redistribution of wealth

[newusername 10+ year member]

What is your basis for saying it is not about the economy?

Is it alright to have a lower GDP per capita if the quality of life is greater?

 

[scarolinablazin 10+ year member]

blah blah i can agree with the rest is kinda stupid

 

[Forrest Gump 10+ year member]

What is your basis for saying it is not about the economy?
Is it alright to have a lower GDP per capita if the quality of life is greater?

Not following you bro...I am not as educated as some in this area.

 

[JamesKarr 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...

Worded perfectly

 

[JamesKarr 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...

Worded perfectly

 

[jmanpc 5,000+ posts]

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/fyi.gif.9f1f679348da7204ce960cfc74bca8e0.gif redistribution of wealth already exists in the form of a progressive tax system. democrats push to tax the rich more and the middle class and poor less, hence creating a greater redistribution of wealth effect //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/fyi.gif.9f1f679348da7204ce960cfc74bca8e0.gif

The more you know. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/fyi.gif.9f1f679348da7204ce960cfc74bca8e0.gif

 

[tyler_fitz 10+ year member]

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

the example i gave was for a totally socialist economy. don't call me an idiot.

 

[newusername 10+ year member]

the example i gave was for a totally socialist economy. don't call me an idiot.

So what you mean is that a socialist economy provides no motivation; not necessarily re-distribution of wealth. Even though that is also wrong, since many are highly motivated in socialist countries, that is at least more accurate than your previous argument.

 

[Flipx99 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?

Why should be shoot for the stars if only to run into a ceiling?

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

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

No one is motivated enough to change industries in such a way Americans are. Do you think Bill Gates would have become a billionaire in Westen Europe, Warren Buffet and other strongarm family companies into selling out? No.

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

So what you mean is that a socialist economy provides no motivation; not necessarily re-distribution of wealth. Even though that is also wrong, since many are highly motivated in socialist countries, that is at least more accurate than your previous argument.

To say they are unmotivated is untrue. To say they have different motivations, I'd agree. I happen to align myself with the camp that doesn't worry if the poor starve in the street. Perhaps they should have spent more time working 2, 3, 4 jobs in college making connections rather than partying.

 

[newusername 10+ year member]

To say they are unmotivated is untrue. To say they have different motivations, I'd agree. I happen to align myself with the camp that doesn't worry if the poor starve in the street. Perhaps they should have spent more time working 2, 3, 4 jobs in college making connections rather than partying.

That's why you think that way, because you ignore the nature of poverty. You think every person who is poor is poor because that's what they've chosen, or that a person who can't afford a surgery should suffer because they obviously didn't work hard enough to save for the surgery they require. You have no empathy, and that's why you are selfish with your money.

 

[tyler_fitz 10+ year member]

So what you mean is that a socialist economy provides no motivation; not necessarily re-distribution of wealth. Even though that is also wrong, since many are highly motivated in socialist countries, that is at least more accurate than your previous argument.

What i mean is that a socialist economy provides re-distribution of wealth, and therefore a lack of motivation. If you lived in cuba or something, and were told to grow a certain crop, i'm sure you would be motivated to grow that crop if you were threatened to be thrown in jail if you didn't.

Socialism - you have two cows. the government takes them and gives you some milk.

Capitalism - you have two cows, sell one, buy a bull. produce a herd, produce milk, sell the herd and retire on the profits. (or something to that extent)

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

What i mean is that a socialist economy provides re-distribution of wealth, and therefore a lack of motivation. If you lived in cuba or something, and were told to grow a certain crop, i'm sure you would be motivated to grow that crop if you were threatened to be thrown in jail if you didn't.
Socialism - you have two cows. the government takes them and gives you some milk.

Capitalism - you have two cows, sell one, buy a bull. produce a herd, produce milk, sell the herd and retire on the profits. (or something to that extent)

In real capitalism, you don't start with two cows. Where does one get the two cows to begin with? That analogy never made sense.

 

[newusername 10+ year member]

The US economy is not socialist, and yet it re-distributes wealth. An argument against re-distribution of wealth and argument against socialism are two different things. That's not even getting into the argument that motivation is largely inborne and that external factors are always weak contributors to motivation.