Isn't that what charitys are for? to give stuff to the poor and hungry?Wounded Melody said:
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.
redistribution of wealth
- Thread starter Wounded Melody
- Start date
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.
Direct redistribution of wealth is a terrible idea. Gearing certain mechanics to level out the income gaps would be better.Wounded Melody said:
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.
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
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
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.saxist01 said:
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.Rosicrucian said:
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.
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.
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...
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...
But should people who work hard for their money, have that given to those who just cannot be bothered?
If money was available for free, noone would want to work. At least no-one with any sense.
Taking money from the rich to help create jobs, I think this is a good idea though. Tht party with 100 guests would have created much needed work for people who needed it during this recession
Use money to help society, not for others just to help themselves to cash
If money was available for free, noone would want to work. At least no-one with any sense.
Taking money from the rich to help create jobs, I think this is a good idea though. Tht party with 100 guests would have created much needed work for people who needed it during this recession
Use money to help society, not for others just to help themselves to cash
Doesn't work in practice. Once you redistrubute, the same patterns come into play and the wealth quickly gets shifted back into the hands of those who are willing to get up off their ass and do things for a living. Meanwhile the stupids blow it all on dumb stuff just like they did the last time they had money, so they become broke again. You'd have to constantly redistribute for it to work and then you'd just break down the whole system of society because no-one would ever do anything except sit on their fat ass, as they know they'll get the same amount of money anyway. The system is better the way it is now, although the US could certainly use a better jobsearch payment system. If I lived in the US I'd probably be homeless.Wounded Melody said:
