“Redistribute the wealth”

[danielpalos]

we really just need a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, unemployment compensation for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, and Industrial Automation to help with social costs.

So what are you going to do for the employees out there who had to get training and spent money on an education for a trade that make 15 an hour?

We have a first world economy and want to stay that way. An upward pressure on wages is a requirement.

So you want to increase wages across the board?
What will that do to the cost of goods and services?

Of course I already know the answer I just want to see what ridiculous theory you come up with.

even the dollar menu won't double.

How does that work pole smoker?

by being a better capitalist. only the right wing never gets it; i can, smoke two joints, and then smoke two more, and the right wing still has nothing but easily recognizable fallacy.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

So what are you going to do for the employees out there who had to get training and spent money on an education for a trade that make 15 an hour?

We have a first world economy and want to stay that way. An upward pressure on wages is a requirement.

So you want to increase wages across the board?
What will that do to the cost of goods and services?

Of course I already know the answer I just want to see what ridiculous theory you come up with.

even the dollar menu won't double.

How does that work pole smoker?

by being a better capitalist. only the right wing never gets it; i can, smoke two joints, and then smoke two more, and the right wing still has nothing but easily recognizable fallacy.

I think I found your problem.

 

[whitehall]

The crazy and increasingly angry left fails to address the basic tenant of the greatest Country in the world that is anyone can become wealthy. The freedoms that the geniuses Founding Fathers established means that a kid who builds a computer in his garage can become wealthy. Here's a thought for the wealth equality crowd, Hollywood is a relatively closed system so why not create an experiment where everyone including the actors in the movie industry get paid the same. No longer would actors flaunt their wealth on the "red carpet" but the gaffers (what ever that is) and the carpenters and the costume people would get to parade down the Red Carpet on Academy Award night. Wouldn't that be a great little taste of socialism? If it works we can try it in industry.

 

[saveliberty]

America really took off when we created a middle class. Redistributing wealth will take away the ability of people to become middle class. Efforts to do just that have reduced the class. You do not make poor people middle class by redistribution, you just make less rich people.

 

[danielpalos]

We have a first world economy and want to stay that way. An upward pressure on wages is a requirement.

So you want to increase wages across the board?
What will that do to the cost of goods and services?

Of course I already know the answer I just want to see what ridiculous theory you come up with.

even the dollar menu won't double.

How does that work pole smoker?

by being a better capitalist. only the right wing never gets it; i can, smoke two joints, and then smoke two more, and the right wing still has nothing but easily recognizable fallacy.

I think I found your problem.

we really just need a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, unemployment compensation for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, and Industrial Automation to help with social costs.

 

[saveliberty]

we really just need a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, unemployment compensation for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, and Industrial Automation to help with social costs.

Gee, automate industry, how did no one think of that until now?

Try paying people according to their skill level and encourage them to get some.

 

[Jimmy_Chitwood]

Because the top 3 richest people in the country own more wealth than the bottom 50% of workers.

Why you always hatin' on me atrying to get in my pants pockets - ghey or otherwise?

 

[OKTexas]

I’ve never understood what that phrase really means. There is never an explanation on how to do it.

Republicans of course automatically assume the extreme which is that the wealth would be radically distributed among the entire population which would eliminate the wealthy class of America and thus end capitalism as we know it. However, no prominent progressive has EVER suggested this. The issue on the left is the rising inequality between the middle class and wealthy class. We aren’t suggesting some naive, theoretical utopia where everyone lives off the same wealth regardless of their contribution to society and lives happily ever after. Republicans just assume that’s what lefties mean when we talk about wealth inequality because it makes for a convenient argument. It makes dismissing the leftwing ideology easy.

Of course, what lefties actually want to do is simply narrow the gap so that anyone working 40 hours a week doesn’t have to live in poverty. That’s it. That’s all lefties care about. In this current economy, that is impossible for 10s of millions of people. Why is that impossible? Because the top 3 richest people in the country own more wealth than the bottom 50% of workers.

Again, I’ll admit I don’t know how it should be done, but it needs to be done. Radical change is necessary. The last time someone could comfortably live off $10 per hour was in the 1960’s.

