Redistribution of the Wealth

[Eridani]

I'm sure many people have heard this statistic:
The richest 2% own half of the wealth.

As oppose to this:
...poorer half of the world's population own barely 1% of global wealth.

From http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6211250.stm. It's a little out of date but I'm sure it still stands as pretty much accurate.

Now, how can it possibly be justified that an elite minority control so much? I would genuinely like to know any counter arguments to this - it's not mere rhetoric - as I simply can't think of any.

You could say they have "earned" it but has someone like Bill Gates really earned all his billions any more than someone who works in, say, a factory 12 hours a day 5/6 days a week for the better part of their life?

I remember hearing on the radio when Obama was running for Democratic candidate how he was being criticised for having ideas/policies relating to the redistribution of the wealth. Granted the UK and US are very different countries - but this just seems incomprehensible to me. Surely taking back some of the assets of this elite few and spreading it around so that everyone can benefit just makes sense?

Some people (Americans especially - not all of course) seem to use "Socialism" as a method of instantly refuting any argument. As if it is still the cold war and the Soviets are waiting to invade. Surely it is rampant, unchecked capitalism that is one of the major ills of today's society?

Anyway, any thoughts?

[Toothlessjoe]

You are right but people still are loosey-goosey about using the word socialism. For many it conjures up the thoguht that they'll have their freedom and liberty taken away, under false assumptions dating back to Cold War boogeyman slander.

Fact is that under the market conditions these people are entitled to that wealth. Whether they deserve it is an entirely debatable matter. I for one think that the point in democracy and voting ruling bodies is to act as a voice of the people, not a small minority of the rich and powerful. So Higher taxes for the rich and redistributing wealth is a good idea for me. Doesn't mean everyone must have equal amounts but just have the wealth distributed in different ways like social healthcare systems etc.

We've fast fallen into a plutocracy.

[Agent 008]

If you are poor, why not seek other ways of making money and get rich?

For example, this guy became a billionaire literally from nothing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcadi_Gaydamak

Becoming a millionaire is really not that difficult if you have guts, have a good imagination and are hard-working.

But look around. Most people just say they want to get stupidly rich, but don't actually try anything. Half of the people have an IQ below 100. A lot are happy with just some food, sex and entertainment. The 4% that actually *want* to be rich? They are.

Also, one country is not the world. I'm sure, say, in America, the situation is not as grim as you've described.

Governments are inefficient; socialism puts a serious load on the economy.

[The Better Version]

I'm sure many people have heard this statistic:


As oppose to this:


From http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6211250.stm. It's a little out of date but I'm sure it still stands as pretty much accurate.

Now, how can it possibly be justified that an elite minority control so much? I would genuinely like to know any counter arguments to this - it's not mere rhetoric - as I simply can't think of any.

You could say they have "earned" it but has someone like Bill Gates really earned all his billions any more than someone who works in, say, a factory 12 hours a day 5/6 days a week for the better part of their life?

I remember hearing on the radio when Obama was running for Democratic candidate how he was being criticised for having ideas/policies relating to the redistribution of the wealth. Granted the UK and US are very different countries - but this just seems incomprehensible to me. Surely taking back some of the assets of this elite few and spreading it around so that everyone can benefit just makes sense?

Some people (Americans especially - not all of course) seem to use "Socialism" as a method of instantly refuting any argument. As if it is still the cold war and the Soviets are waiting to invade. Surely it is rampant, unchecked capitalism that is one of the major ills of today's society?

Anyway, any thoughts?


I see your point but ugg....did you have to use Bill Gates as an example? I mean there's old money and then there's new money. Bill Gates is definitely new money which means he probably worked his ass off to make that money, unlike say....Paris Hilton.

Aside from that I agree with you for the most part. We need a better redistribution of wealth, however, it definitely shouldn't be like the marxists utopian society. That's living in a dream World and its also the extreme version of attacking the wealth. You see, I think it's a huge misconception to say that all wealthy people are evil and selfish and all they want to do is exploit the World. Sure, there are some who are like that but most people who are rich are just...well rich. So does that mean we have the right to take ALL of their wealth and redistribute it? Absolutely not. Some wealthy deserve to hold on to their riches because they put their heart and soul into making that happen. However, there are some who really don't deserve it. The point is, you really can't tell unless you look in depth, which is an unrealistic approach to the problem. So what can you do that would be the least immoral solution? Establish a mandatory philanthropic system in the form of taxes, which is exactly what your saying. There is only so much wealth in the World and if a small percent of people are smart enough as well as fortunate enough to hang on to those assets then on the macro level its literally draining the rest of the World Population. Therefore, there must be a system in place that can equalize the phenomenon.

