Sharing “the” wealth equally

Angry Exile is running a quote from an Occupier:

First-time protestor, Roy Hobbs, insisted: “I’m here because I’m sick and tired of all the greed that stops me from getting what I want. That’s why I’ve come up with a plan that will solve everything. It involves dividing all the money in the world equally and then waiting to see what happens next.”

Brilliant – here’s how I see it working. Let’s say my earnings and general “worth” is 0.000001 of the total “worth” of the UK. In the divvying up, I get 0.000001. Let’s say you’re worth a small fortune from your dried-goods business and have 0.000018 of the combined wealth of the country. You’ll get 0.000018 of the nation’s wealth.

And so on.

Roy Hobbs, living with his mother in her semi-detached and drawing benefits, gets to take home minus 0.000001, which is his estimated wealth, i.e. he owes the taxpayers and we’ll send the bailiffs around to extract it from him soon after the scheme is implemented.

That all seems pretty equal, as far as I can see – we all get an amount equal to our current worth. To save admin costs, we’ll just leave it as is but make a bookkeeping entry that “the” wealth has now been redistributed.

Of course there’ll be some exceptions, e.g. anyone who was bailed out or cheated on expenses, plus any benefits scammer – he or she will pay back directly into the public purse and that money will then go towards a new aircraft carrier and planes to go on it, plus retraining pilots and crew.

12 comments for “Sharing “the” wealth equally

  1. October 18, 2011 at 7:13 am

    “Roy Hobbs, living with his mother in her semi-detached and drawing benefits, gets to take home minus 0.000001, which is his estimated wealth, i.e. he owes the taxpayers and we’ll send the bailiffs around to extract it from him soon after the scheme is implemented.”

    😈

  2. john in cheshire
    October 18, 2011 at 8:29 am

    Sounds like Mr Hobbs is a greedy man. The irony is that he doesn’t recognise that he is. And of course he doesn’t intend to do anything to acquire the things he wants, thereby satisfying his greed. No, he wants things to be given to him and he wants them now. How childish; I don’t suppose he’s thought of looking for a job.

    • October 18, 2011 at 8:48 am

      Julia – agreed. John – that’s the thing, isn’t it, this inability to see that he is spouting the politics of envy. It gets down to the most fundamental difference with the left – that the State can arbitrarily or according to some ideology, dispossess, i.e. steal from people who played by the rules and built up a small nest egg.

      It breaks down the rule of law and substitutes for it the rule of laws [shamelessly stolen from LPUK 😉 ]

      That notion of stealing people’s nest eggs in the interests of what they see as “fair” is anathema to me. The moment you put the definite article in front of the word “wealth”, you’re labelling yourself.

      On the other hand, people ripping off the taxpayer are another matter and therein lies the problem – defining who has and to what extent. The fat cat admin on £200 000 plus is not actually ripping off because she’s [or he’s] playing by the rules. It’s the rules which stink in that case.

      Somehow, in some form, there has to be a national discussion on what the State runs on our behalf and what it doesn’t. Naive hope so I shan’t hope for it and we need to exit the EU first before we can have it.

  3. October 18, 2011 at 10:19 am

    He’s missing the point; financial assets and liabilities net off to nothing. There is no ‘money’, as such.

    If we share all the financial assets equally; then you would, logically, also have to share the financial liabilities equally (you can’t have a financial asset without a financial liability – bank notes are a liability, from teh central bank’s point of view), which is tantamount to saying ‘wipe out all debts and wipe out all savings’. This doesn’t seem like a good idea to me.

    The only kind of ‘wealth’ which is created by all and should be shared by all is land rents (again, land rents can only be one person’s income or benefit if they are somebody else’s expense or burden, so in reality, and taking the economy as a whole, there is no ‘land wealth’ in the same way as there is no ‘money’ either).

    We can do this quite easily by applying land value tax and dishing it out as a Citizen’s Income, of course, and if we scrap all other taxes as a quid pro quo, then so much the better.

    • October 18, 2011 at 10:21 am

      Mark, I’d never have expected you to have put that argument. Where have we seen that before? 😎

      If we share all the financial assets equally; then you would, logically, also have to share the financial liabilities equally (you can’t have a financial asset without a financial liability

      In a nutshell.

  4. October 18, 2011 at 11:40 am

    Everyone is greedy for something.

  5. Thornavis.
    October 18, 2011 at 12:25 pm

    Slightly mystified by this one, you do know this a spoof I take it ? In which case it seems a bit odd to be making a counter argument against a fiction, I know the occupiers are a vague lot but have any of them actually made the case put forward by ‘Mr. Hobbs’ ?

  6. Andrew Duffin
    October 18, 2011 at 12:52 pm

    Mark surely deserves some sort of prize.

    Is there anything that he can’t twist into an “argument” in favour of his pet obsession?

    Maybe we could turn it into a competition, a bit like Google-wacking.

    Your task – come up with some statement or comment about current affairs or politics which Mark cannot turn into a rant about Land Value Tax.

    I wouldn’t know where to start, frankly.

    • Chuckles
      October 18, 2011 at 1:20 pm

      “Well, I think the answer lies in the soil!”
      Arthur Fallowfield.

    • October 18, 2011 at 8:13 pm

      Andrew, if it’s an issue related to economic problems or land use, then probably you can’t.

      All economic problems which can be solved are caused by private collection of land rents. Some problems can’t be solved by LVT, but those sort of problems just cant be solved, full stop, so there’s no point worrying about them.

      Avoiding the whole land issue in economics is like a doctor ignoring the fact that you have a bullet wound to the head and pointing out that the rest of you looks healthy enough but you could do with a bit more exercise.

      • October 18, 2011 at 9:13 pm

        Or if you want me to express that in terms of something that might resonate: it’s like discussing the ridiculous regulatory burden on UK business while ignoring our EU membership (half of EU reg’s are in fact dreamed up in Whitehall and then reimported via Brussels, which is why the UK govt imposes them so zealously and other countries ignore them, but hey).

Comments are closed.