So you don't want someone working 40 hrs a week living in poverty? Would that be a single person, a couple, a couple with a single child or a couple with multiple children? Would they have to have all the cable channels, the latest Iphone technology or would it be alright for their entertainment systems to be a bit more modest?

I think you see where I'm going here, there's a lot more to determine lifestyle than just income. So tell the class, what lifestyle should a 40 hr minimum wage job support and for how many?

.

 

[task0778]

The only thing that redistribution of wealth does is incentivize big corps and rich people to move elsewhere. This has been proven time and again, when some dumbfuck socialist politician raises the income tax rate in a country to some ridiculous number, the rich guys leave en masse for other climes.

The Fallacy of Redistribution | RealClearPolitics

 

[BluesLegend]

AFTER California figures out how to equally distribute its wealth...lets be honest the left have no intention of ever doing that.

 

[BluesLegend]

The only thing that redistribution of wealth does is incentivize big corps and rich people to move elsewhere. This has been proven time and again, when some dumbfuck socialist politician raises the income tax rate in a country to some ridiculous number, the rich guys leave en masse for other climes.

The Fallacy of Redistribution | RealClearPolitics

The rich don't have to take it, they don't have to sit there and get screwed over. This really pisses the left off.

 

[Billy000]

I’ve never understood what that phrase really means. There is never an explanation on how to do it.

Republicans of course automatically assume the extreme which is that the wealth would be radically distributed among the entire population which would eliminate the wealthy class of America and thus end capitalism as we know it. However, no prominent progressive has EVER suggested this. The issue on the left is the rising inequality between the middle class and wealthy class. We aren’t suggesting some naive, theoretical utopia where everyone lives off the same wealth regardless of their contribution to society and lives happily ever after. Republicans just assume that’s what lefties mean when we talk about wealth inequality because it makes for a convenient argument. It makes dismissing the leftwing ideology easy.

Of course, what lefties actually want to do is simply narrow the gap so that anyone working 40 hours a week doesn’t have to live in poverty. That’s it. That’s all lefties care about. In this current economy, that is impossible for 10s of millions of people. Why is that impossible? Because the top 3 richest people in the country own more wealth than the bottom 50% of workers.

Again, I’ll admit I don’t know how it should be done, but it needs to be done. Radical change is necessary. The last time someone could comfortably live off $10 per hour was in the 1960’s.

So you don't want someone working 40 hrs a week living in poverty? Would that be a single person, a couple, a couple with a single child or a couple with multiple children? Would they have to have all the cable channels, the latest Iphone technology or would it be alright for their entertainment systems to be a bit more modest?

I think you see where I'm going here, there's a lot more to determine lifestyle than just income. So tell the class, what lifestyle should a 40 hr minimum wage job support and for how many?

.

Why are you shaming poor people for spending money on things to entertain themselves? Are they just supposed to eat, sleep, and die with no joy in their lives? I would consider the cost of entertainment to be critical to one’a well being. The problem would be spending too much but that isn’t something poor people do.

 

[Oldstyle]

I’ve never understood what that phrase really means. There is never an explanation on how to do it.

Republicans of course automatically assume the extreme which is that the wealth would be radically distributed among the entire population which would eliminate the wealthy class of America and thus end capitalism as we know it. However, no prominent progressive has EVER suggested this. The issue on the left is the rising inequality between the middle class and wealthy class. We aren’t suggesting some naive, theoretical utopia where everyone lives off the same wealth regardless of their contribution to society and lives happily ever after. Republicans just assume that’s what lefties mean when we talk about wealth inequality because it makes for a convenient argument. It makes dismissing the leftwing ideology easy.

Of course, what lefties actually want to do is simply narrow the gap so that anyone working 40 hours a week doesn’t have to live in poverty. That’s it. That’s all lefties care about. In this current economy, that is impossible for 10s of millions of people. Why is that impossible? Because the top 3 richest people in the country own more wealth than the bottom 50% of workers.

Again, I’ll admit I don’t know how it should be done, but it needs to be done. Radical change is necessary. The last time someone could comfortably live off $10 per hour was in the 1960’s.

Define what it is to live "comfortably", Billy? Should a family of 4 be able to live "comfortably" off of a minimum wage job? Should that comfort include things like cell phones...50" flat screens...expensive sneakers...vacations...movie nights out...? Just what does your "radical change" include? You say you think it needs to be done at the same time you admit that you don't have the faintest idea HOW to do it! How can you demand radical change when you don't have solutions?

