Equality?

[Thorne]

So let me get this straight...some people think it's a good thing that less than 1/10 of 1% of a population is allowed to control 95% of the wealth in it?

That would depend on how they got it, don't you think? If they worked for it, or their parents worked for it, then yes. If they stole it, then no.

[SadisticNature]

That would depend on how they got it, don't you think? If they worked for it, or their parents worked for it, then yes. If they stole it, then no.

I think "allowed to control" is kind of awkward. It seems to suggest society should basically forcibly take away this money at the point of a gun.

I think from a societal perspective such a massive accumulation of wealth in the hands of so few is very bad. For instance, it has been shown to radically increase crime and cause other problems.

I think the question is more: How can one justify decreasing taxes on the rich at the expense of the poor and middle class when the income disparity is so extreme?

In my parents generation the major corporate CEO's earned 20 times what the average worker did. There are CEO's now that earn more in a minute than a minimum wage job holder earns in a year. And if that's what their skills justify than fine. But keep that in mind when you suggest cutting that guys taxes and paying for it by raising taxes on that minimum wage earner.

Also from the earned perspective, why does it make sense to slash inheritance taxes, it seems to me inheritance is by definition unearned wealth.

Lastly, why have we chosen to tax investment income at a lesser rate than income earned through labor. A long line of those who are claimed to be champions of conservative economics was strongly opposed to this, the likes of which include Adam Smith and Andrew Mellon. The liberal economists have always been against it. Warren Buffet ripped the US government because he paid a lower % on his income than his secretary did, despite earning way more, because investment income is taxed so lightly.

[denuseri]

Also from the earned perspective, why does it make sense to slash inheritance taxes, it seems to me inheritance is by definition unearned wealth.

Lastly, why have we chosen to tax investment income at a lesser rate than income earned through labor. A long line of those who are claimed to be champions of conservative economics was strongly opposed to this, the likes of which include Adam Smith and Andrew Mellon. The liberal economists have always been against it. Warren Buffet ripped the US government because he paid a lower % on his income than his secretary did, despite earning way more, because investment income is taxed so lightly.

Not so surprising when you realize that the vast majority of the lobbiests who woo the lawmakers do so at the bequest of the super rich super minority's beck and call.

How else do you think the super elite keep we in the mob in check, 300 million of us droning on along here in the USA represented by only two main parties in a this or that chant with our propaganda (news) supplied to us by 5 majior multi national super corperations who are all owned by that same oligarchy of the rich.

[DuncanONeil]

I think "allowed to control" is kind of awkward. It seems to suggest society should basically forcibly take away this money at the point of a gun.

I think from a societal perspective such a massive accumulation of wealth in the hands of so few is very bad. For instance, it has been shown to radically increase crime and cause other problems.

I think the question is more: How can one justify decreasing taxes on the rich at the expense of the poor and middle class when the income disparity is so extreme?

When taxes are decrease how is that you see this only as taxes decreased for the "rich" at the "expense" of the "poor & middle class"?

In my parents generation the major corporate CEO's earned 20 times what the average worker did. There are CEO's now that earn more in a minute than a minimum wage job holder earns in a year. And if that's what their skills justify than fine. But keep that in mind when you suggest cutting that guys taxes and paying for it by raising taxes on that minimum wage earner.

Show me a time when taxes were cut for the "rich" and raised on the minimum wage earner?

Also from the earned perspective, why does it make sense to slash inheritance taxes, it seems to me inheritance is by definition unearned wealth.

Inheritance comes from three sources; wages, investment, or prior inheritance. In all of these instances these funds have already been taxed. Why then should it be taxed again?? In many cases there is a family business involved that suddenly becomes the property of someone else!

Lastly, why have we chosen to tax investment income at a lesser rate than income earned through labor. A long line of those who are claimed to be champions of conservative economics was strongly opposed to this, the likes of which include Adam Smith and Andrew Mellon. The liberal economists have always been against it. Warren Buffet ripped the US government because he paid a lower % on his income than his secretary did, despite earning way more, because investment income is taxed so lightly.[/QUOTE]

[SadisticNature]

I think from a societal perspective such a massive accumulation of wealth in the hands of so few is very bad. For instance, it has been shown to radically increase crime and cause other problems.

When taxes are decrease how is that you see this only as taxes decreased for the "rich" at the "expense" of the "poor & middle class"?

