vintagecushion
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2008
- Messages
- 107
Is anyone else here worried about this notion of redistribution of wealth?
- Thread starter stone_seeker
- Start date
- Status
miraclesrule
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2008
- Messages
- 4,442
Damn, I had a great post but was interrupted by the cutest kids ever....so when I got back I refreshed instead of submitted.
Grrrrrrrrrr, okay...
Hahaha Harriet, just doing my daily duty to be a PITA for a lawyer.
And then the rest of my post had to do with people who garnered lots of money as a result of pursuing a dream that wasn''t about money....and then those who wouldn''t turn down a winning lottery ticket when living on the street...to a murmur about those that did win the lottery and wished they hadn''t.
Again...like I said. A Damn good question.
Grrrrrrrrrr, okay...
Hahaha Harriet, just doing my daily duty to be a PITA for a lawyer.
And then the rest of my post had to do with people who garnered lots of money as a result of pursuing a dream that wasn''t about money....and then those who wouldn''t turn down a winning lottery ticket when living on the street...to a murmur about those that did win the lottery and wished they hadn''t.
Again...like I said. A Damn good question.
MaggieB
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2008
- Messages
- 646
I think it is a very hard question to generalize. There are both wealthy people and poor people for whom the dollar means everything, and for whom it means nothing.
My dad''s pretty wealthy. If you met him, you would think he was a homeless person. The sole purpose of a dollar to him is to stockpile and keep score. He doesn''t do a single enjoyable thing with his money, a single altruistic thing. What it means to him, I couldn''t guess.
I find the concept that we "deserve" our circumstances rather ludicrous. (I realize I''m going off on a tangent.) I''ve been poor, and I''ve been rich (sadly never filthy rich) and I''ve deserved neither.
strmrdr
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Messages
- 23,295
No it isn''t, you can be rich and not wealthy and wealthy and not rich.
Rich is a lifestyle more than anything else and to many people have been living that lifestyle on credit with no wealth.
Someone who has 3 million dollars of un-inflated value property is wealthy but they may have little money without taking on debt.
Therefore they are not rich.
Someone else may have 3 millions dollars cash and live the rich lifestyle.
They are rich but they have no wealth
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2004
- Messages
- 6,632
I confess I didn''t read every single post but I think there are some interesting questions embeded in this conversation, which probably is a few pages back, such as, as there is already redistribution of wealth in this country, we can discuss whether this is a fair restribution or needs to be changed (corporate welfare versus individual welfare). Also about the size of the government, and what the government should be responsible for and what should be voluntary, whether through individuals or the states.
Personally I don''t think government can solve all societal problems, or should. However there are some things that governments are better at doing than either individuals or businesses, and there is utility in having the government provide those. Besides a military, infrastructure, also funding for science projects, I believe healthcare is more efficiently done through a single payer system than the fragmented capitalist system that both is very expensive, does not cover everyone, inefficient with loads of paperwork beuracratic layers, and again really expensive.
One of the best things about this country (or maybe should I say what used to be one of the best things about this country) is that someone could come from a poor background and have upward mobility, and have the freedom to pursue one''s dreams here, whether it be religious freedom, financial mobility, educational. The fact that the lack of universal healthcare coverage can cause someone who is doing everything in their power to have the american dream but can lose it all due to an accident or illness, means right now that equality and the pursuit of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is true in words but not in action at this time.
Personally I don''t think government can solve all societal problems, or should. However there are some things that governments are better at doing than either individuals or businesses, and there is utility in having the government provide those. Besides a military, infrastructure, also funding for science projects, I believe healthcare is more efficiently done through a single payer system than the fragmented capitalist system that both is very expensive, does not cover everyone, inefficient with loads of paperwork beuracratic layers, and again really expensive.
One of the best things about this country (or maybe should I say what used to be one of the best things about this country) is that someone could come from a poor background and have upward mobility, and have the freedom to pursue one''s dreams here, whether it be religious freedom, financial mobility, educational. The fact that the lack of universal healthcare coverage can cause someone who is doing everything in their power to have the american dream but can lose it all due to an accident or illness, means right now that equality and the pursuit of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is true in words but not in action at this time.
neatfreak
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2007
- Messages
- 14,173
I completely agree. And so would most economists. Money only makes you happier up to a certain point (and that point is really low, somewhere in the $40-50k range if I remember correctly), then the "happiness" value of an additional dollar of income drops drastically until the additional dollar makes you no happier...
Allisonfaye
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2004
- Messages
- 1,456
neatfreak
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2007
- Messages
- 14,173
zhuzhu
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2006
- Messages
- 2,503
neatfreak
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2007
- Messages
- 14,173
zhuzhu
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2006
- Messages
- 2,503
Allisonfaye
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2004
- Messages
- 1,456
I am invoking the economist''s concept of the "marginal utility of money." By "utility," I''m referring to objective and not subjective utility. Let me sharpen my question as best as I can: "To whom is that extra dollar of more use? A person with more money or one with less?"
P.S. Any distinction between being rich and being wealthy is irrelevant (not that I see one).
Zhuzhu,
Sorry to disappoint you. I''ve never had reason to look at the Singapore tax system and so don''t know it.
P.S. Any distinction between being rich and being wealthy is irrelevant (not that I see one).
Zhuzhu,
Sorry to disappoint you. I''ve never had reason to look at the Singapore tax system and so don''t know it.
miraclesrule
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2008
- Messages
- 4,442
Now I think it''s a trick question.
