Wealth Redistribution

[Oddball]

Interesting reply, I usually get called a communist or some word not used in polite company.....

You reply like a communist, you get properly identified for all that those replies infer....Communist.

BTW, "society" is a completely unquantifiable strawman, upon which all of your communistic theories and ramblings are built.

 

[rdean]

Wealth Redistribution.

It's already happened. 8 of the last 10 years has seen the greatest redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the top 1%. The greatest the world has ever seen. And now those 1% have bought the leadership of one political party to ensure that transfer continues. This is what's behind the drive to end Medicare. The tax breaks for corporations and for the wealthy. The war on education.

 

[midcan5]

I did define morality I said it is what you feel comfortable doing. I didn't define my morality. Show me that true universal morality? If America belongs to all of us, I must have missed it? Concrete example please?

The best description of morality I can find. If you play stupid on this one I cant help you.

Those pieces assume the old myth (Hegel) that there are big solutions, spiritual versus material is an old model, societies in the west have moved through these paradigms and recognize the simple idea that pluralism and tolerance work best. Well some have.

And I should have guessed, A Rand fan. For the present I'll only comment on this moral part of your reply. I posted some thoughts on Rand here "http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/164072-ayn-rand-conservatives-tea-party-republicans.html" no one commented, you can be the first . The links to 'Libertarianism in a Nutshell II' and "Atlas Panted" represent my thoughts on Rand and Libertarian thinking. You can see where I'm coming from.

If you want to listen/read some excellent pieces on morality see Haidt's piece and I liked Greene's piece below. Take some time this is good stuff.

Jonathan Haidt on the moral roots of liberals and conservatives | Video on TED.com

Edge: JOSHUA D. GREENE: The New Science of Morality

Full topic here: Edge: THE NEW SCIENCE OF MORALITY

 

[Publius1787]

I did define morality I said it is what you feel comfortable doing. I didn't define my morality. Show me that true universal morality? If America belongs to all of us, I must have missed it? Concrete example please?

The best description of morality I can find. If you play stupid on this one I cant help you.

Those pieces assume the old myth (Hegel) that there are big solutions, spiritual versus material is an old model, societies in the west have moved through these paradigms and recognize the simple idea that pluralism and tolerance work best. Well some have.

And I should have guessed, A Rand fan. For the present I'll only comment on this moral part of your reply. I posted some thoughts on Rand here "http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/164072-ayn-rand-conservatives-tea-party-republicans.html" no one commented, you can be the first . The links to 'Libertarianism in a Nutshell II' and "Atlas Panted" represent my thoughts on Rand and Libertarian thinking. You can see where I'm coming from.

If you want to listen/read some excellent pieces on morality see Haidt's piece and I liked Greene's piece below. Take some time this is good stuff.

Jonathan Haidt on the moral roots of liberals and conservatives | Video on TED.com

Edge: JOSHUA D. GREENE: The New Science of Morality

Full topic here: Edge: THE NEW SCIENCE OF MORALITY

Wow. Such intelectual lazyiness and plagerism. You just post other people opinions and ask me to reply to them. I will not accept a link as an answer and I will not entertain someone so lazy that they cant defend their own positions. What kind of crap is this? Say what you will about rand. I just cited her definition of morality to back up my other comparison of that same definition located in the declaration of independence. They both say the same thing. Yet you fail to understand it huh?

Honestly. If you havent the time to respond let me make a few suggestions.

1. Dont post a long drawn out arguement that makes no economic sense with horrible transitions making it impossible for the reader to follow other than the fact of noticing the marxist themes that keep popping up.

2. If you have no time to reply just tell me. I wont accuse you of running away from an arguement. People have lives and I'm sure you have better things to do other than posting on a silly political forum for short term amusment.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This is a response to the question asked here. http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/167715-morality-of-wealth-redistribution.html

Whenever I hear this question from conservatives and libertarians I wonder why they have to ask it for I don't see 'redistribution' anywhere? (While a bit off topic, it always reminds me of the Russian Serf and nobility, or the Slave owner and Slave situation of past centuries.) It is an attitude on the part of the questioner rather than question. A few comments on the use of the words and ideas around the topic.

This is one of the dumbest things I have ever read.

And it gets worse.

Wealth is only created in a society, sometimes a good idea makes money but good ideas do not exist in a vacuum. Each citizen of America has a equal right as citizen to its wealth. So obviously its natural resources belong to all. That everyone cannot take advantage of them, forces the government to regulate their use. Since we all own the timber, coal, petroleum, and other materials, everyone should benefit from their sale and usage. Seems simple.

