Talk:Income redistribution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taxation, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve tax-related articles to a feature-quality standard.
Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-priority on the Project's priority scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's comments page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

Tsk. Wealth redistribution is the meta issue. income redistribution is only one element of wealth distribution. The recent redirect is in completely the wrong direction; the right article has been thrown away, the wrong (or at least subsidiary) has been retained. Bah. --Tagishsimon

Contents

[edit] Cleaning up

I'm cleaning up some of the socialist bullshit in the 'proponents argue' paragraph. It looks like it was written by some 9th grader who had Jay Bennish as a teacher, and failed to notice that this article is titled 'Income redistribution', not 'Wealth redistribution'. -- Anonymous 69.194.38.246 00:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Tagishsimon has a point. This article probably should be titled 'Wealth redistribution'. -- John Alder 10:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't help but notice how one-sided and poorly written this article is. Could someone please work on making the article a little more neutral? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.106.104.4 (talk) 09:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Propose merger with Property redistribution

--Mike18xx 12:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Anybody? Anybody? Bueller? ...?--Mike18xx 02:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I think income redistribution and property redistribution – and also "wealth redistribution" – should be merged to an article redistribution as they were before, because they're all more or less the same purpose. Béka 11:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

That's nuts. They are very different, if only because we can't redistribute property in America (see takings clause) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.13.194.15 (talk • contribs) 25 October 2006.

I agree that the the various types of redistribution should be merged, since income redistribution, property redistribution and wealth redistribution has one aim soley, that is, to reduce income inequality among various income groups and reduce the incidence of proverty. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.50.85.8 (talk • contribs) 25 October 25, 2006.

[edit] Define and distinguish these very different terms; as different as stock and flow

Keep wealth and income separate. Indeed, clearly define and sharply distinguish these very different terms. Wealth is a stock variable and income a flow--both measured in very different units (wealth as an absolute level, often measured in dollars alone; income as a rate, a flow of dollars per unit of time, usually a year). In the bathtub model, wealth relates to the level of accumulated water in the tub--a function of income and expenditures, the rates it flows into, minus out of, the tub.

Also distinguish those components of income that flow from labor, capital, gifts, inheritances, etc.--and the non-monetary forms of both income and wealth, as Emerson does here:

"The first wealth is health."

The above can also "flow" into discussions of national budgets, deficits and surpluses, debt--as well as GDP (flows of goods and services--and goods and bads), net economic welfare, national wealth, etc.

Best,

Tom Foote

  • Hmm. I'd be more inclined to combine them. It seems to me that it is more useful to be able to compare and contrast within a single article. - Jmabel | Talk 02:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I strongly agree with Tom Foote: keep income redistribution separate from wealth redistribution. The two have radically different policy implications, and different social consequences as well. Furthermore, property redistribution is a form of wealth redistribution, but its role in economic and political history is so different from "wealth taxation" that it too needs its own article. These are extremely tricky areas of public policy, and deserve far better treatment that Wikipedia has heretofore given them. — Aetheling 18:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Who benefits?

According to German scholar Olaf Gersemann, tranfers in Europe overwhelmingly go to the middle class: In Germany, the poorest 30% get 31.7% of the cash transfers. In Italy, they get only 20.5%

Other authors point out that the greatest recipients of redistribution are public sector workers, well above poor welfare recipients. I have not seen all the data, but it would be worthwhile to look at the budget and calculate how much the poorest actually receive. With the big military spending of the US budget, who knows how much redistribution actually goes to defense contractors? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Flix2000 (talk • contribs) 19 February 2007.

At least for Germany, that would be reasonably impressive: a generally disenfranchised section of society getting approximately an equal share of anything is rather exceptional.
Doing our own calculations of net effects of a budget would be precisely the type of original research that Wikipedia does not accept, but if you can find published work from reliable sources, that would be a good addition. I have no doubt that at least since the early 1980s the net wealth transfers in the U.S. have been upward, not downward; income transfer is probably harder to get a clear handle on. - Jmabel | Talk 19:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


In "The state against blacks" Walter Williams proves with several case studies just that. Poor minority americans in the cities studied received less in transfers than they paid in taxes (local,state and federal).--82.211.83.9 13:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move/Merger

After thinking about it for awhile, I think this article should be changed slightly and moved to "Wealth redistribution" to replace the (much worse) article that used to be there. Or, alternatively, it could be merged with "Property redistribution" and moved to "Redistribution (economics)". Thoughts?-- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 01:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)