Debate Info

Debate Score:24
Total Votes:26
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 "Redistribution of Wealth" is retarded. (17)

Debate Creator

socratic4(147) pic

"Redistribution of Wealth" is retarded.

Consumers pay suppliers for goods, suppliers than use their acquired money to pay consumers to produce goods, consumers use their acquired money to purchase the goods from the suppliers, the money is than used by suppliers to pay consumers to produce goods for them, consumers than use the money to purchase the goods from the suppliers ,etc.
Disrupting this circulation by diverting money from the suppliers to the consumers would be catastrophic for everyone as if the consumers have to much money the suppliers can't pay anyone to produce so nothing is produced.
Add New Argument
3 points

Expanding slightly on your indisputable logic it is also a fact that if all the money in the world was lodged in an enormous common fund and divided equally among everyone it wouldn't be long before the rich had their wealth back and life's losers would be whinging about being poor.

2 points

I agree. I think that by giving someone fish, he then still needs you, but on the other hand if you teach someone to fish you therefore make sure that he will survive and not be a reliable human being in the future. Same thing applies with money, if you give someone money he will just use it and still be poor and in trouble, but if you show someone how to make money he will be responsible and a person able to subsist.

It's completely illogical to demand a hard worker hand over his money to a couch dweller. It's a form of tyranny, and essentially slavery. I work, you get paid? There's a laugh.

1 point

I've got two main reasons why I believe you're wrong and redistribution of wealth is somewhat necessary. One is inequality of work. The other is the issue of employment opportunities and the inevitable increasing lack thereof.

It should be obvious that not all hours worked receive the same merit, or payment. In theory, those that work jobs that require a large amounts of time to acquire the necessary skills and jobs that are in demand receive more pay. The biggest violations of this happen to but are not limited to be caused by some of the richest people that own companies. When you run a company, there's no obligation to keep things cheap, you are tempted to take as much profit as you can rather than what you may or may not have earned. For example, Bill Gates. A rudimentary google search brought his earnings in one year to be 11.5 billion dollars. Comparing that to a well paid doctor, the job and role in society Bill Gates performs is worth that of 200,000 doctors. This is ridiculous and completely disproportionate to the actual work Mr Gates puts into his work. Even if we take the best case where Gates is an angelical workaholic that does nothing wrong and works every hour of the day, this is not equivalent to 200,000 doctors. This is a very rudimentary comparison, with subjective parameters, but it illustrates the issue.

A similar example would be stocks and shares, where in theory the investment you make is worthy of reward in itself, which is already debatable, but many will invest in a company and make upwards of ten-fold their original investment upon selling. This can inflate your 1000 - 2000 dollar earnings for the month into amounts you'd never be able to reach by working, merely by betting on 20-90% odds of success. Bitcoin is similar in this way too.

The point is that work is meant to be rewarded with money, but often money is awarded for no or proportionally little effort or risk. Honestly this shouldn't be permitted to happen in the first place, but a viable second measure is correction; which is what wealth distribution resorts to.


A separate issue particularly relevant to the time we live in is rising unemployment. As a species we have needs which draw on resources and require a certain amount of work to be done, just to survive, as a result of the universe we live in. Clearly, to this day we've been doing this, though it used to be that most people worked on agriculture, supporting basic human needs. Due to innovation in various farming methods vastly less work is required to produce the same output. We're now at the point where virtually all this work we used to do is done by machines, and are at the brink of cutting out the middle men for our needs altogether and replacing them with robots. The people that would have been farming aren't lazy, their jobs are being done for them, made redundant by either improved efficiency or outright mechanical replacement. This has been or inevitably will be analogous to all employment opportunities as cheaper methods are developed.

Most importantly, the work we need to be done is still being done. The human work-hour cost of a human life due to basic needs has been reduced to very little. At this point we don't need people to be employed all their lives simply to exist. This will continue as we profit off the work of machines, creating value from nothing at unprecedented rates, to the point where the base cost of a life becomes meaningless. This isn't something that has been addressed whatsoever, and we've taken it to the point where we invent busywork for ourselves for the sake of earning money to survive against costs that have long since become insignificant. Creating and consuming entertainment. Endless work put into designing variations of products from scratch which result with minor changes. Perhaps you want your phone to have another hour of battery life and your screen to have twice the resolution, but this costs hundreds of thousands of work-hours for such a menial improvement, which if were attempted later when appropriate technologies are developed would achieve much more. We fight against (or for, depending how you want to see it) each other instead of against thermodynamics. I won't say I dislike where we are now, I consume just like everyone else. However these minor quality of life benefits of our society should not and need not come at the cost of someone's basic survival. It should not be a requirement for someone to work when their actual cost of living on our resources is so low. This is especially important where it's no longer possible for people to contribute to whatever meaningful or meaningless jobs out there as we replace people with machines.

socratic4(147) Disputed
1 point

Again, the profits these people make come from the public paying them for commodities they accommodate the production of with the profits they make, taking their profits means they can't produce as much commodities as people want which will not only result in less of what everyone wants but them having less profits for you to take as they'll sell less of what everyone wants.

As for the automation paranoia, companies can't sustain their assets or exist without a stream of revenue which wouldn't exist if everyone is unemployed as people wouldn't be able to buy what they offer, meaning that automation can only exist while people have a source of income. Even if automation caused unemployment new businesses would develop as the only thing that is required in order to establish a business is people who are willing to work and buy, unemployed people fit both categories.

