redistribution of wealth

[thegreatestpenn 5,000+ posts]

People I know at times ask "how can somebody not like Obama." I tell them part of it is the redistribution of wealth talk. They ask "why does that matter?" and I don't have an answer for them so I'm trying to understand you all's point of view so I can share it.

Me, I don't care about the whole redistribution of wealth talk for a number or reasons. The first is it WILL NEVER HAPPEN. There's no way any bill talking redistribution would make it through Congress. Special interest groups and powerful people would make sure their buddy politicians would shut it down. Also, I don't consider myself rich or wealthy and I don't think any of you are either. When I say rich I mean netting a million or more after taxes and business expenses (so if you're assets only come to a million, you not rich). When I say wealthy I mean there is no possible way to live beyond your means. Wealthy is not needing insurance cause you can live straight cash no matter what happens or comes up. Fact is only 10% of the country has 90% of the wealth and none of us (well maybe 1 or 2 on this site) are part of that 10%. So basically I believe we're all some type of middle class on here, able to have all our money taken out by a fire, stock market crash, disease that requires expensive medical treatment etc. etc. So i don't see how taking some of that 90% from the 10% holding it is a bad thing. Sure they will be able to buy one less car a year, but hey they'll be okay, they can consider it philanthropic //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif. Sure I'm not with giving money to people that are irresponsible and wasteful, but lets think about this from the rich/wealthy perspective. Rich and wealthy people make money when others spend it. What do irresponsibly poor people do? wastefully spend their money on stuff they don't need. So its gonna get back to the rich and wealthy anyways.

Crap I got off track, anyways to cliff, what's your problem with the whole redistribution of wealth talk when you aren't even rich yourself?

Click to read more...

 

[quest51210 10+ year member]

i have no problem with it, i already volunteer over 200 hours to community programs a year and donate nearly 20% of my salary to noble causes and educational support for high school seniors below the poverty level.

i make a pretty decent living and so does my fiancee. we can live in a $400k home, but we chose to live a more humble life, drive decent cars, and give back as much as we possibly can.

that is the way America used to be, everyone helped each other out within their communities. i have been a community activist for many years and wish more people would get involved.

i do play an ******* on the internet though.

 

[crunktimes.com 5,000+ posts]

You're blabbering again //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/fyi.gif.9f1f679348da7204ce960cfc74bca8e0.gif

 

[Jameseypoo 5,000+ posts]

blah blahb alh blah blah blah blah blahb lah blah

 

[duece212 5,000+ posts]

Crap I got off track, anyways to cliff, what's your problem with the whole redistribution of wealth talk when you aren't even rich yourself?

Thats about a selfish fukn attitude

 

[tyler_fitz 10+ year member]

redistribution of wealth destroys motivation. Whats the point of trying to succeed and get rich if you're just gonna get money you earned taken away from you and given to someone who doesn't deserve it?

Why get rich at all if you can get handouts...

 

[speedfreak28 10+ year member]

The whole redistribution of wealth thing has already been done, it failed. It was called communism...

 

[newusername 10+ year member]

Your wealth is already "re-distributed", and always has been. A 3% difference, to some, constitutes the difference between a liberal and a socialist. I think that's bizarre.

 

[lincolntc690 10+ year member]

redistribution of wealth destroys motivation. Whats the point of trying to succeed and get rich if you're just gonna get money you earned taken away from you and given to someone who doesn't deserve it?
Why get rich at all if you can get handouts...

AGREED, i couldn't have said it better myself!!

 

[quest51210 10+ year member]

Your wealth is already "re-distributed", and always has been. A 3% difference, to some, constitutes the difference between a liberal and a socialist. I think that's bizarre.

Your wealth is already "re-distributed", and always has been. A 3% difference, to some, constitutes the difference between a liberal and a socialist. I think that's bizarre.

Your wealth is already "re-distributed", and always has been. A 3% difference, to some, constitutes the difference between a liberal and a socialist. I think that's bizarre.

Your wealth is already "re-distributed", and always has been. A 3% difference, to some, constitutes the difference between a liberal and a socialist. I think that's bizarre.

Your wealth is already "re-distributed", and always has been. A 3% difference, to some, constitutes the difference between a liberal and a socialist. I think that's bizarre.

Your wealth is already "re-distributed", and always has been. A 3% difference, to some, constitutes the difference between a liberal and a socialist. I think that's bizarre.

Your wealth is already "re-distributed", and always has been. A 3% difference, to some, constitutes the difference between a liberal and a socialist. I think that's bizarre.

Your wealth is already "re-distributed", and always has been. A 3% difference, to some, constitutes the difference between a liberal and a socialist. I think that's bizarre.

Your wealth is already "re-distributed", and always has been. A 3% difference, to some, constitutes the difference between a liberal and a socialist. I think that's bizarre.

Your wealth is already "re-distributed", and always has been. A 3% difference, to some, constitutes the difference between a liberal and a socialist. I think that's bizarre.

Your wealth is already "re-distributed", and always has been. A 3% difference, to some, constitutes the difference between a liberal and a socialist. I think that's bizarre.

Your wealth is already "re-distributed", and always has been. A 3% difference, to some, constitutes the difference between a liberal and a socialist. I think that's bizarre.

.............

 

[funkyab 10+ year member]

redistribution of wealth destroys motivation. Whats the point of trying to succeed and get rich if you're just gonna get money you earned taken away from you and given to someone who doesn't deserve it?
Why get rich at all if you can get handouts...

BS idiot.... So no one is motivated in almost ALL of Western Europe???

 

[duece212 5,000+ posts]

BS idiot.... So no one is motivated in almost ALL of Western Europe???

correct

 

[Jameseypoo 5,000+ posts]

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

 

[bdawson72 5,000+ posts]

here we go again

 

[Forrest Gump 10+ year member]

Meh. I believe it was just a cheap tactic to gain votes.

I mean come on. You take money away from Richard and give it to tom. Who in turn gives it back to Richard. What was accomplished? Other than giving joe some spending money.

And what if Tom decides to save the money, or spend it on other things..? Then Richard is SOL

It's not about the economy, it's just to get votes.