- Posts: 309
- Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 7:07 pm
RandomComment wrote:I won't wade into this too much, except to say you both make some fair points and then run too far with them.
With inequality of incomes, about two-thirds of the population live in households with less than the mean (average) income. So if people's behaviour remained unchanged, two thirds would benefit financially if you redistributed completely so everyone had the same income. Should we all vote for such a party?
No, because incentives matter. People are selfish, at least to some extent. If you equalise completely, theres no financial incentive for me to work hard and get ahead. So I slack off.
One of the key divides between "left" and "right" is how to trade off "redistribution" on the one hand, and "incentives" on the other. And the other is just how "steep" that trade-off is, and how much, if any, redistribution, actually is good for growth because while it weakens incentives, it allows less fortunate people to take a fuller more productive role in society, the economy etc.
So actually it can be in in the interests of relative affluent people to vote for "more redistribution" if we're doing too little redistribution to enable such participation. On the other hand, it can be in the intersts of relatively poor people to vote for "less redistribution" if we have a system that weakens incentives so much that it constrains the economy.
Similar arguments can be made for things like workers rights, etc. Trade-offs. Its why I'm a political moderate.
I'm not sure I agree. I am certainly still centre left when it comes to redistribution. I just think it needs to be done in the most efficient and sensible way possible. Which may mean higher taxes on property say. Rather than a tax on more mobile tax bases - like top incomes, or corporate profits.
