redistribution of wealth

[Old Rocks]

Is it now?

Just look at the present. The financial class create an economic catastrophe. For which they are bailed out less the whole system go down the drain. But rather than putting a bunch of them in Leavenworth, where they belong, they were allowed to walk off with golden parachutes, while the people that had worked all their lives lost their jobs and homes.

So guess who picks up these homes for pennies on the dollar? That is not a transfer of wealth from the middle and working poor to the wealthy? Countless examples like this are out there. What do you think the OWS movement is about?

 

[FactFinder]

One sees the 'Conservatives' react as if one has suggested immoral acts at the mention of wealth redistribution by whatever means. Socialism, communism, fascism, what ever favorite term of the moment is applied to any such suggestion.

Yet one can clearly see the rank hypocracy of the right wing when you consider that for the last 40 years we have been seeing massive wealth redistribution from the working poor and the middle class to the very wealthy. And nary a peep from the 'Conservatives'.

It seems that only wealth redistribution from the very wealthy to the rest of us is considered bad. Wealth going the other way seems to be considered a good thing to these people. So, wealth going to those that have little to those that have much is a good thing, but wealth going the other way is a bad thing. A very interesting philosophy.

The premise of you argument is based on false logic. You speak of wealth as though it is a finite thing, as though it cannot be created or destroyed. That is not reality. Therefore, when you observe the very richest percentile of Americans increase their overall wealth over a period of time while other segments of the population saw their wealth decrease, you conclude one "took it" from another. That too is not reality. The reasons for these changes in wealth ("redistribution" is an incorrect term here) are varied and worthy of discussion...but let's stick to the point at hand.

When fiscally minded people criticize wealth distribution, we are talking about the forcible taking of wealth from some citizens and distributing it to other citizens in the form of entitlements. Changes in wealth among citizens of varied income and net worth percentiles is a legitimate topic for discussion. Suggesting the poor redistributed their wealth to the richest Americans is not. It's absurd.

Okay "worthy of discussion". So where the hell did they get it? Did they coerce already wealthy people to hand over the cash in masse?

 

[Political Junky]

Redistribution of wealth, LITERALLY, requires taking away freedom. It requires men with guns to take wealth and resources away from some who have it to give it to those who do not.

Thats the problem.

Since COUNTLESS studies show that conservatives are MORE charitable than liberals, it's not giving wealth to the needy we have problems with. Is forcibly taking it that is a problem.

Can you tell us who advocated taking it?

 

[theHawk]

One sees the 'Conservatives' react as if one has suggested immoral acts at the mention of wealth redistribution by whatever means. Socialism, communism, fascism, what ever favorite term of the moment is applied to any such suggestion.

Yet one can clearly see the rank hypocracy of the right wing when you consider that for the last 40 years we have been seeing massive wealth redistribution from the working poor and the middle class to the very wealthy. And nary a peep from the 'Conservatives'.

It seems that only wealth redistribution from the very wealthy to the rest of us is considered bad. Wealth going the other way seems to be considered a good thing to these people. So, wealth going to those that have little to those that have much is a good thing, but wealth going the other way is a bad thing. A very interesting philosophy.

Curious, if people are "poor", exactly what "wealth" is being transferred from them?

 

[FactFinder]

One sees the 'Conservatives' react as if one has suggested immoral acts at the mention of wealth redistribution by whatever means. Socialism, communism, fascism, what ever favorite term of the moment is applied to any such suggestion.

Yet one can clearly see the rank hypocracy of the right wing when you consider that for the last 40 years we have been seeing massive wealth redistribution from the working poor and the middle class to the very wealthy. And nary a peep from the 'Conservatives'.

It seems that only wealth redistribution from the very wealthy to the rest of us is considered bad. Wealth going the other way seems to be considered a good thing to these people. So, wealth going to those that have little to those that have much is a good thing, but wealth going the other way is a bad thing. A very interesting philosophy.

Curious, if people are "poor", exactly what "wealth" is being transferred from them?

Well if they drive a car, heat a home or buy food maybe?

 

[rightwinger]

You want half of someones else money so I thought you wouldn't mind giving me half of yours.

Are you bitching about contributing to our society?

I contribute enough don't you think it's time for those who don't contribute start pulling their fair share?

Would you prefer that they stop paying for the rent or for food to satisfy your fair share?

 

[rightwinger]

One sees the 'Conservatives' react as if one has suggested immoral acts at the mention of wealth redistribution by whatever means. Socialism, communism, fascism, what ever favorite term of the moment is applied to any such suggestion.

Yet one can clearly see the rank hypocracy of the right wing when you consider that for the last 40 years we have been seeing massive wealth redistribution from the working poor and the middle class to the very wealthy. And nary a peep from the 'Conservatives'.

It seems that only wealth redistribution from the very wealthy to the rest of us is considered bad. Wealth going the other way seems to be considered a good thing to these people. So, wealth going to those that have little to those that have much is a good thing, but wealth going the other way is a bad thing. A very interesting philosophy.

