me to see kids begging for money at a table outside a store, "we're going to the championships in Orlando please give $20." I've contributed before but I don't approve of that tactic.

If someone can't afford a trip to Europe, who else SHOULD pay for it?

Same question I asked earlier.

Who owes your kid or anyone else a trip?

If anyone does, it's the PARENTS.


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

And round and round we go...those that believe that every kid deserves a chance and an opportunity...and those that don't.


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

Posted by jillinnj (My Page) on
Wed, Sep 26, 12 at 16:51

And round and round we go...those that believe that every kid deserves a chance and an opportunity...and those that don't.

*

What are you talking about, Jillinnj?

I believe that all "kids" deserve a chance and an opportunity.

I do not believe they deserve a free trip to Europe on someone else's dime and I do not believe they deserve to have a bad example set by whiny parents lamenting the fact that others can afford it and they can't.


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

And thank goodness they don't have whiny parents! Collectively, they all have the kind of parents who suggest that the kids find ways for everyone to be included!

-despite those whiny adults who think that those who have it should go and those who don't have a chance of getting it should be left behind.

After all .... if EVERYBODY gets to go - even the kids who have two working parents who are just managing to keep up with the payments on the cheap tract house they are mortgaged for - then who gets to be the one who is envied?

Well!

We can't have that, now can we.


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

Oh, heaven forbid some poverty stricken kid gets a chance to broaden their horizons and learn from real world experience! We certainly can't have that, now, can we?! Let's be sure to remove ALL possibility of opportunity, shall we? Equal is such an... ugly word... don't you know?!

Good grief... I'm so glad I don't have a fear of sharing...


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

The filthy rich need to pay a few percent more in taxes in order to help pay down the deficit. Those tax dollars need to be confiscated in a balanced way with spending cuts or there is no way for us to get out of debt.

The use of inflammatory terms like "wealth redistribution" excite the Rightwing sensibilities of the wealthy who seek to protect their wealth and pass it on from generation to generation and the Southern rednecks and bigots, angry as he11 thinking that Obama is confiscating their money to give to the blacks and Hispanics.

My message to those who make over a quarter of a million a year is to pay a few percent more and stop complaining or trying to conflate a tax increase with a plan to redistribute wealth in society.


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

I believe that all "kids" deserve a chance and an opportunity.

I do not believe they deserve a free trip to Europe on someone else's dime and I do not believe they deserve to have a bad example set by whiny parents lamenting the fact that others can afford it and they can't.

Why did you put kids in quotation marks? Do you not really think they are kids? Weird.

Right, everyone (including those pretending to be kids) deserves an opportunity as long as in your view their parents are responsible as defined by demi and not whiners. Good, glad we got that straight.


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

The use of inflammatory terms like "wealth redistribution"

The term is meant to inflame. All taxes are essentially 'wealth redistribution' yet gasoline taxes or cigarette taxes are not the outrage du jour election cycle.

When faced with the possibility of the end of historically low tax rates for the upper income brackets, a new phrase is introduced to make the wealthiest among us appear as victims of class warfare. Orwell lives.


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

The problem with many students in the poor performing school districts is poor parenting and poor home environments.

Oh stop it! That's BS. It's far more complicated than that. Which are the under-performing school districts? They are either rural or urban. Which are the over-performing school districts? Suburban or high-income urban. Why?

If you don't know why, you don't want to know why. I'm not going to attempt to enlighten the unlightenable.

-Ron-


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

Redistributing wealth upward

By Harold Meyerson, Published: September 25

Which is the more redistributionist of our two parties? In recent decades, as Republicans have devoted themselves with laser-like intensity to redistributing America's wealth and income upward, the evidence suggests the answer is the GOP.

The most obvious way that Republicans have robbed from the middle to give to the rich has been the changes they wrought in the tax code - reducing income taxes for the wealthy in the Reagan and George W. Bush tax cuts, and cutting the tax rate on capital gains to less than half the rate on the top income of upper-middle-class employees.

The less widely understood way that Republicans have helped redistribute wealth to the already wealthy is by changing the rules. Markets don't function without rules, and the rules that Republican policymakers have made since Ronald Reagan became president have consistently depressed the share of the nation's income that the middle class can claim.

Part of the intellectual sleight-of-hand that Republicans employ in discussions of redistribution is to reserve that term solely for government intervention in the market that redistributes income downward. But markets redistribute wealth continuously. In recent decades, markets have redistributed wealth from manufacturing to finance, from Main Street to Wall Street, from workers to shareholders. Rules made by "pro-market" governments (including those of "pro-market" Democrats) have enabled these epochal shifts. Free trade with China helped hollow out manufacturing; the failure to regulate finance enabled Wall Street to swell; the opposition to labor's efforts to reestablish an even playing field during organizing campaigns has all but eliminated collective bargaining in the private sector.