Wealth is only created in a society? Do you have anything you can point to that proves that? How can you say that a man marooned on a desert island all by himself who uses his hands to build shelter and find food does not create wealth? Wealth is defined as anything that is capable of being exchanged, not as money that is exchanged.

People are not moral in the sense in which the question is asked, a few don't steal etc, but most people do what is comfortable for them based on their worldview. Think Mother Theresa and Bernie Madoff. No one, especially those able to benefit most from their class position think about the moral implications of their wealth. We are a society based on the individual who think they are Crusoe. Some very wealthy people eventually create useful charitable organizations, but this aid is often about personal aggrandizement or directed outward. While that is a positive, it does not lessen the fact the monies were made in a particular society from its resources, and if morality plays a part they owe that society too.

No one ever thinks about the moral implications of their wealth? Why did Mother Theresa, who you mentioned, chose to give up her wealth in order to serve some of the poorest people on the planet? Why does Bill Gates contribute a significant portion of his wealth to various charities? Why does Warren Buffet want everyone who makes millions of dollars a yer to contribute half of their wealth to charities?

You are just demonstrating, again, that you only see what you want to see.

Every citizens pays taxes at some time in their life or their family does, each citizen in some way supports the society they live in and thus deserve help when the society's economy fails to provide opportunity. Membership in a nation grants these rights.

What if the citizens is actually a criminal that gets his wealth by stealing from others. Does that person also deserve help from the society he already steals from if his theft deprive him of the opportunity to steal?

Wealthy people do not work any harder than others. I hear this constantly and wonder who the heck they are talking about. Show me a wealthy person who works harder than a miner, a roofer, a short order cook or any other job that often pays minimum wage. This is total BS, wealthy people, like so called 'moral' people do what they want and while some have talents that others do not, they still live in a society that provides them additional wealth.

The idea that incentive is all that is needed is more BS. Consider that something like sixty thousand businesses fail each year in America and these people surely did not lack incentive. They may have thought a bad idea would work but they worked none the less. Success is often luck and timing, few seem to recognize that important part of wealth.

Says a man who has never in his life been wealthy. The fact is that wealth creates more work for the people that have it just by existing. look how big the government is simply because it spends trillions of dollars every year. If it only spent millions it would not need to be as big or work as hard as it does just to keep up with what it spends.

Another aspect of great wealth is the power it has in a society or nation. Money buys power and lawyers who argue for the wealthy and with our election funding it controls the very people elected to server the people, all people, but who often only work for the wealthy.

Yet you have no problem with the government having great power even though you admit that that power only serves the wealthy.

Since the wealth of a nation belongs to all, redistribution in the pejorative sense in which conservatives and libertarians frame it is a none starter and an invalid argument. Citizens have a right to a fair distribution of the wealth of the nation they too own. That is the moral thing to do.

Now you jump off the cliff without a parachute.

How does the wealth a man who works for himself creates belong to anyone else? Why does a man who works for years to write a great book owe any of his accomplishment to anyone else? Why should a teacher have to work for minimum wage simply because, in your view, he owes the fruit of his education to society?

Inequality in a society also leads to the problems noted below, if morality were truly a consideration of a society and its wealth, this would be less a issue. "Great inequality is the scourge of modern societies. We provide the evidence on each of eleven different health and social problems: physical health, mental health, drug abuse, education, imprisonment, obesity, social mobility, trust and community life, violence, teenage births, and child well-being. For all eleven of these health and social problems, outcomes are very substantially worse in more unequal societies." Richard Wilkinson/Kate Pickett The Evidence in Detail | The Equality Trust

Wow, by some standards that that site claims to use the US is the worst country for equality in the world, by others it is the best. That leads me to believe that the site, like you, base their criteria of equality on subjective standards that I do not agree with. Equality is not everyone having the same amount of money, it is everyone having the same opportunity, given their own talents and abilities, to make as much money as they can.

How the rich benefit from what should be owned by all: The Conservative Nanny State and Why we can't ignore growing income inequality. (1) - By Timothy Noah - Slate Magazine


How did you get rich dadddy? The rich get rich because of their merit. and UBI and the Flat Tax

What possible justification is there for shared ownership of intellectual property? What right do you, or anyone else, have to my thoughts?