I'm not saying that people aren't entitled to the fruits of their labor, however, mandatory taxation is essential for a countries survival (As the articles of confederation clearly showed this) and there are some people in that society who have a higher obligation to pay more because they have more. Not saying 50 or 60 percent of their wealth needs to be taken away but at least a small percentage that is slightly bigger than what the average income earners pay. The way I see it is that everyone has to pay taxes, whether or not your rich or poor, however, the burden of taxation should go more towards the rich than to the poor because it is the rich who can handle the higher taxes more so than the poor. It's just common sense.

[Toothlessjoe]

it definitely shouldn't be like the marxists utopian society.

Source?

[Agent 008]

Establish a mandatory philanthropic system in the form of taxes, which is exactly what your saying.

That will just discourage philanthropy and encourage businesses to move their capitals out of the country.

A businessman that has earned his fortune himself does deserve the fortune more than a factory worker. Why? Because working 12 hours a day for something that doesn't pay is your own fault. Sure, he should be earning enough to live comfortably, or otherwise seek a better occupation; force the salaries to go higher through a union, if he thinks that the corporation is really taking the piss.

Imagine, if you were digging a hole in the ground in your yard 12 hours a day. Do you deserve to be minted? No.

I believe a taxation system should be progressive - with virtually no taxation of small businesses, normal taxation of medium businesses and high taxation of big businesses. However, "high taxation" shouldn't mean anything higher than 40%, imho. The Government should be minimal, and have a relatively small budget anyway.

[The Better Version]

I like that progressive taxation idea. Very good. But, what I meant by mandatory philanthropy in the form of taxation, isn't for companies to donate money to charities but rather donate more money to the government. I used the word Philanthropy to give it a more positive meaning because essentially they would be doing is helping the nation out as a whole. With that cleared up I should say that this tax system wouldn't discourage philanthropy because philanthropy is donating money directly to an organization or a cause. This is more around the lines of indirect philanthropy but not for just a single organization but rather for the Country as a whole. Now your right that it would cause businesses to move out of the country which is a problem. I really don't know how to solve this besides making a law that requires American Businesses out side of the country to fall under this type of tax system but problems would arise from this because what defines an American business if it's not on U.S soil? I suppose if careful considerations are in place this could work but man....thats a lot of words that will be needed in a bill.

Anyway in response to toothless joes response:

Uhh I really don't feel its necessary to provide a link to Marxist's utopian society seeing as how its virtually common knowledge in every History class. But if you really want to know just go to wikipedia.com and type in Karl Marx. It should explain it all.

[Toothlessjoe]

Uhh I really don't feel its necessary to provide a link to Marxist's utopian society seeing as how its virtually common knowledge in every History class. But if you really want to know just go to wikipedia.com and type in Karl Marx. It should explain it all.

Yeah, it explains that a Marxist society is subjective and doesn't have to be some utopian pipe dream.

Idiot.

[WAN]

If you are poor, why not seek other ways of making money and get rich?

For example, this guy became a billionaire literally from nothing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcadi_Gaydamak

Becoming a millionaire is really not that difficult if you have guts, have a good imagination and are hard-working.

But look around. Most people just say they want to get stupidly rich, but don't actually try anything. Half of the people have an IQ below 100. A lot are happy with just some food, sex and entertainment. The 4% that actually *want* to be rich? They are.

Also, one country is not the world. I'm sure, say, in America, the situation is not as grim as you've described.

Governments are inefficient; socialism puts a serious load on the economy.

You fucking dumb cunt. It's not about how individuals can't get rich; it's about how the vast amount of wealth and resources on this planet is in the hands of a tiny elite. Even if I as an individual did manage to get rich/become a millionaire, what about the multitudes of people who struggle to make ends meet/make barely enough to stay alive, only so that they can work for their bosses as to make the latter richer?

