Polarisation of incomes and prosperity

[Ben Kenobi]

How would redistribution change the area under the curve?

[Aeson]

You care about distribution, and lied about it.

[Egbert]

I suspect that that the poor seem to be getting poorer but am unable to draw any firm conclusion. The various articles and statistics I have seen do seem conclusive.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check/2013/oct/02/poor-richer-poverty-living-standards

Are the poor getting poorer?

Does anyone have any authoritative links addressing this question?

[Ben Kenobi]

Answer the question, Aeson!

[Aeson]

You said distribution wasn't important ... obviously you were lying.

[ricketyclik]

The key thing in terms of overall economic health and income distribution is that the wealthy save a larger proportion of their wealth. That's why we see things like jobless recoveries, and very low interest rates failing to stimulate growth.

As unregulated economies have gotten better and better at funneling wealth upwards, more and more of that money is parked in savings and speculative (unproductive) investment.

Send money towards people who struggle to put food on their kids' tables. They'll spend it all, out of necessity, providing economic stimulus.

Unfortunately the ultra-wealthy have gotten to the point where it doesn't matter to them if the economy tanks - they've got enough for several lifetimes.

[pchang]

I suspect that that the poor seem to be getting poorer but am unable to draw any firm conclusion. The various articles and statistics I have seen do seem conclusive.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check/2013/oct/02/poor-richer-poverty-living-standards

Are the poor getting poorer?

Does anyone have any authoritative links addressing this question?

I'm not sure we even have agreement on what it means to be poor. Many would have you believe it is some sort of absolute measurement, but closer examination would indicate it is really a relative thing.

[Egbert]

I'm not sure we even have agreement on what it means to be poor. Many would have you believe it is some sort of absolute measurement, but closer examination would indicate it is really a relative thing.

I'm not sure either. The "poverty line" is a measure often mentioned however this "poverty line" seems to be getting redefined upwards and therefore seems to be a relative measure.

[Aeson]

The poor are in the developing world for the most part.

[Ben Kenobi]

Send money towards people who struggle to put food on their kids' tables. They'll spend it all, out of necessity, providing economic stimulus.

If savings are antithetical towards wealth creation, why not take everyone's savings?

[ricketyclik]

If savings are antithetical towards wealth creation, why not take everyone's savings?

Jezz, I don't know, because then no one would bother working?

It's OK, it's a rhetorical question, I get it Ben, you're attempting a straw man. Who woulda thunk?

[Ben Kenobi]

because then no one would bother working?

Then why are you advocating taking away what some have worked to save to benefit those who, in your perception, need it more?

You've hit on exactly my point and why your method doesn't work. Why work?

[ricketyclik]

Then why are you advocating taking away what some have worked to save to benefit those who, in your perception, need it more?

You've hit on exactly my point and why your method doesn't work. Why work?

At the risk of legitimising your puny "argument", I'm not advocating any such thing. I'm advocating remuneration systems being more balanced, and contribution to the common wealth in a manner that is proportional to disposable income.

To spell it out, if you're worried about whether to update your third yacht this year then you can afford to pay more than if you're working three minimum wage jobs and struggling to support yourself and your family. Contributing some of your excess wealth in taxes isn't contributing all of it, and it's a straw man used by the very wealthy to suggest that they are, or that it means their striving for wealth is diminished by having to do so.

If all excess wealth were stripped, sure, you'd have a case, but in Western democracies this simply does not happen, and nor should it.

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm advocating remuneration systems being more balanced, and contribution to the common wealth in a manner that is proportional to disposable income.

Your proposal then is flawed.

To spell it out, if you're worried about whether to update your third yacht this year then you can afford to pay more than if you're working three minimum wage jobs and struggling to support yourself and your family.

Say I'm one of those minimum wage people - and I can make more after the redistribution that I can working. Why should I work anymore?

Two, how would the person who worked to earn enough money to buy the yachts feel? Would they want to keep working if they knew that they wouldn't reap the benefit of their work?

The solution - as always - is not redistribution, but lowering taxes, not increasing them. If the minimum wage person can save more money without being taxed for owning a car, taxed for the bus system (which doesn't go to where they live), taxes for the job that they do have (payroll taxes), taxed for the latest green boondoggle when their electrical rate doubles, etc.

And that's before they pay taxes. Working is for chumps. Why work when you can make money, tax free, for sitting on your ass.