 

[Billy000]

I’ve never understood what that phrase really means. There is never an explanation on how to do it.

Republicans of course automatically assume the extreme which is that the wealth would be radically distributed among the entire population which would eliminate the wealthy class of America and thus end capitalism as we know it. However, no prominent progressive has EVER suggested this. The issue on the left is the rising inequality between the middle class and wealthy class. We aren’t suggesting some naive, theoretical utopia where everyone lives off the same wealth regardless of their contribution to society and lives happily ever after. Republicans just assume that’s what lefties mean when we talk about wealth inequality because it makes for a convenient argument. It makes dismissing the leftwing ideology easy.

Of course, what lefties actually want to do is simply narrow the gap so that anyone working 40 hours a week doesn’t have to live in poverty. That’s it. That’s all lefties care about. In this current economy, that is impossible for 10s of millions of people. Why is that impossible? Because the top 3 richest people in the country own more wealth than the bottom 50% of workers.

Again, I’ll admit I don’t know how it should be done, but it needs to be done. Radical change is necessary. The last time someone could comfortably live off $10 per hour was in the 1960’s.

Define what it is to live "comfortably", Billy? Should a family of 4 be able to live "comfortably" off of a minimum wage job? Should that comfort include things like cell phones...50" flat screens...expensive sneakers...vacations...movie nights out...? Just what does your "radical change" include? You say you think it needs to be done at the same time you admit that you don't have the faintest idea HOW to do it! How can you demand radical change when you don't have solutions?

Lol if someone is making minimum wage has 2 kids, they could definitely not afford spending hundreds of dollars on entertainment monthly at the risk of starving themselves.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I’ve never understood what that phrase really means. There is never an explanation on how to do it.

Republicans of course automatically assume the extreme which is that the wealth would be radically distributed among the entire population which would eliminate the wealthy class of America and thus end capitalism as we know it. However, no prominent progressive has EVER suggested this. The issue on the left is the rising inequality between the middle class and wealthy class. We aren’t suggesting some naive, theoretical utopia where everyone lives off the same wealth regardless of their contribution to society and lives happily ever after. Republicans just assume that’s what lefties mean when we talk about wealth inequality because it makes for a convenient argument. It makes dismissing the leftwing ideology easy.

Of course, what lefties actually want to do is simply narrow the gap so that anyone working 40 hours a week doesn’t have to live in poverty. That’s it. That’s all lefties care about. In this current economy, that is impossible for 10s of millions of people. Why is that impossible? Because the top 3 richest people in the country own more wealth than the bottom 50% of workers.

Again, I’ll admit I don’t know how it should be done, but it needs to be done. Radical change is necessary. The last time someone could comfortably live off $10 per hour was in the 1960’s.

So you don't want someone working 40 hrs a week living in poverty? Would that be a single person, a couple, a couple with a single child or a couple with multiple children? Would they have to have all the cable channels, the latest Iphone technology or would it be alright for their entertainment systems to be a bit more modest?

I think you see where I'm going here, there's a lot more to determine lifestyle than just income. So tell the class, what lifestyle should a 40 hr minimum wage job support and for how many?

.

Why are you shaming poor people for spending money on things to entertain themselves? Are they just supposed to eat, sleep, and die with no joy in their lives? I would consider the cost of entertainment to be critical to one’a well being. The problem would be spending too much but that isn’t something poor people do.

You do know what your describing is what it appears Democrats want from us...just to be robots work, let them tell us what to eat , drink, and vote for them


.

 

[OKTexas]

I’ve never understood what that phrase really means. There is never an explanation on how to do it.

Republicans of course automatically assume the extreme which is that the wealth would be radically distributed among the entire population which would eliminate the wealthy class of America and thus end capitalism as we know it. However, no prominent progressive has EVER suggested this. The issue on the left is the rising inequality between the middle class and wealthy class. We aren’t suggesting some naive, theoretical utopia where everyone lives off the same wealth regardless of their contribution to society and lives happily ever after. Republicans just assume that’s what lefties mean when we talk about wealth inequality because it makes for a convenient argument. It makes dismissing the leftwing ideology easy.