I think OP brought up a good point, although I protest his use of the words "wealth redistribution". Either he's incredibaly stupid such that he doesn't know these two words have really negative connotations, or he's a troll.

Anyway, it's not about redistributing wealth. To say that is to acnowledge that these obcenely wealthy cunts deserve all this money that sits under their names/their holding companies, or whatever the hell it is that billionaire capitalists do so that people can't tell just how much money they have--they don't. These jews (think Rothchilds) and billionaire capitalists should be deprived of a good portion of their wealth, their ownership over machineries/properties/companies/labour, or in other words means of production. Maybe not all of them, but a good part of them.

They can't honestly expect to sit on so much wealth and possessions and expect us, the average people, to not question, "is this fair"?

[Virus]

Source?

Utopia:

Utopia has no money or private property.

http://www.novelguide.com/Utopia/themeanalysis.html


Marxism:

Marx applied this idea of alienation to private property, which he said caused humans to work only for themselves, not for the good of their species. In his papers of this period, published as Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, he elaborated on the idea that alienation had an economic base. He called for a communist society to overcome the dehumanizing effect of private property.


http://www.radicalacademy.com/philmarx.htm

also, Marxism is nearly socialism so lets have a look see what Socialism is:

Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating public or state ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

In otherwords, Utopia and Marxism/socialism call for the abolishment of private property and essentially no money.

Isn't it odd that it was a poor individual that dreamt up Marxism:

During the first half of the 1850s the Marx family lived in poverty and constant fear of creditors in a three room flat on Dean Street in Soho, London. Marx and Jenny already had four children and three more were to follow. Of these only three survived to adulthood. Marx's major source of income at this time was Friedrich Engels, who was drawing a steadily increasing income from the family business in Manchester.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx#Biography

Ofcourse people who don't have any useable skills and are in general worthless outside of manual labor will want to steal money from those who have a brain. It is only natural to want things for cheaper or free.

But yeah if this is really Toothlessjoe, I always wanted to ask why you'd steal food, but then buy things like computers rather than supporting yourself. Does this mean you support stealing from workers?

So if you are going to try to call people idiots joe, do a little homework rather than trying to justify theft.

[Toothlessjoe]

:facepalm:.

A Marxist society is merely one where there is no private property or control of the means of production. Anything else beyond that is an interretation of the model.

Marxism is nearly socialism so lets have a look see what Socialism is:

I'm nearly an ape but my doctor doesn't make that a factor if I see him. That is irrelevant.

Karl Marx came up with his theories in collaboration with Engels, a rich business man by many standards and one could say a capitalist himself. Funny that, huh? :rolleyes:.

You are so sorely misquoting pieces of text refering to Marxism to make your point. Don't try to call me out for being an idiot while making stupid posts like this.

[Virus]

You fucking dumb cunt. It's not about how individuals can't get rich; it's about how the vast amount of wealth and resources on this planet is in the hands of a tiny elite.

If someone wins a race, should the winner be given the gold medal, or the fatass who placed last given the gold medal?

[Virus]

:facepalm:.

You are so sorely misquoting pieces of text refering to Marxism to make your point. Don't try to call me out for being an idiot while making stupid posts like this.

You just admitted I was correct:

:A Marxist society is merely one where there is no private property or control of the means of production. Anything else beyond that is an interretation of the model.

My post:

Utopia:

Utopia has no money or private property.

http://www.novelguide.com/Utopia/themeanalysis.html


Marxism:

Marx applied this idea of alienation to private property, which he said caused humans to work only for themselves, not for the good of their species. In his papers of this period, published as Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, he elaborated on the idea that alienation had an economic base. He called for a communist society to overcome the dehumanizing effect of private property.


http://www.radicalacademy.com/philmarx.htm

also, Marxism is nearly socialism so lets have a look see what Socialism is:

Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating public or state ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

In otherwords, Utopia and Marxism/socialism call for the abolishment of private property and essentially no money.
Isn't it odd that it was a poor individual that dreamt up Marxism:

During the first half of the 1850s the Marx family lived in poverty and constant fear of creditors in a three room flat on Dean Street in Soho, London. Marx and Jenny already had four children and three more were to follow. Of these only three survived to adulthood. Marx's major source of income at this time was Friedrich Engels, who was drawing a steadily increasing income from the family business in Manchester.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx#Biography.

