|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{globalize/USA|date=December 2013}}
| | The checklist listed below will make suggestions in selecting the most appropriate host: <br><br>1. Simply how much time does it take for the area to be put on the net? It sh... <br><br>Personal web hosting like every other form of web hosting covers a certain amount of ground rules. The sole difference between your own web hosting and a business web hosting could be the payment arrangements like secure server for credit cards payment. Besides that, the listing remains the same as for the business enterprise website hosting. <br><br>The list listed below will guide you in choosing the right host: <br><br>1. Simply how much time does it take for the domain to be put on the net? It ought to be less than 36 hours. <br><br>2. Can I host other sites through my area? It ought to be possible for you to use alias domains, provided they result in the main page of your site. <br><br>3. Am I who owns the domain name published? The clear answer should really be YES, without any other conditions. <br><br>4. Might it be feasible for me to update the info of my website/ area? All rights to your website, i.e. billing, technological, administrative, etc, must be directed at you. And YES, the web host ought to be in a position to upgrade your websites information at your request. <br><br>5. Can my web be modifyed by me? The solution must certanly be basically YES, while some websites will ask you to route the changes through them. This might be awkward for people who can do themselves to it and have a lot of updating to complete. <br><br>6. What is the protocol for the location of html directory permissions? Most web hosts will allow you the use of the Get a handle on Panel to create permissions and change your web design. <br><br>7. Do I get web mail utilization through my site? Most net hosts could have squirrel mail accounts within their plans. With this particular ability also comes the forwarding of the e-mail and auto-responders. <br><br>8. May I access my cgi and perl scripts? The clear answer ought to be YES. <br><br>9. Have you got fast and effective technical support/ service support? The clear answer ought to be YES, round-the-clock 24/7. <br><br>10. Do you use advanced seo resources above metatags? The clear answer must certanly be again YES. Dig up more on the affiliated website - Visit this hyperlink: [http://www.nebraska.tv/story/25266300/secure-ftp-hosting-service-brickftp-announces-new-lower-pricing ftp hosting]. Today hosts use sophisticated Search Engine Optimization tools. Nevertheless, you need to definitely have your keyword and description metatags mounted on your primary content page for comfortable access on the web. <br><br>Other factors include cost and billing details, traffic space so called bandwidth, and computer or storage space. You need to be anticipating an annual billing as well as a monthly billing. Web contains do provide an annual billing for a price, and some saying you ought to be careful as this may block your shifting in case in order to avoid one-year period offers you"re disappointed with the web host. This really is not always true because, in todays competition between web hosting companies, many reliable companies do provide 30-90 days money-back guarantee in case you aren"t satisfied. <br><br>In regards to the traffic space or bandwidth the minimum you"d need would be about 25 GB/month, while for keeping a simple individual web site, the storage requirements should be minimum of 500 MB disk space. I would consider 1 GB or more of disk space to prevent extra expenses in case your required space gets larger in the foreseeable future. Nonetheless it all hangs on what type and how big of files you set up on your online site. Hence, do not go after internet hosts who offer 15 to you GB or even more of disk space for additional expenses because you would never need therefore much space. Be taught extra resources on our partner wiki by visiting [http://www.nebraska.tv/story/25266300/secure-ftp-hosting-service-brickftp-announces-new-lower-pricing secure ftp]. Despite having complex company websites, you"d maybe not use more than 10 GB. <br><br>The very best is to research the feedback of the web host before you choose what type to choose, and the aforementioned questions will surely guide towards a wise decision..<br><br>Should you have virtually any issues about exactly where and how you can employ gap health insurance ([http://www.slideshare.net/noxiousterminol18 slideshare.net]), it is possible to e mail us in our own web site. |
| [[File:Distribution of Wealth in the United States.jpg|thumb|U.S. mean family net worth by percentile of net worth (1989–2010).]]
