Senator Sanders and the Fixed Pie Fallacy

[Tate]

Lol. Literally every point you made has been rebutted in the OP.

And no, that's not what I am saying. What I am saying is lack of wealth is a consequence of the other problems poor people are facing. Arbitrary redistribution won't help with job security, access to healthcare, education, job training, housing, child care, anti-labor cronyism, etc etc ad nauseum, no matter how much you claim otherwise. In my experience, and from what I've seen in history, the best way to address a problem.... is to address a problem, not to use that problem as moral justification for some alternative agenda. If you want to cut down the rich, own that objective and make it clear.... stop piggybacking that onto the worker's plight to gain misplaced sympathy for your cause.

You project this hatred toward the wealthy onto me in damn near every thread, doesn't make your arguements stronger.

Hint; best way to secure the poor access to healthcare is via a state ran, universal, healthcare service. That's redistribution. Best way to secure child care is through universal public facilities, redistribution again. Housing? Public housing. That's redistribution. Education, job training, the list goes on. You try to dismiss things as redistribution when everything you think is important would best be met through redistribution.

How do you think it's possible to expand access to any of things you list without redistribution? Even unions are just tools toward redistribution that doesn't go through the state. Redistribution is awesome. We all love redistribution.

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

You project this hatred toward the wealthy onto me in damn near every thread, doesn't make your arguements stronger.

Hint; best way to secure the poor access to healthcare is via a state ran, universal, healthcare service. That's redistribution. Best way to secure child care is through universal public facilities, redistribution again. Housing? Public housing. That's redistribution. Education, job training, the list goes on. You try to dismiss things as redistribution when everything you think is important would best be met through redistribution.

How do you think it's possible to expand access to any of things you list without redistribution? Even unions are just tools toward redistribution that doesn't go through the state. Redistribution is awesome. We all love redistribution.

Govt in and of itself is a redistribution based system, which is fine. I agree, public systems for all of those issues are good. But the specifics of those systems are far more important than where the money to pay for them comes from; and yet in discussions about "workers plights" you and other redistributionists focus the discussion on how much capital must be taken from the rich. Have you put a dollar figure on any of these programs, or do you feel we should just take all the wealth and income from high earners and "keep the change"

 

[JahFocus CS]

The rich get richer and the workers are creating that wealth.

I don't want to hear shyt about redistribution. The whole production process is "redistribution" upwards.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

Arbitrary redistribution won't help with job security, access to healthcare, education, job training, housing, child care, anti-labor cronyism, etc etc

These are the types of things people are asking for when they talk about wealth inequality.

They don't just want rich people running through the streets passing out cash. They want the government to enact policy that removes some of the loopholes that allow the rich to hoard all the gains. So that money can be reinvested into these types of things.

 

[Tate]

Govt in and of itself is a redistribution based system, which is fine. I agree, public systems for all of those issues are good. But the specifics of those systems are far more important than where the money to pay for them comes from; and yet in discussions about "workers plights" you and other redistributionists focus the discussion on how much capital must be taken from the rich. Have you put a dollar figure on any of these programs, or do you feel we should just take all the wealth and income from high earners and "keep the change"

Ok, then stop trying to marginalize other's views as "redistribution" when you yourself love redistribution as long as, apparently, it's nice to the wealthy.

If you want to talk specifics how in the world are you going to acquire the capital to enact a universal healthcare system or more public housing if not from the wealthy? You seem to arguing pure semantics here. It's all about redistributing.

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

See, this is what I'm talking about @Swavy Karl Marx:

These are the types of things people are asking for when they talk about wealth inequality.
They don't just want rich people running through the streets passing out cash. They want the government to enact policy that removes some of the loopholes that allow the rich to hoard all the gains. So that money can be reinvested into these types of things.

The rich hoarding all the gains has nothing to do with enacting universal healthcare and the like. It makes more sense to look at problems in isolation, than to force it all back into this context of punishing the rich. We can look at UHC. US spends close to 20% of GDP on healthcare alone. We know a lot of why it costs so much. There is zero transparency with regards to price, which can make for wild variations in cost for procedures within a city. We know the population is aging, which means collectively we need more care and have less people working to pay for it. We know our habits aren't the best and we aren't really as aggressive as we need to be about preventative care and being proactive about health. Etc.

So just looking at healthcare in isolation there are already plenty of action items on reducing cost without impacting quality of care and putting some kind of logic as to why things are getting more and more expensive. You can't seriously address issues you don't make any attempt to understand.

