LookingInward wrote: ↑
Wed Jun 26, 2019 6:38 am
I would say the optimal level of redistribution is one where you don't have people talking much about inequality. Right now that is not the case, so there should be more redistribution in my opinion.
So every time there's excessive talk about inequality people will be recipients of redistributed wealth. In short, when people complain they get money and when they stop complaining the money stops coming. Do you not see how this system will be coopted maliciously? This is honestly a terrible idea.
Taxes are, by definition, forced upon you. If you don't pay them, you go to jail. I've heard the argument that taxation is theft, but honestly, I don't see how we can have a decent society without it so I'll bite the bullet on possibly not being morally coherent. Rich people in Northern Europe don't seem to mind the high taxes that much. It's, among other things, a matter of culture.
If you combined the immigration rates of Northern Europe they wouldn't equal the immigration numbers of the United States. It's easy to redistribute money when it has a smaller population to cover. To make an accurate comparison on redistribution of Europe vs the US, you would need to combine the total population of Europe and then try to redistribute money equally among all member countries. Take a look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... yment_rate
Look at the unemployment rate of Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Finland, and Germany. Now compare that to the unemployment rate of everyone else and see if what the rich currently pay is sufficient to cover everyone.
So if you want to walk towards less inequality, mentalities also have to be changed. Maybe we should discuss important moral problems in school instead of learning about dozens of different subjects most of us don't even care about or could learn later, if we are inclined to.
So what subject would you cut and how would you convince everyone you're right?
Maybe it's lack of imagination, but I just don't see how one can argue agains't redistribution when you understand that you didn't choose to be born, where, to what parents, with that brain, etc. I've been in the radical libertarian camp in the past by the way and I am also also very skeptical of minimum wages and universal basic income. But i have to admit I still need to study more about the empirical best ways to reduce inequality
This redistribution problem has been with humans since the 1st human with only 1 coconut noticed that his friend had 2 coconuts. You don't choose to be born but you certainly are responsible for the choices you make thereafter. Choose poorly and you may have a rough life or choose wisely and perhaps you'll be better off than those that choose poorly. There are no guarantees in life. Life isn't fair and it will never be fair. It's a byproduct of being human and living in a chaotic universe.