Of course, what lefties actually want to do is simply narrow the gap so that anyone working 40 hours a week doesn’t have to live in poverty. That’s it. That’s all lefties care about. In this current economy, that is impossible for 10s of millions of people. Why is that impossible? Because the top 3 richest people in the country own more wealth than the bottom 50% of workers.

Again, I’ll admit I don’t know how it should be done, but it needs to be done. Radical change is necessary. The last time someone could comfortably live off $10 per hour was in the 1960’s.

So you don't want someone working 40 hrs a week living in poverty? Would that be a single person, a couple, a couple with a single child or a couple with multiple children? Would they have to have all the cable channels, the latest Iphone technology or would it be alright for their entertainment systems to be a bit more modest?

I think you see where I'm going here, there's a lot more to determine lifestyle than just income. So tell the class, what lifestyle should a 40 hr minimum wage job support and for how many?

.

Why are you shaming poor people for spending money on things to entertain themselves? Are they just supposed to eat, sleep, and die with no joy in their lives? I would consider the cost of entertainment to be critical to one’a well being. The problem would be spending too much but that isn’t something poor people do.

Thanks for proving you're just a ******* liar and not interested in a discussion. You can't just throw around general terms and expect everyone to know what you're talking about. You have to be willing to get into the dirt and set some standards or everyone is just talking past each other. So just **** you very much, I should have known you were never interested in a serious discussion, you nerve are.


.

 

[Billy000]

I’ve never understood what that phrase really means. There is never an explanation on how to do it.

Republicans of course automatically assume the extreme which is that the wealth would be radically distributed among the entire population which would eliminate the wealthy class of America and thus end capitalism as we know it. However, no prominent progressive has EVER suggested this. The issue on the left is the rising inequality between the middle class and wealthy class. We aren’t suggesting some naive, theoretical utopia where everyone lives off the same wealth regardless of their contribution to society and lives happily ever after. Republicans just assume that’s what lefties mean when we talk about wealth inequality because it makes for a convenient argument. It makes dismissing the leftwing ideology easy.

Of course, what lefties actually want to do is simply narrow the gap so that anyone working 40 hours a week doesn’t have to live in poverty. That’s it. That’s all lefties care about. In this current economy, that is impossible for 10s of millions of people. Why is that impossible? Because the top 3 richest people in the country own more wealth than the bottom 50% of workers.

Again, I’ll admit I don’t know how it should be done, but it needs to be done. Radical change is necessary. The last time someone could comfortably live off $10 per hour was in the 1960’s.

So you don't want someone working 40 hrs a week living in poverty? Would that be a single person, a couple, a couple with a single child or a couple with multiple children? Would they have to have all the cable channels, the latest Iphone technology or would it be alright for their entertainment systems to be a bit more modest?

I think you see where I'm going here, there's a lot more to determine lifestyle than just income. So tell the class, what lifestyle should a 40 hr minimum wage job support and for how many?

.

Why are you shaming poor people for spending money on things to entertain themselves? Are they just supposed to eat, sleep, and die with no joy in their lives? I would consider the cost of entertainment to be critical to one’a well being. The problem would be spending too much but that isn’t something poor people do.

Thanks for proving you're just a ******* liar and not interested in a discussion. You can't just throw around general terms and expect everyone to know what you're talking about. You have to be willing to get into the dirt and set some standards or everyone is just talking past each other. So just **** you very much, I should have known you were never interested in a serious discussion, you nerve are.


.

just admit you know I’m right.

 

[OKTexas]

I’ve never understood what that phrase really means. There is never an explanation on how to do it.

Republicans of course automatically assume the extreme which is that the wealth would be radically distributed among the entire population which would eliminate the wealthy class of America and thus end capitalism as we know it. However, no prominent progressive has EVER suggested this. The issue on the left is the rising inequality between the middle class and wealthy class. We aren’t suggesting some naive, theoretical utopia where everyone lives off the same wealth regardless of their contribution to society and lives happily ever after. Republicans just assume that’s what lefties mean when we talk about wealth inequality because it makes for a convenient argument. It makes dismissing the leftwing ideology easy.