| |
| '''Redistribution of income and wealth''' or '''redistribution of wealth''' is the transfer of [[income]], [[wealth]] or [[property]] from some [[individual]]s to others caused by a social mechanism such as [[tax]]ation, [[Monetary policy|monetary policies]], [[welfare]], [[charitable organization|charity]], [[divorce]] or [[tort]] law.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/redistribution/ |title=Redistribution |date=2 July 2004 |work=Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |publisher=Stanford University |quote="The ''social mechanism'', such as a change in tax laws, monetary policies, or tort law, that engenders the redistribution of goods among these subjects"|accessdate=13 August 2010}}</ref> The desirability and effects of redistribution are actively debated on ethical and economic grounds. The subject includes analysis of its rationales, objectives, means, and policy effectiveness.<ref>F.A. Cowell ([1987] 2008). "redistribution of income and wealth,"''[[The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics]], 2nd Edition, [http://www.dictionaryofeconomics.com/article?id=pde2008_R000067&edition=current&q= TOC.]</ref><ref name="AP-20140127">{{cite news |last1=Rugaber |first1=Christopher S. |last2=Boak |first2=Josh |title=Wealth gap: A guide to what it is, why it matters |url=http://apnews.excite.com/article/20140127/DABJ40P00.html |date=January 27, 2014 |work=[[AP News]] |accessdate=January 27, 2014 }}</ref>
| |
| | |
| == Types of redistribution ==
| |
| Today, income redistribution occurs in some form in most [[Democracy|democratic]] countries. In a [[Progressive tax|progressive income tax]] system, a high income earner will pay a higher tax rate than a low income earner. The difference between the [[Gini index]] for an income distribution before taxation and the Gini index after taxation is an indicator for the effects of such taxation.
| |
| {{rquote|right|Money is like [[manure|muck]], not good except it be spread.|[[Francis Bacon]], 'Of seditions and Troubles', ''Essays,'' 15.}}
| |
| ''Property redistribution'' is a term applied to various policies involving taxation or [[nationalization]] of [[property]], or of [[regulation]]s ordering [[Ownership|owners]] to make their property available to others. Public programs and policy measures involving redistribution of property include [[eminent domain]], [[land reform]], [[inheritance tax]] and certain provisions found in [[family law]].
| |
| | |
| Two common types of governmental redistribution of wealth are subsidies and vouchers (such as [[Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program|food stamps]]). These "[[transfer payment]]" programs are funded through general taxation, but disproportionately benefit the poor, who pay fewer or no taxes. While the persons receiving redistributions from such programs may prefer to be directly given cash, these programs may be more palatable to society, as it gives society some measure of control over how the funds are spent.<ref>Harvey S. Rosen & Ted Gayer, Public Finance pp. 271–72 (2010).</ref>
| |
| | |
| ==Supporting arguments==
| |
| The objectives of income redistribution are varied and almost always include the funding of [[public services]]. Supporters of redistributive policies argue that less [[Social stratification|stratified]] [[Economics|economies]] are more [[Social justice#General understanding of social justice|socially just]].<ref>[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/redistribution/ Redistribution (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> | |
| | |
| One basis for redistribution is the concept of [[distributive justice]], whose premise is that money and resources ought to be distributed in such as way as to lead to a [[socially just]], and possibly more financially [[Egalitarianism|egalitarian]] society. Another argument is that a larger [[middle class]] benefits an economy by enabling more people to be [[consumer]]s, while providing equal opportunities for individuals to reach a better standard of living. Seen for example in the work of [[John Rawls]]{{citation needed|date=October 2013}}, another argument is that a truly fair society would be organized in a manner benefiting the least advantaged, and any inequality would be permissible only to the extent that it benefits the least advantaged.
