Main Page Contact Register Log In


Income isn't going to just happen to be distributed perfectly. Either we should redistribute it from high earners to low earners or vice versa. I think high earners to low earners makes more sense.

If the value of money was linear and was the same from person to person, along with all those other assumptions, capitalism would distribute resources in the ideal manner. Since it's optimal, the derivative is zero, so small changes result in smaller costs to the total money produced. Redistributing a small amount of money from high earners to low earners would not significantly reduce the total wealth produced, but would make it so the people who have it would appreciate it more. Thus, it's clear that some wealth should be redistributed. The only question is how much.






Benthamís argument ignores the downsides of redistribution policies. In particular, redistribution tends to demotivate people on both ends of it. Thus, in addition to negative impact on the economy, it may also hurt the psychological well-being of people it aims to help.

Redistributing a small amount of money from high earners to low earners would not significantly reduce the total wealth produced


History shows that once the principle of redistribution is accepted, it is only a question of time before a small amount turns into as much as government can take without imploding the economy.
69%
melian
stars0
Replies (1)