FT's Martin Wolf Wants Explicit Fiscal Redistribution From Winners To Losers

[link01]

capitalism in crisis, & populist proposals on how to fix it:

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertlenzner/2012/01/30/the-fts-martin-wolf-wants-explicit-fiscal-redistribution-from-the-winners-to-the-losers/?partner=yahootix

 

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/c80b0d2c-4377-11e1-8489-00144feab49a.html#axzz1l3MStuqC

 

 

 

[dwy000]

There will always be rich and poor, successful and unsuccessful, have's and have-not's.  Artificially handing cash from one to the other will not resolve that and it certainly doesn't incentive anyone to try and move from one to the other.

[RichardGibbons]

Artificially handing cash from one to the other will not resolve that and it certainly doesn't incentive anyone to try and move from one to the other.

 

Nor, at reasonable levels, does it significantly disincentivize the anyone from trying to move from one to the other.

[Hawk4value]

So, do you mean a "little" redistribution of wealth is ok but "a lot" is not???  And who determines what is a "little" and what is "a lot"??  C'mon this is a slippery slope.  The critical issue is opportunity not re-distribution. Name any other country that has a better system where people have more opportunity to succeed (if they want to) than the US??

[RichardGibbons]

So, do you mean a "little" redistribution of wealth is ok but "a lot" is not???  And who determines what is a "little" and what is "a lot"??  C'mon this is a slippery slope.  The critical issue is opportunity not re-distribution. Name any other country that has a better system where people have more opportunity to succeed (if they want to) than the US??

Yes, that's what I mean.  100% tax would obviously be bad.  0% tax would also obviously be bad.  There already is a little redistribution of wealth as of 1862.  The government determines what is sensible. 

 

Most western countries, with the exception of Britain and a few others, have better opportunities to succeed.  Basically, this is what economic mobility is all about. 

 

(That said, if you want to argue about which countries are the best at creating really rich people and really poor people with huge gulfs between them, then US is pretty good.  Though Russia and China seem to be catching up in that respect, too.)

[Myth465]

So, do you mean a "little" redistribution of wealth is ok but "a lot" is not???  And who determines what is a "little" and what is "a lot"??  C'mon this is a slippery slope.  The critical issue is opportunity not re-distribution. Name any other country that has a better system where people have more opportunity to succeed (if they want to) than the US??

Yes, that's what I mean.  100% tax would obviously be bad.  0% tax would also obviously be bad.  There already is a little redistribution of wealth as of 1862.  The government determines what is sensible. 

 

Most western countries, with the exception of Britain and a few others, have better opportunities to succeed.  Basically, this is what economic mobility is all about. 

 

(That said, if you want to argue about which countries are the best at creating really rich people and really poor people with huge gulfs between them, then US is pretty good.  Though Russia and China seem to be catching up in that respect, too.)

 

Richard you are pretty good at this. I am on the same side of the boat as you, but like the way you frame your arguments. I think you are wasting your time with Hawk (his mind is well made up), but I am learning something. Thanks for your comments.

[dwy000]

"The government determines what is sensible.  "

 

I suspect Obama's version of a sensible amount of redistribution is very different than say, Ron Paul's.  Ultimately the people elect the government and there is a wide variation in what people think is "fair".  I personally like Howard Mark's take on the definition of "fair":  http://www.oaktreecapital.com/memo.aspx

[RichardGibbons]

Richard you are pretty good at this. I am on the same side of the boat as you, but like the way you frame your arguments. I think you are wasting your time with Hawk (his mind is well made up), but I am learning something. Thanks for your comments.

 

Thanks Myth.  I'd agree that I'll never persuade Hawk, just as it's pretty unlikely he'd persuade me.  I kind of view it as having a similar purpose as a debate.  Gingrich's goal isn't to persuade Romney of his ideas.

 

Very good summary by Howard Mark -- it's pretty rare you see such a nice summary given of both sides with such minimal bias. 

 

I think the place you want to end up in is not necessarily the Buffett rule, but the ovarian lottery that Buffett talked about years ago (though I'm pretty sure that was someone else's idea).  Basically, you want to create a society such that, if you were born randomly into someone in that society, you'd maximize your chance to have a good outcome.