| |
| | |
| Some proponents of redistribution argue that [[capitalism]] results in an [[externality]] that creates unequal wealth distribution.<ref>Marx, K. A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1977</ref> They also argue that [[economic inequality]] contributes to crime. There is also the issue of [[equal opportunity]] to access services such as education and health care. Studies show that a lower rate of redistribution in a given society increases the inequality found among future incomes, due to restraints on wealth investments in both human and physical capital.<ref name="Econ Review">http://www.jstor.org/stable/117283 Unequal Societies: Income Distribution and the Social Contract. Roland Benabou. ''The American Economic Review'', Vol. 90, No. 1 (March 2000), pp. 96–129.</ref> Roland Benabou states that greater inequality and a lower redistribution rate decreases the likelihood that the lower class will register to vote.<ref name="Econ Review"/> Benabou does not find a relationship between levels of inequality and government welfare transfers to the needy.<ref name="Econ Review"/>
| |
| | |
| Some{{who|date=December 2011}} argue that wealth and income inequality are a cause of [[economic crises]], and that reducing these inequalities is one way to prevent or ameliorate economic crises, with redistribution thus benefiting the economy overall. This view was associated with the [[underconsumptionism]] school in the 19th century, now considered an aspect of some schools of [[Keynesian economics]]; it has also been advanced, for different reasons, by [[Marxian economics]]. It was particularly advanced in the US in the 1920s by [[Waddill Catchings]] and [[William Trufant Foster]].<ref>{{Harv|Dorfman|1959}}</ref><ref name="Allgoewer">{{cite journal|last=Allgoewer|first=Elisabeth|date=May 2002|title= Underconsumption theories and Keynesian economics. Interpretations of the Great Depression|journal=Discussion paper no. 2002-14|url=http://www.vwa.unisg.ch/RePEc/usg/dp2002/dp0214allgoewer_ganz.pdf}}</ref>
| |
| | |
| A system with no redistribution of wealth which adds some measure of redistribution may actually experience a [[Pareto efficiency|Pareto]] Improvement, meaning that no persons within the system are worse off and at least one person is better off. Such an outcome is most likely if all high-income people in the system are [[altruist]]ic in nature, in that they derive some economic utility in giving to the poor. For example, a rich person may experience more utility from giving $100 to the poor than they would have gained had they spent $100 on something for themselves. The poor person receiving the $100 will also be better off. In addition to altruistic reasons, rich persons may support governmental redistribution of wealth: 1) as a form of [[insurance]] policy (should they ever become poor, the policy pays off and they are able to collect benefits from the government); or 2) because it improves social stability (lowers crime and rioting among poor people), allowing rich persons to more easily enjoy the benefits of their wealth.<ref>Harvey S. Rosen & Ted Gayer, Public Finance pp. 265–66 (2010).</ref>
| |
| | |
| === 'Maximin Criterion' for social welfare ===
| |
| One is the [[social welfare function]], or the concept that society’s [[utility]] is made up in some way through the utilities of its individuals. The 'Max-Min' or 'Maximin Criterion' for social welfare explains this concept:
| |
| :<math>W = \min(Y_1, Y_2, \cdots, Y_n)</math>
| |
| This states that the utility of society (W) is dependent on that of the least (min) individual (Y<sub>i</sub>), or in terms of income, the poorest individual.
| |
| | |
| ===Economic effects===
| |
| {{Seealso|Economic inequality#Inequality and economic growth}}
| |
| [[File:Number of High Net Worth Individuals, 2011 v4.jpg|thumb|Number of high net worth individuals in the world, 2011.<ref>http://www.taxjustice.net/cms/upload/pdf/Price_of_Offshore_Revisited_120722.pdf</ref>]]
| |
| | |
| Using statistics from 23 developed countries and the 50 states of the US, British researchers [[Richard G. Wilkinson]] and [[Kate Pickett]] show a correlation between income inequality on the one hand and higher rates of health and social problems ([[obesity]], [[mental illness]], [[homicide]]s, [[teenage birth]]s, [[List of countries by incarceration rate|incarceration]], child conflict, drug use), and lower rates of social goods ([[List of countries by life expectancy|life expectancy]], educational performance, [[Trust (social sciences)|trust among strangers]], [[Women's rights#2011 study of status by country|women's status]], [[social mobility]], even numbers of [[patent]]s issued per capita), on the other.<ref>[http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/resources/slides Statistics and graphs from Wilkinson and Pickett research.]</ref> The authors argue inequality leads to the social ills through the psychosocial [[Stress (psychological)|stress]], [[Social status|status]] anxiety it creates.<ref name=thinktanks>http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/aug/14/the-spirit-level-equality-thinktanks The Spirit Level: how 'ideas wreckers' turned book into political punchbag]| Robert Booth| The Guardian| 13 August 2010 </ref>