The conservative counter to such liberal cavils is to assert that the market increases wealth, which will eventually descend on everyone as the gentle rains from heaven. Decrying such Keynesian notions as unions or federally established minimum wages, hedge fund guru Andy Kessler recently argued in the Wall Street Journal that "it is workers' productivity that drives long-term wage gains, not workers' wages that drive growth."

But Kessler assumes - and this is the very essence of the "trickle-down" argument - that workers reap the rewards of productivity gains. Believing and asserting that requires either ignorance or willful denial of economic history. The only time in U.S. history when workers substantially benefited from productivity gains was the three decades that followed World War II, when median household income and productivity gains both increased by 102 percent. Not coincidentally, that was also the only period of genuine union power in U.S. history, and the time when the tax code was at its most progressive. During the past quarter-century, as progressivity was lessened and unions diminished, all productivity gains have gone to the wealthiest 10 percent, according to research published by the National Bureau of Economic Research. In 1955, at the height of union strength, the wealthiest 10 percent received 33 percent of the nation's personal income. In 2007, they received 50 percent, Economic Policy Institute data show.

If that's not redistribution, I don't know what is.

The problem is not just that everyone but the wealthy is claiming a smaller share of the nation's income; the absolute amount of income they're getting is declining as well. Median household income has dropped to the levels of the mid-1990s, according to Pew analysis of census data, while the income of the 400 wealthiest Americans rose by a tidy $200 billion last year, according to data released this month by Forbes magazine.

If that's not redistribution, I don't know what is.

Indeed, the United States has experienced an upward redistribution so profound that it affects far more than incomes. Whole sectors of the economy and regions of the country have been decimated by these economic changes. The descent in all manner of social indexes is most apparent among poorly educated whites. Conservative commentator Charles Murray has documented in his new book the decline in marriage rates and family stability within the white working class. And now, as the New York Times' Sabrina Tavernise has reported, that decline includes longevity as well. While other Americans' life expectancy has advanced, the life expectancy of whites without high school diplomas has declined since 1990 - by three years among men and five years among women.

The market is not just redistributing income in the United States, then. It is redistributing life.

So, which party can claim credit for this - the real redistribution this nation has experienced over the past 30 years? Many Democrats have been complicit in this calamity by their indifference to the consequences of deregulation and trade. But the trophy for promoting the policies that have redistributed wealth, family stability and longevity upward goes to the Republicans, whose standard-bearers are championing even more radical versions of these policies today.

A pro-life party? More like its opposite.

Here is a link that might be useful: link


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

Orwellian, indeed.

Just think, from many of conservative's collective posts in here, it seems that some of them grew up to represent precisily the type of person or class of people (or wishing upon a star to someday be in the financial class of people) Orwell wrote in warning about.

No whining now! Own it or change it, it's your choice!

And thank the stars above that you live in a country which affords you the opportunity to do just exactly that.


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

No whining now! Own it or change it, it's your choice!

And thank the stars above that you live in a country which affords you the opportunity to do just exactly that.

I agree, mylab, but forces are conspiring to make it harder and harder to do that. The rich and their companies can buy politicians a lot of the time, thanks to the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling.


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

The wealthy, the wealthy companies, the persons called corporations, the powers of all of these - their attitudes can change.
It is they who must do the changing - Orwell warned us of them, their attitude and their goal. They weren't going to come with horns growning out of their heads and tails with red skin of devils, they were going to look just like everyone else and yet be people who had power via money and he warned of how they would choose to abuse both. They should do a little less whining and a little Orwell reading. Those books of his are everywhere - available for kids in school to learn carefully what they must beware of.

These are the people that - if tries to curtail their power via money, oh! The whining that goes on. It's so boring.
Key buzz words used repetitively - such as "envy! jealousy! lazy! weak! bootstraps!" are sprinkled in conversation.

They can stop the whining about how badly society wants to tax them and hold them accountable and instead, join the citizens of this country to make it a good one.
Or not. Right now it's their choice.

But it IS these very people who Orwell warned us all about.

All that whining certainly won't change the course we are on, certainly. They must stop and think of what Jesus himself instructed, by words and by example. After all, if this is a Christian nation, then Jesus must be emulated.

If he is not, then this country certainly is not a Christian nation and it's time to stop insisting that it is, or that we are.
In other words, as Jesus himself might have very well stated for the first time:

"Put your money where your mouth is."