Curious, if people are "poor", exactly what "wealth" is being transferred from them?

The wealth they give up is their chance at the American dream. high energy costs, crippling healthcare bills, transportation costs, education

All rising at much higher rates than their salaries

Kind of what the OWS people are protesting

 

[eflatminor]

Okay "worthy of discussion". So where the hell did they get it? Did they coerce already wealthy people to hand over the cash in masse?

They created wealth in a variety of ways but certainly one way is to start and build a business. If you create a product or service that customers want to a greater extent than your competitors, you stand a good chance of making profit. If your product is really in demand, you just might make yourself rich...and in that process, by the way, you might also employ some people, increasing their wealth too.

You ask if the money came from other wealthy people. It's possible, if your company caters to the wealthy. But frankly, those businesses are down these days. On the flip side customer wise, WalMart is the largest corporation in America today. The point is, customers can be from poor to wealthy and still the entrepreneur has a shot (a long shot) to create wealth for himself, his shareholders, his employees...and even for complementary businesses.

Answer me this: A guy has a good idea, works hard, stays focused, and makes the sacrifices necessary (often his life savings) to launch a company. After years of going without compensation, he finally brings his product to market and the people like it. So, he expands, hiring people in the process and filling a demand among the consuming public. Years later, his product is well established and in high demand. He's made himself rich. My question is "Who does that hurt?"

 

[hortysir]

I wasn't aware of a recent rash of millionaires robbing the poor.

How do the rich get the poor's money????

 

[rightwinger]

I wasn't aware of a recent rash of millionaires robbing the poor.

How do the rich get the poor's money????

By paying wages that are inadequate to pay for food, housing, healthcare, education. The rich rely on the taxpayer to make up for the poor wages they pay.

More welfare for the rich

 

[Ringel05]

One sees the 'Conservatives' react as if one has suggested immoral acts at the mention of wealth redistribution by whatever means. Socialism, communism, fascism, what ever favorite term of the moment is applied to any such suggestion.

Yet one can clearly see the rank hypocracy of the right wing when you consider that for the last 40 years we have been seeing massive wealth redistribution from the working poor and the middle class to the very wealthy. And nary a peep from the 'Conservatives'.

It seems that only wealth redistribution from the very wealthy to the rest of us is considered bad. Wealth going the other way seems to be considered a good thing to these people. So, wealth going to those that have little to those that have much is a good thing, but wealth going the other way is a bad thing. A very interesting philosophy.

Curious, if people are "poor", exactly what "wealth" is being transferred from them?

Well if they drive a car, heat a home or buy food maybe?

Say I own a company that makes a certain widget that most everyone in the country uses, uses up and has to be replaced every month. Say after paying out all the overhead, (materials, infrastructure costs, insurances, legal, taxes, fees, payroll, stockholders), on each widget sold my personal profit is 1.5 cents per widget. To make it easy lets say I sell 10 million widgets a month that's $150K per month in personal profit. Oh yeah, now I have to pay income tax ontop of all the other taxes and fees that have already come out of cost of the widget.
The widget only costs the end user $5. Yup, I'm fleecing each one who buys my widget..........

 

[mudwhistle]

One sees the 'Conservatives' react as if one has suggested immoral acts at the mention of wealth redistribution by whatever means. Socialism, communism, fascism, what ever favorite term of the moment is applied to any such suggestion.

Yet one can clearly see the rank hypocracy of the right wing when you consider that for the last 40 years we have been seeing massive wealth redistribution from the working poor and the middle class to the very wealthy. And nary a peep from the 'Conservatives'.

It seems that only wealth redistribution from the very wealthy to the rest of us is considered bad. Wealth going the other way seems to be considered a good thing to these people. So, wealth going to those that have little to those that have much is a good thing, but wealth going the other way is a bad thing. A very interesting philosophy.

Also an exaggeration.

We just don't believe in a government that uses mobs to tear down society.

The rich are always gonna be rich. Course most of the nice things you see in our cities, all of the museums sky-scrapers, sports complexes, shopping malls, all great endeavors in America has been possible only because somebody rich helped pay for it. Your cell phones, PC, TVs, your home......all if it wouldn't exist without the rich.

What do the poor offer us?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

"Do not waste your time on Social Questions. What is the matter with the poor is Poverty; what is the matter with the rich is Uselessness." George Bernard Shaw

another idiot quoting the Fabian socialist George Bernard Shaw....did you know he advocated killing people who "did not carry their weight".....that he supported Hitler and mass murder....?

...that sure would take care of lots of "redistribution" problems....

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Are you bitching about contributing to our society?

I contribute enough don't you think it's time for those who don't contribute start pulling their fair share?

Would you prefer that they stop paying for the rent or for food to satisfy your fair share?

I would prefer they strive to do better to live within their means. To be self-sufficient. Keep them trap in a welfare state and that's where they will be years down the road.

 

[Againsheila]

One sees the 'Conservatives' react as if one has suggested immoral acts at the mention of wealth redistribution by whatever means. Socialism, communism, fascism, what ever favorite term of the moment is applied to any such suggestion.