"Old-fashioned laissez-faire in its pure form has fewer proponents today, but it is still conventional, among experts as well as in common discourse, to speak of "the economy" as an entity as though it were quite separate from government and society. Instead of these familiar but, we think, misleading distinctions we shall use the older, more accurate term "political economy." This term implies that economic activity is part of a larger social whole; the economy can be completely isolated from politics only in a game." Taming the Savage Market

Who the fuck do you know who thinks the economy and the government are separate? If they supposedly believe that, why does everyone blame the government when the economy is bad?

This is why you should not post quotes without reading them.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

the push to send the wealth into smaller and smaller hands is killing caplitalism

How?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

you are now claiming the policies of the left have caused a wealth coincentration in this country?

Please use some facts to back your claim.

Please name a communistic country that doesn't have a massive gap between the wealthy elite and the rest of the peasants.....Just one.

Also, I think there are probably a small handful of countries, if even that, in which their poor would not jump at a chance to trade places with our poor.

But let's play devil's advocate for a bit and say that it is a bad thing that there is a wide disparity between rich and poor in this country.

If that is the case, is the factor creating this situation:

1) That evil capitalists are grabbing too much of the wealth for themselves and therefore the government should prevent that?

or​

2) That our well intentioned but ill advised system of dealing with poverty discourages people from leaving poverty and therefore increases poverty?

or​

3) Something else?

Probably 3) in that some greedy people are using the government to make themselves richer by keeping other people down. They then become the greedy and evil capitalists who want to keep everything for themselves. Look at Harry Reid, a man who has lived on a fixed income for years, yet has somehow accumulated more wealth than most people in the entire world.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Wealth Redistribution.

It's already happened. 8 of the last 10 years has seen the greatest redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the top 1%. The greatest the world has ever seen. And now those 1% have bought the leadership of one political party to ensure that transfer continues. This is what's behind the drive to end Medicare. The tax breaks for corporations and for the wealthy. The war on education.

Did it? Or did the general level of wealth for everyone increase as more wealth was created?

 

[The Rabbi]

Americans United only added gasoline to the flames to insure the rich are well represented in Washington. Thanks Roberts and, by proxy, Bush II.

Wealth And Inequality In America
Gini coefficient - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
File:Gini Coefficient World CIA Report 2009-1.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's Citizens United.
Blame Bush is so 2008.

 

[expat_panama]

Interesting reply, I usually get called a communist or some word not used in polite company...

Not only is name-calling for morons but it kicks our focus from facts to personalities and gets in the way of badly needed policy change.

...aside from medicine what other services are big today...

The labor dept. has it listed here and out of a total 91 million employed in services (of a total labor force at 131 million) only 14 million work in health care. That's less than government workers (22 Mil), professional/business (17 Mil), or retail (15 Mil).

...Crops and goods are still big...

Farming used to be half the US labor force a hundred years ago but now it's half a percent. We no longer need land or natural resources to create wealth because now we can do it by going to school and working hard. The idea that--

...monies were made in a particular society from its resources, and if morality plays a part they owe that society too... ...Wealthy people do not work any harder than others...

--is no longer what we see around us.

 

[Dot Com]

Americans United only added gasoline to the flames to insure the rich are well represented in Washington. Thanks Roberts and, by proxy, Bush II.

Wealth And Inequality In America
Gini coefficient - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
File:Gini Coefficient World CIA Report 2009-1.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's Citizens United.
Blame Bush is so 2008.

Roberts is Bu$h II's nominee along w/ Aleeto unless you forgot ;-) ; both of whom voted to further empower the voices of groups at the expense of the individual.

 

[rdean]

the push to send the wealth into smaller and smaller hands is killing caplitalism

How?

Really? You don't know?

Have you ever heard of these before?

Supply and demand

investment

revenue

 

[Dot Com]

Americans United only added gasoline to the flames to insure the rich are well represented in Washington. Thanks Roberts and, by proxy, Bush II.

Wealth And Inequality In America
Gini coefficient - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
File:Gini Coefficient World CIA Report 2009-1.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's Citizens United.
Blame Bush is so 2008.

Ummm.....Bu$h II nominated all of the judges who sided w/ the corps in that case w/ the exception of the swing-vote water-board boy LOL.

 

[The Rabbi]

Americans United only added gasoline to the flames to insure the rich are well represented in Washington. Thanks Roberts and, by proxy, Bush II.

Wealth And Inequality In America
Gini coefficient - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
File:Gini Coefficient World CIA Report 2009-1.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's Citizens United.
Blame Bush is so 2008.

