Talk:Income redistribution

message: I'm cleaning up some of the socialist bullshit in the 'proponents argue' paragraph. It looks like it was written by some 9th grader who had Jay Bennish as a teacher, and failed to notice that this article is titled 'Income redistribution', not 'Wealth redistribution'. -- Anonymous 69.194.38.246 00:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tagishsimon has a point. This article probably should be titled 'Wealth redistribution'. -- John Alder 10:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaning up 

message: Keep wealth and income separate.  Indeed, clearly define and sharply distinguish these very different terms.  Wealth is a stock variable and income a flow--both measured in very different units (wealth as an absolute level, often measured in dollars alone; income as a rate, a flow of dollars per unit of time, usually a year).  In the bathtub model, wealth relates to the level of accumulated water in the tub--a function of income and expenditures, the rates it flows into, minus out of, the tub.  
Also distinguish those components of income that flow from labor, capital, gifts, inheritances, etc.--and the non-monetary forms of both income and wealth, as Emerson does here:
"The first wealth is health."
The above can also "flow" into discussions of national budgets, deficits and surpluses, debt--as well as GDP (flows of goods and services--and goods and bads), net economic welfare, national wealth, etc.
Best,
Tom Foote
* Hmm. I'd be more inclined to combine them. It seems to me that it is more useful to be able to compare and contrast within a single article. - Jmabel | Talk 02:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Define and distinguish these very different terms; as different as stock and flow 

message: According to German scholar Olaf Gersemann, tranfers in Europe overwhelmingly go to the middle class:
In Germany, the poorest 30% get 31.7% of the cash transfers. In Italy, they get only 20.5%
Other authors point out that the greatest recipients of redistribution are public sector workers, well above poor welfare recipients. I have not seen all the data, but it would be worthwhile to look at the budget and calculate how much the poorest actually receive. With the big military spending of the US budget, who knows how much redistribution actually goes to defense contractors? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Flix2000 (talk • contribs).
: At least for Germany, that would be reasonably impressive: a generally disenfranchised section of society getting approximately an equal share of anything is rather exceptional. 
: Doing our own calculations of net effects of a budget would be precisely the type of original research that Wikipedia does not accept, but if you can find published work from reliable sources, that would be a good addition. I have no doubt that at least since the early 1980s the net wealth transfers in the U.S. have been upward, not downward; income transfer is probably harder to get a clear handle on. - Jmabel | Talk 19:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who benefits? 

message: After thinking about it for awhile, I think this article should be changed slightly and moved to "Wealth redistribution" to replace the (much worse) article that used to be there. Or, alternatively, it could be merged with "Property redistribution" and moved to "Redistribution (economics)". Thoughts?-- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 01:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. "Spread the wealth" redirects to that page. It's an obvious attempt to attack obama.YVNP (talk) 04:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move/Merger 

message: Socialism is not about redistribution. Socialist believe in giving the government as much control over the economy. As I said on the wealth redistribution page I suspect this is a republican vandalism.YVNP (talk) 04:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difference between redistribution and socialism 

message: Substituted at 18:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment