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.
Correction: Some people distill more income from the economic system and commercial marketplace that society furnishes for us than other people distill.
Oh my god.. didnt you and I get into a discussion about Mircosoft?
Tell me ONE person who has became a billionaire without employees..
It must be weird to you that those who have the most wealth, usually have hundreds of thousands of employees.
And when one guy has more wealth than another guy, that's because it was handed to him voluntarily, by other people, who decided they wanted what he was offering, more than they wanted the money in their pocket.
This question is often asked by people who resent the voluntary exchange described above, and want to take away people's money without their consent, instead.
Such theft is often justified by the thieves pretending that getting 51% of the vote, usually from people receiving the stolen goods, makes the theft OK.
And pretending that the harm done by the very existence of such theft and the attendant loss of property rights, is somehow made up for by the (imagined) benefits of a "different distribution".
Correction: Some people distill more income from the economic system and commercial marketplace that society furnishes for us than other people distill.
And sometimes because one guy has exploited innate inefficiencies in the fair attachment of value to work.
Given that money exists because society brings it into being within the economic system is furnishes, talking about society setting forth rules that preclude excessive exploitation and abuse as "theft" is ridiculous.
Those thieves then try to cover their tracks with vague, misleading descriptions of their thefts, and even equally misleading descriptions of what honest people did to create their wealth, in hopes that the honest people will throw up their hands and say, "Well, there must be something to that somewhere" and not throw the thief in jail as he deserves.
It's an exercise in chicanery that's been going on ever since people started accepting promissory notes (the antecedant of money) for their wealth instead of the clumsy but honest method of straight barter.
Oh my god.. didnt you and I get into a discussion about Mircosoft?
Except you kept changing your mind about whether you were talking about Microsoft or about Bill Gates. You just dodged back and forth demonstrating clearly that you really didn't have a rational point to make but just were bloviating trying to distract attention away from superior points that you simply had no cogent rebuttal for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn
It's an exercise in chicanery that's been going on ever since people started accepting promissory notes (the antecedant of money) for their wealth instead of the clumsy but honest method of straight barter.
Indeed. Folks who don't want to honorably abide by the rules of society's economy should at the very least avoid all interaction with it, avoiding dollar-denominated matters of all sorts, but even beyond that, should find a society within which the expectation on them is something other than honorably contributing to society's economy, abiding by its precepts.
Was it really necessary for Butkus and PGHQuest to come in and ruin a completely good thread?
How many threads are gonna be ruined by petty posters? A very important completely non-partisan issue was being peacefully debated until the above entered the thread.
1 doesn't work and the other claims to own "dozens" of businesses.
Take it to PM if you don't like it. Or ignore us. You have a problem with free speech.......................if you dislike it. You started a thread that is totally partisan based on the mere title. 'Income distribution'? WTH do you think that means? Grow up lefty. There is nothing 'important' about acquiescing to whiners who want to have others give them their hard earned money. Now get off the computer before your parents get home junior. And get a job if you need more money.
"How else do you put money in the hands of the poor to spend?"
Give them raises would be the best answer. How do you do that? Create incentives for businesses to increase wages and invest back into their employees.
Another thing you could do is create more jobs so that you have more spenders.
Go back to Reaganomics if you want more jobs. You simply want companies to throw their money away for no reason.
I keep hearing liberals and other socialists say they want to "redistribute" the wealth in this country. But that implies that the wealth was "distributed" by someone to us all in the first place, and maybe that someone did a bad job and the liberals think they can do it better.
But wealth was never "distributed" to any of us, except maybe by welfare clerks to various indigent persons. But the $100 that's in my wallet now, wasn't distributed to me by anyone. A guy with a car and I made an agreement: I'd tune up his car and fix a few things on it, and he'd pay me $100 to do it. I tuned it up, changed the oil, and replaced two squeaking belts that were badly worn. He's happy, now it starts easier, gets better gas mileage, and doesn't make weird sounds as he drives. He'd much rather have a car that drives like this, than have the $100; and I'd much rather have the $100 and don't mind getting my hands dirty to do something I do well.
Nobody "distributed" anything to either one of us. He and I made a deal, both of us gave the other something of value, both of us are happy with the outcome.
