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.
In a world where the “wealthy” become “richer” and the working class strive to get by, should there be a redistribution of wealth to put everyone on an equal footing?
Aren’t we just playing a game when we talk about “balancing budgets” and paying off “government debt”? After all, it’s not like we’re going to be wealthy in the event that this debt ever does get paid off.
Let’s wipe the debt clean, redistribute wealth equally and start over!
In a world where the “wealthy” become “richer” and the working class strive to get by, should there be a redistribution of wealth to put everyone on an equal footing?
Aren’t we just playing a game when we talk about “balancing budgets” and paying off “government debt”? After all, it’s not like we’re going to be wealthy in the event that this debt ever does get paid off.
Let’s wipe the debt clean, redistribute wealth equally and start over!
I don't get your point about paying off government debt.
How would you plan to redistribute wealth?
If CEO pay were under control, and more closely proportionate to what employees make, as it was in the middle of the last century, wages would be rising, and people would be doing better naturally. In that sense, wealth is already being "redistributed" upwards, due to runaway CEO pay.
Also, if tax incentives to move American jobs overseas were eliminated, and the H1B visa loophole allowing foreign workers to take highly-skilled American jobs away from that right here in the US, then people would be able to make their own money, no redistributing necessary. Our government has put policies in place that encourage the shutting down of jobs for our own citizens. Address that, and the curtailment of profit-sharing with the workers who bring about increased profits through increased efficiency, and you won't need to redistribute wealth.
Bill and Larry start work at the same company, doing the same job, on the same day. Both make the same wage, buy houses in the same neighborhood at the same time for the same price, drive the same cars, have the same number of kids, etc., etc. In other words, their economic situations are as similar as they can possible be.
Both have $12,000 in discretionary income each year after all the bills are paid. Bill spends all of his discretionary income on lavish vacations and extravagant gifts for his family. Larry takes his family camping at state parks and buys nice but modest gifts for his family, leaving $8000 that he invests in mutual funds that return 6% each year.
When they both retire after 40 years Bill has nothing, Larry has $1.2 million.
Now, please tell me why you think Larry should give Bill $600,000.
Last edited by duster1979; 01-26-2018 at 03:38 PM..
In a world where the “wealthy” become “richer” and the working class strive to get by, should there be a redistribution of wealth to put everyone on an equal footing?
Aren’t we just playing a game when we talk about “balancing budgets” and paying off “government debt”? After all, it’s not like we’re going to be wealthy in the event that this debt ever does get paid off.
Let’s wipe the debt clean, redistribute wealth equally and start over!
I read somewhere that if all the wealth from all the millionaires and billionaires were distributed equally, everyone would get a lump-sum payment of a little under $300,000. Just like what happens with lottery winners, 95% of people would blow through that in less than 2 years.
Then we would have all the movers and shakers who built and run this country with no money to open new businesses, no money to employ other Americans, and no money to invest in new technologies or inventions. The country would collapse. The next Steve Jobs or Thomas Edison would not be able to produce the innovations he has in his head.
You must really hate capitalism.
You also must be pretty poor. I have a feeling if you were a successful business man like Larry from the previous post that you would not be very keen on the government taking your money from you at the point of a gun.
In a world where the “wealthy” become “richer” and the working class strive to get by, should there be a redistribution of wealth to put everyone on an equal footing?
Aren’t we just playing a game when we talk about “balancing budgets” and paying off “government debt”? After all, it’s not like we’re going to be wealthy in the event that this debt ever does get paid off.
Let’s wipe the debt clean, redistribute wealth equally and start over!
First of all, the weird assumption on your part is that the wealthy haven't earned it. Oh, sure, there are a few trust fund babies rattling out there. But largely, a person with beaucoup cash got it on his own.
Second, because people who have money have mostly earned it, redistribute all that cash and -- ten years later -- the same people will be the haves and the same people will be the have-nots.
