Huey Long - and his share the wealth policy

[pce]

i don't know how many of you have heard of huey long, but i think he is great. i just started reading about him. his policy was called Share the Wealth:

1. To limit poverty by providing that every deserving family shall share in the wealth of America for not less than one third of the average wealth, thereby to possess not less than $5,000 free of debt.(taking from the rich and giving to the poor...key word = "deserving" poor)

2. To limit fortunes to such a few million dollars as will allow the balance of the American people to share in the wealth and profits of the land.

3. Old-age pensions of $30 per month to persons over 60 years of age who do not earn as much as $1,000 per year or who possess less than $10,000 in cash or property, thereby to remove from the field of labor in times of unemployment those who have contributed their share to the public service.

4. To limit the hours of work to such an extent as to prevent overproduction and to give the workers of America some share in the recreations, conveniences, and luxuries of life. (i think this is very important and seems to be overlooked in communism)

5. To balance agricultural production with what can be sold and consumed according to the laws of God, which have never failed. (laws of God? uh oh! i think we should change that to humanity or something that isn't so debatable...he has good intentions though...)

6. To care for the veterans of our wars.

7. Taxation to run the Government to be supported, first, by reducing big fortunes from the top, thereby to improve the country and provide employment in public works whenever agricultural surplus is such as to render unnecessary, in whole or in part, any particular crop.

long was a senator during the great depression so $5,000 back then took care of a home, raido, and car. we have to adjust the amounts to today. i think this is the best idea i've heard. it takes away the problem of lack of incentive which exists to some degree in communism. plus there is no dictator so there is no danger of corruption. i think this is a very logical, practical, and fair goal to work towards probably more so than socialism or communism - at least for now :biggrin:

you can read more at:
http://www.ssa.gov/history/hlong1.html

i haven't read the whole thing yet so....

[pce]

come on people, it seems like no one read this. i'm really interested in hearing your opinions!

[pce]

since no one is reading this, or at least no one is replying.....I will :biggrin:

here are some reasons i like this idea:

-many capitalists when trying to put down communism say that in communism, there is no incentive to work. they think working for all humanity will never work, and i agree it is incredibly hard to make the majority do this, if not impossible. i think the 'share the wealth' policy takes care of this. you can still work for personal gain but at the same time people cannot be exploited.

-another problem with communism that is often cited is that there will be a few people that will do nothing and will wreak the benefits from the hard work of others. through a share the wealth policy, only 'deserving' families get the benefits, meaning families who actually work hard.

- i also really like the 4th point, the part about limiting overproduction so that there will be leisure time for all workers. this is, i think, often overlooked or not mentioned in communism.

a problem i see is that because there will be no "revolution" we will still be dealing with the same economy that exists today. this means that the economy will be devastated when this 'share the wealth' policy is put into effect and it will be hard to bring it back up. (i don't know how correct i am here....)

also, because this policy was invented in the 30's, there were no such multi-faceted corporations as there are today.so limiting "fortunes to such a few million dollars" will be very difficult being as to how companies are not run by one person anymore. this will definitly destroy capitalism as we know it. this is why "share the wealth" will be very hard to put into effect, even though i think it will be easier than socialism.

there is no doubt that there must be many changes worked into the policy to adjust it for the world of today.
----------------
well, that's it for now. please respond. PLEEEAAAZE :biggrin:

[ViktorPravda]

It sounds pretty good to me PCE. I don't know if it would work but as I look at it I can't figure out any reason that it wouldn't other than those who make Billions will want to keep it to have more control over those who don't.

[rebel7609]

Huey Long- he was hip to be square when he wasn't wanting a new drug.

[pce]

yay, people responded!

"those who make Billions will want to keep it to have more control over those who don't."

come to think of it, those who make billions could probably go on making billions, as long as they are taxed enough to provide everyone else with a reasonable income - hmm. then the hard part would be putting such a tax in place, but they can afford it anyway...