But if the usual leftist fanatics had come along just then, they might have taken the guy's $100, and the guy couldn't have gotten me to fix his car. He'd still have a sh*tty-running car that sometimes wouldn't start, I'd be $100 poorer... which means my son would be walking 3 miles to school instead of riding the bike I was about to fix up for him. The leftist fanatics want me to think that a better use was made of that $100, than we would have made of it... but when we ask them exactly what the money was used for, they couldn't answer the question.
People who talk about "redistributing" wealth, are lying. What they are doing, is taking something that was yours, that you earned, and telling you that (a) they know better how to use it than you do, and (b) this somehow makes it OK for them to take it from you, whether you like it or not.
These people aren't "redistributing" anything, because your money wasn't "distributed" to you in the first place. You EARNED it, and you got it because you DESERVED it, not because some uninvolved bureaucrat thought your having it would somehow be a good idea and so gave his blessing on you to receive it.
"Redistributing" is a politician's way of implying you did NOT earn your money, and so it's not really yours. And pretending that his deciding what to use your money for, is the natural order of things. Not the idea that since you earned it, YOU should decide what to use it for. He's trying to get you away from that idea.
A man who jerks you into an alley, sticks a gun in your face, and demands you give him your money or he'll blast you, is doing the same thing that politician is. The only difference is, the guy with the gun is being more honest and straightforward about it. He's not pretending you owe him anything, and not trying to get you to believe that what he's doing is "moral", and not trying to fool you into thinking that your keeping your money is eeevil.
Next time some politician or forum member tells you he wants to "redistribute" the wealth, remember what he's really saying. And remember that in some ways you'd be better off with somebody sticking a gun in your face.
"Redistributing" is a politician's way of implying you did NOT earn your money, and so it's not really yours. And pretending that his deciding what to use your money for, is the natural order of things. Not the idea that since you earned it, YOU should decide what to use it for. He's trying to get you away from that idea.
A man who jerks you into an alley, sticks a gun in your face, and demands you give him your money or he'll blast you, is doing the same thing that politician is. The only difference is, the guy with the gun is being more honest and straightforward about it. He's not pretending you owe him anything, and not trying to get you to believe that what he's doing is "moral", and not trying to fool you into thinking that your keeping your money is eeevil.
Next time some politician or forum member tells you he wants to "redistribute" the wealth, remember what he's really saying. And remember that in some ways you'd be better off with somebody sticking a gun in your face.
The politician that promotes redistribution is also lying to the people who think they are the people who are going to receive the redistribution. The only thing government wants is to take from the working people and redistribute to the government. They use the naivety and greed of the people who want a free ride as their army. Then there are a bunch Liberals who whine.. but what about the poor, they don't even realize it but they are also being used to redistribute to the government. The government and the banks take their huge handling fee as they are draining people who work.
The only thing Obama cares about is increasing government revenues.
The poor do not care where that money comes from. If Obama said the middle class have more than the welfare poor, the poor would be right on board with that too. The poor do not care where the money comes from, they don't care how much other pay in taxes, they do not care that you just put in a long 12 hour shift just to make ends meet all they care about is that while they do nothing they get a cut of your money.
I keep hearing liberals and other socialists say they want to "redistribute" the wealth in this country. But that implies that the wealth was "distributed" by someone to us all in the first place, and maybe that someone did a bad job and the liberals think they can do it better.
Actually, it is conservatives who lug onto the "wealth redistribution" as a talking point. The issue at hand, however, is of income distribution, as in a stagnation of incomes for a vast majority of Americans while growing rapidly at high income levels. In other words, a gradual disappearance of the middle class in the USA while a rise of the same in countries like China, India and Brazil.
Actually, it is conservatives who lug onto the "wealth redistribution" as a talking point. The issue at hand, however, is of income distribution, as in a stagnation of incomes for a vast majority of Americans while growing rapidly at high income levels. In other words, a gradual disappearance of the middle class in the USA while a rise of the same in countries like China, India and Brazil.
uh huh, and you think Obama increasing taxes on small business and middle class helps? so now Obama and Pelosi can prop up those people with welfare and social security.
The only thing this Obama is interested in is increasing taxes to support his government waste. To hell with the people. The only other thing Obama is interested in and has committed himself to for the next 18 months is to win the house in 2014 so he can rein over his adoring underlings
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.