Ummm.....Bu$h II nominated all of the judges who sided w/ the corps in that case w/ the exception of the swing-vote water-board boy LOL.

Im sure eventually the drugs will wear off and you will write coherently again.
I remember when liberals actually supported the First Amendment.

 

[logical4u]

This is a response to the question asked here. http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/167715-morality-of-wealth-redistribution.html

Whenever I hear this question from conservatives and libertarians I wonder why they have to ask it for I don't see 'redistribution' anywhere? (While a bit off topic, it always reminds me of the Russian Serf and nobility, or the Slave owner and Slave situation of past centuries.) It is an attitude on the part of the questioner rather than question. A few comments on the use of the words and ideas around the topic.

Wealth is only created in a society, sometimes a good idea makes money but good ideas do not exist in a vacuum. Each citizen of America has a equal right as citizen to its wealth. So obviously its natural resources belong to all. That everyone cannot take advantage of them, forces the government to regulate their use. Since we all own the timber, coal, petroleum, and other materials, everyone should benefit from their sale and usage. Seems simple.

People are not moral in the sense in which the question is asked, a few don't steal etc, but most people do what is comfortable for them based on their worldview. Think Mother Theresa and Bernie Madoff. No one, especially those able to benefit most from their class position think about the moral implications of their wealth. We are a society based on the individual who think they are Crusoe. Some very wealthy people eventually create useful charitable organizations, but this aid is often about personal aggrandizement or directed outward. While that is a positive, it does not lessen the fact the monies were made in a particular society from its resources, and if morality plays a part they owe that society much.

Every citizens pays taxes at some time in their life or their family does, each citizen in some way supports the society they live in and thus deserve help when the society's economy fails to provide opportunity. Membership in a nation grants these rights.

Wealthy people do not work any harder than others. I hear this constantly and wonder who the heck they are talking about. Show me a wealthy person who works harder than a miner, a roofer, a short order cook or any other job that often pays minimum wage. This is total BS, wealthy people, like so called 'moral' people do what they want and while some have talents that others do not, they still live in a society that provides them additional wealth.

The idea that incentive is all that is needed is more BS. Consider that something like sixty thousand businesses fail each year in America and these people surely did not lack incentive. They may have thought a bad idea would work but they worked none the less. Success is often luck and timing, few seem to recognize that important part of wealth.

Another aspect of great wealth is the power it has in a society or nation. Money buys power and lawyers who argue for the wealthy and with our election funding it controls the very people elected to serve the people, all people, but who often only work for the wealthy.

Since the wealth of a nation belongs to all, redistribution in the pejorative sense in which conservatives and libertarians frame it is a non-starter and an invalid argument. Citizens have a right to a fair distribution of the wealth of the nation they too own. That is the moral thing to do.



Inequality in a society also leads to the problems noted below, if morality were truly a consideration of a society and its wealth, this would be less a issue. "Great inequality is the scourge of modern societies. We provide the evidence on each of eleven different health and social problems: physical health, mental health, drug abuse, education, imprisonment, obesity, social mobility, trust and community life, violence, teenage births, and child well-being. For all eleven of these health and social problems, outcomes are very substantially worse in more unequal societies." Richard Wilkinson/Kate Pickett The Evidence in Detail | The Equality Trust


How the rich benefit from what should be owned by all: The Conservative Nanny State and Why we can't ignore growing income inequality. (1) - By Timothy Noah - Slate Magazine


How did you get rich dadddy? The rich get rich because of their merit. and UBI and the Flat Tax


"Old-fashioned laissez-faire in its pure form has fewer proponents today, but it is still conventional, among experts as well as in common discourse, to speak of "the economy" as an entity as though it were quite separate from government and society. Instead of these familiar but, we think, misleading distinctions we shall use the older, more accurate term "political economy." This term implies that economic activity is part of a larger social whole; the economy can be completely isolated from politics only in a game." Taming the Savage Market