Nomoturtle(716) Disputed
1 point

taking their profits means they can't produce as much commodities as people want

You're talking about using revenue for expansion. I'm not disagreeing with that, though it may be worth considering what we're capable of expanding, or what is worth expanding. I'm talking about what goes into the pocket.

meaning that automation can only exist while people have a source of income.

I don't agree with your conclusion. You imply some sort of equilibrium between employment opportunity and automation, but there isn't any incentive for companies not to continue automating jobs to cut costs, nor should there be. Using the most efficient method is a good thing, we just need to adjust how we treat people. The whole purpose of money is as a medium of exchange and a local consequence of that is that people are motivated to work. If we don't need people to work then we shouldn't be punishing them for it.

You've addressed very few of my ideas. Are the one's you've ignored obviously false to you?

marcusmoon(584) Disputed
1 point


A couple things:

For example, Bill Gates. A rudimentary google search brought his earnings in one year to be 11.5 billion dollars.

Folks equivocate with the word earnings.

It could mean wages for work performed,


It could mean appreciation or increase of the value of assets.

Gates' earnings are the second definition (primarily) but you used that to compare to the earnings (wages) of a doctor. This clouds the issue significantly.

Gates' earnings were primarily an increase in the value of the company he owns a majority share in. Nobody put billions of dollars into his bank account.

He does not get that money until he sells that share of ownership in the company.

The 11.5 billion dollar increase is largely a reflection of the growth of both the value and size of Microsoft. Essentially the increase in value reflects an increase in three things.

- 1 - How much other people want to own Microsoft stock, which reflects their belief that the company will continue to grow and provide value through its products. This expectation is not always accurate, but it is what causes increase in any stock's price.

- 2 - How much Microsoft customers value the products the company produces. This VAGUELY indicates the positive impact to their lives that the customers experience, or expect to experience.

- 3 - How capable Microsoft is of meeting this customer demand. This includes providing an increasing number of workers the ability to make a living by working for Microsoft. (The increased value of the company tracks approximately with the number of people it employs.)

A lot of normal working people are able to pay for food and shelter because Microsoft exists. I am not just talking about the 124,000 direct Microsoft employees, but also independent distributors etc., and people who use the company's products to help them make a living.

Bill Gates' net worth increased so radically over his lifetime primarily as a result of how much his accomplishments have contributed and continue to contribute to the well-being (economic and otherwise) of MILLIONS OF OTHER PEOPLE.

Work (effort) is not the basis of what people are paid. Value (as determined by the payers, not the earners) is the basis of what people are paid for their contributions to the world.

Your estimation of Gates' value is only relevant if you are paying him.

Even if we take the best case where Gates is an angelical workaholic that does nothing wrong and works every hour of the day, this is not equivalent to 200,000 doctors.

You are ABSOLUTELY CORRECT that Gates "is not equivalent to 200,000 doctors."

By starting, developing, and effectively managing Microsoft, Bill Gates managed in his life to contribute MORE value and capability to more people than 200,000 doctors could ever hope to do.

In point of fact, much of what those doctors do depends on Bill Gates' contributions to the world.

1 point

EXACTLY! That's why a Congress and Senate that constantly passes laws and regulations that "redistribute" the wealth UPWARD is retarded! We have been living in a period of redistributed wealth since Reagan! Trumps "tax plan for the middle class" is in actuality a "redistribution" of MORE wealth to the rich (including HIMSELF)! His EPA Chief is "redistributing" even MORE wealth to the coal miners, gold miners oil drillers and hundreds of other BIG MONEY groups which "create" very few jobs for the damage they do! Yep! It's definitely retarded! (Gas and lumber prices, for example, are eating … to many HAVE eaten … all your "tax savings" already! Not so the ones on the "redistributed end"!!!

outlaw60(15500) Disputed
1 point

Crazy Al of Road Island are you saying Obama's redistribution of wealth was retarded ?


1 point

The most basic problem with the proposition that poverty is the result of some people having too much money is that it is founded on two mistaken beliefs.

- Misunderstanding 1 - The rich are rich because they have more money.

Not really the case.

In reality, the rich are rich because they own non-cash assets like businesses, stocks (partial value of businesses), and bonds (loans they are waiting for someone to pay back).

What they own is actually what other people depend on to be able to work and earn a living.

- Misunderstanding 2 - There is a limited amount of wealth that requires some people to give up their wealth so that others can stop being poor.

Completely untrue.

The businesses that compose most of the value of rich people's assets have value because they are actually mechanisms for making or doing valuable things. These businesses are how their employees create wealth that is distributed through commerce and paychecks to the companies' customers, employees, and investors.

Capitalism and capitalist enterprises are the greatest mechanisms ever devised for reducing and eliminating poverty. The last four centuries of capitalism have been so successful at creating wealth for everybody in the world that people have had to redefine poverty in order for there still to be poor people in most countries. Obesity has actually overtaken starvation as the primary health risk in the world.

If you take these assets away from the people who own and run them, and then split them up and give the value to people at the bottom of the economic spectrum, you will be breaking the only successful mechanism for helping those people on the bottom.

- Misunderstanding 3 - Economic disparities are based on a dominance hierarchy.

Close, but no cigar.

The hierarchy is not based on dominance, but competence.

If you take the assets away from successful people, and give them to unsuccessful people is put the companies' employees livelihoods in the hands of people who have demonstrated that they are not good at creating wealth. That is the perfect recipe for making everybody equally poor.