Show me a time when taxes were cut for the "rich" and raised on the minimum wage earner?

Inheritance comes from three sources; wages, investment, or prior inheritance. In all of these instances these funds have already been taxed. Why then should it be taxed again?? In many cases there is a family business involved that suddenly becomes the property of someone else!

Lastly, why have we chosen to tax investment income at a lesser rate than income earned through labor. A long line of those who are claimed to be champions of conservative economics was strongly opposed to this, the likes of which include Adam Smith and Andrew Mellon. The liberal economists have always been against it. Warren Buffet ripped the US government because he paid a lower % on his income than his secretary did, despite earning way more, because investment income is taxed so lightly.

[/QUOTE]

Because historically what has been done with tax decreases for the top brackets is adjusting the lower brackets upwards to keep government revenues high. Thus those who have $0 in income that is in the top bracket but have income in lower brackets are taxed at higher rates than they were before.

Time when taxes were cut for the rich and raised for a minimum wage earner include 1988 When the taxes on the bottom bracket were raised from 11% to 15% to pay for a cut on the top bracket from 38.5% to 28%.

The net result was:

In 1971: Bottom bracket 14% Top Bracket: 70%
In 1990: Bottom Bracket 15% Top Bracket: 28%

I don't have easily available data on the 2nd and 3rd lowest brackets but suspect the trend is similar. The primary reason tax revenues equal out when the top bracket is lowered is that other brackets are raised.

My point about inheritance being unearned wealth, is that it is money that you get because you happen to be related to someone who did well, and is completely independent of your own abilities, successes or failures. If you want a meritocratic system taxing inheritances heavily seems to be a good start.

[DuncanONeil]

Getting as close as I can, 2007, I find the following.
1/10 of 1% of the population would be 330,000.
Tax data I can only get close with some 391,432. Okay?
These people have 20% of the income, about $1.25 billion.
They pay 36% of the taxes collected, about $416.6 million.
Which is about 33% of their income!

On the other side of that is it a good thing that nearly 50% pay no tax?

So let me get this straight...some people think it's a good thing that less than 1/10 of 1% of a population is allowed to control 95% of the wealth in it?

[denuseri]

Lets not confuse income, wealth and power here ok.

I misquoted the "wealth" ratio it was 85% not 95, but still that is really high imho.

I highly reccomend giving the following eye opening work a read as well:

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesam...er/wealth.html

Actually read it too, don't just skim it looking for your sides talking points please.

[DuncanONeil]

I read about half way through.
I did expect a knock on my reference to income. But that was the IRS definition of income, which covers everything!

Looking over the numbers in the reference I see a remarkable consitancy across the years.

Lets not confuse income, wealth and power here ok.

I misquoted the "wealth" ratio it was 85% not 95, but still that is really high imho.

I highly reccomend giving the following eye opening work a read as well:

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesam...er/wealth.html

Actually read it too, don't just skim it looking for your sides talking points please.

[TantricSoul]

This is, if you'll pardon the expression, horseshit! It implies a supernatural/metaphysical/undefinable/magical thread linking us one to another, without providing any evidence for such a thread. We must take it on faith, just because someone says so? I think not!

Thorne, my friend, of course I will pardon the expression. After all, you saying my thoughts and opinions are horseshit is simply reaffirming what I've known for such a long time… that I have a fertile mind.

While we may all be a part of the whole, it does not necessarily follow that we are all an equal or integral part. The universe has a way of tossing parts aside haphazardly, to the benefit of some and the detriment of most. Which side of the equation you end up on is mostly a matter of luck.

So what I get from your post is that you agree we are all part of a whole, yet you see / feel no connection between us. An interesting viewpoint.

"Which side of the equation you end up on is mostly a matter of luck."

Yes i agree... the material inequalities between us human beings is rarely really about hard work, equal opportunities, or laziness. Far more influential upon our lives is luck. I would like to believe, that while life is not fair, that we as a race have enough humanness within us to seek and create that fairness.

Yet instead what I witness most prevalently is the ridiculous concept of self importance. As if, somehow, being luckier than someone else equates to being "better" or more deserving.

Respecfully,
TS

[Thorne]

Thorne, my friend, of course I will pardon the expression. After all, you saying my thoughts and opinions are horseshit is simply reaffirming what I've known for such a long time… that I have a fertile mind.

LOL! Yes, you do indeed. And it's not your mind that I'm denigrating, just the fungal ideas which are grown in it.