Of course, what lefties actually want to do is simply narrow the gap so that anyone working 40 hours a week doesn’t have to live in poverty. That’s it. That’s all lefties care about. In this current economy, that is impossible for 10s of millions of people. Why is that impossible? Because the top 3 richest people in the country own more wealth than the bottom 50% of workers.

Again, I’ll admit I don’t know how it should be done, but it needs to be done. Radical change is necessary. The last time someone could comfortably live off $10 per hour was in the 1960’s.

So you don't want someone working 40 hrs a week living in poverty? Would that be a single person, a couple, a couple with a single child or a couple with multiple children? Would they have to have all the cable channels, the latest Iphone technology or would it be alright for their entertainment systems to be a bit more modest?

I think you see where I'm going here, there's a lot more to determine lifestyle than just income. So tell the class, what lifestyle should a 40 hr minimum wage job support and for how many?

.

Why are you shaming poor people for spending money on things to entertain themselves? Are they just supposed to eat, sleep, and die with no joy in their lives? I would consider the cost of entertainment to be critical to one’a well being. The problem would be spending too much but that isn’t something poor people do.

Thanks for proving you're just a ******* liar and not interested in a discussion. You can't just throw around general terms and expect everyone to know what you're talking about. You have to be willing to get into the dirt and set some standards or everyone is just talking past each other. So just **** you very much, I should have known you were never interested in a serious discussion, you nerve are.


.

just admit you know I’m right.

I'll admit you're full of shit, you don't even have the balls to define what the **** "poor" means. Run along child, you a waste of good air.

.

 

[sakinago]

I’ve never understood what that phrase really means. There is never an explanation on how to do it.

Republicans of course automatically assume the extreme which is that the wealth would be radically distributed among the entire population which would eliminate the wealthy class of America and thus end capitalism as we know it. However, no prominent progressive has EVER suggested this. The issue on the left is the rising inequality between the middle class and wealthy class. We aren’t suggesting some naive, theoretical utopia where everyone lives off the same wealth regardless of their contribution to society and lives happily ever after. Republicans just assume that’s what lefties mean when we talk about wealth inequality because it makes for a convenient argument. It makes dismissing the leftwing ideology easy.

Of course, what lefties actually want to do is simply narrow the gap so that anyone working 40 hours a week doesn’t have to live in poverty. That’s it. That’s all lefties care about. In this current economy, that is impossible for 10s of millions of people. Why is that impossible? Because the top 3 richest people in the country own more wealth than the bottom 50% of workers.

Again, I’ll admit I don’t know how it should be done, but it needs to be done. Radical change is necessary. The last time someone could comfortably live off $10 per hour was in the 1960’s.

Ok, here’s the problem with wealth redistribution. It is never going to be enough, and as the name progressive suggests, the ball needs to keep moving forward. So whatever redistribution policy is put into place today, will be thoroughly insufficient to the progressives 2 or so years later, and even more redistribution will be called upon. How does the right know this, it’s whats been happening for the past 50 or so years. What the right sees is that government spending is wildly out of control and incredibly ineffective. In the 2016 fiscal year alone, the federal government lost track of 1 trillion dollars, a full 1/3 of what they bring in annually through taxes, and over 5% of the entire national GDP. So essiently the entire worth of the wealthiest company in human history, Apple, vanished in a single year. This “misspent” money isn’t even taking into consideration wasteful spending on things like clown colleges in argentina, or how government operations get rewarded with money thrown at them for underproducing. Let’s also not forget about the unecassarily bloated administration departments in government that demand money to make government run even more inefficiently than it already is. Government certainly has its place and operations it should be in charge of, but it’s like a tapeworm. Food (money) goes in, the body (the people) get some nutrients from the food, but the tapeworm is in there gobbling it up and continuously growing.