Yet one can clearly see the rank hypocracy of the right wing when you consider that for the last 40 years we have been seeing massive wealth redistribution from the working poor and the middle class to the very wealthy. And nary a peep from the 'Conservatives'.

It seems that only wealth redistribution from the very wealthy to the rest of us is considered bad. Wealth going the other way seems to be considered a good thing to these people. So, wealth going to those that have little to those that have much is a good thing, but wealth going the other way is a bad thing. A very interesting philosophy.

Wealth in the hands of those who earn it is the correct thing. If you work for a person for a set amount of money that money is yours. You do this on the day you apply for a job. Nothing more nothing less. Anything else is theft

Define "earn!"

 

[Againsheila]

One sees the 'Conservatives' react as if one has suggested immoral acts at the mention of wealth redistribution by whatever means. Socialism, communism, fascism, what ever favorite term of the moment is applied to any such suggestion.

Yet one can clearly see the rank hypocracy of the right wing when you consider that for the last 40 years we have been seeing massive wealth redistribution from the working poor and the middle class to the very wealthy. And nary a peep from the 'Conservatives'.

It seems that only wealth redistribution from the very wealthy to the rest of us is considered bad. Wealth going the other way seems to be considered a good thing to these people. So, wealth going to those that have little to those that have much is a good thing, but wealth going the other way is a bad thing. A very interesting philosophy.

Also an exaggeration.

We just don't believe in a government that uses mobs to tear down society.

The rich are always gonna be rich. Course most of the nice things you see in our cities, all of the museums sky-scrapers, sports complexes, shopping malls, all great endeavors in America has been possible only because somebody rich helped pay for it. Your cell phones, PC, TVs, your home......all if it wouldn't exist without the rich.

What do the poor offer us?

Labor, without which we wouldn't have houses, tvs shopping malls, etc.

 

[bucs90]

One sees the 'Conservatives' react as if one has suggested immoral acts at the mention of wealth redistribution by whatever means. Socialism, communism, fascism, what ever favorite term of the moment is applied to any such suggestion.

Yet one can clearly see the rank hypocracy of the right wing when you consider that for the last 40 years we have been seeing massive wealth redistribution from the working poor and the middle class to the very wealthy. And nary a peep from the 'Conservatives'.

It seems that only wealth redistribution from the very wealthy to the rest of us is considered bad. Wealth going the other way seems to be considered a good thing to these people. So, wealth going to those that have little to those that have much is a good thing, but wealth going the other way is a bad thing. A very interesting philosophy.

Wealth in the hands of those who earn it is the correct thing. If you work for a person for a set amount of money that money is yours. You do this on the day you apply for a job. Nothing more nothing less. Anything else is theft

Define "earn!"

A) Show up for work, get paid.
B) Open a business, sell a product people want.
C) Invest money, take a risk, investment pays off.
D) Recieve it from your family, who earned it and wanted to set up their children with a secure future.

Any issues so far?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

One sees the 'Conservatives' react as if one has suggested immoral acts at the mention of wealth redistribution by whatever means. Socialism, communism, fascism, what ever favorite term of the moment is applied to any such suggestion.

Yet one can clearly see the rank hypocracy of the right wing when you consider that for the last 40 years we have been seeing massive wealth redistribution from the working poor and the middle class to the very wealthy. And nary a peep from the 'Conservatives'.

It seems that only wealth redistribution from the very wealthy to the rest of us is considered bad. Wealth going the other way seems to be considered a good thing to these people. So, wealth going to those that have little to those that have much is a good thing, but wealth going the other way is a bad thing. A very interesting philosophy.

Wealth in the hands of those who earn it is the correct thing. If you work for a person for a set amount of money that money is yours. You do this on the day you apply for a job. Nothing more nothing less. Anything else is theft

Define "earn!"

Those who work for the money, those who invest their money, those who stay up late trying to make payroll for their employees, those who hustle and find work for the people they employ. The owner who stays up late and try's to find a better way to run his company.

 

[Againsheila]

Wealth in the hands of those who earn it is the correct thing. If you work for a person for a set amount of money that money is yours. You do this on the day you apply for a job. Nothing more nothing less. Anything else is theft

Define "earn!"

Those who work for the money, those who invest their money, those who stay up late trying to make payroll for their employees, those who hustle and find work for the people they employ. The owner who stays up late and try's to find a better way to run his company.

What about his employee who worked overtime for free to keep the company running? Does he not "earn" a share of the profits when the company is doing well?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Define "earn!"

Those who work for the money, those who invest their money, those who stay up late trying to make payroll for their employees, those who hustle and find work for the people they employ. The owner who stays up late and try's to find a better way to run his company.

What about his employee who worked overtime for free to keep the company running? Does he not "earn" a share of the profits when the company is doing well?

Unless an employee has it set up in his hire package about getting some of the profit no they do not earn any of it. The profit goes back to the company to keep the employee working. If a company gave it profits to the employee the company would not be able to stay in business and keep the employee gainfully employed.