The Futility of Redistribution of Wealth

[Darker45]

Redistribution of wealth is an undying issue that has been hotly debated and pushed forward in a lot of ways, legal or illegal. Taxation and other monetary policies are among the legal ways. Illegal ways would include a Robin Hood way of equalizing wealth- robbing from the rich and then giving away to the poor.

When concerns of poor countries are discussed, the issue would seem to inevitably swerve into redistribution of wealth. When the topic on the table is all about the top billionaires of the world, it will eventually end up an issue of a handful of wealthy elites worth more than the total worth of billions and billions of the world's poorest, or even of countries. When concerns about quality of life is talked about, it becomes a perfect opening topic about the dichotomy between the rich and the poor, the privileged and the deprived, and so on.

I say, even if god will one day confiscate all the wealth of the world and redistributes them equally to everyone, a week is too long for the world to revert to its previous situation. It will just be a matter of days for a few to become wealthy and others penniless.

If one day god will redistribute all minerals equally to all countries, a year later some would become more powerful while others would end up borrowing from the others.

If an entire piece of land is equally divided among all the inhabitants, half a year later, someone would turn into a vast farm owner while some become his mere workers.  

[Skylineman]

It's always Pareto's 80 to 20. 20% will own 80% of wealth

[Rockie1234]

Redistribution of wealth is an undying issue that has been hotly debated and pushed forward in a lot of ways, legal or illegal. Taxation and other monetary policies are among the legal ways. Illegal ways would include a Robin Hood way of equalizing wealth- robbing from the rich and then giving away to the poor.

When concerns of poor countries are discussed, the issue would seem to inevitably swerve into redistribution of wealth. When the topic on the table is all about the top billionaires of the world, it will eventually end up an issue of a handful of wealthy elites worth more than the total worth of billions and billions of the world's poorest, or even of countries. When concerns about quality of life is talked about, it becomes a perfect opening topic about the dichotomy between the rich and the poor, the privileged and the deprived, and so on.

I say, even if god will one day confiscate all the wealth of the world and redistributes them equally to everyone, a week is too long for the world to revert to its previous situation. It will just be a matter of days for a few to become wealthy and others penniless.

If one day god will redistribute all minerals equally to all countries, a year later some would become more powerful while others would end up borrowing from the others.

If an entire piece of land is equally divided among all the inhabitants, half a year later, someone would turn into a vast farm owner while some become his mere workers.  

It is always an interesting topic to have a discussion on. You are right that inequality seems very difficult, if not impossible to completely eradicate. But I guess a key point is how much you believe in the idea of a meritocracy, since a meritocratic system would justify any existing inequality. Simply being born in a poor country, I would say, greatly reduces your chances for financial success. I agree inequality cannot be eradicated, but surely small efforts can be made for a fairer system to allow those who deserve it to rise to the top. I would be interested to know what type of freedom you believe in for an individual, a "positive" or "negative" one?

[Darker45]

Redistribution of wealth is an undying issue that has been hotly debated and pushed forward in a lot of ways, legal or illegal. Taxation and other monetary policies are among the legal ways. Illegal ways would include a Robin Hood way of equalizing wealth- robbing from the rich and then giving away to the poor.

When concerns of poor countries are discussed, the issue would seem to inevitably swerve into redistribution of wealth. When the topic on the table is all about the top billionaires of the world, it will eventually end up an issue of a handful of wealthy elites worth more than the total worth of billions and billions of the world's poorest, or even of countries. When concerns about quality of life is talked about, it becomes a perfect opening topic about the dichotomy between the rich and the poor, the privileged and the deprived, and so on.

I say, even if god will one day confiscate all the wealth of the world and redistributes them equally to everyone, a week is too long for the world to revert to its previous situation. It will just be a matter of days for a few to become wealthy and others penniless.

If one day god will redistribute all minerals equally to all countries, a year later some would become more powerful while others would end up borrowing from the others.

If an entire piece of land is equally divided among all the inhabitants, half a year later, someone would turn into a vast farm owner while some become his mere workers.  

It is always an interesting topic to have a discussion on. You are right that inequality seems very difficult, if not impossible to completely eradicate. But I guess a key point is how much you believe in the idea of a meritocracy, since a meritocratic system would justify any existing inequality. Simply being born in a poor country, I would say, greatly reduces your chances for financial success. I agree inequality cannot be eradicated, but surely small efforts can be made for a fairer system to allow those who deserve it to rise to the top.

