redistribution of wealth

[CK76]

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

Define oblivion. 50% like Norway? 36% like United States?

Where are the taxes going? If they lead to a stable healthy society it is the cost of maintaining that. If it is going to fund activities I disagree with I use my right and vote for people with similar views on where taxes should be spent.

 

[saxist01]

I'd rather have someone treat me. Period.

Money can be the biggest motivator to do a good job. A surgeon who cares about his stats becuase he can get a higher paying salary with good ones is just as likely to make sure that everything is taken care of down to the finest detail as someone who is caring.

Also a superb incentive to perform unnecessary procedures and milk the insurance companies for as much as you can. That ole Invisible Hand, that's the one you don't feel slippin' into your pocket.

There also seems to be a strangely commonplace that people with wealth have all "earned it." Tell me, what exactly did Bil Gates or Larry Ellison do to "earn" billions? Most of the wealth in the world is in the hands of individuals anyway, it's looked up by multinationals and financial institutions, and we've all seen how well they spend other people's money.

Bill Gates and Larry Ellison both started and developed a consumer good that is used by millions of people every day. They used their own money, and own ideas to create and fill a demand for the public. It's not like they were willed their money or anything.

 

[Flying Dagger]

I'm going to stay out of this one, if I get involved, I will surely be banned.
To say it's fair for some to excess when we are all people, some starving, disgusts me.

 

[Skinny Razor]

I'd rather have someone treat me. Period.

Money can be the biggest motivator to do a good job. A surgeon who cares about his stats becuase he can get a higher paying salary with good ones is just as likely to make sure that everything is taken care of down to the finest detail as someone who is caring.

Also a superb incentive to perform unnecessary procedures and milk the insurance companies for as much as you can. That ole Invisible Hand, that's the one you don't feel slippin' into your pocket.

There also seems to be a strangely commonplace that people with wealth have all "earned it." Tell me, what exactly did Bil Gates or Larry Ellison do to "earn" billions? Most of the wealth in the world is in the hands of individuals anyway, it's looked up by multinationals and financial institutions, and we've all seen how well they spend other people's money.

Bill Gates and Larry Ellison both started and developed a consumer good that is used by millions of people every day. They used their own money, and own ideas to create and fill a demand for the public. It's not like they were willed their money or anything.

You need to check on Gates' backstory before you start talking about "his" money, or even "developing a product." Ellison is a little better, but not much, and neither is strictly a direct-to-consumers developer, are they.

Personally thought, I don't give a wet slap. As many have said before, if you even it all out, in a few years, all the money would be back where it was to begin with. Wealth redistribution is politically unfeasible and practically improbable.

 

[Rickyvantof]

That's what communists would do...

 

[Hawgh]

That's what communists would do...

It's what communists already did.

 

[Death on Trapezoids]

The american society is one in which greed, backhandedness, and generally will-do-anything-to-win mindsets get money, power, etc. while the people that don't want to lie, cheat, and steal end up feeding the other people.

 

[mcgroobber]

'Nuff said. I'm not going to make a serious argument about this because this board is mostly populated by pampered upper middle class kids who have no idea what it's like to suffer on the economic level, who scream praises for capitalism while sitting on wealth they never worked a day in their lives for. No offense intended to anyone, but I'm just not in the mood to argue...especially with people who have no idea what they're talking about.

i will take offense to that, the fact of the matter is communism would be great if it worked but it doesn't, there will always be rich and poor even in a communist society because people will choose to spend their money at different rates, its like if two children are given an allowance, one will save while the other one wastes it all on candy

but people do seem to have an idea what they're talking about on this thread, just because its not your idea doesn't mean its the wrong idea

people do everything to suit themselves, so we have our economic opinions to suit our needs just as you have yours to suit your needs, i can respect a person for economic equality, but me being called a spoiled child doesn't help

 

[Aerodyamic]

Wasn't the 'trickle-down effect' supposed to sort this out?

Reagan-nomics and the 'trickle-down theory' were just bunk.

 

[saxist01]

I'd rather have someone treat me. Period.

Money can be the biggest motivator to do a good job. A surgeon who cares about his stats becuase he can get a higher paying salary with good ones is just as likely to make sure that everything is taken care of down to the finest detail as someone who is caring.

Also a superb incentive to perform unnecessary procedures and milk the insurance companies for as much as you can. That ole Invisible Hand, that's the one you don't feel slippin' into your pocket.

There also seems to be a strangely commonplace that people with wealth have all "earned it." Tell me, what exactly did Bil Gates or Larry Ellison do to "earn" billions? Most of the wealth in the world is in the hands of individuals anyway, it's looked up by multinationals and financial institutions, and we've all seen how well they spend other people's money.

Bill Gates and Larry Ellison both started and developed a consumer good that is used by millions of people every day. They used their own money, and own ideas to create and fill a demand for the public. It's not like they were willed their money or anything.

You need to check on Gates' backstory before you start talking about "his" money, or even "developing a product." Ellison is a little better, but not much, and neither is strictly a direct-to-consumers developer, are they.

Personally thought, I don't give a wet slap. As many have said before, if you even it all out, in a few years, all the money would be back where it was to begin with. Wealth redistribution is politically unfeasible and practically improbable.

Are you trying to say that "his" money was actually his parents money? Even then, that is well within their right to support their own child. And I would say that being a big part of starting up Microsoft more than qualifies as "developing a product." It seems like you have some bias against these two in particular. It's clear you don't like them, but for whatever reason I have no idea.