Now with that said, if there is no private property, then money serves no purpose:

Money is used as an intermediary for trade, in order to avoid the inefficiencies of a barter system

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money#Medium_of_exchange

With no private property, money is purged from the system.

As for Engles being a rich business man, yeah he was, I even said he was and Marx was failed so miserably at providing for himself he had to suck off of Engles tit.

With all of that said:

You are acting stupid by failure to observe or trolling.

[WAN]

If someone wins a race, should the winner be given the gold medal, or the fatass who placed last given the gold medal?

1. A rhetorical question is not a proper form of response.
2. A allegorical (or is it metaphorical? Sorry my brain is not working properly today) rhetorical question is even worse.

If you have a point, say it in straight-forward, plain language.

[Virus]

1. A rhetorical question is not a proper form of response.
2. A allegorical (or is it metaphorical? Sorry my brain is not working properly today) rhetorical question is even worse.

If you have a point, say it in straight-forward, plain language.

It's not meant to be a rhetorical question, but it is making a metaphor to cause and effect relationship with many similarities between the two processes.

[The Better Version]

Alright toothless Joe, no one is saying your an idiot....well I'm not saying your an idiot as you have clearly shown that you do in fact know the in's and out's of Karl Marx's theories. However, I think there was a misunderstanding in my illustration.

I was using Marx's ideal Utopian society as an example of the extreme end of a progressive tax system. Marx believed that the means of production should go into the hands of the Workers and that money and private property should cease to exist. Essentially it is redistributing the wealth. Regardless of a utopian society or not there will still be wealth that will still need to be redistributed, except in the utopian society it is in the form of tangible assets rather than money.

So you see Marx's utopian society is basically taking several steps more than this progressive tax system is that we have in place in America. This makes it the extreme end of our current system and it is something that I find pleasing but unrealistic.....IDIOT! lol jk man.

[Eridani]

...incredibaly stupid...

If you can't make your point without using petty (and mispelled) insults, then please don't bother. I used the phrase "Redistribution of the Wealth" because people immediately know what it means. My aim wasn't to pander to right-wing reactionaries (who I assume are those to whom the phrase would have negative connotations) but to create discussion on the subject.

I see your point but ugg....did you have to use Bill Gates as an example?

Yeah fair enough, I could have chosen a better example, he was just someone who popped into my head as I wrote it.

A businessman that has earned his fortune himself does deserve the fortune more than a factory worker. Why? Because working 12 hours a day for something that doesn't pay is your own fault.

I strongly disagree with this. It's not as simple as just deciding you want to be rich. Some people, coming from the economic and social backgrounds they do, simply have no choice but to enter into low-skilled, low payed work.

Imagine, if you were digging a hole in the ground in your yard 12 hours a day. Do you deserve to be minted? No.

You're absolutely right. However, it is a slightly different scenario since digging a hole in your garden (unless you were making a swimming pool) is a completely useless thing to be doing. People who work in factories and so on (that was just one example of menial labour) tend to be actually contributing something, or at least doing something that is useful in some way to society as a whole.

I would also say no businessman deserves to be minted. No-one needs to be rich. I would go as far as to say that anyone with fortunes over a certain amount should have the excess confiscated and redistributed.

As for Engles being a rich business man, yeah he was, I even said he was and Marx was failed so miserably at providing for himself he had to suck off of Engles tit.

A little known fact about Karl Marx: He suffered from a debilitating condition called "Hidradenitis Suppurativa" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidradenitis_suppurativa which rendered him unable to work for most of his adult life. It basically consists of the sweat glands in your armpits and groin becoming blocked and then swelling up in several large boils which are extremely painful and which leak pus. I actually suffered from this in my armpits for several years until I had a skin graft on both armpits to have it removed. I can tell you, the pain can be excruciating and there is no way to relieve it with modern painkillers - let alone what was available in Marx's day. It could also be said that this condition affected his worldview and is a contributing factor to the development of Marxism. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article2773914.ece

[Agent 008]

I strongly disagree with this. It's not as simple as just deciding you want to be rich. Some people, coming from the economic and social backgrounds they do, simply have no choice but to enter into low-skilled, low payed work.

In many cases, that's true. But, in today's "First world"? You have access to information and education.