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

Jesus was not a Christian


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

"Posted by david52 z5CO (My Page) on Wed, Sep 26, 12 at 19:11

Redistributing wealth upward
By Harold Meyerson, Published: September 25"

.............

"Harold Meyerson
Opinion Writer"

Wikipedia: Harold Meyerson

"The son of long time leaders in California of the Socialist Party of America, he was active in the 1970s in the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee."

...

"An avowed democratic socialist-according to Meyerson one of only "two" that he encounters during "daily rounds through the nation's capital," the other being Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont[4]-he is a vice-chair of the National Political Committee of the Democratic Socialists of America."

Wikipedia:Democratic Socialists of America

"Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) is a democratic socialist and social-democratic organization in the United States and the U.S. affiliate of the Socialist International, an international federation of social-democratic, democratic socialist and labor political parties and organizations."

...

""Put it this way. Marx was a democrat with a small d. The Democratic Socialists envision a humane social order based on popular control of resources and production, economic planning...""

Hay


 o
RE: The Fall of Redistribution

"Posted by david52 z5CO (My Page) on Sat, Sep 22, 12 at 10:39

Can anyone give an example of a stable society where wealth is increasingly concentrated at the top?"

Thomas Sowell in the OP:

"The history of the 20th century is full of examples of countries that set out to redistribute wealth and ended up redistributing poverty. The Communist nations were a classic example, but by no means the only example.

In theory, confiscating the wealth of the more successful people ought to make the rest of the society more prosperous. But when the Soviet Union confiscated the wealth of successful farmers, food became scarce. As many people died of starvation under Stalin in the 1930s as died in Hitler's Holocaust in the 1940s....."

Hay


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

One thing that we frequently see redistributed is misery. $hit rolls down hill.


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

Speaking of field trips, having attended several schools with both wealthy and poor households, many of the poor households couldn't even afford to send their kids on relatively inexpensive day trips, let alone out-of-state and out-of-country trips.

Many of our poor classmates sat home, or in school while we went to amusement parks, museums, concerts, ski-club, swimming, hiking, kayaking, sporting events, Disney World etc.

Some students are to blame as they didn't participate in fund raisers and/or didn't want to participate in activities although funding, or partial funding was available.


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

Hiya, Hay! Attacking the messenger - Columnist Meyerson - doesn't change the facts about the massive upwards transfer of wealth.

Markjames, we saw that here as well, last year a DD field trip to Denver, Ft Collins etc with lots of museum stops and a visit to a university cost $200, the trip partially sponsored by other sources. Several families were unable to find the money.

I thought it interesting that the tour leader pretty clearly stated that for the amount of money needed for the trip to France, organized fund raisers wouldn't work and it was up to each family to figure something out. Giving an example that if 20 kids do an all-day carwash, they're lucky to each come home with $20.


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

One of our nephews raised over $2,500 towards his out-of-state trip selling raffle tickets, candy bars and pies alone.

Many of the rural students live in low population density areas with great distances between homes, plus have no transportation, so raising money is tough.

Our fund raisers generally do well since we have so many high traffic count areas, especially during summer tourist season.

If you set up in front of an extremely busy Walmart or McDonald's, you'll generally do well whether you're collecting, or selling.


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

"Hiya, Hay! Attacking the messenger - Columnist Meyerson - doesn't change the facts about the massive upwards transfer of wealth."

I don't know that I did any attacking per se. Just the facts, ma'am.

The Washington Post, where he wrote this piece states that he is:

"Harold Meyerson
Opinion Writer"

I was curious about him when I read the article. The article states a lot of opinion. Facts, not so much.

"doesn't change the facts about the massive upwards transfer of wealth"

Fact or opinion?

"Hiya, Hay! Attacking the messenger - Communist Meyerson - doesn't change the facts about the massive upwards transfer of wealth."

Communists--- call them by any name you want-- didn't seem to learn anything from the facts of history in the last century.

As always, my humble opinion.

Hay


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

Yes. We live 10 miles from town, and just the amount of time and gas spent driving the wee '52ers around to organized fund raisers - let alone the starter jobs at the swimming pool with the 3 hour shifts - I end up spending more money than they make.


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

"It is impossible for someone to argue your false facts."

Nothing to argue.

Just explain. What does a taxpayer get in return for having his own income decreased so that government can transfer what it takes from him to another individual, in order to increase that individual's income?


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

Many people haul their kids on two round trips - often 30, 40, 50 plus miles each to work 4 hours shifts.