 

[YouCallMeNighthawk]

Yes, I know capitalism makes America great and all, but would you ever think a redistribution of wealth would be a good idea, if it could be implemented in a way that would really work? 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.

Isn't that what charitys are for? to give stuff to the poor and hungry?

Anyways, it's their money they can do what they like with it, they worked hard and long for that so they can enjoy it. Well that's how i see it anyway.

 

[Kelbear]

Yes, I know capitalism makes America great and all, but would you ever think a redistribution of wealth would be a good idea, if it could be implemented in a way that would really work? 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.

Direct redistribution of wealth is a terrible idea. Gearing certain mechanics to level out the income gaps would be better.

Direct redistribution is terrible because it's a huge damaging shock to the system that inefficiently allocates money into waste. Where should the wealth be transferred to? Who's qualified to make that guess?

Feeding the poor sounds nice, but then you still have poor that will be getting hungry again by the next mealtime. Funnel that money into schools that work, or making available college loans (which still need to be repaid!) and then you have a mechanic that allows hard-working people to step upwards in social class, and become more productive, raising the overall level of productivity in the country. Plus it increases the taxable base! With an education, those with potential, can realize their potential, and we'll maximize our use of our human resources.

Improve unemployment, and reduce firing restrictions. Make it easier to people to survive after being fired, and make it easier for companies to fire people. This way people who suck at their jobs can get axed, but then they'll stay afloat safely enough that they can find a job that fits their level of skill. Similarly, people who are too good for their job can get HIRED, because the company doesn't have to be afraid of being stuck with a bad employee since they know they can fire them easily if they guessed wrong. Overall, this means that unemployment won't be so terrifying, and that the job market will be more liquid and more efficient, so that people can get placed at the level they belong. Low value employees in low-value jobs, and high-value employees in high-value jobs.

It's not the same as just feeding the poor, because improved unemployment benefits should work in conjunction with accessible education, making sure education is easily accessible. So if they become unemployed because they're not valuable, they can jump right back into school and emerge with valuable skills. Now you don't need to feed them, they can feed themselves.

Bottom line: There will always be poor people in a competitive society. That is part of efficiency. For some people to win, other people must be the relative losers. Making sure there are ways for the winners to win is what's important. If the losers decide they want to become winners, there should be a path open to them so that can have it...if they work hard enough for it.

 

[GrinningManiac]

Move to Britain, where the lower classes live somewhere else and the Rich spend most of their time in other countries! Middle Class Suburbia FTW

OT: 2 day parties? I don't think I've even heard of a party that lasted more than HALF a day around here! I mean, organised parties, that is. The stupid drunk scene-kids just hang around a person's house getting wasted for three days, but that's not exactly a party

 

[Skinny Razor]

Are you trying to say that "his" money was actually his parents money? Even then, that is well within their right to support their own child. And I would say that being a big part of starting up Microsoft more than qualifies as "developing a product." It seems like you have some bias against these two in particular. It's clear you don't like them, but for whatever reason I have no idea.

Yes, I am saying it's his parents money, so he didn't start the company through his OWN efforts (or even by himself), and he bought MS-DOS.
I don't any great feeling about them either way, I only point out the misrepresentation of facts.

 

[saxist01]

Are you trying to say that "his" money was actually his parents money? Even then, that is well within their right to support their own child. And I would say that being a big part of starting up Microsoft more than qualifies as "developing a product." It seems like you have some bias against these two in particular. It's clear you don't like them, but for whatever reason I have no idea.

Yes, I am saying it's his parents money, so he didn't start the company through his OWN efforts (or even by himself), and he bought MS-DOS.
I don't any great feeling about them either way, I only point out the misrepresentation of facts.

It sounds to me like you're misrepresenting "OWN effort" with "OWN money," by equating the two. From what I've researched, he didn't use his parents money to buy MS-DOS, he used the profits he made from Microsoft (with Paul Allen). From what I've seen, Bill Gates was a gifted computer programmer who "earned" his profits by developing and acquiring new technologies, and selling them to a market that demanded them.

 

[Iron Criterion]

Call me an arsehole, but being middle class I'm fine as I am.

 

[adderseal]

I simply think that society doesn't work unless there is someone in power, and a redistribution of wealth would really fuck that up. Anarchy would ensue.

 

[Yeager942]

My family lived in soviet Armenia back when it was part of the U.S.S.R. and all I get is horror stories about it.

 

[Naeo]

I support the ideal of redistribution; in every place in the world to my knowledge- Russia and France being perhaps the best examples- maldistribution of wealth has led to horrible horrible living conditions for the majority of the population who owns almost nothing, while the upper class lives in occasionally ridiculous opulence. And that sometimes leads to civil war/conflict.

That and the lowest ends of the lower class can face problems like "I might not be able to buy food today" while the upper class dines out at a fancy restaurant.

I don't support a total leveling of the playing system, because that removes the incentive for people to work and accomplish and drive the economy/society. I just think we should really address the poor/rich divide that gets wider and wider every year in most cases, because it's always been cyclical: huge division, radical change and everyone's more or less on the same level, then it drifts back to that divide, rinse and repeat.

 

[OpiateChicken]

I'm not going to get into the whole sociopolitical debate here because I know those bases have all been covered already. I'll just say that if I was rich and made my money legitimately, I would fucking rage. Most people are just trying to survive, and generally I've lost faith in humanity a long time ago and I don't think any amount of money could change how I personally feel about other randoms I see on the street.

Maybe I have a "hostile" personality. But I protect who I love and what I have, and would not want my hard earned money to go to people I know nothing--and care nothing--about.

It's a dog-eat-dog world out there...