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.
I think most of you anti-redistribution-of-wealth people are taking this way beyond what most pro-redistribution-of-wealth people are actually saying.
I don't think most pro-RW people are saying everyone should be "reduced" to "equal-ness". I think what most are saying is that in what is supposed to be the most advanced and richest nation in the world...which claims that its citizens are the most generous in the world -- how do we explain a half-million homeless people, a quarter of whom are children. How do we explain people without adequate health insurance to have decent medical care.
Of course, you anti people want to take the arguments to the extreme. To you folks, carry on with your c-jerk. The rest of us would just like to make all of American great.
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.
I notice nobody answered.
I think it is a great idea. I know there are some rather wealthy people on these forums. If every one of them who make 150,000 dollars per year or more would send me $1200 every year ($100 per month), I could live in the style to which I would like to become accustomed.
I think most of you anti-redistribution-of-wealth people are taking this way beyond what most pro-redistribution-of-wealth people are actually saying.
I don't think most pro-RW people are saying everyone should be "reduced" to "equal-ness". I think what most are saying is that in what is supposed to be the most advanced and richest nation in the world...which claims that its citizens are the most generous in the world -- how do we explain a half-million homeless people, a quarter of whom are children. How do we explain people without adequate health insurance to have decent medical care.
Of course, you anti people want to take the arguments to the extreme. To you folks, carry on with your c-jerk. The rest of us would just like to make all of American great.
You obviously didn't read what the OP wrote. He used the terms "equal footing" and "redistribute wealth equally," not us. Thanks for playing.
You obviously didn't read what the OP wrote. He used the terms "equal footing" and "redistribute wealth equally," not us. Thanks for playing.
Obviously you didn't read what I wrote. I was not responding to the OP. I was responding to the general discussion of this topic in this and many threads. I said, "I don't think most pro-RW people are saying..."
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!
Is this a lame attempt to get liberals and conservatives arguing with a healthy does of implied racism as to who is draining the system?
As I understand it, England instituted the death tax in an effort at wealth redistribution. It seems to have been somewhat successful, resulting in many stately homes being donated or let go to ruin because the heirs can't afford the upkeep.
Obviously you didn't read what I wrote. I was not responding to the OP. I was responding to the general discussion of this topic in this and many threads. I said, "I don't think most pro-RW people are saying..."
Thanks for playing.
We are responding to what HE wrote.
But to your point, the redistributionists, even if they subscribe to a milder form of theft, are endorsing theft nonetheless.
I think most of you anti-redistribution-of-wealth people are taking this way beyond what most pro-redistribution-of-wealth people are actually saying.
I don't think most pro-RW people are saying everyone should be "reduced" to "equal-ness". I think what most are saying is that in what is supposed to be the most advanced and richest nation in the world...which claims that its citizens are the most generous in the world -- how do we explain a half-million homeless people, a quarter of whom are children. How do we explain people without adequate health insurance to have decent medical care.
Of course, you anti people want to take the arguments to the extreme. To you folks, carry on with your c-jerk. The rest of us would just like to make all of American great.
All wonderful in talk, but put some math behind it. There are 323 M people in America. That means the 1% is 3.2M, The 10% is 32.3M and the bottom half is 160M.
The bottom half has nothing. To hear it on these boards you'd swear we were 1 giant war refugee camp.
So each 1% person is supposed to feed, educate, house, nurse, transport and employ 50 other people who can't do it for themselves. Thankfully the other 49 seem to be able to get along. Fine...it's called taxes.
Fine....but now you want the 1 to start letting the 50 decide weird things like how much he/she should make from their company with their capital and their ideas? You want the 50 to decide how their assets should be used? This is clearly their weak point. That's just a dumb idea. I wouldn't tell someone in construction how to build a building...because I'm not a builder. I wouldn't tell a teacher how to run a classroom. I'm not a teacher. Besides, do you think I will seek out more or less personally held money if I need to start setting the table for 103 each night between my wife and I. That's a lot of mouths to feed.
The cold hard truth is that the homeless situation may be bad, but it's better than it ever has been. If you want to build decent living quarters on your land that you purchased with your own money, God Bless You...I may even donate materials to help you. That's heroic. But that's never the ask. The ask is that let's get the government to make ME build up a shelter on my land. That's scary. Because the ask doesn't ever end. So in REALITY, I do have homes, that I own, and I rent them to families with special needs. I don't raise their rent unless they become problematic. You need a ramp, you need wider doorways, you need additional outlets, I'm willing to put in the investment, yet the issue is moot, because lack of a home is not the underlying problem in 90% of the cases. You need someone to dig in and help out.
Now if that threat of government control comes...I'm doing it all wrong. I should be maximizing profit on these units because I'm not going to get any credit for keeping a couple of people off the streets.
But before going there, there's healthcare, and I think the two issues are very related. Why are the costs so high? Because nobody wants to make the sacrifice to become a doctor. The healthcare system works in a constant triage environment with entire industries devoted to influencing their choices, suing their mistakes and resetting the value of their work.
If you truly want to help. Seriously. Quit writing letters to your politicians, and go volunteer at your local hospital. See first hand what's actually going on...and help out. No, you can't be a doctor, but you can help with a lot of areas that can free up doctor time. Also, don't make me do it. If you truly talk to most rich people, they have something they are truly interested in helping improve. It's generally in an area where they have knowledge and can actually make a difference. There's an old man who's 88. He walks the block and slowly picks up disgarded cans and donates the proceeds. He's very rich, but at his advanced age, that's about all he can do now.
Don't rob that guy and make him start over. He's done his part. Make hay while the sun shines people.
But to your point, the redistributionists, even if they subscribe to a milder form of theft, are endorsing theft nonetheless.
I crown you Sir Hyperbolist.
The failure in the thinking of those who take your position is that a man should benefit from everything he earns. But then you also want inheritance to be tax free...which is giving someone something they didn't earn at
all.
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.