| |
| | |
| A 2011 report by the [[International Monetary Fund]] by Andrew G. Berg and Jonathan D. Ostry found a strong association between lower levels of inequality and sustained periods of economic growth. Developing countries (such as Brazil, Cameroon, Jordan) with high inequality have "succeeded in initiating growth at high rates for a few years" but "longer growth spells are robustly associated with more equality in the income distribution."<ref>[http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2011/sdn1108.pdf Inequality and Unsustainable Growth: Two Sides of the Same Coin?] Andrew G. Berg and Jonathan D. Ostry| IMF STAFF DISCUSSION NOTE | April 8, 2011</ref><ref name=BergOstryEE>{{Cite journal |last= Berg |first= Andrew G. |last2= Ostry |first2= Jonathan D. |date= 2011 |title= Equality and Efficiency |journal= Finance and Development |volume= 48 |issue= 3 |publisher= International Monetary Fund |url= http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2011/09/berg.htm |accessdate= September 10, 2012}}</ref>
| |
| | |
| [[Supply-side economics]] is a school of [[macroeconomic]] thought that argues that [[economic growth]] can be most effectively created by lowering barriers for people to produce (supply) goods and services, such as lowering [[income tax]] and [[capital gains tax]] rates, and by allowing greater flexibility by reducing regulation. According to supply-side economics, consumers will then benefit from a greater supply of goods and services at lower prices. Typical policy recommendations of supply-side economists are lower [[marginal tax rates]] and less regulation.<ref>{{cite book |title=The Way the World Works: How Economies Fail—and Succeed |last=Wanniski |first=Jude |authorlink= |year=1978 |publisher=Basic Books |location=New York |isbn=0-465-09095-8 |pages= |url= }}</ref> Many economists view supply-side as an ill-conceived economic theory.{{Citation needed|date=October 2012}} Critics of supply-side economics point to the lack of academic economics credentials by movement leaders such as Jude Wanniski and [[Robert Bartley]] to imply that the theories behind it are bankrupt.<ref name="Chait">{{cite book |title=The Big Con: How Washington Got Hoodwinked and Hijacked by Crackpot Economics |last=Chait |first=J. |authorlink= |year=2007 |publisher=Houghton Mifflin |location=Boston |isbn=0-618-68540-5 |pages= |url= }}</ref><ref name="Harper">{{cite web |first = David |last = Harper |url=http://www.investopedia.com/articles/05/011805.asp|title=Understanding Supply-Side Economics}}</ref> Economist [[Paul Krugman]] published a book dedicated to attacking the theory, and Reaganomics, under the title "[[Peddling Prosperity]]". Mundell in his [[Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences|The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel]] acceptance lecture (awarded for unrelated work in [[optimum currency area]]) countered that the success of price stability was proof that the supply-side revolution had worked. The continuing debate over supply-side policies tends to focus on the massive federal and current account deficits, increased income inequality and its failure to promote growth.<ref name="Orzsag">{{cite web |url=http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/gale/20030509.htm |author=Gale, W. G. & Orszag, P. R. |title=Bush's Tax Plan Slashes Growth |date=2003-05-09 |publisher=The Brookings Institution |accessdate=2007-10-23 }}</ref>
| |
| [[File:US high-income effective tax rates.png|thumb| Average tax rate percentages for the highest-income U.S. taxpayers, 1945–2009]]
| |
| The [[Pigou–Dalton principle]] is that redistribution of wealth from a rich person to a poor person reduces inequality, so long as the order is not switched (the initially richer person is not made poorer than the initially poorer person: they are brought together and not switched). [[Hugh Dalton]] suggested further that, assuming no effects other than transfer, such transfers increase collective welfare, because the marginal utility of income or wealth to a rich person is less than that to a poor person. Maximal welfare is achieved if all have equal wealth or income. Dalton's analysis sets aside questions of economic efficiency: redistribution may increase or decrease overall output—it may grow or shrink the pie, not simply change how it is divided.
