Redistributing Wealth

@bestboy19 (5482)
United States
December 24, 2010 7:10am CST
My mother and sister were talking about the grandchildren and how they want everything from their parents and grandparents and appreciate nothing. It got me to thinking about Obama's plan to redistribute the wealth. Can wealth redistributed be valued the way wealth earned is? Jobs and employees are not valued the same, so how do you redistribute pay when one is worth more than the other? How do you redistribute wealth without stealing from another?
2 people like this
7 responses
@greet123 (44)
24 Dec 10
Redistribution of wealth will automatically happen after redistribution od power."Every dog has his day" as the saying goes, everyone will get a chance to enjoy wealth even if it is just for a small time.
• United States
24 Dec 10
Have you ever seen the documentary Reversal of Fortune, where a homeless man is given $100,000? Here's this dude, diving in dumpsters and collecting cans, and he gets a free hundred grand! Well, he had his day. He was broke and homeless again in a few short months. Would you like to pay an extra $30, $40, $50 in taxes every week so we can do that on a widespread level and allow every poor person to enjoy free wealth, most of whom will be back to square one? If so, will you pay my share? Because I really don't want to. That's now how it would happen in terms of redistribution, obviously, but the outcome is bound to be the same for a large percentage of people just given money. I'm not sure what it means - maybe that some people are poor for a reason. I don't know. But I don't feel as if it's my obligation to help anyone experience wealth. I have a hard enough time at it myself.
@bestboy19 (5482)
• United States
25 Dec 10
Greet, on what do you base your opinion?
@sam3m1 (190)
• United States
25 Dec 10
matersfish, you're already paying $30-50 per week in taxes, but the money is going to wealthy people in tax breaks. but clearly, that's money well spent because of all the jobs they create. wealth is being redistributed. the rich are getting much richer, the rest of us, not so much.
@dark_joev (3043)
• United States
24 Dec 10
Their is a way to do it. Just have the Federal Reserve print tons and tons of paper that looks like our currency and well we could give everyone a 100,000 it wouldn't be valued as much but everyone would have a 100,000. And well we wouldn't of stolen the money from the "rich" or anything like that. Personally we have gone about this whole fixing the economy the wrong way. And well Redistributing the Wealth is a joke and a half.
@bestboy19 (5482)
• United States
25 Dec 10
I agree we have gone about this economy thing wrong, and redistribution is a joke; but what is the solution? Just printing more paper money, as you know, won't help. Those who don't know the value of things, and that is anyone who hasn't had to work for it, may think they've come into a windfall; but they will soon be back to where they were before, if not worse. I'm for weening society off of social programs so they will have to be personally responsible.
@dark_joev (3043)
• United States
25 Dec 10
The way to get the economy rolling again is for us to put the money into the SBA and to get new companies rolling again. The Market right now needs only a little bit of help from the bottom ie get the entrepreneurs going they will create the jobs the ideas and the United States will start moving again. We are the country of the big ideas so lets get the ball rolling by tax incentives in green technology so we can be ready when oil is no more. We need to fund local economies by giving the money to businesses to expand their local operations. Also we need to tax businesses less as this is a job killer and also raises the cost of living on the Middle and lower classes. We need the federal government to cut spending on these programs that are not effective any more and get the non-profit sector which is 1000% more efficient at helping people than the bureaucrats could ever dream of being. They also need to cut or change Health Care Reform to support what a majority of the American people supported an Public Option IE (NON-PROFIT Health Insurance companies) this would drive the market price down through direct competition of for profit companies with non-profit companies.
@bestboy19 (5482)
• United States
26 Dec 10
I'm fine with what you say, but I think the funding of local economies should be from the people and business not the federal government. I would just as soon the feds stayed out of everybody's business.
@laglen (19783)
• United States
24 Dec 10
you can not redistribute wealth with out stealing from somebody. Socialism works great until you run out of other people money!
@bestboy19 (5482)
• United States
25 Dec 10
We should be looking at Europe as an example. They use to think America was crazy because we didn't follow their example. Now they think we're crazy if we do. This time they'd be right.