It appears that you "only" want to focus on the wealthy, after their wealth is substantial. You do not mention personal sacrifice: when those that are not wealthy were running the streets and clubs, working a job to give them enough money to party, those "wealthy" people were working low-paying jobs that would walk them into a future or going to school, and going easy on the party scene. When the decision to marry came along, it was not who will 'give me _______', it was I am willing to sacrifice my personal happiness to make this person that I chose, happy. When children came, it was not: I want to be my child's BFF, it was, what do I need to do, to make this life, this gift, into a great person. When the children were older it was not: let me buy toys for me (so I can share them with the children), it was, let me save and plan for my future so my children will not be burdened with a 'dead-end' parent at a time they will need their resources for their own families.
After years of sacrifice (and yes, most people that do this are extremely satisfied with their lives, because their lives are not selfish and superficial), the person/couple is wealthy. The one(s) that 'blew' their resources and wealth to live above 'their income', now demand that the wealth is distributed equally. It was, they, that made bad investments, while others made good investments. At any time in most peoples' lives they can choose to do the right thing, many, don't ever choose to do the right thing and are unwilling to reap what they have sown. There is no shortcut. The only way to happiness (and wealth) is by steadily working towards your goals. Most of those that are 'gifted' wealth (inheritance/winnings), that had no money, previously, will soon 'waste' the 'gift'. Like their lives, their resources are focused on things with little or no return value. It is something that cannot be legislated or changed by anyone but the individual.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

the push to send the wealth into smaller and smaller hands is killing caplitalism

How?

Really? You don't know?

Have you ever heard of these before?

Supply and demand

investment

revenue

Which are all getting less restricted.

 

[Foxfyre]

I hope everybody will read Logical's post here. There is a LOT to think about in that.

The thing is, can you put any kind of restrictions on what one person earns or how much wealth he is allowed to accumulate and not violate unalienable rights? Not take away freedom, choice, opportunity, options?

Why don't we do that with sports teams or horse races? A horse is only allowed to run so fast to make it more fair for slower horses. A sports team is allowed to accumulate only so many points so the weaker team has a chance?

The more talented, more intuitive, more skilled, more ambitious must be restrained so that the less talented, less intuitive, less skilled, less ambitious can compete in commerce and industry?

Does anybody not see that as a sure prescription for mediocrity? For less opportunity for everybody?

Why should the emphasis not be on developing more talent, education, skill, and ambition among the under achievers so that they can better compete with the achievers?

 

[Wiseacre]

The basic thrust of this thread seems to be that wealthy people are immoral because they attained wealth by illegal or exploitive means. Or by luck, in some fashion winning the lottery or inheriting wealth and vast estates. All of which may be true to some extent, there are boatloads of people in every walk of life and income level who have gotten where they are without really earning it. I don't think it's fair to focus on just the ones who made it up to millionaire status, ANYBODY who uses unfair practices to advance their own situation deserves censure. And prosecution.

Are we to punish those who did achieve their wealth legally and honestly for the sins of those who didn't? Doesn't sound like justice to me. Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Jack Welch, Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods, Steven Spielberg, are they or are they not entitled to their wealth? What about the leading heart surgeons and other doctors who are at the pinnacle of their professions and command high salaries, do we demonize them too?

Who gets to decide how much is enough, how much is immoral? Under what moral principle do we restrict how much a person can earn? And are you prepared for the consequences if you do? It always gets me when I see liberals talking about taxing the rich and thinking there won't be any negative effects.

We live in a country where great wealth is possible, through merit and hard work but also through less deserving methods. Our justice system needs to do better at catching and convicting the crooks and cheats, no question about that. We need to reduce the power of special interest groups in our gov'ts, and we need to improve our regulations to be more effective at creating competition and less costly to live with. But we also need to stop playing the class warfare game, quit focusing on what they got and start working on what we can do to create more opportunities so more people can be richer than they are now. News flash - redistributing the wealth is not an answer.

 

[boedicca]

This is a response to the question asked here. http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/167715-morality-of-wealth-redistribution.html

Whenever I hear this question from conservatives and libertarians I wonder why they have to ask it for I don't see 'redistribution' anywhere? (While a bit off topic, it always reminds me of the Russian Serf and nobility, or the Slave owner and Slave situation of past centuries.) It is an attitude on the part of the questioner rather than question. A few comments on the use of the words and ideas around the topic.

Wealth is only created in a society, sometimes a good idea makes money but good ideas do not exist in a vacuum. Each citizen of America has a equal right as citizen to its wealth. So obviously its natural resources belong to all. That everyone cannot take advantage of them, forces the government to regulate their use. Since we all own the timber, coal, petroleum, and other materials, everyone should benefit from their sale and usage. Seems simple.