Then on the subject of how to pay for it all.... again, say a universal healthcare system cuts costs down significantly. I could see it bringing down costs by 25-50%. So that's 10-15% of GDP. Most people are already paying for their own healthcare either directly or indirectly through whatever company they work for. Ummmm boom just make that a tax. Combined with all the other cost saving measures and the stronger leverage of such a large risk pool I think we'd be able to have universal health care for pretty cheap.

I mean FFS we are 2nd in per capita spending. Everyone with a universal system spends less than us.

Health expenditure, total (% of GDP) | Data | Table

So why does it make sense to talk about how much the rich should pay before even talking about how much we should spend?

 

[MeachTheMonster]

See, this is what I'm talking about @Swavy Karl Marx:


The rich hoarding all the gains has nothing to do with enacting universal healthcare and the like. It makes more sense to look at problems in isolation, than to force it all back into this context of punishing the rich. We can look at UHC. US spends close to 20% of GDP on healthcare alone. We know a lot of why it costs so much. There is zero transparency with regards to price, which can make for wild variations in cost for procedures within a city. We know the population is aging, which means collectively we need more care and have less people working to pay for it. We know our habits aren't the best and we aren't really as aggressive as we need to be about preventative care and being proactive about health. Etc.

Again attacking strawmen.

No one said anything about "forcing it all on the rich to punish them."

I simply said in talking about income inequality. People are taking about changing government policies that were enacted over the last ~60 years that created the inequality we see in America today.

There was I time when inequality wasn't so bad in this country, and most other wealthy counties don't see the inequality that we see. It's not a coincidence. It was purposely enacted by our government.

So just looking at healthcare in isolation there are already plenty of action items on reducing cost without impacting quality of care and putting some kind of logic as to why things are getting more and more expensive. You can't seriously address issues you don't make any attempt to understand.

Then on the subject of how to pay for it all.... again, say a universal healthcare system cuts costs down significantly. I could see it bringing down costs by 25-50%. So that's 10-15% of GDP. Most people are already paying for their own healthcare either directly or indirectly through whatever company they work for. Ummmm boom just make that a tax. Combined with all the other cost saving measures and the stronger leverage of such a large risk pool I think we'd be able to have universal health care for pretty cheap.

I mean FFS we are 2nd in per capita spending. Everyone with a universal system spends less than us.

Health expenditure, total (% of GDP) | Data | Table

So why does it make sense to talk about how much the rich should pay before even talking about how much we should spend?

In this country whenever any talk of government spending on the poor/middle class comes up. The question always pivots to "where are you gonna get the money from"

"Stop redistributing wealth upward" is a very valid answer.

Healthcare costs are so high because those in power benefit from those costs. To remove those benefits is still "redistribution" from the wealth to poor.

 

[Tate]

See, this is what I'm talking about @Swavy Karl Marx:


The rich hoarding all the gains has nothing to do with enacting universal healthcare and the like. It makes more sense to look at problems in isolation, than to force it all back into this context of punishing the rich. We can look at UHC. US spends close to 20% of GDP on healthcare alone. We know a lot of why it costs so much. There is zero transparency with regards to price, which can make for wild variations in cost for procedures within a city. We know the population is aging, which means collectively we need more care and have less people working to pay for it. We know our habits aren't the best and we aren't really as aggressive as we need to be about preventative care and being proactive about health. Etc.

So just looking at healthcare in isolation there are already plenty of action items on reducing cost without impacting quality of care and putting some kind of logic as to why things are getting more and more expensive. You can't seriously address issues you don't make any attempt to understand.

Then on the subject of how to pay for it all.... again, say a universal healthcare system cuts costs down significantly. I could see it bringing down costs by 25-50%. So that's 10-15% of GDP. Most people are already paying for their own healthcare either directly or indirectly through whatever company they work for. Ummmm boom just make that a tax. Combined with all the other cost saving measures and the stronger leverage of such a large risk pool I think we'd be able to have universal health care for pretty cheap.

I mean FFS we are 2nd in per capita spending. Everyone with a universal system spends less than us.

Health expenditure, total (% of GDP) | Data | Table

So why does it make sense to talk about how much the rich should pay before even talking about how much we should spend?

I can understand your point, it just seems very semantical.

 

[JahFocus CS]

Won't someone PLEASE think of the rich?

Bunch of shills on this board, absolutely ridiculous