1 person likes this
@laglen (19783)
• United States
26 Dec 10
I find it telling when all of these socialist countries say dont do it and our President is still determined.
@liuyh0619 (108)
• China
27 Dec 10
I do think some people are poor for a reason. Maybe he don't work hard or study well in the school. To them, the best way is to make them believe there is nobody can get anything they want without effort. The redistribute wealth shouldn't encourage the money flow in that way. But those people is strugging and can't earn a living, the goverment should offer a help and get them to self-support. After all, the goverment isn't a charitable organization.
@bestboy19 (5482)
• United States
27 Dec 10
It would be wonderful if the government made the poor work for what they are receiving. The problem is that they doesn't make the welfare recipients work for what they receive. As a result, more is taken from those who do work; and then they try to make those who have look greedy because they don't want to give anymore than they've been giving. How do you get generations who have grown up believing others owe them for nothing other than just being, that they would be better off if they were responsible for themselves, and not someone else being responsible for them? And how do you convince a government, that does things for political reasons and not for the betterment of mankind, that they are doing more harm than good, especially when they have convinced themselves they are doing the honorable thing?
• United States
26 Dec 10
As I see it, it all boils down to ethics and attitudes. Maybe the welfare recipient needs to be made to understand that if more and more people start dipping into the soup bowl with fewer and fewer adding to the bowl, pretty soon the bowl is empty. I don't know that you can do anything about the older welfare recipient since they've been conditioned to be idle, but those with school age children should not receive welfare money if their children are not attending school and making passing grades. That way instead of teaching their children to be idle, they're teaching their children to work for what they get and that that is what earning is all about - you work for what you get.
@bestboy19 (5482)
• United States
26 Dec 10
I like the idea of the poor having to earn what they get and not just being given it, but I'm afraid that idea would be rejected as politically incorrect. Where is political incorrectness when we need it?
@millertime (1398)
• United States
25 Dec 10
You are exactly right when you say that money that is given isn't appreciated as much as money that is earned. That's also one of the flaws in the whole idea of redistribution of wealth by whatever means they try to use to accomplish it. Any time the government "gives" people money, two things are true. 1 - The government first had to take it from someone else and 2 - by giving it, they are destroying the self worth of the recipient and encouraging dependence. For some reason, most people don't think about these things. They only look at the issue on the surface and don't realize the whole effect, they think it's better to give the man a fish but ancient wisdom says, "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." Government handouts do nothing to solve the problem of why the person needs a handout to begin with. Maybe someday people will figure that out and we'll change the system to actually help people.
@bestboy19 (5482)
• United States
26 Dec 10
I wonder if helping people is really their intention. By keeping the poor dependent on them, the government has control of the people.
• United States
24 Dec 10
I think that in politics, one has to remember that if there is a reason why there is a huge gap between the rich and the poor, and if that gap is growing due to some political or financial actions that are actively promoting it, than there should be change. Obviously, not stealing, but a way in which there is less incentives to be greedy and unjust (as we see happening with insider trading and shady business practices). So, that is what should be taken into account. Socialism doesn't work, but neither does complete free markets. Obviously, with so many of us out of work or without health benefits, etc, something has to be done, to have a more stable nation. And that hasn't happened here yet. And, I doubt it will anytime soon, with the way politics is anyway.
@bestboy19 (5482)
• United States
25 Dec 10
Can you give me an example of the kind of political or financial gap you're talking about? I see insider trading and shady business practices as cheating their own, not the poor. I agree that socialism doesn't work and that's why I think government should stay out of business. Greedy incentives are found as much from the poor as those who have earned it and want more. I would say more so, because they don't want to work for it. At least the haves have earned it or inherited it from someone who earned it. I suppose you can say the welfare recipient is also getting it from someone who earned it. The difference, though, is forced giving. So what needs to be done? Those who have earned it, know how to get it; but what do you do with someone who has never been expected to earn it, be he rich or poor? The rich, if he's frugal and invest wisely, doesn't need to worry; but what about the poor? Should he continue to gain off the backs of the worker, or should he be required to earn, also?