Should everyone have a share of the public wealth by right?

Question

Everything that is made is made from things that, at one stage, belonged to no-one (or everyone, depending on how you look at it). Unpaid homemakers educate and socialize children--without their work, the economy would not function. So why doesn't everyone have a share of the public wealth by right? Rich people enjoy unearned income through (e.g.)share dividends and inheritances. Why not everyone?

Well, I'm not arguing that the public wealth should be completely divided out equally. But since everyone would seem to have a moral right to at least some part of it, why not share out some of it through e.g. a negative income tax (Milton Friedman) or a social dividend (as in Alaska)? People who wanted to, could earn more. You would avoid poverty traps and a lot of welfare bureaucracy. Why should e.g. people whose ancestors were slaves, be poorer as a result vis a vis people whose ancestors were slave owners? Wouldn't this be a way to redress the balance? BTW if this had been done in Iraq post the invasion, it would have been a brilliant way to consolidate the new system, by giving everyone a stake in the economy. Of course it wasn't done, because it was far too clever. (BTW I never supported the Iraq invasion.)

Answer 1

Public wealth. Do you mean money ripped from my paycheck? I keep waiting for folks like you to come take my private property, but you always get the government to do your dirty work under threat of jail time.

You claim that dividends (a rightful owners' share of company income) and inheritance (someone's lifelong labor that you wish they have no control over) are unearned income, yet a welfare check is somehow earned.

It is time for you to admit the problem.
1- You hate liberty and love massive government control
2 - Envy - "occurs when a person lacks another’s superior quality, achievement, or possession and either desires it or wishes that the other lacked it."
.

Answer 2

When things are in their natural state, they aren't worth much. There is value added when they are rearragned to make products.

That's where the wealth comes from, in making products. I'm sure that you've heard the saying "Well (so and so) doesn't grow on trees!" If goods did grow on trees, then your premise would actually be viable. However, because there are manufacturers, shippers, builders, promoters, marketers, laborers and all of the machines and buildings necessary to produce these goods involved then the value goes up, as does the cost.

If you had a buisness that, for example, cut down trees and made widgets out of them, wouldn't you want a profit for your widget-making labor? Wouldn't you have to pay for other laborers and machines to make widgets to keep up with demand? Where would you get that money if you gave the widgets away?

Your example of unpaid homemakers is a bit flawed because you assume that they don't get a portion of that wealth, or that they should somehow be paid for doing what they (knowingly or unknowingly) volunteered to do: raise their children. They could easily work (thus earning wealth) and make use of a nanny, but decided not to. That is their choice and therefore not the public's (or the free market's) responsibility.

Hope this helps!

Answer 3

What is your definition of "public wealth"? Is it the value of assets and funds held by a nation's government? If so, then the answer to your question is: this already happens.

In reality, this occurs in pretty much every country on the planet, to a greater and lesser extent. It's called redistribution of income through progressive taxation. The basic theory is that the more money you make, the more income tax you pay (as a percentage of your income). In the US, this is represented by increasing tax brackets.

By taxing people at different levels, then using their money to pay for roads, education, police officers, etc., the government is basically sharing the "public wealth".

A better question might be: how can we improve the current system? Or: how can we make it fairer?

Answer 4

This relies on humanitarianism (for more info http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanitarian) and forms the basis for socialism.

I believe the ideal economy would mix the best aspects of socialism and capitalism...allowing the capitalists to make their "widgets" and humanistic types to earn through good deeds and more emotional types of giving.

Basically humans who don't work are assumed to wish to provide good for the world by nature. The problem is how to you judge this "doing of good" well?
Money is designed to do just that...give people credit for what good they've produced...but it fails, like you said, to account for many emotional, social, and educational goods.

Personally I think that money should be a way to get credit, but not the only way. If a mother educates children, for example, it should be rewarded through government evaluation...not as an expense to the father. The evaluation would basically compare education given at school to education given by the mother and give the mother credit for the difference along with evaluate the kid's gradual improvement in attitude toward the mother and other children.

Same goes for musicians and "starving artists"...if they can prove even a few fans they've drastically changed the lives of for the better, even if those people are not rich enough to support them, they should at least get a roof over their heads.

Far as INHERITANCE, I believe it should be generally outlawed...it gives credit for creation to someone who created nothing to get that money...it's essentially stealing.

At the same time, I believe that the very rich should be much more heavily taxed...and, rather than proving their talent and power through wealth, simply be allowed to certain bars/restaurants...only they are allowed into by gross personal income qualification. Because, let's face it, those people having big enough houses and food to provide for 5+ families is just a cruel indecency to other human beings...they can't literally be 5+ times as valuable in what they give to society.

Answer 5

Because if weveryone had a share of the public wealth, it wouldn't be public wealth anymore. It would therefore not be available for public use, and would be a really stupid thing to try.