It's often a wash due to the cost of gas, time, hassles, vehicle wear and tear etc, but necessary for young workers to get job experience and skills which are more important than the wages.

It's much the same with many school fund raisers where students learn about teamwork, sales, marketing etc.

Schools should try to teach, or promote balance in life - Education, Health, Fitness and Fun.

We see many well educated students, but they lack balance as they're obese, unfit, unhealthy, unhappy and boring.


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

Nik If you want a different answer you have to ask another question.

We cannot help you if you cannot understand that we do not understand your fantasy.

What do you do... wake up once a day and forget you asked the same question? Wake up and ask again. You are making me laugh.

I will wait for you to wake up tomorrow and ask again. I am a Liberal and will be here for you and I will not turn my back on those in need. Somebody has to be here for you.

"It is impossible for someone to argue your false facts."

Nothing to argue.

Just explain. What does a taxpayer get in return for having his own income decreased so that government can transfer what it takes from him to another individual, in order to increase that individual's income?


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

"Nik If you want a different answer you have to ask another question."

ROTFLMAO!

Waste of time. I asked the easy one first.


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

This entire redistribution argument is bogus !

Taxes are gathered from the populace and allocated to various programmes, interest on the debt etc. All disbursements of tax dollars is in fact redistribution...every penny of it. The government collects taxes and then REDISTRIBUTES it !!!

The Defense Department budget is a redistribution of tax payer dollars as is protecting the borders, deporting illegals, homeland security, subsidies to farmers, corporations and oil companies, food stamps, medicare, medicaid....all of it!

This is such a lame argument....and the voters aren't buying it.

Had enough yet!!


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

ROTFLMAO!

Waste of time. I asked the easy one first.

No, no don't give up. We are here for you. As your fantasy grows just ask away.


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

"Taxes are gathered from the populace and allocated to various programmes, interest on the debt etc. All disbursements of tax dollars is in fact redistribution...every penny of it. The government collects taxes and then REDISTRIBUTES it !!!"

That has zip to do with the OP. The topic focus is wealth redistribution to reduce inequality. When Obama got caught saying he supports "redistribution" he was referring to reducing income inequality by transferring wealth/income from one individual to another. Perhaps you can tell us what the individual whose stuff is confiscated gets out of it, other than a smaller pay check. Nobody seems to have the slightest idea.


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

Not worth the effort giving you a few Pinocchios for taking something entirely out of context...

Obama was not talking about the redistributing wealth - he was speaking about competition, the market place and innovation in an effort to improve government services in Chicago.

How do you want to spin the newly unearthed video of Romney in 1985 speaking about "harvesting" companies at significant profit?


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

Marquest, it's the perfect example of insanity... doing the same thing over and over, looking for a different result.

As most of us know, the word "redistribution" is a GOP talking point word. It was chosen specifically to elicit a predetermined response. It falls into the same category as "death panel" and other words or word combinations used as part of talking points.

It's got nothing to do with reality, though.


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

Nobody seems to have the slightest idea.

nikoleta, there is no NOBODY but you not having the slightest idea. Fantasy is where you are and have a problem coming out of that fantasy.

It has/was how taxation was set up and has been the vision of a civilized society values. If you chose to get stuck on a word "Redistribution" you will never understand the concept of taxation then you will continue not to understand.

There is a new word every week given to ones that will listen followed by "Oh My This Is Horrible"

So far........
Redistribution, "We Built It", "Balanced Budget" "Not An American Born"

To be continued...........Nov 6th election day


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

Divide and conquer through fear and paranoia. It's a tactic that seems to be working well.


 o
RE: The Fallacy of Redistribution

When Obama got caught saying he supports "redistribution" he was referring to reducing income inequality by transferring wealth/income from one individual to another.

This is why it's impossible to have a conversation with you and answer your fantasy questions, as people keep trying to point out to you.

The facts are that is not what Obama was talking about at all. That's what you and the crazy right wing nut jobs want people to believe. Try living in reality for a change, listen to what was actually said and not what Fox News tells you was said. Then get back to us when you have some questions with a foot in reality. Perhaps we can answer them for you then. But, don't worry. We're a patient bunch. We'll be here when you get a grip.

Had enough of the crazy right wing alter universe?


 o Post a Follow-Up

Please Note: Only registered members are able to post messages to this forum.

    If you are a member, please log in.

    If you aren't yet a member, join now!


Return to the Hot Topics Forum

Information about Posting

  • You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
  • Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review your post, make changes and upload photos.
  • After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
  • Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
  • We have a strict no-advertising policy!
  • If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
  • If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.


Learn more about in-text links on this page here