redistribution of wealth
- Thread starter Wounded Melody
- Start date
Ok but here's the thing, it is inarguable that many people gain money without earning it at all, either through things like inheritance or lottery, or through exploitation of others. Isn't it fair that the people being exploited get a slice of the pie?Mucinex-D said:
I think it's a bad idea. The people that run companies, essentially driving the economy are a few super rich people, and rich investors. If you take their money away from them, then they can't invest in all the industries anymore, and it would therefore probably crash, leaving all the rest of us jobless. Putting aside the idea of fairness/equality, I think a complete distribution of wealth, in the long run, would just make everyone worse off than they were, including the third world countries.
That's not to say taxes are bad. Like many other posters pointed out, we need taxes for police, roads etc... And personally I would love to have free complete healthcare, and education, since those have huge social benefits.
PS: Also like others have said, who would be crazy enough to trust any gov't to redistribute the such a huge amount wealth anyway? We already have politicians leaching off our taxes, think what would happen if they have even more money to play with.
That's not to say taxes are bad. Like many other posters pointed out, we need taxes for police, roads etc... And personally I would love to have free complete healthcare, and education, since those have huge social benefits.
PS: Also like others have said, who would be crazy enough to trust any gov't to redistribute the such a huge amount wealth anyway? We already have politicians leaching off our taxes, think what would happen if they have even more money to play with.
i would agree, the quality of life is pretty good, im not saying that there should be no gov help for the poor, but the riches money shouldn't just be taken awayHardcore_gamer said:
http://memegenerator.net/Marx-Says/ImageMacro/653334/Marx%20says%20-%20Get%20bitches%20share%20wealth.jpg
'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.
'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.
The problem is that there is NO flawless way wealth can be redistributed. To think it is at all a good idea requires a TOTAL ignorance of human nature. Capitalism at least uses corrupt human beings for the general good. By being selfish AND competitive, you will work in the long run to improve the quality of life of lots of people besides yourself (By pushing technological innovation:meaning more available food, amenities, shelter, you name it).
Even if wealth could be redistributed properly, you can't change the fact that innovation dies without reward. Redistribution of wealth will ultimately result in everyone being mired in poverty together.
The solution is not to just give stuff away, it is to teach the poor how to earn for themselves.
NOTE: Posters in favor of redistribution need to knock off the jackass-ery and stop arguing that full redistribution is good because we've all used police services. There is a huge moral and practical difference between using universally accepted taxes for police, fire services, etc. and evenly distributihg the wealth across society.
Even if wealth could be redistributed properly, you can't change the fact that innovation dies without reward. Redistribution of wealth will ultimately result in everyone being mired in poverty together.
The solution is not to just give stuff away, it is to teach the poor how to earn for themselves.
NOTE: Posters in favor of redistribution need to knock off the jackass-ery and stop arguing that full redistribution is good because we've all used police services. There is a huge moral and practical difference between using universally accepted taxes for police, fire services, etc. and evenly distributihg the wealth across society.
Are you saying people should have their Inheritance stolen from them? They may not have earned it but they have more right to their families hard work than strangers. As for the exploitation of others, it would be easier if you give examples. You might think paying minimum wage is exploitation, and I see it as job opportunities. I think you should get paid for the work you do. If you're being exploited do something about it or find a new job.Typhusoid said:
Hmm... Maybe not wholesale. Consider this, people with ridiculously large amounts of money simply wate that money, while others need that money simply to sustain themselves. However, taking the riches away would rob the incentive for work. So, if you only taxed people with large incomes a small percentage extra, it would have a huge impact on the needy and minimal on the rich.
Of course, this money woyuld be reserved exclusivly for the needy. Anyone caught taking from it will be considered to be volunteering all of their assets to charity.
Of course, this money woyuld be reserved exclusivly for the needy. Anyone caught taking from it will be considered to be volunteering all of their assets to charity.
Define oblivion. 50% like Norway? 36% like United States?TimeLord said:
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.
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.Rosicrucian said:
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.
To say it's fair for some to excess when we are all people, some starving, disgusts me.
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.saxist01 said:
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.
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.
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 candyAkai Shizuku said:
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
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.Rosicrucian said: