redistribution of wealth

[Lord Mountbatten Reborn]

It's the misconception that that all rich people are conservative and that successful and wealthy are the same thing. They aren't. Look at the richest men in America: Warren Buffet, Ted Turner, Bill Gates, all of these men are actually quite liberal.

I remember Warren Buffet complaining at the level of tax he and secretary got. I'm fuzzy on the details but basically, she was getting, income tax-wise, completely screwed over, while he was getting taxed rather lightly.

 

[rokkolpo]

those people earned that money, they should do as they please.

i have yet to have an epifany about equality in humankind.

 

[EntropicBliss]

We're talking about full redistribution of
wealth here, not public money generated by taxes.

Since when?

Although it's true that it would still be public money, the fact is that it would be ALOT more then usual taxes.

Says who? You're adding a whole boatload of additional qualifiers that haven't come up in the conversation before.

 

[SnipErlite]

It would probably help a whole lot of people, but who do implement this on and how? It'd be damn hard, and all the rich would kick up a fuss about how they deserve their hard-earned wealth. Which they do, in some cases.

 

[EntropicBliss]

Full redistribution of wealth is what I'm discussing, and I'm guessing that's what most of the people on this thread are talking about too. You're just picking bits out of my statements and arguing semantics, all this is going to turn into a constant argument over what wealth redistribution is between us, so I'm just going to let this go and agree to disagree, just because I don't feel like explaining every open-ended sentence I say.

Wow, just a little butthurt?

As far as I can tell, OP wasn't arguing for total wealth redistribution, most people in the thread have been arguing about something more akin to punitive taxation than collectivizing everything, and you didn't bring up that you were arguing for total wealth redistribution until you needed something to argue against the point I made.

Forgive me for not being clairvoyant enough to know which specific form of wealth redistribution you're arguing for.

 

[Indecizion]

Im pro it to some extent old money ftl but if they actualy worked hard to earn their money like bill gates i say let them keep it, its the bank guys with their enormous unjustified bonuses and people who just inherit the cash that ruins it for the honest hard workers.

 

[CK76]

I'm pretty sure that would solve several pressing world issues but cause the rich to rise up and destroy everything in anger.

I know I would if I were on the wrong end of that class spectrum

Can you show a time when the rich rose up and destroyed everything because of redistribution?

I can think of many times poor did (France, Russia, Cuba, etc.).

The wealthy have too much invested in the system to throw it all out, the poor generally have little to lose.

We already do this, without redistribution wouldn't have much for infrastructure or education systems.

I think the key to so many people view on this comes down to this. Why are people poor? Why are people rich? Your answer to these two questions is very likely to shape views on redistribution.

 

[InvisibleSeal]

This makes me think of economics...

On the one hand redistributing wealth makes people more equal, which stops people being poor. It would stop there being such a big division between the rich and poor, which is good.
On the other hand, taking away so much money from the richer people would take away their incentive to earn that money, which is bad because people wouldn't work as hard.

So it would be best to have a sort of conpromise

 

[TimeLord]

I'm pretty sure that would solve several pressing world issues but cause the rich to rise up and destroy everything in anger.

I know I would if I were on the wrong end of that class spectrum

Can you show a time when the rich rose up and destroyed everything because of redistribution?

I can think of many times poor did (France, Russia, Cuba, etc.).

The wealthy have too much invested in the system to throw it all out, the poor generally have little to lose.

We already do this, without redistribution wouldn't have much for infrastructure or education systems.

I think the key to so many people view on this comes down to this. Why are people poor? Why are people rich? Your answer to these two questions is very likely to shape views on redistribution.

Well if your hard earned cash got taxed to oblivion, just because you work in a higher paying job, would you not complain?

 

[oppp7]

I don't see the point of people having billions, or even millions of dollars. At least Bill Gates spends gives it to charities...

 

[TotallyFake]

Completely irrelevant offtopic question: Is your avatar a clip from the new Iron Man? Is that his auto-folding suit in a brief case?

 

[Pimppeter2]

After hearing my mother's doctor talk about the 2-day, 5 band, 100+ kids party she just threw for her 17 year old (17?! you don't rock 17 that hard!!! you wait for 18!) son, I'm thinking some of that money could be used to help people who can't even afford food.

Do you have any idea how much medical school costs? Do you have any idea how hard it is, how much blood, sweat, and treasure she had to give to become a doctor?

Yeah, if I went through god knows how many years of college, I would want to be able to throw money around.

Redistribution of wealth is stupid. It kills all initiative to do anything. Why would I want to become a doctor if I can make just as much running a day care?

 

[Wounded Melody]

I don't see the point of people having billions, or even millions of dollars. At least Bill Gates spends gives it to charities...

Maybe a salary cap is in order?

 

[EntropicBliss]

I clearly said 'full wealth redistribution' several times in one of my responses,

Yes. However, you only said full wealth redistribution when you needed to refute one of the points I made, not in your original post that I made a reply too.

I don't trust the government enough to start handing out money to people, it's a very easy system to abuse. Also, even though I'm somewhat poor right now, if I ever achieve some kind of wealth, why should other people been given what I've rightfully earned? If I've worked hard to pull myself out of poverty and into the upper class, how fair is it that my resources are just given to other people? That's the problem with the redistribution of wealth, in the end, you're still just taking from the rich, who could have very well earned their wealth, and giving it to people who could very well not deserve it. Should a prime mover, someone who pushes the world forward through an amazing invention or company, be forced to give their earnings to a crack dealer, or an abusive father?

Bear in mind I'm not saying that all the upper class has earned or deserve their wealth, nor am I saying that all the lower class are crack dealers or abusive fathers. What I'm saying is that the redistribution of wealth would be severely damaging to both progress and the economy. What's the point in trying to achieve anything if the government will just steal money from people who do and give it to you? Stagnation would be the result.

Do you see full wealth redistribution in there?

but once again, this is beside the point, all I was saying is that this is just going to lead to incredibly pointless arguing which I'm not really in the mood for right now,

Then why are you posting on an internet forum?

especially when you respond with something as immature as 'just a little butthurt'.

It looked like you were butthurt.

You're obviously well informed on this thread's subject, as am I, but we clearly see it by different definitions, I'm using the Marxist concept while you are clearly looking into a minimalized version. Thus it would be productive to avoid this conversation altogether.

It's interesting to see how you've come to understand my perceptions from 5 posts. From what I've said, I could be a Keynesian who believes that government should have progressive taxations but a firm capitalist sector, a Marxist who believes that the same justifications that apply for a police force could apply for a Proletarian-dominated state, or a Libertarian who believes that the government should be limited as much as possible.

Of course, if this is truly besides the point and you don't want to waste your time, then I must be talking to an echo chamber at the moment.

 

[oppp7]

I don't see the point of people having billions, or even millions of dollars. At least Bill Gates spends gives it to charities...

Maybe a salary cap is in order?

Sure, but they'd have to fill in the loopholes.