| |
| | |
| The [[Congressional Budget Office]] (CBO) has estimated that extending the [[Bush tax cuts]] of 2001–2003 beyond their 2010 expiration would increase deficits by $1.8 trillion over the following decade.<ref>[http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/78xx/doc7878/03-21-PresidentsBudget.pdf Analysis of President's Budget Table 1-3 Page 6]</ref> The CBO also completed a study in 2005 analyzing a hypothetical 10% income tax cut and concluded that under various scenarios there would be minimal offsets to the loss of revenue. In other words, deficits would increase by nearly the same amount as the tax cut in the first five years, with limited feedback revenue thereafter. Through increased budget deficits, the tax cuts primarily benefiting the wealthy will be paid for—plus interest—by [[Taxation in the United States|taxes borne relatively evenly by all taxpayers]].<ref>[http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/69xx/doc6908/12-01-10PercentTaxCut.pdf CBO Study Grey Box Page 1]</ref> The paper points out that these projected shortfalls in revenue would have to be made up by federal borrowing: the paper estimates that the federal government would pay an extra $200 billion in interest over the decade covered by the paper's analysis.<ref name="CBO">{{cite web|url= http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/69xx/doc6908/12-01-10PercentTaxCut.pdf|title=CBO. (December 1, 2005). ''Analyzing the Economic and Budgetary Effects of a 10 Percent Cut in Income Tax Rates''|accessdate=2007-12-11}}</ref>
| |
| | |
| In the absence of negative [[Externality|externalities]], the introduction of taxes into a market reduces [[economic efficiency]] by causing [[deadweight loss]]. In a competitive market the [[price]] of a particular [[economic good]] adjusts to ensure that all trades which benefit both the buyer and the seller of a good occur. The introduction of a tax causes the price received by the seller to be less than the cost to the buyer by the amount of the tax. This causes fewer transactions to occur, which reduces [[welfare economics|economic welfare]]; the individuals or businesses involved are less well off than before the tax. The [[tax burden]] and the amount of deadweight cost is dependent on the [[elasticity (economics)|elasticity]] of supply and demand for the good taxed. Most taxes—including [[income tax]] and [[sales tax]]—can have significant deadweight costs.
| |
| | |
| ==Prospect of Upward Mobility hypothesis==
| |
| [[File:U.S. Distribution of Wealth, 2007.jpg|thumb|The distribution of net wealth in the United States, 2007. The chart is divided into the top 20% (blue), upper middle 20% (orange), middle 20% (red), and bottom 40% (green). (The net wealth of many people in the lowest 20% is negative because of debt.)<ref name="levyinstitute.org">[http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_589.pdf Recent Trends in Household Wealth in the United States: Rising Debt and the Middle-Class Squeeze—an Update to 2007] by Edward N. Wolff, Levy Economics Institute of Bard College, March 2010</ref>]]
| |
| | |
| The Prospect of Upward Mobility (POUM) hypothesis is an argument that explains why some poor and working class voters do not support efforts by governments to redistribute wealth. It states that many people with below average income do not support higher tax rates because of a belief in their prospect for upward mobility.<ref name="Poum">[http://www.jstor.org/stable/2696470] Social Mobility and the Demand for Redistribution: The Poum Hypothesis. Roland Benabou, Efe A. Ok. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 116, No. 2 (May, 2001), pp. 447–87</ref> These workers strongly believe that there is opportunity for either themselves, their children, or their grandchildren to move upward on the economic ladder.