So what I get from your post is that you agree we are all part of a whole, yet you see / feel no connection between us. An interesting viewpoint.

Of course we are parts of a whole, each of us a part of the universe, just as a grain of sand is a part of the beach. That doesn't mean there is any kind of connection, though. Some grains are washed out to sea, some are washed in from the sea, some are blown away on the wind, yet the beach remains. And the grains of sand, even when touching one another, are still discrete entities, not connected at all.

Yet instead what I witness most prevalently is the ridiculous concept of self importance. As if, somehow, being luckier than someone else equates to being "better" or more deserving.

Maybe it does equate as such. I've known people who just seem to have all the bad luck, falling into every sad situation that comes along, always getting the short end of the stick. I've known others who could fall into a puddle and come up with a $100 bill clutched in their hands. It has nothing to do with personalities, as far as I can tell. Maybe it's a kind of evolution, winnowing out the unlucky ones in favor of the lucky.

But while I view myself as somewhat lucky, even though I can't win at any kind of gambling, I certainly don't perceive myself as better because of it. However, I have taken charge of my life, dealt with the good and the bad, and helped myself. This can also affect one's luck. And that is what makes me feel somewhat more deserving than someone who just sits back and bemoans his bad luck, blaming everyone and everything but himself for his problems.

[steelish]

We are all fundamentally equal in terms of our inalienable rights. No matter whether you are an atheist, Christian, Taoist, Muslim, Jew, Mormon, Lutheran, etc. there's no doubt that at the moment of birth, we are all intrinsically equal. The equality we are born with is the equality that should be preserved in America, not equality of economics...not equality of "things accumulated"...but equality of the right to pursue happiness.

The government might try to "spread the wealth" but no matter how hard they try, it will never be equal. It's much like a pond. On the surface it appears even, yet everyone knows that ponds are not of an equal depth all the way across. Forcing equality on a large population of citizens will be like pointing at that pond and saying "look, there's an equal amount of water no matter where you step".

Show me a country that successfully "spread the wealth" and has complete equality with a majority of the citizens singing the praises of the government that "equalized" them and I might actually begin to see a glimmer of hope.

[DuncanONeil]

I am inclined to comment in relation to the reference of "the right to pursue happiness." For some people that is jumping out of perfectly good airplanes, some free climbing a cliff. Yet these are inherently risky behaviours. Does anyone foresee the Government deciding that any injury is a result of reckless actions and the responsibility of the individual person?

We are all fundamentally equal in terms of our inalienable rights. No matter whether you are an atheist, Christian, Taoist, Muslim, Jew, Mormon, Lutheran, etc. there's no doubt that at the moment of birth, we are all intrinsically equal. The equality we are born with is the equality that should be preserved in America, not equality of economics...not equality of "things accumulated"...but equality of the right to pursue happiness.

The government might try to "spread the wealth" but no matter how hard they try, it will never be equal. It's much like a pond. On the surface it appears even, yet everyone knows that ponds are not of an equal depth all the way across. Forcing equality on a large population of citizens will be like pointing at that pond and saying "look, there's an equal amount of water no matter where you step".

Show me a country that successfully "spread the wealth" and has complete equality with a majority of the citizens singing the praises of the government that "equalized" them and I might actually begin to see a glimmer of hope.

[steelish]

I am inclined to comment in relation to the reference of "the right to pursue happiness." For some people that is jumping out of perfectly good airplanes, some free climbing a cliff. Yet these are inherently risky behaviours. Does anyone foresee the Government deciding that any injury is a result of reckless actions and the responsibility of the individual person?

I absolutely see the government interfering in individual pursuits. For some, it would be a way to relieve stress and "rejuvenate". Who is the government to say it's wrong???

As I've stated before...rights do not come from government, laws do. The right to pursue happiness comes from God/nature (whatever you believe) but it remains that we are born with these rights. It is not something that is "handed" to us from another person. That in itself is the definition...rights come from a higher power, not an individual. Can your neighbor instill you with rights? No. Can your city council member instill you with rights? If not, then why can Congress??

[Thorne]

As I've stated before...rights do not come from government, laws do. The right to pursue happiness comes from God/nature (whatever you believe) but it remains that we are born with these rights. It is not something that is "handed" to us from another person. That in itself is the definition...rights come from a higher power, not an individual. Can your neighbor instill you with rights? No. Can your city council member instill you with rights? If not, then why can Congress??