"Huey Long- he was hip to be square when he wasn't wanting a new drug."

i don't get it :biggrin:

no, seriously thought, i don't get it...

i'd be interested to know what the resident capitalists thing of 'share the wealth." reagan lives, augosto, madmax? any comments?

[Nickademus]

PCe . .. . i'm back in school is why i haven't been responding too much. i read i just don't respond much.

will think about it and get back to ya

[madmax]

I don't really understand the concept of "redistribution of wealth". The idea of taking something that belongs to someone to give it to someone else to whom it doesn't belong doesn't seem quite right, regardless of who "needs" it more. It's easy to despise (or envy) those that have much more, but where does the leap in logic occur that suddenly makes what you've earned belong to me? I don't want what I haven't earned, and I don't want to give what I've earned to someone else - unless I WANT to.

If personal fortunes had a cap, what incentive would there be to make more money than the cap? This theory can't bank on wealth-to-be-reditributed that isn't there. The state should have a degree of responsibility in helping those who NEED it, but government is something that is best taken in small doses.

[Nickademus]

Quote: from madmax on 8:22 am on Oct. 26, 2001
I don't really understand the concept of "redistribution of wealth". The idea of taking something that belongs to someone to give it to someone else to whom it doesn't belong doesn't seem quite right, regardless of who "needs" it more. It's easy to despise (or envy) those that have much more, but where does the leap in logic occur that suddenly makes what you've earned belong to me? I don't want what I haven't earned, and I don't want to give what I've earned to someone else - unless I WANT to.

If personal fortunes had a cap, what incentive would there be to make more money than the cap? This theory can't bank on wealth-to-be-reditributed that isn't there. The state should have a degree of responsibility in helping those who NEED it, but government is something that is best taken in small doses.

[AgustoSandino]

Exactly Madmax.

On another thread I read somebody comment to the effect "why should others get[deserve]more than me." If I may be allowed to editorialize, I hope nobody minds. People often deserve more than "you" because they've worked harder, or somebody else has and they decided to bequeath that wealth to an individual. If you were a doctor or a lawyer, or any category of professional that invested time and money in their education would you find it fair to have your labor compensated at the same rate as a retail sales person, or a janitor. This ofcourse is not to disparage those two professions, but simply to admit that becoming a sales person or a janitor or for that matter industrial worker does not require as great an investment in money and time as it does to be a professional.
This brings us to the topic of what equality means. Che-lives resounds with assertions to the effect that that equality is in reference to outcome. That is, after all, what this post is about. I think the previous paragraph explained my objections to that definition of equality. In contrast, I believe that equality is not of outcome but of opportunity.
Let us explore the contrast between the two equalities in respect to something we all agree is good, democracy. On this site I also often hear the assertion that capitalism is anti-thetical to democracy meanwhile socialism is suited to it. I think we can agree that socialism means equality of outcome, were everybody is "equal". You would then have us believe that democracy is the similar because here every is also "equal". Yet democracy does not guarantee equality of outcome, but equality of opportunity. In democracy there are winners and there are losers, if there are two political parties only one wins. There is no equality of outcome. Rather, because everybody's vote counts equally then everyone who participates in the democracy has had equality of opportunity, equality to effect the end result of the election. (before I digress too much, let me just state and open up to discussion the belief that since capitalism is based on choice, to do what you wish with your productive faculties and your compensation without govt. interference it is more philosophically aligned to democracy in which you have the choice to vote for who you want, without the govt deciding for you. In essence democracy is political capitalism)
Now I do not believe in inflated Republican rhetoric to the effect that equality of opportunity means leave everything alone, I disagree with this reasoning as much as I would disagree with its anti-thesis as championed by Huey Long. Rather government should have an active hand in maintaining equality of opportunity.
For instance things so basic that we take for granted, such as public or subsidised education and policing, help ensure this equality of opportunity. In this respect I think both sides of the political spectrum would agree that education needs to be improved, they just have different ideas on how to do it. The government is also necessary to ensure equality of opportunity in respect to business. It is here to maintain competition, and to this respect government in the US is active, the ATT breakup and the litigation against Microsoft are just examples.
In the end Huey Long's policy is misguided. Not only would it violate peoples' rights, but if we look at similar policies, such as exorbirant tax rates in the west, and extreme socialism, we see that they've stiffled the productivity of society at large. I don't mean that corporations make less cars, I simply mean that people work far less and eventually the standard of living for all of society goes down.