Wealth inequality is not going to be solved by redistribution. It never will. No system ever will. It’s the Predo principle, and it’s literally universal not only in wealth, but in the mass of stars, trees, music composers, movie stars, etc. The system that does the best at making sure that there a lot more rich people, and less poor, many who have a an attainable ladder up, is the free markets coupled with a small government. Look at the US, wealthiest country ever in human history, look at Switzerland, top 3 in every category you can think of. The goal should be to make sure the Forrest gets bigger, not to cut down the taller trees to make them closer in size to the shorter ones. The goal is a more diverse economy, with an incredibly wide array of careers and various different paths to make money and build wealth. Redistribution does not do this. Redistribution is a patron at a bar complaining to the bartender that the guy next to them got more ounces of beer in their glass than they did. So the bartender takes the other guys glass, drinks a couple ounces, and then poors an ounce into the complainers glass, and says ta-da, I just brewed more beer, when in reality that was a net loss of beer.

This is not worship of the rich, the simple truth is the rich are the ones with the capital they can afford to risk investing. And when a successful investment is made, more jobs are inevitably created in one way or another. Trickle down economics does work, however, there are cases where it is extremely effective, and some where the effects are minimal. It can be very effective when the rich are having the bejezus taxed out of them, and you lower taxes for them, and now that rich guy says “finally, I can afford to build that strip mall.” That strip mall gets built, and the weird lady opens up a holistic medicine shop selling crystals and healing magnets to people. The Mexican family rents out the one area in the strip mall to build their restaurant and make orgasmic food. Where trickle down economics isn’t as effective is when taxes are relatively low for the rich, it still helps, but what would’ve been better would be to lower taxes for the lower and middle class. Now they can splurge and buy the special super secret moon material crystal, making the weird lady happy, as well as the rich guy she pays rent too. That family down the road can now afford to splurge on going out to dinner more often making the Mexican family happy, and thus the guy they’re paying rent too.

I feel like what would’ve been better than the recent corporate tax cuts would be cutting more taxes for the lower and middle class. I think the corporate tax cuts did help, just not as much as the alternative. First thing is first though, we need to cut down on government spending and government inefficiency, drastically.

 

[Billy000]

I’ve never understood what that phrase really means. There is never an explanation on how to do it.

Republicans of course automatically assume the extreme which is that the wealth would be radically distributed among the entire population which would eliminate the wealthy class of America and thus end capitalism as we know it. However, no prominent progressive has EVER suggested this. The issue on the left is the rising inequality between the middle class and wealthy class. We aren’t suggesting some naive, theoretical utopia where everyone lives off the same wealth regardless of their contribution to society and lives happily ever after. Republicans just assume that’s what lefties mean when we talk about wealth inequality because it makes for a convenient argument. It makes dismissing the leftwing ideology easy.

Of course, what lefties actually want to do is simply narrow the gap so that anyone working 40 hours a week doesn’t have to live in poverty. That’s it. That’s all lefties care about. In this current economy, that is impossible for 10s of millions of people. Why is that impossible? Because the top 3 richest people in the country own more wealth than the bottom 50% of workers.

Again, I’ll admit I don’t know how it should be done, but it needs to be done. Radical change is necessary. The last time someone could comfortably live off $10 per hour was in the 1960’s.

So you don't want someone working 40 hrs a week living in poverty? Would that be a single person, a couple, a couple with a single child or a couple with multiple children? Would they have to have all the cable channels, the latest Iphone technology or would it be alright for their entertainment systems to be a bit more modest?

I think you see where I'm going here, there's a lot more to determine lifestyle than just income. So tell the class, what lifestyle should a 40 hr minimum wage job support and for how many?

.

Why are you shaming poor people for spending money on things to entertain themselves? Are they just supposed to eat, sleep, and die with no joy in their lives? I would consider the cost of entertainment to be critical to one’a well being. The problem would be spending too much but that isn’t something poor people do.

Thanks for proving you're just a ******* liar and not interested in a discussion. You can't just throw around general terms and expect everyone to know what you're talking about. You have to be willing to get into the dirt and set some standards or everyone is just talking past each other. So just **** you very much, I should have known you were never interested in a serious discussion, you nerve are.


.

just admit you know I’m right.

I'll admit you're full of shit, you don't even have the balls to define what the **** "poor" means. Run along child, you a waste of good air.

.

Both parents working full time and their kids have adequate food, entertainment, and healthcare. That’s expensive as ****. How many kids is too many? More than 3, but right now wages are too shit to afford less than that. Either way, the kids who didn’t choose to be born must be provided for.

Don’t you see how retarded it is to keep the minimum wage the same every decade? Inflation matters you sack of shit.