Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
After reading a number of posts regarding "wealth redistribution" one comes away with the impression that when dollars are assessed from one group of citizens with the intent of provided a portion of those assessed dollars to another group of citizens that the money is retained by those citizens instead of the reality that those dollars are then spent and thus redistributed back into the very economy in which they originated. In short any "redistribution of wealth" is short lived since in many respects it returns to those with higher incomes in terms of profits from the sale of goods and services.
I suspect that this thread'll be moved pretty soon; I don't see how this can be discussed without getting in to politics. If this topic has any spiritual dimension at all it is with respect to charity. If wealth is redistributed by those who have more it is charity. If it is taken by others (i.e. government) for redistribution then there is no charity whatsoever.
Location: Visitation between Wal-Mart & Home Depot
8,307 posts, read 38,680,380 times
Reputation: 7185
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
After reading a number of posts regarding "wealth redistribution" one comes away with the impression that when dollars are assessed from one group of citizens with the intent of provided a portion of those assessed dollars to another group of citizens that the money is retained by those citizens instead of the reality that those dollars are then spent and thus redistributed back into the very economy in which they originated. In short any "redistribution of wealth" is short lived since in many respects it returns to those with higher incomes in terms of profits from the sale of goods and services.
I think it would be more accurate to say that the preponderance of the money is immediately deposited to the general credit of a large corporation. Wal-Mart comes to mind.
After reading a number of posts regarding "wealth redistribution" one comes away with the impression that when dollars are assessed from one group of citizens with the intent of provided a portion of those assessed dollars to another group of citizens that the money is retained by those citizens instead of the reality that those dollars are then spent and thus redistributed back into the very economy in which they originated. In short any "redistribution of wealth" is short lived since in many respects it returns to those with higher incomes in terms of profits from the sale of goods and services.
You don't point out that in this transaction there are several bureaucratic functionaries that are layered throughout the government that take a percentage of this money in the form of payroll, benefits, and retirement. So for every dollar confisgated by the government, for let's say food stamps, the entire dollar doesn't make it to the Welfare recipient. Get the government out of the way, and those in need would really receive more money from charity.
After reading a number of posts regarding "wealth redistribution" one comes away with the impression that when dollars are assessed from one group of citizens with the intent of provided a portion of those assessed dollars to another group of citizens that the money is retained by those citizens instead of the reality that those dollars are then spent and thus redistributed back into the very economy in which they originated. In short any "redistribution of wealth" is short lived since in many respects it returns to those with higher incomes in terms of profits from the sale of goods and services.
You are seeing about 20% of the issue. Yes, welfare recients spend the money, and some of it even goes throught legitimate marketing channels.
What you are missing, are multi-fold.
First, when money changes hands (from do'ers to non-do'ers), but nothing of value is given in exchange, the money loses value. Money has to represent wealth, but when it is taken from one and given to another, the value (of that money, anyway) drops out. It is no different than when money is printed. The money supply expands, but the value it represents, doesn't.
Secondly, taking from producers and giving to non-producers, i.e. parasites, is a grave abuse of the producers and leads them to hide their money from taxation, usually in tax-free muni's etc., or they just sit on it, but less of it is invested in more wealth-producing activities.
Third, giving the less-responsible money produced by the more-responsible, erodes the work ethic and increases the "demand" for "free" money.
It is a win, lose, lose, lose, proposition (and there are probably more "lose"es out there I havn't articulated, so all in all, it is horrible for all parties.
After reading a number of posts regarding "wealth redistribution" one comes away with the impression that when dollars are assessed from one group of citizens with the intent of provided a portion of those assessed dollars to another group of citizens that the money is retained by those citizens instead of the reality that those dollars are then spent and thus redistributed back into the very economy in which they originated. In short any "redistribution of wealth" is short lived since in many respects it returns to those with higher incomes in terms of profits from the sale of goods and services.
Utter hogwash. Poor people are given free stuff (K-12 education, food stamps, Medicaid, HUD subsidies, etc..) while contributing practically nothing to the system. Well-to-do people pay the vast majority of the income taxes collected by the federal government. There is no way to sugar-coat these simple facts.
After reading a number of posts regarding "wealth redistribution" one comes away with the impression that when dollars are assessed from one group of citizens with the intent of provided a portion of those assessed dollars to another group of citizens that the money is retained by those citizens instead of the reality that those dollars are then spent and thus redistributed back into the very economy in which they originated. In short any "redistribution of wealth" is short lived since in many respects it returns to those with higher incomes in terms of profits from the sale of goods and services.
Want to know what things look like when the very few and wealthy continue to hord money on rich extravagances, while the common man goes hungry?
Google "French Revolution" and "Red October".
What social programs like welfare and social security do is to ensure that the common man is essentially "fat, dumb, and happy". What America did better than other countries, was to foster the almost obscene hope that if you tried hard enough, you could become one of the few.
Removing social programs will do one thing, force people into desperate measures, and when a few live in such opulence, well, saying "let them eat cake" doesn't exactly work
Some amount of wealth redistribution is always needed. The richest citizens pay higher taxes so they can ensure good business climates, which allows them to become even richer than they would have been if they had kept all of their money.
Roosevelts fed chairman described the economy of the Great Depression as a poker game, a good analogy.
When everyone sits down at the table, and everyone has money, the game goes on. As long as everyone has equal access to the money, the game goes one. But what happens when one person gets to large of a majority of the chips? The game gets shifted to their favor, and everyone starts losing more and more money to them. Sooner or later, people start dropping out of the game. What happens when the one person gets all of the money? The game stops.
This is what happened to cause the depression. Money pool to a fuel rich people, and not enough to go around for everyone else.
After reading a number of posts regarding "wealth redistribution" one comes away with the impression that when dollars are assessed from one group of citizens with the intent of provided a portion of those assessed dollars to another group of citizens that the money is retained by those citizens instead of the reality that those dollars are then spent and thus redistributed back into the very economy in which they originated. In short any "redistribution of wealth" is short lived since in many respects it returns to those with higher incomes in terms of profits from the sale of goods and services.
Stealing is wrong, it doesn't matter who is doing it.
"Trickle-down" economics or "voodoo" economics is easily the most farcical and ridiculous economic theory known to mankind. To think that a group of rich people who are given more money will do something other than enrich themselves, is utterly absurd. Time and time again, in practice, this has been shown to be the case.
You give the wealthy more money, the gap between rich and not-rich grows wider. Unearned privilege must be protected at any cost.
Utter hogwash. Poor people are given free stuff (K-12 education, food stamps, Medicaid, HUD subsidies, etc..) while contributing practically nothing to the system. Well-to-do people pay the vast majority of the income taxes collected by the federal government. There is no way to sugar-coat these simple facts.
Why would liberals sugar-coat those facts, when can, and do, simply ignore them??
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