That's because the accumulation of wealth is due to a million little decisions from paying attention in school, to having good work habits, to putting more in the job than is required, to taking calculated risks, to saving money rather than blowing it. Even with the disparity in schools in this country, everyone with an average intelligence has a path to a middle-class lifestyle. Heck, I earned my money in high school working at freaking Arby's. Even there, one girl with initiative was made into a manager trainee. The last time I encountered her, she was running an entire territory. And she only had a high school education.
I once was consulting for a Bell company about how to market all those add-on products such as Call Waiting, etc. The people most likely to buy? Those with household incomes under $25K. Meanwhile, those with HHIs over $100K weren't having it. And if you look at consumption patterns, the lower household incomes tend to make less wise decisions in their lives, such as having children before 20 or having children outside a stable marriage or not investing in additional training and education.
If you are 45 and swimming in cash or 45 and living in near poverty, barring unexpected health problems or acts of God, your economic status has a great deal more to do with the sum total of your decisions rather than some fantasy about the Man keeping you down.
Last edited by MinivanDriver; 01-26-2018 at 06:05 PM..
If CEO pay were under control, and more closely proportionate to what employees make, as it was in the middle of the last century, wages would be rising, and people would be doing better naturally. In that sense, wealth is already being "redistributed" upwards, due to runaway CEO pay.
Your issue is with large public Fortune 500 companies. Ones who focus on quarterly short term results and stock price appreciation. As a result a lot of a public CEO’s compensation is in shares and options.
CEO pay is determined by the board. The board is voted on by the shareholders. That’s how it works in public companies. If company performance is poor and the board votes for a huge raise they should be fired. And also the CEO.
Across ALL companies in the US, the average CEO salary is around $150K. Fact.
If all the money in America was divided equally among all of it's citizens,within a few years we'd be right back where we started because because lazy,unmotivated people would spend their money foolishly and hard working,entrepreneurial minded people would save,invest and start business' .
In a world where the “wealthy” become “richer” and the working class strive to get by, should there be a redistribution of wealth to put everyone on an equal footing?
Aren’t we just playing a game when we talk about “balancing budgets” and paying off “government debt”? After all, it’s not like we’re going to be wealthy in the event that this debt ever does get paid off.
Let’s wipe the debt clean, redistribute wealth equally and start over!
Okay. You first. Give up most of your stuff, then post. Or do you just want people with more than you to give up stuff?
A lot of the world is very poor so, by comparison, YOU would be considered wealthy. To whom will you be giving your money and how will you arrange for its equitable redistribution?
If all the money in America was divided equally among all of it's citizens,within a few years we'd be right back where we started because because lazy,unmotivated people would spend their money foolishly and hard working,entrepreneurial minded people would save,invest and start business' .
Not true at all. If America tried to grab everyone's money for redistribution you would have billionaires and millionaires leaving the country in droves and capital would fly out of the country. America would have ceased to be America at that point.
And just as I wouldn't treat a home invader to a dinner while they robbed my place, I would make sure to secure my properties and make the of no use to anyone....they could rot and fall in place.
Venezuala tried a less severe extension of this 10 years ago when they were riding high economically, and boosted with amazing oil reserves and a fast growing economy. They seized and divided.
10 years.
10 years is all it took to take down one of South America's richest countries to the point where the currency is now worthless and its people are starving to death.
If all the money in America was divided equally among all of it's citizens,within a few years we'd be right back where we started because because lazy,unmotivated people would spend their money foolishly and hard working,entrepreneurial minded people would save,invest and start business' .
Yep. Want a pluperfect example? Go to Las Vegas and look who is standing glassy-eyed at the slot machines night after night. Yeah, there are a few moneyed high-rollers, but for the most part, Vegas and Atlantic City are built on the backs of the working class, not the professional class.
I mean, I took my wife to Vegas about five years ago when our kids were all away at various summer camps. I don't have any particular animus against gambling, but we spent a total of $5 at a video poker machine. The rest of the time, we sat by the pool, went to shows, and visited the Hoover Dam. We got a pretty cheap vacation out of it.
Meanwhile, a lot of people go out there and blow money they can't afford. We sat in the bar at the Bellagio listening to one poor sap who had lost $1000 at the craps table, wondering aloud to his friends how he was going to justify it to his wife.
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.