I'm not sure this is accurate. Throughout history people have only had those "rights" which the ruling classes allowed, and they could be taken away at the whim of any member of that ruling class. It's only in modern times that we've begun thinking in terms of "human rights", thanks in large part to the advances of more democratic governments. I think that, ultimately, we can only have those rights which the most powerful people are willing to allow us to have. They have the power to rescind them by simply sending in the military/police forces. Once bullets and bombs start flying, the only right you have is the right to duck!

[steelish]

I'm not sure this is accurate. Throughout history people have only had those "rights" which the ruling classes allowed, and they could be taken away at the whim of any member of that ruling class. It's only in modern times that we've begun thinking in terms of "human rights", thanks in large part to the advances of more democratic governments. I think that, ultimately, we can only have those rights which the most powerful people are willing to allow us to have. They have the power to rescind them by simply sending in the military/police forces. Once bullets and bombs start flying, the only right you have is the right to duck!

I spoke of "inalienable" rights, as outlined by our Declaration of Independence. I guess my view is considered modern then, because I don't see what you've described as a "right" but more as a "privilege" bestowed by the ruling class. Just because they called them rights, doesn't make them so.

[DuncanONeil]

Seems that if the "right" can be taken away it is a "privilege" rather than a "right".
(a moral, or ethical principle considered as an underlying cause of truth, justice, morality, or ethics.)

I'm not sure this is accurate. Throughout history people have only had those "rights" which the ruling classes allowed, and they could be taken away at the whim of any member of that ruling class. It's only in modern times that we've begun thinking in terms of "human rights", thanks in large part to the advances of more democratic governments. I think that, ultimately, we can only have those rights which the most powerful people are willing to allow us to have. They have the power to rescind them by simply sending in the military/police forces. Once bullets and bombs start flying, the only right you have is the right to duck!

[Kendal]

I am coming into this late so forgive me if I am repeating any point already made.

I'm not sure this is accurate. Throughout history people have only had those "rights" which the ruling classes allowed, and they could be taken away at the whim of any member of that ruling class.

I don't think you are accurate. The ruling classes have rarely given rights, the ruled have fought to win those rights. King John was forced to sign the Magna Carta, we cut of a Kings head because he refused to grant rights and the American Bill of Rights did not come without a fight did it.

As regards equality, nobody is seeking equal wealth not even communistis. People seek equal opportunites, to raise the standard of the poor to eradicate poverty and to make the difference in wealth fairer.

The rich always moan but if you look at most super rich they have made their obscene fortunes through some form or criminality or trickery. Joe Kennedy makes a fortune bootlegging and puts his son in the White House and nobody cares where the money came from. Before any of the super-rich moan we should take a serious look at how they got their wealth. Denuseri is spot on in that the wealth buys Presidents, politicians and lawyers to give the wealthy an unequal and unfair advantage over the common man.

But the loadest complaints about wealth spreading comes from the middle and upper middle classes. Yes they work for their money but they moan about how they "work hard" as if other workers dont. I don't know about you but I would rather have hard work in the air conditioned office with executive lunches than the easy life working down the mines or at MacDonalds.

The capitalist would have no tax and you pay your way. This means the rich man sends his kid to a good school and college and the poor man cannot. The rich man's kid is now educated and gets the better well paid job while the poor man's kid follow in his fathers footstep down the mine. This is not equal opportunity.

I do not know how it works with education in America and in England it has now changed. But when I went to university it was free and paid for from taxes. But its not really free because the graduate gets a better job and moves up the salary ladder. As he moves up the ladder he pays more taxes. Those extra taxes he pays is the cost of the education he received which allowed him to earn that higher salary. Now that seems perfectly fair and reasonable to me and is an example of how equal opportunity can achieved through taxation. But he will moan of course because lets be honest nobody likes paying taxes not even the rock stars who earn zillions from bashing out some crap song.

In my view the principle of taxation and wealth distribution is valid and noble. The problem is the inept politicans make a balls of it and are so inefficient such that people pay too much tax for the services received. If governments worked like companies they wouild all be bankrupt and the leaders in jail.

[steelish]

I'm not sure this is accurate. Throughout history people have only had those "rights" which the ruling classes allowed, and they could be taken away at the whim of any member of that ruling class. It's only in modern times that we've begun thinking in terms of "human rights", thanks in large part to the advances of more democratic governments. I think that, ultimately, we can only have those rights which the most powerful people are willing to allow us to have. They have the power to rescind them by simply sending in the military/police forces. Once bullets and bombs start flying, the only right you have is the right to duck!