Depending on one''s acceptance or rejection of the fundamental theory which excludes "self interested behavior" and relies heavily on the "pain/pleasure measure", the answer would be subject to endless debate. This would preclude an absolute answer. Logical arguments and hypotheticals can be made for either answer, but I am still going to choose the one with less money.
Depending on one''s acceptance or rejection of the fundamental theory which excludes "self interested behavior" and relies heavily on the "pain/pleasure measure", the answer would be subject to endless debate. This would preclude an absolute answer. Logical arguments and hypotheticals can be made for either answer, but I am still going to choose the one with less money.
miraclesrule
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2008
- Messages
- 4,442
Hahaha, yes.Date: 11/1/2008 10:53:37 PM
Author: Harriet
Am I your lawyer of the day again?
I just love a good debate, but I just finished watching "The Corporation" and it sapped my cells. Otherwise, I would try and support my answer. I thought I could support the personal life survival argument, but then I remembered that I would starve before I allowed my daughter to starve, rendering my argument moot. So, back to thinking I go.
miraclesrule
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2008
- Messages
- 4,442
miraclesrule
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2008
- Messages
- 4,442
Skippy123
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2006
- Messages
- 24,300
Miraclesrule,
I can't think anymore. Here's some reading for you
: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_tax
Skip,
I'll be back tomorrow. I can't think anymore.
I can't think anymore. Here's some reading for you
Skip,
I'll be back tomorrow. I can't think anymore.
Skippy123
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2006
- Messages
- 24,300
Skippy123
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2006
- Messages
- 24,300
LaraOnline
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2008
- Messages
- 3,365
It''s funny to think that even the economic concept of ''marginal utility'' could be an emotive concept when applied to money. When I was first taught the concept of marginal utility, my high school teacher used the example of ''ice creams'', as in how many ice creams could you consume before your enjoyment of the icecream started to decrease, and then even perhaps make you feel bad.
I don''t feel the issue is as cut and dried with money, on an individual subjective basis. After all, some people have a strong stomach, and could eat a lot of icecream! Also, money, unlike icecream, is kind of a gross resource for obtaining other things, so you could switch to a hamburger if you wanted.
To think about marginal utility, first you have to think about the two groups you are comparing, when measuring marginal utility. Who could benefit most from the extra dollar?: The starving woman in Africa, or the corporate guy in US Moneytown, who has already paid off his mansion, his palatial holiday home and all his collectables?
I mean, it''s obvious. And it''s probably good comment about the unfairness of it all, as well.
But how about comparing other, less extreme, group representatives: the struggling small business owner/entrepreneur, hocked to the hilt, vs the comfortable middle manager (employee) that has paid off all his loans. Who needs the money now? How does ''marginal utility'' impact upon assumptions made about employment status (employer/employee), financial status, and money?
How will Obama''s tax strategies impact on the business class? If taxes are to be cut for working people, indirectly that''s helping business by keeping cost pressures down somewhat.
I don''t feel the issue is as cut and dried with money, on an individual subjective basis. After all, some people have a strong stomach, and could eat a lot of icecream! Also, money, unlike icecream, is kind of a gross resource for obtaining other things, so you could switch to a hamburger if you wanted.
To think about marginal utility, first you have to think about the two groups you are comparing, when measuring marginal utility. Who could benefit most from the extra dollar?: The starving woman in Africa, or the corporate guy in US Moneytown, who has already paid off his mansion, his palatial holiday home and all his collectables?
I mean, it''s obvious. And it''s probably good comment about the unfairness of it all, as well.
But how about comparing other, less extreme, group representatives: the struggling small business owner/entrepreneur, hocked to the hilt, vs the comfortable middle manager (employee) that has paid off all his loans. Who needs the money now? How does ''marginal utility'' impact upon assumptions made about employment status (employer/employee), financial status, and money?
How will Obama''s tax strategies impact on the business class? If taxes are to be cut for working people, indirectly that''s helping business by keeping cost pressures down somewhat.
luckystar112
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2007
- Messages
- 3,962
I also don''t think it is about the dollar alone.
I think it''s about how much debt you have and how much money you have left over at the end of the week/month. I think of it sort of like the cost of living in different areas. For example, I live in TX where real estate is extremely cheap. We make good money for Texas but not anywhere near what people would consider "rich". On the other hand, someone living in California where real estate is high probably makes a lot more money than us, but their cost of living is higher. So I don''t think that my dollar would mean any more to me than the person living in California, even though they make more.
I think it''s about how much debt you have and how much money you have left over at the end of the week/month. I think of it sort of like the cost of living in different areas. For example, I live in TX where real estate is extremely cheap. We make good money for Texas but not anywhere near what people would consider "rich". On the other hand, someone living in California where real estate is high probably makes a lot more money than us, but their cost of living is higher. So I don''t think that my dollar would mean any more to me than the person living in California, even though they make more.
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2004
- Messages
- 6,632
Talking about redistribution of the wealth, does anyone remember this conversation from the last election? Some states receive more money from the Federal government than they pay in taxes, while other states pay more out in taxes than services received (redistribution of wealth). Ironically it is often the blue states that pay out more than they receive, while the red states more likely at the "federal feeding trough". Maybe liberals are more giving than they realize!
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.htmlhttp://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.htmlhttp://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2004
- Messages
- 6,632
miraclesrule
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2008
- Messages
- 4,442
- Status
300x240.png)