Redistribution

Income Redistribution Income redistribution refers to the concept of transferring income from the wealthy individuals to the less wealthy individuals through social mechanisms such as monetary policies, charity, welfare, land reforms, and taxation among others. Income redistribution affects the entire economy rather than selected groups of individuals. The concept of income redistribution emanates from the existence of income inequalities within an economy. Income inequality depicts a gap between

in order to obtain salvation and enter into the Kingdom of God. First, one must have a firm understanding of the significance of being a tax collector; this will aid in a deeper understanding of Zacchaeus’ actions. Secondly, this idea of wealth redistribution and lowering oneself in regards to power status, is not limited to this pericope and can be seen throughout the Lukan narrative. Lastly, it is important to contextualize this concept, and sift through the process of applying this revelation to

Unexpected Inflation and Redistribution of Wealth in Canada Césaire A. Meh, Canadian Economic Analysis, and Yaz Terajima, Financial Stability One of the most important arguments in favour of price stability is that unexpected inflation generates changes in the distribution of income and wealth among different economic agents. These redistributions occur because many loans in the economy are specified in fixed-dollar terms. Unexpected inflation redistributes wealth from creditors to debtors by reducing

Robert Nozick, in Anarchy, State and Utopia develops his central idea called the ‘entitlement theory.’ This concept states that redistribution of goods is only considered justified if it has the consent of the owner of the holdings. He mentions here that the only State that is justified in carrying out any duties is the ‘minimal state.’ The minimal State is one that is only limited to the enforcement of of contracts and protection of individuals, etc. Any more intervention from the State, according

Income Inequality, Class-Warfare and Alternative Models The fear of class warfare has long legitimized income inequality. The rumor is, that if one belongs to an upper class one will not be in favor of wealth redistribution programs and other equalizing government programs. Hence, there is a divide between the values of equality and freedom: the freedom to keep your earnings versus redistributing wealth in order to equalize opportunities and outcomes. This paper argues that being part of any class

Politics is an ever evolving field, one with a rather symbiotic relationship to current events, as the creation of legislation can be rather retroactive. This concept of a retroactive refitting of current policies is furthered with the example of rapid introduction of computers and other technologies as consumer products. Many policies governing topics such as warfare, copyright infringement, and access to utilities as simply translated to the digital occurrences without second thought. Although

Peter Singers, Famine, Affluence, and Morality, focuses on his solution to world hunger and poverty. This solution is as follows: “If it is in our power to prevent something very bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything morally significant, we ought to, morally, do it” (Singer 246). He goes on to say that we should prevent suffering and death from lack of food, shelter and medical care, if it is within our ability to do so. This is known as his “weak 2” argument. Singer uses his

Government is “a branch or service of the supreme authority of a state or nation, taken as representing the whole.” The government was a system that was ordained by God in order to maintain liberties that God has granted us and also punish those who disobey God commands. One of the roles given to the government is to promote economic progress by protecting the rights of individuals and allowing for the free market economy of the laws of supply and demand to free take place. One epidemic that has

behavioral explanations. In their pursuit to understand why European states have higher rates of economic redistribution than their American counterpart, the authors found that “Americans redistribute less than Europeans because (1) the majority believes that redistribution favors racial minorities”, (2) Americans believe they live in a meritocracy, and (3) the American political system makes redistribution harder to achieve (p.39). Thus, the majority of Americans believe that most of the impoverished are

holdings amount to ten times Mary’s holdings—does not tell us whether or not redistribution may be necessary. There are several scenarios, however, in which it would obviously be just to redistribute money from Brent to Mary. Likewise, there are situations in which redistribution would be unwarranted, and other situations where the need for redistribution would be controversial. In order to determine when redistribution is well founded and when it is unfounded, it is imperative to consider three