| |
| | |
| There are three key assumptions that form the foundation for the POUM hypothesis. First, one must assume that policies that are enacted in the present will endure into the future and carry enough weight to impact the future.<ref name="Poum"/> Second, one must assume that poorer workers are "not too risk averse".<ref name="Poum"/> This assumption rests on the fact that the people in question must realize that their income may also go down instead of up. Finally, poor workers must have an optimistic view of their future, as they expect to go from poorer than the average to richer than average.<ref name="Poum"/>
| |
| | |
| After much analysis of the POUM hypothesis, Benabou and Ok recognize two key limitations. One limitation is that other potential problems that create more concavity in the POUM system, such as risk aversion, must not increase too much.<ref name="Poum"/> Concavity must be kept at a minimum to ensure that the POUM hypothesis generates the expected results. The other limitation is that there must be adequate commitment to the choice of fiscal policy including the government and institutions.<ref name="Poum"/>
| |
| | |
| ==Criticism==
| |
| {{globalize|section|date=September 2013}}
| |
| [[Conservatism|Conservative]], [[Libertarianism|libertarian]] and [[Neoliberalism|neoliberal]] arguments against property redistribution consider the term a [[euphemism]] for theft or forced labor, and argue that redistribution of legitimately obtained property cannot ever be just.<ref>[http://www.philosophypathways.com/newsletter/issue65.html "Redistribution" as Euphemism or, Who Owns What?]'' [[Philosophy Pathways]],'' Number 65, 24 August 2003, by Anthony Flood</ref> [[Public choice]] theory states that redistribution tends to benefit those with political clout to set spending priorities more than those in need, who lack real influence on government.<ref>Plotnick, Robert (1986) "An Interest Group Model of Direct Income Redistribution", ''The Review of Economics and Statistics, vol. 68'', #4, pp. 594–602.</ref>
| |
| | |
| In the [[United States]], some of the founding fathers and several subsequent leaders expressed opposition to redistribution of wealth. During his own attempt to make a case for helping French refugees from the Haitian Revolution,<ref>{{cite web|title=Annals of Congress, House of Representatives, 3rd Congress, 1st Session|url=http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=004/llac004.db&recNum=82|work=History of Congress|accessdate=22 October 2013}}</ref> [[James Madison]], author of the [[United States Constitution|Constitution]], wrote, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."<ref>[http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/articles/fee/constitution.html "Constitution Day – George Mason University"]</ref>
| |
| | |
| United States President [[Grover Cleveland]] vetoed an expenditure of federal aid explaining,
| |
| <blockquote>
| |
| I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution; and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadily resisted ... The friendliness and charity of our fellow countrymen can always be relied on to relieve their fellow citizens in misfortune. .... Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood.<ref>http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=7440</ref> <ref>{{cite web|title=Grover Cleveland|url=http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=71489#axzz2iRAyAGGV|publisher=The American Presidency Project|accessdate=22 October 2013}}</ref>
| |
| </blockquote>
| |
| | |
| ==See also==
| |
| {{columns-list|3|
| |
| * [[Basic income]]
| |
| * [[Causes of the Great Depression#Disparities in wealth and income|Causes of the Great Depression—disparities in wealth and income]]
| |
| * [[Class conflict]]
| |
| * [[Distribution of wealth]]
| |
| * [[Gini coefficient]]
| |
| * [[Living wage]]
| |
| * [[Nationalization]]
| |
| * [[Nordic model]]
| |
| * [[Progressive taxation]]
| |
| * [[Redistributive change]]
| |
| * [[Regressive taxation]]
| |
| * [[Robin Hood effect]]
| |
| * [[Social inequality]]
| |
| * [[Wealth concentration]]
| |
| * [[Welfare state]]
| |
| | |
| '''Lists:'''
| |
| * [[List of countries by income equality]]
| |
| * [[List of countries by inequality-adjusted HDI]]
| |
| | |
| '''US specific:'''
| |
| * [[Federal taxation and spending by state]]
| |
| * [[Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff]]
| |
| * [[Wealth inequality in the United States]]
| |
| }}
| |
| | |
| ==References==
| |
| {{Reflist|30em}}
| |
| | |
| ==External links==
| |
| * {{cite encyclopedia |last1=Levy |first1=Frank |editor= [[David R. Henderson]] (ed.) |encyclopedia=[[Concise Encyclopedia of Economics]] |title=Distribution of Income |url=http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/DistributionofIncome.html |year=2008 |edition= 2nd |publisher=[[Library of Economics and Liberty]] |location=Indianapolis |isbn=978-0865976658 |oclc=237794267}}
| |
| * [http://www.poorcity.richcity.org Small calculus of inequality measures]
| |
| * [http://apnews.excite.com/article/20140127/DABJ40P00.html "Wealth Gap" - A Guide] ([[AP News]] - January, 2014).