Inequality cannot be eradicated. That is the truth. But it is never enough reason not to pursue its opposite. Inequality, for me, cannot be justified by any system. I am speaking of equality in terms of dignity, rights, etc. In terms of material possession and endowment, equality is pointless. Fairness is the right thing.

I would be interested to know what type of freedom you believe in for an individual, a "positive" or "negative" one?

Both negative and positive freedom are necessary for an individual to succeed in life. One's capabilities, however brilliant and ingenious they may be, might be put into naught if external constraints are numerous and difficult enough to overcome.

[merchantofzeny]

It's coz not all people are equal. I know, shocking but true. 

Everyone have different capabilities and some are smarter when it comes to making and managing money.

It is always an interesting topic to have a discussion on. You are right that inequality seems very difficult, if not impossible to completely eradicate. But I guess a key point is how much you believe in the idea of a meritocracy, since a meritocratic system would justify any existing inequality. Simply being born in a poor country, I would say, greatly reduces your chances for financial success. I agree inequality cannot be eradicated, but surely small efforts can be made for a fairer system to allow those who deserve it to rise to the top. I would be interested to know what type of freedom you believe in for an individual, a "positive" or "negative" one?

Poorer countries have higher inequality since those who got to the top first would barricade it. "Meritocracy" despite its flaws is still what works best currently since people get what they "deserve".

The issue is how to prevent people who get to top from blocking entry. Basically there should be equal opportunities.

[Rockie1234]

Redistribution of wealth is an undying issue that has been hotly debated and pushed forward in a lot of ways, legal or illegal. Taxation and other monetary policies are among the legal ways. Illegal ways would include a Robin Hood way of equalizing wealth- robbing from the rich and then giving away to the poor.

When concerns of poor countries are discussed, the issue would seem to inevitably swerve into redistribution of wealth. When the topic on the table is all about the top billionaires of the world, it will eventually end up an issue of a handful of wealthy elites worth more than the total worth of billions and billions of the world's poorest, or even of countries. When concerns about quality of life is talked about, it becomes a perfect opening topic about the dichotomy between the rich and the poor, the privileged and the deprived, and so on.

I say, even if god will one day confiscate all the wealth of the world and redistributes them equally to everyone, a week is too long for the world to revert to its previous situation. It will just be a matter of days for a few to become wealthy and others penniless.

If one day god will redistribute all minerals equally to all countries, a year later some would become more powerful while others would end up borrowing from the others.

If an entire piece of land is equally divided among all the inhabitants, half a year later, someone would turn into a vast farm owner while some become his mere workers.  

It is always an interesting topic to have a discussion on. You are right that inequality seems very difficult, if not impossible to completely eradicate. But I guess a key point is how much you believe in the idea of a meritocracy, since a meritocratic system would justify any existing inequality. Simply being born in a poor country, I would say, greatly reduces your chances for financial success. I agree inequality cannot be eradicated, but surely small efforts can be made for a fairer system to allow those who deserve it to rise to the top.

Inequality cannot be eradicated. That is the truth. But it is never enough reason not to pursue its opposite. Inequality, for me, cannot be justified by any system. I am speaking of equality in terms of dignity, rights, etc. In terms of material possession and endowment, equality is pointless. Fairness is the right thing.

I would be interested to know what type of freedom you believe in for an individual, a "positive" or "negative" one?

Both negative and positive freedom are necessary for an individual to succeed in life. One's capabilities, however brilliant and ingenious they may be, might be put into naught if external constraints are numerous and difficult enough to overcome.

Yes, we must have equality in terms of rights and dignity etc. But what can we consider rights? Rights are man-made, for example you could argue that healthcare is a human right. It is very difficult and even then it is not a perfect solution. For example, surely legal systems need reforms. While everyone in a democracy has the right to a fair trial, as we see in practice, those with larger incomes don't face the same justice due to better lawyers. But in an ideal world, this problem would not exist. But of course, identifying solutions is always much harder than identifying problems.

[BADecker]

There are several ways that wealth gets redistributed. Legal or illegal are simply forms of hanging onto wealth, because people make up laws and codes. If my law is opposite of your law, who determines whose law is right?

If my military is bigger than yours, I am right, and I get the wealth.