[abstractmentality]

"Rather, because everybody's vote counts equally then everyone who participates in the democracy has had equality of opportunity, equality to effect the end result of the election." - AgustoSandino

Not true. In America, since we have the electoral college, one vote of a representative of the smallest state is crries 45 times more weight than that of California, the smallest state. This number is a few years old, so im sure that it has increased over the years.

[AgustoSandino]

actually you're right, but notice how I never refered to the US as a democracy, we are a Republic, an Aristotelian Polity. and furthermore I think that electoral reform is needed because the electoral college is unnecessarily elitist, the american people have achieved a high level of educational achievement, they are not foolish masses, they should have direct control, every 4 years, over the policy direction of their govt. Like I said they are intelligent people, after all they've chosen to be capitalists.

[CommieBastard]

yes...... "chosen"......

[gooddoctor]

everyone's forgetting that capitalism is the problem not the nature of it. the system is intrinsically linked to the problems that working people face not just domestically, but all across the globe. you can't reform it because the powers that be will not allow it and will exploit loopholes in it whatever reforms are introduced. we need to replace it with a system that is more just and takes into consideration the interests and work of the vast majority of people and not those in power, and the only way to do that is a mass movement supported by the grass roots areas of society, i.e. the workers. the government is there to serve the people, that is its only function in a democracy.
furthermore agusto, we as socialists do not want to take away the fruits of anyone's labour or pretend that a shop keeper should earn more than a doctor. but can you tell me how a pop star works harder than a factory worker? capitalism allows for these paradoxs under the guise of "freedom". unfortunately, the only freedom people enjoy in the west is the freedom to earn vast amounts of wealth disproportionately to their input into society at the expense of everyone else.
i will not deny that people like bill gates work very hard and have contributed to society beyond measure - they will be rewarded according to their due under socialism. but does he deserve to earn more than, say, norway for example? what is he going to do with all that money, he can't spend it? i don't see why he can't spread a little amongst the grass roots members of his organisation who work equally as hard as he does to get the product finished. it's more respnsible than just allowing him to hoard it all in the bank. is he really working so many billion times harder than my old comrades at the factory i used to work in as the discrepancy between their wages seems to suggest? i think not.
i am glad that you've finally conceded that the us is not a democracy. but since only 50% of the electorate came out to vote in the last election you can hardly claim that the people chose to live under capitalism. also, they have no choice in the system of government, only the personalities that populate the government. and don't forget that they are immesureably influenced by the corporate sponsored election campaigns and media.

(Edited by gooddoctor at 11:17 pm on Oct. 26, 2001)

[pce]

"The idea of taking something that belongs to someone to give it to someone else to whom it doesn't belong doesn't seem quite right, regardless of who "needs" it more."

i think madmax brings up a good point here, and it bothered me too. but, don't think of it as "redistribution," think of it as a higher tax on the wealthy and a bigger tax rebate for the poor. how does that sound?

"It's easy to despise (or envy) those that have much more, "
-madmax

the issue isn't that we despise OR envy the rich. the issue is the rich who either exploit the poor, or get rich by doing nothing useful for society.

(Edited by pce at 4:00 pm on Oct. 27, 2001)

[gooddoctor]

it's not about taking away people's earnings. it's about giving the workers what they deserve and work for. they are the foundations of our society. we can live without the salesmen and bosses, but if the workers go we're all dead! they work just as hard as everyone else to keep our society running so let's be fair to them i say.