| |
| | |
| {{DEFAULTSORT:Redistribution (Economics)}}
| |
| [[Category:Politics by issue]]
| |
| [[Category:Taxation and redistribution]]
| |
| [[Category:Public economics]]
| |
| [[Category:Political philosophy]]
| |
| [[Category:Socioeconomics]]
| |
| [[Category:Egalitarianism]]
| |
| [[Category:Income distribution]]
| |
| [[Category:Welfare state]]
| |
The checklist listed below will make suggestions in selecting the most appropriate host:
1. Simply how much time does it take for the area to be put on the net? It sh...
Personal web hosting like every other form of web hosting covers a certain amount of ground rules. The sole difference between your own web hosting and a business web hosting could be the payment arrangements like secure server for credit cards payment. Besides that, the listing remains the same as for the business enterprise website hosting.
The list listed below will guide you in choosing the right host:
1. Simply how much time does it take for the domain to be put on the net? It ought to be less than 36 hours.
2. Can I host other sites through my area? It ought to be possible for you to use alias domains, provided they result in the main page of your site.
3. Am I who owns the domain name published? The clear answer should really be YES, without any other conditions.
4. Might it be feasible for me to update the info of my website/ area? All rights to your website, i.e. billing, technological, administrative, etc, must be directed at you. And YES, the web host ought to be in a position to upgrade your websites information at your request.
5. Can my web be modifyed by me? The solution must certanly be basically YES, while some websites will ask you to route the changes through them. This might be awkward for people who can do themselves to it and have a lot of updating to complete.
6. What is the protocol for the location of html directory permissions? Most web hosts will allow you the use of the Get a handle on Panel to create permissions and change your web design.
7. Do I get web mail utilization through my site? Most net hosts could have squirrel mail accounts within their plans. With this particular ability also comes the forwarding of the e-mail and auto-responders.
8. May I access my cgi and perl scripts? The clear answer ought to be YES.
9. Have you got fast and effective technical support/ service support? The clear answer ought to be YES, round-the-clock 24/7.
10. Do you use advanced seo resources above metatags? The clear answer must certanly be again YES. Dig up more on the affiliated website - Visit this hyperlink: ftp hosting. Today hosts use sophisticated Search Engine Optimization tools. Nevertheless, you need to definitely have your keyword and description metatags mounted on your primary content page for comfortable access on the web.
Other factors include cost and billing details, traffic space so called bandwidth, and computer or storage space. You need to be anticipating an annual billing as well as a monthly billing. Web contains do provide an annual billing for a price, and some saying you ought to be careful as this may block your shifting in case in order to avoid one-year period offers you"re disappointed with the web host. This really is not always true because, in todays competition between web hosting companies, many reliable companies do provide 30-90 days money-back guarantee in case you aren"t satisfied.
In regards to the traffic space or bandwidth the minimum you"d need would be about 25 GB/month, while for keeping a simple individual web site, the storage requirements should be minimum of 500 MB disk space. I would consider 1 GB or more of disk space to prevent extra expenses in case your required space gets larger in the foreseeable future. Nonetheless it all hangs on what type and how big of files you set up on your online site. Hence, do not go after internet hosts who offer 15 to you GB or even more of disk space for additional expenses because you would never need therefore much space. Be taught extra resources on our partner wiki by visiting secure ftp. Despite having complex company websites, you"d maybe not use more than 10 GB.
The very best is to research the feedback of the web host before you choose what type to choose, and the aforementioned questions will surely guide towards a wise decision..
Should you have virtually any issues about exactly where and how you can employ gap health insurance (slideshare.net), it is possible to e mail us in our own web site.