Sorry, I still disagree with this statement. When you're born, you are born a separate person, you're not part of the "borg" so to speak, so individuality is a right (the right to think, feel whatever you want). You have a right to life, only by natural death is that right not infringed upon by another. You have a right to liberty, because at the moment of birth, you are not oppressed. Even someone born into slavery is not oppressed until they are old enough to understand. At that point, their right is infringed upon, not "taken away".

I don't believe natural rights (or God's granted rights, if you will) can be "taken away" but only infringed upon. People who are oppressed and feel their rights are infringed upon eventually rebel in some way.

If you are kidnapped, do you think your right to liberty is gone? If suddenly, Obama becomes a dictator, do you think you no longer have the right to be free? Or will you be strong enough to rebel? (I would hope the American spirit is alive enough to rebel). If oppressed to the point of unhappiness, do you think your right to be happy is gone? I doubt it.

[denuseri]

Sparta did it for oh, around 400 years or so, give or take a decade.

Of course it wasnt a nation by todays standards per say, but still it worked for them.

They also managed to dominate all the other greek city states for the better part of their existeance with their system too, including Athens, until of course Phillip and Alexander the Great came along.

[steelish]

Sparta did it for oh, around 400 years or so, give or take a decade.

Of course it wasnt a nation by todays standards per say, but still it worked for them.

They also managed to dominate all the other greek city states for the better part of their existeance with their system too, including Athens, until of course Phillip and Alexander the Great came along.

Ah yes, in the 10th Century BC...Sparta was unique in ancient Greece for its social system and constitution, which completely focused on military training and excellence. Its inhabitants were classified as Spartiates (Spartan citizens, who enjoyed full rights), Mothakes (non-Spartan free men raised as Spartans), Perioikoi (freedmen), and Helots (state-owned serfs, enslaved non-Spartan local population). Spartiates underwent the rigorous agoge training and education regimen, and Spartan phalanxes were widely considered undefeatable in battle.

In Sparta they also had two "kings" who ruled...and only the Spartiates were true citizens. Much of what I read on Sparta is exciting, to be sure, but not translatable in today's society.

[denuseri]

Ah yes, in the 10th Century BC...Sparta was unique in ancient Greece for its social system and constitution, which completely focused on military training and excellence. Its inhabitants were classified as Spartiates (Spartan citizens, who enjoyed full rights), Mothakes (non-Spartan free men raised as Spartans), Perioikoi (freedmen), and Helots (state-owned serfs, enslaved non-Spartan local population). Spartiates underwent the rigorous agoge training and education regimen, and Spartan phalanxes were widely considered undefeatable in battle.

In Sparta they also had two "kings" who ruled...and only the Spartiates were true citizens. Much of what I read on Sparta is exciting, to be sure, but not translatable in today's society.

Hey you asked...lol. They are the only society that even approaches true equality in my book that I could think of that came to mind.

Also, when one studdies them one must remember: the Kings were more a matter of a traditional position as well as sitting on the Assembly with an equal vote to the other members of their Gerouseia and they were equally subject even when in the field with the army to the will of the Ephors who were a small council elected for one year terms that presided over the lot of them:

Spartans were also the first society we know of who also refered to each other men and women alike as "equals".

And yes it was only "equal" for the actual Spartans, the helots and others, who were not actual spartans like most non citizens in any greek city state (including athens where women were little better than chattel slaves) didnt live under the same conditions.

Whats most interesting and completely applicable to our modern discussion in examining their society in todays light, isnt any of the above however so much as what it took for them to develope a system of governemnet and an economy that worked to attempt to equalize things for them.

To do any of it, they had to be all on the same religious page (hence why Lycurgus recieved approval for his changes in their governemnt from the oracles) and they had to change whole way of life; especially their economic systems basis, (which is why they made ownership of so many things illegal and used iron bars at exorburant wieghts for wealth instead of gold).

They basically had to move their society as a whole away from one bound by the aquisition of material wealth to one that embraced, duty to the city over duty to the individual and personal honor and merit over arvice and comfort.

Something which unfortunately I see few if any people in the workld willing to even attempt anymore.

