Wealth distribution

Wealth distribution is often frowned upon in America. I see no reason for this as it is for the greater good. "What enriches the part enriches the whole". I am for wealth distribution, most advanced countries have a form of it. Why are so many Americans against it and what do they perceive wrong with it?

 

It is contrary to the principals of liberty and freedom.

 

who do you think can spend your money better than you... the government?

I think you're confusing wealth redistribution and necessary government... most conservatives who dislike "wealth redistribution" aren't against all forms of government, or helping the poor, or taking care of things on a national scale... they are against the waste, fraud, and power it often gives another political party to use and manipulate people and wealth to further push their ideologies, which are done not for the greater good of all, but for the greater power of one...

but ultimately it comes down to freedom... are you better at spending your own money, or is the government better at spending your money... should you give up the freedom of choice, because you think someone else can do it better than you... or should you have the freedom to make your own choices, good and bad, and live with the outcome you chose either through greed or mistake... why should someone who constantly makes bad choices, be given a reward of someone elses hard work and money? how much does another individual deserve through your efforts and labor, while you must make good choices, and they continue to make poor ones?

at what point does society make people accept what they have chosen... because its no longer acceptable to make bad choices anymore? some want no end in this...

 

I think it's immoral to take someone's property without their consent, regardless of whether it's a single robber sticking you up on the subway or thousands of people acting in concert through a so-called "political system".

 

Nobody objects to having less income inequality. What we do object to is having the government take our money and give it to other people.

You do not build up the weak by tearing down the strong.

 

Freedom....to benefit from gains in productivity and not pay for it. To buy political power. To live above the law. Heck to even write the law. Liberty and freedom sure sound nice in a rousing speech but when you give it to ruthless businessmen they will exploit the crap out of the system and the people that are just trying to survive.

Who gains the most from public education? The educated person who now gains a slightly increased average salary the rest of their life? Or the business who employees thousands of publicly educated individuals yet won't pay them for the new things they've learned from public education. Business gets free gains in productivity from employing publicly educated individuals. This is just one public good. If we did the math and calculated an indirect fractional benefit for every dollar spent on public goods, we'd see that not only is progressive taxation justified but business owes much more in general to both their employees and their government. I don't like to think of it as wealth distribution or redistribution. These are ideas made up along with the "fair flat tax" by rich people to confuse voters into voting against their own lively hood. No, this is making those that benefit the most from public dollars spent pay the most in taxes. This could maybe be avoided though if they'd just pay "fair" wages. Or not if they'd like to enjoy the second coming of the unions.

 

I am all for wealth distribution. It just so happens that the most effective and efficient method is a free and individually motivated private sector.

 

How wealthy one is is determined by the value others place upon what that one has.
How rich one is is determined by the value that one places upon what that one has.

Slaving one's sense of rich and poor to what other people have is envy.

Don't waste your wishes on Anderson's goat.

 

I think the wealthy should pay more in taxes.

 

This is a nice limerick but please don't assume all people have the stance that the rich should pay more because they are envious. I myself am set. I picked a good field and got a degree and am after no one's money. I just understand systems and math well and the voodoo economics does not add up.

 

Cause it's stupid.

 

Of course you are for wealth distribution. You have nothing and want to take from those who have something. That makes you a thief! If you come back on here and say you do have something, that'll make you a liar. And if you tried to take from me, that'll make you a dead thief and liar!
Do you really think people of wealth would just sit around with all their money and allow the government(s) to take it? There are 100's of places to go, taking your money with you (if drugs can be smuggled in, money can be smuggled out....in case you think that taking their money can be stopped). Look what happened in France when the socialized stealing from the rich.......Jesus H Christ!

 

The quickest way to turn a Liberal into a Conservative is by them winning the lottery.

 

Freedom has its own limitations. If one has the freedom according to the constitution it does not mean he should be allowed to deplete the resources does not mean the rest should be deprived. If one has enormous wealth he can control resources to his benefit. The Federal reserve can issue limitless amounts of banknotes that mostly go to a few hands and the rest. Freedom for a few to amass huge a amounts and deprivation for the rest.

 

Lets test this for BS to see if you really believe what you say. PREDICTION: YOU DONT.
Wow you have a computer! A lot of people in the world cant afford that. I am going to confiscate your computer and give it to the poor. Do you agree or not?

 

Religious people believe that luxuries can be harmful to the soul. Conservatives believe that these days luxuries are often relative. Spreading the wealth and helping people to meet their needs are not necessarily the same thing. Trying to spread out harmful things whose value is relative re: who doesn't have them doesn't sound like a good idea.

 

Instead of giving his computer away, I have a better idea. I'm sure nobody's sleeping on his couch. So go on down to where all the homeless sleep on the street and offer one of them his couch and a place at his table for a couple months.

I look forward to see how this redistribution of wealth works out.

 

Yeah because that's what wealth redistribution in the context of this country is! You nailed it! Good job!

 

That isnt an argument against its merits, which have proven themselves elsewhere.

 

Go ahead...give all your money away to the downtrodden until you personally feel 'level' with the proletariat or your definition of level.

Personally, I'm keeping what I earned...it took a lot of hard work to get it and I don't feel guilty about it or the taxes payed on it.

No, I'm not buying into the leftist idea of wealth redistribution and by 'advanced countries' you are referring to socialist-based economies. We are not quite there yet fortunately.

 

It in principle is evil. It is coveting and theft. All redistribution should be, in principle, voluntary.

 

It sure didn't take long in this thread until the first person was called envious

You don't know how many times I have been called envious in similar threads, typically followed by the suggestion to just get a job (implying that I am lazy too). I am not poor and do have a job, thank you very much.

However, I am with you on the math thing. Isn't it easy to see that when the vast majority of the population doesn't have discretionary income to spend that the whole economy suffers? Which is exactly where we are now, limited by aggregate demand, because the ones that need to spend the money don't have it, and the ones that have it don't need to spend it.

 

Wealth redistribution is the practice of stealing from one person by force to give to another. Anything built on a foundation of theft can never be fair or just.

 

Where has theft proven itself?

 

I think those who pay no taxes should pay taxes.