I do realise that it's not as an idealistic world of opportunity and social elevators as I make it out to be. If I had enough money? I'd try to find a way to help. But *taking the money by force* that a person, who was in a similar situation to many others, managed to make? I don't like the idea. Not to mention that the money will go to more lazy, unmotivated and/or inefficient people than it will do to the people who are genuinely in need of some support, and that a lot of this money will just go to support the bureaucracy that will service the system.


You're absolutely right. However, it is a slightly different scenario since digging a hole in your garden (unless you were making a swimming pool) is a completely useless thing to be doing. People who work in factories and so on (that was just one example of menial labour) tend to be actually contributing something, or at least doing something that is useful in some way to society as a whole.

Yes! But - their job doesn't require much skill. If they don't take the job? Anyone else can do it. There is a reason why it doesn't pay well, and there is a reason why they agree to work for the money that they are paid. Essentially? Things are in balance there, and they got balanced by the market through negotiations between the employer and the employees.

It's only natural that those, who are told what to do, with no risk, get less than those, who often risk everything, and often work their ass off for years while getting hardly anything in return, just because they believe in their idea.

I would also say no businessman deserves to be minted. No-one needs to be rich. I would go as far as to say that anyone with fortunes over a certain amount should have the excess confiscated and redistributed.

If one wants to be rich, and people are happy to give him the money? (i.e. there is no monopoly, it's a fair market) I see no reason why someone should impose a limit on how rich a person can be. Who are you to judge? And why are you entitled to take the "excess"?

That's just the "philosophical" side of things. In practice - if I know that there is a maximum some that I can earn, I will not strive to earn more than that. I'll get to that point, and stop. That means, no new jobs, no expansion of buisness, no new work that I could do that I know I can do, and that my clients want me to do. There is just too much wrong with it - both on a personal level, and on the national level. It'll just screw up a country's economy, in turn making everyone suffer from it.

[superspeedz]

I'm sure many people have heard this statistic:


As oppose to this:


From http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6211250.stm. It's a little out of date but I'm sure it still stands as pretty much accurate.

Now, how can it possibly be justified that an elite minority control so much? I would genuinely like to know any counter arguments to this - it's not mere rhetoric - as I simply can't think of any.

You could say they have "earned" it but has someone like Bill Gates really earned all his billions any more than someone who works in, say, a factory 12 hours a day 5/6 days a week for the better part of their life?

I remember hearing on the radio when Obama was running for Democratic candidate how he was being criticised for having ideas/policies relating to the redistribution of the wealth. Granted the UK and US are very different countries - but this just seems incomprehensible to me. Surely taking back some of the assets of this elite few and spreading it around so that everyone can benefit just makes sense?

Some people (Americans especially - not all of course) seem to use "Socialism" as a method of instantly refuting any argument. As if it is still the cold war and the Soviets are waiting to invade. Surely it is rampant, unchecked capitalism that is one of the major ills of today's society?

Anyway, any thoughts?
it's great to be part of that 2%
:D

[Wither]

I would also say no businessman deserves to be minted. No-one needs to be rich. I would go as far as to say that anyone with fortunes over a certain amount should have the excess confiscated and redistributed.



I was reading an article awhile back (I'll post it if I can find it again) that was saying that because the tax rates increase significantly once a certain income in reached, many doctors were only working about 8 months out of the year and taking the rest of the year off, because they wouldn't really make anymore money either way. This obviously caused a shortage of doctors and many health care problems. Having a maximum income would also end up with business giving very high demand, skilled workers many non-monetary payments as well, like cars or vacations as incentive for them to work at their company. If you try and ban that, they'll just pay them under the table. The market will find a way.


As the the issue of how I can justify such inequality of wealth, simply put that just the way capitalist society works. I understand that one hour of my boss's life is worth over 5 times as much as 1 hour of my life. That's how a price system operates, it doesn't seem fair at times, but then, what is fair? Should someone who works on a farm get more money than someone who works in a steel mill? How do you decide which one in entitled to more? The basic questions of What, How Much and For Whom need to be answered. I understand how such questions are answered in the free market, how do you propose we answer such questions?

[CanadianCossack]

Looks like Zoklet is full of 14 yearold brainwashed capitalists and pseudo-Marxists.


People here are using socialism as an excuse to take from rich and employed and give it to crackpot Negroids and Mexicans. Well fuck you!