People are not moral in the sense in which the question is asked, a few don't steal etc, but most people do what is comfortable for them based on their worldview. Think Mother Theresa and Bernie Madoff. No one, especially those able to benefit most from their class position think about the moral implications of their wealth. We are a society based on the individual who think they are Crusoe. Some very wealthy people eventually create useful charitable organizations, but this aid is often about personal aggrandizement or directed outward. While that is a positive, it does not lessen the fact the monies were made in a particular society from its resources, and if morality plays a part they owe that society much.

Every citizens pays taxes at some time in their life or their family does, each citizen in some way supports the society they live in and thus deserve help when the society's economy fails to provide opportunity. Membership in a nation grants these rights.

Wealthy people do not work any harder than others. I hear this constantly and wonder who the heck they are talking about. Show me a wealthy person who works harder than a miner, a roofer, a short order cook or any other job that often pays minimum wage. This is total BS, wealthy people, like so called 'moral' people do what they want and while some have talents that others do not, they still live in a society that provides them additional wealth.

The idea that incentive is all that is needed is more BS. Consider that something like sixty thousand businesses fail each year in America and these people surely did not lack incentive. They may have thought a bad idea would work but they worked none the less. Success is often luck and timing, few seem to recognize that important part of wealth.

Another aspect of great wealth is the power it has in a society or nation. Money buys power and lawyers who argue for the wealthy and with our election funding it controls the very people elected to serve the people, all people, but who often only work for the wealthy.

Since the wealth of a nation belongs to all, redistribution in the pejorative sense in which conservatives and libertarians frame it is a non-starter and an invalid argument. Citizens have a right to a fair distribution of the wealth of the nation they too own. That is the moral thing to do.



Inequality in a society also leads to the problems noted below, if morality were truly a consideration of a society and its wealth, this would be less a issue. "Great inequality is the scourge of modern societies. We provide the evidence on each of eleven different health and social problems: physical health, mental health, drug abuse, education, imprisonment, obesity, social mobility, trust and community life, violence, teenage births, and child well-being. For all eleven of these health and social problems, outcomes are very substantially worse in more unequal societies." Richard Wilkinson/Kate Pickett The Evidence in Detail | The Equality Trust


How the rich benefit from what should be owned by all: The Conservative Nanny State and Why we can't ignore growing income inequality. (1) - By Timothy Noah - Slate Magazine


How did you get rich dadddy? The rich get rich because of their merit. and UBI and the Flat Tax


"Old-fashioned laissez-faire in its pure form has fewer proponents today, but it is still conventional, among experts as well as in common discourse, to speak of "the economy" as an entity as though it were quite separate from government and society. Instead of these familiar but, we think, misleading distinctions we shall use the older, more accurate term "political economy." This term implies that economic activity is part of a larger social whole; the economy can be completely isolated from politics only in a game." Taming the Savage Market

It appears that you "only" want to focus on the wealthy, after their wealth is substantial. You do not mention personal sacrifice: when those that are not wealthy were running the streets and clubs, working a job to give them enough money to party, those "wealthy" people were working low-paying jobs that would walk them into a future or going to school, and going easy on the party scene. When the decision to marry came along, it was not who will 'give me _______', it was I am willing to sacrifice my personal happiness to make this person that I chose, happy. When children came, it was not: I want to be my child's BFF, it was, what do I need to do, to make this life, this gift, into a great person. When the children were older it was not: let me buy toys for me (so I can share them with the children), it was, let me save and plan for my future so my children will not be burdened with a 'dead-end' parent at a time they will need their resources for their own families.
After years of sacrifice (and yes, most people that do this are extremely satisfied with their lives, because their lives are not selfish and superficial), the person/couple is wealthy. The one(s) that 'blew' their resources and wealth to live above 'their income', now demand that the wealth is distributed equally. It was, they, that made bad investments, while others made good investments. At any time in most peoples' lives they can choose to do the right thing, many, don't ever choose to do the right thing and are unwilling to reap what they have sown. There is no shortcut. The only way to happiness (and wealth) is by steadily working towards your goals. Most of those that are 'gifted' wealth (inheritance/winnings), that had no money, previously, will soon 'waste' the 'gift'. Like their lives, their resources are focused on things with little or no return value. It is something that cannot be legislated or changed by anyone but the individual.

The Wealthy learned something from the old "The Grasshopper and the Ant" tale.

The Unwealthy didn't.

 

[Samson]

The Wealthy learned something from the old "The Grasshopper and the Ant" tale.

The Unwealthy didn't.

Ironically, ants are communists....

Just Sayin'