[steelish]

Hey you asked...lol. They are the only society that even approaches true equality in my book that I could think of that came to mind.

lol, you're right, I did

Whats most interesting and completely applicable to our modern discussion in examining their society in todays light, isnt any of the above however so much as what it took for them to develope a system of governemnet and an economy that worked to attempt to equalize things for them.

To do any of it, they had to be all on the same religious page (hence why Lycurgus recieved approval for his changes in their governemnt from the oracles) and they had to change whole way of life; especially their economic systems basis, (which is why they made ownership of so many things illegal and used iron bars at exorburant wieghts for wealth instead of gold).

They basically had to move their society as a whole away from one bound by the aquisition of material wealth to one that embraced, duty to the city over duty to the individual and personal honor and merit over arvice and comfort.

Something which unfortunately I see few if any people in the workld willing to even attempt anymore.

Well, for one thing - America embraces various religious beliefs, so everyone being on the same religious page won't work. At one time, duty to country and the well-being of the next generation were the overriding important things in America. Personal honor and merit also played a role in American life. Somewhere along the line people began to lose sight of these things. Believe it or not, there are groups of people in America trying to restore these things. Honor, merit, hope, humility, sincerity, hard work, courage, gratitude, faith (whatever your personal faith might be), personal responsibility...everything that originally made America strong. Unfortunately, in order to get the majority of Americans on this same page, it will take weeding out the politicians who do not possess these values.

[denuseri]

And yet is it not also true that even the tyrant doth not rule alone, that were it not for the submission of others and those willing to support it, no one would rule for long at all?

[Thorne]

And yet is it not also true that even the tyrant doth not rule alone, that were it not for the submission of others and those willing to support it, no one would rule for long at all?

Yes, that's true. But someone will replace that tyrant. And he might be worse than the devil you know!

Of course, you could make sure that no one replaces him. In which case everyone becomes a tyrant, taking what they want, killing anyone they please, until someone strong enough takes control, and you have another tyrant.

[denuseri]

Ahhh democracy...voluntary submission to elected tyranny....sighs so romantic.

[Thorne]

Ahhh democracy...voluntary submission to elected tyranny....sighs so romantic.

LOL! It's only romantic if you enjoy voluntary submission! It's much more enjoyable being the tyrant, though. Romance is overrated anyway.

[steelish]

The only issue I have with the Fair Tax is that it still allows for Progression. "Tax this, but not this...this service should be taxed more than this one...etc." A Flat Tax doesn't allow for that. No matter where you fall on the economic scale, you pay X amount per dollar on your income...period. No chance for adjustments for this service, or that service.

[DuncanONeil]

No! No! No!
This is not how the FairTax works. The FairTax is the same across the board "(t)he FairTax is a single-rate, federal retail sales tax collected only once, at the final point of purchase of new goods and services for personal consumption. Used items are not taxed. Business-to-business purchases for the production of goods and services are not taxed. A rebate makes the effective rate progressive."
One of the basic tenents of the FairTax is that is not the business of Government to determine winners and losers in the marketplace.

The only issue I have with the Fair Tax is that it still allows for Progression. "Tax this, but not this...this service should be taxed more than this one...etc." A Flat Tax doesn't allow for that. No matter where you fall on the economic scale, you pay X amount per dollar on your income...period. No chance for adjustments for this service, or that service.

[denuseri]

The only issues I have with flat tax, is the institution of a coorperation with limited liability will be the sole prime benefactors, while all the rest of us who are not super rich will have our taxes nearly trippled to fill the void. So long as faceless corperations are being treated with all of the perks of "personhood" with none of the responsabilities, any such endeavor will do far more harm than good.

If each company was owned by individuals who are fully liable then and only then would I support a fair tax em all you want position. Though I am sure that has its own drawbacks.

As for a full on redistribution of wealth...smh..we havent ever even got close to that in the United States. In fact no one anywhere really has short of a few handfuls of hippie communes and the Hutterites.

Additionally I seriously doubt "global" corpperations of american origin or otherwise will ever allow the politicians that they own lock stock and barrel in several countires to take away their sacred profit margins.

Nor do I believe will the extremely wealthy individuals that are out there support any such endeavor, for they gain nothing by it.

Even the full blown "communist" countries failed to fully redistribute the wealth nor control its redistribution in any kind of productive manner in anything more than "theory" and that was the basis for their very rise to power on the ignorant massess proverbial backs.

Sadely...it is greed..imho...that ultimately rules the day when all is said and done.