1. It's not Bill Gates' money. It's the money he has earned through the concentration of wealth.


People do not get rich for no reason. No, they are not smarter than the rest of us. Neither are they physically stronger. They get rich through a simple reason: Concentration of Wealth.


Bill Gates = Employs Millions
Donald Trump = Employs Millions
Lakshmi Mittal = Employs Millions


Get the fucking message? Gates doesn't own billions because he is smart. He owns those billions because he runs a business employing millions, pays these millions a salary and keeps the rest of the businesses' profits for himself and the company's treasury.



That's why Marx fucking wrote you must let the worker own the means of production. How about you read the book, you little fucker, instead of listening to your highschool teacher Mr. Goldstein.


Free the workers of their chains (Gates), replace Gates with a workers' council and give a little more wealth to the worker and free him of the 40 hour work week.


That's what it's all about. But assholes like Obama just want to steal from whites and give it to his homies in Harlem and Detroit.

[supperrfreek]

All I'd like to say is this: there is a good chance at which people can become rich if they work towards it (this can take a variety of forms -> even luck). And it wouldn't be right to treat them differently ONLY BECAUSE THEY ARE WEALTHY. It's like treating someone differently because they were part of any other minority. Besides all it takes are a few stupid decisions and these people could be out on the street (it happened with some of Madoffs's clientele).

[The Better Version]

right and then they get to pay lower taxes ;). Oh come on. I mean I'm not saying lets put all rich people in a concentration camp. We should just be able to tax them a little more. It's not that big of a deal. Now they can only buy one speed boat instead of two. I mean lets do a balancing test with this:

On one side you get an innocent rich person who has to pay slightly higher taxes. On the other side his extra taxation is increasing the national revenue to be able to invest in the country for the well being of the majority. Its a balance between the rich persons right to equal taxation and the majorities right to more revenue to pay for the troubling times ahead. I'll let you figure out which side weighs more.

[Eridani]

1. It's not Bill Gates' money.

Correct me if I'm wrong but Bill Gates' personal wealth is somewhere in the region of $40billion. How exactly is this not his money? I'm well aware of the fact that he employs many people but does that mean he deserves to own so much.

How about you read the book, you little fucker, instead of listening to your highschool teacher Mr. Goldstein.

If this was addressed to me, I left high school almost a decade ago. Go and rant to someone who cares.

But assholes like Obama just want to steal from whites and give it to his homies in Harlem and Detroit.

Way to lose all credibility.

[Agent 008]

People do not get rich for no reason. No, they are not smarter than the rest of us. Neither are they physically stronger. They get rich through a simple reason: Concentration of Wealth.


Bill Gates = Employs Millions
Donald Trump = Employs Millions
Lakshmi Mittal = Employs Millions


Get the fucking message? Gates doesn't own billions because he is smart. He owns those billions because he runs a business employing millions, pays these millions a salary and keeps the rest of the businesses' profits for himself and the company's treasury.

Brb, I'll go employ millions and concentrate some wealth.

[Toothlessjoe]

Brb, I'll go employ millions and concentrate some wealth.

Way ahead of you...

:facepalm:

[Azure]

Marxism= NEARLY Socialism.

[Slapshot]

Personally, I don't find the quest for monetary wealth to be as important as my family. I don't care if you make billions, nor do I care if you starve to death. What I care about is whether or not you steal what I worked for.

There is absolutely no reason for a healthy adult to need something that somebody else worked for.

[WAN]

If you can't make your point without using petty (and mispelled) insults, then please don't bother. I used the phrase "Redistribution of the Wealth" because people immediately know what it means. My aim wasn't to pander to right-wing reactionaries (who I assume are those to whom the phrase would have negative connotations) but to create discussion on the subject.


I apologize; I shouldn't have called you stupid.

Anyway, yes I do see why you chose the phrase "redicstribution of wealth", however I still don't think it was a wise choice. Like I said earlier, when you say "wealth", you are indirectly admitting that billionaire capitalits are the rightful owners of all that money they legally possess--they aren't.

[supperrfreek]

I apologize; I shouldn't have called you stupid.

