I Wish This Was A Joke

[Newtonscat]

In the early 90s Michael Portillo, when he was an MP (he is now a popular TV personality in the UK) said:

'The rich should not have to pay taxes to support the poor'

His idea was that the rich should have the right to decide how their money (charity donations) was spent.

I wonder what the world would be like if governments had no power to distribute money to those in need?

[Minimalist]

It would be the republicunt idea of heaven.

Sort of a cross between the Black Hole of Calcutta and France just before 1789.

[Heywood]

If you were honest, you would admit that the developed world's top .01% richest people have sufficent resources that if their fortunes were intelligently and carefully redistributed, it would be enough to change the situation of the 10% poorest people in the world for the better dramatically. THEN, you can talk about the ethics of it. Because if you're not honest enough to concede a fucking point, you're in no position to be taken seriously on ethical matters in the first place.

You can always make one person better off by giving them things belonging to another. But on the whole are you going to make the world better off? If all of Bill Gates assets were given to Joe Dirt, would the world be better off? Joe Dirt would be better off. Bill Gates would be worse off, and everyone else would probably be worse off too because it is unlikely that Joe Dirt is going to be a better manager of those assets than Bill Gates is.

Look, I am all for re-distributing money. You've heard me time and time again espouse a universal basic income. My point in this thread is to point out that the rich do not own most of the stuff that actually makes peoples lives better. In terms of stuff that people actually want to consume, rich people own very little of it. The bulk of that kind of stuff is in the hands of everyone else. Taking shares of Microsoft away from Bill Gates and giving them to Joe Dirt isn't going to make the world a better place.

[The Grand Nudger]

You can always make one person better off by giving them things belonging to another. But on the whole are you going to make the world better off?

Yup.

If all of Bill Gates assets were given to Joe Dirt, would the world be better off?

Yup.

Joe Dirt would be better off.

Yup

Bill Gates would be worse off,

Unlikely

and everyone else would probably be worse off too because it is unlikely that Joe Dirt is going to be a better manager of those assets than Bill Gates is.

He only has to manage them from his hand to his mouth...remember, people are starving. Your analogy displays the lack of scope you approach this issue with. "Joe Dirt" is fine. Mbebe Hubuku is not.

Look, I am all for re-distributing money. You've heard me time and time again espouse a universal basic income. My point in this thread is to point out that the rich do not own most of the stuff that actually makes peoples lives better.

Uh-huh...

In terms of stuff that people actually want to consume, rich people own very little of it.

I think that many, many people would like to consume a little buying power for food.

The bulk of that kind of stuff is in the hands of everyone else.

Of course, because the bulk of everyone else is busy manufacturing it for the massa.

Taking shares of Microsoft away from Bill Gates and giving them to Joe Dirt isn't going to make the world a better place.

Bill Gates would appear to disagree.