Anyway, yes I do see why you chose the phrase "redicstribution of wealth", however I still don't think it was a wise choice. Like I said earlier, when you say "wealth", you are indirectly admitting that billionaire capitalits are the rightful owners of all that money they legally possess--they aren't.

it all depends which billionaire and what part of the money, and even what they did with the money and how they got it. "All men are created equal" even though that is said in the Declaration of Independence, there is still no guarantee that people will finish life equally, just that they're supposed to be seen equally by the laws.
To an extent some people don't deserve things, but that's no excuse to just flat out take it from them. As the rich luxuriate (usually in later generations) wealth is redistributed, money doesn't just hang in one "caste" of American Society, it moves. As one family gets rich, another gets poor. The Rich don't stay rich forever, they get shuffled every so often (this whole investment crisis probably caused a few downfalls as well as other economic crises).

[Charles Westington III]

Look, I just want to say that I don't know a lot of economic theories, as I am only a high school kid and it's obvious you all know a lot about it. But I can give you a personal take on this whole thing:

My father owns a major undergarment manufacturing company. When Obama got into office and started taxing my father harder and caused this economic crisis we have on our hands, it took away nearly half of our assets.

Do you know what it's like to be very wealthy and have it go down to almost nothing in a matter of months? My family has been working on that wealth since my great grandfather, and now we have almost nothing. We had to sell one of our vacation houses to help build back up what we had. Sure, we rarely went to it, but the fact is it was OURS, and OUR FAMILY earned it. It's just not right to give it to someone else.

That's what America is all about: getting out there and making the money for yourself. ANYONE can do it if they try hard enough. I've seen it with my own family. As my father always says: "don't hope for things to happen, get out there and make them happen!"

[Toothlessjoe]

We had to sell one of our vacation houses to help build back up what we had.

:eek:. OMG! How will you live!?

Shut up, if you have to sell assests to back up your business because it is faliing, your fault. You're such a fool.

[Struwwelpeter]

Look, I just want to say that I don't know a lot of economic theories, as I am only a high school kid and it's obvious you all know a lot about it. But I can give you a personal take on this whole thing:

My father owns a major undergarment manufacturing company. When Obama got into office and started taxing my father harder and caused this economic crisis we have on our hands, it took away nearly half of our assets.

Do you know what it's like to be very wealthy and have it go down to almost nothing in a matter of months? My family has been working on that wealth since my great grandfather, and now we have almost nothing. We had to sell one of our vacation houses to help build back up what we had. Sure, we rarely went to it, but the fact is it was OURS, and OUR FAMILY earned it. It's just not right to give it to someone else.

That's what America is all about: getting out there and making the money for yourself. ANYONE can do it if they try hard enough. I've seen it with my own family. As my father always says: "don't hope for things to happen, get out there and make them happen!"

Great point.

Hope is a non-white thing, people like your dad make things happen.

“Hope is the worst of evils, for it prolongs the torments of man.”

Friedrich Nietzsche

[Struwwelpeter]

:eek:. OMG! How will you live!?

Shut up, if you have to sell assests to back up your business because it is faliing, your fault. You're such a fool.

I think it's funny that Toothlessjoe is in here telling him why or why not his father had to sell assets. Could it not be the government's fault that the business is failing? This is the attitude that socialism and communism promotes, fuck the independent man, fuck the working man. Toothlessjoe never ran anything short of a lemonade stand and he's in here talking business as usual. I'd like to add it's hilarious when someone misspells "failing".

[Charles Westington III]

:eek:. OMG! How will you live!?

Shut up, if you have to sell assests to back up your business because it is faliing, your fault. You're such a fool.

Yeah well you try having to give up something YOU earned. Plus, it isn't that big of a deal, we have as many houses as john mccain (:P lol).

My fathers business is not "failing," but like nearly everything, it is suffering under this harsh economic condition. All I can say is people are skimping on the underwear because of the crisis...

[Fightgar]

You could say they have "earned" it but has someone like Bill Gates really earned all his billions any more than someone who works in, say, a factory 12 hours a day 5/6 days a week for the better part of their life?

Yes he has.

Who decided that he has?

You.

The factory worker didn't put originality into his work. Instead, he does the exact same thing as everyone else on his assembly line.

Gates made a product that you wanted to buy. He deserves his money because you were stupid enough to give it to him. If you don't like that, you shouldn't have given him your money.

But it's his now, and now you have no right to have it until you convince him to give it too you.

That's the nature of capitalism: convince people to give you their money.